Al Gore LIED! Should he be stripped of his Nobel Prize and prize money???
By ladyluna
@ladyluna (7004)
United States
December 20, 2007 9:37pm CST
Yes, Al Gore LIED! And, the United Nations deliberately deceived the world about Man-Made Global Warming and CO2 emissions. The Global Warming debate is about to do a complete about-face!!! Why? Because the U.N. and Gore's deception has finally been exposed.
Did you know that the U.N. IPCC report that triggered this whole global warming movement was based on only 4 scientists who explicitly endorsed the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming?
Doubt me? Well, "it's" about to hit the fan, because the scientists who have been silenced by threats and intimidation have issued a Earth-shattering report exposing exactly how the U.N. deceived the world. You can read about it here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
This is a very long report issued by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. It is fully substantiated with links to access all the major points in the report. When you read through it, you'll learn that the U.N. based their findings on data received before the end of 2005 -- and refused to admit any findings since. You'll also learn that the U.N. deliberately refused to allow any scientists with dissenting opinions to be heard on the matter. In fact, the U.S. Senate is now investigating the many complaints of threats and intimidation that dissenting scientists received after voicing their opposition!
Below are just a few snippets from the myriad of documents contesting both the alleged scientific consensus, and the conclusions of the U.N. and Global Warming Alarmists. I'll also point out now that if you read through the report, you can draw no other conclusion but that this whole fraud was deliberately concocted to levy taxes on citizens around the globe. (For U.S. stats: See Sen. Barbara Boxer's "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" S.309)
"Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement."
"This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists (over 400 vs. the 4 scientists who explicitly endorsed the UN IPCC policy document) by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the (Man-Made Global Warming) debate."
"“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation ..."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
The alleged consensus??? A bold faced lie!
"Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis."
"Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science."
"Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a "sham." Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said on March 5, 2007. "It's not true," he added."
"The UN IPCC's own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be "change[d]" to "ensure consistency with" the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3
AND FINALLY ... for those who wondered why Al Gore & the UN would perpetrate such a fraud ...
"Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have proposed the "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" aimed at combating climate change. The proposed partisan bill (S.309) is supported by another 15 senators, including:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY);
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL);
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT);
Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE);
Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI);
Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-WI);
Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI);
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA);
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ);
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT);
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ);
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI);
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI);
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD),
and Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD).
FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=71e6cda5-802a-23ad-4190-146f21acf013
So, should Gore lose is Nobel Prize, and be forced to return all the money he's made from this deliberate fraud?
Thanks for reading this long post. I look forward to your thoughts.
9 people like this
16 responses
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
21 Dec 07
I thought it was silly he got a "peace" prize to begin with. The Global Warming theory was about the environment...not about conflict.
Still. Yes, he shouldn't have it. He shouldn't have gotten it to begin with. He's just a washed up celebrity taking one last shot at fame, jumping on a bandwagon because it suddenly got popular.
I didn't think the official theory for why the weather was changing and gonna be different from what we were used to, was true, btw. I remembered what my text book taught me when I was a child; the sun controls the temperatures which in turn controls the weather.
Which is pretty much a simpler lamens way of saying what those smart scientsts said to debunk the stupid stuff that's now believed by a majority of the world.
*sighs* I'm glad someone's finally said something though.
The only REAL threats to the environment is pollution (waste dumping in natural ecosystems and consuming more than we're putting back...which in turn is obviously harmful to resources and animal/plant life species)...which really is more harmful to us, human beings, than it is the environment. You can't beat nature, it's more powerful than we are...if we hurt it, it comes back ten times better and will probably have a means to fight US next time.
Nature is creative, inventive...and smart.
So..
Yeah..okay, I'm done ranting.
I did a discussion on this ages ago, but no one really popped up to talk about it. =(
4 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Hello Paranoiax,
Yes, nature is creative, inventive, and smart.
Although your statement about the sun controlling the weather is correct, there are other factors which affect it as well. Part of the problem with this GW nonsense is that many alternatives have ignorantly been proposed. For example: in addition to the sun controlling the weather, the amount of water vapor in the air also has a significant effect. So, the hydrogen fuel cell car, in it's current configuration could release so much water vapor into the atmosphere that it could have a dramatic effect on this planet's weather patterns.
