Re: Al Gore re-surfaces; THE GODS ARE LAUGHING

AL GORE'S PROPAGANDA MELTDOWN
By JOSEPH BAST
AFRIEND invited me to a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's
film about global warming, when it arrived in Chicago recently. It was
sponsored by an environmental group and the theater was filled with
Gore fans. They seemed to love it. I found it frightening.

In the style of a previous generation of propaganda films, Gore
substitutes vivid images of the alleged effects of global warming for
an accurate account of the scientific debate. We see glaciers calving
into the sea, giant storms sweeping through resort areas, burning
deserts, even a cartoon polar bear swimming aimlessly, searching for a
place to rest.

But all of the events in this movie have been occurring since before
human activities could possibly have caused them. Glaciers have broken
off into seas for millions of years; storms obviously predate modern
civilization and its emissions, and real-life polar bears know better
than to head into open water during the Arctic summer. At any given
time in earth's history, some glaciers have been expanding while others
were shrinking.

Early in the movie, Gore shows us images of Mount Kilimanjaro's
disappearing snow cap and blames the loss on global warming. But
scientists say the disappearing snow is due to changes in land use at
the bottom of the mountain, causing drier air to rise up the
mountainside.

Later, we see ice melting in the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic.
More evidence of global warming? Not necessarily. Scientists say
temperatures in the Arctic were higher during the 1930s and the current
melting is probably part of a natural cycle caused by ocean currents,
not greenhouse gases. And only small parts of Greenland and the
Antarctic are melting: Snow and ice are accumulating as rapidly in
other parts, for a net loss of around zero.

Gore ignores these inconvenient facts because, he says, the only people
who disagree with him are oil-company stooges. At one point, he
compares scientists who disagree with him to apologists for the tobacco
industry.

So what are we to make of Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg,
Robert Balling at Arizona State, Sallie Baliunas at Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics, Bob Carter at James Cook University in
Australia, Randall Cerveny at Arizona State, John Christy at the
University of Alabama, Robert Davis at the University of Virginia,
Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Oliver
Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm
University and Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration?

And David Legates at the University of Delaware, Henry Linden at IIT,
Richard Lindzen at MIT, Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph,
Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dick Morgan at the
University of Exeter, Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Roger Pielke
Jr. at the University of Colorado, Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth, Willie
Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, Roy Spencer at the University
of Alabama and Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki?

All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected
universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals.
Some, like Lindzen, are undisputed leading thinkers in their fields.
Yet all dispute Gore's alarmist claims.

So whom are you going to believe, Al Gore or real scientists?

There are plenty of other errors and exaggerations in the movie, which
people more expert than I are documenting and exposing. Suffice it to
say, "An Inconvenient Truth" contains very little truth, and a big
helping of propaganda.

What frightens me is the probability that Al Gore himself believes the
hype he's trying to sell. Those who've watched him give his PowerPoint
presentation and have discussed it with him say he does.

Everyone has the right to run for president, even several times, and
apparently Gore plans to seek his party's nomination in 2008.

But do we want to put the incredible powers of the presidency in the
hands of what Eric Hoffer called a "true believer," someone who ignores
evidence and opinions that contradict his faith?

Anonymous AtWork wrote:
William Hamblen wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:12:20 GMT, " Astronomie" <GAY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Technically it is a pollutant. It causes adverse reactions in the form of
trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a necessity of life. If there were no
atmospheric carbon dioxide there would be no photosynthesizing plants.
If there were no photosynthesizing plants there would be no animal
life.

If the atmosphere did not "trap heat" temperatures on the surface of
the Earth would mimic temperatures on the surface of the Moon.

Either situation is incompatible with human life.

This same argument can be used to prove that one should take megadoses
of vitamin B...but that would kill you.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Ciao, Tony
    ... analogy and explained that I trying to make the point -- not that Gore ... conflicting scientific evidence about it that only scientists can ... If he's the global warming expert that he sets ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: GW (was: Guidelines...)
    ... Why did Al Gore spend $30,000 on personal energy on his Nashville ... There are, finally, more educated scientists every day that are ... Ozone - it's going back to normal when the media claimed that it was ... If CO2 Global Warming is occurring, ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • Gore camp suggests scientists bought off
    ... Gore camp suggests scientists bought off ... Report called global warming worries 'entirely without merit' ... "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling - all ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Global Warming - Just A Big Mistake?
    ... >>>> In his enviro-propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore ... >>>> one of the centrepieces of global warming hysteria: ... > at who is publishing in respected science journals and adequately ... > I would examine with an open mind examples of credible scientists who ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Generating electricity?
    ... Al Gore got his stupid Nobel prize winning it for his bogus movie, 'An inconvenient truth' which is by now, fairly panned for it's lack of veracity on more than a few levels, ... Stung by criticism of his worthiness for the honor and horrified that climate change questioners occasionally manage to get their voices heard, Gore testily told "The Today Show" that the media is paying too much attention to global warming skeptics — and compared them to people who still believe the earth is flat. ... Well tell that to one of his co winners from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who managed to insert his balanced conclusion. ... Awarding the Nobel Prize for such flawed science is a disgrace." ...
    (rec.martial-arts)