Gore's Gaffes and Frauds Exposed

In 1992 Al Gore was quoted as saying “I invented the internet.” Of course, Al Gore did no such thing, and he either has an exaggerated sense of his accomplishments, is delusional, or is dishonest. Gore has been the butt of jokes regarding this declaration ever since. And astoundingly, he made the statement with a completely straight face, the guy actually believed what he was saying.

In 2000 Al Gore, while running for president of the U.S. actually tried to manipulate the recount in Broward County, Florida. What he first tried to do is to tell the local election officials what votes to count, and what votes not to count, in order to throw the election for president his way. When that didn’t work, he went to court and convinced the Florida supreme court to count the votes his way, so he could win. Ultimately, George W. Bush had to go to the U.S. Supreme court to force a real recount, and count all the votes. Incredibly, Gore supporters have ever since accused Bush of stealing the election from Gore, when in fact it was Gore who attempted, but failed, to steal the election from Bush.

More recently, Gore took to the road visiting mostly elementary schools (those lacking sufficient education or knowledge to challenge his thesis) promoting his “An Inconvenient Truth” and displaying a power point presentation to lay out his theory about how the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to global warming, and thus, a long list of dire consequences result, such as melting ice caps, polar bear demise, rising ocean levels, drought, increased hurricane activity, etc. The only problem is, most of his presentation is false, as has been pointed out by numerous experts in the field. Primarily, that CO2 has little if any bearing on weather or global temperatures. His list of dire consequences are also bogus.

At the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009, the former vice president said new research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years, and he quoted the scientist who did the research. However, the scientist who did the research contradicted Gore by saying, "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I did not estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Gore obviously has difficulty telling the truth, yet government leaders and world figures continue to give him audience. Gore is guilty of exaggerating the truth, of fabricating the truth, of making up data, of falsely interpreting data, of putting words in the mouths of research scientists, of claiming credit for inventions he had nothing to do with, and the list goes on.

Regardless of the personality, the day that person’s dishonesty is revealed, who can then trust anything he says? We’re not talking about just being mistaken, or of having a differing opinion. Rather, Gore has a history of dishonesty, in a wide variety of venues. Why would he do this? He does it because he has an agenda, and he has a thirst for power. He believes the end justifies the means; say anything necessary to convince the public of his premises, and to elevate himself in the public view. His AGW campaign is only the latest of his charades to be exposed as a fraud. Amazingly the man is undeterred by his numerous failures, frauds and intellectual scams.

"Global Warming is a Religion"

The president of the Czech Republic made some surprising statements today, refreshing, but surprising. He began by saying, “Global warming is a "new religion," not a science, he said.”

"I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature," said Klaus, an economist by training. "That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished."

Klaus says that many interested parties get "a lot of money and influence" by backing the idea of global warming and organizing the Copenhagen conference, as well as its predecessor the Kyoto conference. "Some of them are really just rent seekers who hope to get some money either for their businesses or for their countries," says Klaus. "Some of them are really true believers."

The president reckons that environmentalism, executed on the scale suggested by global warming adherents, is a "real way to stop progress, industrial progress…and this is something unfair."

"We'll be the victims of irrational ideology. They will try to dictate to us how to live, what to do, how to behave," Klaus said. "What to eat, travel, and what my children should have. This is something that we who lived in the communist era for most of our lives — we still feel very strongly about. We are very sensitive in this respect. And we feel various similarities in their way of arguing or not arguing. In the way of pushing ahead ideas regardless of rational counter-arguments." The man has a brain, can think, and has the courage to speak the truth. He has hit the nail on the head here.

"I lived in a communist world where politicians told us what to do," Klaus said. "I don't think politicians or presidents should suggest to firms what to do. That has always been a mistake."
Czech President Vaclav Klaus

Indeed. But there is some justice in this world. The Copenhagen conference, sponsored by the U.N., has the capacity to seat 15,000 people. There were 30,000 NGO (non governmental organizations) environmentalists, alone, credentialed for the conference. Fortunately only 300 got in during the key two day sessions where an “agreement” was to be voted on.

Does it really take 30,000 environmentalists to engage in a healthy discussion? Or, this mob needs to go get real jobs, and stop wasting taxpayer money. Still, further justice, not to mention irony, occurred at Copenhagen. The conference took place in mid-December, and while tens of thousands of delegates were waiting outside trying to obtain admission, the coldest weather in years descended on the city. How ironic, a global warming conference, but the weather refuses to cooperate, it’s just too dang cold, and many delegates gave up and went home...to warmer climes it is supposed. Like the science of global warming will not cooperate with this new relgion, neither will the weather–it just keeps getting colder.

How Wrong Can They Be?

Rising Sea Levels?
Al Gore and the global warming alarmists tout the “fact” that sea levels are rising, will rise much higher and flood many low lying major cities. “Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea-level rise has also been exaggerated by the "climate alarmists" using computer models. He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable.”

Rising Global Temperatures
“Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, who said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.” Many other scientists agree with Svensmark. Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and he agrees, as do many, more other scientists.

Record cold temperatures, record early cold temperatures, first snows in decades, largest snowfalls in decades have all been reported from South America, North America, Europe and Australia–and all during a period of global warming? One would expect to read of reports of record high temperatures, lack of snow, late arriving winters, and low snow packs. But no.

In New Zealand, “the site with the longest running warming trend just happens to be sitting in the middle of an Urban Heat Island. The car park asphalt at 6 meters away puts the station rating at CRN4, based on NOAA's site quality rating system used for their Climate Reference Network. I've found that the vast majority of historical stations in the USA have been affected this way:”

Polar Bears
“Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation,” according to Alaska state officials.

According to the May 16, 2008 World Climate Report, polar bears do not drown, they are powerful swimmers and can swim for hours, and often do. Further, they never venture too far from the ice. The notion that retreating ice shelves leaves polar bears stranded hundreds of miles from the ice is ludicrous and false. Al Gore’s graphic depiction of a polar bear “stranded” on a small piece of floating ice, was a complete fabrication. And oft published reports about four drowned polar bears seen floating two miles from shore, because of global warming and the loss of ice, was another fabrication, and an act of sabotage. The four polar bears had been tranquilized by “conservationists” in an attempt to garner public sympathy, and to galvanize the nation to take action against the adverse effects of global warming.

CO2
“Unravelled records of atmosphere, temperature and ice-cap formation 33.6 million years ago, when the Earth cooled from a greenhouse without ice caps, into something quite similar to our present day…Pearson's work contains a couple of remarkable results. First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days… Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle. If the Earth started a cycle of ice ages 33.6 million years ago while having its very carbon-rich atmosphere, and if the Earth showed cycles of ice-age activity when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level that it was in humankind's pre-industrial times, what new information must we incorporate into our present climate models?” Paul Pearson, Cardiff University

CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, some of the highest rates of CO2 occurred during some of the earth’s coldest periods. Most of this century’s small temperature increase occurred before 1950. And water vapor is a far, far more significant greenhouse gas than is CO2.

All Scientists Agree
“There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty.” Al Gore’s deceitful lie “the debate is over,” is patently false, and he knows it.


Global Warming is Bad
“Many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.” Dr. Sylvan Wittier, agronomist, and many other agricultural scientists agree with the “warmer is better” premise. The worst times in man’s history have come during “little ice ages” when disease, starvation, and death rates were at all time highs. Prosperity occurs when temperatures are higher. And you'd think liberals would want to do something about world food shortages; a warmer planet is how you do that.

