Tag: Al Gore

Climate Change: Just Follow the Money!

Who is really polluting the climate change debate?

I have not met too many conservatives who do not want clean water, clean air, or who want the world to end in 2012! Oh, wait! We are past that already. Well, let’s just say twelve years from now! I get a real kick out of these climate alarmists running around warning us that if we don’t give them all our money, the world will end in twelve years, while at the same time, they are planning long-term fundamental changes to our country.

I mean, if we’re all going to die, what’s the point …

While we can all certainly agree we should be good stewards of our planet, we must take a scientific-based approach to ensure its longevity. However, Congress has proven time and time again that they are great at ignoring real science and incredibly incompetent when it comes to making smart decisions. Or, at least decisions not based on direct influence from wealthy mega-donors.

You can find a study to back any position!

For example, in the 1960s, industry-funded research was designed to downplay the risks of sugar while highlighting the hazards of fat. The study was requested by an industry group called “the Sugar Research Foundation” who needed evidence to refute concerns about sugar’s role in heart disease.

The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did precisely that. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding. It suggested there were significant problems with all the studies that implicated sugar. It concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

So, what does that have to do with climate change research?

Not a damn thing! But it does show you that, with enough money, you can get whatever research results you want. Even from some “highly respected” sources.

The fact is that an overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. While it is true that the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government and left-wing foundation funding only go toward research that advances the global warming regulatory agenda. What we actually have is a pre-determined public-policy outcome buying research to support its program. The resulting government and left-wing foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity than the actual risk of global warming is to our planet.

With the fate of the U.S. economy, and perhaps the planet at stake, you would think Americans would want the actual facts!

But some people in the government and the media work very hard to keep the facts from getting in the way of good brainwashing!

Back in 2015, the New York Times and the Boston Globe pointed to documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, and attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon by suggesting that he hid $1.2 million in research funding contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” Their stores were part of an ongoing campaign by Greenpeace and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

However, by choosing to not be impartial watchdogs, and closely allying themselves with radical activist groups, those reporters fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming research funding.

The Smithsonian Institute, which employs Dr. Soon, told the Times it appeared the scientist had inadvertently violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter.

Soon is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense.

“It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal integrity,” says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon over research funding.

In fact, it is almost impossible for some of the world’s top climate scientists such as Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, and MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen to get funding for their work. This is because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.

It is interesting to point out here that, back in the 1950s, a study by MIT showed that when the government funds research through grants, it typically receives the results it wants. Amazing, isn’t it! It shocked the nation back then. I believe it has only gotten worse today.

Contrast this treatment with that of Michael Mann

Mann is the director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was also at the center of the 2009 Climate-gate scandal. This occurred when uncovered e-mails between climatologists revealed they were discussing how to skew scientific evidence to support their claims as well as how to blackball experts who don’t agree with them.

Mann is a prime example of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government, which by the way, will gain massive regulatory power if their climate legislation is passed, has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989. This number is provided by the Science and Public Policy Institute. This amount dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.

According to a study by The American Spectator, Michael Mann received some $6 million, mostly in government grants, including $500,000 in federal stimulus money WHILE he was being investigated for his Climate-gate e-mails.

So where is the “free and balanced” press?

I used to cringe at the statement that the mass media has become the enemy of the American people. Now I am in agreement. They more I see, the more I believe many in the media are directly supporting a left-wing takeover of this country.

Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets such as The Times have ignored the government’s heavy-handed role in directing climate change research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing foundations; funding that, like government grants, seek to tip the scales to one side of the debate.

Media outlets have also been one-sided in their reporting on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The NY Times trumpeted Greenpeace’s FOIA requests revealing Soon’s benefactors. Yet, they have ignored the government’s refusal of FOIA filings by the Competitive Enterprise Institute requesting funding source disclosures of external income of NASA scientist James Hansen, a key ally of Al Gore.

