e's b-a-c-c-k-k-k! Or is he? In his prime time Saturday Night Life appearance on May 13, former Vice President and 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore. Jr. shamelessly hustled the viewing TV audience, giving them clownish renditions of his 1988 and 2000 political tap dances to that old familiar "testing-the-waters" musical diddy, "I'm Not Running For President...Oh, Yes I Am." In his Saturday Night Life skit, the comeback kid was president. Scary, isn't it? If you don't laugh, you'd cry. In his make-believe SNL parallel universe, Gore single-handedly stopped global warming and saved the world.
Mentally, Gore still lives in a pre-2000 make-believe parallel world where everyone blissfully listens to The Grateful Dead and smokes magic mushrooms. It's a world where gasoline prices dropped to 19 cents a gallon. In the real world you and I live in, global warming is a myth originally created by the oil barons to raise oil prices. Since Gore has been in bed with the oil barons since his first Senate run (which was financed in large part by Occidental Petroleum), the former Vice President knows full well that there is no correlation between rising gas prices and greenhouse gas emissions except that which was created by the media hucksters hired by the K Street lobbyists of The Nature's Conservancy, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and a myriad of less important ecoalarmist and environmentalist fear groups who have been sounding the "Chicken Little" greenhouse gases alarm from the moment Big Oil began filling their pockets with oil company money to decry the evils of fossil fuels and demand the implementation of costly emissions standards to drive their independent competitors out of business.
In Gore's parallel universe, of course, everyone rides one horsepower nonpolluting bicycles. Only those who formerly qualified for handicap parking can apply for motorized bicycle permits. In Gore's imaginary parallel world, the fuel for the motor bikes is 100% pure Tennessee Corn. In his parallel mind, this was President Gore's first, and finest, piece of legislationpushed through Congress on the first day of parallel America's 110th Congress with the help of Vice President Hillary Clinton who cast the deciding vote as the president of the US Senate. Corn belt Congressmen were not happy to see 100% pure Tennessee Corn become the fuel of choice. In Gore's parallel world, Tennessee Cornparticularly Overton County or Cumberland upland cornpops a bigger wallop, gets more miles to the gallon than ethanoland, since it can also be substituted as a tonic when the senior citizen who uses it begins to feel the aches and pains that come from old age, its a fuel that does the body good.
What few cars are left in America in Gore's parallel world would be driven by politicians, bureaucrats and union officialsand, of course, oil company executives and environmentaliststhe folks who convinced the world that global warming was a reality when in fact it was merely a means to an end to the transnationalists who had to be able to justify the transfer of the wealth of America to the third world. And, of course, we can't forget the "I hate America" movie stars and starlets who helped fund the advocacy and gladly lent their imageand their movie themesto sell the American people on a myth that global warming was real, were rewarded by being allowed to drive gas guzzling monster trucks or SUVs. In Gore's parallel world, the liberal elite are the only people who can afford the ten dollars per gallon price tagand the gas permit needed to fill up at one of the last 100 public access filling stations, or 10,000 corporate filling stations, in the country.
Even when Gore steps back into the virtual world, he keeps one foot in his parallel universe where, in his utopian visions of Quixotic windmill chasers, he is the hero that invented the Internet, saved the world from communism and singlehandedly stopped global warming scant moments before the world simultaneously heated to a boil and advanced into the next ice age.
Six years after almost successfully stealing the White House by manipulating votes already cast in three Florida counties he had already won by a wide marginvotes he could not legally contest in Florida because Florida law only allows candidates to contest counties they lostGore is back, basking in the adoration of liberal fans who desperately want someone other than Hillary Clinton to vote for in 2008 because most heterosexual white male Democrats can't stand the woman.
At the moment, Gore is doing the Hillary shuffle. Hillary, who claims she may or may not be a candidate, has already raised just shy of $20 million for her reelection to the Senate against two relatively unknown challengers who couldn't raise a good sweat on a hot summer day. In reality, Hillary is running two parallel campaignsand parallel fund raising. Like Hillary, Gore is pretending he's not running. What he says he's doing is encouraging the American people to "lead their leaders" into being environmentally responsible. Gore's reappearance at this time with his ecoalarmist film, "An Inconvenient Truth," has fueled speculation that he intends to challenge Hillary for frontrunner status before Clinton can safely declare her intention to challenge Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution which clearly defines the president as a man. (And while Hillary's feminist friends think she has the gonads to run and win, she simply has the wrong body parts to be medically defined as a male.)