Data Integrity
In light of recent revelations about “doctored data,” and the refusal by the climate change crowd to release the source of their research, or allow anyone outside their club to attempt to reproduce the data, it’s not surprising that much of that “research” is being challenged. “NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia”

Flawed Logic, Flawed Science
1. The earth is warming
2. Warming is bad
3. CO2 is causing the warming
4. Warming is harming the environment
5. Warming is causing species extinctions
6. Warming is causing ice to melt, and polar bears to die
7. Melting ice causes sea levels to rise
8. Rising sea levels will cause coastal cities to flood
9. Warming causes increased hurricane activity
10. Warming causes floods and droughts
11. Warming (AGW) is caused by man
12. Man must do something about the problem
13. Governments must legislate to stop CO2 pollution
14. Fossil fuel use must be curbed
15. Coal power plants must be eliminated
16. Automobile use must be curtailed and reduced
17. Americans must be heavily taxed to pay for the damage they’ve done to the planet

Each of the above positions is false, and can be proven. The earth is not warming, warming is not bad, CO2 does not cause global warming, sea levels are not rising, etc. It’s obvious that environmentalists have orchestrated an elaborate scheme to deceive the public, the voters, the politicians, the courts, and just about everyone else, in order to achieve their objectives, and those objectives have nothing to do with science. The recent revelations about doctored data is only the tip of the iceberg.

Research Secrecy
“Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into. Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:

"Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept."

“However, professional meterologists are unimpressed by the claimed reasons for confidentiality. Research data used as the basis for scientific research needs to be disclosed if other scientists are to be able to verify the work of others," Mike Steinberg, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather.”

“It is not just the University of East Anglia that has been accused of massaging the data (what they called creating "value added" data). Recently, New Zealand has also had its temperature series from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) challenged. Still the NIWA continues to insist that the "Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal." Indeed, the institute claims that the New Zealand warming trend was 50 percent higher than the global average. But the difference in graphs between what NIWA produced after massaging the data and what the original raw data showed was truly remarkable and can be seen here. As the Climate Science Coalition of New Zealand charged: "The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming."

Similar concerns have also been raised about Australian temperature data.” John R. Lott, Jr.is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics." “The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06̊C per century since 1850. We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”

“Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.”

East Anglia University Emails
“I haven't read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.” Al Gore. “The most recent email, for the record, was Nov 12 this year [2009], and there were lots more of similar vintage.” Gore has been unable to tell the truth for at least the last ten years, and maybe his whole life. His “Inconvenient Truth” should more accurately be titled, “A Convenient Lie.” Can you imagine any other scientific discipline operating in this fashion, in secrecy, with obvious cover and with designed deceit?

Conclusions
Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Real science is never decided by a vote. In science, theories are put up and torn down, red in tooth and claw. If a theory is ultimately true, it survives. It doesn't matter if 9,999 climatologists vote in favour of global warming being man made and only one doesn't. If the 'outlier' happens to be correct - regardless of whether his colleagues listen to him or laugh at him - he is correct.”

Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston says, "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." Indeed.

How Weather Works

In all the hype about global warming and climate change hysteria, lost is information about how weather actually works. Environmental alarmists would have us believe that temperatures and weather are almost solely affected by CO2 and carbon fuel use. But such is simply not the case. So how does weather work, and how does the planet warm and cool? If we understand this, even a novice can make sense of the current climate change debate.

The atmosphere is a marvel of a self-regulating phenomenon. Almost all familiar weather phenomena occur in the troposphere (the lower part of the atmosphere). If the earth gets too cool, there are fewer clouds, and more radiation from the sun reaches the earth, and the surface of the earth warms. If the earth gets too warm, more clouds occur, and less radiation from the sun reaches the earth, and the surface of the earth cools. Additionally, if an area of the earth warms, the warm air rises, creating an atmospheric vacuum, and it pulls cool air from the arctic (or antarctic) into that vacuum and cools the surface of the earth, and the atmosphere. Even beyond the troposphere, stratospheric winds, and radiation, all affect the weather and subsequent surface temperatures of the earth.

The jet stream operates at between 20,000 and 40,000 feet altitude, and is about two miles thick. The strong temperature contrast between polar and tropical air gives rise to the jet stream. The jet stream is two to four thousand miles in length, and affects weather in a variety of ways. There are actually several jet streams that function similarly around the globe. For example, if it moves south, it allows colder arctic air to move south also, if it moves north, it creates a high pressure area to its south and keeps colder air from moving south. Like the Gulf Stream, it is a huge mass of moving air that affects weather globally, and to date, no one has been able to predict the actions of the jet stream beyond a day or two.

Radiation from the sun is the biggest factor that effects weather. In it’s 100,000 year cycle through the Milky Way, the sun moves from a closer position to the sun, to a more distant position. At the earth’s more distant location, the earth experiences an ice age, and yes, those occur about every 100,000 years. Guess which end of the cycle the earth is at currently? That’s right, at it’s closest point, so temperatures are a bit higher. Over thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, changes in Earth's orbital parameters affect the amount and distribution of solar energy received by the Earth and influence long-term climate. And sunspots, which are also cyclical, dramatically affect earth’s weather, and temperatures. As sunspots increase, temperatures on the earth increase, when they decrease, earth’s temperatures also drop. Radiation from the sun is the single greatest, and by far most significant contributor to the earth’s weather, and global temperatures.

Volcanoes affect weather when they erupt by spewing millions of tons of ash and dust into the atmosphere. Winds aloft, including the jet stream, circulate these volcanic particles around the globe in a matter of days. These particles reflect and/or block the suns rays, causing the earth to cool. Large eruptions can affect global weather for several years, most last two to three years before the particles succumb to the pull of gravity, the effects of rain and barometric pressure changes, and fall back to earth. Temperatures then return to normal.

The oceans also affect the weather in a multitude of ways. If the water heats up sufficiently, it can cause such things as the El Nino effect. El Nino affects weather, not only in the eastern Pacific and the western U.S., but to a lesser degree, world wide. Warm, moist air moving over cooled land in coastal areas will cause fog to form, which reflects the suns radiation and cools the earth further. Clouds that form over the oceans and move over land will cause night time temperatures to be warmer than if the skies are clear. To a large degree, the oceans create the majority of the earth’s weather.

The Gulf Stream is a large mass of warm water originating in the Gulf of Mexico, that moves up the Atlantic coast of North America, across the North Atlantic, and past Iceland, England and Europe. The Gulf Stream influences the climate of the east coast of North America from Florida to Newfoundland, and the west coast of Europe. The climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be; and that this is due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream. It’s likely that portions of Northern Europe would be uninhabitable were it not for the Gulf Stream, it simply tempers the natural coldness of Northern Europe. Iceland, England, Scandinavia, possibly Germany, Denmark and other areas of Europe would be unattractive to live in, and unproductive agriculturally without the effect of the Gulf Stream.

Inspite of what some global alarmists claim, CO2 does not affect weather, or even local or regional temperatures to any appreciable degree, and its affect cannot be separated from all the other gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. All the atmospheric gases (including water vapor) act in concert, all have similar properties, but water vapor is by far the largest contributor to atmospheric temperature fluctuations, dwarfing the effect of all the other gases, including CO2. The only reason CO2 is “picked on” is because it is a by product of burning carbon fuels. And carbon fuels are the bad boy of environmentalists, and the primary target of environmental policy. But at .003 percent of the atmosphere it’s almost comical to see environmentalists attempt to make intellectually sustainable arguments concerning CO2 and its affect on global temperatures.

