Al Gore is a Hypocrite

[Solo]

Monday, 03/19/07

Tenn. mine enriched Gore, scarred land
No major pollution violations, but threat remains

By BILL THEOBALD
Tennessean Washington Bureau

CARTHAGE, Tenn. - Al Gore has profited from zinc mining that has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances near his farmstead, but there is no evidence the mine has caused serious damage to the environment in the area or threatened the health of his neighbors.

Two massive white mountains of leftover rock waste are evidence of three decades of mining that earned Gore more than $500,000 in royalty payments for the mineral rights to his property.

Entire Article can be read at The Tennessean.com

 

[Solo]

Al Gore Continues to Demand Special Treatment
March 20, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano – 8:08 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov


From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s (EPW) hearing rules.

Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday’s (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET.
(See "FULL COMMITTEE: Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming" )

The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.

But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.


But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill -- the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore.

As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.

The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) -- the day of the hearing.

It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.

The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?

Stay tuned…

Retrieved from U.S. Senate Commitee on Environment and Public Works Website

 

[jgredline]

"You're not just off a little, you're totally wrong," said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as he challenged Gore's conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures. Barton and Gore's exchange grew testy at one point - Barton demanding that Gore get to the point and Gore responding that he would like time to answer without being interrupted.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070321/D8O0O1I00.html

 

[Solo]

WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE
HYSTERIA
Exposing the secret agenda behind
today's obsession with global warming

Posted: March 1, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The U.N. recently announced global warming is leading inexorably to global catastrophe. Al Gore won the "best documentary" Oscar for his disaster film "An Inconvenient Truth." The news media beat the drum of "climate catastrophe" daily, all but ignoring scientists who say the threat is overblown or nonexistent. And across America, school children are frightened to death with tales of rising oceans, monster tornadoes, droughts and millions dying – all because of man-made global warming.

However, hidden just beneath the surface of the world's latest environmental craze is a stunningly different reality, as the March edition of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine documents.

Titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming," Whistleblower tells the rest of the story the "mainstream press" will never reveal.

To begin with, those who believe the dire warnings of today's establishment press should know, as U.S. Sen. James Inhofe has pointed out, that "for more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."

Believe it or not, over the last century America's major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times – each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean "billions will die." In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times' headline blared, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an "almost unprecedented magnitude."

Today, to cover all their bases, much of the press is changing its terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" or "climate catastrophe." That way they're covered either way: If the world gets colder, global warming is still at fault.

But hot-and-cold press coverage is just the beginning. Whistleblower's "HYSTERIA" issue reveals exactly why so many scientists, journalists and others (even the president's speechwriters now have him pay lip service to "climate change") are so gripped by global warming fever.

Here's a hint: As "Deep Throat" famously told Washington Post "Watergate" reporter Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."

Whistleblower shows how all the main players – from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming. Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up international fears over global warming, a panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries has now reported to the U.N. that the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a global tax – on greenhouse gas emissions.

That's right. Global problems, real or conjured up, require global governmental solutions. As Whistleblower explains, environmentalism is nothing less than the global elitists' replacement ideology for communism/socialism. With communism largely discredited today – after all, 100-150 million people died at the hands of communist "visionaries" during the last century – elitists who desire to rule other people's lives have gravitated to an even more powerful ideology. More powerful because it seems to trump all other considerations, as it claims the very survival of life on earth is dependent on implementing its agenda.

Thus, while scientists and climatologists who dare to question the rigid orthodoxy of man-made catastrophic global warming are openly ridiculed and threatened with decertification, the movement for global governance, complete with global taxation, is moving into the fast lane.

"Global warming will be one of the most powerfully coercive weapons in the globalists' arsenal for the foreseeable future," said David Kupelian, WND managing editor and author of "The Marketing of Evil." "It's important that everyone understands the game being played. This issue of Whistleblower provides a powerful antidote to all the hysteria – namely, common sense and truth."