While Gore jokes about his 2008 plans, its clear to those who know the man that a bookor a moviegenerally precedes his presidential leaps. In 1992 when he tried to grab the presidential nomination away from Bill Clinton, Gore released his ecoalarmist thriller, "Earth In the Balance." Much to the dismay of his campaign staffers, when he announced his candidacy in 2000, he released an updated version of his bookand his staffers kept their fingers crossed throughout the campaign. Today, Gore is watching the public's reaction to his movie. He will gauge any future political steps by the impact of "An Inconvenient Truth" has on his "constituency" since its big screen opening in select theaters on May 24and whether or not he decides to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Oval Office. And that depends on whether or not his Hollywood friends will cough up the millions he needs to pay for tons of advertising on the small screen he will have to do to be a player in 2008.
Gore, who with former Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, largely wrote the text of the Kyoto Protocol that became the transnationalists excuse for shipping America's factory jobs to China, Pakistan and Mexico to prevent global warming, is still playing to the extremist liberal choir and hoping they will invite him to do a political encore. There aren't enough global warming believers out there to elect him. Gore needs to convert the massesthus, "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore's part-documentary, part dark comedy, and part science fiction movie warns: "If you live on this planet: If you love your children: You have to see this film." Gore declares that "...man-made global warming is really not a political issue so much as it's a moral issue." At the end of the movie, these words scroll across the screen: "Nothing is scarier than the truth." Nothing, that is, except the former vice president. As the words appear on the screen, the audience hears Gore's voice: "Our ability to live is what is at stake...In the end, the debate over global warming and its obverse, humanity's energy future, is a moral issue. Global warming may well harm humanity by disturbing the environment, but forcing the world's poorest people2 billion of whom have never turned on a light bulbto use more expensive and technically challenging fuels would also cause great harm."
In Gore's parallel universe, global warming is created by too many peoplebut only too many people in the industrialized nations. Gore's concepts are interesting largely because the advocates of global warming blame greenhouses gases on the industrialized nations and the people who live in them. What makes that quandary even more interesting is the fact that the industrialized nations have population replenishment levels of .5 to .7. What does that mean? For every 10 people who die, there are between 5 to 7 live births in the industrialized nationsnot enough growth to maintain static population.
What is even more interesting is that the job transfer from the industrialized nations to the third world nations is based on the supposition of ecoalarmists like Gore that carbon dioxide emissions in the industrialized nations where vast populations of thoughtless people are destroying the environment are somehow not greenhouse gas emissions when they are churned from chimneys in brand new factories in China, Pakistan, India, Africa or Mexicothe nations that house the world's greatest populations of human capital.
In Gore's parallel world, factories in underdeveloped nations employing underprivileged people don't generate greenhouse gases, and in that parallel universe where Dr. Seuss is king and Chicken Little is enshrined as a national hero, the people in the most heavily populated nations are not the cause of global warming. Only affluent people are the culprits. "An Inconvenient Truth" paints a frightening picture, using the cartoon, Futurama, where ice cubes are used to cool the oceans. The inconvenient truth is Gore's film as it drifts from fantasy to fact, and from fact to fiction as Gore's parallel universe intermingles with his virtual world. He presents scientific data and news footage to illustrate that the tragic weather patterns of 2005 were caused by pollution. Pollution, he claims, are responsible for the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases which, in turn, are responsible for rising ocean temperatures which cause storms like Hurricane Katrina. It should be noted that in bygone days the scientific leaders of the known world were convinced that the world was flat and that Earth was the center of the universe. The flat world theory was the prevalent view until Christopher Columbus sailed beyond the horizon to the New World without falling off the edge. But, men of science kept their geocentric views until 1514 when a Polish astronomer named Niklas Koppernigk (known to the world as Copernicus), using a primitive telescope, discovered that the known universe was not geocentric but heliocentric. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun, not visa versa, the scientific community chose to believe whatever theory best suited their political needs.
