Disclaimer: the left cover has been fabricated to reflect articles published in the 1970's, eg.
Newsweek  28 April 1975  “The Cooling World”
Time 24 June 1974  “Another Ice Age?”

There is no question that climate change is here and anybody who denies it would have to be a total moron. The truth is: there has always been climate change and there always will be. Al Gore's “Convenient Lie" is that:

1. Humans releasing carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) are the cause of Climate Change and

2. Politicians can/will/should do something about it with CO2 tax schemes.

Most people seem to miss the point in the great Climate Change debate. The question is not, “Is there Climate Change?”, the real question is, “What have humans got to do with it?” and more specifically, “What has CO2 got to do with it?”, so "Why are we being taxed for it?"

Also, a lot of people confuse the "CO2 crisis" with environmental issues. These are two separate things. God knows we have plenty of environmental challenges to keep toxic pollutants out of our water/soil/food. Take the Flint Michigan water supply disaster for example, or Roundup in our soil. We should be spending our money on these real issues and not throwing money away for Al Gore to reduce non-toxic CO2. 

You should not rely on the mainstream media of today to educate you about this. Their mission is to make money by entertaining and providing you with outrageous news. The more outrageous the news, the more money they make. There’s very little credibility with them anymore and there’s definitely no money in educating you about the truth.

Remember in the 1970s when the alarmists told us we were entering a new ice age? ( stories that Time and Newsweek published. ) Well that panic eventually cooled down until Al Gore came along and heated us up again with the exact opposite crisis: global warming.

Let’s look at this through our “common sense lens”: doesn't it make you wonder if they really know what they're talking about - is it cooling or is it warming? Do they know the truth or is it just the usual sell the latest scaremongering lie?

Well, after Al Gore’s annual Global Warming conference got snowed out a couple of times, they changed the name to Climate Change to “protect the guilty”.  Now they can claim that they’re right no matter what the climate does. Does that give your common sense a hint about their credibility?

You should rely even less on politicians to educate you about Climate Change. As H.L.Mencken so eloquently said:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Does that sound about right? Look at the cover page of the 2006 Time above, it headlines “BE WORRIED. BE VERY WORRIED.” Do you think that was designed to alarm (you) the populace? The funny thing is, H.L.Mencken was born in 1880. So politics never change! That’s important to remember as we look at this Climate Change debate through our “common sense lens.”

Personally, my biggest issue with this whole Climate Change debate began when the first politician declared, "The science is in. The debate is over." I had to ask myself, “If the scientists have never stopped arguing, how can the debate be over ??? “

In 1997 the Oregon Petition was started and 31,487 American scientists signed the petition below, including 9,029 with PhDs ( and these guys, unlike politicians, undoubtedly have a lot of morality & credibility ):

For further info on the petition, please see http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

How many times have you heard some politician claim "The debate is over?" I hear it all the time, over and over and over again. It rings my common sense alarm bells to warn me it's straight out of Goebbels's propaganda handbook ( you know, "the bigger the lie and the more you tell it . . ." )

The truth is, the debate is not over. It never was. And now it’s intensifying as we see that Al Gore’s and the Green alarmist predictions were false and that the science keeps on rolling in to support what the Petition scientists already knew back in 1997.

Convenient Lie #1 - Humans  releasing carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) are the cause of Climate Change

Science has detailed and accurate temperature data from Antarctica and Greenland ice cores. The data reaches back 810,000 years in Antarctica and 150,000 years in Greenland. The best proof that climate change is real is this graph of the ups and downs, ups and downs, ups and downs, ... of temperature over the past 800,000 years:

In his book Inconvenient Facts, Gregory Wrightstone lists 60 Inconvenient Facts and above is his fact #14:

• Temperatures have changed for 800,000 years. It wasn’t us.

So sorry Al Gore, it’s not our fault. That fact should be repeated again and again. Human activity in the past 50 years has absolute tiddlywink to do with climate change. And as we shall see, CO₂ has even much less to do with it.

Whats even more inconvenient for Al Gore and his cohort climate alarmists is that the temperature was much warmer in the last warming period than it is now, by 4.5º Fahrenheit ( 2.5º Celsius ). Do you remember Al Gore gave us 6 years to "save the world"? Otherwise Manhattan would be underwater by 2013. Well they must have done a great job because NY City is still inhabitable! Contrary to Al Gore’s predictions, and even with the much higher temperatures in the last warming period, Greenland did not melt and the polar bears survived. And there are more polar bears now, in this warming period, than ever, despite the CO₂ we’re producing. Can you imagine that, the alarmists got it all wrong!