Another catastrophic idea to come out of this charade is the compact florescent light bulb. Because it is made with mercury, it must be discarded as "toxic waste". Yeah, that's great for the landfills, eh?
Oh, and you're right about 'real pollution'. One scientist is quoted in the Senate report as stating that this GW scam has actually co-opted the real green movement.
All in all, Gore & his buddies have successfully created real problems for the world to now undo.
Sorry to hear that you didn't get much response to your GW discussion. I know that many of us who've disagreed with man-made global warming have begun and participated in a number of discussions about it. Sorry that I missed yours.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
3 people like this
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
24 Dec 07
Ah, I didn't realize about the hydrogen cars but I'm happy to see you;ve realized even more things than I have about what the GW theory ethusists have been inadvertantly doing.
I suppose it could be looked upon as a mixed blessing. On one hand, they managed to get up enough concern about the environment, on the other hand, it's actually helped add on a bit more to the true problems.
Perhaps now that the truth has been told, and not just by the rest of us who had either suspected or believed the mainstream theory to be flawed and incorrect, some real progress can be done to start fixing things, at least a little bit, while something, anything can still be done about it.
Anyway, s'ok.
Your discussion getting responses, to me, more than makes up for no one answering mine, in my opinion. =)
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Thank you for providing documentation for what so many of us have been saying.
What's a shame is that this fraud is obvious to anyone who actually reads the pro's and con's to the man made global warming theory. How in the world were so many educated people fooled for so long?
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Hello Red,
You're welcome. And, thank you. You have quietly and clearly been among the voices of reason on this sham.
I think that so many otherwise educated people jumped on the band wagon because of old-fashioned peer-pressure.
Drudge posted the Senate Report as soon as it was leaked. So many people read the report yesterday that the Senate.gov site was temporarily knocked out. Yet, I tend to think that the word won't spread like wildfire (like the GW nonsense did) unless & until Gore is stripped of his Nobel Prize. That'll get people's attention!
6 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Al Gore does deserve to be stripped of his Nobel Prize, but it won't happen because the people who awarded it to him pretty much knew man made global warming was a fraud when they gave it to him. I can not prove that, of course. It is just that I'm not a genius, and I found it easy to find overwhelming convincing evidence and arguements that man made global warming is a scam.
4 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Hey Red,
I hope you're wrong about the Nobel Committee not being shamed into action to rescind the prize. The reputation of the Nobel Prize is at risk now. The difference between Wednedsay and today on this issue is that the snowball has been pushed down the hill. It's only going to grow as it takes on more snow.
I don't think the Nobel Foundation is willing to dive on the sword for a pompous fool like Gore.
4 people like this
@VKXY62 (1605)
• Australia
27 Dec 07
I suspected the carbon credit salesman was a crock of excrement. Just looking for money for nothing.
A long time ago, in a land far, far away, came a bloke named Eric the Red(If it wasn't Eric hi8mself, it was one of his mates). He was an adventurous viking type. With a bit of strife at home, he sets of looking for a nice place to live.
He finds a lovely place, after many weeks and months of sailing and rowing. There are green pastures, and trees, much like at home. He goes back home and gets all his friends and they move to the new land he found, they called it an obvious name. Greenland because it WAS green. Unfortunately, the colony didn't last forever. For some unknown reason the weather went really sour. Everything froze over and stayed like that. They all had to leave.
The climate had changed for the worse, a mini ice-age occured.
Fast forward to the year 2007.
Things are returning slowly to the way it was back then. A bit warmer up in those parts.
But, because no-one remembers how it was, they all start to scare the living daylights out of each other, and in typical lynch mob mentality (Yeah, yeah, that's right). They allow a scenario to form whereby a very clever Machiavelli type person (Did you like that one Red) comes up with a plot to get all the plebs on the planet to give him and his henchpeople a free lunch forever.
They invent CARBON CREDITS. Carbon credits are a wonderful thing that allows poor countries to continue to do business on their own soil, but pay the CARBON CREDITS people a lot of money.
What, I'm not sure for, because any carbon in the atmosphere is going to stay there, and there is NOTHING the carbon credit salespeople can do about it, well, they can spend YOUR money on themselves.
