The Death of the Global Warming Myth

[American Patriot]

Debate over global warming is shifting

Some skeptics resolute, others revisiting views



By John Donnelly, Globe Staff | February 15, 2007

WASHINGTON -- With Democrats controlling the environmental agenda in Congress, a panel of international scientists saying there's a greater-than-90 percent chance that humans contribute to global warming, and former vice president Al Gore calling climate change a moral issue, many besieged global warming skeptics are starting to tone down their rhetoric.

Some, though, are sticking to aggressive tactics, even contending they are gaining momentum. And they have influential allies: some scientists, conservative think-tank pundits, a minority of Republicans in Congress, and a sympathetic White House that has rejected attempts to force companies to curb carbon dioxide emissions -- even though the vast majority of scientists say those emissions are heating up the earth.

Still, both sides acknowledge that the global warming debate has changed significantly in recent weeks. The biggest factor is the Feb. 2 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC -- a review of scientific literature by hundreds of scientists who determined that it is more than 90 percent certain humans contribute to global warming.

That seemingly irrefutable conclusion helped shift the position of ExxonMobil, which had taken the strongest stance among oil companies against global warming policy.

Last week, Rex W. Tillerson , ExxonMobil's chief executive, acknowledged that greenhouse gases from car and industrial exhausts are factors in global warming, a stark reversal in the company's long-held position. For years, ExxonMobil has funded several Washington think tanks that have questioned the science -- and whether national policies would be effective.

Scott Barrett , a global warming believer and director of the International Policy Program at Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies , said ExxonMobil's about-face is significant. "They accepted the responsibility to do something, and that could change the debate" from uncertainty about climate change to finding solutions to a fast-approaching crisis, he said.

Other oil giants, including BP and Shell, had made the shift much earlier; both are aggressively promoting fossil-fuel alternatives such as solar and wind power.

"A lot of the focus is going to shift into how much effort you should put into reducing emissions versus adapting to climate change," Barrett said. Adapting to a warmer global climate, he said, could include anything from building farther inland to guard against rises in sea level to investing in a malaria vaccine, anticipating that disease-carrying mosquitoes could spread northward from the tropics.

The debate shift has been felt elsewhere as well. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank that had offered $10,000 last year to scientists to challenge the IPCC report, is rethinking the project, said Kenneth Green , who is overseeing the effort.

"There is a backlash growing against skeptics, a kind of climate inquisition," said Green. "What do people do if they have alternative ideas and they don't have independent institutions to back them up? They will be attacked."

Global warming skeptics say they believe the media and Congress aren't interested in hearing their side of the debate.

"The size of the megaphones for the other side is very large," said Myron Ebell , director of energy and global warming policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the leading doubters of the issue. "On our side we are using bare voices without amplification."

But those who don't believe humans contribute to global warming have some scientists, and an influential lawmaker, on their side.

Senator James M. Inhofe , the Oklahoma Republican who famously declared global warming a "hoax," said this week that the skeptics were gaining momentum. He said President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic and scientists from France and Israel, among others, are now among the doubters.

Writing in the Sunday Times of London this week, Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist magazine, suggested that the IPCC's main conclusion -- that there is more than a 90 percent certainty humans are contributing to global warming -- means there's a 10 percent chance that man is blameless, "a wide-open breach for any latter-day Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works."

Dr. Willie Soon , a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who believes that variations in the sun's energy might be the chief reason for a warming planet, agrees. Speaking for himself and not the center, Soon accused mainstream scientists of "attacking me. But as a scientist, you just ignore them."

Meanwhile, Christopher C. Horner , published a book this week called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," a primer for doubters that yesterday was ranked 33 d on Amazon.com's best-sellers' list. Horner, a fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute, has denounced Democrats in Congress, alleging that they are delaying action on global warming to preserve it as a presidential campaign issue in 2008.

But Representative Henry A. Waxman , a California Democrat, has said he doubts any comprehensive global warming legislation will emerge until 2009 for a different reason: Though Democrats control Congress, they don't have the votes to override a likely veto by President Bush.

Bill McKibben , the author of "The End of Nature," which in 1989 warned about global warming, said skeptics "at best are taking pot shots around the edges" of the debate. Still, McKibben sees a great irony as he listens to their arguments: "There is nothing I would rather see than these guys be right."

John Donnelly can be reached at donnelly@globe.com.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

[American Patriot]

Home » blogs » Noel Sheppard's blog

Christopher Horner Slams Al Gore and Global Warmingists on ‘Fox and Friends’

Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 14, 2007 - 21:45.

For those unfamiliar, Christopher Horner is undoubtedly a rising star on the conservative political landscape. A Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the author of the new book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism,” he was a guest of the “Fox & Friends” crew Tuesday.
Given the subject matter, Horner had a lot of fun slamming Al Gore, Ellen Goodman, and the global warmingists (video available here). Goodman was Horner’s first target:
Well, let's say this Ellen Goodman a columnist just joined the parade of those who call people who deny climate change – – that’s what they call it -- Holocaust deniers. Okay, now think about this. You decide which is being trivialized: a few tenths of a degree increase over a hundred and something years, or 20 million people dead on the basis of their religion or sexual preferences.