Alas, I’m also afraid that AOC’s 12 year plan may still be a little bit optimistic to stop climate change. After all, it is well known that our planet’s orbit around the sun is not a constant. The orbit becomes either more round or more elliptical ( which means we get closer or further away from the sun ) -and- the planet's tilt also changes ( which means who gets fried and where is also not constant ). It’s no small coincidence that our climate, such as glacial cycles, correspond with our orbital cycles. The sun is also not a constant, you may know one of it's variables as the 11-year solar flare cycle. Our oceans also have cycles, you probably know one of them as El Niño. All of these variables make up our climate recipe. That’s why I believe that AOC's 12 year plan is not enough. Al Gore told us an incomplete "inconvenient truth": we need at least a 1,200 year plan to "fix it". This means the green politicians will need more money to change how the world keeps spinning, get your wallets ready folks!

. . .

And that’s only the beginning of the story: humans did not cause Climate Change so what about CO2? Here are two pie charts showing the percentage of gases in the atmosphere, excluding water vapor ( which makes up most of it ):

Nature is an infinitely complicated phenomenon. There are thousands of variables that affect our climate. What these climate variables are is another thing the scientists are hotly arguing about - and probably always will be - the debate is very, very long from being over! 

So what is the Al Gore-ish scaremongering green carbon tax taxing anyway? Well, surprisingly the climate change religion puts all the blame on carbon dioxide / CO2 released by human activity. To put the amount of CO2 we're talking about into perspective, let's take a simple example.  Let's say we're going to bake a cake for the soccer World Cup.  This is going to be a very BIG cake weighing 25,000 pounds. The recipe calls for the following:

• 11,000 lbs flour
•   5,000 lbs butter
•   2,500 lbs cream cheese
•   2,500 lbs large eggs
•   3,900 lbs apricot jam
•      100 lbs powdered sugar

We mix all these variables up, bake it, and get our climate of the year. The powdered sugar,  which is 0.04% of the recipe, represents all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

As you and I know, CO2 is as fundamental to plant life as oxygen is to humans. Plants need CO2 like humans need oxygen and without it, we would soon die. Contrary to what the US government wants you to believe, CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 is produced by nature and by all the animals and humans on the planet exhaling. Think about how many creatures on earth are exhaling all the time; from mice to rabbits, to horses and cows, all the way up to hippos and elephants, just to mention a few - it's a lot!  You too are exhaling CO2, so do you consider yourself toxic? Of course not! CO2 in the atmosphere is completely natural, and some small part thereof is from us humans burning carbon.

According to a thorough analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the U.S. Department of Energy, the percentage of CO2 "produced by the activities of man, including the utilization of fossils fuels" is 3.2%. This means that Al Gore is putting all the blame on 3.2% of 0.04% of the atmosphere. Using our 25,000 pound cake as an analogy, Al Gore is "alarmed" that us humans will ruin the 25,000 pound climate because of 50 ounces of powdered sugar? If you have trouble visualizing this, I suggest you go to the next freeway/expressway where there are 18-wheeler 25,000 lbs trucks rolling along and throw a bag of powdered sugar at one. How did that change the trajectory of the truck?

But the lunacy doesn't end there. If you look again at the pie charts above showing the percentage of gases in the atmosphere, it says that the charts exclude water vapor. Actually, water vapor makes up 95% of the atmosphere and that leaves 5% for the pie charts above. Which means Al Gore's CO2 "culprit" is down to 3.2% of 0.04% of 5%, or to use our cake analogy: 2.5 ounces !!!  So if you still believe that CO2 is the big bad culprit in climate change, I recommend that you go down to the middle of an expressway, put 2.5 ounces of magic fairy dust in the cup of your hand ( even powdered sugar will do ), and when a 25,000 lbs truck comes barreling down upon you give a puff at the truck. Let Darwin selection take it's course.

Hmmm, now my common sense is kicking in again. Call me a skeptic, call me a heretic, call me whatever you want, but even if all the green Al Gore's in this world could cut 2.5 ounces of powdered sugar from the 25,000 pound cake recipe, I do not believe it would have any noticeable affect. And, according to Bjørn Lomborg, it would cost trillions of dollars. That's a lot of money for nothing. It's government sanctioned robbery of your money through carbon tax, plain and simple.

. . .

