More Gore Lies On Global Warming

Gore’s latest lashing out at the Climate Change Naysayers is nothing more than another advertisement for the companies he is invest in.

What is really starting to piss me off is that Gore, with degree in the field, is suppose to be taken at face value when he blames climate change on mankind. He latest assertation is that a very small number of people, including the scientific community do not believe that Global Warming is all man’s fault. Each day that goes by, more and more scientists are coming out disputing his evidence, however Gore is unwilling to debate with them about the subject. He has closed the door to any other possibility for the cause of Global Warming. The question is why? If he was truely concerned about the future of the planet, he would keep and open mind and explore all possible causes of Global Warming. The fact that he is not willing to do that, indicates to me that he is pushing his agenda for one single reason. Money.

The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman is considering a lawsuit against Al Gore and company, just so they have to disclose the evidence they have pointing to man being the main cause of Global Warming.

Read John Coleman’s Brief on Global Warming here.

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore to Expose Global Warming Fraud

 

By now most people are aware that the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said global warming is “the greatest scam in history” last November.On Monday, while speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change being held in New York City, Coleman took his criticisms further by advocating that all those involved in the sale and marketing of carbon credits, including Al Gore, should be sued “to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”As reported over at the Business & Media Institute by my colleague Jeff Poor (emphasis added throughout, h/t to many): 

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the [witness] stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

How delicious. Of course, for those that are interested, Nobel Laureate Gore was invited to speak at this conference — was even offered his normal fee to attend! — but refused. As reported Monday by Anthony Watts, one of the conference speakers (emphasis added):

I was surprised to learn that Al Gore had been offered an opportunity to address this conference, and his usual $200,000 speaking fee and expenses were met, but that he declined.

I also know that invitations went out to NASA GISS principal scientists Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt weeks ago as evidenced by their writeup of the issue on their blog, RealClimate.org a week or so ago.

They have declined the formal invitation sent, even though it would be easy for them to attend, given that NASA GISS is located just a few blocks away at Columbia University.

Since recent polls indicate that about 50% of Americans remain unconvinced that global warming is a serious issue, it would seem this would be a perfect place for Mr. Gore, Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt to bridge the crevasse.

Exactly, Anthony. Sadly, these folks don’t want to speak to the half of the nation not buying into their junk science, for it is so easily exposed as such, and that would bring an end to the fraud.

Of course, one has to wonder how all those that do believe in this myth feel about the fact that the leaders of their cause not only refuse to debate the issue, but won’t even attend a conference dealing with it.

Regardless, Coleman on Monday also pointed his finger at The Weather Channel:

“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

We at NewsBusters share your hopes, John.—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Other experts, who have degrees in related to climate and atmosphere changes are also disputing Mr. Gore’s claims.

While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.

Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice. Coincidences do happen, you know…that’s why we have a word for them.

We make a big deal out of the “unprecedented” 2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then.

So, since we cannot explore the possibility of a natural source for some of our warming, due to a lack of data, scientists instead explore what we have measured: manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And after making some important assumptions about how clouds and water vapor (the main greenhouse components of the atmosphere) respond to the extra carbon dioxide, scientists can explain all of the recent warming.

Never mind that there is some evidence indicating that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period. While climate change used to be natural, apparently now it is entirely manmade. But a few of us out there in the climate research community are rattling our cages. In the August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the “Infrared Iris” effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system.

What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of manmade global warming is relevant these days.

The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard.

And our evidence against a “sensitive” climate system does not end there. In another study (conditionally accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate) we show that previously published evidence for a sensitive climate system is partly due to a misinterpretation of our observations of climate variability. For example, when low cloud cover is observed to decrease with warming, this has been interpreted as the clouds responding to the warming in such a way that then amplifies it. This is called “positive feedback,” which translates into high climate sensitivity.

But what if the decrease in low clouds were the cause, rather than the effect, of the warming? While this might sound like too simple a mistake to make, it is surprisingly difficult to separate cause and effect in the climate system. And it turns out that any such non-feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback operating.

The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.

While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding for climate change research.

Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our climate, but people aren’t allowed to.

It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in recent years.

I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time to come.

Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month.

According to statics provided by Gore, Global warming will benefit mankind, however he spins it that things will get worse as pointed out by Joe Bastardi from Accuweather.

UNBELIEVABLE: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat.

I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted… by anyone.

The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mssr. Gore’s premises grows by the day.

What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility.

