The hysteria has died down, the facts are in and the curtain has lifted. Former US Vice President, Al Gore was given the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for pulling a king-sized con job on us. His film, An Inconvenient Truth, which was designed to frighten children and adults alike by using a fictional apocalyptic portrayal of “man-made global warming,” not only exposed his breathtaking ability as a propagandist, but also revealed how little the mainstream media and our politicians value the truth.
For those unfamiliar with the field of climate science, Gore’s presentation seems powerful and convincing on initial inspection and it comes as no surprise that it won an Oscar for Best Documentary at the Academy Awards. However, as many who have searched for information elsewhere have discovered, this film is in reality, so steeped in blatant errors and misrepresentations, that it should be categorized as a political melodrama and renamed: THE BIGGEST LIE OF THE CENTURY!
Indeed, even the most fundamental assumption of the theory of man-made global warming – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to get higher – is not supported by the evidence! Contradicting Gore’s claim that, “when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years.
Fortunately, numerous articles in the alternative media have addressed the matter of the film’s inaccuracies, as have the documentaries: The Great Global Warming Swindle by Martin Durkin  and Global Warming or Global Governance? by Dr Michael Coffman, . In addition to which a UK High Court has found that the film contained “nine significant errors” and ruled that it must not be shown in schools unless guidance is provided. This means that teachers will have to advise pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film, .
While there is no equivalent law in New Zealand, Dr Muriel Newman, the director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, is endeavouring to change this. Dr Newman, who wrote to the Academy advising that the film’s Oscar for Best Documentary should be rescinded in light of the UK High Court’s findings, has started a petition requesting parliament to include provisions in the Education Act to ensure children are “protected from political indoctrination” in the classroom. A former science teacher and ex-politician, she feels strongly that integrity should be maintained in teaching and said she believes that if children are shown Gore’s film, then they should also see: The Great Global Warming Swindle, .
Now, what about that Nobel Prize which was reputedly given to Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for: “their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change,”? According to Dr Vincent Gray, a New Zealander who has worked as a reviewer for the IPCC since its inception, there’s actually no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the climate. “A series of scientific arguments which appear to support the theory have been assembled. If examined closely, these are found to be based on unsound scientific and mathematical foundations,” he asserts.
Referring to the mention New Zealand gets in the film, when Gore falsely claims many residents of low-lying Pacific Island nations have already had to evacuate to New Zealand because of “rising seas,” Dr Gray asserts: “Everybody knows that the Pacific Island of Tuvalu is sinking…Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree – there was no evidence of “sinking”. So scientists at Flinders University in Adelaide were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern tide-gauges on 12 Pacific Islands including Tuvalu, confident that they’d show that all of them are sinking. Recently, the whole project was abandoned, as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the twelve islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose,” .
Alarmingly, in spite of a deluge of this type of good, solid evidence to disprove the central claims made in An Inconvenient Truth, there are intelligent people who are unable to contemplate that anything is wrong. For instance, a friend who made and distributed hundreds of copies of the film earlier this year, behaves like a vampire being shown a crucifix when I e-mail him film-related updates. When I sent him the UK Daily Mail article about the UK High Court ruling, he sniped: “Sorry Clare, but if you are going to keep wasting my time sending me this sort of stuff, I will stop opening your emails…you insult me by saying you are my friend.”
Another friend, a well-known and well-respected New Zealand scientist, who has been visiting schools to show children Gore’s film and has given presentations on behalf of the United Nations (UN) about “man-made global warming,” seems similarly averse to scrutinizing anything at odds with Gore’s claims. Paradoxically, rather than examine the evidence as a scientist is supposed to do, he short-circuits the process by attacking its messengers. Martin Durkin, he says is “a rogue,” Dr Michael Coffman is “mad” and top hurricane forecaster, Dr William Gray, who also discredited Gore’s assertions, is he says, “a creep.” While these remarks add nothing useful to the climate change debate, they do serve to show how dangerous Gore is. His ability to win the hearts and minds of well-meaning people like these, indicate that he is potentially far more dangerous than the current US President, George Bush.