Believe it or not, the big "CO2 crisis" propaganda lie is even worse than that. The IPCC's research focuses on the CO2 in the atmosphere ( we'll talk about that more below in what's called the "Street-light effect" ). What the IPCC does not consider is everything else that contributes to climate change!  Common sense tells us that climate is much more complicated. Let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture as depicted by this simple energy flow diagram:

Let's look at other forces and energy that affect our climate, beside CO2. Air doesn't store heat energy very well. Think of a hair dryer/blower: when you turn it on the air heats up immediately and when you turn it off the heat energy is gone just as fast. Think of the hair dryer as our atmosphere. Water on the other hand stores heat very well. Think of a big 20 quart pot full of water on the stove: it takes a long time to bring it to a boil, and even 15 minutes after you turn the stove off, there's still plenty of energy in the pot to cook a knack-wurst. Think of the pot as our oceans. There is an incredible amount of energy in the oceans. It stores energy from the sun, the moon pulls it back and forth creating tides, there can be waves of 50 foot high walls of water, the gulf stream moves 30 million cubic meters of water per second from the Gulf of Mexico to Norway over 4,500 miles away, there are even volcanoes in the ocean that are bubbling heat energy from the earth's core temperature of about 10,000 °F.  There is a tremendous amount of energy in the oceans and a whole lot of action going on!  But even much, much larger than the ocean is the energy from the sun - the ocean's energy is minor compared to the sun. The sun is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths could fit inside of it. On the other hand, our troposphere ( where all our weather takes place ) is only 10 to 12 miles high. That's not very much air or energy compared to the sun and the oceans and everything else that plays a part with our climate. So what do you think is the major force driving the climate? ( Is it just CO2? )

Let's even take one more step back for a bigger picture:  recent data shows that the planet Mars has been heating and cooling in a similar pattern to our own. So if we were to ask a kindergarten class, "Two planets in the same solar system are being heated the same: when one gets hot, the other gets hot, when one gets cool, the other gets cool. What could be doing this?" Do you think some Kindergartners will answer, "The sun?" Yes! 

Spoiler alert: if you read book #5 in the list above  "The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe"  it won't take much common sense to understand that the big fire-ball in the sky is the major force driving our climate. The sun, solar flares, solar winds, and cosmic rays interacting with our ocean's clouds are the primary drivers of our climate. The 25,000 pound "climate cake" in the atmosphere does not depend on 2.5 ounces of CO2 alone - AND - our climate does not depend on the thin layer of air around the planet alone.

Can we send Al Gore and AOC back to kindergarten? The climate model crisis based on CO2, and CO2 alone, is so imbecile, it doesn't even pass Kindergarten logic 101.

. . .

Scientists have also observed ( using ice cores from Antarctica ) that in times when our planet has been hotter than it is now, the level of CO2 followed the rise in temperature. It did not precede it. In other words, the CO2 did not cause the temperature to rise, it was the other way around. Al Gore has got it ass-backward! And that, dear people, is the fundamental flaw that completely invalidates Al Gore's CO2 crisis. Scientifically, the debate ends right here.

But unfortunately, the climate change movement has divorced itself from science and it is now a religious argument.

So just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Al Gore finds the magic "CO2 control knob" to bake the perfect cake. Should he turn the knob down, like he wants to, for less CO2? Or turn it up for more CO2? Here are the main points of what the Nongovernmental International Panel in Climate Change wrote about higher CO2 concentrations in Climate Change Reconsidered ( Idso 2014 ):

• Nearly all plants increase photosynthesis in response to increasing CO2
• More CO2 makes plants grow faster, and with less stress and water
• Forests are growing faster in response to increasing CO2
• More CO2 means bigger crop yields and more and bigger flowers
• More CO2 means less water loss, less irrigation, and moister soil
• More CO2 helps plants to create natural repellents to fight insect predators

( Look again at the last sentence of the scientist's 1997 Oregon Petition: "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial  effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth"  - that's what the scientists said already over 20 years ago! )

Scientists who have researched the planet's climate history are also telling us that we are now in a CO2 deficient era. Historically, CO2 levels have been higher. So why did Al Gore and his green cronies sound alarm bells when the CO2 level went above 400 ppm? Well, could it have been just the usual scaremongering politics? Yep, common sense tells me so. Submariners and Space Station astronauts consider CO2 levels up to 5,000 ppm acceptable. The ancestors of the plants on which we rely evolved and prospered when CO2 levels were up to 10 times higher than they are today!

Studies have shown that increasing CO2 by 300 ppm will increase food crop growth by an average of 46%. Conversely, reducing CO2 will do the opposite. California's goal is to reduce CO2 by 40% by 2030. That will take it down to 256 ppm and that will result in an estimated 8% less food crop yield. So get your wallets ready people, not only to pay carbon tax now, but to pay more for vegetables at the grocery store as California's food crop begins to decline!

Clearly, CO2 is not a toxin, it's fundamental to life. It's plant food. CO2 is to plants what oxygen is to humans; we would soon die without it. We don't even need common sense to know that. Yet Al Gore is taxing us for producing it when in fact we now have a deficiency and plants want more of it. Pray that Al Gore does not find that "CO2 control knob" and turns down the CO2. Actually, if he turns it down to 150 ppm or lower, most terrestrial plants would die, then the animals would die, and then so would you and I.