When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for lack of a better word, in something known as the “orals,” at least it was for those venturing into those waters at PSU.

In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he will ever know.

You be the judge of this statement, and consider the source: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat.

In fact, here is an excerpt : “…I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. “That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off,” he tells Stahl.
I want to say that I have tried my best to be opened minded about this issue. But the more research I do, the more some of the claims of Bill Gray and John Coleman ring true.

However, I am all for non-carbon based energy as a way of increasing the quality of life, and that has nothing to do with what I consider grossly overstated scare tactics. Let me direct you to a site to keep an eye on: http://www.francis.edu/ActionCenter.htm I have been told they are developing some kind of home-based energy generator powered by wind. The idea is you store the energy created by wind. Given I live in the Boulder, Colorado of the East, count me in. As it is, we are getting a house with a geothermal unit in it that cuts electric bills by up to 50%. So I don’t need to hear I am some kind of nut that thinks the Earth is flat, especially from a man who refuses to stand up one-on-one with anyone that can confront him fact for fact.

Last night I read an interesting story. GLobal warming is responsible for 770,000,000 people on Earth starving. Is that so? Never mind it could be a myriad of things, let’s say that is right. The article also says that my 2085, that number may be 880,000,000.

These people have to assume that we are plain stupid. Seriously. The Earth’s population has increased four-fold in the last 100 years. Suppose we assume in the next 80 years we only double the population. Right now the percentage of people starving because of global warming (and I am being nice in giving them their figure, even though any objective person would question that) is about 13 percent of the world’s population. In 2085, assuming 12,000,000,000 people, (it’s liable to be more) if only 880,000,000 million are starving because of the climate, that means the percentage has dropped to less than 8 percent. So if we use that reasoning, global warming would have increased the chance of feeding a greater percentage of people.

But you see what is done here. It’s the same thing that is done across the board. Games played, and unless you look, you’ll get taken.

It is funny. Lenin said, in his statement that was meant to say the ends justify the means as far as building his utopian society, that one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet. We can argue if that is valid, for one would have to assume almost a messianic quality to the person to know they are right about the future. Is Mssr. Gore assuming that about this issue? But if one destroys the entire egg itself, one cannot make an omelet (I hard boil my eggs and only eat the whites, so maybe that is why all this is hard for me to understand).

It’s astounding, I am constantly reading and re-reading counter arguments to this idea. Let’s remember, some of the major proponents with high powered doctorates that are on the other side, brilliant minds no doubt like Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, did not get their doctorate DEFENDING their global warming stance. It is not like there was a PhD dissertation with six PhDs, three pro and three con, challenging the assertions here. These come out of the natural curiousity and good will of these men, and I do not think they are anything less. However, you see the same thing with me in a way, when convinced of an idea on the future, because of hard work and research it’s very tough to back away. There is a difference, though, of blowing the 3-inch line on a snowstorm, or that Omaha’s winter was colder than I thought. We are talking issues that ORIGINATE WITH THE WEATHER, but have far reaching tentacles.

Now, anyone that believes he knows absolutely what is going to happen with the climate in the future, well you be the judge as to who is the card carrying member of the flat Earth society, that person, or the skeptic.

Al Gore Blog Hacked, Turn Up The Heat

Al Gore’s blog on climate change was hacked and the hackers put links to drugs like viagra and other what nots… Something is up here… Oh wait that was his old buddy Bill…

Al Gore’s Blog Hacked

Posted Nov 27th 2007 9:59AM by Tim Stevens
Filed under: Computers

Al Gore‘s blog — in which the former presidential candidate-turned-celebrity environmentalist posts updates on global warming and the documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth‘ — has been hacked. But it’s likely you’d never know it by looking at the thing.

That’s because most of the hack work is hidden. The hackers in this case gained access to the site through a security hole, then inserted hidden links into the blog posts. To see them, check out our gallery of screens below. Hidden in the source code of the site, we found link after link pointing to drugs like Xanax, Viagra, Tramadol, and just about any other drug you can think of. Not terribly riveting, we know, but we just wanted to offer you some proof.

So what’s the point of hidden links that you can’t see? The answer lies in the results you get on search engines like Google. By hijacking a very popular site like Al Gore’s, the hackers can get their own pages more prominently placed in search results on Google. That’s because these links can be seen by Google’s crawler, which runs through the hidden code of Web pages to figure out where to direct you should you search for something like, say, Xanax. Since these links appear in a very prominent page, in this case Gore’s blog, Google’s engine thinks they are important, so people who later search for Xanax in Google might very well be redirected to the hacker’s Web site over another.