Sea level rose 300 ft all by itself 40,000 years ago as well, but that is far too long ago for anyone to remember, and the plebs on the planet are too busy scaring each other to be bothered enough to do any research.
It seems that about 1 or 2% of the planet realise what's going on. The others have all been scammed, but by now, it is far too late to do anything about it, because there are too many of them.
I'll see if I can direct the folks scaring themselves here for a read, it's the least I can do.
3 people like this
@VKXY62 (1605)
• Australia
27 Dec 07
Oh yes, something else that 99% of the planet are not aware of, the climate changing toward the warm side of things is not just happening on Earth.
The CO2 on Mars is going back into the atmosphere, its polar caps carbon dioxide is evaporating and leaving the water ice underneath.
The climate change is seeming to be a SOLAR SYSTEM wide occurence. You know that "Look at the big picture" statement.
People of the Earth, please pull your heads out of the sand and have a good look around.
If not, go back to your football, t.v. or fingernails, whichever is more important.
Kev.
3 people like this
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
22 Dec 07
Even though Al Gore is a fraud and so are the other people on the list, you do not honestly think anyone will take his prize away! There is so much money behind these people that the only way they will be proved wrong is by waiting. Time will prove them wrong. Every scientist knows that the earth continually goes through weather cycles and there are so many things that can effect changes that they cannot pin it to one chemical thing!
Until Gore and his Cohorts got on the band wagon scientists were predicting a mini ice age and there are still some scientists that say this is coming. Now how can both of these things be true?
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Dec 07
Hello Adoniah,
Excellent points! Ah yes, the dreaded "Ice Age". I remember it well!
As for the Nobel Foundation asking Gore & the IPCC to return the prize money & award -- I think that can be accomplished if enough pressure is applied to the Foundation. Let's remember that it is a foundation, so they depend on contributions and a sense of good will. Perhaps I'm just being an optimist, yet stranger things have been known to happen.
3 people like this
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
21 Dec 07
I think they are too consumed with the issue. The earth has done worse to itself than man could ever do. Without us around the earth would be just fine.
I do think, for the sake of man and other living creatures we should be more cautious in how we treat the world around us.
3 people like this
@RowenaTheWitch (947)
• Italy
23 Dec 07
I'm really puzzled by all this. I really believed about the Global warming theory, now I don't know what to think.
But I hope this will not be an excuse for not signing the Kyoto Protocol: even if pollution is not responsible for Global Warming it's still unhealthy for human kind
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Dec 07
Hello Rowena,
No, the statistics represent the percentage increase since the last UN emissions report. This means that the nations who signed Kyoto are up an average of 21%
since the last gauge. The USA is up 6%. While the composite average of all nations who did not sign Kyoto is up 13%.
What's so problematic about Kyoto is that it legislates emissions reductions, while suggesting tax incentives to business to develop low emissions alternatives. This completely skews the economic model because existing business might benefit from tax advantages to seeking alternatives, yet they still must operate with existing protocols, else risk putting gobs of people out of work, which would result in wide-spread international recession.
Moreover, the penalties assessed are based the idealized goals of those nations that signed on. The leaders of those country's placed unrealistic expectations on their own manufacturers, and/or simply failed to recognize the practical realities of economics and production protocols. It all sounded great in a conference setting, yet failed miserably in a real-world environment. So, now they're paying huge fines to a governing body that hasn't any real world practical experience in the business world. They practice only in that idealized conference setting. It's like agreeing to see a surgeon, then finding out the he or she is a first year medical student.
And, most problematic of all is that China and India, as well as other nation-states were exempt from the restrictive mandates placed on other manufacturing nations, like the USA. Given the reality that China and India are two of the most aggregious polluters in the international manufacturing world, agreeing to these mandates offer no real emission reduction advantages! If the UN really wanted to deal with global pollution, then all nations would have been subject to the same type of standards. As long as that is not the case, Kyoto only results in money going to the UN coffers, while pollution grows at growing rates.
I expect that no nation who did not previously sign on to Kyoto will, until the illogical exemptions are eliminated.
2 people like this
@RowenaTheWitch (947)
• Italy
23 Dec 07
US emissions are really that low?