Al Gore and his cohorts are taxing us for producing CO2 and his goal is for the planet to have less CO2. That's bad for plants, bad for animals, and bad for humankind.

Let's sum up lie #1 with some simple common sense: The Al Gore's, the AOC's, and the green radicals in this world only want to control you politically, steal your money, and don't have frigging clue how to control the nature of the planet. The "human caused CO2 crisis" is a scam and, to quote Dr. Tim Ball, "The biggest deception in history."

Convenient Lie #2  - Politicians can/will/should change the climate with CO2 tax schemes.

Let's use just a tiny bit of common sense to think about the credibility of the crisis that the UN IPCC is using to terrify us. What gives these IPCC climatologists such foresight into what the future climate will be anyway?

Meteorologists are doing a really good job if they can predict the weather 10 days from now. Actually, the probability that they get it right for the first 3 days is very high. After the 3rd day, the probability that they get it wrong increases, so they don't risk "sticking their necks out" more than 10 days. And they're using sophisticated computer models with an immense pool of real-time data gathered around the world terrestrially and from satellites. It's amazing what a good job they do!

What have climatologists got to work with? Humankind has only been collecting global weather records since the 1800s. In the history of the world, that's barely even the blink of an eye. And we've only been collecting satellite data for less than 50 years, which is absolutely nothing in the big picture. Compare it, for example, with the earth's orbit cycle around the sun every 44,000 years: 50 years is nothing, nada, zilch. So how credible are these green alarmist climatologists who look at our tiny, tiny instant in time and predict/guess what will/could happen, not in 10 days, but in 10 years from now?

What does your common sense tell you??? You are absolutely right: they can guess all they want, the fact is, they do not know. The IPCC even admitted themselves in their 2001 report, §14.2.2.2, that:

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

There it is clear as day: the IPCC admits that climate is a chaotic system they can not predict.

Now we come to the tragedy of the whole Climate Change movement: they ( the green activist politicians ) can not predict what nature/ the climate/ the planet/ the solar system will do next and therefore there is no way they know how to "fix it". But none-the-less, they are subjecting us to CO2 carbon taxes claiming that they will "fix it". It is preposterous! It's the biggest scam that you and I will experience in our lifetimes.

Period.

. . .

How did we get to this point where so many people believe politicians who claim “The debate is over”, or the equally big lie "We have 97% consensus" ?

It started with a small branch of the United Nations, the IPCC, which is an intensely political and not a scientific body. As its chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri explained in an interview with the Guardian newspaper:

We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.

There it is, the simple truth: the IPCC's mission is to be at the beck and call of their masters, the governments/politicians. On top of that, the IPCC charter does not call for it to investigate climate change as a whole. Instead, it's mission is to focus on:

"human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

In other words, the mission for the hand-full of scientists at the IPCC is/was to find out how humans affect climate and then propose how to "fix it".  So of course it's only human nature to find a "human caused disaster" and then propose "expensive drastic solutions" to fix it. The simple motivation is called "job security". What else should they do, declare that everything is fine and they don't want any funding to "fix it"? That undoubtedly played a part. It also tells us two things: 1 ) Before even starting, the IPCC took "human-induced climate change" as their belief which is in no way an unbiased scientific approach and 2) Focusing on "human-induced climate change" alone is a blinkered approach that consistently damaged all IPCC pronouncements. It's just not science.

It is what is known as the "Street-light effect". The "Street-light effect" is best described with a little humor:

A policeman sees a drunk searching for something under a street-light. He asks the drunk, what have you lost.” The drunk replies, “I lost my keys.” They both proceed to look under the street-light together. After a few minutes, the policeman asks the drunk if he is sure he lost them here. The drunk replies, “No, I lost them in the park.” The policeman is stumped: “If that’s the case, why are you searching here?” The drunk replies, “Because here is where the light is.”

Furthermore, the IPCC operates under this principle:

"In taking decisions, and approving, adopting, and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus".

Science does not depend on consensus. Science depends on one thing, and one thing only: the truth. The result of 1+1 does not depend on a show of hands. The IPCC's objective of consensus is plainly anti-scientific.

After Albert Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, a book came out titled One hundred authors against Einstein. Albert responded appropriately by asking, "Why 100? If I were wrong then 1 would have been enough." Scientific arguments are settled by evidence, not a show of hands.

. . .