Horner then made an interesting historical climate observation that has conveniently eluded all the global warming alarmists and their devotees:

Obviously, they’re the ones overreacting because it’s very simple. We admit climate change, and that’s what they deny. Climate changes – it always has, it always will. The Vikings used to farm Greenland, and if we get two degrees Celsius warmer they may again.

Next, Horner went after Al Gore:

[G]laciers are melting all over the world. Glaciers are growing all over the world. The problem is…and also glaciers are receding by growing which is in Al Gore’s movie. When they grow too far – grow is the key word -- they break off. That's not melting he shows, that's called calving. But what happens is they say melting glaciers is proof of global warming. By that logic, for lack of a better word, receding glaciers is proof of global cooling. They can't both be true and in fact neither are.

What follows is a full transcript of this segment.

Brian Kilmeade: Hey, Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” which we just saw a clip of just a bunch of wasted of energy or is it a warning to the people of the world?

Steve Doocy: Our next guest Chris Horner, Christopher Horner, is the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.” He joins us live in the studio. Good morning, Chris

Christopher Horner: Good morning

Steve: So, you must be a scientist or something?

Horner: I don't rise to the level of Keanu Reeves or Alanis Morissette, who’ve done some pretty compelling work on the issue, and the (?) of ice core samples. Selma Hayak was pretty good. I think it’s not a serious objection thanks to Al Gore taking that off the table. We wouldn't be subjected to him, any politician, hundreds of celebrities can't be wrong, that argument. But the scientific literature is to be written by scientists. It’s intended to be read by interested lay people.

Steve: And, the basic overview of your book is?

Horner: The basic overview -- climate changes, weather happens, always has, always will. Societies choose how to adapt to it. Do they create wealth? Become richer more technologically adept to deal with something that’s always there unpredictable in severe weather? Or do what Europe used to do and seems to be on the cusp of doing again now which is look for witches to burn?

Brian: Okay, fine, so you think we’re overreacting to something that's out of our control, that we are not responsible, that if the earth is, in fact, heating up?

Horner: Well, let's say this Ellen Goodman a columnist just joined the parade of those who call people who deny climate change – that’s what they call it -- Holocaust deniers. Okay, now think about this. You decide which is being trivialized: a few tenths of a degree increase over a hundred and something years, or 20 million people dead on the basis of their religion or sexual preferences. Obviously, they’re the ones overreacting because it’s very simple. We admit climate change, and that’s what they deny. Climate changes – it always has, it always will. The Vikings used to farm Greenland, and if we get two degrees Celsius warmer they may again.

Steve: Alright, Chris, put on answer man hat. Here’s some questions, and you’re going to answer them. Folks at home. True or false: the climate was stable until man came along.

Horner: False. In fact, we know this is false because this claim and a chart purporting to show stable climate was called the hockey stick and then the spike upward was the smoking gun from the last U.N. report six years ago. The new one that just came out that you heard distorted about 10 days ago. It wasn’t in there anywhere. No mention of it. Air brushed out. It was dropped, because they air brushed out the little ice age which we just left and the Medieval climate optimum or warming. It's been debunked by the National Academy.

Brian: The glaciers are melting. You saw Al Gore just talk about that.

Horner: Yes, glaciers are melting all over the world. Glaciers are growing all over the world. The problem is…and also glaciers are receding by growing which is in Al Gore’s movie. When they grow too far – grow is the key word -- they break off. That's not melting he shows, that's called calving. But what happens is they say melting glaciers is proof of global warming. By that logic, for lack of a better word, receding glaciers is proof of global cooling. They can't both be true and in fact neither are.

[American Patriot]

Climate Alarmists Abuse 'Children'
Junk Science ^ | Feb. 23rd, 2007 | Steve Milloy



“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” said famed 18th century British lexicographer Samuel Johnson. To update the quote for our current era you might substitute “children” for “patriotism” and “climate alarmist” for “scoundrel.”


Last week, outgoing United Nations World Food Program chief James Morris reminded us that 18,000 children die every day from hunger and malnutrition. Morris called the situation “a terrible indictment of the world in 2007.”


In contrast to our quixotic fixation with trying to fine-tune global climate by tweaking atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, the ongoing tragedy of starving children would seem to be a relatively easy problem to solve. After all, wealthy developed nations have plenty of surplus food and the wherewithal to deliver it to the world’s malnourished.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

[American Patriot]

Global warming concerns are keeping children awake at night
GM TV (UK) ^ | February 22, 2007

Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today.

A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change.

Are you doing enough?

One in seven of those questioned by supermarket giant Somerfield said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.

The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.

Most of those polled understood the benefits of recycling, although one in 10 thought the issue was linked to riding a bike.

Pete Williams, of Somerfield, said: "Concerns over our environment dominate the media at present and kids are exposed to the hard facts as much as anybody.

"While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it's affecting the welfare of kids now.

"By raising awareness amongst today's young, hopefully we are improving our chances of reaching a solution.''

The study marked Somerfield's drive to reduce the eight billion plastic bags wasted by UK households every year.