Well I think the rule should have been "you can't make more emissions than X" and not "you have to diminish your emissions even if they are already low".
I don't know much about the subject but I think something like Kyoto Protocol is necessary to avoid polluting the planet.
I know that giving money to UN is a waste, but I can't think of other meanings to stimulate states to do something rather than the fear of losing money ;)
1 person likes this
@RowenaTheWitch (947)
• Italy
23 Dec 07
Ok, I've read in this article:
asp.usatoday.com/community/utils/idmap/28517772.story that China is going to surpass USA as the primary world source of pollution. That means USA is in SECOND PLACE in the list of countries that make more pollution.
That's why Kioto should be signed by USA too.
And don't forget that applying Kyoto is expensive. Choosing not to follow it makes USA factories more competitive because they have less costs, and that's not just. Why should the others go bankrupt because they want to make the world a better place?
That's probably the real reason why the USA government doesn't want to sign Kyoto.
@angelface23 (2494)
• United States
21 Dec 07
I hate lies but I think that Al Gore did a good thing by trying to get our attention that Global Warming is a problem regardless of whether or not it's a man made problem. I am pretty neutral when it comes to GW being man made or an act of God. It is what it is. I think that even if it's not a man made issue, the Earth is still warming- well you know the deal. Something still has to be done about. I think that people should stop arguing over who's right and who's wrong and work to fix the problem. I don't think that Gore should have his Nobel Prize taken.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Hello Angelface23,
If you read the report, you will learn that the UN refused to accept any scientific data after the end of 2005. And, that in the last two years (since 2005) the Earth has entered a normal cooling phase. There is no global warming -- man-made or otherwise! Hence, there is NO warming problem to fix. Gore's whole premise was fabricated!
1 person likes this
@sigma77 (5383)
• United States
21 Dec 07
WOW!!! I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. I still believe this has been a hoax started way back in the 1970's by radical liberals. They finally found their dupe in Al Gore (the snore). I never have believed a word of this crap and never will even if I become a toasted crumb form global heating...lol. I did not read through all the story material you provide. Still, I agree with your story completely. I also have read some info from Ried Bryson who is a scientist that has preached about the disconnect of man causing global warming verses natuaral cause. His ideas are quite interesting and make tons of sense. I have no doubts that this global-warming-caused-by-man farce is a big liberal set-up to raise our taxes. And that is exactly what will happen if these bozos are allowed to futher their unsupported-by-fact cause. And MR SNORE can take his emmy or whatever he pilfered by lieing and shove it where you know where. I think many of these radical nutzos will be shocked when they find themselves in the new ice age and their undies are frosted to their behinds. Great article.
2 people like this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
21 Dec 07
I spent the last couple of hours reading through the comments of those 400 scientists and only got about halfway through before giving up and saving the page to finish later.
This just verifies something that a few of us have believed for a while.
The IPCC is nothing more than an unelected political body which an agenda to control world behavior through environmental legislation, much the same way as the UN is attempting to gain power through L.O.S.T., and it is not concerned with what the facts say as long as that power is achieved.
Gore's reception of the NOBEL PRIZE for his SCI-FI slide show is just another aspect of this politicization of psuedo-science and shows that the Nobel Committee is just another political organization with an agenda.
The democrats are jumping all over this as a way to raise taxes(like they ever need a reason) in their ever present never ending quest for the redistribution of wealth, namely from the taxpayers to the government and then to themselves because you know they are positioned to benefit from this somehow.... maybe they have stock in Gore's Carbon Credits Scheme.
This is nothing more than an attempt to control individual behavior and choices, and to give the government more control over both individuals and businesses.
Not only should Gore be forced to return his ill-gotten awards and moneys, he should also be criminally charged with fraud.
The IPCC should be disbanded and it's members blackballed from any further scientific and political work. If we were on friendlier terms with the Russians, perhaps they would allocate a spot in Siberia for these clowns.
The IPCC likes to say that the debate on man made global warming is over, and the question mark has been removed.
They are just about correct, but not for the reasons and not in the way they intended when they made these statements.
As time passes we are finding more evidence to show that CO@ has very little influence in Global Warming and that water vapor and solar influence are the key factors, along with a few other things, and that man has really no NET influence. Anything man does is nearly completely counteracted and neutralized by other natural factors... as at least one scientist said, we have between 0% and 10% influence, and that percentage is lost in the mix of natural influences.