The left column in the picture above shows what the IPCC scientists wrote in the preliminary 1995 report. As Dr. Richard Lindzen explained in video #4 listed above ( "What Do Scientists Say?" ), there are 3 groups in the climate change debate: 1) the IPCC scientists, 2) the skeptic scientists, and 3) the green politicians / environmentalists / media. Groups 1 and 2 agree on many things, such as "no confident prediction about future global mean temperature, or it's impact, can be made" and as the above statements show, "we do not know if there is a direct link between human activity and climate change." Well, that is NOT what Group 3 ( politicians/greens ) wanted to hear and so they sent in Benjamine D. Santer to edit the report draft. As a result, all the statements in the left column were removed and the text in the right column ended up in the final draft. And that is how the propaganda machine perpetuates the big climate change lie.

The green alarmist "The world is about to end!" reports scaring everyone are the expression of the beliefs of a small circle of "politicized scientists",  lobbyists, and special interests who, against all evidence, have convinced themselves that humans are having a dramatic effect on the Earths' climate.

. . .

So who has the evidence?

It's the thousands upon thousands of true non-politicized scientists who signed the Heidelberg Accord, The Oregon Petition Project, etc. With all those scientists against the UN IPCC agenda, how can there be a 97% consensus? Here's a list of ca. 40,000 ( forty thousand ) of non-politicized scientists:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html

Have you seen that on mainstream media? People may be gullible, but it doesn't take a math whiz to see that the numbers just don't add up. If 40,000 is 3%, then how many scientists have got to be with the IPCC to make up the other 97%? Those scientists do not exist.

Do you remember Climategate in 2009? That's where the IPCC got caught manipulating data to further promote their fabricated crisis? Climategate alone is enough evidence to not believe the man-made CO2 climate crisis IPCC is pushing down our throats.

So who should we believe is telling us the truth? The IPCC at the beck and call of their political masters, or the real scientists in their quest for the truth? What what does your common sense tell you? Yes, good choice, Captain Obvious !!!

. . .

How did the IPCC's lies become so widespread?

The propaganda and lies started with a small circle in the IPCC but it took a lot, lot more for the big lie to spread globally. Here's where the green lobbyists, special interests, politicians ( eg.  Al Gore and his cohorts ) come in.

Here's some background first: the whole "CO2 crisis" narrative/scam goes back to 1987. In that year, the UN published the Bruntland Report ( a.k.a. Our Common Future ). ( Can you imagine: this agenda/scam has been going on/advancing for over 30 years! - no wonder they got so far. ) What's the report about? It's about "the transfer of wealth" which they refer to as "economic growth". It's about "energy rationing" which they refer to as "life style adjustment". It's about linking CO2 to a new enemy, "global warming."

Does "distribution of wealth" sound familiar? Does Green New Deal rationing sound familiar? Actually, this has been in the Marxist leaning UN pipeline for a long time now!

The UN report makes it clear: "Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt life-styles within the planet's ecological means - in their use of energy, for example."  Translation: "those who are more affluent" means countries such as the United States, it means you and I. It then says, "Meeting essential needs requires not only a new era of economic growth for nations in which the majority are poor, but an assurance that those poor get their fair share." Translation: Get out your wallets people, we are guilty of being too affluent so we need to start transferring our wealth to 3rd world countries.

And how are they going to do this? By taxing your CO2. This is happening right now and has been happening for quite sometime: Congress passed a law years ago to transfer our wealth to to 3rd world nations.

Let's make this clear. Here's what UN climate official Ottmar Edenhofer said:

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy ... we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.

This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for first time in human history.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” —House of Commons, 22 October 1945.

Do you want to squander your money on green UN Marxist agendas? Did you sign up for that? I don't think so because you can't vote for ( have no say in ) UN policy and their central planning.

. . .

Now let's look at how key green players, such as Al Gore, fit into this picture. How are they doing it, why are they doing it, and what damage have they done?

The tragedy and the real danger are all those who "tow the line" for a government agenda and spread the propaganda without standing up for the truth. It's straight back to what I mentioned at the beginning: Goebbels's propaganda playbook.

After the UN published the Marxist Bruntland Report in 1987, and the even more radical Marxist Agenda 21 in 1992, guess who moved into the White House as Vice President in 1993? Good old Al Gore. That's when he saw his huge scam opportunity,  grabbed the Golden Fleece by the neck, and threw it on the CO2 bandwagon. Politicians such as Gore are very, very well connected. It doesn't take many of them in key positions to take over the policy of government agencies ( such as IPCC's Phil Jones , NASA's  James Hansen ), and academia ( such as Penn State's Michael Mann. )

Gore wants us to believe there is a crisis as he rakes in the millions ( some say billions ). For those of you who can recollect recent history, Al Gore's dad was buddies with Armand Hammer. If you know who Armand Hammer was, you won't be surprised to learn that Al Gore's dad was a Marxist. Al was also buddies with Armand. So we can guess which way Al tends to lean politically: Marxism.