Interestingly, the links point to another site that also seems to have been hacked, making this literal web of intrigue a bit thicker. Don’t worry, it’s nothing to fear on your end as far as security or viruses are concerened. It’s also doubtful that the guilty party will ever be caught, but we’re hoping that Al calls his system administrator in short order and gets those links removed. This kind of pollution, at least, is easily cleaned. Unfortunately, right now, some poor chump is probably buying Viagra from the company that employed these hackers to give them Google search prominence.

Global Warming A Myth – Founder of The Weather Channel

The founder of the Weather Channel is calling the Gore cry about Global Warming a Myth… Wow, I wonder if Gore watches the Weather Channel?

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We’re going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members — assuming journalism hasn’t been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

[…]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

Let’s hope so, John; let’s hope so.

Shrubs & Soot – Not Bush & Suits

Another horrible nail in the Al Gore Global Warming Scandel… After a recent highschool graduate testitfied for Congress on Global Warming effects in Alaska, we should all be panicing as the devestating effects and soon to be reality of Al Gore’s Truths. Well another Dr. has refuted Gore’s assertation that Humans are the cause of Global Warming. It seems that nature has it’s own hand in the effects of our environment. What a shocker.

Dr. Roger Pielke forwarded me his latest paper published in the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, for release. It has quite a different take on the issue of regional warming in Alaska. Given the emotional testimony given in congress this week by Cheryl Charlee Lockwood, who is a recent high school graduate and works in the Alaska Youth for Environmental Action program, before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, this study seemed relevant to current events.

From the abstract:

“Invasive shrubs and soot pollution both have the potential to alter the surface energy balance and timing of snow melt in the Arctic. Shrubs reduce the amount of snow lost to sublimation on the tundra during the winter leading to a deeper end-of-winter snowpack. The shrubs also enhance the absorption of energy by the snowpack during the melt season by converting incoming solar radiation to longwave radiation and sensible heat. Soot deposition lowers the albedo of the snow, allowing it to more effectively absorb incoming solar radiation and thus melt faster.”

“The results of the simulations suggest that a complete invasion of the tundra by shrubs leads to a 2.2°C warming of 3 m air temperatures and a 108 m increase in boundary layer depth during the melt period. The snow-free date also occurred 11 d earlier despite having a larger initial snowpack. The results also show that a decrease in the snow albedo of 0.1, owing to soot pollution, caused the snow-free date to occur 5 d earlier. The soot pollution caused a 1.0°C warming of 3 m air temperatures.”

The entire paper can be viewed here (PDF file) There is some precededence for the soot theory, as seen in this 2003 NASA News Release where they say “…black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.”

Solar Cycles, Seasonal CO2 Levels, Not Humans – Global Warming

I wonder what Al Gore has to say about this article which clearly shows the cyclical nature of “Global Warming”. As usually the liberal media has surpressed another scientific piece of evidence against Gores assertations that Global Warming is caused by Humans solely.

Moderators note: This is reposted from an essay that Jim sent to me. Jim was the State Climatologist for California for many years, and still does consilting work for the Californiua Dept. of Water Resources on rainfall studies. Jim has a command of simplicity in presentation, as you’ll read below. Jim’s presentation lends some insight into why CO2 increases lag temperature in historical and proxy climate records. Jim has also done another essay I’ve posted which relates The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Sunspots, and Length of Day variances to rainfall patterns in California which you can read here.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Variation
Jim Goodridge
California State Climatologist (retired)
jdgoodridge [at] sbcglobal dot net

11/3/2007

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is commonly modeled with the measurements from NOAA”S Mauna Loa observatory; the annual rate of increase in this data set is 1.4 parts per million.

This increase fluctuates 6.3 ppm on an annual cycle with the highest in May and the lowest values in October.

The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is listed in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics as a
declining function of temperature.

The rising values of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the time of the Mouna Loa measurements could clearly be a function of reduced solubility of CO2 in the oceans of the Planet.

The source of heat needed to drive the increasing carbon dioxide from the oceans of Earth into the atmosphere is the Sun. The solar irradiance has been measured from orbiting satellites since 1978. Irradiance was highly correlated with the historic sunspot numbers.

Schove’s index of sunspot numbers dated from the year 1500. Combining Schoves index with the Royal Belgium Observatory’s measurements an index 1749 a 500-year index of irradiance was developed.

