Information

=A response to Al Gore's Film, 'An Inconvenient Truth'=

by [|Patrick Henningsen]
When I first saw Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth', I believed his logic was sound and his constructed thesis on man-made Climate was credible. But as I dug a little deeper into the issue, I began to discover some shocking new information which unfortunately goes counter to the position of Al Gore, our governments and the mainstream media. On closer examination I discovered that this new climate change philosophy, or 'new religion', doesn't actually add up at all and is being used to support a larger agenda of mass profiteering and taxation. To call the whole campaign a fraud would be an understatement, but to call it a swindle... would be accurate enough.

We have all heard it by now, from the swelling ranks of 'green' journalists and their seeming field general, Dr. [|Global Warming] aka Al Gore. But suspicion got the best of me when I noticed that fresh-faced, well healed, green men in designer suits were suddenly popping up everywhere- entrepreneurs, City traders, carbon brokers- you name it. By playing the latest accountancy shell game, a handful of brokers have succeeded in pushing the greatest new product seen since the great dot.com bubble: carbon credits, carbon off-sets, and the ultimate... 'carbon futures'. As a veteran campaigner of conservation and recycling, I found the proliferation of this new buzz in the City a bit odd, as if to say, it literally came out of no where. Soon after came the new taxes- some voluntary(paid by POP, Rock stars, and the Royal Family) and some mandatory(paid by us). And what exactly are these credits and new taxes for anyway? What do they actually achieve? Well, we're not really sure yet. All we know is that we've been told that it's a "good thing" and we need lots of them in order to "fight climate change". We are being conditioned to associate any weather phenomenon with climate change- to think that the latest hurricane, hot spell in February, or a tornado in Birmingham England- is because of [|Global Warming]. Indeed, it's right on the tips of everybody's tongue now... "it's climate change, it's global ." We could quote Hitler's Minister of Information Joseph Goebbels, who said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Indeed, Global is just the latest edition of this age-old practice. We were told by Al Gore and company that all of the world's scientific community are in agreement on his Man-Made Global Warming thesis. Well, hold on to your hat because here comes bombshell number one: there was no consensus by the world "scientific community". In fact, to say that half are in agreement would be an over-exaggeration. In direct conflict with assertions by Al Gore and The International Panel on Climate (IPCC)- that the scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's exhaustive new survey reveals that only 45% of the said scientists support the theory(of man-made climate change) and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement. Not quite the "consensus" we were sold in the film. In fact, of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38(7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." Written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report actually had little input from actual scientists... and all sections that were written by selected scientists were aptly edited to comply with the report summary. Scientists involved admitted that IPCC models completely failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate". This new survey now provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lemon by a group of elite lobbyists who have seized on this opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and ultimately... corporate gain(we will demonstrate how below). I guess some of you might feel slightly confused and a little upset after reading this last paragraph... maybe because you have been sold a massive lie.

for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Indeed, Global is just the latest edition of this age-old practice. We were told by Al Gore and company that all of the world's scientific community are in agreement on his Man-Made Global Warming thesis. Well, hold on to your hat because here comes bombshell number one: there was no consensus by the world "scientific community". In fact, to say that half are in agreement would be an over-exaggeration. In direct conflict with assertions by Al Gore and The International Panel on Climate  (IPCC)- that the scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's exhaustive new survey reveals that only 45% of the said scientists support the theory(of man-made climate change) and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement. Not quite the "consensus" we were sold in the film. In fact, of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38(7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." Written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report actually had little input from actual scientists... and all sections that were written by selected scientists were aptly edited to comply with the report summary. Scientists involved admitted that IPCC models completely failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate". This new survey now provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lemon by a group of elite lobbyists who have seized on this opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and ultimately... corporate gain(we will demonstrate how below). I guess some of you might feel slightly confused and a little upset after reading this last paragraph... maybe because you have been sold a massive lie.

for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Indeed, Global is just the latest edition of this age-old practice.

that 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 scientists. Looking at 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars' south pole had significantly diminished in size for three summers in a row, this due to a temperature change on that planet's surface. 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. And we have to ask ourselves... so what exactly does this have to do with our "carbon footprint" or our 4x4 SUV Jeeps?