Retrieved from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54483

 

[Solo]

Al Gore’s Congressional Lovefest
Thursday, March 22, 2007

By Steven Milloy

Al Gore unabashedly announced in Congress this week that he’s coming for our wallets.

In his over-the-top testimony about global warming being a “planetary emergency†and “the greatest crisis we’ve ever faced,†Gore testified on behalf of energy taxes and other policies that would result in more expensive energy  including a total ban on the incandescent light bulb.

For attentive listeners, Gore also contradicted his own prior statements and debunked his alarmism.

Testifying before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Wednesday, Gore drew mostly praise and softball  if not sycophantic  questions from congressional Democrats and even many Republicans.

Those few Republicans like Texas Rep. Joe Barton and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe who tried to grill Gore operated at quite a disadvantage given that they were no longer the chairmen of their committees and had little control over the hearing process.

In the Senate, Committee Chair Barbara Boxer ran interference for Gore by disrupting Inhofe’s questioning, and then added insult to injury by mocking the senator  to audience applause  for no longer heading up the committee.

Ultimately, Gore’s exposure to tough questioning was extremely limited while the committee chairs allowed ample time for meaningless pleasantries and redundant fawning. Given what’s at stake in the global warming debate, the hearings were an embarrassing abdication of congressional responsibility.

Nevertheless, there were several noteworthy instances reflecting poorly on Gore’s credibility, concern for the public’s welfare and scientific argument.

With respect to his credibility, Gore denied to the House committee that he ever said global warming would cause “more†hurricanes.

But all you need to do is look at the front matter of his own book, “An Inconvenient Truth,†where he writes, “The voluminous evidence now strongly suggests that unless we act boldly and quickly to deal with the underlying causes of global warming, our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes, including more and stronger storms like Hurricane Katrina, in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.â€Â

Gore’s testimony wasn’t given under oath, however.

On the Senate side, Inhofe confronted Gore with the hypocrisy of his preaching to the rest of us about the need to use less energy  by taking colder showers, hanging laundry outside to dry and keeping our homes colder in the winter and warmer in the summer, among other things  while his own personal electric bill for his Nashville mansion is 20 times the national average.

Gore responded that he purchases so-called “green energy† electricity produced by wind turbines, solar panels or methane gas  for his mansion.

What he failed to mention, however, is that he just began buying green energy in 2007, even though for years he’s been telling anyone who will listen that they need to green up their energy use.

Moreover, the green energy he buys in Nashville is not entirely “green.†The power produced with methane needs to be co-fired with coal, which produces carbon dioxide. Sure, less coal is used, but Gore testified in Congress that he purchases green energy that produces no carbon dioxide and that we should essentially have zero tolerance for electricity produced with coal.

Inhofe asked Gore to take a “personal energy ethics pledge†to consume no more energy than the average American household. Gore ignored the request.

Missouri Sen. Kit Bond showed Gore a picture of a young girl who, because her family can’t afford to heat their home, has one coat to wear inside and another to wear outside.

Asked how higher energy prices that would result from global warming regulations would affect the little girl, Gore ducked the question and only uttered support for the federal low-income energy program known as LIHEAP  the very plan that works so well, the little girl needs to wear a coat indoors.

And at the very end of the Senate hearing, Gore inadvertently debunked global warming alarmism.

Sen. Craig Thomas asked Gore the pivotal question of whether atmospheric carbon dioxide increases have historically preceded or followed increases in global temperature.

If temperature increases come before carbon dioxide increases, the notion that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are changing global temperatures would have the cause-and-effect relationship exactly backward.

Gore responded by describing how, depending on the Earth’s tilt and wobble as it revolves around the sun, sometimes carbon dioxide increases precede temperature increases and other times temperature increases precede carbon dioxide increases.

That led attentive listeners to wonder, well, why worry about manmade global warming if it’s the Earth’s tilt and wobble that define the carbon dioxide-temperature relationship?

Apparently realizing his self-defeating statement, Gore then tried to backtrack by saying that currently, carbon dioxide increases are preceding temperature increases. It was a desperate and revealing effort to get back on message.

Fortunately for Gore, Thomas failed to pick up on the sleight of hand, his time for questioning ran out and the frustrating hearing essentially ended at that point.

Based on how the Democrats managed the hearings, Gore’s warning that we have about 10 years to address global warming before “it’s too late,†his call for an immediate freeze on greenhouse gas emissions and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announced desire to have legislation drawn up by July 4, you might think a global warming bill is imminent.

But Inhofe intimated to a group of bloggers this week that Boxer doesn’t want legislation this year, preferring instead to have globalrming as a campaign issue in 2008.

Gore has repeatedly said  including at the hearings this week  that global warming is a “moral issue,†not a political one. If so, he apparently has yet to convince Boxer.

Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260485,00.html

 

[Relic]

GLOBAL WARMING LIARS; THE PROOF
Politicians' flights called wasteful

by Michael Rush


It’s been recently established that ex-VP and ecological warrior Al Gore uses over 20 times the amount of energy than the average American consumes, thereby illuminating a copious magnitude of hypocrisy on a man who had freshly been honored with the best documentary feature Academy Award for the runaway hit that is his global warming-cum-environmental treatise slash slideshow An Inconvienent Truth


My central problem with Al Gore’s particular brand of hypocrisy is the fact that he’s Al Gore: politician, celebrity, activist, and self-proclaimed internet architect. If he were just some guy spewing vomitous, mindless, unsolicited, insipid, and uninformed opinions in a blog on the internet that is rarely read by anyone (hmm… sounds sort of familiar), then his hypocrisies wouldn’t even register as a blip on my radar. But because he’s Al Gore (and not just any run-of-the-mill Al Gore mind you, but prognosticator and grand soothsayer to the follies of mankind in regards to global warming) we as the people of the world, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, expect the mighty almost-president to damn well practice what he damn well preaches. If he doesn’t commit to his publicly broadcast enviro-ideals, then I simply expect him to shut-up about this particular issue.

Enough on Al -- Lets talk about California Senator Dianne Fienstein and her "Carbon Footprint" The Los Angeles Times Report late in Feb

" A single cross-country round trip on a Gulfstream IV, or GIV, the model owned by Dianne Feinstein’s husband, churns out about 83,000 to 90,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, experts say. By contrast, on a per capita basis, the average American produces 50,000 pounds from all activities in an entire year. "

That’s almost twice as much carbon dioxide produced in just one cross-country trip. It would take me almost two years to produce as much CO2 that Feinstein craps out in one trip to the D.C. and back. So assuming she were to fly hither and thither say, around 100 times a year, which would not be out of the realm of possibility for someone like Feinstein who works in the nations capital but calls California her home, our senator would excrete close to 9 million pounds of CO2 in only one year. Ack! How can my poor, defenseless atmosphere stave off such a fiendish attack?

Of course the article also lists California Governor Arnold as another particularly vocal enviro-hypocrite–the attitudinizer (yes, it’s an actual word) so to speak. But now a new, previously unheard of, pseudo-phrase has been thrown into the mix, created I’m assuming to excuse those who evangelize eco-friendliness while engaging in behavior that is unequivocally eco-hostile, such as Schwarzenegger’s exhortations of energy conservation despite his unbridled love affair with the Hummer–a decidedly mother nature-terminating, gas guzzling behemoth. What is this new phrase? Carbon offsets.


So what are carbon offsets?

"A carbon offset is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases. A wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common."

Proper to the LA Times article, apparently Feinstein has already been purchasing carbon offsets for a while now, while Schwarzenegger is intending to buy into this scheme imminently. And though it appears purchasing carbon offsets is a relatively inexpensive proposal, allowing the buyer a certain sense of inflated ego and magnanimity, the results are a bit questionable. I don’t mean to imply that planting trees offers no real benefit to the environment, but to offset the damage caused by brutal enviro-terrorists like Feinstein, Schwarzenegger, and Gore proves a daunting task indeed.

