Al (illuminati bloodline) Gores propaganda movie

[Mech]

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at [e-mail]

[Swamp Gas]

Again, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I do not want to fight over this, as that is not worth it. We must hear both sides of the argument.

Al Gore definitely has his faults, and did back some really bad ideas in the 90s, but he is standing up to the Bushistas. As far as bloodlines go, we all have some creepy people in our genetics. I wouold like for Gore to explain NAFTA though.


I did not see the movie yet, but we intend to. The reality is this....Major Oil and Energy companies are doing their damnest to keep hydrogen fuel, Electric, and Solar away from the public. Perhaps it is the 60s "hippy" roots that bother Right-Wingers, of alternative energy research, except that Hydrogen derived from water was thought of nearly 70 years ago. I think that legitimate environmentalist organizations have been bought out and infiltrated by energy companies, much like the Black Panthers and Anti-War movement was in the 60s.

Here is a huge blog dealing with the people cited in Carter's article. What I fnd interesting reading the comments there is that most of the Pro-Industry people are calling the environmentalists all kinds of names, and not the other way around.

digg.com/science/Scientists_respond_to_Gore_s_warnings_of_climate_catastrophe

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

In 2004 Science Magazine anylized 928 abstracts, published in peer reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change". (every abstract published with that key insertion)

Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position that fossil fuels were a major contributing factor to global climate change, rising sea levels, increasing storm activity, etc.. There's no doubt about this among scientists.

The only controversy with this comes from politicians, oil companies, and the popular media.

And... The 3 crackpots interviewed by the Canada Free Press. I suppose if you just said, the entire accredited scientific community agrees, it wouldn't make much of a headline.

[/size]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bob Carter of Marine Geophysical Laboratory - spokesmen for National Center For Policy Analysis

National Center for Policy Analysis
12655 North Central Expressway, Suite 720
Dallas, TX 75243-1739
www.ncpa.org

Established: 1983
President/Executive Director: John C. Goodman
Finances: $5,237,217 (total expenditures in 2001)
Employees: 22
Affiliations: NCPA is a member of the State Policy Network, a network of national and local right-wing think tanks, and of townhall.com, a right-wing internet portal created by the Heritage Foundation.
Publications: NCPA sponsors two of its own syndicated columnists: Pete du Pont (Scripps Howard) and Bruce Bartlett (Creators Syndicate). Bartlett's column appears under contract twice a week in the Washington Times and in the Detroit News.
NCPA’s Principal Issues:
NCPA's Activities and History:
NCPA alumni in the Bush administration:
High-profile Staffers and Board Members:
NCPA’s Principal Issues:

# A right wing think tank with programs devoted to privatization in the following issue areas: taxes, Social Security and Medicare, health care, criminal justice, environment, education, and welfare.
# NCPA describes its close working relationship with Congress, saying it “has managed to have more than a dozen studies released by members of Congress – a rare event for a think tank – and frequently members of Congress appear at the NCPA's Capitol Hill briefings for congressional aides.”
# Right-wing foundations funding includes: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM Foundations
# In the early 90s, NCPA created the Center for Tax Studies. NCPA’s website describes the inspiration for the Center: “Very few think tank studies are released by members of Congress.”

NCPA's Activities and History:
# In the early 90s, NCPA established the Center for Tax Studies.
# NCPA's website describes the inspiration for the Center: "Very few think tank studies are released by members of Congress. One of the first NCPA exceptions was a 1990 study on how Social Security rules penalize senior citizens and discourage them from working. The study was released on Capitol Hill by more than 50 members of the House of Representatives. This was the first of many such events for the NCPA and led to the creation of the Center for Tax Studies, which makes policy recommendations that help to guide the decisions of lawmakers."
# In the mid-90s, NCPA saw more opportunities with the new Republican Congress.
NCPA describes its accomplishments:
# "A package of pro-growth tax cuts, designed by the NCPA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1991, became the core of the Contract With America in 1994. Three of the five proposals (capital gains tax cut, Roth IRA and eliminating the Social Security earnings penalty) became law. A fourth proposal - rolling back the tax on Social Security benefits - passed the House of Representatives in 2000."
# "NCPA Senior Fellow Bruce Bartlett's proposal for an across-the-board tax cut became the centerpiece of Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign and the focal point of the recent pro-growth approach to tax cuts. Bartlett's proposal also became the centerpiece of President Bush's tax cut proposal."
# "At the request of congressional leadership, we produced a major study on the tax relief bill passed in Congress but vetoed by President Clinton."
# "The repeal by Congress of the estate tax last year (vetoed by President Clinton) and again by the House of Representatives this year reflects the continued work of the NCPA. At the request of congressional leadership, the NCPA produced a policy backgrounder on the case for abolishing death taxes. A later NCPA study on this issue was released on Capitol Hill, timed to coincide with the Senate debate on the issue. This year, the issue is again before the Congress, with a president who strongly favors repeal."


NCPA alumni in the Bush administration:

# Senior Fellow Thomas R. Saving was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
# Dr. Saving was also named to the President’s Social Security Commission.

[Swamp Gas]

There is more. Another of Tom Harris affiliations, Bob Carter, the main scientist quoted:

www.ipa.org.au/about.asp

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs

Since the 1980's, the IPA has broadened its advocacy to include campaigns:

* Against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
* In favour of genetically modified organisms
* In favour of the logging of native forests

More recently, the IPA has been the driving force behind the establishment of a number of new non-profit front groups, including the Australian Environment Foundation - which campaigns for weaker environmental laws - Independent Contractors of Australia - which campaigns for an end to workplace safety laws and a general deregulation of the labour market, and the ironically named Owner Drivers Australia, which campaigns against safety and work standard for truck drivers.

