Skip to content

Is Al Gore Not Evil, Just Wrong?

October 14, 2009


On his TV show yesterday Glenn Beck briefly highlighted the hassle that environmental journalist Phelim McAleer encountered when he dared to challenge Al Gore during a speech.

The speech in Madison, Wisconsin was sponsored by the Society of Environmental Journalists. Amazingly, these alleged journalists closed ranks and shut McAleer down for daring to challenge the many false and inaccurate statements in Gore’s propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth.

McAleer asked Gore, who stands to make mountains of money if the carbon emission controls he supports are made into law, if he plans to address the mistakes in the movie. McAleer said:

A judge in the British high court after a lengthy hearing found there were nine significant errors. This has been shown to children. Do you accept those findings and have you done anything to correct those errors?

From Gore’s deer-in-the-headlights look and stammering response, you can see why the former U.S. vice president doesn’t like answering questions about his wacky climate change theories.

After organizers cut McAleer’s microphone they confronted him in the hallway. Said McAleer:

At the Society for [sic] Environmental Journalists the reaction of the journalists, the actions of Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, and the action of the journalists was to shut down the journalist and protect the politician.

McAleer says journalists are too often cheerleaders for environmentalists.

What I would like of environmental journalists like myself is, that you treat Big Environment the same way as you treat Big Politics and Big Government and Big Business. Treat Big Environment the way you treat Big Business. Where does the money come from? Who’s channeling it? Is that reported [unintelligible]? And where is the independent verification of those claims?  But  they don’t. If an environmentalist organization says something it’s accepted as gospel.

  1. Julie Trevor permalink
    October 14, 2009 6:10 am

    “shut down the journalist and protect the politician.”

    And if shutting off the mic doesn’t work, attack the entire network.


    • swemson permalink
      October 14, 2009 3:46 pm


      First off, there’s zero possibility that Gore doesn’t know that his theory is bogus and that his science is pure junk… ergo he’s EVIL!

      Gore and all his colleagues (partners in crime) are all in high panic mode right now, because they know that their BS theory is going to get exposed for the lie that it is in the very near future… In fact they’ve already begun to circle their wagons, and started the coverup…

      The following recent article, that I got from SPPI a few days ago (It hasn’t really hit the media yet), explains this in detail:

      September 23, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

      The Dog Ate Global Warming

      Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?

      By Patrick J. Michaels

      Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

      Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

      Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

      In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

      Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

      So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

      Now begins the fun.

      Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

      Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

      Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

      Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

      It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

      Enter the dog that ate global warming.

      Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

      Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

      The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

      If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

      All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall, whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.

      Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.

      • GBArg permalink
        October 15, 2009 7:27 am

        Please, when you provide an article, include the URL for it.

        Saves a lot of work for follow up and passing the info along.


        • swemson permalink
          October 15, 2009 12:32 pm


          I wrote above that:

          The following recent article, that I got from SPPI a few days ago (It hasn’t really hit the media yet), explains this in detail:

          It came as an attachment to a newsletter, and I copied and pasted it to newsreel exactly as I received it.. If you doubt my veracity here, I’ll be happy to forward you a copy of the original document through David Swindle


      • Julie Trevor permalink
        October 15, 2009 7:39 am

        Swemson, you’ll probably like this one also – Julie

        Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature”
        by Steve McIntyre on October 14th, 2009

        • swemson permalink
          October 15, 2009 12:38 pm

          Thanks Julie;

          I try to read everything on the subject, but there’s just too much material out there…

          It’s far easier to prove that GW is a hoax, than many of BHO’s other big lies, because the facts are the facts… We were getting close on this one, which is why the original data has just miraculously disappeared…

          I think if we can keep hammering the left on this, it might produce a significant hole in their entire facade

      • Julie Trevor permalink
        October 15, 2009 7:49 am

        Swemson, I like the comment from Jones
        “We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

        Value added – this is the same hoax James Hansen (NASA) has claimed only he calls it a “correction factor”. The correction factor that nobody else knows and that he also will not produce when requested because it’s “his”.

        His? I thought all “his” research was taxpayer funded and therefore taxpayer owned!!!

        It is important for us to keep the discussion going about these topics (global warming, lack of scientific integrity, etc) because these are the very items used by the Leftist/neo-Communtist to “inch” away our freedom/rights one regulation at a time.


      • Joseph Cottrell permalink
        October 15, 2009 10:53 am

        I recall hearing also that since the fall of the USSR an entire series of weather monitoring stations across Siberia was abandoned… hmmmm, a large number of temperature recorders in the coldest parts of the planet are dropped from the aggregate, and suddenly there is a perceived warming trend. Why is it that my high school science education can figure out this problem, but hundreds of so-called “environmental scientists” can’t? Somebody splain it to me, please!

        • swemson permalink
          October 15, 2009 12:43 pm

          It’s called MONEY Joe…

          The leftist government has corrupted the idea of climate science, just like they’ve corrupted the truth about capitalism…

          Everything they say is a LIE, and everything they touch they destroy…

          If we have the stones to get rid of all leftist politicians and Islam, we really could save the world….


  2. Freeme permalink
    October 15, 2009 7:42 am

    David Wasdell, Dir of Apollo Meridian Project aka Apollo gaia. Spooksperson for GoreBULL panic warming.


    DAVID WASDELL tutored, mentored and USED big Al for furthering the LIE ON GLOBAL WARMING aka Climate Change. It is obvious too many sheeple do not ASK QUESTIONS nor do they OBSERVE or research FACTS and STATS of anything these days. This lie alone delivers the biggest global impact it’s inhabitants have ever seen for centuries, and not without the unethical help of Scientists may I add? To know what is real these days, one must be acquainted with SCIENCE. It RULES and DICTATES our future.