So why is Al Gore running what Infowars.com radio-show host, Alex Jones refers to as a “Snake God op” on us? To state the obvious, he is a politician, he is the son of a politician and he graduated with a BA in Government, not with a Bachelor of Science. He is duplicitous. He doesn’t practice what he preaches. When he was Vice President, he did nothing for genuine environmental problems, such as the dissemination of DU, nanotechnology and GMOs. And throughout the years he has flogged the “carbon polluters,” he and his family have been aiding and profiting from an oil company on a grand scale. Gore’s political influence has enabled the Occidental Petroleum Company, which former CEO, Armand Hammer said had Gore’s father in his back pocket, to acquire the oil-drilling rights over 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve in California. Not only did the 1997 sale represent the largest quantity of public land to be turned over to a private corporation in US history, but it also spelt doom for the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands and encroached upon an area environmentalists said was home to three rare animal species, . On the very same day as the sale, in an audacious display of hypocrisy, one which should serve as a warning to us all, Gore gave a speech on the “terrifying prospect” of global warming, a problem that he ascribed to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, such as oil! .
In the first chapter of his book, The Assault on Reason, (2007), Gore accuses the Bush Administration of exploiting peoples’ fears “to short-circuit debate and drive the public agenda without regard to the evidence, the facts, or the public interest.” Obviously, this is precisely what he is doing with his panorama of looming apocalypse. It is his environmental 9/11 – although not his idea originally it seems.
The idea appears to have emerged from the Iron Mountain Report. This was authored by a group of intellectual elitists in 1966 who were asked to devise methods by which a government could become more powerful, . War, they wrote, would be impossible under a single, world government, so other methods for controlling populations would be required. A new enemy that posed a threat to life on earth was needed.
After considering a number of possibilities, including a staged space-alien invasion, which they decided was too far-fetched, they concluded that the environmental pollution model was the one most likely to succeed. This model, they wrote, could be related to observable conditions like pollution and predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios. Accuracy was not important – what mattered was that it was believable, as the intent was to frighten, not to inform.
The group concluded that the benefits of this model were huge for the elite, as it could be used to justify expansive and authoritarian government, as well as impoverish citizens, thereby greatly widening the gap between the leaders and followers.
Ominously, Gore also reflects the report’s ideas in his book, Earth in the Balance:
“We must make the rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle for civilization…[this] means using every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action…to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system,” he wrote.
Dr Coffman, CEO of Sovereignty International, who headed a multi-million dollar research effort in the early-1990’s that studied the effects of global warming on ecosystems in the US, says there’s a cadre of scientists on “soft money” who are out of a job if they “don’t show a global-warming connection.” He says the US government is pouring an astronomical US$4 billion per annum into this research because on an elite political level, where the real power lies, there’s an agenda to establish a fascist one-world government, .
The UN, which is controlled by the elite, is preparing to take over as the government for all the world’s nations under the pretext of saving the planet from “global warming.” It aims to implement Agenda 21, which is supposedly about “sustainable development.” On cursory inspection, 21 looks reasonable, however, as Dr Michael Coffman who has taken the time to read UN documents, pointed out that the intention of the 40-chapter document is to reorganize the world around socialist, command and control regulation, as the elite view humans as earth’s primary contaminants. It will be a living nightmare for us if the elite have their way.
With the horror of their anti-human agenda in mind, it can only be to our advantage that An Inconvenient Truth is so replete with errors. There is a genuine debate happening in the public arena now and when the truth of science is pitted against the deception of politics, politics invariably loses. Many more will awaken to realize that nothing advocated by our current leaders and the mass media about “global warming” can be taken at face value and the foundation for the elite’s political agenda will fracture. It’s only a matter of time – but as many people sense, time is running out. People need to wake up now. In the words of Gore himself: “Future generations may well have occasion to ask themselves, ‘What were they thinking? Why didn’t they wake up when they had the chance?’” Let’s do what we can now to ensure they don’t have occasion to ask themselves this and focus our efforts on dealing with environmental issues that have been proven to matter, humanely.
1. The Great Global Warming Swindle, (2007), BBC Ch 4 documentary by M. Durkin, is available to download from the Internet.
2. Global Warming or Global Governance?, (2007), documentary by Dr M. Coffman, is available at infowars.com.
3. Schools Must Warn of Gore Climate Film Bias, (3/10/07), at: dailymail.co.uk.
6. The Police State Road Map, (2005), an e-book by M. Nield, Ch.7.5/ Ch.14 at www.policestateplanning.com.
7. Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, (2007), a documentary by A. Jones, is available at Google Video & the infowars.com online shop.
Read comments from Richard N. Haass of the Council of the Foreign Relations. He stated that global warming and terrorism will be used as an excuse to dissolve the sovereignty of nations. He wrote in his article “State sovereignty must be altered in a globalized era,” that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. “Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function,” asserts Haass. “Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves…” In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, is this: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Thus, he is admitting that man-made global warming is a scam concocted in order to further the globalists’ agenda for one-world government.