An Inconvenient Truth: Exposing the Global Warming Myth

The inconvenient truth is finally here: Al Gore will never be President of the United States. Well...it's inconvenient to him, but very convenient to those of us in the world who still actually have our sanity. In his new "documentary," Gore pretends to be the compassionate and caring humanitarian concerned with the future of our children living in an environment full of massive category bazillion hurricanes and average daily temperatures in the million degrees range. In truth, this quackumentary has but one goal for the future: get Al Gore elected President in 2008, a notion far more disturbing for our children than global warming. Personally, I haven't seen the film and I don't intend on watching it. Why? How can I protest to criticize Gore and this film when I won't even watch it? The answer is quite simple really: I don't care to watch liberal propaganda based on quack science. The idea of global warming has been debunked many times over the years. It reminds me of that drunk uncle that always shows up at the family reunion. He completely makes an ass of himself and then disappears for a few years, but he never really goes away. For some reason, this still pops up from time to time and with the devastation wrought by Katrina, mostly due to the incompetence of local Louisiana government officials, it has become a talking point for the liberal propaganda machine.

Even as far back as 1997, global warming was debunked. Oh, but that was nearly 10 years ago. Much has changed in the world since then right? Well, as it relates to global warming, no, not really. From the article cited above:

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

Guess what...long-term global predictions, to the extent Gore presents them, are still beyond current capabilities. In other words, while the article may be 10 years old, "global warming" is still a myth for the same reasons. A recent article on Fox News which debunks the idea of global warming, written by Steven Milloy, echoes the same rationalization:

So where does all the fuss about manmade CO2 and global warming come from? Not from actual temperature measurements and greenhouse physics – rather it comes from manmade computer models relying on myriad assumptions and guesswork. Many models incorporate hypothesized “positive feedbacks” in the climate system, which tend to amplify model predictions. But no model has been validated against the historical temperature record. So they don’t “radiate” much confidence when it comes to forecasting temperatures.

For some reason, you just can't get liberals to understand these things. Take Roger Ebert for instance; he gives the quackumentary a rave review and even goes as far as to say:

"In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to."

Of course, like everything that has the liberal stamp of approval, his review itself is full of contradictions. He begins:

"I want to write this review so every reader will begin it and finish it. I am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I believe, agreement among the world's experts."

and then towards the end of the review:

"Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended."

I'm not being political in this review....I am indeed being political in this review. He wraps up the diatribe:

"I did a funny thing when I came home after seeing "An Inconvenient Truth." I went around the house turning off the lights."

Apparently the lights were off when you proofread your review, Mr. Ebert.

Kyle Smith, of the New York Post, offers a much more logical review than Ebert and points out the stupidity in Gore's assertion of a future of catastrophe:

" A sister who smoked and died of lung cancer? The lesson is that those who used to deny that smoking caused disease were wrong, so anyone who doubts catastrophic global warming must also be wrong."

The Democrats are not concerned with global warming. They aren't concerned with minority rights. They aren't concerned about those left homeless after Katrina. They aren't concerned with the American troops dying daily in Iraq to preserve the future security of this country. They aren't concerned with any of the issues they've used as talking points over the years. The Democrats are concerned with one thing: take back Washington D.C. They will stop at nothing to accomplish this goal. "An Inconvenient Truth" only shapes up to be an inconvenient lie with the hopes of putting the Dems back in power.

The following sites contain information on the myths of global warming:

• The "Real" Inconvenient Truth


• Myths of Global Warming-1997


• Scientists Debunk 'Global Warming' Effect on Hurricanes


• Debunking Modern Climate Myths


• Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth


• The Global Warming Folly

Tags: An Inconvenient Truth, Gore, Al Gore, News, global warming, news and politics