There is a scientific consensus that the planet is warming ever so slightly. However, another inconvenient truth is that only 13% of the scientistsmost of whom are funded by the oil industry, the environmentalists, or far left think tanks who believe global warming can be blamed on Republicansbelieve that man-generated global warming is occurring. Eighty-seven percent of the scientific community knows that global temperature departuresboth plus and minusare cyclic events that are not caused by men nor can they be stopped by men since the origin of the heating and cooling comes from the sun and its affect on the Gulf Stream. Another inconvenient truth is that, currently, the global temperature departure, measured by NASA, is -0.05 degreesover the past 50 years.
And finally, the inconvenient truth is that global warming exists not because it is fact but because its the excuse conjured up by the barons of business, the titans of industry and the princes of banking to justify the transfer of wealth from the affluent industrial nations to the human capital-rich third world nations where tomorrow's consumers reside. The inconvenient truth is that global warming is a very transparent sham designed by evil men to force, through punitive environmental regulations, the wholesale transfer of not just jobs but entire industries from the industrial nations to the human capital-rich emerging economies where tomorrow's consumers need jobs todayour jobs.
Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK], who has a lay scientist's knowledge of the facts, stated that "...global warmingas it is used by environmental extremistsis the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people." Inhofe is joined by the world's foremost authority on hurricanes, Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. Gray is one of the nation's most outspoken critics of ecoalarmists like former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. Gray, whose groundbreaking work on weather led to our ability to predict hurricanes with pinpoint accuracy, found most of his government grant money dried up during the Clinton years as the environmentalist vice president shifted the focusand the dollarsaway from real science (predicting where, when and in what severity, hurricanes and tornadoes would strike the United States not in 50 or 100 years, but next year, next month or next week). Both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] stopped giving him research grants. Gore wanted to use the federal research money to fund speculative computer models designed to predict weather patterns 50 to 100 years in the future. The problem with Gore's computer models is that they couldn't accurately predict the weather in the coming seasonor even tomorrow yet, Gray cynically noted that "...they make predictions 50 or 100 years from now and ask you to believe [they know what they're talking about]." Of course, the modelers know that their predictions are safe since nobody listening to their dire predictions will be here 100 years from now to see if they were true. The idea with making doomsday predictions is to generate enough fear to scare people into submitting to the controls you want to impose on their lives today to prevent what catastrophe they are predicting. By the time our children or grandchildren realize the ecoalarmists' doomsday predictions were wrong, they will have achieved their objectives. And, of course, the ecoalarmists will claim, in the future, that their quick action prevented the catastrophe from happening.
The problem with building computer models is that they should only be constructed by people who are completely neutral on the subject. However, those with neutral opinions don't build computer models since they don't have a indefensible position they are trying to defend. Computer models, for or against a view, are generally assembled by the zealots who want you to accept their long term views and pet opinions although they have no evidence to support those views and opinions.
Gray noted that when he was a paperboy in Washington, DC in the 1940s there were stories in the papers about global warming. But, then in the 1950s it started getting cooler. By the mid-70s scientists forgot about global warming and began warning people of an impending Ice Age. Newsweek wrote an extensive piece in 1975 about the Cooling World. Science Digest wrote a similar piece two years earlier. The ecoalarmists of the 1970s had their computer models as well. The Earth was cooling, the environmentalists claimed, because man was a poor custodian of his ecological responsibilities, and the fossil fuel pollutants his factories and automobiles spewed into the air blocked the rays of the sun from heating the planet. In 50 to 100 years, they predicted, we would experience a new Ice Age. Twenty years later the environmentalists found a new tune to sing toglobal warming.
