The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated
I know full well that writing this piece will cause me to be
labeled a "global warming denier" and be lumped in with those that
Al Gore said in March are, along with Dick Cheney, "in such a tiny
minority view now with their point of view, they're almost like the
ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie
lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.
Seriously? I can't question the people who are incapable of
telling me what the weather is going to be for my tee-time this
Saturday, but claim to know exactly how much warmer the entire globe
will be, how much the sea will rise, how much the snow cover will
recede, and how much the ice caps will melt in 100 years?
You're really going to implicitly equate me with a holocaust
denier because I don't believe that your faulty computer models
(designed by James Hanson, et al., a liberal NASA scientist with an
agenda) prove that the globe is warming, or if it is, that it's our
fault? You swear by the models, why don't you swear by the
corrections that NASA very quietly released last summer that show
the warmest year on record was not 1998, but in fact is 1934, and
that five of the top 10 hottest years on record were all before
World War II?
The Pope once had a problem with a "denier." His name was
Galileo, and he thought that the earth was round and that it was not
the center of the universe; that it actually revolved around the
sun, not the other way around. The Pope did the same thing that Al
Gore is doing now. With faulty data and conjecture, the Pope
declared that the debate was over and that anybody who disagreed
would be burned at the stake. While we don't burn people at the
stake these days, Gore claims we will all die in a ball of fire if
we don't rally around this theory and devote all of our time, energy
(both fossil and kinetic), and money to it.
OK, I am a skeptic. When every lunatic liberal leftist on the
face of the planet says we need to close down the carbon emissions
of industry (carbon caps) and spend trillions of dollars trying to
fix something that (1.) we don't know if we caused it (the factual
evidence says we didn't), and (2.) if we did cause global warming,
is it really in our power to fix (reverse) it, red flags go up. Many
leading scientists firmly believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere is
actually good for the planet. David Archibald, PhD, at the Biology
Department of San Diego State University, is one of those leading
scientists. In a lecture given at the 2008 International Conference
on Climate Change, Dr. Archibald said that more CO2 in the
atmosphere will give us a lusher environment and actually increase
plant growth rates in addition to increasing the sustainability of
crops in arid regions.
If you believe that liberal bastion of policy wonks and diplomats
(and a couple of decent, and many not-so-decent, scientists), the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we cannot reverse
it. The IPCC closed its Fourth Assessment Report's (AR4) Summary for
Policymakers with this: "[B]oth past and future anthropogenic
(man-made) carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to
global warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to
the time scales required for removal of this gas from the
atmosphere." For those of you who do not know, the IPCC is more than
just Gore's co-conspirator in the global warming fraud, they are
co-recipients of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. And what does climate
change have to do with peace anyway?
Back to our favorite global warming alarmist, Al Gore. He
recently announced that his Alliance for Climate Protection will
embark on a mission to better educate the public on the dangers of
man-made global warming and the dire necessity to make drastic (and
prohibitively costly) changes in order to stop it. Oh yeah, he's
spending $300 million to do it. Maybe Gore subscribes to Gallop. A
recent Gallop poll revealed that about the same percentage of people
believe in man-made global warming as did when they first took the
poll in 1989. Ironically, the propaganda machine that is Nobel
Laureate Gore bans the media from his lectures. An odd contradiction
for a man that wants the world to adopt his doomsday outlook and
invest in his "green" funds. Gore's lecture contract, handled by The
Harry Walker Agency, Inc., in New York, in addition to requiring
non-disclosure of the terms and conditions of the agreement, says in
section 9(a)! that "the press is not invited or permitted to cover
the event unless express written permission is granted by the Harry
Walker Agency, Inc." Section 9(c) reads, "Vice President Gore will
accept no interview requests." Maybe if he allowed the press into
his lectures, or gave an interview or two, he wouldn't have to spend
$300 million on public awareness. In case you are wondering, yes, I
have a copy. Are you at least a little bit curious why the free
press is not allowed to attend his lectures? Read on, my friend.
GLOBAL WARMING HAS BECOME QUITE THE INDUSTRY.
The U.S. alone spends over $4 billion per year on climate change
research. That seems like a lot of money to spend on something that
is so well settled and agreed upon by all but a few "flat-earthers."
Gore has started giving a disclaimer during his lectures. Gore, and
Global Investment Management, LLP (GIM), the London-based private
equity firm of which Gore is the founder and Chairman, stand to
benefit in untold riches if we invest in the companies he recommends
in his lectures. His disclaimers are no different than those of a
stock broker or insurance agent. Gore is basically saying, yes, I
own stock in these companies, but you should too if you want to save
the planet from certain doom. Doom-and-gloom has served Gore well.