[American Patriot]

Meteorologist Launches Website to Counter Media’s Global Warming Hysteria
NewBusters ^

Meteorologist Launches Website to Counter Media’s Global Warming Hysteria Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 24, 2007 - 16:06.

A Trenton, New Jersey, meteorologist has just launched a new website to counter the constant stream of disinformation about anthropogenic global warming coming from a hysterical media.

As reported by ClimatePolice.com (emphasis mine throughout):

Joseph Conklin, a meteorologist with expertise in the analysis of surface weather observations, has launched a website to help promote alternative scientific views on climate change. He believes these views have been overshadowed and even wrongly criticized by sensationalist news stories.

The press release continued:

"The goal of the website is to show the public that other research on climate change exists and the debate is not over. In science, alternate views should always be welcomed, not silenced," Conklin states.

Furthermore, Conklin insists on keeping information at his website non-partisan:

While research on either side of the climate change debate can be submitted to the website, only those not linked to any political group will be accepted.

"Scientific research should be apolitical. Extremist groups have promoted global warming as their primary political issue. I want this website to help correct that."

How refreshing. For those interested, here are Conklin’s credentials:

Mr. Conklin has over 14 years experience collecting and analyzing surface weather observations. He has additional experience in radar/lightning analysis, wind shear detection, and software development. Mr. Conklin holds a meteorology degree from Rutgers University and an interdisciplinary degree from Monmouth University where his master's thesis involved climate studies with lightning and severe storms. He also operates NiceWeather.com, a website specializing in monthly weather forecasts.

We certainly wish Mr. Conklin and his team great success with their new endeavor, and look forward to their contributions concerning this crucial issue.

[American Patriot]

A skeptic's take on man-made global warming
By Bill Steigerwald

Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated “fact” that humans are contributing to global warming is the “greatest deception in the history of science.”
Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us and that the Kyoto Protocol “is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."

Needless to say, Ball strongly disagrees with the findings of the latest report from the United Nations' Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change, which on Feb. 2 concluded that it is “very likely” that global warming is the result of human activity.

I talked to Ball by phone on Feb. 6 from his home on Victoria Island, British Columbia, which the good-humored scientist likes to point out was connected to the mainland 8,000 years ago when the sea level was 500 feet lower.

Q: The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true?

A: No. It's absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something's settled, it's usually that they don't want to talk about it anymore. They don't want anybody to dig any deeper. It's very, very far from settled. In fact, that's the real problem. We haven't been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.

There was a large group of people, the political people, who wanted the report to be more harum-scarum than it actually is. In fact, the report is quite a considerable step down from the previous reports. For example, they have reduced the potential temperature rise and they've reduced the sea level increase and a whole bunch of other things. Part of it is because they know so many people will be watching the report this time.

Q: Why should we be leery of the IPCC's report -- or the summary of the report?

A: Well, because the report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it's also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down.

They couldn't do it by attacking energy because they know that would get the public's back up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that's the byproduct of industry and fossil-fuel burning, which of course drives the whole thing. They think, “If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to control.” Unfortunately, you've got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process.

Q: You always hear the argument that the IPCC has several thousand scientists -- how can you not accept what they say?

A: The answer, first of all, is that consensus is not a scientific fact. The other thing is, you look at the degree to which they have controlled the whole IPCC process. For example, who are the lead authors? Who are the scientists who sit on the summary panel with the politicians to make sure that they get their view in? � You've got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that's going on.

Q: What is your strongest or best argument that GW is not “very likely” to be caused by SUVs and Al Gore's private planes?

A: I guess the best argument is that global warming has occurred, but it began in 1680, if you want to take the latest long-term warming, and the climate changes all the time. It began in 1680, in the middle of what's called “The Little Ice Age” when there was three feet of ice on the Thames River in London. And the demand for furs of course drove the fur trade. The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn't fit with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2.

The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you've got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it's warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it's absolutely rubbish.

Q: What is the most exaggerated and unnecessary worry about global warming or climate change?

A: I think the fact that it is presented as all negative. Of course, it's the one thing they focus on because the public, with the huge well of common sense that is out there, would sort of say, “Well, I don't understand the science, but, gee, I wouldn't mind a warmer world, especially if I was living in Canada or Russia.” They have to touch something in the warming that becomes a very big negative for the people, and so they focus on, “Oh, the glaciers are going to melt and the sea levels are going to rise.” In fact, there are an awful lot of positive things. For example, longer frost-free seasons across many of the northern countries, less energy used because you don't need to keep your houses warm in the winter.

Q: Is the globe warming and what is the cause?

A: Yeah, the world has been warming since 1680 and the cause is changes in the sun. But in their computer models they hardly talk about the sun at all and in the IPCC summary for policy-makers they don't talk about the sun at all. And of course, if they put the sun into their formula in their computer models, it swamps out the human portion of CO2, so they can't possibly do that.

Q: Is the rising CO2 level the cause of global warming or the result of it?

A: That's a very good question because in the theory the claim is that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go up. The ice core record of the last 420,000 years shows exactly the opposite. It shows that the temperature changes before the CO2. So the fundamental assumption of the theory is wrong. That means the theory is wrong. ... But the theory that human CO2 would lead to runaway global warming became a fact right away, and scientists like myself who dared to question it were immediately accused of being paid by the oil companies or didn't care about the children or the future or anything else.