It is theoretically impossible to make useful day-to-day weather predictions more than about two weeks ahead, imposing an upper limit to potential for improved prediction skill. And if you follow weather forecasts closely, it is rare for a two week forecast to go unchanged. “Updated” forecasts will usually occur more than once during that two week forecast period. Often, the two week forecast is completely wrong, inspite of all we know about the weather, satellites, monitoring stations, and highly educated weather scientists working to predict the weather. Thus pretending to predict weather years, decades, or centuries into the future is intellectually dishonest, it simply cannot be done. And anyone who claims to know what the weather will be in the future, beyond a couple of weeks, is being deceitful.

Climate Tribalism at Heart of AGW Deception

"The scientists who developed the data on which EPA is basing its work have all but admitted that their data was corrupted and they have admitted to corrupting the very scientific process needed to ensure the integrity of the computer models on which climate predictions are based,” said Jim Sims, President and CEO of the Western Business Roundtable.

This revelation exposes only the tip of the iceberg of the great environmental coverup regarding global warming, from which governments, including this one, make policy, draft bills, and extract taxes from a deceived public.

Penn State’s Michael Mann told Reuters that “colleagues often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," And according to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.

Judy Curry is a weather scientist who broke from the politically correct, and politically controlled AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) stranglehold, to expose other nefarious practices of the environmental crowd. She writes: Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit all critics.

The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be motivated by politics and their professional ego. After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change, I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests.

Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the skeptical researcher is not an ethical strategy. All relevant and available data and metadata [should be] made publicly accessible.” Indeed.

So if climate change data has been manipulated and falsified to support a particular political agenda, how much other scientific data needs to be brought into question? How much other “research” has been closely guarded, doctored, and let out only to those who support their theories? A few scientific “tribal” research topics I have challenged for years come quickly to mind: 1) the theory of evolution, 2) the big bang theory, 3) dinosaurs, 4) carbon dating, 5) the age of the earth itself, 6) the entire body of environmental science, to mention just a few.

There is much about this expose that reminds me of Marxism, fascism, and other extreme controlling forms of government who attempt to hide the truth, manipulate reality and force a pre-determined outcome.

Geologists and archeologists push the age of all things so far into the past that no one is able to dispute their data, except of course, those of that “tribe.” The theory of evolution has effectively silenced all critics, not to mention attempts to have other theories taught or even discussed in public schools and universities. How’s that for an educational posture? The big bang theory has so many unanswered questions, failures of logic, and other issues, one has to wonder what “tribal” group manipulated this data.

Carbon dating has long been questioned by almost everyone, except of course, those “tribal” leaders who control and manipulate that data. Although carbon dating is accurate back in time
for only about 200 years, still, carbon dating is given credibility for dating bones, rocks, and other items back in time hundreds of millions of years. Yeah, right!

And there’s the entire body of so-called environmental research, everything from “carbon pollution,” global warming, water quality, forests, oceans, and mining issues environmentalists have fooled the public on for decades. I could probably think of several stronger terms than “tribalism,” to call what environmentalists are doing to the public, but Judy Curry coined that phase, and it certainly applies. Tribalism is alive and well in environmental research.

Environmental Deception Beginning to Surface

After years of environmental deception and brainwashing, the truth regarding their methods and data are finally surfacing. I have insisted for years that environmentalists are not our friends, that they are deceptive, and have engaged in one of the most elaborate brainwashing schemes in the history of this country. At last, Al Gore’s “global warming” sham is being exposed for what it is, mostly lies and misinformation.

Hackers broke into an environmental computer and found an abundance of revealing emails, then posted them on a website for all the world to see. Emails spoke of efforts to "hide the decline" in global temperatures (amidst shrill cries by environmentalists that the earth is about to boil over).

The revealed data is being called a "smoking gun, and evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind.”

One email spoke of the problem of documenting global warming through tree-ring samples, but the warming trend stopped in 1960, and could not be established in tree-rings after than date, so emails spoke of the need to “hide the decline.”

The emails point to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, but environmentalist were not interested in the truth, or the science, on this issue, but of perpetuating the myth of global warming. Yet scientists like Kevin Trenberth, continued to tout the “integrity of these scientists."

Yet another email from the hacked files describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (peer review has virtually disappeared from the research community, so anyone can publish anything without any review, and claim it’s truthfulness). Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board?" In plain english they’re saying, we can’t really defend our position, so we need to stop peer review, squeeze out dissenting scientists, and be careful what we allow the editorial board to see. How’s that for great science?

In 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's global warming film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" and deceitful views.

Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists -- Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney -- released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is put for as an article of faith, not science..

In Gore's film, directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in 2006, the former vice president argues that humans are causing climate change, If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, Gore contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25 years to 300,000 people a year, and more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction in half a century. Now here’s some great science, he provides no supporting evidence or research showing either that 150,000 people a year die from global warming, or how a million species are going to go extinct as a result of man’s negligence. It stated, again, as an article of faith, not science.

The film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, but the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

Just last month, McAleer publicly confronted Gore in a contentious exchange at an environmental journalist conference, where Gore was the keynote speaker and took questions from the audience.
When asked by McAleer whether he would do anything to correct the errors found by the British court, Gore said he wouldn't go through each of the errors. Gore mentioned that polar bears really are threatened. Phelim countered that the number of polar bears has increased and is increasing.

"You don't think they're endangered?" Gore asked.

"The number has increased," McAleer repeated, prompting the same question from Gore. "If the number of polar bears has increased, surely they're not in danger." Before McAleer could say anything else, he was interrupted by environmental journalists who said it wasn't a debate and shut off his microphone.

McElhinney, McAleer's filmmaking partner, said Gore, while doing research for his newly released book, "Our Choice," asked a scientist to dial back the science to fit his narrative. "So much for the inconvenient truth," McElhinney said. "He just doesn't like the truth." McElhinney said it's a flawed argument by environmentalists that there's a consensus that everyone agrees about the causes and consequences of global warming.

"That's not how science works," she said. "It doesn't matter if 99,000 people all agree about something and one person is right. Politics works like that -- a certain number of people vote for something and then it becomes true. But with science, it's the one person who tells the truth."

Gore and the environmental lobby has been dishonest from the beginning. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was not based on science, and has been completely discredited; yet, environmentalists still worship Carson and her book, and cite its faulty conclusions daily. The world is not dying, the earth is not being warmed by man produced CO2. CO2 is not a poison or a pollutant, but an essential minor molecule in the atmosphere. Polar Bears are not threatened or dying off, they are actually increasing in number. The Arctic ice shelf is receding, somewhat; but the Antarctic ice shelf is growing–and so what? Life is thriving and is not threatened. New species come into existence, and go extinct, all the time–so what? 95% of all species that ever lived on the earth are now extinct, virtually all of them became extinct before man even appeared on the scene.

Environmentalism is a scheming, deceptive religion that is not based on science, but on faith. It is an eastern religion based religion with it’s roots in Gaia and mother earth–not science. Its aim is not to protect the environment, but to eliminate most of the people who now populate the planet, and replace them with a handful of faithful, card carrying environmentalists who can spend their days looking out from their cave, over the earth, undisturbed by man.

This sham is long overdue for exposure, fortunately, the truth is coming out, as it always does.