[/size]

[Swamp Gas]

More?

www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/climate-skeptic-response.html

Excerpted from the The Hamilton Spectator
Thu 21 Mar 2002
Forum, p. A15

Climate skeptic’ misinterprets global warming
by John Bennett

I’m not a scientist nor a climatologist. I am, I hope, a well informed concerned citizen, and as such I was enraged by an article by Tom Harris published by The Spectator on Feb. 12 (The dogma of ‘global warming’: CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain).

I was so enraged that for the first time in my life I called the Forum page editor to complain because the article was full of misinformation designed to mislead the reader. This article is the result of that conversation.

Harris is not a climate scientist. He is what is known as a “climate skeptic.” I spoke to Henry Hengveld, Environment Canada’s top climatologist, about climate skeptics and their counter theories of ice ages and improved plant growth. He told me that by and large they are not climatologists and they do not submit their studies to be peer reviewed by other experts in the field.

Harris uses two techniques. He quotes people whose titles suggest they are experts in the field when they are not and he cites studies out of context, drawing incorrect conclusions. His lineup of experts sounded impressive: Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard and geologist Tim Patterson of Carleton University. None are climatologists.

Lindzen told Ross Gelbspan, author of The Heat Is On (Perseus Books 1997), that he charges $2,500 a day to consult for fossil fuel companies. His trip to Washington to testify before Al Gore’s committee on climate change was paid for by Western Fuels — a coal mining company. He is a paid lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.

I had never heard of Willie Soon or Climate Research magazine. I did an Internet search on Climate Research magazine — every reputable scientific publication has a Web site. I expected hundreds of hits. I got three. All were articles by Harris, Soon and Tim Patterson, the geologist from Carleton University. In fact, one article was co-authored by Harris and Patterson.

Harris also refers to a petition signed by 17,000 scientists. It sounds impressive. But it is a crock and has been effectively dismissed. To qualify as scientist all that was required was a B.Sc. degree. How did it come about?

In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of U.S. university graduates were flooded with packets from the “Global Warming Petition Project.” The packets included a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed with the headline “Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth,” a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that “increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate,” a short letter signed by U.S. National Academy of Sciences, past-president Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide “would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

The sponsor, the little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences (NAS), both by referencing Seitz’s past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy’s Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, “the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the academy.”

The most enraging method Harris uses is misinterpreting the work of real scientists. He does this when he refers to professor Jan Veizer of the University of Ottawa. The professor’s study was published in a scientific journal last winter and was picked up by the media as evidence that proved the climate change theory wrong. The media did not ask the professor.

When the CBC did, he said he believes human-induced climate-change theory was not affected by his findings and that he was distressed by the media reports that misinterpreted his work.

Yet, a year later here is Harris continuing to misuse Veizer’s work. Harris commits this folly again when he refers to media reports of ice thickening in Antarctica. Scientists studying a glacier in Antarctica published a report in a scientific journal saying it was getting thicker. The media jumped on it as proof climate change is not happening. The media mistakenly equated the phenomenon studied by Joughin and Tulaczyk — a change in ice flow rates — with ice melting rates. The mistake contributed to the erroneous belief that the studies constituted, as it were, scientific “tests” of the global warming theory.

The headline in the National Post declared: “Antarctic ice sheet has stopped melting, study finds.” “The ice sheet growth that we have documented in our study area has absolutely nothing to do with any recent climate trends,” Tulaczyk declared. Again, newspapers did not talk to Tulaczyk before drawing conclusions from his work. Harris then argues that we have no alternatives to fossil fuels. While no technology can replace all fossil fuels immediately, and environmentalists have not suggested it could, we can move to a more sustainable energy system. Renewables are part of the solution, but the greatest and quickest gains can be made through conservation and efficiency.

Right now, the federal and provincial governments are calculating the economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Canada. New work is required because Canada won significant concessions in the rules of the protocol in 2001. These concessions will make it easier to meet the Kyoto target.

Harris opened his article by saying we are about to see a propaganda campaign by environmentalists. In fact, his article coincided with U.S. President George W. Bush’s announcement and Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s media stunt in Moscow. I would suggest if there is a propaganda campaign, Harris is part of it. The most significant thing Prime Minister Jean Chrétien can do this year is ratify the Kyoto Protocol. We should support him in making this decision.

[KNOWTHIS]

For the sake of... and I won't use the word "argument" because I don't feel like arguing about this again. I'll instead say conversation. I'll make a few posts relating to Gore's movie.

New Ads Funded by Big Oil Portray Global Warming Science as Smear Campaign Against Carbon Dioxide

Yesterday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute – a front group funded by ExxonMobil and other big oil companies – launched two advertisements in response to Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

The first ad portrays global warming science as a vicious smear campaign against carbon dioxide. The ad, which despite appearances is not an SNL parody, helpfully reminds us that carbon dioxide is “essential to life” because “we breath it out.”

The Ad

It’s comforting to know that this is the best global warming rejectionists can come up with. There are plenty of things that are healthy and essential in reasonable quantities but harmful in extremely large quantities. (For example, drinking a few glasses of water is beneficial. Drinking 10 gallons of water can kill you.) We need some carbon dioxide, but too much causes global warming.

The second ad repeats the “carbon dixoide is our friend” theme but adds a new wrinkle. It attempts to show that the scientific evidence for global warming is in dispute, claiming a study found “Greenland’s glaciers are growing.” (Watch the second ad HERE)

Actually, the study (by Johanessen et al.) found that there was an increase in snow accumulation on Greenland’s interior. Meanwhile, other studies show that glaciers are thinning on Greenland’s coastal regions. This is exactly what you’d expect as the earth gets warmer. The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain:

However, Johanessen et al. were not able to measure all of the coastal ranges. Indeed, the thinning of the margins and growth in the interior Greenland is an expected response to increased temperatures and more precipitation in a warmer climate. These results present no contradiction to the accelerated sliding near the coasts

Expect more of this kind of deception from the right as An Inconvient Truth hits theaters on May 24.