Q: Have you ever accepted money from an oil company?

A: No. No. I wish I did get some. I wouldn't have to drive a '92 car and live in a leaky apartment bloc.

Q: Why are sea levels rising and should we worry?

A: Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years. In fact, 8,000 years ago, sea level was almost 500 feet lower than it is today. It's been rising gradually over that time. It's risen very slightly in the modern record, but it has risen no more rapidly than it has in the last 8,000 years. One of the factors that people forget is that most of the ice is already in the ocean, and so if you understand Archimedes' Principle, when that ice melts it simply replaces the space that the ice occupied -- even if the ice caps melt completely. What they do is they say if we estimate the volume of water in Antarctica and Greenland, then we add that to the existing ocean level. But that's not the way it works at all. But it does work for panic and for sea-level rises of 20 feet, like Gore claims.

Q: Why are the sea levels rising, just because we are in a warming period?

A: Yes. We are in an inter-glacial. Just 22,000 years ago, which is what some people can get their minds around, Canada and parts of the northern U.S. were covered with an ice sheet larger than the current Antarctic ice sheet. That ice sheet was over a mile thick in central Canada. All of that ice melted in 5,000 years. There was another ice sheet over Europe and a couple more in Asia. As that ice has melted, it's run back into the oceans and of course that's what's filled up the oceans. But if you drilled down in Antarctica, you go down almost 8,000 feet below sea level. That ice below sea level, if it melts, is not going to raise sea level.

Q: Is there any aspect of global warming alarmism that you are worried about?

A: There are a couple of very minor things. I'm interested in and need more research done on commercial jet aircraft flying in the stratosphere. The research that's been done so far says no, it's not an issue, but I think the jury is out on that still. The other concern I have is that we're totally preparing for warming. The whole world is preparing for warming, but I mentioned that we have been cooling since 1998 and the climate scientists that I respected -- particularly the Russians and Chinese -- are predicting that we're going to be much, much cooler by 2030. So we've got completely the wrong adaptive strategy.

Q: Is it not inevitable that we will have another ice age?

A: Yes, I think there is another ice age coming, because the major causes of the ice ages are changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun and changes in the tilt of the Earth. Those are things we've known about for 150 years.

Q: If someone asked you where he should go to get a good antidote on the mainstream media's spin on global warming, where should he go?

A: There are three Web sites I have some respect for. One is the one I helped set up by a group of very frustrated professional scientists who are retired. That's called Friendsofscience.org. It has deliberately tried to focus on the science only. The second site that I think provides the science side of it very, very well is CO2Science.org, and that's run by Sherwood Idso, who is the world expert on the relationship between plant growth and CO2. The third, which is a little more irreverent and maybe still slightly on the technical side for the general public, is JunkScience.com.

Q: If you had to calm the fears of a small grandchild or a student about the threat of global warming, what would you tell him?

A: First of all, I probably wouldn't tell him anything. As I tell audiences, the minute somebody starts saying “Oh, the children are going to die and the grandchildren are going to have no future,” they have now played the emotional and fear card. Just like in the U.S., it's almost like the race card. It's not to say that it isn't valid in some cases. But the minute you play that card, you are now taking the issues and the debates out of the rational and logical and reasonable and sensible and calm into the emotional and hysterical.

So I wouldn't raise these kinds of fear with the children. What I would do with my children and grandchildren is what I'm trying to do with the public and say, “Look, here's the other side of the story. Make sure you get all of the information before you start running off and screaming ‘wolf, wolf, wolf.'”

Bill Steigerwald is a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. E-mail Bill at bsteigerwald@tribweb.com. ©Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, All Rights Reserved.

[American Patriot]

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

For Immediate Release: February 26, 2007

February 26, 2007
For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

###



The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.

[American Patriot]

National Geographic: Melting Mars Means Man-Made Global Warming a Myth
NewsBusters, National Geographic ^ | 3/1/2007 | Noel Sheppard

...Regardless, the earth-shattering piece began ...

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

The article marvelously continued:

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...

[American Patriot]

Email I received from the "Stop Global Warming Team"
Stop Global Warming Team

Posted on 03/02/2007 5:40:03 AM MST by Shannon

After reading about Al Gore's huge electric bills I went to www.stopglobalwarming.org. I wrote to them saying I thought I'd follow Gore's wonderful example and turn on every light in my house etc. etc. Here's the email I got back:

Thank you for your email. Every family has a different carbon footprint. What Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and and then take steps to reduce and offset it.

Specific steps the Gores have taken to reduce their emissions include:

Purchasing all of their power through the local Green Powerswitch program—it is 100 percent renewable power.

Renovating their home, which includes installing solar panels which will enable them to use less power.

Installing all Energy Star appliances and windows and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures, and

Living a carbon neutral life to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.

In addition, Former Vice President Gore also donated all of the the proceeds from his work on “An Inconvenient Truth” to a non-profit dedicated to educating the public about global warming and both of the companies he has co-founded are carbon neutral.

