Global Warming Fanatics and Three Good Reasons Not to Trust Them


The ‘environmentalist’ movement has been trying, for many years, to shut down the capitalist system, force us all onto collective farms and make us ride around in horse-drawn buggies: That is their political agenda, which is more commonly known as Communism. It should be pointed out that this idea didn’t work out too well in China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia or any other nation on Earth that has attempted it. Nevertheless, the global warming hoax is part of this agenda.

“Global warming”, or “climate change” – depending on what it’s proponents believe is the most effective label at the time – is their rallying cry. Alarm-ism is a trade-mark of the extreme Left; it is a well-established tactic that can be found in the writings and propaganda of many prominent Progressives, Socialists and Nazis. Examples can be found on an almost daily basis; we are constantly being warned by the Left that terrible things will happen, if we refuse to bend to their will. Global warming zealots have little credibility and here are just 3 of the many compelling reasons not to trust them (in no particular order of importance):

1. Al Gore – the champion of the global warming movement – is not only a hypocrite, but he also lacks any scientific knowledge, whatsoever. Mr. Gore is estimated to have amassed a personal fortune of more than $100 million dollars since he began his crusade to save the planet. Travelling around in private jets and limousines does not strike this writer as environmentally conscious, and the carbon footprint of his luxury Tennessee mansion did nothing to enhance his image as guardian of the natural world: According to the Nashville Electric Service, Gore’s mansion consumed more electricity in one month than the average household uses in a year. His combined expenditure on electricity and natural gas for the year 2006? Almost $30,000, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. To be fair, Mr. Gore did make substantial modifications to his palace, after word of this got around. The property was later cited as one of the most energy-efficient homes in the country. Clearly, however, the improvements were a cynical attempt to salvage his reputation.

How much does Gore know about the science behind the theory of man-made global warming? Very little indeed, it appears. During a November, 2009 appearance on NBC’s “Tonight Show”, Gore said “People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees…” Whilst geophysicists differ slightly in their claims, regarding temperature of the Earth and Sun, it is generally accepted that – while the center of the Sun may be around 10 million degrees – the star’s surface temperature is approximately 6000 degrees Celsius. The center of the Earth – some 4000 miles down – is around 5000 degrees and, two kilometers down, the temperature is around 30-60 degrees warmer than the surface, according to the geothermal gradient, which is a measure of the increase in temperature with depth.

In addition to his total lack of scientific knowledge, Gore has, on more than one occasion, engaged in deliberate deception and distortion of fact, in order to advance his extremist agenda. According to a 2007 judgment in the High Court in London, England, Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, contained 9 errors. The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) actually identified 35 errors. In defending the documentary, Gore’s “environment advisor,” Kalee Kreider, stated that the documentary contained “thousands and thousands of facts.” As pointed out by the SPPI, if just 2000 facts had been presented in the 93-minute documentary, it would have amounted to more than one fact every three seconds.

In the documentary, Gore claims that sea-levels will rise around 6 meters (20 feet), although he does not give a specific time-frame for this. In discussing this point, Kreider cited figures from the SPPI which estimate a rise in sea-levels of 59cm (23.2 inches) by the year 2100. Obviously, 23.2 inches is considerably less than Gore’s claim of 20 feet. In the interest of brevity, this article does not list every false claim made in the documentary, but a little research by those with an interest in the truth will turn up numerous examples of how Mr. Gore’s climate change facts are not quite correct – or downright dishonest.

When Australian filmmaker Chris Tangey captured an incredible firestorm on video, Gore attempted to obtain the footage for inclusion in his documentary, as a demonstration of the dire effects of global warming. Tangey refused to allow him to use the footage, because the firestorm had begun from a man-made fire – it was not a natural phenomenon and had nothing to do with climate change. There are several other documented instances of Gore citing scientific “evidence” of global warming, only for the actual scientists who conducted the research to come out with accusations that Gore deliberately misquoted their findings, which did not originally prove any warming trends.

2. In 2009, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) was exposed as having edited the results of a study to hide the fact that they had been unable to prove a rise in temperatures, as a result of “man-made” global warming. A hacker dumped a huge cache of their confidential emails onto the internet. British newspaper The Daily Telegraph – in which the term “Climategate” was coined – reported extensively on the now widely distributed emails. As reported in that newspaper, some of the excerpts from the emails passed between the institutions so-called “scientists” reveal a deliberate attempt to conceal the results of the research, which did not prove the conclusions they had been hoping for. Just a few examples – as reproduced in journalist James Delingpole’s Telegraph blog – include:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

3. Despite claims by global warming alarmists that the “debate is over”, “the science is settled” and that there is a “consensus” among scientists that global warming is real, there are countless scientific studies that have contradicted this theory. A minimal amount of research will locate such studies, conducted by individuals and institutions as highly credentialed and respected as any of those who are trying to prove the existence of global warming. Recently, the New York Times – normally a strong supporter of the global warming lobby – revealed that a scientific study shows a slower rise in temperature on the Earth’s surface over the past 15 years than over the previous 20 years. The Times then attempted to brush this off by suggesting that the rate of global warming is erratic.

This is the usual tactic of global warming fanatics – and is why there are many reasons not to trust them: Despite their claims that the science is “settled”, whenever a study throws doubt on their theory, they then turn around and use the excuse that climate science is not, after all, an exact science. In doing so, they are admitting that the science is not, therefore, “settled”.

In truth, global warming happens; it is natural. global cooling also happens; and, back in the 1970’s, we were being told that global cooling was an existential threat, just as we are told today that global warming is. A cursory look into the makeup and funding of institutions that push the global warming theory will reveal deep-rooted political connections. Ultra-wealthy George Soros, who is well-known as the money behind extreme Left-wing “news” organizations such as Media Matters for America, also pours millions into the climate change lobby. That is a connection too obvious to miss.

The demonization of those who refuse to buy the global warming hype is classic Left-wing strategy. The word “deniers” has become fashionable; a deliberate attempt to equate the “skeptics” with Holocaust “deniers”. The truth, however, is that the science is nowhere near “settled” on global warming, and the string of proven lies, inaccurate statements and outright deceptions put out by the fanatics leaves them with little credibility and should give us all plenty of reasons not to trust them.

Written by Graham J Noble


2 Responses to "Global Warming Fanatics and Three Good Reasons Not to Trust Them"