  3. swemson permalink
    October 15, 2009 12:48 pm


    One of the most ironic aspects of the entire GW hoax, besides the fact that climate change is normal and that there’s nothing even remotely unusual about where we are now, is the fact that warming has historically ALWAYS been good for mankind…. and if there’s anything dangerous about climate change, it’s when we get UNUSUALLY cold…

    Of course in either instance, the ONLY thing we can do about it is learn to adjust to it…

    • Joseph Cottrell permalink
      October 15, 2009 1:11 pm

      I’m fairly certain that for virtually ALL of this planet’s 4.5 billion year lifespan it’s been cooling… and it will continue to do so until it’s engulfed by the nova at the end of our sun’s lifespan… which will somehow be blamed on George W. Bush.

  4. swemson permalink
    October 15, 2009 2:15 pm


    It may seem that way, but earth’s temperatures had stabilized after a few million years, after which it entered into a constant flux of change within some pretty small up & down limits.

    Here’s a chart that shows what science believes the true record to be:

  5. PhilBest permalink
    October 15, 2009 5:03 pm

    There is probably no human who now has such a powerful cult of personality and as many blindly loyal followers as Al Gore, and this man’s capacity to distort the truth is no less than that of his “scientific” accomplices, many of whom were selected by him and like minded U.N. apparatchiks (Maurice Strong, Bert Bolin, James Hansen) for the plumb positions of “Lead Authors” of the IPCC Reports. Not the least of our worries, is the new quasi-religious beliefs instilled in hundreds of millions of young minds via the media and the teaching profession, along with a dangerous dulling of moral sense that is unique to the current era. What extra-legal actions might Gore not yet be capable of requesting of his legions of idolisers?

    Scientist Briffa authored a crucial 1995 “study” where 15 tree cores were selected out of a database of 252 to obtain the required result, and happens to be a “Lead Author” of the crucial “climate science” section of the IPCC Reports. This and other studies involving similar conflicts of interest have been utilised by the IPCC to contradict dozens of others that were the accepted science at that time, and many more since. The science profession should have a “Hippocratic Oath”, not that these people would not be capable of breaching it without a qualm. These real inconvenient truths have been concealed for years, while society’s media “watchdogs” slumbered and slobbered.

    One assumes that the politicians and their scientific accomplices feel safe in allowing the facts to come out now by way of genuine audit, because there are now billions of dollars worth of research funding available only to compliant scientists, Wall Street salivating at the profits to be made in Carbon “trading”, and politicians out-posturing each other on the world stage, including, sadly, the President of the otherwise healthily skeptical USA. Any national leader daring to rock the boat at Copenhagen in December can expect to be bullied into submission via hefty trade sanctions. (While thugocracies building nukes continue to get mildly wrist slapped).

    It is all very well to regard certain “ends” as justifying “the means”, but surely history teaches us that the means inevitably end up defining the end? For example, terrorists never intend to establish government devoted to democratic freedoms. Movements based on lies always end in tragedy even if they were aimed at “social justice” or the perfection of humanity. The AGW lie can have no good ends. We would do well to ask ourselves what are the possible ends, on the current trajectory, of this latest alliance of perverted science and political power grabbing.

    I have my doubts about the wisdom of so many nominally “conservative” politicians all over the world going along with this scam as something able to be managed to political advantage and its harm minimised. Shifting tax off incomes and onto “waste”, as the Greens say, is probably a good idea in itself. But we should not be blind to the potential “end” of a lie, and the ongoing brainwashing of the young, to the effect that there are “too many humans”. What might yet be justified in the name of such an ideology if its current momentum is not arrested?

    Politicians who should see through this scam but who sell out and make devil’s bargains with it bear at least some responsibility for the outcomes yet to be realised. They are the ones who are “not evil, but just wrong”, as well as shamefully weak. But those who support this ideology on principle, are not just wrong, but evil.

    • swemson permalink
      October 15, 2009 5:47 pm

      Well said Phil;

      The number of people who actually believe this hoax is truly astounding… especially among the younger part of society…

      With the left’s control of the media, it’s virtually impossible for anyone to convince them of their error through logical arguments… but I’m not giving up hope just yet…

      I think it’s only poetic justice, that “mother nature” which charlatans like Gore claim to be so passionate about protecting, may prove to be the thing that actually exposes their lie for what it is, and brings them down.

      This past July, the coldest recorded temperature, a record in place since 1870, (when we were still in the Little Ice Age), was shattered by 2 full degrees in Al Gore’s home town. I nearly choked on my Martini when I heard that…

      The planet has been cooling for 7 years now… Frankly, at this point, even though cooling is in general far worse for us than warming, I hope the chilling continues for quite some time (it’s too damn hot where I live anyway !)

      The past history of solar activity cycles, indicates that it IS going to continue for several years at least, which may well be accelerated by the nuclear winter we’ll enjoy if someone doesn’t grow a pair large enough to shut down the Iranians VERY soon. (Sorry about that… I tend to get a bit maudlin when considering the destruction of human society… )

      And I think that the article above shows that they know the end is near…. which is why all the original data has suddenly gone missing…

      I think that the end of this bulls*^t isn’t going to be dramatic at all… I’m betting that these weasels will simply crawl away quietly & hide under their desks for a few years, after which they’ll re-emerge to spread panic about the coming ice age again…..

      They still have their script for that one…. It wasn’t used all that long ago…

      The only question in my mind is how long it’s going to take the common man to learn never to trust anyone stirring up a climate change panic again….

Comments are closed.