Eli (normally a sensible chap) says: I think a lot of this revolves around the dichotomy between the rise to be observed by date x, the rise committed to (in the sense of there is no way of stopping it) by date y, and the ultimate rise z. There are three different shells and you have to be careful of which one you are turning over. For example, in AIT, Gore is clearly speaking about z.
The distinction is valid. The assertion that Gore is *clearly* speaking about z is nonsense. For several reasons. Most trivial, there is no reason why 5 or 6m would be the ultimate rise. But more importantly, because Gore doesn’t make what he is talking about at all clear. If you’re listening closely, you’ll hear him say “*if* greenland melted; or *if* half Gr and half West Antarctica melted; then…” (which is, once again, not at all the same as ultimate committted rise). And Eli and I were listening carefully; so we heard. But Joe Public wasn’t, and all JP sees is pretty animations of Manhatten getting submerged. And this is deceptive.
[This post titled for all those readers who complain about my crypticosity (?)]