[KNOWTHIS]

thinkprogress.org/2006/05/22/bush-gore-movie/

Bush ‘Doubts’ He’ll See Gore Movie; Wants To ‘Set Aside’ Global Warming Science

President Bush was asked this morning whether he will watch Al Gore’s new movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. “Doubt it,” the president answered. He went on to argue that we need to “set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects.”

Two important points need to be made:

1. Bush casts his answer in terms of a debate that exists on whether greenhouse gases are caused by human activity. In fact, as ThinkProgress has repeatedly documented, there is no scientific debate on this issue. Not a single peer-reviewed study conducted between 1993 and 2003 challenged the consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.

2. Bush cannot solve the problem of global warming if he does not understand its root cause. By “setting aside” the issue of why the globe is warming, Bush wants to also sidestep the need for his administration to begin efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, as he once pledged to do.

Sounds like Bush is someone who could really benefit from watching the movie. (It’s playing close to the White House. Here’s a map.)

Full transcript below:

QUESTION: Will you see Al Gore’s new movie?

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: Doubt it.

(LAUGHTER)

But I will say this about the environmental debate: that my answer to the energy question also is an answer to how you deal with, you know, the greenhouse gas issue. And that is new technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment.

And in my judgment, we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects, and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and, at the same time, protect the environment.

[KNOWTHIS]

mediamatters.org/items/200605260014

Easterbrook baselessly accused Gore film of lacking "factual precision," ignored his own record of twisting facts on global warming

Summary: In a May 24 Slate.com article, Gregg Easterbrook baselessly criticized Al Gore's new film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, as factually imprecise and morally careless, but his criticism ignored his history of using distorted scientific research to downplay the threat of global warming.


FOX News Uses Junk Scientist To Smear Al Gore’s New Film, “AnInconvenient Truth”

Last night (5/16/06), Hannity & Colmes trotted out their favorite climate scientist, Patrick Michaels, described by Media Matters as an “energy industry lackey” and likened to a Flat Earth Society member by one of his peers, to provide the FOX version of a fair and balanced critique of Al Gore’s new film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.

Sean Hannity introduced Michaels by promising “the real scientific truth.” Before they got to the science, Michaels proved himself a liar by misrepresenting Gore. Michaels quoted a statement Gore made to Grist Magazine: “I believe it’s appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is.”

Michaels commented, “(Gore) says it’s appropriate to over-represent the danger on this issue. You have to realize what he said and take that as you see this movie.” It would be even better to realize that Gore said nothing of the kind and take that as you consider the rest of Michaels comments.

One look at Gore’s complete quote makes it abundantly clear that what he meant was not that the danger should be overstated but that he thought the best way to raise awareness of the issue was to start off with a disproportionate amount of attention on the problem, rather than the solution.

Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is.
In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.

In response to concerns that global warming may have contributed to Katrina’s intensity, Michaels smugly asserted that the Gulf of Mexico goes up to 83 degrees every summer, that it stays that temperature all summer and well into the fall, and that “Beyond 83 degrees, there’s no relationship between the severity of a hurricane and the water temperature.” Was Michaels saying that the temperature in the Gulf has always gone up to 83 degrees and has not been affected by global warming? It wasn’t clear and Hannity didn’t ask. One thing for sure, the government doesn’t seem to agree with him. The NOAA says on its website “it would be premature to conclude that such a link exists or is significant.” In other words, the government, no global warming alarmist, is not saying there is NO relation between global warming and hurricane intensity; the government is saying it's too soon to know.”

As Hannity complained about Gore being “overtly political,” Michaels responded, “Oh, yeah.” But, apparently, “overtly political” is only relevant if you’re a liberal. Nobody on the show brought up the fact that Michaels has received large amounts of funding from the energy industry whose companies have a financial stake in opposing policies that seek to combat global warming by limiting carbon emissions. Also not mentioned were the words of Dr. John Holdren, of Harvard University, to the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. "(Michaels) has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Michaels seemed to conveniently forget about ethanol as he told Alan Colmes that it’s impossible to reduce global warming given the current state of our technology. “Right now there is no real suite of technologies that can significantly dent the amount of carbon dioxide that’s going in the air with regard to warming. You cannot significantly reduce warming. Just simply can’t be done. So the wise person would say, ‘Wait a minute. Let’s save our money. Let’s not spend it on a futile attempt to do something now when we could invest our money in the more efficient technologies that are going to develop in the future.’” I wonder if any of those wise investments just might include the energy companies that have supported Michaels in the past.

A truly fair and balanced offering would have included an opposing expert, perhaps somebody like James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, who accused the Bush administration of trying to prevent him from speaking out about global warming.

A video of this segment is available on the Hannity & Colmes website. It’s called, “Everything you need to know before you see Gore’s new film.”

[KNOWTHIS]

thinkprogress.org/2006/05/26/balling-rebuttal/

Rebuttal To Gore Movie, Enthusiastically Embraced By The Right, Grossly Distorts Scientific Facts

An article published on Tech Central Station is buzzing around the right-wing blogosphere as the definitive rebuttal to Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. It’s written by Dr. Robert Balling, a climatology professor at Arizona State University who has received over $400,000 in funding from ExxonMobil, OPEC and the fossil fuels industry over the last decade.

In return, Dr. Balling has done whatever he could to cast doubts on the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. For example, in 1997 he was arguing “the planet has actually cooled over the past few decades.” His arguments have moderated somewhat since that time, but are no more accurate. You can find a full debunk of the misleading scientific arguments in Dr. Balling’s recent article – cleverly titled “Inconvenient Truths Indeed” – below.

(I recently debated Dr. Balling on many of these issues on the Jim Bohannon Show. You can listen to a portion of the debate.)

BALLING: “Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya’s Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming.”