Blasphemous Quotes

"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)

"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." -- James Hansen, "Climate forcings in the Industrial era",

"Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2) the so-called “feedbacks” that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)

"Because climate is uncontrollable . . . the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. . . . However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p15 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)

"At this point in the debate, it is intellectually dishonest and borders on fraudulent to continue to maintain that there is any reasonable basis to fear a coming climate apocalypse. Yet the scientific establishment continues to grind out tortured "studies" to prove black is white. Those involved in this charade are doing lasting damage to science and the reputations of scientists. Hell, you are no different than the worst lawyers - you will say whatever people want you to say so long as you are paid." -- Fred Palmer, president of the Greening Earth Society.

And why is all this bad science and deceptive writing and publishing going on? What is driving all this utter nonsense? Read on.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” -- Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)

The enhanced greenhouse hypothesis, while perhaps frightening, is poorly supported (we can't even agree on the planet's current temperature) and the issue, if issue it be, has been hijacked by natur über alles misanthropists seeking to ration energy as a means of suppressing humanity and by a curiously accommodating, apparently sensation-seeking media. So much noise has been made, so strident are the calls of impending doom that scientifically gullible politicians have thrown vast quantities of public money at study and abatement of a problem which is likely illusory and most certainly not as claimed by the eco-Jeremiads. The inevitable result of this misdirection of public funds has been the spawning of an entire industry dependent on continued hysteria to keep the grant torrent flowing and donation coffers full. Consequently we have a well-financed and supremely motivated industry, a three-M coalition composed of the Misanthropists, the Mistaken and the outright Miscreants (some would say Media), shrieking their tale of looming disaster from human development. Welcome to Big Warming. [From Junk Science]

Not everything is at it seams. The eco-fanatics are leading us around by the nose. Their agenda is a very perverse one, driven by eastern religion, with the commitment to undo hundreds of years of progress, technology, and advancement from the dark, dirty, and painful years of the past. An agenda determined to rid the world of several billion people, eliminate most of the world’s food supply, remove all electrical generating plants, stop all building, and drive the world back to the dark ages. And we are actually supporting this agenda with our hearts, our money, and our votes?

Calculating The Earth’s Temperature

To calculate the earth’s temperature at any given moment in time is virtually impossible. Just consider the challenge. The earth’s temperature is constantly changing, it is never static; half the earth is in the sun, half in the dark, and the rotation of the earth causes that split to be forever moving.

Then there is the atmosphere itself. The atmosphere is the most fluid part of the planet, by far. The air is always moving, the jet stream is moving north and south while blowing west to east, constantly changing, from hour to hour. Clouds form and disappear, humidity rises and falls, winds pick up or go calm, hurricanes form, cold fronts move, warm fronts move, and barometric pressure also changes from moment to moment.

And then there are elements like volcanoes which spew millions of tons of dirt and ash into the atmosphere, almost overnight. This infusion of material into the atmosphere causes global temperatures to drop, almost immediately, for summers to disappear, crops to fail, and other consequences. Plus the influence of known temperature influences factors like the sun, and sunspots, and the ever changing closeness of the earth to the sun.

All of these factors, and more, affect the global temperature, and all of them are in constant flux. Then we consider the problem of measuring the temperature of the surface of the earth’s oceans. There are no permanent monitoring stations on the surface of the oceans; most oceanic weather and temperature reports come from ships, which are not stationary. Satellites are able to provide accurate, though some dispute this, temperature readings, but not over the entire globe at every given moment.

So what is the real temperature? For environmentalists to claim global temperatures are rising is more than a stretch. They are making this claim based, not on real, recorded temperatures, but on computer models, all of which have been shown to be entirely faulty and without merit. And if real data does show a temperature rise, so what? We know temperatures rise and fall, weather cycles, it is ever changing, so how can anyone possibly claim to know the global temperature?

And, of course, the presumption is that rising global temperatures are bad, which is also highly debatable. Rising temperatures mean more food production, more forest production, less starvation, more rain; and less severe, cold weather.

NASA’s website reports: “For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.” Interpretation? We really have no idea what the global mean is–but we will continue to pretend that we do. NASA goes on, “Don't get too excited about calculating Earth's precise mean temperature since radiative balance has yet to measured .” Interpretation? There are parts of the earth’s temperature variants that we haven’t begun to understand, let a lone calculate.

NASA continues, “The bottom line is that we do not know what the planet's current temperature is, although satellite-mounted instruments and Argo autonomous floats are giving us a better picture than we had before. We do not know what the planet's temperature was 100 years ago with any meaningful precision. We have no way of telling whether Earth will be warmer or cooler at the beginning of Solar Cycle 25 (SC24 is just sputtering to a start now and it is reasonable to guess Earth will be slightly warmer in the midst of the roughly 11 year cycle, although there is no guarantee).”

Pretending to know the earth’s temperature does not change the fact it is unknowable. But so-called scientists cannot be deterred by this embarrassment; they will still claim to know the temperature of the earth, even if they have to make it up–which is what they do. Computer models to the rescue...and continue to claim to know the earth’s temperature; and it will be what they say it is because they are the experts, and they know. We mere mortals are just expected to follow along, stay in line, and believe the all-knowing environmentalists who put forth this tripe..

Debunking CO2 Myths

The eccentricity of the earth, or the distance between the earth and sun, varies over thousands of years in it’s travel through the Milky Way. But there is a one to one correlation between that distance, and temperature on the earth. The closer the earth is to the sun, the warmer the temperatures on the earth, the further away earth is, the colder the temperatures. This cycle, called the Milankovitch Cycle, is a 100,000 year cycle. At the bottom of each 100,000 year cycle, the earth experiences an ice age, at the other extreme of that cycle, the glaciers are gone, and the earth is at its warmest. Guess what end of that cycle the earth is currently in? Yup, the closest, and the warmest, and the earth will soon be cooling (probably already begun).

It is true that when temperatures rise, CO2 also rises. This is a result of several factors, more growth, more forestation, longer growing seasons, more kelp in the oceans, etc. But a well published chart shows this correlation has existed for at least the last 500 thousand years, and every cycle but the last occurred before man even knew what carbon fuels were.

This is the same graph that Al Gore showed all those elementary kids in making his case that when CO2 increases, global temperatures increase. He was lying, it works the other way around, and Al Gore knew it. Using Gore’s logic, the rising CO2 levels caused the earth to move closer to the sun. Not likely.

Here’s another view of CO2. CO2 makes up about 300 ppm of the earth’s atmosphere, that means that for every 1,000,000 parts of everything else in the atmosphere, 300 of those parts are CO2. So do your own tests. Let’s say you have a 1,000,000 gallon pool of water, maintained at 90 degrees; and of that 1 million gallons, 300 gallons of it is 95 degree Gatorade. Do you think the temperature of the pool of water will drop by removing the Gatorade? Not hardly, the quantity of warmer Gatorade is insignificant.

The climate change crowd are wont to blame global warming, as minuscule as it may be (and completely disputed by others), on man and his use of carbon fuels, etc. Man is the guilty party here, else why political action to stop whatever it is man is guilty of, so action must be taken to reverse the trend.

Water is also a greenhouse gas, in fact, H2O and CO2 have almost identical greenhouse properties, yet environmentalists want only to focus on CO2, why not H2O? There is roughly 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. In my example of the pool of water, why would you try to affect the temperature of the pool by addressing the 300 gallons of Gatorade, and not the 1 million gallons of water? It makes no sense.

