I am a Naysayer.

I haven’t conformed.

I also don’t think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

I believe about 30% of what my government tells me.


Happily I am not alone, not by a long shot. People much smarter than me on the subject of Global Warming agree with my feelings on this subject.  I just have never bought into

the scare tactics of Al Gore and others pushing this.  Al Gore’s interests have financial bearing (I think) more than his concern about the climate; will explain later.

A recent poll done in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia show more people believe in haunted houses than do global warming.  So yes there is a lot of skepticism.


First let me correct myself; we no longer call it “Global Warming”, it is now called Climate Change.  Why the change you ask?  Could it be that the activist couldn’t back up their data to fit their agenda since many scientist have found the temperatures haven’t increased since the 90’s. Or is it more politically correct? I think the latter is the answer.

Recently Representative Chris Murphy was out talking to school children about the “crisis” that is global warming and that’s fine (I guess), but I have to wonder if he was preaching information given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

or the Climatologists and scientists who disagree with almost everything they say.


The climate change activists argue that with rising greenhouse gases so go our CO

level. Unfortunately for them it’s just not true.  President Obama had his own internal study done on this thing and when the findings didn’t prove to be what he wanted the study was squelched and not made available to the public and his adoring media kept it under wraps when they were given the results. No political motivation there.

Was this kept under wraps to influence a vote on Cap and Trade, hmmmm; to me this is blatant political ideology over the truth.  Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a physical chemist and retired Navy meteorologist wrote “As a scientist and longtime liberal democrat I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering, clap trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science.”

Go back to 1940-1975 when there were cooling temperatures, and CO2 emissions were rising sharply, our alarmist have no explanation and it spits in the face of what they’re trying to push.


According to a Canadian Journalist, in the recently held environmental summit it seems that some interesting points raised in the UN report on climate issues were written by environmental activists and crazy as it may seem their affiliations never came up. A convenient omission I’m sure.  According to Donna Laframboise, while the media pushed warnings about global warming and its effects on food production she found reports that focused on the role environmental activists played in the conclusions they revealed.  71 people were chosen for the UNs IPCC and all were connected to  environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and well, you get the point.  Laframboise had come under fire by the New York Times (who is attached to the white house’s hip and losing credibility every day) but despite the Times slap not one official connected to the IPCC report disputed her findings. They did say however that “the report was subject to revisions.”

James Delingpole reported a couple of years ago that UK Climate scientists manipulated and exaggerated global warming.  “Climategate” as he called it “where controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.”


There have been many instances and articles confirming the IPCC and its gross misleading of the public on “Greenhouse Effects.”  Australian, Russian, British and American scientists have all questioned and proved that temperature data published by the IPCC and other environmental organizations have been manipulated to give the appearance of a warming trend.  The IPCC came about in 1988 and when you look further into their bogus reporting and “studies” the conclusion one can only come up with is that they base their results on politics instead of actual science.  Again they need the CO2 level’s rise to be from human greenhouse gases, but the facts aren’t there.

The IPCCs key authors are appointed by their respective governments and most are supported by contracts from said governments who pay for their “research” and other things.  This would suggest a conflict of interest, I mean wouldn’t you want to please the folks paying your bills, what’s a little fudging of numbers between friends.

So suffice it to say, the IPCC cannot be trusted to give us the actual facts on human greenhouse gases and CO2 levels.


Most of these scientists will agree that “Urban Warming” is real, not because of human greenhouse gases, but has more to do with the likes of concrete, buildings heated up by the sun. Heat coming from appliances, AC units in the summer time also causing rising temps, and even with all of these things the traces of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is ridiculously minute.


For the record Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, rather a raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats. It’s actually a good thing!

Just a couple of months ago “Climate Dynamics”,  a report by Professor Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr. Marcia Wyatt suggests that the scientific majority, whose views are represented by the IPCC have underestimated the roles of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.  Their research comes from computer models on which the IPCC based their forecast of a rapidly warming planet and is far from reality.


Their graph shows “actual” temperatures now are below the predictions made by almost all of the 138 models that the IPCC relies on.  Most statistics today show that any warming there may have been stopped over 17 years ago.  Some think that a Global warming pause may last for another 20 years or more.  Their study backs up one done in 2009 by the EPAs own National Center for Environmental Economics that stated not only did the temperatures not rise from 1998 – 2009 they rapidly declined between 2007 – 2008, a finding that the Obama administration did not want going public since it was he who commissioned the study only to not get the answers he was looking for.  Transparency, I think not.


This brings me to Al Gore and his inconvenient truth. His apocalyptic views on climate change. Man what a tall tale he told.

First I must start by saying Al, has no scientific credentials at all.   The associated press back in 2006 contacted 100 scientists for their opinion on Gores movie and five gave him thumbs up.  In fact in Great Britain a high court judge ruled the apocalyptic vision in this movie is politically motivated and thus not impartial scientific analysis of climate change.  While ruling the movie political, he also found nine errors in it. He did not rule out using it in school but if shown it had to be presented with guidance notes to avoid indoctrination.

Al Gore makes carbon dioxide sound like a bad thing when it is literally the very substance we exhale. The thought that he could label it a dangerous pollutant is ridiculous.  Higher levels of CO2 in the air will help make plants bigger, grow more leaves, give us more fruit.  Again, it’s a good thing!


I’ve always believed this whole thing is all about money and yes, politics. They do go hand in hand don’t they?  Back to AL… his venture capitalist company has invested $6 million in software to help track greenhouse gas emissions and will stand to make millions through cap and trade regulations. Gore has spent millions on advertising campaigns about climate change.  When he left office he was worth approximately $1million, thanks to his climate agenda he is now worth $100 million. Still think he’s in it for the cause?  Companies like NBC and MSNBC, which are owned by GE, have pushed the climate issue with glowing documentaries.  GE stands to make billions as a key player in the carbon offset market.  There are other companies benefitting from the “crisis”.   So to say Gore is in this for the good of man is crazy talk, more like good for his man-sion.


To sum up I have to say I agree with Vaclav Claus, president of the Czech Republic, he said,” Global warming is a false myth and every serious scientist says so….IPCC is not a scientific institution. It’s a political body—a sort of non-government organization of green favor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists.  These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment”

Or even more simply said, “Global Warming is the greatest scam in history”–John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel.

I happily put myself in the company of these very smart naysayers. By the way, I wish for more warming. My heating bills can get pretty big.