speak out about this; your grandchildren need you to do so.

And, by the way, mea sententia, the film should be titled “Not Merely Wrong, But Truly Evil.”

William said:

Al Gore. A lawyer, lifetime politician, failed candidate for President and a “proven” liar. Training in “any” type of science = NONE.

Gore is not a lawyer and never was one. He was a reporter when he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives. He never graduated from law school.

Gore spent a decade in reporting prior to election, as a volunteer for the Army and volunteer for duty in Vietnam, and at Tennessee news outlets.

Gore was incredibly effective in the House of Representatives and won his Senate seat against a tough Republican challenger. He did great work in the Senate. Gore’s work in science is really legendary, or should be. He is one of the principal authors of the Superfund bill, which cleans up past pollution errors (Gore knows the incredibly high costs of letting polluters run rampant). He was the sole voice to save ARPANET when the Reagan administration proposed to shut it down; Gore was among maybe a dozen people at the time who saw potential in the idea (today we call it “the internet”). Gore led on organ transplant legislation, both to make the pharmaceuticals possible that make the transplants possible, and to coordinate efforts nationally to get organs to needy recipients in a speedy and fair fashion.

With a stupendous record in science on the policy side, there may be no policy maker on Earth today with better science AND policy chops — though Steven Chu and Francis Collins may have better science stuff on paper.

So many errors in one sentence. I weary too much to correct the many others.

This is a stunt seen most recently from the creationist mockumentaries like “Expelled!”

Do I detect Lyndon Larouche’s group backing this film, among the experts the film claims as credible, writers and others? Anybody know anything about the filmmakers and their earlier work>

It shows the impact Cap and Tax would have on rural America and on the third world. It lets you see the other side of the carbon crusaders who want to control CO2 which is NOT a pollutant but a plant fertilizer that NASA satellites have shown has helped increased yields 30% and arable land 10% to help feed miillions more of the world’s growing population.

All the climate realists I know and the movies producers are environmentalists and conservationists but believe advocating being better stewards of our planet doesn’t require lying about CO2. Peer review papers are being published almost weekly showing natural forces like ocean cycles, solar variances together with data contamination by urbanization one way man clearly affects the climate - locally) are the real drivers.

The movie is a must see. It has little to do with politics as the producers like many climate realists are actually left of center politcally.

© 2009 WorldNetDaily ont>

WASHINGTON – A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming – labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* “I am a skeptic … . Global warming has become a new religion.” — Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … . As a scientist I remain skeptical.” — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

* Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” — U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds … . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” — Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* “The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” — Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” — U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” — Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* “After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” — Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” — Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp … . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” — Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” — Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense … . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” — Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” — Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” — Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.

The one thing I hate the most is when people say that “the world would be better off without people on it.” Without people, there would be no one to recognize the world. They place the environment above the people.

I hope this movie gets its funding and I for one am donating to it. With controversies like this one, schools should teach the controversy, not what they decide is right, for that is known as indoctrination.

Perhaps films like this - which point a finger at climate change - are becoming rather redundant. Not because of climate change, ironically, but because of resource depletion.

In my opinion, if we weren’t facing “the end of oil”, which itself forces a complete re-think of usage and technology, we would carry on headlong without making any significant changes to our way of life. In the end, as with most things, it’s the economic aspect which forces large-scale change.

Which raises a question about human nature, at least in our culture. In the definition of what “self-interest” is, we seem to place “security” over personal well-being. That is to say, having a job and being able to provide for your family represents “security” and seems to hold priority over, say, personal health and wellbeing.

When you look at that, it makes a certain kind of biological sense. Secure your income and your family - priority number 1. Need a car for that to commute? So be it! Makes sense on the individual level.

But - I hear you ask - what about securing the future for our grand-kids? The question is - where humans are good at self-interest in the short-to-medium term - are we actually built, in a very basic psychological sense, to think about 100 years hence in any practical way which makes it a present concern?

We are made to survive by inventing, innovating and creating. We make society by telling stories and connecting. But do we actually posses the capacity to plan ahead for others who haven’t even born yet?

That would be a very interesting psychological study.
If only for future reference.

Perhaps the species to evolve after us will be selected for that capacity.

The film makes an analogy between hysteria around the insecticide DDT that has resulted in millions of people dying from Malaria and the current ‘hypercrisis’ around global warming. According to the documentary we are all made scared by Al Gore and are now imposing legislation that will be bad for American Jobs, bad for the American Way of Life and bad for people in developing nations. A few personal stories with unsubstantiated claims are supposed to make us feel that all is well on our little planet.

I do not know about DDT so I’ll leave that to others but I do know there are many false arguments about climate change in the documentary.