If you've got the time, please go watch "An Inconvenient Truth" again. Is there any iota of doubt in your mind now that this film is political? Do you trust a political film or a scientific film for the truth? Look at what Al Gore predicted and what came true. So how credible is Gore now? Do you remember when British Judge Michael Burton ruled Al Gore's environmental "documentary " contained nine key scientific errors ( lies ) and was "in the context of alarm-ism and exaggeration". The judge ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.

It is, the judge ruled, a "political film".

"An Inconvenient Truth" contains, as the judge said, 9 lies:  lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Honestly, who should believe this Gore guy??? I'm sure Goebbels's is saluting from the grave. On top of that, Gore is such a hypocrite. Gore guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years! And this is the spokesperson/protagonist/leader of the Climate Change movement telling us that *we* need to reduce our carbon footprint! Why should anyone believe such a hypocrite? Do you really believe Gore thinks we have a CO2 crisis? My common sense tells me: Nah. nah, it's just part of "the big lie."

But that's nothing compared to the damage Al Gore and his cohorts have done.

How are the Al Gore's of this world getting rich by this scam? I've mentioned Al's previous time as Vice-President of the USA, which put him in position to play "the master puppeteer". This is how it worked: first of all you spread the UN propaganda and then you get legislation passed that supports your lies, i.e. we need to stop CO2 by implementing a "cap-and-trade" tax. Cap-and-trade means the government limits how much CO2 a company can produce, and if they go over that limit, then they are forced to buy what Al Gore calls "Carbon Credits". In the next step, you promote and support legislation that reduces the number of energy producing companies. In other words, instead of promoting and expanding US power companies, for an expanding population ( upon which our welfare depends ), they reduced it. Why? Because with a limited number of power producers they can sell more Carbon Credits. The more Carbon Credits they sell, the more money they rake in.

How does this work exactly? Well, to sell Carbon Credit all you need to do is to open what they called the Chicago Carbon Exchange ( CCX ). Sort of of of like the Chicago Stock Exchange. Then every time some company producing your power (  SoCal Edison for example ) is penalized, and is forced to buy Carbon Credits, two things happen: 1) you get screwed and 2) CCX makes money. I'll give you one guess as to who has got his fingers in the big sweet CCX honey pot. Can you guess who?

Yes, it's our #1 hypocrite, the guy that uses more electricity than 21 American households, it's the guy who tells us to reduce our carbon footprint: it's Al Gore. And that's only one of many honeypots that greedy Al has got his fingers in. He's also got his hand in one of the largest venture capital firms in silicon valley, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. They're betting money on "green start-ups". How can they lose when good ol' boy Al wrote the legislation? And that's probably just a small part compared to what Al's own Generation Investment Management fund is raking in by investing in publicly traded companies focused on alternative energy.

Al Gore's scam is making money left and right, hand over fist. But for what? What is his contribution to society?

Well let's look at the UK for example: In the UK, over the past 5 years, home heating costs have risen 63 per cent, and an increasing number of the poor spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy. Energy poor pensioners are spending their days riding in heated buses to keep warm, a third are leaving parts of their home cold, putting on hats and scarves and blankets to keep warm at home, and  are forced to stay in bed longer because of the cost of energy. Let's look at at Germany: charities are reporting that power is being cut off to more than 300,000 households each year because consumers can not afford to pay the high cost of green electricity. Some 800,000 Germans are now described as being in energy poverty. The poorer of the pensioners are combing forests looking for branches that could be used as fuel; as if we've turned the clock back to WWII! German consumers are being forced to pay more than 24 billion Euro to subsidize green power that is only worth 3 billion. It's a huge sacrifice.  We don't even need to look at statistics in France. We know what's going on there: due to the latest carbon tax on gasoline, people in rural France can no longer afford to drive to work, or whatever they need to do. So the "Yellow Vests" have been protesting across the country for months and burning the place to the ground!

This is not a joke. It doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up. And this is where we Americans are heading. Because of the "Green Dream", Germans have the highest electricity prices in Europe. Does this look like a "Green Dream" to you? Maybe it does to the green leaning Al Gore and AOC's of this world, but to me it looks more like a Marxist "Red Nightmare".

And the coup de grâce is: there is no benefit to the environment because there is no CO2 crisis. CO2 is not a pollutant. On the contrary, we are living in a CO2 deficient era and food crop plants would enjoy at least double the current CO2. So in addition to paying exorbitant amounts of money to reduce CO2, with no benefit, we are actually reducing food crop production at the same time, which means even more suffering.

It's utter madness. But that's not all.

