Andrea,

Always remember that almost every environmentalist has a social or political goal totally independent of environmentalism, enabling concern for nature to act as an auxiliary argument to the other agenda items.

I will remind you of a quote by H.L. Mencken. "The art of practical politics is to keep the public in a state of constant alarm by menacing it with hobgoblins, both real and imagined, - so making people clamorous to be led to safety." The environmentalist politicians want to scare you into believing that we are on the verge of a catastrophe if you don't vote for THEM, and give them broader, tighter control over industry.

Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age, which was a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice. Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise. Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, leading environmental scientist, Discover Magazine October, 1989.

In the 1970's environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age. He claimed it was due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun. Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened, sometime in the late 1970's temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980's and 1990's began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming," the cited cause: manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

The fact is, periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on. Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output. Yes, it's true, the sun actually does not put out uniform energy every year! "Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect. The idea that man made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example, named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years before present, long before humans invented industrial pollution. 186 billion tons of CO2 are produced each year in the earth, CO2 being the chief gas that is blamed for global warming. Of those 186 billion tons, 180 of them occur from natural sources, only about 6 tons are man made. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life... plants and animals alike... benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

There can be no branch of science that has a broader history of being wrong than the environmentalists. In 1914, the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted our oil reserves would last ten years. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil would last 13 years; they made the same prediction in 1951. In 1972, the Club of Rome's report "Limits to Growth" said total oil reserves totaled 550 billion barrels. With the report in hand, President Carter said, "We could use up all proven reserves in the entire world by the next decade." Between 1970 and 1990, the world used up 600 billion barrels but as of 1990, the world had one and a half trillion barrels of known, unexploited oil reserves. In the 1970s, Lester Brown, of Worldwatch Institute, started predicting population growth would outstrip food production. His mentor, Paul Ehrlich, in his 1968 best-selling book "Population Bomb" 1968, predicted by 1999 the U.S. population would starve back to 22 million. Since 1961, world population has doubled; food production has more than doubled, even in many poor countries. The Food and Agriculture Organization reports that calories consumed per person in third world countries are 27 percent higher now than in 1961. Erlich also warned Britain's Institute of Biology in 1969, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." For Dr. Paul Ehrlich's work, the MacArthur Foundation bestowed its "genius" award along with a handsome stipend for his "promoting greater public understanding of environmental problems." Lester Brown, who's been predicting global starvation for 40 years, also received the MacArthur "genius" award along with a stipend.

Therein lies the very reason for the lies perpetrated by the environemntalist scientists. The same thing tends to happen in the paleontology branch, which I am also well versed in. Who generates more interest, Tyrannosaurus Rex, or Iguanodon? The reason T-Rex generates more interest is that he has more extreme characteristics. He's one of the largest predators to ever live, he has 8 inch teeth, huge jaws, etc. Then we have the prehistoric shark Megalodon. I am sure you have seen the picture of the projected reconstruction of the shark jaws with the six men standing inside. Years later they admitted that it was at least two thirds too large. Another example is with BBC's "Walking with Dinosaurs" where they exaggerated the size of Liopleurodon by a factor of 5. They do this because it will result in publicity and interest, which generates more cash to research. They can and WILL sensationalize their beast. In the case of the environmentalists, the "beast" is global warming. They are funded by politicians who want a particular result found so they can convince their constituency that they need them in Washington to save them from the catastrophe. On their end, if there is no problem, there is less of a need for them to save the people. On the end of the scientists, if there is no problem, there is no need for funding to research this problem.

Continued belief in environmentalist mistakes, manipulation, lies and fear mongering leads us to establish public policies that hamper our economy and keep it from realizing its full potential. The next time an environmentalist warns us of disaster we ought to ask: when was the last time your prediction was right?

Thank you :)

Wow, it took Darth a lot of words to be wrong.

Wow, what a beautifully written, profound, and thought provoking response, Mike. If that's the best your side has to offer, you have lost by a more astronomical margin than Walter Mondale. You could not tell the difference between a Feynman parametrization and an eigenfunction without looking it up :)

You know not just environmentalists have something to hide.