In order to right the damage done by only one Feinstein trip to Washington D.C., one would have to plant 1,800 trees. So what if the carbon offset organizations simply don’t have enough time or man-power to plant 1,800 trees in one go? Well, one could simply plant a much more manageable number–say 90 trees–but those trees would have to be managed for 20 years before they offered a return on only one Feinstein jet trip. Assuming Feinstein probably makes around 100 Gulfstream IV private trips back and forth, a carbon offset team would be required to plant 180,000 trees per year in order to battle the gross injustice Feinstein commits against the environment.

So are these carbon offset companies actually planting 1,800 trees per every flight Senator Feinstein embarks upon? I somehow doubt it, and this seems nothing more than a deflection scheme designed to allow the powerful and wealthy to continue their environmentally damaging behavior while they persist in preaching and condescending to the rest of us how to live our lives ecologically sound while admonishing us when we stray from their politically correct, beneficent path.

source: http://www.savage-productions.com/gulf_stream_pols.html

.

 

[Solo]

................................... :roll: GLOBAL WARMING as of April 08, 2007!!!! :roll:

................................Record-Shattering Cold Threatens Crops

.........................................Coldest April Easter in 57 years



.

 

[Guest]

Isn't Global Warming about the tempteratures of the OCEANS warming, which will result in CLIMATE CHANGE?

 

[Solo]

Isn't Global Warming about the tempteratures of the OCEANS warming, which will result in CLIMATE CHANGE?

It depends on which snake oil saleman you ask. I wonder what changes the Oceans temperatures? Climate?

 

[Solo]

Top Hurricane Forecaster Calls Al Gore 'Gross Alarmist' for Film on Global Warming
Sunday, April 08, 2007

NEW ORLEANS  A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

Retreived from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264742,00.html

 

[Vic C.]

Woohoo Solo, do you know here in the Northeast, we had temps on Sunday 5* colder than Christmas Day? :o :-D

Global warming may be a fact. Warming and cooling trends have been charted throughout history. How much or little we humans contribute to it may remain a mystery.

If anyone is really interested in the facts and not just from one side, you need to watch this video or read the transcripts from the Charlie Rose interview with Michael Crichton. They talk about DNA research as well.

Watch Video or Read Transcript here: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/

Personally, I think Michael does a good job defusing the issue. Most of the left-wing may disagree with him though. 8-)

 

[paisley]

What's new? He has been doing this sort of hypocrisy for years just as most politicians do. It seems to me that the politicians and rich celebrities want average Americans to be the ones to suffer with all their policies and pay for all their crazy ideas, but they are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. And many politicians are more than eager to send our children out to fight their wars but are not willing to fight themselves or send their kids. There is a reason that politicians have the reputation they have. Gore just is a typical poster boy. Hilary wants all kids to go to public school but of course her Chelsea was too good for that. Some politicians want to distribute the wealth of common people, while they have to decide which of their 2 or 3 mansions they want to spend the season in.

 

[Solo]

March 2007 – "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming"

The U.N. recently announced global warming is leading inexorably to global catastrophe. Al Gore won the "best documentary" Oscar for his disaster film "An Inconvenient Truth." The news media beat the drum of "climate catastrophe" daily, all but ignoring scientists who say the threat is overblown or nonexistent. And across America, school children are frightened to death with tales of rising oceans, monster tornadoes, droughts and millions dying – all because of man-made global warming.

However, hidden just beneath the surface of the world's latest environmental craze is a stunningly different reality, as the March edition of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine documents.

Titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming," Whistleblower tells the rest of the story the "mainstream press" will never reveal.

To begin with, those who believe the dire warnings of today's establishment press should know, as U.S. Sen. James Inhofe has pointed out, that "for more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."