Al Gore and his green Marxist cronies' agenda are not only causing massive economic damage. It's also causing a seismic shift in people's mental well being. Ask any parent who's child has been indoctrinated since kindergarten with "The polar bears are dying" propaganda and are now skipping school on Fridays to protest because they're terrified that the planet will be destroyed in 12 years!

There is now a women's movement who call themselves BirthStrikers. They have decided not to procreate in response to the coming "climate breakdown and civilization collapse". I can not imagine anything more perverted and deluded. Women not having children because of IPCC political lies! One of the BirthStrikers. even said, "It was a relief when Ocasio-Cortez ( AOC ) said it was 'legitimate' for millennials to consider not having children because of the state of the earth." This is so insane, I could not make stuff like this up, you'll have to check it out for yourself:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/12/birthstrikers-meet-the-women-who-refuse-to-have-children-until-climate-change-ends

And that's not just a couple of one-off dingbats. Here's an equivalent organization in the US:

https://conceivablefuture.org/

On April 14th 2018, David Buckel, a New York attorney who lived in Brooklyn, doused himself in gasoline and set himself on fire to protest climate change. It makes me wonder what it takes for an intelligent guy like Buckel to become so mentally ill as to commit suicide? It must have been very similar to why Jan Palach self-immolated to protest the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. Before he died of his burns, Jan said his target was the despair and fatalism that had overcome his fellow citizens.

The damage that Al Gore and his crony green Marxists have done to humanity, not only economically but by also by creating a Zeitgeist of despair and fatalism, is immeasurable.

The man-made CO2 climate crisis is a lie. It's all economic pain and mental pain with no climate gain.

And that is the sad truth. We have been grievously deceived and we are paying for it dearly.

In summary:

1. Climate Change is very real. It's nature. We have scientific evidence from Antarctica ice cores that it has been going on for at least 800,000 years. It will always go on.
   
2. Climate Change is not your fault and CO2 is not at fault either. Vikings were farming in Greenland 800 years ago when it was much warmer and they were not flying around in airplanes releasing tons of CO2. Besides, in the history of climate change, temperature increases preceded rises in CO2. In other word, temperature is the driver of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around.
   
3. The only " immediate action" politicians want to take is tax you for CO2. That is not going change the climate at all. It's not going to change the sun or the moon or how our planet keeps on spinning. Even if they decrease CO2 by a couple of ppm, we could use more of it: ask any farmer who pumps CO2 into his greenhouse to increase crop production. Unfortunately, CO2 tax is making politicians rich while driving us, we the people, into poverty. And poverty kills.
   
4. The 97% figure is just another outrageous lie. The IPCC is a small circle of "politicized scientists". If the 40,000 scientists who stood up against the IPCC are 3%, that would imply that the IPCC has 1.3 million scientists. Those scientists exist in propaganda only.
   

2019

There is no doubt in my mind that the future will be bright ( but it won't be easy politically. )  As Vaclav Klaus quoted in his book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" ( #17 in the list above ), "The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones, the iron age did not end because we ran out of iron,  . . .  the stone age ended because we discovered something better!"  So too will the fossil fuel age eventually come to an end. 

What's the political problem? Most people can be put in one of two groups: those who see a glass and say it's half full and those who see the same glass and say it's half empty. Then there are also those people who got us into this mess of green climate hysteria: those who see the glass, say's it's just about empty, claim that the end is near, and call out for immediate drastic action!  It's this latter group of doomsday alarmists who want to henceforth control all of the "water in the glass" ( i.e. all green resources ), and by extension control you. These are the political radicals from whom we need to divorce ourselves.

Specifically, the doomsday alarmists of today are radicalized environmental groups ( such as Greenpeace ), government organizations ( such as the UN ), political parties ( such as The Greens ), and all their supporters in politics, academia, and media. They are numerous, and so divorce will not be easy, but it is necessary!

These radicals are not interested in your or my well-being. As Vaclav says, they see the world as "static" and do not believe in positive future change. They believe all growth should be stopped; economic growth, population growth, etc., that they should control all resources, and the world should be kept as it is according to *their*  *superior* Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Nazi/... Master Plan. Anyone who has lived under "Master/Central planing" knows that it has never worked and never will.

Let's look at what some of these "Master Planers" have said:

Maurice Strong, Chairman of the Council of the United Nations and architect of the Kyoto Protocol: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our duty to bring that about?"

Wow! Now I'm beginning to understand the raison d'etre for the UN's plan to "transfer wealth" from our industrial nations to the 3rd world. But if Maurice and the UN do manage to destroy industrialized civilization, where does he hope to live? Well, we all know where millions of dollars end up when we transfer them to the 3rd world: in a numbered Swiss bank account. So I don't think we need to worry about Maurice.

Paul R. Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University: "We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."