Like the other two shysters from his administration, he is reported
to be worth north of $100 million. If you missed the media's passing
mention last month, Clinton finally released her income tax returns.
! Turns out she's worth about $109 million. Civil servants, huh?
Servants never had it so good. All the past presidents and vice
presidents combined probably don't have the wealth of the Gores and
Clintons. As a side note, Gore closed GIM's second "green" fund,
Climate Solutions Fund, in April at $683 million. The first fund,
Global Equity Strategy Fund, has invested $2.2 billion in large
companies judged to have, from an environmental, social and economic
viewpoint, a "sustainable" business. I wonder, can any of the
companies that Gore is investing billions in help him and his
Nashville mansion use less than 10 times the amount of energy the
average American household uses? But don't worry, he's using compact
fluorescents in his house, so it's ok to use 10 times as much energy
as everyone else. Speaking of Gore's waste and gluttony, I wonder
how ginormous his carbon footprint was while he was! jetting around
the world promoting his lie/movie and trying to convin ce everyone
to invest in his companies.
It was reported in April that An Inconvenient Truth used
computer-generated footage from the movie The Day After Tomorrow to
show a crumbling ice shelf. Those are the kinds of deceptions
necessary when trying to convince the world of a lie. Just as Nazi
Propaganda Chief Joseph Goebbels said, "[T]ell a lie enough and it
becomes accepted as truth." As well as that has worked for Gore,
support for his "planet in peril" mantra is eroding faster than he
claims the ice caps are. In 2007 a British court held that, in order
for his lie/movie to be shown to school children, "eleven
inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of the
[students]." Among those inaccuracies, the court ruled, was that
rises in CO2 lagged behind temperature rises by 800-2,000 years;
that despite the movie's claim, it is a scientific impossibility for
global warming to cause the Gulf Steam to stop flowing; and that,
while the m! ovie claims sea levels could rise 23 feet, the evidence
showed sea levels are expected to rise 15 inches over the next 100
years. If you believe Gore, we shouldn't even bother buying green
bananas, the end is so close at hand. Gore should have won his Oscar
for the best mockumentary, not documentary, of 2007.
The idea of exposing the lies behind global warming in courtrooms
is catching on in the U.S. also. John Coleman, founder of The
Weather Channel, published an article in ICECAP last year in which
he called global warming the greatest scam in history. Coleman
added, "[S]ome dastardly scientists with environmental and political
motives manipulated long-term scientific data to create in [sic]
allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same
environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and
broaden the 'research' to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus
global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge
research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they
claimed to be a consensus." Coleman didn't stop there. On March 3,
while attending the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change
in New York he said the following: "I have a feeling this is the
opening. I! f the lawyers will take the case sue the people who
sell carbon credits, that includes Al Gore that lawsuit would get
so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went
to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become
the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global
warming." Well, it worked in Britain.
Another famous Albert (Einstein), this one with a background in
math and science, however, once noted that the consensus of a 100
scientists is undone by one fact. Steve McIntyre and a team of
volunteers noticed some inconsistencies and an unusual discontinuity
in the US temperature data used for climate modeling. When they
asked NASA's Hanson for the algorithm, he refused. (All in the name
of science and consensus, I'm sure.) McIntyre and his team
reverse-engineered it. What they found was a jump in many locations,
all occurring around January 2000. As previously noted, NASA has
released corrected data. Hanson can't even fix the Y2K glitch in his
climate model, and we're supposed to radically change global
lifestyles and economics based on his numbers?
Joseph D'Alea, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather
Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's
Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast, says that "carbon
dioxide (CO2) is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume. . . Only
0.0275 of atmospheric CO2 is [man-made] in origin. . . We are
responsible for 0.00001 of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere were a
100-story building, our [man-made] CO2 contribution today would be
equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor." Do we really want to
spend a trillion dollars on linoleum?
"We've been warming up about a degree per century since the
Little Ice Age (LIA) in about 1600. We've been warming for 400
years, long before human-generated CO2 could have anything to do
with the climate," says Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus
Geology, Western Washington University. Dr. Easterbrook is not alone
in his opinion. Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of
Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, opines "[O]f course it's
going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the
Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the LIA, not
because we are putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
On December 13, 2007, 100 scientists (often referred to as the
Bali-100) wrote an open letter to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations, His Excellency Ban Li-Moon, in New York, NY. Among
other things, the letter made three significant declarations: 1.