Believe it or not, over the last century America's major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times – each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean "billions will die." In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times' headline blared, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an "almost unprecedented magnitude."

Today, to cover all their bases, much of the press is changing its terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" or "climate catastrophe." That way they're covered either way: If the world gets colder, global warming is still at fault.

But hot-and-cold press coverage is just the beginning. Whistleblower's "HYSTERIA" issue reveals exactly why so many scientists, journalists and others (even the president's speechwriters now have him pay lip service to "climate change") are so gripped by global warming fever.

Here's a hint: As "Deep Throat" famously told Washington Post "Watergate" reporter Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."

Whistleblower shows how all the main players – from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming. Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up international fears over global warming, a panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries has now reported to the U.N. that the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a global tax – on greenhouse gas emissions.

That's right. Global problems, real or conjured up, require global governmental solutions. As Whistleblower explains, environmentalism is nothing less than the global elitists' replacement ideology for communism/socialism. With communism largely discredited today – after all, 100-150 million people died at the hands of communist "visionaries" during the last century – elitists who desire to rule other people's lives have gravitated to an even more powerful ideology. More powerful because it seems to trump all other considerations, as it claims the very survival of life on earth is dependent on implementing its agenda.

Thus, while scientists and climatologists who dare to question the rigid orthodoxy of man-made catastrophic global warming are openly ridiculed and threatened with decertification, the movement for global governance, complete with global taxation, is moving into the fast lane.

"Global warming will be one of the most powerfully coercive weapons in the globalists' arsenal for the foreseeable future," said David Kupelian, WND managing editor and author of "The Marketing of Evil." "It's important that everyone understands the game being played. This issue of Whistleblower provides a powerful antidote to all the hysteria – namely, common sense and truth."

Retrieved from http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2043

 

[Relic]

.

Al Gore: 180 degrees off kilter- WND

by Hal Lindsay


There is no question planet Earth is entering a warming cycle. I have reported on it before. The critical issue is what interpretation is advanced to explain the cause of this phenomenon.

The more I read about the interpretation being proclaimed by the left-wing liberals, the more I am convinced that they're using global warming to both advance their one-world, anti-nationalism agenda and to raise money for their own personal political agendas. Some have achieved a "heady" celebrity status through this newfound cause that they couldn't attain by other means.

Recently, the San Antonio Express covered a speech Al Gore gave to a capacity crowd of "True Believers" who gathered to hear how buying "eco-credits" (from him) will save the planet.

The Express summarized the problem facing the planet, according to Gore:

"Global warming is the heating of the Earth caused in large part by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Most scientists agree such warming and the changing climate that comes with it will likely cause a number of problems and crises this century. ... [including] flooding and severe coastal erosion from rising seas and increasingly severe storms, more common and prolonged drought, and changes in the growing seasons and migration patterns of many wild species."

Well, if you read it in the newspaper, then it MUST be true – right?

Actually, if the phrase "most scientists" means "more than half," then a number of scientists don't agree. Gore's contention is that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

Six different Antarctic ice core studies, whose results were published in peer-reviewed scientific studies between 1999 and 2006, found exactly the opposite.

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes they say reaches back over the past 650,000 years (that is their number, not mine). All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures. But it is very important to note that the CO2 concentrations lagged behind changes in temperature, rather than led them.

The time lag between temperatures moving up or down and elevated greenhouse gas levels ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years. Even a non-scientist, faced with those statistics, could only conclude that global warming causes increased greenhouse gases – not vice versa. But the global warming scare is rooted entirely in the proposition that the opposite is the case.

Much is being made of the receding glaciers. What doesn't get much attention is what the receding glaciers reveal hidden beneath. The remains of human settlements, bones, arrowheads, pottery, copper and silver mines, flora and fauna, even the perfectly preserved remains of human beings – some of them dating back only a few centuries.

The "Iceman" found in a British Columbia glacier in 1999 was radiocarbon dated to about A.D.1450. Not only was his body perfectly preserved, so was his clothing. He died wearing little more than a light cloak and hat and thin leather moccasins. The food pouch he was carrying contained pieces of salmon.