This is the guy that wrote The Population Bomb in 1968 warning of mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Just another glass almost empty radical, of course there was no mass starvation.

John Holdren, senior adviser to President Obama and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, on population growth: "the potential for grave damage is real and prompt and vigorous action is needed to avert or minimize the damage is necessary. Such actions should include measures to slow the growth of the global population to zero as rapidly as possible"

Holdren's proposed  "solutions" in his master plan included totalitarian methods such as compulsory abortion or adding a sterilant to drinking water! Make no mistake about it, these people are are evil and dangerous!!! Holdren was also Bill Clinton’s science adviser ( climate change ) from 1994-2001 with our good old buddy at the White House: Al Gore.

Kenneth Boulding, Professor of Economics, University of Colorado: "The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."

There is no shortage of these green radicals out there. Let's be thankful that we weren't subject to Boulding's "Master Plan"; was it a government "cap and trade" tax for not having children? Make no mistake about it, do not believe for one second that these people have your best interests or welfare at heart, they are all elitists who want to seize control of your life. Do you want to be sterilized, or forced to abort? These "elites" believe they have the right to make such decisions. It's scary so educate yourself!

Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, believes that humans are the primary cause of climate change. Her solution? To greatly reduce the world’s population! Holdren and Figueres are on the front lines of the UN's population control agenda with who knows how many other well-known and unknown powerful radicals.

We need to divorce ourselves from these people, all of them. From Greenpeace to Green Party and it starts with your local city council. As I've mentioned before, we're only looking at the tip of the iceberg here. Thank goodness for the freedom of the Internet: you're free to search and find more of the truth.

...


Vaclav Klaus explains best why we need a divorce from the greens in his book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles". In the words of Vaclav, the radicals want to "impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities; and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design (i.e master planning)." ( This is exactly where the US EPA is heading if the Greens get their way! )

 
Vaclav Klaus knows what he's talking about: he served as the second President of the Czech Republic from 2003 to 2013 and knows what it's like to live under Soviet occupation/ communism/ master planning. His speech before the US Congress on this subject was so eloquent that I repeat an excerpt here:

Vaclav Klaus:
_______________________________________

As someone who lived under Communism for most of my life, I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not Communism or its various softer versions. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches Earth and nature, and under the slogans of their protection - similarly to the old Marxists - wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central ( now global ) planning of the whole world.

The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an indisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and public relation campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere, they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures; impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities; and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design.

The environmentalist paradigm of thinking is absolutely static. They neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change, that there is and has been no ideal state of the world as regards natural conditions, climate, distribution of species on Earth, etc. They neglect the fact that the climate has been changing fundamentally throughout the existence of our planet and that there is evidence of substantial climate fluctuations even in known and documented history. Their reasoning is based on historical short and incomplete observations and data series that cannot justify the catastrophic conclusions they draw. They neglect the complexity of factors that determine the evolution of the climate and blame contemporary mankind and the whole industrial civilization for being the decisive factors responsible for climate change and other environmental risks.

By concentrating on the human contribution to climate change, the environmentalists ask for immediate political action based on limiting economic growth, consumption, or human behavior they consider hazardous. They do not believe in the future economic expansion of society, they ignore the technological progress future generations will enjoy, and they ignore the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society is, the higher is the quality of the environment.

The policymakers are pushed to follow this media-driven hysteria - based on speculative and hard evidence lacking theories - and to adopt enormously costly programs, which would waste scarce resources, in order to stop the probably unstoppable climate changes, caused not by human behaviour but by various exogenous and endogenous natural processes ( such as fluctuating solar activity ).
_______________________________________


I'm with Vaclav Klaus and totally optimistic about our future. We have human ingenuity. As long as we remain a free people, and divorce ourselves from Green radicals, we will find a way into a bright future.

For example, just look at this kid's TED talk  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HL1BEC024g

If we would have given this kid a billion bucks, a pittance compared to the billions upon billions we threw away for solar and wind farms, and stood behind him, I bet all our energy problems would have been solved by now. The kid wasn't the first to discover Thorium but I'm sure he's on the right path. There's plenty of Thorium in the world, Thorium waste can't be used for military purposes, it just needs to be stored for 300 years, and Thorium plants can also burn waste from uranium plants. And the best of all - Thorium plants can not "run wild", there's no danger of meltdown.

My point is: the glass is always filling up: we are always discovering new things, if it's not Thorium then we'll find another way. Humans always do.

So let's kick out the Greens, and don't worry, the world will still keep spinning without the Greens, as it has for a billion years !

If you find anything factually questionable on this site, please email bruno@ClimateChangeForDummies.com
and I will do my best to find the truth ( include  your evidence. )