Sincerely, The Stop Global Warming Team

[American Patriot]

note, *I* didn't get that note someone else did.

[American Patriot]

It's a joke, right!

Andrew Bolt
March 02, 2007 12:00am


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...006029,00.html

ANY day now, global warming will change from the world's biggest scare to the world's biggest joke.

In fact, that moment could have come already. Last Monday, to be exact.

That's when we saw a beaming Al Gore waddle on stage to the roar of Hollywood's dream-makers to get his Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth.

It should have been for the former US vice president -- now the world's most famous global warming alarmist -- his finest hour.

Here he was, receiving film's highest honour for his smash documentary, in which he warns that within a century the seas will rise up to 6m while monster hurricanes tear through what's left of our cities.

Never mind that scientists reject such wild claims. Gore was getting the endorsement that counts -- an ovation from the diamond elite of showbiz and the media -- for preaching that only one thing could save us from the apocalypse he imagines.

Use. Less. Dirty. Power.

And how wildly this Use Less preacher was cheered on Monday as he stood there in his hair-shirt tuxedo. Cheered by actors who'd actually flown in by private jet. By actresses who'd driven up in stretch limos. By agents with solarium tans glowing under the brightest lights.

Ahem. Speaking of lights, Al, a small problem. But one so very typical.

At almost the very instant Gore was handed his Oscar for best documentary, The Tennessean, his home state paper, reported he'd in fact won an Oscar for hypocrisy.

Billing records of the Nashville Electric Service revealed that the local Gore mansion -- a 20-room, eight-bathroom behemoth with a well-lit heated pool -- used more electricity each month than the average American household used in an entire year.

Use Less Gore had so many lights burning, heaters running, computers humming and gadgets whirring that he burned up 221,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity last year, or more than 20 times the national household average.

Worse, he was using more electricity now than he did before he made An Inconvenient Truth to hector us into making do with less.

And this isn't even counting all the power he uses for his other two homes, and his endless flights around the world, in private jets and civil, to flog his film.

Gore's staff, sensing a PR disaster the size of the Exxon Valdez, rushed to explain away this great oil spill.

Unfair, wheedled spokesman Kalee Kreider. See, Gore and his wife tried to offset their "carbon footprint" by buying their power through the local Green Power Switch program.

"They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.".

But time is also up for this kind of easy virtue. Let's work through those three common excuses.

So Gore has low-energy light bulbs.

And he still uses all this power? My god.

So Gore uses the local green power program.

But isn't that green power just an add-on to the Nashville Energy Service's main source of base-load power -- gassy coal-fired power plants?

And doesn't the NES's green methane-burning plant still need to burn some dirty coal to work properly? Don't its emissions still contribute to global warming?

And so we get to Gore's final excuse -- the get-out-of-jail card of so many of our warming prophets of doom, from Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery to that Jeremiah of the airport lounge, David Suzuki: Gore buys carbon offsets.

That actually means he pays other folk to use less dirty power themselves, or take out the carbon dioxide he pumps out. It's a bit like paying someone to starve so you can gorge.

But there are at least four problems with such offsets, the first of which is very particular to Gore. And that is Gore buys his offsets through Generation Investment Management, whose chairman is . . . Al Gore.

What's more, GIM's business is not to itself remove carbon from the air, but, it says, to "buy high quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns".

Oh, and by the way, those companies have to be green. Some are even wind farms, although even they -- don't kid yourself -- produce some greenhouse gasses.

So Gore isn't so much buying offsets as investing in fashionable companies for profit. Lucky him. Rich him.

The second problem with his offsets is that if global warming really is going to fry us to Hell, shouldn't Gore cut emissions, rather just be carbon neutral?

Third problem is that even green groups now doubt many carbon offsets actually work.

For instance, the most common offset scheme -- especially here -- is to simply plant trees, often in places where people would probably plant them anyway.

But trees die and rot, and when they do they release much of the carbon they've trapped back into the air.

As Prof. Oliver Rackham, the Cambridge botanist and author, says: "Telling people to plant trees is like telling them to drink more water to keep down rising sea levels." What goes in will come out.

Besides, who checks these schemes to see they do what they claim? The band Coldplay, for instance, last year found that most of the trees of the mango plantation it planted in India to offset its world tour had actually died.

And, lastly, there's a moral problem. Offsets are really best suited for people rich enough -- like Gore -- to afford them.

They let the rich pay someone else to use less so they can use more. And so the aristocrat can party on under the chandeliers, while the power-rationed peasants sit out in his dark.

Of course, one hypocrite like Gore shouldn't discredit an entire cause. Yet it can't be an accident that global warming attracts more hypocrites than most faiths.

There's Tim Flannery, criss-crossing the world by jet to tell us to use less oil.

There's British PM Tony Blair lecturing Britons to cut their emissions, but declaring it "unreasonable" to expect him therefore to stop flying off on his overseas holidays.

And there's Prince Charles booking out all of a jet's first and second class to fly to New York to accept a green award from Gore.

