Don't believe Al Gore's warnings

January 26, 2008

To the editor:

This letter is in response to Robert Gary's opinion Dec. 30, "Pawns willing to do bidding of Big Oil" and Hans K. Buhrer's letter of Dec. 30, "Ignoring or twisting the facts won't solve problem."

Since both men mentioned Al Gore, I am under the assumption that both have seen, and base their opinion on the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Yes, Al Gore received a Nobel Peace Prize for his movie, but did anyone know that the same organization also awarded Yasser Arafat the same Nobel Peace Prize? So much for credibility.

Gore, in his movie, mentioned "Dr. Roger Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising, and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. An article on Financial Post Web site titled "Gore's guru disagreed" by Lawrence Solomon, April 28, 2007, cited a 1984 interview in Omni Magazine with Roger Revelle. I am only going to quote Revelle, "I estimate that the total increase [in CO2] over the past 100 years has been about 21 percent. But whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can't absolutely sayIncreased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plantsyou get more plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels also affects water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates."


Gore implies that human-induced global warming is to blame for the retreating of glacial ice and the snow pack atop Kenya's Mount Kilimanjaro. What Gore fails to mention is that the snow has been retreating for more than 100 years. According to research that was published by the Journal of Climatology in 2004 titled "Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: Observation and facts," states "Due to declining atmospheric moisture and a reduction in precipitation at the end of the 19th century (not local or global warming) are the cause for the glacial and snow pack retreat on Mount Kilimanjaro.

Gore is very passionate about what he believes. The big question is this, "Since the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December 1997, the Clinton-Gore administration had more than three years to present the protocol to the Senate for ratification. Gore was vice president, and had his position in the Senate, so why didn't he seize on what appeared to have been an opportunity of a lifetime?"

Let us look at a couple more things. First, there is the United Kingdom court ruling "UK - Stuart Dimmock v. Secretary of State for Education and Sills. "This court has determined the movie is unfit for viewing in public schools in the UK without specific and explicit disclaimers explaining that the assertions offered by Gore are not supported by science."

Here is what the UK court singled out as falsehoods in the movie: 1. That sea levels will rise 20 feet in the foreseeable future due to ice melts; 2. That people are evacuating Pacific island nations because of rising sea levels; 3. That the "ocean conveyor" belt is in danger of shutting down and triggering a new ice age; 4. That rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have historically caused temperatures to rise; 5. That global warming is causing a retreat of Mt. Kilimanjaro's alpine glacier; 6. That global warming is causing Africa's Lake Chad to dry up; 7. That global warming contributed to Hurricane Katrina; 8. That polar bears are dying due to receding sea ice; 9. That global warming is causing coral reefs to bleach and die.

This leads us to these questions: "Did Al Gore challenge the court's findings?" Did he provide new evidence to bolster his case for any of the specific findings of falsehood and exaggeration by the court? Did he argue that the court itself was corrupt or incapable of understanding the "science" behind his film?" The answer to all those questions is "no." So is it global warming or global governance?

Let us look at the "National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change: Climate Change Impacts on the United States." A hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Testimony of Fred Singer president of The Science & Environmental Police Project, July 18, 2000. "We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are not evidence." Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a "tiny minority outside the mainstream." This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see "no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change." Singer holds an engineering degree from Ohio State, a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University and has more than 40 years of experience in research in atmospheric and space physics.

John W. Cohen

The Herald-Mail Articles