Energy companies, tobacco companies, in fact ALL 'for profit' companies have something to hide. They hide their bottom line. They hide their bottom line from health care, they hide it from their workers, Enron even hide their bottom line from their stockholders.

Truth is of course if companies did something about global warming they would lose money. It's a fact no one argues about. However ther is another way people can do something about global warming, it's simple easy and no company in the world can stop them. People can just stop having kids.

True, this would make most companies lose money also. However this would only be a short term problem. When there are more resources (fewer people) the people that are left have more. It really is that simple.

If you are a tool-and-die maker the worse thing that can happen to you is for there to be 5000 other tool and die makers competing with you for the same job. However if you are an author you want there to be billions of people to buy you book.

If people cause global warming more people cause more global warming, again very simple.

I just wonder if Mr. Gore said anything about that. I also wonder about people with fictious names posting trying to muddy the waters to the advantage of the people in power.

Hidden agenda anyone?

Well, I saw the movie and it made me cry.

Cry because what we as humans aim for in our lifetime of change is through policy and political charisma for change.

We have a mere 40 years in a single lifetime to do something that is meaningful and regarded as something notable.

When we break those 40 years down, from the time we graduate college, to the time we are ready to spend a nice retirement with our spouse, there are 10 years between the age of 20-30 that are spent building up your reputation for public acknowledgement.

The next 20 years is a battle with everyone against you, where nothing but meaningless beauracratic political manuevers try to destroy your campaign

And finally the last 10 years is where you have accepted so many defeats because of big business buying out our political system, that you just start preaching your ideas and real-life facts without regard for the big guys in their silk suits surrounded by their oil/tobacco lobbyists, who have a big flame lit up under their ass.

This man is Al Gore, a man who should have been seen in more spotlights the last 10 years than all of hollywoods and bollywoods movie premieres combined!

But instead we argue that our "economy will be stunted if we widen our stance to protect the enviroment through policy" Bush, 2005.

Lets face it people, no one really has time to pursue the act of change, its an inherent human trait which has been passed down for many generations. And those who do get wiped off the radar is done by the ones who become aware of some "weirdo" actually trying to pursue the path of successful progressional change, in this case its who used to be our next president, Al Gore!

Lets spread the cause people:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

Lee, welcome to the internet, many people use screennames. Because I do not use the name on my birth certificate on the blog does not mean that anything I post is untrue. And I have hidden nothing about my agenda. I have stated it very clearly, which is less government control over our lives. It is also to expose the hypocrisy of limousine liberal busy bodies who don't walk their talk. If Al Gore wants to make this change to fix this so-called problem, he should start with the man in the mirror and stop flying all over the country. The plane he keeps flying in belches out more CO2 in one flight than my car does all year long.

And as far as your demonization of profits, you should remember that NONPROFIT organizations have caused some of the world's greatest evil, heartache and dissatisfaction. After all, among nonprofit organizations are: oppressive governments, postal services and public education. Profits, like wages, interest and rent, are a vital component of a smoothly operating economy. Profits are the prices paid as residual claims to entrepreneurs in their role as risk-takers, innovators and decision-makers. Just as workers will not provide their services without wages, entrepreneurs will not provide theirs without profits. A successful businessman must take in enough revenue not only to cover wages, rents and interest, but profits as well. In order to accomplish that feat, he must not only please customers but he must do it in a manner that efficiently utilizes all of his resources. That produces far less waste and far superior results to politicians in Washington who mistakenly think they can manage everyone's business better than they can.

And once again, any emissions that we produce is miniscule compared to emissions of the same gases produced by nature every year. So don't forgo that joyride that you were planning on taking tonight. GO. LIVE. Your car is NOT going to destroy the Earth. Climate change has been a constant throughout the history of Earth.

And I always find it interesting that the same people who think that we should stop reproducing, and think that too many of us existing is the problem, never start with the man in the mirror and exterminate themselves first. That is hypocrisy at its most visible.