If we are to believe that the irradiance and sunspot numbers correlate for the 3 sunspot cycles from 1975 to 2005 them it can be assumed that a correlation for the 1500 to 2005 follows. It is common to think of individual sunspot cycles to be independent events. This was not the case during the Maunder Minimum of sunspot activity from 1650 to 1710 when Earth was in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

The sunspot record needs to be examined in its entirety rather than as individual sunspot cycles. The method to do this is by calculating the accumulated departure from the average of all the sunspot numbers of the entire 500-year index. This reveals the cooling during the Maunder Minimum and the current “global warming”. The current warming of 15 watts per square meter began in 1935, based on the sunspot record.

The reason oxygen is 600 times as abundant as carbon dioxide is due to the robustness of microorganisms. The oxygen-carbon dioxide balance on the Planet has for billions of years been a function of the photosynthesis process.

Gore’s Inconvient Truth Filled With Nothing But Hot Air

Al Gore’s Inconvinient Truth Lie has been laid to task by a British Judge. Each of the “Facts” has been discredited, leaving only opinion. What is worse is Gore knew these were lies and used them anyways. He had the opportunity to remove said footage prior to its release, but chose to leave it in so as not to provide opponents and ammunition against him. Another words HE LIED!!!!

 Thank you Al, for pushing the panic button in order to line your own pockets with “Green” Money…

A British judge ruled on the eve of Al Gore co-winning the Nobel Peace Prize that students forced to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” must be warned of the film’s factual errors. But would there be any science at all left in Gore’s “truth” if these errors and their progeny were excised?

Minutes of non-science filler dominate the opening sequence — images of the Gore farm, Earth from space, Gore giving his slideshow and the 2000 election controversy. Gore then links Hurricane Katrina with global warming. But the judge ruled that was erroneous, so the Katrina scenes would wind up on the cutting-room floor.

Another 12 minutes of filler go by — images of Gore in his limo, more Earth photos, a Mark Twain quote, and Gore memories — until about the 16:30 minute mark, when, according to the judge, Al Gore erroneously links receding glaciers — specifically Mt. Kilimanjaro — with global warming.

The Mt. Kilimanjaro error commences an almost 10-minute stretch of problematic footage, the bulk of which contains Gore’s presentation of the crucial issue in the global warming controversy — whether increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide drive global temperatures higher. As the judge ruled that the Antarctic ice core data presented in the film “do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts,” this inconvenient untruth also needs to go. [Note to readers: A video debate between Al Gore and climatologists on this point produced by me can be viewed by clicking here.] /**/

After still more filler footage about Winston Churchill, the 2000 election, and rising insurance claims from natural disasters, Gore spends about 35 seconds on how the drying of Lake Chad is due to global warming. The judge ruled that this claim wasn’t supported by the scientific evidence.

More filler leads to a 30-second clip about how global warming is causing polar bears to drown because they have to swim greater distances to find sea ice on which to rest. The judge ruled however, that the polar bears in question had actually drowned because of a particularly violent storm.

On the heels of that error, Gore launches into a 3-minute “explanation” of how global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and send Europe into an ice age. The judge ruled that this was an impossibility.

Two minutes of ominous footage — casting Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in a creepy light and expressing Gore’s frustration with getting his alarmist message out — precede a more-than-9-minute stretch that would need to be cut.

In this lengthy footage, Gore again tries to link global warming with discrete events including coral reef bleaching, the melting of Greenland, catastrophic sea level rise, Antarctic melting and more. But like Hurricane Katrina, these events also shouldn’t be linked with global warming.

Based on the judge’s ruling, the footage that ought to be excised adds up to about 25 minutes or so out of the 98-minute film. What’s left is largely Gore personal drama and cinematic fluff that has nothing to do with the science of climate change.

It should also be pointed out that Gore makes other notable factual misstatements in the film that don’t help his or his film’s credibility.

He says in the film that polio has been “cured,” implying that we can cure “global warming.” While a preventative polio vaccine does exist, there is no “cure” for polio.

Gore attempts to smear his critics by likening them to the tobacco industry. In spotlighting a magazine advertisement proclaiming that “more doctors smoke Camel than any other brand,” he states that the ad was published after the Surgeon General’s 1964 report on smoking and lung cancer. But the ad is actually from 1947 — 17 years before the report.

Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10.

Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn’t want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.

“An Inconvenient Truth” grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.

