By Paul a. Ibbetson
Thursday, July 27, 2006
I recently wrote an article entitled Can Global Warming Cut Your Head Off?, in which I looked at al Gore's apocalyptic theatrical release of an Inconvenient Truth. The focus of my article was to highlight the immediate dangers faced by the country from terrorism in contrast to the highly controversial and ever changing opinions on whether global warming exists, and if so, is it a man made phenomena? First, I would like to thank all the readers from around the world that read the article. The input I received was overwhelming in the form of both those who agreed with my assertions as well as the many that dug deep in their dictionaries for creative ways to show their disapproval. In the end, it seemed that a revisiting of the subject was necessary. Before I do that, let me forward some of the newest information on this catastrophe we call global warming. In a recent article, the following warnings are forwarded:
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now…The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it…
During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen a fraction of a degree–a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last april, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
My friends, while there is much more to this article, at this point I must admit to a little trickery. This article, full of scientific backing which also describes impending doom around the corner for the planet is real; however, it was written in Newsweek on april 28, 1975 by Peter Gwynne and entitled The Cooling World. Yes, this was one of many global scare stories that swept the nation in the 1970s about a fragile planet in crisis. If truth be told, I am sure that many reading the information in this article were shaking their heads in agreement until the point that the deception was made clear. Those readers may be a little upset now and I join them in this anger as no one likes to be tricked. That's the point of this article. The difference between al Gore and myself is that I will take you back stage behind the smoke and mirrors and show you how the tricks of the global warming trade are performed, tricks that are reported as the truth. Be prepared, because it is a different world behind the curtain. as well, I will address how al Gore's selective science on global warming has become a dangerous diversion from the clear and present danger the U.S. and world faces from international terrorism.
First, let me say that I am no more a scientist than al Gore. I am a conservative thinker, and being so I am able to separate theory from reality and emotion from fact. This is a very important point as it's often al Gore's undoing. For the ex vice-president, it would be nice, in theory, if the entire scientific community agreed with him that global warming were both human induced and catastrophic. It is such a nice thought, and coincidentally a great marketing tool, that he has adopted it as fact and he serves up this illusion to the american people daily. as early as 1992, Gore was touting that 98% of scientists agreed with him on the global warming issue. In reality, a survey of the american Geophysical Union and american Meteorological Society taken in the same year found that only 17% of scientists endorsed the greenhouse gas climate theory (Saunders, 2006). This great disparity between the number of scientists that al Gore may wish believe in his apocalyptic view of the planet, and more importantly, the number he attempts to sell to the public have been, and remain a padded number. Here are a few modern day examples of scientists in the field who break with the great pied piper of doom: Colorado State University hurricane expert William Gray asserts that the earth will begin to cool sometime in the next 10 years, MIT's climate scientist Robert Lindzen believes that cloud and water vapor will counteract greenhouse gas emissions, and the former director of the National Hurricane Center states that the global warming scare is akin to "a hoax" (Saunders, 2006). But, why worry about any number of naysayers when you can just let go and be carried away in the "awe" of the blockbuster global warming experience!
al Gore presents emotion evoking imagery not seen since the 2004 Hollywood release of The Day after Tomorrow. The ad posters for an Inconvenient Truth show a monstrous hurricane creeping from an industrial smokestack (Tracinski, 2006). These visuals are designed to spark not only the morbid curiosity of potential viewers, but in the end, Gore's carefully crafted theatrical lesson of morality like those taught to viewers in classics such as "Frankenstein". If you remember the old horror film, the story portrayed an uncontrollable man-made monster that roamed the countryside wreaking havoc. Of course, in the global warming scenario, all mankind must take the role of the misguided, if not evil, Dr. Frankenstein. Back in the real world, the scientific community is very divided about global warming and an increase in hurricane activity which begins al Gore's Hollywood sideshow. as well as the recent Washington Times survey of various top hurricane scientists that were divided in the issue, additional studies assert that when the recent increase in large scale (category 4-5) hurricanes in the atlantic are balanced against the decrease of the same scale hurricanes in the Pacific, the overall increase is virtually zilch (Tracinski, 2006). If you are starting to lose your fear and self-loathing over global warming, more images of doom quickly fill the void. One especially unsettling image is a large tanker sitting stranded in an apparent desert in the once aral Sea. Gore alludes to the fact that global warming has dried this asian sea that was once the fourth largest in the world. Wow that's scary! Conveniently, he forgets to tell viewers that three-quarters of the rivers that fed the sea were purposely diverted by the Soviet Union (Ponte & Morano, 2006). You see, like a good magic show, the water really hasn't disappeared; it's just backstage behind the curtain where you can't see it. This same deception is replicated in photos of disappearing snow on an african mountain in which Gore grimly states that within a decade there will be no snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro (Ponte & Morano, 2006). Once again, Gore avoids scientific data that does not endorse his grim view of the state of the planet. Specifically, he omits the 2003 findings by the British science journal Nature that stated that the loss of snow collection on Mt. Kilimanjaro is really the product of deforestation (Ponte & Morano, 2006). These findings were validated in 2004 by the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research.