THE FACTS: Dr. Balling is distorting the scientific data. The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain studies of Kilimanjaro “only support the role of precipitation in the initial stages of the retreat, up to the early 1900’s.” Moreover, “the Kilimanjaro glacier survived a 300 year African drought which occurred about 4000 years ago.” The most likely explanation for why it has almost completely disappeared this time is “anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change.”

BALLING: “Many of Gore’s conclusions are based on the ‘Hockey Stick’ that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago.”

THE FACTS: First, as Dr. Balling acknowledges, Gore does discuss the “Medieval Warm Period” and other temperature fluctuations in the last thousands years. Gore simply illustrates that these changes were fundamentally different than what has occurred at the end of the 20th century. Scientific studies back this up. Realclimate.org explains, “Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context.”

BALLING: “You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable ‘Summary for Policymakers’ in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that “No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed.”

THE FACTS: The IPCC report cited by Balling is from 2001, before Katrina or many of the other extreme weather events cited by Gore occurred. Moreover, Gore is careful not to assert that Katrina or any specific weather event was caused by global warming. Gore notes that climate models predict that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases the frequency of extreme weather events increases. This is exactly what we’ve seen over the past several years.

DR. BALLING: “Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”

THE FACTS: The quote cited by Dr. Balling continues :”This is not inconsistent with model results [predicting accelerating sea levels] due to the possibility of compensating factors and the limited data.” The IPCC study also notes that over the last 3,000 years, sea levels have increased “at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr” which is “about one tenth of that occurring during the 20th century.” Moreover, “The last time the planet may have been a degree or so warmer than today (about 120,000 years ago), sea level was around 5 to 6 meters higher.”

[Swamp Gas]

Another Pro-Pollution, Anti-Environmental Fellow:

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy


Steven J. Milloy

From SourceWatch

Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

Milloy runs the website Junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what he alleges to be false claims regarding global warming, DDT, environmental radicalism and scare science among other topics. www.junkscience.com/define.htm His other website, CSR Watch.com, is focused around attacking the corporate social responsibility movement. He is also head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with tobacco executive Tom Borelli, who happens to be listed as the secretary of the Advancement of Sound Science Center, an organisation Milloy operates from his home in Potomac, Maryland .

Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center. www.junkscience.com/Junkman.html

In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy has received thousands of dollars in payments from the Phillip Morris company since the early nineties, and that NGOs controlled by Milloy have received large payments from ExxonMobil ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606 A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."


Milloy the lobbyist
Milloy has spent much of his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organisations which have poisioning or polluting problems. He originally ran NEPI (National Environmental Policy Institute www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=56 which was founded by Republican Rep Don Ritter (who tried to get tobacco industry funding) using oil and gas industry funding. NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups by these large corporations.

NEPI was also associated with the AQSC (Air Quality Standards Coalition) which was devoted to emasculating Clean Air laws. This organisation took up the cry of "we need sound science" from the chemical industry as a way to counter claims of pollution -- and Milloy became involved in what became known as the "sound-science" movement. Its most effective ploy was to label science not beneficial to the large funding corporations as "junk" -- and Milloy was one of its most effective lobbyists because he wrote well, and used humour (PJ O'Rourke was another -- but better!)

He joined Philip Morris's specialist-science/PR company APCO & Associates in 1992, working behind the scenes on a business venture known as "Issues Watch". By this time, APCO had been taken over and become a part of the world-wide Grey Marketing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_market organisation, and so Milloy was able to use the international organisation as a feed source for services to corporations who had international problems.

Issues Watch bulletins were only given out to paying customers, so Milloy started for APCO the "Junkscience.com" web site, which gave him an outlet to attack health and environmental activists, and scientists who published findings not supportive of his client's businesses. Like most good PR it mixes some good, general criticism of science and science-reporting, with some outright distorted and manipulative pieces.

The Junkscience web site was supposedly run by a pseudo-grassroots organisation called TASSC (The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition), which initially paid ex-Governor Curruthers of New Mexico as a front. Milloy actually ran it from the back-room, and issued the press releases. Then when Curruthers resigned, Milloy started to call himself "Director" (Bonner Cohen - another of the same ilk also working for APCO - became "President")

Initially all of this was funded by Philip Morris, as part of their contributions to the distortion of tobacco science, but later they widened out the focus and introduced even more funding by establishing a coalition -- with energy, pharmaceutical, chemical companies. TASSC's funders include 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, Louisiana Chemical Association, National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris Companies, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold, and W.R. Grace, the asbestos and pesticide manufacturers.

TASSC was then exposed publicly as a fraud. And so Milloy established the "Citizens for the Integrity of Science" to take over the running of the Junkscience.com web site.

Radioactive Junk
In August 2005 Media Matters for America reported that Milloy (who is not a scientist himself) had self-published a deceptive "study" purporting to show that radiation levels at the U.S. Capitol Building were 65 times higher than the proposed standards for the federal government's planned high-level radioactive waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain mediamatters.org/items/200508120001

Funding
Milloy also runs the Advancement of Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those two groups—apparently run out of Milloy’s home—received $90,000 from ExxonMobil. Key quote: The date of Kyoto’s implementation will "live in scientific and economic infamy." Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five. www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

Writing in The New Republic in January 2006 Paul Thacker noted Milloy's long-term, close relationships with corporations, including ExxonMobil and Philip Morris. "According to Lisa Gonzalez, manager of external communications for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, Milloy was under contract there through the end of last year," Thacker wrote. "But, whereas Scripps Howard fired Fumento and apologized to its readers, Fox News continues to look the other way as Milloy accepts corporate handouts," Thacker writes. Fox's Paul Schur told Thacker, "Fox News is unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris." [6] ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606

