Good morning Leo,
It's been awhile since we communicated. I'll cut right to the chase.
You praised Al Gore's documentary in one of your past editorials so I thought you might like to see what he missed and left out.
Left out? Why that sounds as if he knew there was insufficient science and truth to substantiate what he claimed and he deliberately left it out. Now would Al "there is no controlling legal authority" Gore lie? A politician lie? An ego the size of his waist line, lie?
If you are interested enough in the environment and the causes of the teeeny weeeeny rise in the temperature to sit through the mostly boring and frequently outrageous "An inconvenient truth", then you owe it to yourself and others to watch this presentation by BBC that sets the record straight.

http://vitalvotes.com/blogs/public_blog/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-7292.aspx

I am most certain that it will not immediately change your mind, that rarely happens in the devout, but it will at least hit you upside the head with the real truth.

I am sure that by now you have noticed that Gore and the devout are backing away from the claim that their science is definitive and are falling back on the pathetic "But what if we are right" defense.

The lust for political power is frightening.

Sincerely,
George

George,

Thanks for posting. I strongly recommend that you get a ticket and go see Tim Flannery this Monday night at Progressive Forum. Then let's talk.

Leo Gold

Does Tim Flannery lust for political power also? Do you really believe that he is going to bring something new to the discussion? I am already well abreast of the discussion and have read all current sides of this discussion.

Discovering your sense of moral center does interest me.
Do you not agree that lying is accomplished as easily by omission of the truth and facts as it is by denial or distortion of the truth and facts?
Do you not also agree that when you know for certain that a speaker has lied to you once in his presentation that all else in his presentation must be suspect as well?
Without covering old ground in too much detail it is obvious that when, in his documentary, Gore says that there is a direct correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and rising globabl temperatures but fails to tell you that the direct correlation sine wave is 180 degrees out of phase from what he is showing that he is lying by omission of data and distortion of fact. Without all of the other contrary data available, that alone should be enough to cause you to mentally stutter step.
Even a school child can verify that all of the ice in the world that currently sits on water can melt and it won't raise the sea level on teeeeny weeeeeny bit, no more than melting ice cubes in your full glass of tea over flow the rim as it melts. I am also very mindful of pictures taken at the North Pole, late 50s/early 60s, by one of our early Nukie subs that clearly show very thin and decaying ice. The thickness of ice flucuates with the seasons and has never been constant in recorded history.
I also am very mindful of documentaries on Polar Bears that show them living for long periods of time quite nicely near settlements on the Hudson Bay, obviously not needing ice for their existence. They come and they go, and if the coming is extended while the going is reduced I still think that the Polar Bears are not in trouble. Especially when the data show their population increasing.
Which brings me to this. I was a good little boy and paid attention in school when I had my geography, biology, and natural history classes. By the time I was 12 I had learned about ice ages, the unknown causes, the uncertainty of duration between them, and the unpredictability of that duration of glaciation. I also learned that these happened long before mankind appeared on the face of the Earth and some even after mankind put in his appearance. Those lessons alone are and were sufficient in themselves to cause me to be skeptical about "man caused" global warming in any but the most minute and periphial way. Place on top of that, learning about the global devestation brought on by the immense volcanic explosions reported in recorded history such as "the year without winter" and knowning the results were observed and recorded, not theorized a grant seeking researcher, is/was further encouragement to doubt "man caused" globabl warming.
Knowing that Gore and others frequently are/were guilty of distortion of the truth by talking about industrial pollution and showing films of huge steam ventings to the ignorant public, and inferring that what was being seen was/is pollution simply furthers my distrust and disbelief in their message. As I said above, there are just so many ways to lie to ignorant people.
In short it did not take the documentary "The great global warming swindle" to teach me or convince me, as you well know from previous postings. It is just wonderful that the wave of looney left hysteria is being countered by those who know the truth and are now fighting back. I only pray that this counter movement is successful in making Congress really think and be cautious in what they do. Unintended consequences can be a terrible evil.
I spent 23 plus years in military service and I am exceedingly familiar with how civil servants and those who depend on government funding for their livelihood operate. As long as there is funding money that might be available any lie, any distortion, any misrepresentation, and any deception will be used to get it and justify keeping it.
The final shot is this, it is very instructive to intelligent people to see those that live and breath existence on government grants, those who know that the continued flow of those monies, depends upon producing what the government wants to hear, and those on the truly looney left, then turn the situation upside down 180degrees, as is the characteristic of the left, and point fingers at those who disagree and make the accusation that their research is invalid because at some point they bought gas at a Shell station. Wonderful, intensive, hateful hypocrisy of the highest order.
I pray to God that Gore has the balls to accept this challenge:


Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming



PERTH, Scotland, March 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a formal
invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and
released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to
challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an
internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation
on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."
(http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070316_monckton.html)
Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years
as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the
substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film,
An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and
errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."
Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head to head on the science,
politics, and religion of global warming in the usually-decorous pages of
the London Sunday Telegraph last November.
Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate
and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare
of the world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the
defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever
faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the
issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his
claims against a serious, science-based challenge."
The arena of the glittering "Second Great Debate" will be the elegant,
Victorian-Gothic Library of the Oxford Museum of Natural History, which was
the setting for the "Great Debate" between the natural scientist T. H.
Huxley and Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce on the theory of evolution,
following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Lord Monckton says
he chose this historic venue "not only because the magnificent, Gothic
architecture will be a visually-stunning setting for the debate but also
because I hope that in this lofty atmosphere the caution and scepticism of
true science will once again prevail, this time over the shibboleths and
nostrums of the false, new religion of climate alarmism."
Lord Monckton's resounding challenge to Al Gore reads as follows --

"The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-
President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former
Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon
the question, 'That our effect on climate is not dangerous,' to be held in
the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date
of the Vice-President's choosing.

"Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the
Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President's prerogative and right to
choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the
Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet. God Bless America! God Save
the Queen!"



SOURCE Center for Science and Public Policy

But, I think I'll see pigs fly before Gore touches that one. LOL!

George,

Burning vast amounts of fossil fuels and releasing vast amounts of CO2 has effects on the scale of the action itself. I understand that this is upsetting to you, but there is nothing I can do about the laws of nature. I didn't invent them, I just have to live with them. Children are taught there are consequences to their actions. The same lessons apply to adults. There is no free lunch, no matter how much you want one.

Leo Gold