Weather is a function of temperature and pressure. The atmosphere responds to temperature and pressure, and it doesn’t care what’s in that atmosphere, H2O, CO2, or any other gas. When temperature increases, water vapor in the atmosphere increases, when pressure decreases, the water falls out in the form of rain, snow, hail, or dew. The atmosphere is a self-regulating marvel, it will not be over-heated, or under-cooled. Nearly all of the worthless computer models predict rising global temperatures as a result of an anticipated rise in CO2 levels, but none of these take into consideration real weather factors such as this. More total energy leaves the earth's surface in evaporated water than through thermal radiation. If the earth does start to warm, more moisture is sucked into the atmosphere, and when it rains or snows, more heat is radiated upward. When this water turns to rain up in the sky, that energy is released as radiation in the frequency of water vapor. So there is a huge source of radiation far above the surface of the earth that will skew the H2O readings at the top of the atmosphere and mislead many to assume that CO2 is far more effective in absorbing radiation than is water.

And since CO2 only adds the weight of the carbon in it’s molecule (the oxygen molecule is already there), the real addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is even less than environmentalists would have us believe. Global warming disciples like to talk about “feedback” from the CO2 in the atmosphere, but numerous experiments have shown that CO2 provides no more feedback than does H2O. And though there is variability across the earth, (deserts, mountains, etc), 70% of the earth is water and is the overpowering force on weather.

If someone with more education than you gives you a 500 page study, full of calculus and scientific terms you don't understand, that concludes a battleship can be lifted out of the water with a single strand of sewing thread, what would you do? Would you accept it as fact because the other person is "smarter" or apply your own education and your own common sense and state there must be an error somewhere in those 500 pages of calculations.

Thanks to http://www.globalwarmingtested.com/ for the foregoing data.

The Weather And The Environment

Truth is hard to come by in any discipline, and when it comes to weather, it is particularly difficult to come by. But pearls of truth do exist, real, recorded observations are true; meticulously researched and appropriately peer-reviewed research can establish clear patterns, and dependable data. Weather is fickle and challenges even the very best, the most highly educated, and those with the longest experience.

Weather forecasting is a hazardous business, and largely futile and frustrating because the weather often will not cooperate with the forecasts. With all our technology, satellites, weather balloons, multiple reporting stations, computers, and the internet, weather forecasters still get blind sided by the weather: a cold front inexplicably stalls, local temperatures spike up or down while locales surrounding this area do not, micro bursts strike an area without warning and almost always without a prediction from the local weather forecasters. So when someone claims to predict what the weather will be 20, 40, or 100 years in the future, pardon me if I don’t believe it.

Truth becomes even more difficult when major contributors to what we know, engage in a well orchestrated effort to deceive, to skew the data, to publish only one side of the issue, or publish without peer review, and often without research. And worse, these same contributors go to great lengths to silence their detractors. Al Gore’s infamous “the debate is over,” declaration should be published in every textbook and printed on every editorial page of every newspaper in the world, showing the idiocy of such a closed minded statement. Gore only wished the debate was over, in truth, it was only beginning. If he can stifle the debate, then he wins the argument, if not, then the truth will come out and he will look rather foolish in the end.

The environmental cartel engages in every controlling, deceptive, and manipulative effort imaginable, in an attempt to limit what people know about the environment, and in this case, global warming. For example environmentalists really, really want global warming to be a really, really bad thing. They are more than “religious” about stopping growth, development, logging, mining, ATV trails, hunting, farming, driving, dam building, power plant building, and just about any other modern activity. It is their belief that the earth, all of it, should be left in its pristine state, undisturbed, and unused by man in any way. Just how they propose to do this with 6 billion people living on it they don’t say, but the inference is that most of those people need to go away, and only a few of the environmentally pure should remain to enjoy and protect the undisturbed planet.

In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” But no evidence of this wild claim was contained in the report, no studies cited, and no names attached to the statement. It was an editorial opinion slipped into a supposedly scientific document by the environmental authors.

The former head of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, said of the IPCC report, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to the IPCC report.” That is because there was no peer review of this outrageous conclusion.

Ironically, 1996 was the coldest year in a decade, but environmentalists are never deterred by contradicting data, their zeal is religious, and we are expected to simply accept their conclusions on faith. Sadly, the environmental movement has succeeded in controlling what goes into virtually every textbook in America, and have legions of true believers in the media who are more than willing to publish their deceptive conclusions.

CO2 levels increase in the fall and winter months, then decrease in the Spring and Summer months. Global warming alarmists want to use only the Fall and Winter numbers (increasing figures), and ignore the Spring and Summer declining figures, thus skewing the truth.

“There is no evidence that climate variability or hazardous events (floods, tornadoes, heat waves, frost, and even volcanoes) would be more frequent as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.” (Wittwer)

We are witnessing the greatest, orchestrated effort to deceive in modern history. The science is not there, the data is not there, and the debate is all one sided–the way environmentalist must have it in order to win their political battles. On a level playing field, with open debate, and a search for truth, environmentalism would look ridiculously stupid, and they can’t have that.

“The jet stream, which powers winter storms and which is forecast to become weaker with global warming, is getting stronger.” (Patrick Michaels, Professor of Envrionmental Sciences, University of Virginia.)

“Hurricanes are becoming weaker and the severe ones are less frequent.” (Michaels)

“The vast share of the planet’s small warming is in the coldest places in the dead of winter. The fact is there is no change at all in the area of the United States experiencing above normal temperatures, even as all climate models predict a dramatic rise.” (Michaels)

In virtually every case, environmental climate claims prove to be false. In nearly all supposed associations of global warming with dire and adverse world weather conditions, the truth proves otherwise. All climate models are worthless and should be dismissed out of hand. Polar bears can, and do, swim in Arctic waters for miles, they are never stranded on a floating piece of ice. The quantity of Arctic ice is actually increasing, the quantity of Antarctic ice is decreasing, so what? Weather cycles, it changes, then changes back, so what?

Is The Earth Really Warming?

Despite Al Gore’s insulting declaration that “The debate is over,” the debate continues, and hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists continue to debate this issue and challenge the very heart of environmental issues. Here are some succinct observations from others on the issue.

1. There is no trend in the global satellite temperature record since 1979. (Robert Davis, Professor Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia)
2. Although models suggest a global warming (since 1880) of 2-5C, observable data cannot even show a .5C increase in temperature; and anything less than .5C simply show negative feedback. (Richard Siegmund Lindzen Ph.D. (b. February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT.)
3. The determination of the globally averaged temperature is virtually impossible (Lindzen)
4. None of the three standard observable calculations indicate any significant temperature change since the mid 1800s. (Lindzen)
5. The earth’s current average temperature (15 degrees C), is close to the “black body” temperature (the temperature without any greenhouse warming). (Lindzen)
6. For most of the planet, temperature records are very sparse, particularly before 1900. Large ocean basins, desert regions, and mountainous areas are limited in their long term historical temperature records. (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)
7. Since 1751, Europe has warmed by only .5 degrees, and most of the warming occurred between 1890 and 1950, no warming has occurred in the most recent half century. (Balling)
8. Recorded data show some warming has occurred during the colder months of the year, and cooling has occurred during the warmer months of the year. Some scientists choose to ignore the cooling months and report only on the warming months. (Balling)
9. The period of rapid warming in Europe between 1890 and 1950 corresponds precisely to a time when solar sunspots rose most quickly. (Balling)
10. Europe has not experienced warming over the past 55 years. (Balling)
11. Europe represents less than two percent of the earth’s surface, nonetheless, climate models predict substantial warming in Europe. (Balling)
12. There is no evidence to support the prediction for substantial warming in the future. (Balling)
13. Predictive climate changes derived from computer simulations are far from accurate and may be deceptive. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
14. Global satellite readings of temperatures over the earth show there has been no warming. (Wittwer)

Lindzen, Balling, Davis and others observe that in the United States, weather stations in remote areas have been systematically removed and placed near urban areas. Urban areas are known to give higher temperatures than non-urban areas, so the data is now skewed. Further, these scientists report that satellite readings show no temperature increase over the past 30 years. This has caused environmentalists to challenge the use of satellite readings because they tend to dispute the claims of the global warming alarmists. Environmentalists claim that if the surface temperatures are rising, then the satellite readings should reflect that, but they don’t; calling into question the accuracy of surface readings.