Global warming, Gray observed, officially began when with the ascendancy of Al Gore to the vice presidency. Government grants to physical research scientists like himself who debunked global warming dried up almost immediately. All of the money went to computer models to prove global warming was happeningand that it was caused by fossil fuel greenhouse gases. At one time, the Clinton Administration was funding over a thousand computer models. A survey on global warming computer models in January, 2005 showed conclusions so varied that even the most novice intern reporter should have been able to conclude it was bad science. The results were all over the charts. The estimates on global temperature departures ranged from 3 degrees to 11 degrees Celsiusnearly 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The reports also suggested, in varying degrees, that by 2100, sea levels could rise by an additional three to 34 inchesor not at all. Jumping on the worst case scenario to build hits on its online newspaper, the London Evening Standard reported that "...[t]he world is likely to heat up by an average of 11 degrees Celsius by the end of the century," adding this would cause a surge in sea levels threatening the lives of billions of people. Why would the London Evening Standard pick on the most extreme worst case scenario? Because the ecoalarmist feeds on fear.
Gray's argument, in summation, is that global warming and cooling are part of a natural cycle in which weather patterns are driven by the global ocean circulation of the Gulf Stream. Vast, deep streams of warm and cold water that control the global weather patternsa mighty warm water river flowing through the oceans rising and falling in a rhythm that last for decades. This river within the oceansthe Gulf Streambrings hotter summers further North. Alternately, when the Gulf Stream is submerged by a colder North Atlantic stream, more frigid Arctic winters migrate further south. Gray postulates that the current warming cycle will end within the next three to eight years, and a new cooling phase will begin. "I don't think," he said, "this warming period of the last 30 years can keep on going. It may warm another three, five, eight years, and then it will start to cool."
The ecoalarmistswho, as I previously noted, represent only 13% of the scientific communityare so well funded that their advocacy simply overwhelms the rational points of view of the 87%. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] told an international conference attended by 114 governments in Mauritius in January, 2005 that he personally believes that the world has "...already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." Pachauri demanded that civilization make "...immediate and very deep cuts in the pollution [levels in the atmosphere] if humanity is to survive."
Interestingly, Exxon-Mobil, the most powerful member of the Seven Sisters which tutorially heads the Standard Oil clan (which was partially responsible for the creation of the IPCC), sent a memorandum to the Bush-43 White House in 2001 specifically asking the president to dump the IPCC's previous chairman, Dr. Robert Watsona Gore ecoalarmistand appoint a more moderate environmentalist to the job. The Seven Sisters initially fueled the global warming fires in order to convince the world that the overuse of fossil fuels created the greenhouse affect that would ultimately cause the ice caps to melt and the sea levels to rise, swamping our coastal cities. To curb greenhouse gas emissions, the oil industry funded the environmentalist movement to demand strict EPA regulations. They did this to financially hamstring their independent oil industry competition and force both independent drillers and refiners out of business. However, today, big oil is rapidly losing control over the views of the environmentalist movement as zealots and diehard ecoalarmists assume positions of power within the non-government organizations [NGO] that have been appointed by the UN to write the international regulations to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
In April, 2006 the US Senate, which has been trying to pass an extremely punitive emissions reduction law since John McCain and Joe Lieberman jointly introduced the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. (The House version was cosponsored by Wayne Gilchrist [R-MD] and John Olver [D-MA].) The law would have mandated accelerated reduction of carbon fuel greenhouse gas emissions not only from American factories, but from fossil fuel power plants as well. What would have been accelerated would have been factories and jobs leaving the United States. Thanks in large part to the efforts of Sen. Jim Inhofe, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senate rejected the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2006. This was the ecoalarmists third trying to enact this piece of legislation. Give them the same type of far left Senate the liberals had in 1970, and their next attempt will succeed. The inconvenient truth is, had that legislation become law, your electric bill would have doubled, tripled or quadrupled as coal-burning electric power plants were forced to adopt costly zero-pollution standards.