Ah, Gore again. Which reminds me of Laurie David, one of the producers of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

David, too, demands we save the world by cutting our gasses, yet turns out to be as addicted to private jets as her friend Al.

Asked recently to explain such inconvenient hypocrisy, David spluttered: "Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year."

But -- and here's where she shows she's nobler than you -- "I feel horribly guilty about it."

See? The global warming faith is more about how you feel than what you actually do. Even the makers of An Inconvenient Truth demonstrate that. What a circus.

So what is the moral in this carnival of hypocrisy?

It's that global warming is an apocalyptic faith whose preachers demand sacrifices of others that they find far too painful for themselves.

It's a faith whose prophets can demand we close coal mines but who won't even turn off their own pool lights. Who demand the masses lose their cars, while they themselves keep their planes.

It's the ultimate faith of the feckless rich, where a ticket to heaven can be bought with a cheque made out to Al Gore. No further sacrifice required.

Except, of course, from the poor. While Gore's lights burn brightly, for you the darkness is coming.

Join Andrew on blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt.

[American Patriot]

Global Warming will make you healthy and sexy
American Thinker ^ | March 2, 2007 | James Lewis




In the spirit of the world campaign to save polar bears and buy carbon indulgences to assuage our collective guilt, it is vital to point out that published scientific studies also make a case for driving more, burning more coal, and breeding more flatulent cows. The reason: Global warming will make you happier, healthier and even sexier.


Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) is a recognized psychiatric disorder due to low levels of summer sunshine. SAD or the "winter blues" involves: depression fatigue hypersomnolence (over-sleeping) hyperphagia (overeating) carbohydrate craving weight gain and loss of libido (sexual desire) In other words, lack of sunshine can make you fat, miserable, sleepy and unsexy.


The predictable result is an increase in heart disease, suicide risk, poor sexual relationships, and general misery. Just a small rise in worldwide temperature could dramatically raise the world's level of happiness and even sexual desire. In a world of six billion people, tens of millions of sufferers might be rescued from SAD with only a small temperature rise.


Why do retirees move to Florida and Arizona? For the sunshine, of course. What will increase sunny days all over the planet? Global warming will!

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

[American Patriot]

Activists: U.S. Emissions Violate Rights
ForexTv News ^ | 3/1/2007 | ForexTv

WASHINGTON (AP) - Northern Canadians told an international commission Thursday that carbon emissions from the United States have contributed so much to global warming that they should be considered a human rights violation. One activist said temperatures have climbed so much that Arctic residents need air conditioners.

The case was pressed by the Inuit community before the 34-nation Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In a petition, the group asked the commission's assistance "in obtaining relief" from the impact of global warming, and makes specific reference to the United States as the country most responsible for the phenomenon.

The commission, however, lacks the legal authority to compel the United States to take action.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuit activist, said the well-being of her people is under threat -- and that the need for air conditioning is just one example of the spread of global warming.

Climate change, she said is "destroying our right to life, health property and means of subsistence," she said. "States that do not recognize these impacts and take action violate our human rights."

She said ice formations are much more likely to detach from land, and take unsuspecting hunters out to sea where they face an uncertain fate.

Beyond that, she said hunters can no longer be sure of ice thickness and whether it is safe to travel.

"Many hunters have been killed or seriously injured after falling through ice that was traditionally known to be safe," she said.

The United States did not respond to the Inuit claims before the commission, an arm of the Organization of American States. The Bush administration has said it is taking steps to reduce global warming, but domestic and international critics say it is not doing enough, given that the United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Scientists generally agree the Arctic is the first place on Earth to be affected by rising global temperatures. They say that unless developed nations such as the United States -- responsible for one-fourth of world's greenhouse gases -- do not dramatically reduce their emissions within the next 15 years, the Arctic ice likely will melt by the end of the century.

The Inuit population hails from Canada, Russia and Greenland, as well as Alaska, where they are known as Eskimos. They have been trying to tell the world for more than a decade about the shifting winds and thinning ice that have damaged the hunting grounds the Northern peoples have used for thousands of years.

Watt-Cloutier was nominated with former Vice President Al Gore for a Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change.

[American Patriot]

Pope is warned of a green Antichrist
Timesonline.uk.co ^ | 3/2/07 | Richard Owen



An arch-conservative cardinal chosen by the Pope to deliver this year’s Lenten meditations to the Vatican hierarchy has caused consternation by giving warning of an Antichrist who is “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”.


(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...


LOL!!! AL GORE?????????

[American Patriot]

Cars improved the air ... that's no bull
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 02/27/07 | DWIGHT R. LEE

The motto of all environmentalists should be "Thank goodness for the internal combustion engine."

The abuse heaped on the internal combustion engine by environmentalists was never justified. But a recent story on cow flatulence in the British newspaper, The Independent, makes the environmental benefits from gasoline-powered engines even more obvious. Based on a recent study by the Food and Agricultural Organization, The Independent reports that "livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

Research shows that livestock outdo planes, trains and cars in producing greenhouse gases. ItÕs more proof that the internal combustion engine, which drastically cut the need for working animals, has helped the environment.