What does that mean? It means that the glaciers weren't there 550 years ago. They receded during the Mediaeval Warming Period. But there is no record of catastrophic sea level changes and submerging coastlines. And it is unlikely that the industrial hydrocarbon pollution given off by humans in the years prior to A.D. 1000 were responsible for either the warming trend, or that buying "carbon offsets" brought on the Little Ice Age that followed.

I believe global warming is real, in the sense that the earth's temperature is rising in our era. It began rising in the mid 1970s – after the 30-year cooling trend that began in the 1940s that had 1970s scientists warning of a coming "ice age."

Recently, NASA issued a report that Mars is exhibiting the exact same global warming trends Al Gore says is being caused by humanity's overuse of carbon-based fuels. NASA's scientists say that the surface of Mars has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since the 1970s – almost the same rise in temperature levels as on planet Earth.

NASA used heat maps of the Martian surface from the 1970s Viking mission and compared them with maps from the 1990s Mars Global Surveyor project, which marked changes in temperature on the Red Planet.

On Mars, NASA says, it is because of the wildly fluctuating "solar activity" that commenced at the turn of the 21st century. But the Gore crowd proclaims it is being caused by human activity on Earth.

Two different planets in the same solar system, experiencing identical climate changes, but with utterly unrelated causes? An amazing coincidence? It seems unlikely. But the worldwide sense of panic is real enough, even if the purported cause is not.

As for me, I believe the promise of the universe's Creator concerning this planet's ecology. God promised mankind after the universal flood, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. 'While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.'" (Genesis 8:22 NASB)

In other words, though there may be cycles of change, there will not be catastrophic shifts that will end man's existence on this planet.

Two thousand years ago, before either the Mediaeval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age, Jesus Christ was asked by His disciples to reveal the signs that would indicate the end of this present age and Christ's imminent return.

On this, Jesus explained, "There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Luke 21:25-26 NASB)

This predicts there will be increasing super-storms caused by phenomena occurring in sun, moon and stars. He predicts the very powers of our galaxy will be shaken, but Christ returns in time to reset our ecology that will have been catastrophically damaged by the global war of Armageddon.

The violent increase in the frequency and intensity of super storms, largely caused by a warming cycle, is a sign of His imminent return. Jesus says of the generation that witnesses this change, "So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Matthew 24:33-34 NASB)

All the predicted signs are here, so we can expect the very things that are developing before our eyes to occur. It is time to make sure you are ready to meet God. Jesus Christ gave His life in your place to purchase a pardon for you. But you must confess your falling short of God's law and receive it.

source: Hal Lindsay


.

 

[Relic]

.

A list of scientists who oppose Global Warming Panic.
Dennis Prager

DP: For my listener, Allen, in Castro Valley, California, who wants me to name any scientist who disputes Al Gore’s theses, here is a list that I’d like to offer you, and it’s just a list of some of the biggest names. And later on, I’m going to go into the question of traffic. I’ve got a lot to talk to you about. But this is…I don’t say that Al Gore lies when he speaks about global warming. I think he’s hysterical on it. But I don’t say he lies. But it is a lie when he says that it is unanimous that it’s manmade, and that it’s catastrophic.


Claude Allègre is a member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, and the French Academy of Science. He’s a French geophysicist.


And Robert C. Balling, Jr. is director of the Office of Climatology, associate professor of geography, Arizona State University. “It is very likely that the recent upward trend in global surface temperature is very real, and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C.


Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."


David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006[7])


Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, professor at MIT, is considered one of the great experts in the world on weather, Richard Lindzen, MIT, National Academy of Sciences. Allen, I’ll have you react after this. I wonder what…I usually can predict reactions, but I can’t react my callers’ reaction on this. I trust you’re listening. Okay, next. That was Lindzen of MIT.


Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [10])


Scientists who conclude that natural causes are more likely to blame than human activities for observed rising temperatures from next include:


Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, Russian Academy of Sciences, supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity."


Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."


Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. “Climate changes naturally all the time.â€Â


George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the [yrl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_California]University of Southern California[/url].


Ian Clark, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.


Tim Patterson [31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada.


Frederick Seitz, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."


Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “…natural causes probably being more important over the past century.â€Â


Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."


Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations.â€Â


Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."


Allen in Castro Valley, California, have I answered your question?


Allen: Well, I just have a question. What experimentation…


DP: Wait, wait. First, answer mine. Have I answered your first question to name a scientist who disputes this?


Allen: Oh, yes. You gave me some names, and I appreciate that, but what experimentation and studies did they engage in that has been replicated that refutes the data that the people that have actually engaged in research studies and experimentation put forth. You’re saying that they are making a statement where they don’t…but what research and studies and experimentation do they do to actually refute the findings and the evidence that the people that found global warming have performed?


DP: How do you know that the research of these illustrious scientists is less impressive than the research of the scientists you agree with?


Allen: I didn’t say it was. I just didn’t hear you mention an experimentation or studies that they engaged in that has replicated and authenticated…


DP: All right, Allen, Allen, Allen, neither you nor I have the ability to answer that question. I don’t know how the doctor who gave me the flu shot came up…I don’t know how they came up with flu shots. I simply take one. It’s…you called up and you asked to name any scientist, in the singular, who disputes Al Gore and the global warming. I gave you the names of some of the greatest scientists in climatology on the face of the Earth today. And now you challenge their research? I have no comment. So here is…there is the verdict. Even those of you who believe that we are in the downward spiral to catastrophe, and are crying along with Amy Klobuchar’s 8 year old about penguins drowning, you have to acknowledge that what Al Gore said about the unanimity of scientists is a lie. I’m not saying what he says about global warming is a lie, because he may be right. I would bet everything I have, I am betting everything I have. I’m betting my reputation. I will look pretty bad if he turns out to be right. My grandchildren will think their grandfather was a kook, like the people who denied Galileo. I’ll worry about it.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
source: Dennis Prager


.

 

[Relic]

.


QUESTION: Who in 1997 championed the privatisation of California's National Oil Reserve, and the subsequent drilling by Occidental that resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a windfall for his family trust's Occidental stocks? (Occidental also put a pipeline through the Colombian rain forest.)


ANSWER: Al Gore, as US Vice President :roll:


.

 

[Guest]

.


QUESTION: Who in 1997 championed the privatisation of California's National Oil Reserve, and the subsequent drilling by Occidental that resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a windfall for his family trust's Occidental stocks? (Occidental also put a pipeline through the Colombian rain forest.)


ANSWER: Al Gore, as US Vice President :roll:


.

Can people see the error of their ways and change?

 

[Relic]

Can people see the error of their ways and change?

:o

Al Gore has not changed, nor has he seen the error of his ways.

Have you not been reading this thread?

Are you posting just to confuse or divert from off the real issue here, or what? :-?

.

 

[Guest]

:o

Al Gore has not changed, nor has he seen the error of his ways.

Have you not been reading this thread?

Are you posting just to confuse or divert from off the real issue here, or what? :-?

.

I have been reading posts to copies or links of other's peoples opinion who disagree with the idea of Global Warming.

I believe it is easy to throw darts at someone, without first looking at the issue of global warming and care for the environement.

The greater issue here is not Al Gore - but what is a Christians response to caring for the environment.

Which one of us has not been a hypocrite at some point in our life - if the idea of hypocrite is at one time expressing one idea and then later expressing another.

 

[Rick W]

Just one thing if I may.
"Global warming" is a term that's in process of being shied away from. That term is being ditched because in some areas things are cooling while other areas are warming. Therefore, to be less commited to one particular idea, to take a broader stance so-to-speak the term that is being adopted is "Climate change". It's a "safer" term.