Milloy is also the co-founder, with tobacco industry executive Thomas Borelli, of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, which claims to be an investment fund that seeks "long-term capital appreciation through investment and advocacy that promote the American system of free enterprise." According to a January 26, 2006 report in the Chicago Tribune, "The fund's advocacy stance boils down to opposing many of the things supported by traditional 'social investment funds,' because issues like global warming or corporate governance distract business from its real role of operating in the best interests of shareholders." However, its performance as an investment has been less than stellar. The Tribune called it the "Stupid Investment of the Week ... Strip away the rhetoric, and you're getting a very expensive, underperforming index fund, while Milloy and partner Thomas Borelli get a platform for raising their pet issues. ... An expense ratio capped at 2 percent--ridiculously high for a portfolio of corporate giants--makes stock market returns unrealistic. From inception on March 1 of last year through Dec. 31, Free Enterprise Action returned 2.32 percent; the S&P 500 returned 4.72 percent. That's ugly." [7] www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0601260062jan26,1,7543219.story

[Swamp Gas]

mediamatters.org/items/200605230011

Du Pont, Limbaugh distorted scientific research to downplay global warming

Summary: Wall Street Journal columnist Pete Du Pont claimed that carbon dioxide is "not a pollutant" and repeatedly cited a misleading, industry-funded study on climate change to prove that the "truth about 'global warming' is much less dire than Al Gore wants you to think." Similarly, Rush Limbaugh noted that the "Antarctica ice sheeting is actually increasing" as evidence that global warming theory is "unsupportable by facts."
In his May 23 column, Wall Street Journal columnist Pete Du Pont claimed that carbon dioxide is "not a pollutant" and repeatedly cited a misleading, industry-funded study on climate change to prove that the "truth about 'global warming' is much less dire than Al Gore wants you to think." But Du Pont's numerous assertions -- on the danger posed by carbon dioxide, the temperature record in Greenland, the effect of the sun on global warming, and the threat of rising sea levels -- all misrepresent the underlying scientific research.

In a similar vein, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh noted that the "Antarctica ice sheeting is actually increasing" as evidence that global warming theory is "unsupportable by facts." But, in fact, only the interior Antarctic ice sheet is growing, which is considered proof of climate change.

Du Pont: C02 is not a pollutant

In his May 23 column, Du Pont asserted that carbon dioxide "is not a pollutant -- indeed it is vital for plant growth," echoing a television commercial recently produced by the oil industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The ad noted that carbon dioxide is "essential to life. ... We breath it out; plants breath it in." It concluded: "Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life." But, contrary to Du Pont's suggestion, scientists do not argue that carbon dioxide is inherently harmful. Rather, they point to the danger posed to the atmosphere by excessive discharges of CO2, as the Natural Resources Defense Council noted:

pollutant is a substance that causes harm when present in excessive amounts. CO2 has been in the atmosphere since life on earth began, and in the right amounts CO2 is important for making the earth hospitable for continued life. But when too much CO2 is put into the atmosphere, it becomes harmful. We have long recognized this fact for other pollutants. For example, phosphorus is a valuable fertilizer, but in excess, it can kill lakes and streams by clogging them with a blanket of algae.

Du Pont: Greenland is experiencing a cooling trend

Du Pont's column relied heavily on the conclusions of a 2006 report, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts," by David R. Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. The report was published by Du Pont's employer, the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank that has received substantial funding from energy interests such as ExxonMobil Corp. Before repeating several of the report's findings, Du Pont noted its conclusion -- that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change" -- which he described as "the reality about global warming and its impact on the world."

Du Pont went on to cite Legates's finding that "the coastal stations in Greenland had actually experienced a cooling trend." He quoted from the text of the report: "verage summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987." Rather than examining this trend himself, as Du Pont suggested he had, Legates simply attributed this finding to a 2004 report by climate scientist Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. But Legates and Du Pont ignored a study published by Chylek a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns -- specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillations (NAO). Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO -- and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years.

Du Pont: Global warming is caused by solar radiation

After asserting that "the world is not warming as much as environmentalists think it is," Du Pont cited the Legates report to claim that "[w]hat warming there is turns out to be caused by solar radiation rather than human pollution." But in suggesting that the sun is the sole cause of the observed warming, Du Pont went further than even Legates, who argued that solar radiation has a significant effect on warming and should be incorporated into any climate models:

Another variable that climate models do not take into account is the effect of changes in solar radiation on the Earth's climate. Over the past 350 years, scientists have discovered cyclical changes in the Earth's climate due to solar activity -- such as increases and decreases in solar flares and sun spots. Some researchers have argued that solar variability may be responsible for about 0.45° F of warming between 1900 and 1990 -- just under half of the recent warming -- and about a third of the total warming since 1500. This is notable since approximately half of the observed 20th century warming occurred before 1940 and cannot be attributed to human causes.

Legates himself misrepresented the findings of the researchers in question -- in this case solar radiation experts Judith Lean and David Rind, whose 1999 study Legates cited. While he noted their finding that "solar variability may be responsible for about 0.45 degree F of warming between 1900 and 1990" in order to emphasize the degree to which the sun is to blame for global warming, Legates ignored their more relevant conclusion: that solar radiation has played only a small part in the warming observed in recent decades. Indeed, at a 1999 seminar hosted by the U.S Global Climate Change Research Program, Lean reportedly explained "that when the climate-warming energy represented by changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases is compared to that which is exerted by changes in the sun's radiation, the sun's effect is quite small."

Media Matters previously noted that Du Pont, in his March 28 column, cited a report by the Washington Policy Center to emphasize the link between solar output and warming trends, but DuPont failed to note the authors' disclaimer that their findings do not undermine the theory that greenhouse gases are causing significant global warming.