Is Global Warming & Elevated CO2 A Good Thing?

The blind assumption of environmentalists, many politicians, the media, and educators is, global warming is bad, it’s terrifying, and we must act to stop it or we will all die...ala Al Gore; and if they're right, they have the leverage to enact the draconian governmental actions they seek. But when science looks at the data and the reality of a warmer world, what do they find?

1. Over the past 80 years, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have risen from less than 300 ppm to over 360 ppm. During this span, food production has risen by five-fold. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
2. The rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are very favorable for the production of food. (Wittwer)
3. History reveals that for food production, warming is better than cooling. (Wittwer)
4. Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a decidedly beneficial effect on crop production, and an increase in water-use efficiency. An increase in CO2 actually causes a water conservancy benefit. (Wittwer)
5. Rising CO2 levels increase food production, forestry output, and biological productivity, with an improvement in water-use efficiency. (Wittwer)
6. A warming trend would increase the lengths of the growing seasons, encourage farmer adaptations, and favor the introduction of new technologies and cultural practices. (Wittwer)
7. There is a near one to one relationship between increased atmospheric CO2, and increased food production. (Wittwer)

“Cooler conditions are not beneficial to the residents in Europe. Cooler European temperatures have resulted in the worst of conditions, famines, plagues, starvation, suffering, and social unrest. It is painfully clear that the costs of cooling in Europe far outstrip the cost of regional warming. Global warming would have been more than welcomed by the inhabitants of post 1300 Europe.

From approximately A.D. 900 to 1300, temperatures in Europe were about 1 degree or more above the levels observed there today. This was known as the Little Climatic Optimum. The agricultural productivity and the agro-economy of Europe flourished.” (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)

Wittwer declares the following: “There is currently a blind spot in the political and informational systems of the world. This is accompanied by a corruption of the underlying biological and physical sciences. It should be considered good fortune that we are living in a world of gradually increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.”

Real Data Dispute Global Warming Hype

If global warming is really occurring, that is, a consistent upward trend world wide to warming temperatures, one would expect some of the prophetic declarations, by weather scientists, that are supposed to accompany warmer temperatures, to begin to show up. But they aren’t.

Let’s review the global warming predictions, those events we should be seeing when temperatures rise world wide:
1. Increased hurricane activity. It hasn’t happened. There is actually a decline in the number of hurricanes, and few of high velocity and destructive power. The 1950s was the peak decade of hurricane activity, mostly level since then, with no trend.
2. Higher, high temperatures world wide. No high temperature records have been set on any continent in the past thirty years. In the U.S. there have been no record high temps in any state in the past fifteen years, and the majority of the high temps all occurred before the 1950s.
3. Increased droughts, and of longer duration. This is a strange prediction since as temperatures rise, the air holds more water, and historically, produces more rainfall. Predictably, there is no increase in droughts worldwide.
4. Increased tornado activity. There were more tornadoes during the 1960s, than any other decade since records have been kept. Again, the trend simply is not there.

Here’s an overview of U.S. locations, their highest record temperatures, and the date. All locations represent the record high for that state:
1. Lake Havasu City, Arizona, 128 degrees, 1994
2. Greenland Ranch, CA (Death Valley), 134 degrees, 1913
3. Orofino, Idaho, 118 degrees, 1934
4. Keokuk, Iowa, 118 degrees, 1934
5. Plain Dealing, Louisiana, 114 degrees, 1936
6. New Bedford, Mass, 107 degrees, 1975
7. Moorhead, Minnesota, 114 degrees, 1936
8. Laughlin, Nevada, 125 degrees, 1994
9. Steele, North Dakota, 121 degrees, 1936
10. Pendleton, Oregon, 119 degrees, 1898
11. Camden, South Carolina, 111 degrees, 1954
12. Seymour, Texas, 120 degrees, 1936
13. Saint George, UT 117 degrees, 1985
14. Ice Harbor Dam, Washington, 118 degrees, 1961
15. Basin, Wyoming, 115 degrees, 1983

There are no record temperatures in the United States since 1994. This contradicts the accepted trend by so-called experts in the field. It is noteworthy that only computer models show an increased trend in high temperatures, the actual recorded data do not show any such trend. Indeed, the majority of extreme temperatures, wind, drought, rainfall, and other extreme weather phenomenon occurred during the 1930s, long before Al Gore and the anthropomorphic climate change brainwashing campaign began.

Even on a regional basis, the American Southwest, the area of the U.S. with the highest overall temperatures, reached it’s peak during 1994, but has returned to normal since then. Los Angeles’ worst heat wave occurred during August and September of 1955.

Weather can be sliced up in a variety of ways, and one must be aware of what is actually being reported. There is the overall record high for a given date, the highest average temperatures for the entire year, or for the summer period, or for a given “heat wave” period of the summer.

One must also be aware of what has happened in the United States over the past two or three decades, with regard to weather stations and weather reporting. It is well understood that temperatures in and around large metropolitan areas are higher than the surrounding agricultural or thinly populated areas. Nearly 70 percent of the earth is water, and there are no permanent weather stations on any of the oceans of the earth. During the past two to three decades monitoring stations in remote areas have been eliminated and new monitoring stations established inside large metropolitan areas. This “trick” skews the data. We are no longer comparing orange to oranges, and there is no valid comparison with data gathered prior to the removing of these remote stations. This practice has artificially warmed the earth; it has not really warmed, but the additional reporting from within the densely populated areas skews the data upward–thus the feigned panic by environmentalists that something must be done to reduce CO2 levels, and reverse the “trend” of world wide warming.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, essentially faking the data so political decisions can be made in your (environmentalists) favor. So even though the world is not really warming, the “experts” have created the appearance that it has, and will make policy based on that falsehood.

Sunspots, Not CO2 is Cause of Climate Change

Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, received a Ph.D in physics and astronomy at The University of Kansas. He also has spent time as a meteorologist.

Perry does not subscribe to the CO2 theory of global warming, rather, he believes firmly in the effect of sunspots as the source of global warming, and global cooling. A sunspot, Perry explains, is a location on the sun's surface that is cooler than the surrounding area. When there are more sunspots, the sun's surface becomes more dynamic and an opposite effect takes place, releasing more heat and energy when other parts of the sun become hotter.

A solar minimum is when the amount of spots on the sun is at a low and the reverse is true for a solar maximum. The complete solar cycle is about an 11-year process. Perry says the current solar minimum could continue into 2010.