The fact that we have experienced a lack of “global warming” for over a decade and have actually experienced dangerous and record-breaking low temperatures combined with scandals such as Climate-gate are strong evidence that the establishment has oversold a warming crisis in an effort to gain power and control.

Failure of the media to cover both sides of the debate fairly while attempting to shut up their critics shows either a clear disregard or ignorance of the real threat to science.

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore is an extremely rich man!  He has been peddling a “Climate Change/Global Warming” scam that gullible left-wing Americans have bought into hook, line and sinker. Gore somehow even managed to win both a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for his nonsense from easily-led pseudo-intellectuals.  But, the real fact is that none of Gore’s dire predictions have actually come true!

Ten years ago Monday, Al Gore stated emphatically that we had only a decade left to save the planet from global warming.  According to his predictions, we should now be living in some kind of a giant frying pan! But surprise surprise, the Earth has been trucking along just fine.  Why do so many still listen to this man?  Generally they are the same people who still believe Barack Obama’s lies!  In short, they blindly drink the progressive Cool Aid!

I do remember how, at the  Sundance Film Festival in January 2006, during the premiere of his grand documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, Gore made his grand prediction. The former vice president stated, according to the AP reporter taking down his story, that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” In Gore’s own words, he claimed we were in “a true planetary emergency.”

Ten years later, he’s probably hoping that everyone has forgotten about his categorical statement.

The terrible truth for Al Gore is that there is no planetary emergency. Not one of the dire predictions he and the rest of the alarmist community made has come to pass. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that they have been getting rich from this hoax.



Investor Business Daily has a few more “inconvenient truths ” that Al Gore would rather not have the public hear (You will not find these truths on any of the left-wing, lap-dog media outlets; you know, the ones who felt a shiver run up their leg when Obama spoke and who now drool over Hillary Clinton):

  1. Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly 20 years. Yes, 2015 supposedly “smashed” the previous temperature record. But actually it was the third-warmest year on record and maybe “not even close to the hottest year on record,” says James Taylor of the Heartland Institute.
  2. Predictions that climate change (the re-branding of “global warming” when it turned out that predicted warming wasn’t happening) would cause catastrophic weather damage have simply not panned out. German insurance giant Munich Re says losses from natural disasters were lower in 2015 than in 2014 and lowest since 2009. The facts are sharply at odds with Gore’s 2012 claim that “dirty weather” caused by “dirty fossil fuel” has created “extreme weather” that “is happening all over the world with increasing frequency.”
  3. Despite all the self-congratulatory international conferences and pseudo-agreements, the world has done nothing to “fight global warming.” He cannot claim that his deadline has been extended because some governments have forced their citizens to cut carbon dioxide emissions. CO2 levels keep climbing and now exceed 401 parts per million in the atmosphere. It is simply not the dangerous greenhouse gas we’ve repeatedly been told it is.
  4. In the mid-to-late-2000’s, Gore repeatedly predicted that an ice-free Arctic Ocean was coming soon. But as usual, his fortune-telling was wrong. By 2014, Arctic ice had grown thicker and covered a greater area than it did when he made his prediction
  5. Gore’s movie, which somehow won an Oscar, was found by a British judge to contain nine errors. The judge said it could not be shown to students unless it included a notice pointing out the errors.

I suppose Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.



2012 Election Votes Count … Please vote!

Al Gore
Al Gore (Photo credit: Livia Iacolare)


I find it very interesting that The Tennessean, a long time supporter of Democratic candidates and former employer of Al Gore, should come out endorsing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. The headline for their endorsement reads, “Time For Another Change.”


Hallerin Hilton Hill, on his morning talk radio program yesterday gave a much better answer to the young man who asked the opening question at the second presidential debate:


Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?