Du Pont: Sea ice is not melting excessively

Du Pont also asserted that sea ice "is not melting excessively," citing the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (ICPP) so-called Third Assessment as proof. As both Du Pont and the Legates report noted, the Third Assessment, published in 2001, found "[n]o significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century." But they both failed to mention the ICPP's prediction of a "global-average sea level rise from 0.11 to 0.77" meters (4.3 to 30.3 inches) during the 21st century. Moreover, recent studies documenting the increased melting in Antarctica and Greenland, as well as studies of past ice sheet melting, have strengthened the case for accelerated sea-level rise over the course of the next century and, as the weblog RealClimate noted, "probably nudge us closer to the upper end of the IPCC predictions."

Limbaugh: Antarctic ice sheet is growing

On the May 22 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh echoed Du Pont's criticism of global warming theory as unfounded and exaggerated. He claimed that the hysteria over climate change "is unsupportable by facts" and that the "Antarctica ice is actually increasing." Limbaugh's assertion is similar to a claim from one of the CEI television commercials that the "Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner," according to a recent study. But the primary author of the study in question, Curt Davis, has issued a statement refuting CEI's use of his research, as the weblog Think Progress noted. In the statement, Davis pointed out that he reported growth only for the interior Antarctic ice sheet. Rather than undermining global warming theory, this phenomenon is actually the result of climate change. Davis noted that "t has been predicted that global warming might increase the growth of the interior ice sheet due to increased precipitation," a fact that he said had been "ignored by CEI in a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public."

From the May 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Al Gore is trying -- he's got this movie coming out. It's absurd. The Antarctica ice is actually increasing. This -- just this hysteric global warming is unsupportable by facts. It's not even supported by these wacko computer models anymore. But yet here comes Clinton endorsing the Al Gore position on this, which -- and Al Gore, by the way, Democrats are begging this guy to run for president again in 2008, and there are stories about how Hollywood contributors are just salivating at the chance to throw some more money at Al Gore.

[KNOWTHIS]

Probably many of the same people and organizations embracing the official 9/11 story.

[Mech]

One things for certain....

I don't believe a fucking word that comes out of Al Gore's mouth.

I stand by my belief that so-called global warming is a natural phenomena that is cyclical.

Ozone depletion is another, seperate issue.

[KNOWTHIS]

One things for certain....

I don't believe a fucking word that comes out of Al Gore's mouth.

I feel the same exact way about Bush who lies about everything and has no respect for any form of life.

[Swamp Gas]

mech said:

One things for certain....

I don't believe a fucking word that comes out of Al Gore's mouth.

I stand by my belief that so-called global warming is a natural phenomena that is cyclical.

Ozone depletion is another, seperate issue.

The over-whelming consensus of climatologists is that there is Global Warming. A small handful of Pro-Pollution, Pro-Oil Industry spokespeople are trying to counter that. here's the analogy:

Someone goes to the doctor, and the doc says, "your cholesterol is dangerously high, and something needs to be done". The patient thinks, "How did this happen, was it my diet, or was it genetics?"

He then goes out and eats a big fat laden steak and a quart of ice cream.

I think we should as a species get past the "natural or man-made" argument. Global Warming has turned from hard science into a political issue. Think about it.......one one side is Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, GW Bush, Jay Reynolds, Bob Carter, Alex Jones, Tom Harris, and a handful of scientists. On the other is Al Gore, William Thomas, Stephen Hawking, Willie Nelson, Jon Stewart, and the majority of Climatologists.

This is the hard facts:

Global Warming is accelerating, and human activity is ONE of the main causes. Maybe Hawking and Tim Leary are correct. We must migrate from the planet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nobody that 100% has the answers, be it Al Gore, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Mike Parenti, Amy Goodman, Randi Rhodes, Paul Craig Stevens, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Marc Maron, Mike Malloy, Cindy Sheehan, or anybody of either Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative Constitutionalist, Humanist, whatever. If we are smart, we pick the most humane and logical point of views, and synthesize the "best of". I would wager that we could find something that does not jive with us from any person that is looked up to in public view.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Even these from Gore's mouth?

In Martin Luther King Day address, Gore compares wiretapping of Americans to surveillance of King

rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_0116.html


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger


www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2IU703.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Gore accuses Bush of "utter incompetence."


www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/26/gore.iraq/


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Hawking...Compared to Einstein, Edison, Tesla, and Galileo, firmly thinks that Global Warming is real, mostly human caused, and perhaps past the point of no return


apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html


Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space

Jun 13, 7:50 AM (ET)

By SYLVIA HUI

(AP) Renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking from the University of Cambridge, front, is accompanied by...
Full Image

HONG KONG (AP) - The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.

The British astrophysicist told a news conference in Hong Kong that humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years.

"We won't find anywhere as nice as Earth unless we go to another star system," added Hawking, who arrived to a rock star's welcome Monday. Tickets for his lecture planned for Wednesday were sold out.

He added that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.

"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."

The 64-year-old scientist - author of the global best seller "A Brief History of Time" - is wheelchair-bound and communicates with the help of a computer because he suffers from a neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.

Hawking said he's teaming up with his daughter to write a children's book about the universe, aimed at the same age range as the Harry Potter books.

"It is a story for children, which explains the wonders of the universe," his daughter, Lucy, added.

They didn't provide other details.

