Al Gore has certainly secured his place in history. His Academy-Award-Nobel-Prize-winning prediction that climate change will raise sea levels by 20 feet will be studied by future history students, along with the predictions of Malthus and Paul Ehrlich.
With Gore-like zeal, in the 19th century, Malthus predicted that the world’s population would soon outstrip the world’s food supply. In the 20th century, Paul Ehrlich predicted, “By 1985, enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”
He also predicted that by 1980, life expectancy in the United States would drop to 42, and that the U.S. population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999.
The grand prize for idiotic predictions in the 21st century has already been claimed by Al Gore. His insistence that the earth will fry, that the seas will rise and that life as we know it must undergo a “wrenching transformation” will be studied by his grandchildren with the same appreciation that his and Ehrlich’s ridiculous predictions deserve.
Is it possible Ehrlich and Gore really think their predictions are valid? Or, are they just following the instructions of Dr. Steven Schneider, who tells fellow scientists:
“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.” (Discover magazine, October 1989)
Students of Malthus generally agree that he was sincere in his predictions, actively engaging his detractors in debate and revising his conclusions accordingly. Malthus was sincerely wrong. The same cannot be said about Ehrlich, or Gore. Ehrlich jumped on the environmental bandwagon early. His book “Population Bomb” was published in 1968 and was an instant best-seller. He rode the wave of book sales and popularity for a decade, making speeches and writing articles offering excuses for failed predictions and promising even worse consequences for what he called environmental abuse.
Al Gore saw an opportunity to re-claim the political spotlight when he chaired the June 28, 1988, Senate hearing that called Jim Hansen to testify that the current heat wave was caused by global warming. Gore, having been defeated in the 1988 presidential primary by Jesse Jackson in the South and by Michael Dukakis in the North, turned his attention to the environment, and to global warming in particular.
It was Hansen’s testimony at Al Gore’s hearings that propelled the United Nations’ efforts to get into the global warming business. Before the end of 1988, the U.N. Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to take charge of global research and action.
Gore’s selection as vice president in 1992 provided the perfect stage for what was until then his most influential performance. He publicly ridiculed then-President George H.W. Bush into attending the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro where the U.N. Convention on Climate Change was adopted.
Throughout the Clinton administration, Gore was “Mr. Environment.” He directed negotiations at virtually every U.N. Climate Change meeting during the 1990s working toward the Kyoto Protocol. When the negotiations stalled in Kyoto in 1997 because the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution directing the president not to accept the Protocol unless it applied to China and India and other developing nations, Gore flew in to save the day. Despite the Senate’s resolution, Al stood before thousands of U.N. delegates in Kyoto and announced that he had instructed the U.S. delegation to be “more flexible” in their negotiations. At the last moment, the Protocol was adopted, without participation by developing nations.
Al’s crushing defeat in 2000 left him rudderless for a few years, but he re-emerged with his “An Inconvenient Truth.” This spectacular movie won an Academy Award. Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize. Once again, Prince Albert ascended to the global warming throne, despite the fact that the film’s assertions were not supported by science, according to more than 31,000 scientists.
Story continues at wnd.com
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Professor Kari Norgaard’s assertion that skeptics of man-made climate change should be “treated” for some kind of psychological disease because they refuse to be brainwashed by the global warming mantra gives us an opportunity to take a retrospective look at some choice cuts from past statements made by climate alarmists in which they openly advocate fascism under the banner of saving the planet.
Continues at infowars.com