Global Warming loves taxation, and taxation equals corporate gain. How? Aren't these new taxes meant to save the planet? One case study to look at for answers and where we are heading is happening in the UK's capital. In 2003, London got hit with a new 5.00($10.00)Congestion Charge, in essence a high-tech surveillance system which was originally sold to the public on an environmental basis and to raise money for public transport. The charge then swiftly went up further to 8.00($16.00) within the first 12 months, and the zone was doubled 18 months later. There was little or no protest, people and businesses just resigned themselves to paying this new cover charge. The revenue was astronomical, but as critics had predicted, within a few months the traffic levels in the City had soon risen to pre-Congestion Charge levels. in other words, it had no effect at all on congestion... or the environment. And what about public transport? Unfortunately, the Mayor of London had to contract out the whole of the operation to a large private firm called CAPITA LTD, who were guarranteed 65% of the 930 million revenue collected during four years of operation. So hundreds of millions have been taken out of our pockets and it had no effect at all on climate change? Congestion charging is just the beginning. Look out for new 'Mileage' taxes on driving and scores of new taxes on fuel, power et all. This program is nothing short of a massive corporate money spinner. So how far will the state go to control our life in the name of Climate Change? How about a 'birth tax' to fight climate change? According to the report on July 11, 2007, published by the

Think Tank, Optimum Population Trust, "Britain's high birth rate is a major factor in the current level of climate ", which can only be combated if families voluntarily limit the number of children they have. Their own report has ears in the government and calls for a 'two-child' policy in the UK that would reduce the nation's population from 60 million, as it currently stands, to no more than 55 million by 2050. "Population has not been taken seriously enough in the climate debate", said Chris Rapley, incoming head of the Science Museum in London. And if that's not enough, the drum continues to beat... on August 30, 2007 at the UN Climate Talks in Vienna, China went on record to declare that its one-child policy has helped the fight against global warming by avoiding 300 million births, the equivalent of the population of the United States. Some scientists and think-tankers are even saying that birth control measures far less draconian than China's are wrongly overlooked in the fight against climate change, when the world population is projected to soar to about 9 billion by 2050 from 6.6 billion now. China, which rejects criticism that it is doing too little to confront climate change, says that its population is now 1.3 billion against 1.6 billion if it had not imposed tough birth control measures in the late 1970s. But avoiding 300 million births "means we averted 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005" based on average world per capital emissions of 4.2 tonnes, claim the Chinese UN Delegate. Are we hearing this correctly?

Let's set the record straight... most reasonable people support preservation of plants and animals, clean energy and recycling because they make sense and do so for reasons which we have rightly acknowledged for many generations. Conservation makes sense because we must protect our fragile biosphere. So why are we being asked to dig deep into our pockets and support the most politicized and certainly the most money-spinning public campaign ever seen in modern times? Good question for ever-vigilant guardians like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, both currently basking in the headlines and the limelight of the international global warming stage. Both, however, are now guilty of taking their eye off the ball. Caught off guard, these charity organizations are mostly refusing or even wanting to question this idea of man-made Climate Change, thus, leaving their watch posts over crucial issues like GM contamination of our food

chain and the dumping of toxic chemicals on land and at sea. Some very well-intentioned, well educated 'Green' activists summed up the twisted logic we find ourselves tangled in when it was said to me recently, "Well, even if man-made global is not true, better safe than sorry. It won't hurt if we try and change the climate anyway". As if. Since when does a modern, educated, 21st Century population start planning its future around a half-baked idea?

We now know that a rise in the Earth's surface temperature does not follow an increase in carbon levels(from our emissions)... it's actually the other way around. A rise in carbon levels follows a rise in surface temperature spikes by an average of 50-60 years after the fact. Who wants to admit that Al Gore's thesis was wrong and the whole basis of this uber-Power Point presentation is fatally flawed? This fact now poses a huge problem for Al Gore and the Climate zealot army. This planet's climate has been hotter at many intervals before this century and of course, the Earth's climate has never been "stable". To think we can actually control or 'stabilize' the Earth's climate somehow... is one of the greatest lies ever sold en mass. The fraud and misleading conclusions behind Man-made Climate Change is merely part of a larger agenda- the beginnings of a Global Government, permanently on our backs(and in our pockets) telling us what we can and can't do. People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life will naturally get on board with the global warming religion. So what's the end game then? Expect over 100 new global taxes in the next 3-4 years, coming in all shapes and sizes, containing an array of new and different ways to eliminate your "carbon footprint". Will you be willing to comply with more ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change, conditions that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel and regulate personal behavior? New taxes will simply empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - ala Big Brother. Will you protest, will you ask that our politicians reconsider Al Gore's bad science... or will you what you are expected to do, that is, just accept it and pay? When you are looking for someone to blame we only have to look in the mirror. As the old saying goes... 'the road to hell is always paved with good intentions'. As the truth gradually begins to come to light, many people will be mad as hell, and naturally, many a Green Warrior will be a little confused right about now. No need to be, as long as you study the facts of the matter. It is in our best interests to question the sacred cows of Global Warming. Don't take my word. In fact, don't take anyone's word for it. See the real science for yourself. Just Google "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and watch this movie. For all Al fans out there, don't worry, we'll still let him keep his Oscar Award...