[billdergoogler]

The commercial media is part of the Mind control....anything they put out is totally controlled...its all about money because thats all the poor saps can understand...America needs somebody from the working class, anybody who is not a member of CFR comes to my mind. The more money someone has in America these days, the more they are vested in maintaining this charade of media and the foreign powers which have taken over our currency. These perps are drug dealers #1 and THATS the conspiracy, they have finally united...and they have prepared well, they have rewritten our laws by exerting total debt force fr over 100 years....they are devious. There is the british connexion, and the israeli connexion, and if you do not believe that just look into who is buying New Orleans! They are all using ENMOD as terror and inside trading...it has always been them against us, its just that most of us are good people and do not even fathom that barbaric cruel reality of the lords and kings unless some jester like bush comes along and shoves our faces in it...if you study skull n bones you see they use opposites a lot to get their way, anything to divide, and their M.O. goes back way before the crusades....so what global warming is, its created! As well as the human experimetnation and mind control which may have been primary, but was probably just used to keep everyone confused and watching TV and taking pharm drugs... This heater ENMOD was very expensive, and they wish to use THAT to indebt us further too...but they WANT it warmer! This planet tends towards ice age the antarctica used to accrete at the rate of one lake huron per year! They want the oil under the ice caps and MORE...the federal reserve currency needs to go away and America needs its own treasury back or America will never be free again. Vote for any candidate the media does not own. Most professors and scientists are incompetent to even observe ENMOD, say nothing about understand it, hawking included, obviously, and they have been MADE that way; When engineers can look at the spraying and say oh its nothing, and MEAN it, then they are total incompetents....the self taught are the best bet today, they have the least conditioning and did not have limits on what they learned. IMHO. b

[billdergoogler]

ps this is stimulating conversation --please do not mistake my debate for angst -- thanks a lot, and mech, where the heck do you get all this stuff? Its good stuff thanks man...b

[thinkagain]

As upset as we all are about misinformation, and the political use of science I believe it is important to make a distinction between giving litlle creedence to political rhetoric as motivational and factual. To discredit what politicans have to say must avoid overly emotional reaction, lest rational/scientific argument becomes irrelevant. Liars, do not always lie, indeed it must be a relatively small percentage of the time in order for their to be effective influence on the communal mind. My concern is that we get overly emotional, we automatically assume the opposite of what someone we dislike says. That gives them power to manipulate us. In other words, lack of evidence for a statement being true is not the same as evidence being false. I do not believe there is global warming becuase Gore says so, however, I would avoid believing that there isn't global warming because of that either.
Based on the evidence i have seen, it is reasonable to say that the earth as a whole is in a warming trend. The causes can be a mix of both natural and 'man-made' causes. If its 90 degrees outside and Bush says, its a hot day, I would not want to automatically be biased into believing that its actually a cold day. The issue is this, as long as they get us to react emotionally, either believing them or believing the opposite, they get us to stop seeking evidence of the validity of their statements. That helps reduce the demand for information and openness (as compared to platitudes and cynicisim). I hope we are not so anti-establishment that If gore or bush says 2+2 = 4, our first response is to stop believing that 2+2 = 4. In a sense, what makes the "devil" both powerful and evil, is not that he speaks falsehoods 100% of time, rather it iwould be his ability to speak truth 99.999% of time, and selecting that crucial .001% that leads us to see light as dark, noise as silence, and hope as fear.

I feel upset and angry at times that so much deception is occuring from the media and our politicians. I want to avoid this effecting my ability to logically discern contradiction, and avoid an emotional inclination to see only that which supports my own beliefs.

Not everyone, or everything, they say is our enemy is our friend.. nor everyone or everything they say is our friend is our enemy.
It takes conscious effort to keep our cerebral cortex in the loop, when our amygdala doesn't want to be interuppted.

knowthis said:

One things for certain....

I don't believe a fucking word that comes out of Al Gore's mouth.

I feel the same exact way about Bush who lies about everything and has no respect for any form of life.

[Mech]

People are in complete denial that even the SO-CALLED "opposition" is controlled.

It's cognitive disssonance.


Or as Orwell called it."DOUBLETHINK"

They can't FACE the full horor of it all.

They'll do anything to rationalize what they do just because they WISH there is a political opposition in an AMERICAN DICTATORSHIP.

I read Al Gore's Book "Earth in the Balance" back in December 1992. It's STILL on my bookshelf. Gathering DUST of course. WHY? Because I know he is aa G*damed HYPOCRITE who had the WORST Environmental record when he held office in Tennesee..and did NOTHING but further the NWO goals while in office.

He can't be trusted. Period.

[Swamp Gas]

Gore is wishy-washy, and cannot stick to his guns like a Kucinich.

Consistency is the key word. I think he is an old hippy at heart, but is easily led, be it Clinton or Tipper. I agree with him on his assessments of global warming (even though he does not touch upon the subject of Ice Age), but as a leader, his roots of Woodstock, Sgt Pepper's, Reefer, LSD, Leary, Beatniks, Love Ins, Beads, peace, and Freedom collides with his other contradictory Censorship, Oil Revenues, and Globalization. This is the Doublethink that Mech speaks about.

Now if he is realizing that he screwed up...well, I'll give him one more chance, and have a very careful eye on him.

A George Bush has no hippy roots, and frankly, even 10x less trustworthy than Gore.

We really do need a Green/Labor/Libertarian party candidate. All three of those issues have to be addressed, and not one is more important than the other, IMO.

[chickenlittle]

Maybe he will move out of his house that is built of old growth redwood.
When I heard this quite a few years back it was one of those eye openers for me when I decided that no one in politics can truly be trusted.THEY LIE SOOOOOOOO MUCH!
chicky

[thinkagain]

A few months ago i had the opportunity to talk with Rush Holt (a NJ representative) after a conference on stem cell research, he has a degree in phsyics and is comfortable in the world of science. His words provided useful perspective on our democracy. He said the people we elect are just that, people. They reflect, to a lesser or greater extent, the demographics or our society, in particular the capacity for rational thought and the vunerability to emotional appeal. He said that while he attempts to push reason and logical thought as much as possible, he can only go so far before others stop listenning.

Which leads to an apt metaphor, our own minds function similarly to our congress, many competiting intersts, each struggling to gain the most attention so as to set agenda and determine behavior. As such, we are constantly deceiving ourselves, and hence others. The trouble we are dealing with today comes from expecting perfection from imperfect beings. The importance of our Constitution is in recognizing this and devising limits on the political power of government officials. Whether we like it or not, a peaceful return to the practice of civil liberties requires enrolling moderates to pay less attention toright-wing (and left-wing) extremists, and to speak bravely yet respectfully, while running the risk of being branded an enemy or a traitor. Violent rhetoric plays into the hands of extremists.