"[R]ecent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats,
sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species
are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these
changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural
variability. 2. The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees
Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th
century fall within known natural rates of warming and cooling over
the last 10,000 years. 3. Leading scientists, including some senior
IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models
cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer
projections of temperature rises, there has ! been no net global
warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a
late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the
continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate
cycling."
The letter continued, "In stark contrast to the oft repeated
assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,'
significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on
the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But,
because these IPCC working groups were generally instructed to
consider work published only through May 2005, these important
findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC
assessment reports are already materially outdated." In case you are
wondering, these are not some lunatic-fringe, pseudo-scientists. Of
the 100 signatories to that letter, 85 hold a PhD. They closed the
letter by saying, "[A]ttemps to prevent global climate change from
occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic
misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's
real and pressing problems."
On March 4, at the 2008 International Conference on Climate
Change, more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is
referred to as the Manhattan Declaration. In short, they declared
that "global climate has always changed and always will, independent
of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a
pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. . . There is no
convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial
activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause
catastrophic climate change. . . Now, therefore, we recommend that
world leaders reject the view expressed by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but
misguided, works such as An Inconvenient Truth." How many of you
heard or read about these declarations in the mainstream media? Is
this the consensus that Saint Gore and his co-conspirators in the
media speak of?
On April 14, 2008, a group of scientists (Hans Schreuder, Piers
Corbyn, Dr. Don Parkes, Svend Hendriksen*), including a former Nobel
Peace Prize recipient*, sent a letter to the IPCC. The letter opens
with "[W]e are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC
position that man's CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate
change to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support
from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no
observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or
even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature)
have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change."
They close the letter by asking that the IPCC "and all those whose
names are associated with the IPCC policy accept the scientific
observations and renounce current IPCC policy."
Do you still think there is consensus? Try this on: between 1999
and 2001 a petition (commonly referred to as the Oregon Project) was
attached to a 12 page paper and circulated within the scientific
community. The petition reads, in its entirety: "We urge the United
States government to reject the global warming agreement that was
written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar
proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and
damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing
evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other
greenhouse gasses is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future,
cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption
of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many
beneficial effects upon! the natural plant and animal environments
of the Earth." This petition was signed by nearly 20,000 scientists.
More than 7,000 are PhDs. Of the 263 signatories from Tennessee,
more than 53% hold a PhD or MD. While critics of the petition have
pointed to fake signatures (e.g., Janet Jackson, Perry Mason, etc.),
no doubt put there by those wanting to discredit it, none have
attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper.
The paper this petition was attached to was written by three
scientists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. They
wrote that the "average temperature of the Earth has varied within a
range of about 3 degrees C during the past 3,000 years. It is
currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period known as
the Little Ice Age. . . Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the
sun; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water
vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly
understood." (Imagine a needle scratching across a record.) Stop.
Back up. The Earth's temperature is regulated by the sun? Absolutely
ground-breaking. What will they think of next? The paper's summary
continues, "While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the
Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect. The
6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable
effect on at! mospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier
length." "Comprehensive surveys of published temperature records
confirm the fact that the current Earth temperature is approximately
1 degrees C lower than that during the Medieval Climate Optimum
1,000 years ago. Surface temperatures in the United States during
the past century reflect this warming trend and its correlation with
solar activity. . . Predictions of catastrophic global warming are
based on computer modeling, a branch of science still in its
infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's
temperature and climate shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed,
during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels
steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually
decreasing. . . The temperature of the Earth is continuing its
process fluctuation in correlation with variations in natural
phenomena. Mankind, meanwhile, is moving some of the carbo! n in
coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere an d
surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We
are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals
as a result."
Those that will attack me for my views and call me a "denier," or
worse, a Republican, will also likely claim that the scientists I
have cited are in the pocket of Big Oil. Very few scientists have
taken money from Big Oil, simply because they don't give that much
out. True, they have given $20 million to fund climate change
research over the past two decades. However, over that same period
of time proponents of the theory of global warming have received $50
billion in funding. For those of you not mathematically inclined,
$20 million is 0.004 of $50 billion. Who's in whose pocket?
So what have the doomsday predictions gotten us? An ethanol
mandate. And we can, once again, thank Al Gore for that. As vice
president, Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate in 1994
mandating the use of ethanol. Well, that's good, right? It lessens
our dependence on foreign oil, doesn't it? Not so much. Until we get
past the environmentalist whackos and actually tap our own vast oil
reserves, we are stuck buying it on the world market. Recent studies
have indicated that corn ethanol creates more greenhouse gas
emissions than gasoline. But, there is a larger concern regarding
the use of ethanol. "It takes 400 pounds of corn to produce 25
gallons of ethanol," says Benjamin Senauer, Professor of Applied
Economics and Co-director of the Food Industry Center at the
University of Minnesota. While that diet leaves a lot to be desired,
it's enough to feed an adult male for one year.