I loved Hallerin’s 11 – point answer to the student’s question.  A caller added a 12th point.  I can’t remember all of them, but I will try and list some of them here as best I can remember:


  1. First , get the heck away from the negativity of those professors, neighbors, and others.  Who the heck are they to tell you that you cannot make it?  Stand on your own two feet and decide that your future depends on your efforts … not their negative perceptions.  Surround yourself with positive, supportive professors, neighbors, and others.
  2. Learn to communicate!  Be confident, shake hands, smile, look people in the eyes. Learn to talk like a thinking, educated adult.  I have never been to a job interview were I could sit there and text back and forth with the interviewer!  (Caller)
  3. Be excellent!  Always do your best work. Never be satisfied with doing any less than your best!
  4. Study now … party later.  If 50% of colleges students cannot find jobs after graduation, be sure you are part of the 50% who do!
  5. Pick a career-orientated program.  ORNL needs engineers!  They are importing them from India and China.  Get an engineering degree.  A degree in Women’s Studies, African-American History, Music Appreciation, or Hindu Underwater Basket Weaving, while possibly quite politically correct and popular with liberals, will not provide you with much of a chance at finding a good job!
  6. Dress well!  Look like a professional.  Dave Ramsey puts it like this … “Dress your wage!”


These few points I can remember … sound like some pretty sage advice to me!




20/20 Hindsight Aids American Armchair Politicians

The Curse of Saddam Hussein
Image via Wikipedia

I was listening to Hallorin Hilton Hill on the way in to work this morning.  I enjoy his program quite often.  This morning he was discussing the recent articles by Patrick Buchanan (NewsMax) and Paul Krugman (NY Times) discussing 9/11, its 10-year anniversary, and George Bush’s decisions on how to respond to this tragic event.

I typically dismiss Paul Krugman out-of-hand.  His left-wing drivel is rarely worth reading.  Buchanan raises some interesting questions about the Bush’s responses and whether we went too far, etc.  Many of the folks who called in amazed me with their lack of (or perhaps selective) memory of the situation that existed during this period.  The longer I listened to … the angrier I got.  Are these Americans that really fickle, has rampant marijuana use caused collective short-term memory loss, or are they just plain stupid?  You tell me?

A few points:

On WMD:  We know without a doubt that Saddam Hussein had WMD at one time.  He used them (gas attacks) on the Kurds in both Northern and Southern Iraq.  The Israelis (Mossad) did blow up a nuclear reactor the French (Obama’s version of our greatest ally) were building for Saddam Hussein.  Did he actually have nukes … apparently not.  But he could have had nukes.  Saddam Hussein was running a shell game bluff, shuttling “mysterious” convoys around at night between military sites and presidential enclaves.  I guess his bluff got called! 

The fact is that intelligence is like a 1, 000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that you try to connect pieces of quickly enough to get an accurate picture in time to o what you need to do.  It is always so much easier to look back after the fact and say … Bush should have seen this or seen that.  One caller said Bush should be tried for treason and executed.  If that is the case, then we need to also execute Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi,  Al Gore, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, and about 2/3 of the American population.

There was a video clip on YouTube awhile back that was basically a compilation of democratic leaders comments about Saddam Hussein and WMD, and what America’s response should be.  Here are just a sampling of quotes by these paragon’s of intellectual and political integrity:

  • “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
  • “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
  • “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
  • “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
  • “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
  • “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
  • “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
  • “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
  • “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
  • “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
  • “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
  • “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
  • “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
  • “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
  • “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
  • “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
  • “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
  • “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
  • “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 Of course, now all these folks want to stand up and say “Bush Lied … it is all his fault.”  I remember President Bush, when the American people demanded immediate action, stating that we needed to take the time to understand who was at fault on 9/11, where these terrorists got their support, and what the best response would be.  Patrick Buchanan has at least been consistent in his criticism of George Bush and his administration’s post 9/11 decisions.  The rest of you flip-flopped progressive-liberal minions have no excuse!