Politicians sometimes lie; however, sometimes they are forced to speak multiple languages that seem to use the same words - which seem like they are lying. ultimately, it is about electing the most palatable candidate, and recognzing that there is a signifcant probability that they will not do what they said they wanted to. However, this is true of EVERYONE in our lives - co-workers, bosses, freinds, family, loved ones. The desire to have at least one being in our life that we can trust completely runs deep, and it is consistently disappointed. it is why it is more appealing to place loyalty in an ideal (which does not die or lies) than an individual.

chickenlittle said:

Maybe he will move out of his house that is built of old growth redwood.
When I heard this quite a few years back it was one of those eye openers for me when I decided that no one in politics can truly be trusted.THEY LIE SOOOOOOOO MUCH!
chicky

[Mech]

thinkagain said:

A few months ago i had the opportunity to talk with Rush Holt (a NJ representative) after a conference on stem cell research, he has a degree in phsyics and is comfortable in the world of science. His words provided useful perspective on our democracy. He said the people we elect are just that, people. They reflect, to a lesser or greater extent, the demographics or our society, in particular the capacity for rational thought and the vunerability to emotional appeal. He said that while he attempts to push reason and logical thought as much as possible, he can only go so far before others stop listenning.

You REALLY don't believe that do you?

These people at the highest levels are ARCH CRIMINALS of the WORST kind.

Sending people off to DIE in wars for PROFIT is just one tiny example.

If they even OBEYED the laws THE REST OF US are subject to...if the majority of the population even knew for a second what these people have done...there would be blood in the streets.

Don't be so naive.

[Swamp Gas]

I can see both Mech's and thinkagain's points in this. Being a New Jersey person too, we have a very particular form of government here. There are a lot of Patriots, but mostly this area has Union roots. Holt is a pretty decent fellow. If we look at the voting records recently, mostly Democrats are voting against Bush's insanity. The US Senate is a different story. The only senator that has any guts in Russ Feingold. Kerry and Kennedy occasionally come up with support for the Little Guy, but generally most Demos and Repubs are close. Different also in the US Congress. The Litmus for both parties is Dennis Kucinich for Liberals and Ron Paul for Conservatives. Anything else is simply Un-Constitutional. I believe Thinkagain is saying politics is a reflection of each of us. Within our society, middle class, there are sadists, crooks, liars, and crackpots. There are also good people, Constitutionalists, caretakers, and intelligence. This is the same with politics, and in a sense, we perhaps got what we deserved with Bush. Thetaloops and I used to warn people we are heading toward fascism, back i n the 60s, and we were laughed at or told we were nuts. This is the apathy that got us into this spot as a nation.

Mech is correct in that both parties, on the larger scale, are just opposite sides of the same globalist coin. They hang out at the same clubs, but one party forces through laws to do its bidding, while the other pretends to be for the Little Guy. If Lieberman and Hillary is the best that Democrats can do, then we are truly in sad shape.

I have said it before many times. We need a party that is a balanced combination of Libertarian, Green, and Labor. This would be a formidable counter to the single party system we have now, disguising itself as a two party.

[Swamp Gas]

bump

[halva]

'The Source of Hopelessness': a review of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Catherine Austin Fitts

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072406_source_hopelessness.shtml

[Swamp Gas]

I think Al Gore has his feet in both camps unfortunately. As I said, he is really an old hippy, as opposed to Bush, who is an old drunk/shit-head. Al Gore does not address the financial and fiat currency problems, because he has slept and is sleeping with the globalists. He will not name names because the trail will lead right back to him. I do agree that there is a Global Warming problem, and there is a cabal of Apocalyptic/Cowboy/Suit types that are killing the earth.

[socrates]

I think the key to all this is to differentiate between whether someone is being thoroughly manipulated and/or is in on a script, or whether people like Al Gore are in a fight for their souls, boldly peeling the layers of brainwashing conformity from the onion of their life.

The major problem to me is the "divide and conquer", which in this case has all to do with ethnocentrism. We are all brainwashed to think this is the greatest country with the greatest economy and freedoms. Well, it is now obvious that the freedoms are being taken away, and if folks got out of the country they would finally figure out that our economy is deeply flawed when they exchange currency.

Was Gorbachev full of it when he talked about glasnost and perestroika? Is everything always done according to a script? Perhaps Al Gore wins the presidency again and friggin' gets the job done. Perhaps Al Gore is of the believe that you have to play the game to change the game. That has to be the hope anyway. No one likes to play a game that is rigged.

[halva]

I am glad to see a reference to Gorbachev. I have never lost my respect for that man, a player of political judo. I hope that he too lives to see his opponent hitting the mat.

[halva]

Here is a quiz question. What is the name of possibly the only member of the international power elite whose hand Gorbachev refused to shake?

[thinkagain]

Unless you are hunting ferocious swarms of killer quails, then you want them used to being penned in so that its easier to shoot them... even then those birds are crafty enough to get you to aim at other species.


BTW- part of the benefit of being powerful and wealthy is that you can rig the game, so that you can end up with more power and wealth. If its a situation when winning the game is more important than how you play the game, it would be foolish not to rig the game so that you will win. The reason that war can be so compelling is that it provokes a state of mind where it does not matter how you win, thereby temporarily releiving the pyschological contraints of morality, ethics and 'shoulds'. A freedom to let your mind go where it will, and an unbounded imagination. Quite addicitive, I suspect, once it has been tasted. Unless, of course, you are the one perceived as a killer quail.

socrates said:

Was Gorbachev full of it when he talked about glasnost and perestroika? Is everything always done according to a script? Perhaps Al Gore wins the presidency again and friggin' gets the job done. Perhaps Al Gore is of the believe that you have to play the game to change the game. That has to be the hope anyway. No one likes to play a game that is rigged.