"There's a fair chance it will be a cooler winter than last year," Perry said. There is a feeling from some in the scientific community the Earth may be entering into a grand minimum, which is an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that creates cooler temperatures.

Perry said there’s evidence the Earth's temperature may be slightly decreasing, but local weather patterns are much more affected by the jet stream than solar activity. However, Perry said snow in Buenos Aires and southern Africa, the best ski season in Australia and a cooler Arctic region are some of the evidence for a cooling period. So, Perry said, sunspots may have a far greater impact on weather than previously thought.

Perry is a proponent of the cosmic ray and clouds theory as opposed to the CO2 global warming theory to explain recent global warming trends. The cosmic ray and clouds theory was first put forth twenty years ago by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, and his been accepted by the scientific community until the less defensible CO2 theory emerged recently.

In a July 2007 issue of Discover magazine, Svensmark said the theory is simply that solar activity can alter the amount of clouds in the atmosphere, which affects the temperature of the Earth. More clouds mean a cooler Earth because more of the sun's heat is being reflected. Fewer clouds equal a warmer Earth.

Perry says data indicates global temperature fluctuations correlate to a statistically significant degree with the length of the sunspot cycle. Longer cycles are associated with cooler temperatures.

Johan Feddema, acting chair and professor of geography at KU, studies global warming. He is skeptical of any one phenomenon being the direct cause of global warming because there are so many climate variables that factor into global temperatures.

The CO2 theory is so thin, and contradicts most other theories regarding weather fluctuations, it's difficult to imagine how the CO2 theory gained any traction at all. Credit must go to Al Gore, and his now discredited "An Inconvenient Truth" film which environmentalists pushed blindly around the globe, much like Silent Spring was blindly accepted a generation ago.

Climate Change Scientists Backpeddaling...FAST

The New Scientist, a staunch global warming advocate, is making a fast retreat from its previous "certainty" that global warming would continue unabated unless governments across the globe acted fast, and act radically. Numerous global warming models had shown with great certainty that the earth is in trouble, that all the ice is going to melt, oceans will rise, flooding all the world's seaports, and that we will all be driven to oblivion--mostly by Americans who use more fossil fuels than anyone else, and pump carbon into the atmosphere, creating this disastrous condition.

Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany, and one of the authors of the IPCC report that got everyone worked up about global warming, said, "Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter, we could be about to enter one or two decades during which temperatures cool." Hmmm. And one of his collegues said, "In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office. Frankly, I'm not convinced anyone know anything about 2050 either.

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be due to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades.

Well, this is absolute heresy, and this is all the "critics" and "naysayers" have been saying for the past few years, and been ridiculed for it by the eco/left. It's not like environmentalists are the only ones who know anything about the weather, or who have access to real data. But it gets better.

Eric Berger, the science editor for the Houston Chronicle writes, "For a long time now, science reporters have been confidently told the science is settled. That the planet is warming and humans are unquestionably the primary cause. We've been told to trust the computer models -- the models which show a markedly upward trend in temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations increase. And I've trusted the scientists telling me this. When An Inconvenient Truth came out I believed the movie to be scientifically accurate.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the end of the world: hurricane activity on the global scale is near historical lows. And the Earth seems to have stopped warming.

This, despite the fact that some of the country's leading climate scientists say there is unequivocally a link between major hurricanes and climate change. And despite the fact that other leading climate scientists predicted 2009 or 2010 will go down as the warmest year in recorded history. Either prediction, if true, would be alarming. Yet both of these predictions seem to be off." Indeed, way off.

And Richard Black, the Environmental writer for the BBC writes, "The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted."

It's difficult not to look upon the "climate change" crowd with complete disdain, not to mention distrust, because it is this "natural climate cycles" issue that critics of global warming have been spouting about for years. Warming and cooling cycles are part of the earth's weather, they have been occurring forever, so far as we can tell, and for Al Gore and the environmental extremist crowd to ridicule the critics for bringing up this little "inconvenient truth," and then turning around and admitting it is really happening (duh), discredits the entire notion of global warming as a man caused event.

Apparently, (since I have no way of counting the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere), CO2 is on the increase, and has been for decades, if not millennia; yet, the uncooperative global weather has the gall to stop warming. And for a highly educated and respected scientist like Richard S. Lindzen, MIT, Cambridge, MA, to state matter of factly that CO2 is a minor atmospheric constituent, (.003%) and as such it’s variations are not important, must really stick in the craw of Al Gore and his cronies.

Because increasing numbers of "skeptics" are coming out of the closet, and because even the environmentalists themselves are having to admit their folley and falseness regarding global warming; this brings into question the entire premise, not to mention "facts," of global warming.

Cooling is Still Warming

The logic of the GWBC (Global Warming Brainwashing Crowd) is astounding. According to data from the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala., the global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.37 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for the previous 20 years. So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.

Indeed, real, recorded data show 1998 was the peak warm year, and every year since has been cooler than 1998. But that doesn't deter the folks at GWBC. David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. states, "These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability, It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

So according to him, even when temperatures are cooling, they are still warming, and it doesn't matter if global temperatures cool for a couple of decades, we must remember, the earth is still warming. Ok, I guess I follow that. The point is, these guys are drinking their own cool aid, they're going to argue for global warming even when the earth is cooling.

John Cristy the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, declares, "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this."

Of their own admission, there are climate variations they don't understand; but they go to great lengths to reassure us that the earth really is warming--even when it's cooling, or that variations are irrelevant because the earth really is warming--even when it's cooling.

The GWBC must maintain their position, and argue, no matter how irrationally, that global warming continues even when it's cooling, because the underlying theory to global warming is that it is caused by man, by fossil fuels, by industrialization, by driving SUVs, and that it has reached critical mass, that if we don't act immediately, there will be no changing it later.

So when the earth actually shows a cooling trend, these so-called scientists get apoplexy and start to hyperventilate because the underlying theory of man caused global warming is drawn into severe question--and they can't have that. The theory must stand even if the facts do not.

Global Warming, The New Intellectual Religion

Ian Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University in Australia--and an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me. It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behavior is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behavior -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behavior. Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's history.

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come. [An edited account of an editorial in the Vancouver Sun, July 29, 2009]

But if Al Gore, President Obama, and a brainwashed Congress have their way, they attempt to legislate against global warming, and tax mankind back to the stone age, doing far more harm than good, as is typical of political intervention. And since this is truly a "religion," it must be accepted on faith (science certainly doesn't defend it very well), the "preachers" of this new religion must be revered and blindly followed, for to disagree is heresy. The punishment for heresy is exclusion from the church, denying publishing rights, refusal to be heard, and public scorn in the modern press.

Could we [they] be wrong about global warming?

"Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?" This from USA Today, one of the nation's fine, liberal newspapers. To admit this publicly is astounding. Scientists and weather experts by the hundreds have been screaming to be heard on this issue for years.

The article goes on, "In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

Theoretical, computer models should all be thrown away, far far away; they are utterly worthless. I'll put it more strongly, these models are being used to deceive us, to manipulate the data, to make it appear something is happening, that is not really happening. The other, ugly, side of this issue is that global warming is being driven by radical environmentalists who want complete power over our lives--and it has nothing to do with the environment, it has everything to do with power. The sooner we wake up to this fact, the safer we will be.