A short summary of the claims:

- Climate scientists aren’t to be trusted. In the Seventies they proclaimed global cooling and now it is global warming. There is no consensus and they haven’t proven that anything out of the ordinary is happening on our planet. Moreover, they are manipulating the data to show that the earth is warming.

- We’re all made scared by the global warming doom day scenario’s put in front of us by environmentalists and politicians. People have never been so scared as today and this is affecting our lives in a very negative way.

- Without cheap fossil fuel the American Way of Life is impossible. Only fossil fuels allow people to drive their car, heat their homes and get on with their lives.

- Without coal fired power plants millions of Americans would loose their job. Burning fossil fuels is the only way to provide jobs to a large number of communities.

- Environmentalist put the environment before humans. They’d rather save polar bears than human beings.

- People that claim that overpopulation is the basis of the environmental problems the world faces today are immoral. There should be room for everybody on this planet.

- The Chinese need cheap fossil fuel based power just as much as the United States to develop and improve their quality of living.

So, is this all true? As mentioned I do not know a lot about DDT but I do know a few things about global warming, renewable energy and international politics.

There is a very, very strong scientific case that global warming is caused by human beings. But even if you don’t believe this it is very evident that reserves of coal and oil are finite and will run out. As a result we can expect fuel prices to increase significantly over the next few years. That argument alone should be enough to put all our efforts and resources in development of renewable energy.

Fortunately this is beginning to happen. Over the next years & decades it will create a whole new industry with millions of jobs worldwide. In Germany, world leader in non-hydro renewable energy this shift has already created more than 40.000 jobs over the last 5 years. And they are just getting started. Clearly, the argument about the necessity of fossil fuels for American jobs is false. A job producing or installing solar panels is just as good - and probably better - than a job in a coal power plant.

In the documentary the environmentalists and politicians are blamed for making people scared. It seems to me that Americans are more fearful of loosing their job due to the Credit Crisis or a terrorist attack. Built on fear of the latter the American government has spent more than 700 billion dollar on the war in Iraq. The link between Iraq an Al Qaida has never been proven; the link between Iraq and American oil supply is easy to make.

If we would add the cost of protecting our oil supply to the gas we put in our car we would see quite a different price. Moreover, just imagine how far we could have developed solar energy technology in 6 years with that same 700 billion dollars. And add to that the 700 billion dollar finance market bail-out….

Apart from the jobs and the technological leadership this would have created it would definitely have resulted in more efficient and cheaper solar technology. Think about what this could have meant for the United States and the rest of the world. The beauty about solar power is that it is available to everybody and especially in abundance in most of the developing world. It is a much more social source of energy than oil or coal of which only certain countries have sufficient reserves. Solar panels produced by American workers providing clean, renewable energy to the developing world thereby improving their quality of life. Is that such a strange thought?

The documentary makers would probably argue that solar energy is just not cheap enough to power the American Way of Life. Apart from the fact that the 700 billon dollar used to protect American oil supply would go a long way in the transfer to renewable energy, America could also look into energy saving. The quality of life in the United States and Europe is the same but Americans use a multiple of the power and result in emissions of more than twice the amount of CO2 per capita. Price is apparently not such a big issue…

And this also brings us to the ‘per capita’ part of the discussion. The intensity of the problems we face is directly linked to the number of people that live on this planet. The documentary makers argue that it is immoral to raise the question of overpopulation. Who would have to go? This is not the point; we have to stop population growth. We are now over 6 billion and in 2050 the world population is expected to level off at 9 billion. If we could make that 8 billion by raising standards of living (negative correlation with birth rates) that would not be a bad thing.

In the documentary Al Gore is accused of exaggerating scientific data for political reasons. I wonder what the political agenda of the documentary makers has been. The documentary would do well as a promotion video for the coal industry.

On the website of ‘Not Evil, Just Wrong’ there is a thermometer showing the makers have raised close to 2 million dollars in donations for this film. This is quite a lot of money given the fact that the movie went into premiere today. Wonder where it came from.

At the exit of the theatre I got a voting card for the documentary ranging from brilliant to hopeless. This is definitely hopeless. Not because it wasn’t well made, but because it was so one-sided. Not evil. Just wrong.

Just like Al Gore? Everything is blown out of proportion these days by the media. People just need to read through the BS and hype to see what the real truth is. Which is yes the climate is changing. Is it becausse of Humans solely or a cyclical change is yet to be determined for fact. A lot of credible scientific study is showing we are actually heading towards global cooling. Be reasonable and intellectual about your assumptions instead of going at it with your heart and emotions that are based on limited knowledge of a subject. Stop bieng Sheeple!

I love how Matt Drudge acts like Al Gore shot his dog on this topic.