The question is why so much deception? Will there be a disclosure at the end of the show where Gore explains all the tricks to the crowd. There is little doubt that in the realm of the environmental scaremongers, Gore is the mayor of Crazy Town and he wants to sell you all a little piece of real estate within the city limits. However, the timing of his renewed crusade has further underpinnings that reflect directly on the War on Terror and the state of mind of liberals today. al Gore is a prime example of liberal's inability to embrace national defense policy even when the stakes are at their highest. Las Vegas comedian Julia Gorin gets it right when she says "While the hawks among us worry about preventing the armageddon that's coming, our modern-day hippies just want to make sure the planet is pristine when it does. In fact, the more menacing terrorism becomes, the more some people seem to worry about the weather" (Gorin, ¶3, 2006). Gorin concludes her thoughts with a question a lot of us ask by saying, "Why are these people so worried about the environment, anyway? It's not like they're living on this planet" (Gorin, ¶4, 2006).
The problem is that we all, liberal and conservative, stand to suffer dire consequences from a lack of a unified effort to fight the growing threat of terrorism. I would be the last to say that someone should take away al Gore's right to play weather hawk in a world that cries out for war hawks; however, I am hopeful that people will see behind the smoke and mirrors of an Inconvenient Truth and focus their attention on the survival of this country. al Gore has given this weak worn-out planet less than 10 years before it is completely terminal (Will, 2005). Very conveniently this would give just enough time for the american people to place Gore into the white house and allow his visionary intellect and magical skill to reverse the sins of man through the power of the presidency. Will we see another Gore ticket for president? It is most certain that he will not conjure up another joint effort with Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut, is currently a pariah in the Democratic Party for his strong stand on the War on Terror. Sorry Joe, you just don't have the right set of priorities. In the end, the level of public acceptance for Gore's global warming quest may have a direct impact on a potential 2008 presidential bid. If this turns out to be true, the american people have the unique opportunity to strike two blows for "sanity" in one fell swoop. So as the enemy's missiles fly near our allies in Japan, and fall on the homes of Israel, I ask you where should our priorities be? as terrorist plots are uncovered on a regular basis on U.S. soil, where will we focus our efforts for the future? Will we unite to fight the immediate threat of terrorism, or shall we allow ourselves to continue to be mesmerized by al Gore's magic show, when we truly know what is happening behind the curtain.
References
Gorin, J. (2006). Global warbling. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0714/p20s01-ussc.htm
Gwynne, P. (1975). The cooling planet. Retrieved July 16, 2006, from http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential2/april_28__1975_newsweek___the_cooling_world___by_peter_gwynne.guest.print.html
Ponte, L., & Morano, M. (2006, July). Global warming controversy: Legitímate threat or hot air? NewsMax, 8,7, 16-30.
Saunders, D. (2006). Global warming fever. Retrieved July 16, 2006, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/13/EDGDOILMDO1.DTL&ty
Tracinski, R. (2006). al Gore is a brave truth teller? Retrieved July 12, 2006, from
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_truth_is_inconvenient.html
Will, G. (2006). Gore's warming to a candidacy? Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/gores_warming_to_a_candidacy.html
Paul a. Ibbetson is a published author and lecturer on the Patriot act. He is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor's and Master's degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the book "Living under the Patriot act: Educating a Society" coming out in late summer 2006, as well as director of the "Patriot act Research Website": www.patriotactreserach.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement