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?