I am not a George Bush yes-man!  He made his mistakes. Perhaps ousting Saddam Hussein was a mistake. Time will tell. Bush was also a moderate republican who tried to out-spend the liberal democrats and actually succeeded … at least until Obama came along and blew Bush’s over-spending right out of the galaxy! 

The point is this!  Bush did what he thought, and what most Americans thought (if they will actually be honest with themselves and each other), was the right thing to do … with their understanding of the intelligence data they had in hand at that time.  These holier-than-though, after-the-fact, armchair military strategy experts with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight … need to just sit down and shut up!

Obama: Job Creation Genius!


I must admit … Al Gore doesn’t give up (or know when to quit).  So, it now seems that if you do not allow yourself to succumb to the hysterical hype about global warming (aka climate change), you are now “racist;”  at least according to Al Gore!   It simply does not matter that the “global warming” scientists were caught red-handed falsifying facts to support their assertions, and that the real average global temperature has not risen!  It does not matter that Al Gore jets around in his PRIVATE JET spreading his “inconvenient” untruths while lecturing us all on decreasing our own carbon footprints; or that Al Gore admitted that his support for ethanol subsidies was a “mistake” and he was simply concerned with getting vote from corn growers in Tennessee and Iowa.  Let me get this straight … all that matters is that, if I don’t fall for his “scam” … then I am a racist.  I wonder what he would call his own dad … who voted against every civil rights bill that came across the table?

So, moving on …

Who in the heck uses T-Mobile?  AT&T has promised to bring 5,000 jobs back to the U.S. and create 96, 000 jobs modernizing their network infrastructure if they can buy T-Mobile.  It seems they would dearly like to have T-Mobile’s 4G network structure to help service AT&T customers.  But, good old Eric Holder (of “fast and furious” fame), is afraid of a AT&T monoply and that Verizon, Sprint, U.S. Cellular, etc., are not enough choices for the American public.  It is nice to see he has our best interests at heart! 

Who needs 101, 000 new private sector jobs anyway!  Obama is going save us all … he’s going to have the government employ us after next Wednesday.  So what if tax rates go sky-high to pay us all … at least we will all have government jobs!

The nerve of those republicans … scheduling their debate, way in advance, on the day Obama decreed he needed to have his jobs speech.  I am surprised, and a bit proud, that Boehner had the guts to call him on it. 

Speaking of jobs, I may be wrong, but I just bet Obama’s new jobs plan will want to borrow money from the treasury to create more government funded jobs that will naturally lead to increased taxes.  What the Obama administration doesn’t understand (or simply hates to admit) is the fact that small businesses make up about half of our nation’s annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employ 60 percent of the American workforce. In addition to this, about 66% of all real new jobs in this country are created by American small businesses! 

That being said, I think that the “Anointed One” should create real private sector careers for citizens by doing things to help American small businesses create new jobs (what a thought). This would directly increase tax revenues because more Americans (who are not simply on the tax payer’s payroll) will be working.  This is much more effective than increasing taxes on those who already pay more than their fair share to form some new government job banks! 

Obama should then lower our energy costs by creating real energy jobs (and not chasing pipe dreams about wind powered cars, etc.). 

Lastly, he should drastically reduce the imports from foreign sources … particularly those sources who threaten the security of the U.S. and its allies.

How would this be done, you might ask?   Obama could start by:

  • Rolling back the quagmire of existing regulations that cripple small businesses.  Excessive regulation interferes with small business growth, and negatively impacts new job creation in the private sector.
  • Lift the oil drilling moratorium, and remove the miles of red tape that prevent more offshore oil drilling! Free up Section 1002 of the ANWR region of Alaska (less space than a square with 50-mile sides) for new exploration and drilling. 

By removing the red tape, and taking away the atmosphere of uncertainty and government created roadblocks; Obama could create  a lot of new jobs as American companies take advantage of new and sustainable opportunities to increase energy production, lower our dependence on foreign oil, and go along ways toward putting America back to work.

Anyway, just a few thoughts!