Long before global warming became an environmental concern, however, the move from the power provided by animals to that provided by gasoline had greatly improved the environment. The emissions that came out of the tailpipes of horses were much more lethal pollutants that those now coming out of the tailpipes of cars. Horse emissions did more than make our town and cities stink; they spread fly-borne diseases and polluted water supplies that killed people at a far greater rate than the pollution from cars and trucks ever have.

Photochemical smog is clearly a health risk, but not nearly the health risk of cholera, diphtheria and tetanus that have been largely eliminated with the help of gasoline powered transportation.

Before the internal combustion engine it wasn't just cows, sheep and pigs emitting pollution down on the farm. Tractors and other types of gas-powered farm machinery eliminated the horses, mules and oxen that had provided most of the power necessary to grow and harvest our food and fiber. This not only reduced the problem that still exists from animal waste that environmentalists, with justification, still complain about. The internal combustion engine also eliminated the need to produce food to fuel millions upon millions of agricultural beasts of burden. It has been estimated that in 1900 it took about 93 million acres of land to grow the food for the farm animals that were replaced by current farm machinery. Most of that land has now gone back to woodlands, greatly increasing the number of trees that are reducing the problem of global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide.

The above consideration should have been enough to warrant an environmental shrine to the internal combustion engine. And now we find that by eliminating all those farm-yard animals, the internal combustion engine also eliminated vast amounts of methane-producing flatulence, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide produce by burning gasoline.

Even though the internal combustion engine is less polluting than what it replaced, it is obviously not pollution-free. Efforts should, and will be made to make it even less polluting than it is, and some day internal combustion will be replaced by an even less polluting technology. But history will look kindly on the internal combustion engine as a major contributor to the steady progress toward a healthier environment that has been made over the centuries.

[American Patriot]

The Great Global Warming Swindle (new documentary)
http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html ^

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun's radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease ...

In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. 'So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.'

'I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,' says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. 'Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.'

(Excerpt) Read more at channel4.com ...

[American Patriot]

How Coldplay's green hopes died in the arid soil of India (Bad Carbon "Offsets")
The Telegraph ^ | 4/29/06 | Amrit Dhillon and Toby Harnden

When Coldplay released its second hit album, A Rush of Blood to the Head, the band said that part of the environmental damage caused by its production would be offset by the planting of 10,000 mango trees in southern India.

More than four years after the album's release, however, many of Coldplay's good intentions have withered in the arid soil of Gudibanda, Karnataka state, where the saplings it sponsored were planted.

The idea of saving the world while making music was proposed by Future Forests, a British company since renamed CarbonNeutral. It declared that the scheme would soak up carbon dioxide emissions and help to improve the livelihoods of local farmers.

"You can dedicate more saplings in Coldplay's forest, a specially-selected section in Karnataka, India," its website said. For £17.50, fans could invest in the scheme and receive a certificate packaged in a tube bearing the words "The Coldplay Forest".

Other musicians, including Dido, KT Tunstall and Feeder followed Coldplay's example. CarbonNeutral meanwhile, gave the task of planting the trees to a group called Women for Sustainable Development (WSD), as part of a £33,000 contract. WSD is headed by Anandi Sharan Mieli, 44, born in Switzerland of Indian origin and a Cambridge graduate. She now claims that the scheme was doomed from the outset.

In the impoverished villages of Varlakonda, Lakshmisagara and Muddireddihalli, among the dozen that Miss Mieli said had received mango saplings, no one had heard of Coldplay. Most of those who received saplings said they had not been given funding for labour, insecticide or spraying equipment to nurture them.

One woman, called Jayamma was the only person out of 130 families in Lakshmisagara, to receive saplings from Miss Meili, according to Ashwattamma, a farmer's wife. She said: "No one else got any trees. Some of us were offered saplings but we don't have any water."

Jayamma managed to get 50 of her 150 trees to survive because she had a well on her land. "I was promised 2,000 rupees (£26) every year to take care of the plants and a bag of fertiliser. But I got only the saplings," she said.

In nearby Varlakonda, about 10 families were given approximately 1,400 saplings. Of these, just 600 survived. Another farmer who took 100 saplings, said: "[Miss Meili] promised us that she'd arrange the water." But villagers said a tanker came only twice.

The land in Gudibanda is dry and rocky. Farmers depend on rainfall but the monsoon failed every year between 1995 and 2004, causing drought.

One of the few successes are the 300 mango trees owned by Narayanamma, 69, and her husband Venkatarayappa, 74. They were apparently the only couple to receive 4,000 rupees from Miss Meili. They also spent 30,000 rupees on tankers and labourers. "We were promised money for maintenance every year but got nothing," said Narayanamma.

Sitting in her spacious house in Bangalore, Miss Meili said that she had distributed 8,000 saplings and acknowledged that 40 per cent had died. The project had foundered, she said, because of inadequate funding. She accused Future Forests of having a "condescending" attitude. "They do it for their interests, not really for reducing emissions. They do it because it's good money," she said. CarbonNeutral said that it did not fund the whole programme and that WSD had a contractual responsibility to provide irrigation and support to farmers. Jonathan Shopley, the chief executive, conceded that while the project might still succeed, it had "struggled to reach its full potential".