An IPCC member and Nobel Peace Prize winner with Gore in 2007,
Rajendra Pachauri, is also concerned. "We should be very, very
careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major
impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for
overall food security, " says Pachauri. That's an understatement.
Riots have broken out around the world as the effects of this
mandate are being felt globally. An estimated 30% of America's corn
crop is now being allocated for fuel, not food. The riots in Haiti,
Indonesia, and Afghanistan are someone else's problem, right? Not
necessarily. Sam's Club and Costco have already started rationing
rice. Vietnam and Cambodia have stopped exporting it all together.
In 2008 alone the price of rice has increased 68%. Milk and bread
prices are up 11 25%, and global food prices are up 83%. The
International Food Policy Research Institute has released a study
th! at indicates 25 33% of the rise in commodities are due to
biofuels. I wonder, how many of Gore's companies are in the biofuel
business? The UN high commission on refugees has said that the
American and European mandates on biofuels are a crime against
humanity. It pains me to say it, but I agree with the UN.
The world stopped warming in 1998. In fact, the cooling that has
taken place since then has all but erased the small temperature
increase of the 20th century. How is that possible, especially since
each year China increases its output of CO2 equal to that of
Germany? As previously noted (with shock and dismay), the sun sets
the thermostat on Earth, not the evil, SUV-driving Republicans. And
UN meteorologists have said that 2008 will be colder than last year.
The US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) recently reported
that the average temperature of the global land surface in January
2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02 degrees F / -0.01
degrees C) for the first time since 1982. Based on data from the
NCDC, the UK Telegraph reported in February that "[T]emperatures
were also colder than average across large swathes of central Asia,
the Middle East, the western US, western Alaska and southeastern
China." "The peak U.S. temperature was 1934, at much the same time
that Total Solar Irradiance peaked," says Dr. Archibald. He
continues, "[A]t its simplest, the relationship between the solar
magnetic field strength and the Earth's climate is this: lower
magnetic field strength means few sunspots, fewer sunspots means
less solar wind, less solar wind means more galactic cosmic rays,
more galactic cosmic rays means more low level cloud formation, more
low level clouds mean! s more sunlight reflected back into space,
which in turn means less heating of the Earth's surface and
atmosphere." Dr. Archibald is far from alone.
Dr. Tapping, solar researcher and project director for Canada's
National Research Council, says "[S]olar activity comes in regular
cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all
but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quite. The last time this
happened was about 400 years ago and it signaled a solar event
known as the 'Maunder Minimum,' along with the start of what we now
call the 'Little Ice Age.'" Looking at real, quantifiable data, and
not faulty computer modeling, retired engineer P eter Harris has
reached similar conclusions. Harris says, "[T]here is abundant
archeological evidence to show that global temperature is closely
correlated with solar activity. . . The data is based on analysis of
carbon 14, which varies in concentration according to the level of
solar activity. Solar activity over the past 70 years has been
greatest for 8,000 years, and is the most likely c! ause of the
recent trend through 1998 that has wrongly been attributed to CO2
warming."
"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming,"
explains Phil Chapman, a geophysicist, astronautical engineer and
NASA astronaut, "the average temperature on Earth has remained
steady or declined during the past decade, despite continued
increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and now the global
temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies tracking
Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research unit in Britain,
the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the
Christy Group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing
Systems, Inc. in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7
degrees C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the
instrumental record and puts us back where we were in 1930. If the
temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that
global warming is over."
In the next decade or so the global warming fraud will be exposed
for what it is, a massive power and money grab by those who seek to
rule over us and redistribute wealth, all the while bringing us to
socialism. That day will be a dark day indeed for all the alarmists.
What will be said of the great crusader, Academy Award and Nobel
Prize winner Albert Gore? If I were to write it, it would say: "Al
Gore: the man who invented the Internet later conned the world out
of billions of dollars."
For those of you not willing to swallow the methane-producing
manure that is shoveled at you everyday by a liberal and biased
media, and would like to educate yourself, there are a seemingly
countless number of websites and papers to read on this subject. I
recommend starting your education by going to
www.climatedebatedaily.com and
www.climatepolice.com. Another great resource for "exposing
liberal media bias" is
www.newsbusters.org . Look at the science, not the dogma. Trust
in what they can prove, not what they predict.