Deniers Popping Up Everywhere

The list of scientists, experts, and governments now lining up as skeptics on global warming/climate change, is growing. The central issue is this: 1) man is causing global warming (primarily through the use of fossil fuels), 2) carbon is the cause of global warming . Actually, carbon accounts for only .003% of our atmosphere, carbon's contribution, if any, is minuscule and irrelevant. But true, born again environmentalists have for decades sought ways to limit growth, reduce the use of carbon based fuels, and get man to live more caveman like; you know, stop using air conditioning, build smaller homes, drive less, fly less, eat less...well, you get the idea.

But despite Al Gore's absurd declaration that "the debate is over," ever increasing numbers of scientists, experts and governments, not to mention the general public, are fighting back and showing how silly this whole global warming thing really is. And if you're a meteorologist, the notion that man can affect the weather is quite silly.

Here is a partial list of the new "deniers:"
1. In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming.
2. the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role.
3. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted.
4. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
5. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.
6. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.
7. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history."
8. Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion."
9. A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
10. Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming.
11. Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence."

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

This information came from an editorial by KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL, in the Wall Street Journal.

Global Climate is NOT Changing

The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters.

Dr. Roger Pielke, is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and he sends a blistering criticism of the IPCC, and the White House position on Climate Change.

Dr. Pielke contrasts these reports’ conclusions about trends in natural disasters with the some quite different findings last year by the federal Climate Change Science Program. Dr. Pielke summarizes some of its less sensational conclusions:

1. Over the long-term, U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.
2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.
3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation . . . there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).
4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms
5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.
6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.

Do those benign trends seem surprising to you? “Until the climate science community cleans up its act on this subject it will continue to give legitimate opportunities for opponents to criticize the climate science community.”

Record Low Highs in West

The Western United States is experiencing an extended period of record low, high temperatures. Temperatures in Utah are ten degrees, or more, below normal, and have been for the past three weeks. It's the middle of June, and temperatures, statewide (all western states are experiencing similar, cooler temperatures) are unseasonably cool. Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana and other areas of the west are experiencing unusually cool temperatures for this time of year. This, in view of the fact that last year in Utah, the winter and spring experienced record cold.

The global warming alarmists are so far off the mark, it's difficult to give them any credibility at all. Temperatures, currently, are tracking at the 1980 level, not the record warm temperatures projected by popular computer models, which have proven to be totally worthless, and way, way off the mark.

No Record High Temps in 35 Years

No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974. This is not even remotely consistent with claims that current temperatures are unusually high. Quite the contrary.
Below is the recorded data/continent/temp/year. From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/are-record-temperatures-abnormal/

Continent	Temperature	Year
Africa	136F	1922
North America	134F	1913
Asia	129F	1942
Australia	128F	1889
Europe	122F	1881
South America	120F	1905
Antarctica	59F	1974

All high temperature data, record warm temperatures, etc, come from computer models--not real recorded data. It is from these models that the president, congress, the EPA, and all the environmentalists get all riled up about. But these computer models always come out way high, they do not reflect reality. Essentially, computer models are worthless, except for propaganda purposes.

Global Warming Data and Facts

From Richard S. Lindzen, MIT, Cambridge, MA

Richard Siegmund Lindzen Ph.D. (b. February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The following are some of his observations and conclusions:


1. CO2 has been increasing since the early 1800s, well before the industrial revolution
2. CO2 is a minor atmospheric constituent, (.003%) and as such it’s variations are not important.
3. Increased CO2 also stimulates the growth of vegetation
4. As far as we know, there is no direct adverse effect of CO2 on human beings.
5. Although models suggest a global warming (since 1880) of 2-5C, observable data cannot even show a .5C increase in temperature; and anything less than .5C simply show negative feedback.
6. [Global Temperatures] The determination of the globally averaged temperature is virtually impossible.
a. Temperatures vary widely even over short distances.
b. Two thirds of the earth’s surface is water, and we have no permanent monitoring stations over the earth’s oceans. Observations come from ships, which are rarely in the exact same spot when reporting, nor do they present a controlled reporting environment.
c. There is also “natural variability” from year to year, regardless of CO2 increases or decreases, so the cause of variability is subjective, or unknown entirely.
d. None of the three standard observable calculations indicate any significant temperature change since the mid 1800s. (Possibly a quarter of a degree)
e. On the basis of the records available, the best estimate for the global temperature change that has occurred over the industrial period, does not significantly vary from zero, suggesting that current models are exaggerating expected warming.
f. Data suggests it was warmer prior to 1880, than afterward.
g. The major sharp increase occurred prior to 1940, after which, temperatures dropped, causing experts to predict an ice age. In 1960, temperatures began a slight increase.
h. There is clearly variance in the record on all time scales.
i. The absence of any significant trend in the contiguous 48 states, leads to the suspicion that all the trends in the global record may be spurious.
j. Since 1978, satellite soundings over the 48 states correlate excellently with the land based thermometric record.
k. Computer models do not even accurately simulate present day regional variations, calling into question their global variations.
l. About the only thing the models agree on is that warming temperatures will be greatly exaggerated in polar regions. Observations show that the arctic is not warming, but cooling.
7. [Green House] Given the data alone, we would have little basis for alarm regarding the greenhouse effect. The alarm, instead, comes from theoretical considerations.
a. The earth’s current average temperature (15 degrees C), is close to the “black body” temperature (the temperature without any greenhouse warming).
b. All models showing a doubling of the CO2 level, both in the past, and at present, fail to reveal any significant green house effect. These models also predicted a warming effect, over the past 100 years, in the polar regions; however, the predictions are contradicted by the observed cooling in polar regions.
c. [Models]The remarkable thermodynamic characteristics of water, lead to its acting as nature’s thermostat. Yet, the major numerical models all give water a positive warming effect, showing that the effect of doubling CO2 to be much less than the models predict.
d. Water is a far more important green house gas than CO2.
e. Although the green house absorption is primarily important above 5km (from the surface of the earth), greenhouse models attribute it at all levels of the atmosphere. Ignoring the fact that convection and lower cloud formation significantly reduces the green house effect above 5km.
f. Global warming leads to drying of the upper atmosphere above 5 km (as opposed to moistening which occurs in most models) and leads to the elevation of the altitude at which convected heat is deposited, producing negative, rather than positive, green house effects.
g. Consistent with past data, models should predict a warming effect of only a few tenths of a degree.
h. The current state of our understanding of climate hardly justifies a consensus over the response of climate caused by the theoretical doubling of CO2.
8. If there is any single major impediment to understanding climate, it may very well be the lack of capable scientists.
9. It is difficult to imagine any practical action that will make much difference to the final outcome (of climate).
10. Large changes in CO2 emissions (20-40%) will, at most, reduce warming by a fraction of a degree.

Global Warming Belief fades...

WASHINGTON (AFP) — (USA Today) More Americans than at any time in the past decade believe that the seriousness of global warming is being exaggerated, a Gallup poll showed Thursday.

Forty-one percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they are doubtful that global warming is as serious as the mainstream media are reporting, putting public skepticism about the hot-button issue at the highest level recorded by Gallup.

Gallup's 2009 environment poll, which surveyed 1,012 adults by land- and mobile phone line between March 5 and 8, also showed that Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues that respondents were asked to give a score to based on their level of concern about the topic.

And a record high 16 percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they believe the effects of global warming "will never occur."

The poll results suggest "that the global warming message may have lost some footing with Americans," Gallup analyst Lydia Saad said.

"Americans generally believe global warming is real ... (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue," she said.

Does President Obama, or Congress, know or even care that global warming is the biggest hoax of the century?