Coldplay is supporting a similar project, which CarbonNeutral says is much more successful, in Chiapas, Mexico. If the Karnataka project does not offset the carbon emissions that Coldplay specified, then CarbonNeutral will make good the amount from other projects.

Richard Tipper, the director of the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management, which monitored the project for CarbonNeutral, said that the Karnataka project had "experienced major problems" because WSD had not raised the necessary money to administer the project and because of the long drought.

A monitoring visit in 2003 had found that "WSD had been unable to make the anticipated progress with the project and had not delivered carbon payments to farmers". He added that "practices for screening projects have developed considerably based on this experience".

Chris Latham, the spokesman for Coldplay in Britain, declined to comment but a source close to the band said: "Coldplay signed up to the scheme in good faith with Future Forests and it's in their hands. There are loads of bands involved in this kind of thing. For a band on the road all the time, it would be difficult to monitor a forest."

[American Patriot]

Global-warming debate is over - or is it?
Belleville News Democrat ^ | 2/27/2007 | E. Thomas McClanahan

Too bad it's over.

While it lasted, the global-warming debate was an entertaining free-for-all. Then this month the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with its latest report. It was if someone had pounded a gavel. No more discussion, please. This case is closed.

Those of you still skeptical that human activity is the prime cause of global warming - well, we've put up with your annoying behavior long enough. Go to your room. Be quiet. What's the matter with you anyway?

People began comparing misguided skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Al Gore was a bit less direct. His choice of words: "global warming deniers."

A San Diego Union-Tribune media columnist, Carol Goodhue, said the controversy no longer deserved balanced coverage in the newspaper. "Sometimes the facts are so overwhelming on one side that it's unfair and inaccurate to give equal weight to both sides," she wrote last week. "This is one of those times."

Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel said TV weathercasters who displayed disbelief in human-caused warming should have their professional certification yanked.

I'm no scientist, and I'll acknowledge human activity may have played a role in the one-degree increase in global temperatures measured over the last century. But how significant was that role? And are other factors, such as solar activity, more dominant?

I doubt that climate scientists, for all their professed certainty, know either, at least with enough certainty to justify demands that the activity causing the warming - economic growth - be squashed flat. Severe limits on greenhouse gas emissions, which many propose, would undermine the economic future for millions of people.

Nor is the global-warming consensus as rock solid as some would have us believe. Last April, 60 Canadian scientists sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging a fresh look at the science backing up the Kyoto global-warming treaty.

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models," the scientists wrote, "so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based."

Even the U.N. intergovernmental panel backed away from earlier predictions that the sea level would rise by 3 feet by the end of the century. The new prediction: 17 inches.

Like manias in financial markets, there are manias in environmental fears.

In the late 1960s, the great fear was overpopulation. "The battle to feed all humanity is over," declared the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb." "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions of people will starve to death."

A few years later, the reigning fear was global cooling. Many became concerned about a disturbing trend in falling temperatures, beginning around 1940.

That trend reversed, obviously. But environmentalists have been predicting disasters of one sort or another - often in a bullying tone of closed-minded finality - for more than a generation. They see their attitude as "progressive" in some way, and science-based.

But the scientific mind is not incurious in the manner of, say, Heidi Cullen. The scientific impulse is to see settled beliefs as potential targets of opportunity.

For centuries, global temperature trends have ebbed and flowed in cycles some scientists now link to solar activity. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600, temperatures trended upward. From 600 to 900, the trend was down, then up again until 1300. What became known as the Little Ice Age ran from 1300 to 1850. These shifts had little to do with greenhouse gases.

Oops, sorry. I forgot the debate's over.

---

ABOUT THE WRITER

E. Thomas McClanahan is a member of the Kansas City Star editorial board. Readers may write to him at: Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108-1413, or by e-mail at mcclanahan@kcstar.com.

[American Patriot]

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
Daily Mail ^ | 3/4/07 | JULIE WHELDON

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.

"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."

The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.

A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.

"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."

[American Patriot]

French Scientist, among First To Warn of Global Warming, Changes His Mind
Canada National Post ^ | March 5, 2007 | Lawrence Soloman

Dr. Allegre's dream is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development, and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

According to an article in the National Post, Dr. Claude Allegre, a well-respected and renowned French scientist, who was also among the first to sound a warning about Global Warming, has apparently changed his mind.

Fifteen years ago, geochemist Dr. Allegre, had joined with 1500 prominent scientists in signing the highly publicized World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, a letter that stressed the great potential risks of Global Warming.

However, after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change poured billions of dollars into researching the issue, Allegre found that there was a severe lack of evidence to establish any manmade catastrophic global climate change.

In fact, after a plethora of studies and tests on global warming, the wealth of data proves just the opposite—that the majority of climate change is a natural occurrence.

Allegre shared his recant in l'Express, the French weekly, in an article he wrote entitled, The Snows of Kilimanjaro. Citing in the piece that Antarctica is actually gaining ice and that the melting of Kilimanjaro's snow caps is due to natural causes, Allegre says, "The cause of this climate change is unknown," and that others should beware of stating so emphatically that "science is settled."

Source: Canada National Post