AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH? Wanting to Prove a ‘Climate Change’ Hoax?
by James Rogers
Clash Daily Contributor
Reading a story in The Weekly Standard by Daniel Halper I see that Al Gore will be in Iowa, an important caucus state, from May 5-7 as part of a training session for the Climate Reality Project. As Chairman and founder of the project, he as well as world-class scientists, strategists, communicators, and technical specialists will be speaking on the science of climate change and the direct cost impacts are having on communities around the world. A description of the program reads as follows:
“Most importantly, you’ll learn about the solutions that are available today. You will also learn a twenty-first-century skill set in storytelling, public speaking, social media networking, and media engagement from successful grassroots organizers who will share best practices for positive impact.”
A twenty-first-century skill set in, story telling, public speaking, social media networking…sounds to me like The Inconvenient Truth isn’t doing as well with the public as they would like and they need to improve their methods of presentation to convince more people. In view of the fact that the weather hasn’t changed drastically in the last decade and the sea levels haven’t risen as predicted, there seems to be a problem with all of this climate change hype. The fact that we had 2,185 cold records broken or tied in February has not boded well with the masses either. Even Niagara Falls pretty much froze over.
Would you think that this is all a political ruse to get more money for giving us nothing, or a way to gain more control with a more centralized government? The bad news is climate change has now been sold to just about every nation in the world…including the United Nations. However, there are many scientists who disagree that climate change is a man-made event.
Professor Ian Plimer of the United Kingdom, author of Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, who said in a speech to Parliament May 2013:
“If we look back into the history of time, the atmosphere once had a very large amount of carbon dioxide in it. It’s now got less than .04 per cent...we are now at a dangerously low level. If we halved the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, we would have no terrestrial plants. Carbon dioxide is plant food, it is not a pollutant.” He goes on to say, “Six of the six great ice ages were initiated when the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was higher than now. In fact, up to a thousand times higher than now.”
While Professor Plimer has been thoroughly trashed by some of the university elite, I found it interesting just reading the comments section of an article in the Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia made by some university graduate students. Most of them seem to agree with the Professor.
For a list of videos of other scientists who claim climate change is a hoax, just go to you tube and search “climate change hoax” and a very long list will appear.
I learned about photosynthesis in junior high school, and in case you missed class that day, photosynthesis is the process where plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. The carbon footprint that climate change people are so worried about is nothing more than plant food, and four hundred parts per million is a very small amount especially when you take into consideration that the automotive industry has done much over the past four decades to lower the carbon footprint of the automobile.
Another point in favor of carbon dioxide is that many commercial hot houses in the United States are using carbon dioxide generators to promote healthier, stronger plants. Carbon dioxide not only promotes rapid and stronger plant growth, it also kills insects and other pests that harm plants in hot house environments.
Deforestation is something I became concerned over a few years back when I learned parts of the Amazon rain forest were being slashed and burned to make room for the farmers to have larger areas of farmland. Forests are very important in that they provide 100 percent of the world’s oxygen supply.
-- Atlantic coast of Brazil has lost 90-95% of its rainforest.
-- Central America has 50% of its rainforests.
-- South America has 70% of its rainforests.
-- The Philippines have lost 90% of its rainforests!
-- Madagascar has lost 95% of its rainforests!
-- El Salvador has lost 70-85% of its rainforest due to heavy bombing during the civil war 1984-1985.
-- Sumatra has 15% of its rainforests left.
-- Only 6% of Central Africa's forests are protected by law.
The causes of deforestation are: logging, mining, oil and gas extraction, cattle ranching, agricultural cash crops and local, national and international factors: development, land titles, government subsidies to attract corporations into developing countries, trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA), civil wars, debt, lack of resources and lack of law enforcement.
If the current rate of deforestation continues, the world's rain forests will vanish within 100 years—causing unknown effects on global climate and eliminating the majority of plant and animal species on the planet. Should not this rampant deforestation of our planet be a more important factor to consider than the carbon tax that is being pressed for by our government? I think so. Deforestation could be more easily controlled by the United Nations and would get more results than a carbon tax imposed on the industries that are targeted.
While I am all in favor of saving the planet, I find this very rapid surge by the government paid scientists to prove a point which a very large number of people think is a scam highly suspect. I would be prone to believe they are more likely biased in favor of what the government wants them to prove.
Consider if you will, Walter Cronkite warned us of a new ice age to come, back in September 11, 1972.