Considering that a key 25 percent of “An Inconvenient Truth” is not true — and perhaps intentionally so — it seems only fair that Gore offer a refund to moviegoers, DVD/book purchasers and speaking sponsors. Where are the class action lawyers when you need them?

Obama Clearing the Air

Obama has jumped on the Al Gore bandwagon, his plan financially destructive. Does he realize the cost on the average American to accomplish this goal. There is the basic financial burden to purchase for your home the new equipment to become energy efficient. The second burden falls on the tax payers to finance the governments conversion. The third burden falls upon the consumer when companies raise their prices to compensate for the higher tax they will need to pay. And for what? Is there any proof that this will change global warming? No.

He, and most of the liberal left,  is asking for companies to commit suicide by financing their demise. What do they think the new companies will do when they have the market share? They will increase prices. Even now, to purchase a hybrid car is not cost effective. To by the standard gas version is far cheaper, and no the tax benefit does not make up the difference.

Hey I have a novel idea, why not try to develope technology to clean the air of pollutants, this approach would solve the global warming problem, allow a longer transition to cleaner fuels, relieve the financial burden on the average person.

Nano technology is remarkable powerful, get those little guys to fix the problem instead of the bandaid fix the liberals want to execute on each of us.

On energy, Obama proposed using $150 billion from the sale of allowances to stimulate climate-friendly energy and economic development. Included would be developing the next generation of biofuels and fuel delivery infrastructure, accelerating commercial production of plug-in hybrid vehicles, promoting larger-scale renewable energy projects and low-emission coal plants, and making the electricity grid digital.

He also called for making government, businesses and homes 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030, with all federal government buildings carbon neutral by 2025. Incandescent light bulbs would be phased out by 2014, a measure Obama estimates would save consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills.

Bio Fuels will Accelerate Global Warming

A recent international study has found that BioFuels such as Ethanol emite up to 70% more greenhouse gases, particularly nitrous oxide, than fossil fuel. Nitrous Oxide is 300 times more damaging than carbon monoxide. This is the second study that has come to this conclusion, which will surely be brushed aside by the likes of Al Gore and others that want to blame humans for Gloabal Warming. The alternative fuels sources are becoming slimmer. More Green Credits please…

Another hiddedn jem in this article, that the liberal left will deny, is that the study also found that the human effect, man-made causes, is only responsible for 2% of Global Warming. Holy Jesus, what about the other 98%? Please Mr. Gore, answer that. Additionally if the US were to move to biofuels,, man-made emissions would rise to 6%, that is a 300% increase in greenhouse gases. Time to wake up America, the liberals are using smoke a mirrors, ultimately to make money for themselves.

The Al Gore campers have been trying to convince the public were are all so bad and we need to spend massive amounts of money to change to “green” engery and we will have to give up our daily convinience unless we have green credits. What a load of crap. Speaking of crap, guess what contains a lot of nitrogen based compounds that release into the air. Guess what will be used to rapidly grow corn for Ethanol. If you guessed the crap that keeps coming from the Gore campers, your were right.

A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.

Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.

Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties.

Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.

“One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions,” said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers.

Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production.

Professor Smith told Chemistry World: “The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto.”

It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels “can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”.

The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, where it has been placed for open review. The research team was formed of scientists from Britain, the US and Germany, and included Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone.

Dr Franz Conen, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, described the study as an “astounding insight”.

“It is to be hoped that those taking decisions on subsidies and regulations will in future take N2O emissions into account and promote some forms of ’biofuel’ production while quickly abandoning others,” he told the journal’s discussion board.

Dr Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, used the findings to calculate that with the US Senate aiming to increase maize ethanol production sevenfold by 2022, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will rise by 6 per cent.

John Edwards Buying Al Gore’s Left Over Carbon Credits

Ed Grubman has pics of Edwards getting into his SUV after telling a group of machinists they should sacrafice their SUVs.

Here we go with the Al Gore Carbon Credit crap. Another words if you are rich you are exempt because you will buy carbon credit, what a load of crap.

• My Little Pony John Edwards A Hypocrate? Noooo!

Aug 29th, 2007 by Ed

While speaking to the Machinists Union in Florida on Tuesday he says:

“I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,” Edwards said during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. “One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles.”

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVS, he said, “Yes.”

Now as Dumbocrats/Liberals/Hypocrates normally do they mean do as I say not as I do…

This is Edwards getting into his SUV… In Iowa Hillary rode around in an 18-Wheeler. Obama an RV, and Edwards in a Cadillac SRX Crossover which gets just 15 MPG.