The Global Warming Alarmists stand to make billions of dollars in grant money to study this phenomenon, not to mention the many jobs that have been created by man made global warming... and it is all a big scam.
Some of us have known this for a while, simply because the time frames involved did not make any sense... for example, we have only had thermometers for about 150 years, and scientists are going to make predictions for something as old as the earth is based on that little amount of data?
As one scientist pointed out, there is NO WAY to take the temperature of the earth and come up with an average mean temper...at least not accurately.
The fact that so many people have fallen for this scam is what I find appalling... of course the Associated Press has helped this along with their mindless and lazy reporting of the unsubstantiated facts, while making no effort to verify any of them.
There is just too much information to cite , however all of the information needed is included in the links you provided ans well as many other places.
All one has to do is look... the truth about this scam is easily available.
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Here, here, my friend!!!
I spent many hours going through the report yesterday, and last night. And, there are some things that I know I didn't digest, just because of the time factor. I'll be reading and re-reading the data and peer reviewed findings for some time to come.
You make a fabulous point about thermometers only having been around for 150 years! For me, the skepticism came immediately based on this simple reality: Meteorologists cannot predict tomorrow or next week's weather; how can they expect us to believe that they can predict the weather decades out?
The other complete shock is: how many times has solar flaring been cited in the news in the past five to 8 years? Every time the cell phones go whacky, we learn that there's been inordinate solar activity. How could anyone with a PhD not have put that together with our recent warming trend? Duh!
I'm so thrilled that these scientists have risked all to get the truth out. Perhaps now we can get scientific research funding back on track.
2 people like this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
24 Dec 07
Gore should lose the Nobel Prize. Earth is not warming and this global warming scare was designed to reduce the advantages that the Western and Northern nations had over the lands near the equator, for if the former were discouraged from producing material for fear of heating up the earth, those peoples near the equator who do not need to use as much to heat their homes would be in the ascendancy as they were when us Northerners were back in and before medieval times.
I kept thinking what would have happened in winter when the price of gas and oil and even alternatives fuels would be too high and I envisioned many elderly and the young dying of pneumonia in the Northern part of America, the Canadian Prairies, Russia, and Siberia.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
24 Dec 07
Hello Suspenseful,
You are so right that the overriding U.N. goal is to make every effort to level the economic playing field between developed nations, and lesser developed nations. This has never been so evident than in the U.N. "Law of the Seas Treaty". The political double-speak so often found in UN Treaties was surprisingly absent in the "Law of the Seas Treaty". It was simply a forthright effort to force the developed nations to subsidize the lesser developed nations. Wealth re-distribution at its finest. What's really scary is that the US Senate has been considering it seriously!
Your mention of alternative fuels is a whole other can of worms, worthy of its own post. Perhaps you'd like to initiate that one? Legislating the reduction of food crops for fuel consumption is going to have devastating repercussions, and I'm sure many in this elightened audience would wish to put their two cents in on that issue. If you do decide to start that discussion, please do chime back in here to let us know, OK? Thx!
@Debs_place (10520)
• United States
28 Dec 07
Attached is a picture of Lake Minnewaska, a glacial lake that was formed during the 3rd ice age. According to the history of it.
If there were 3 ice ages, there were also global warmings in between. Personally, the earth is in a cycle. Ice age-warming-ice age-warming and we are in the warming cycle.
We maybe accelerating the process a bit, but it would happen with or without us.
3 people like this
@LightninStrike (5915)
• Saint Vincent And The Grenadines
21 Dec 07
Well some scientists have claimed that certain statements that mr Gore were not accurate, or even not true. First of all, that might be true, but it's not unanimous among scientific community that it's false. And secondly, even if some of the things he said are exaggerated, I give them a very important symbolic value. Which is that we must WAKE UP and open our eyes to the fact that we're destroying our planet.
Attitudes like USA, Canada or China 's Administrations, justifying the non signing of the international Protocols in defending their economies is simply sad. We are poisoning the planet, deforesting it, and that is true no matter what mr Gore says, cause he's only a man, but meanwhile we keep acting like predators.