During the Bush-41 years Robert Watsonone of the nation's earliest global warming soothsayersheaded the senior Bush's NASA "Mission to Planet Earth" initiative. At the 1992 Federal Coordinating Council on Space, Engineering and Technology Conference in Kennebunkport, Maine that ozone depletion had reached critical mass and, he told the attendees, there was a real threat of an ozone hole over Kennebunkport. Watson was rewarded for his extremist views by Gore the following February. Gore picked him as the Associate Director of Environment in the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Gore, who joined the Clinton team with an extremist environmentalist agenda already plotted in his mind, pushed his liberal allies in Congress to hold early hearings on global warming and ozone depletion. He sent his star witness, Watson, to testify to the imminent threat from chloroflourocarbons and the need to ban them worldwide. Watson echoed Gore's view that chloroflourocarbons burn holes through the ozone like acid burns through plastic, using fear-baiting rather than sound scientific reasoning to argue hisor rather, Gore'sopinion to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in April, 1993.
Global warming was the engine that fueled the Gore Express. Bill Clinton did not share his vice president's views on global warming, nor did he share Gore's views on the depletion of the ozonewhich, for some reason, ceased being depleted when Gore left office. Nor did he believe that shipping America's factories to the third world would solve global warming if it really existed. But Clinton, who liked Gore and was pleased with his performance to date, did not want to embarrass Gore on his core issuenor did Clinton want to alienate the "green" vote he was going to need to get reelected in 1996.
For that reason, on Earth Day, 1993 at the urging of Gore, Clinton announced that he was signing the UN Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Both protocols had been rejected by the Bush-41 Administration at the Rio Summit. By signing them, Clinton made the United States a full partner with the UN to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the detriment of the industrial base of this nation. The CEOs of some of America's largest corporations breathed a sigh of relief.
The transnational princes of industry and barons of business saw the oil industry's dire predictions of global warming as a tool they could use to blamelessly move their factories from the product-saturated industrialized nations to the human-capital rich third world where ample consumers existedif jobs and incomes could be provided. The future of retail was not in the United States, England or any of the other industrialized nations that were far below population replenishment levels. These were the replacement markets of the 21st century. The primary consumers would come from countries like China, Pakistan, India, Mexico, and Indonesia where an abundance of consumers who needed everything required only paychecks to begin buying them. The North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] enacted by the Clinton-Gore Administration provided the swinging door that would allow the goods created by the jobs leaving the United States under the global warming pretext return to the chain stores in America without tariffs. If the American people knew that global warming was a myth created specifically to rip off the American people by exporting their jobs to increase the profits of the transnational princes of industry and the retail business barons searching for cheap goods and extreme profits.
Former US Senator Timothy Wirthfollowing the specific instructions of his boss, Vice President Al Gore, Jr in Geneva, Switzerlandurged the establishment of legally binding standards for the industrialized nations to be signed at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Control in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1998. While it is likely that that Congress, like mice blindly following the piped piper, would have endorsed the Kyoto Protocol if the draconian emissions standards were imposed equally on all the nations of the world. However, all of the emerging nations plus Japan and China were exempt since the greenhouse gas emitting industrial plants had to go somewhere and, of course, they were supposed to go to the third world where product saturation would not be a problem for 100 or 200 years. In the United States and the other industrialized nations, product saturation was at the 99.999% level. The affluent markets were simply replacement markets. They had everythingtwo or three cars, two or three TVs, two, three or more computers, radios galore, telephones and other gadgets galore. They bought only when something broke, wore out or became obsolete. The merchant prices needed a market where the consumers had nothing and needed everything. The third world presented that ideal human capital.
When the inconvenient truth of Gore's Kyoto Protocolwhich Bill Clinton signed, obligating the United States to the terms of the UN Global Warming Treaty even though the US Senate refused to ratify itbecame public, most Americans believed that the vast right wing conspiracy was misrepresenting the terms of the agreement. Not true. Under the terms of the UN Global Warming Treaty, 134 of the 185 member nations were exempt and had no greenhouse gas restrictions. That was important because global warming has never been about global warming. Global warming has always been an issue about how to transfer jobs from the United States to the third world without Congressmen and Senators being run out of office. The inconvenient truth is the environmentalist Congressmen and Senators certainly did not intend to lose their jobs as they honored the wishes of their constituency! Not youthe ones with the thick billfolds who fill their campaign coffers. Now, that's an inconvenient truth. Especially in an election year. The inconvenient question iswhat are you going to do about it?