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz says they buy carbon offsets for the vehicles, and adds:
“John Edwards believes that all Americans need to be patriotic about something other than war, and that means conserving at home, at work, and in the cars they drive. And that includes the Edwards family. They drive a hybrid Ford Escape, but they also still own a Chrysler Pacifica – which they use less often. He is reducing his own impact on global warming by driving a hybrid, building an energy-efficient home, and subsidizing renewable energy to offset the carbon emissions of his home, vehicles, and his campaign.”

All of this of course happens when he’s not flying around the US in a private jet which has been proven to be far worse than driving even the least fuel efficient car.

In a Boston Herald article in 2004 they really nailed Flipper Kerry for his hypocracy…

Now we’ve truly heard it all. Rising gas prices are the latest John Kerry [related, bio] campaign theme, so naturally the senator was asked this week about his personal vehicle usage.

Kerry insisted, “I don’t own an SUV.”

When pressed about a Chevrolet Suburban, the mother of all SUVs, kept at the Heinz Kerry abode in Idaho, Kerry said: “The family has it. I don’t have it.”

And that’s without mentioning the other gas-guzzlers this candidate and his family enjoy, all the while posturing about reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and fuel efficiency.

At last count, there were eight “family” cars and SUVs, including the 1995 Suburban (15 mpg highway, 12 mpg city), a 1993 Land Rover Defender (12 mpg highway, 10 mpg city), a 1989 Jeep Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 16 mpg city), a 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a 2001 Audi Allroad (21 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser (25 mpg highway, 20 mpg city), a 1985 Dodge 600 Convertible (26 mpg highway, 23 mpg city), and a 2002 Chrysler 300M (26 mpg highway, 18 mpg city). Kerry, however, only owns up to the latter two.

Do as I say not as I do huh? Well the Nanny State in which we are all slowly being brought into has finally arrived. They seem to feel that they need to tell us what to do because we are too stupid to make our own decisions n this world. I know I am not a Sheeple, i have a sports car that gets about 25-30 MPG on the highway. I enjoy spending my money on my kids and not on some Arabian’s in ground da-durka shaped pool. If they want us to like them quit bullshifting us thinking we don’t know what they are up to!

Gore Invented Global Warming in 1922

As a follow up to the Michelle Maklin’s  Hot News and my own Al Gore Sequel: A Convenient Lie …

Another nail in the Al Gore Global Warming Coffin. The Washington Post reports that a John Lockwood, a Washington DC resident has discovered an article in the Library of Congress that shows that in 1922 Global Warming and the Melting of the Ice Caps was already happening.

This comes back to back with the NASAY2K glitch in the programing and the recent addition of natural weather patterns to the model.

This is starting to look like natural phenomenon is the cause, not humans. But wait I will bet that the Liberals and Gore will spin it that we have increased the speed or made it worse, or that because of humans, the Earth cannot correct itself…

 D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.”

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention “great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,” and “at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

“This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s,” says Mr. Lockwood. “I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all.”

Europe has been struggling with the effectiveness of becoming green. The cost of alone is hurting the EU and then there are the situations where power plants have to go off line to meet green requirements. Now they are reconsidering the value of following this dangerous path.

Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly “global warming” policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

And now the spin

The Architect of the Capitol estimates that by having installed energy-efficient comfort-control systems and lighting, including occupancy sensors that automatically turn off lights when they are not needed, they are saving American taxpayers more than $2.2 million per year.

And how much was invested to go green? How long will it take to make it a true savings for each family? How many are getting rich of off this scheme? I installed energy efficient light bulbs in my house 2.5 years ago and the cost versus how much I have saved is still in favor of cost. I think maybe in another 3-4 years I will break even, which will be about the time I have to replace my long life energy efficient bulbs. As for my central AC, if I replaced it now, for an average cost of $10,000, how long will it take until I save that much in my electric bill. I pay about $200-250 /month during the summer, that includes my lights, TV, home entertainment devices, electric stove, water heater, refrigerator two computers running 24/7, 3 clocks, washer/dryer and Central AC. During the winter I pay 250-350 with the same. During the fal and spring it drops to about $100. So if I save 50-100 per year by upgrading my Central AC, it should only take me 10-20 years to break even. Hey time to buy a new AC unit. I think I will stick with my non-energy efficient system until it breaks down.