So in short, I'm sure he exaggerated in some aspects, as Michael Moore did on Bowling for columbine, but as in this last case, It has been a good kick in the butt for our pompous western consciences.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Hello LightninStrike,
Although I respect your concern for the planet, the matter isn't that Gore exaggerated. The matter is that the UN deliberately set this whole scam up, and Gore was their witting spokesperson.
As for dissention not being unanimous: did you read the list of scientists and organizations/universities that came forward to debunk the falsities that the GW debate was formulated upon? And, did you read the statements from scientists explaining that to speak out against the GW argument has meant threats of the loss of their career? As such, I suspect that you will find more and more voices speaking out against the UN politically motivated GW argument. Even if those original four scientists remain a hold out, their credibility on the matter is now dissolved. If you thoroughly read the report & its links, you'll learn that global temperatures over the past two years indicate that we've begun to return to a natural cooling shift. This is what I mean about a scam: the UN doctored figures, ignored respected scientific dissention and fabricated statistics so as to create this whole scam.
Because of this SCEP report, your statements that we must wake up to the fact that we are destroying the planet have to be reconsidered. Thanks to Gore & the UN, there are millions of people on this planet who sincerely believe that using compact florescent light bulbs will save the planet. Except that those bulbs contain toxic mercury poisoning.
No one can argue that pollution sucks. But, co-opting the argument to target CO2, a harmless and essential gaseous compound as part of a healthy ecosystem, was not only deceptive and foolish, it was dangerous! More importantly, it was motivated by greed and a lust for power. The GW Alarmists were willing to put ignorance and greed over the safety of this planet. Now maybe we can get our attention focused on the real issues of environmental stewardship.
As for it having been a good kick in the butt: I disagree. It co-opted billions upon billions of research dollars and man-hours that can never be regained. And, which were diverted from other life-saving types of research. Literally, there are school aged children who now believe that because humans exhale CO2, that having children in later life is an immoral action. Numerous governments around the globe have legislated the demise of incandescent light bulbs in lieu of compact florescents which will end up leaching mercury into top soil all over the globe. How exactly has this deception been a good thing?
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Hello Bravenewworld,
Did you read the SCEP report? The committee is chaired by none other than Barbara Boxer.
I'm quite a fast reader and it took me most of yesterday afternoon and evening to get through all the data and peer reviewed submissions. Even then, I plan on going back over the data.
How can you ignore the absurdity of 4 scientists conclusively initiating this whole garbage science debate, versus more than 400 who have petitioned the United States Senate to put the brakes on construed and deceptive science mandating political policy?
From other discussions that you and I have engaged, I believe you to be an honorable person. In light of my belief in you, might I request that you put the time in to read the documentation before you proclaim it a conspiracy?
2 people like this
@bravenewworld (746)
• United States
21 Dec 07
I agree with you LightninStrike. I could respond separately, but I would just reiterate your post.
There are scientists on both sides of the man-made global warming debate. The data is not conclusive, and unfortunately there's a political / ideological factor in many people's position on the issue. This administration has clearly suppressed scientists who believe they have evidence of man-made global warming. Honestly, I'm suspicious of anyone that comes out vehemently on the side of doing nothing about global climate issues. There is a problem and it behooves us to take it seriously, and the US needs to step up. The latest energy bill shows some signs that congress is beginning to take this seriously. But it is sad that this country uses economic justification for not joining the international community in trying to address a globally recognized problem. Not good at 'the vision thing', I guess.
To suggest that the UN and Gore lied, and have some agenda for such a fabrication, is just conspiracy nonsense, plain and simple.
1 person likes this
@neenasatine (2841)
• Philippines
21 Dec 07
whether al gore lied or not..there is one thing that i am sure is a fact...
we are destroying our planet and now our planet is bringing those destructions back to us...
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Hello Neenasatine,
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suspect that you didn't read the full report. If I'm wrong, you have my apology. Yet, you couldn't have read the entire report and still say what you said. How is the planet bringing those destructions back on us?
I have been a LONG-TIME environmental steward. Our home is fitted with solar, we compost, we don't buy processed food, so our garbage waste is minimal, etc... So, I'm all for leaving the planet in better shape than we found it. Yet, what Gore & the UN are guilty of is a global deception that put greed & lust for power over environmental stewardship. As you can read in my above responses, there are at least two recommendations from the GW Alarmists that put this planet in greater jeopardy than it was five years ago. They manipulated the planet into believing that CO2, which is a harmless & life essential gaseous compound, was dangerous.
If you wish to remain part of the environmental stewardship movement, then I welcome you aboard. However, you've now learned a painful lesson -- that scam artists will do anything for money. So, as you endeavor as a steward of our beautiful planet, you should be aware of liars spreading dangerous falsehoods, and use common sense when choosing how best to care for our planet.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Hello Jeb,
If you read the whole report, you'll statements from environmentally conscious scientists who accurately accuse Gore & the UN of co-opting the green movement. They potentially have done much more harm than good. Their recommendations to use compact florescent bulbs -- which leach mercury poisoning into top soil & groundwater sources, is but one effect. Now that the deception is revealed, how many people will poo-poo the idea of genuine environmental stewardship? I suspect that this will, in the long run, be the number one repercussion of Gore's lies!
1 person likes this
@jeb083079 (839)
• Philippines
21 Dec 07
Definitely, even if he did not received a nobel prize, still human beings are causing pollution which has a negative effect on Earth and on people too. Whether he have said some things or had been silent at all, the fact is that we are committing some things that endanger the planet we live in. What about the future of our children? Even if it's a lie, pollution have a very negative effect on us. That's the truth.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
26 Dec 07
Hello Whyaskq,
Yup, you're right -- if he, or anyone for that matter, lied in such a fashion as to turn the world on its ear, then yes he should be stripped of the honor that winning a Nobel Prize brings.
Thanks for sharing, Whyaskq! I always enjoy hearing your perspective.
1 person likes this
@barehugs (8973)
• Canada
21 Dec 07
WEll I must be stupid! I can't for the life of me figure out why Al Gore would do this. What differene does it make if we do, or if we don't believe in Man-made Global warming? The earth is getting warmer (so they say) whether its man-made or not. Did Al Gore do this just to get the Nobel Prise? Actually I think its ok . The auto companies have not been improving gas milage in their cars. The world most certainly Will run out of oil some day! Its time we found alternative energy sources and began to use them. I think Al Gore is doing the world a service, whether or not man-made global warming has anything to do with it.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Hello Barehugs,
Destiny007 speaks the truth. Gore is a co-founder and princle share-holder in the largest international carbon credits offset company.
Other than political life, Gore really has no experience in the business world. He had to figure out a way to make a living. If you tell a lie to enough people, enough times, they'll begin to believe it. That's exactly what Gore did here.
And, if you read the full report, you will see that the basic claims that the Earth is warming is false. The UN IPCC refused to accept any data after 2005 because in 2006 the global temp started to stabilize, and by end of year 2007 the un 'doctored' meteoroligical stations are reporting a cooling of average global surface and water temps.
What this means is that there isn't even any global warming to react to, or try to fix. Only the normal temperature variances based on solar activity, water vapor, and a few other natural factors. Yet, Gore persists in his for-profit venture of selling of carbon off-sets.
Please read the peer-reviewed studies. I know it's alot of data, yet what you learn will astound you. How could so many seemingly intelligent people been so easily duped?
2 people like this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
21 Dec 07
Gore stands to make billions selling Carbon Credits for one thing. He already has a company set up for that.
As in all things, just follow the money and soon you will find the root causes for most anything.
3 people like this
@AD11RGUY (1265)
• United States
21 Dec 07
I feel this HUGE sigh of relief now! Thank you for posting this! I get really disturbed when I see harmful lies spread about unchecked and this one has been bugging me since its inception. But finally the truth is out. But now the truth of the matter has to be spread just as vehemently as the lie was. I wonder who will do a movie about this? I nominate another laughable has been - Woody Allen.
1 person likes this
@AD11RGUY (1265)
• United States
22 Dec 07
Crossing my fingers (which have no food in them - :( ) and hoping that Al not only gets "demoted", but is ordered to use the prize money to pay for the costly messes his lies have spurred. That would fall under that "public restitution fund" that you or I would be slapped with if we did serious public destruction.
1 person likes this
