Jon Christian Ryter -- British Put Warning Label on Gore Film

BRITISH PUT WARNING LABEL ON GORE FILM

By Jon Christian Ryter

December 2, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

You probably won't read this in any US paper, but the Brits aren't too impressed with former Vice President Al Gore's sci fi flick, An Inconvenient Truth. The British high court ruled Gore's Academy Award winning global warming film cannot be shown in any public school in England without an explicit disclaimer. The high court ruled that students must be warned that the film is partisan, political advocacy, not a factual representation of what is actually happening with the climate of the world. The disclaimer must stipulate that misleading exaggerations permeate the film. The court said the film contained far too many factual errors to be shown in the public school system without a disclaimer. Makes you wonder which ultra wealthy social progressives in the Rockefeller Foundation, the Pew Foundation, the Carnegie Trust, the Nature's Conservancy and the Sierra Club own the judges in the US courts, doesn't it?

While the US media is so completely protected by the 1st Amendment (unlike the rights of Americans to worship God) that media outlets can continue to claim that the 13% of the scientists in the US (most of whom are paid by environmental organizations in whose best interest it is to promote the myth of global warming as fact) actually represents the majority view on the subject. When Al Gore, Jr.�one of the most dangerous utopians in the world�refused to debate any of the climate change experts from the Heartland Institute on the subject of global warming, saying it was pointless to engage in their circus because "...the debate is truly over," what Gore meant was that the world's most powerful barons of industry and banking plan to use the myth of global warming as the primary catalyst to force the nations of the world to agree to world government, not that factual evidence proves that manmade global warming is a fact.

Gore, the darling of the Rockefeller Foundation and the sweetheart of the oil industry-financed environmentalist movement, has become the Paul Ehrlich of 2007. In 1968, Ehrlich, a zoologist with the University of Kansas (who spent most of his life studying the habits of bees) used the research notes of 18th century botonist Thomas Robert Malthus's Essay on the Principles of Population, to conclude that, based on 18th century technology, the world would be grossly overpopulated by the year 2000, and that half of the world would be starving�and the other half would be killing each other for what few morsels of food remained.

David Rockefeller, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Trust and the Ford Foundation got behind Ehrlich's book, "The Population Bomb," purchasing thousands of copies to be given out in universities and colleges all over the world to help fan the fires of global warming that wasn't even slowed down by the ecoalarmist cries of global cooling, and the fear that the world was entering a new ice age in the 1970s.

Ehlrich's book was even more flawed than Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The premise used in The Population Bomb was based on the population theories of Malthus (1766-1848). Malthus roughly calculated the population of Europe then factored the average annual birth rates and estimated longevity of people. Once he estimated the annual birth and death rates, he began to generationally grow the population from the year 1800 to 2000. Then, based on the crop yields that existed in the 18th century, Malthus calculated how much food would be available to feed the growing population. As his computations began, Malthus computed the expansion of farmland that would have to be cultivated to feed the growing population. Then, as the population mushroomed, he was forced to reduce the available farmland which Malthus envisioned would be overrun with dwellings to house the burgeoning population. Based on early 18th century technology, Malthus saw a vastly overcrowded, diseased, world polluted by the waste of man and no longer able to sustain itself by the year 2000. An agricultural armageddon.

Malthus wrote his book two decades before the start of the industrial revolution, and a century before the pharmaceutical revolution. Malthus could not even begin to imagine the agricultural revolution in which farmland would yield twenty to a thousand times what farms in 1800 produced. Or the advancement of architectural technology that would allow man to build super skyscrapers�and pack over 8 million people in a 322 square mile area in New York alone. Malthus wrote from a primitive era. Ehrlich didn't. Ehrlich, an educated man, had no excuse other than money for cloning Malthus's work and calling it modern science. For Ehrlich's "inconvenient truth," he was rewarded with a full professorship at Stanford University, and was also awarded a fellowship at the American Association for the Advancement of Science when what he should have received was a fellowship in "The Sky Is Falling Society."

In December, 1997 Ehrlich was interviewed by reporter Timothy Maier for an Insight on the News article that appeared on Jan. 5, 1998. In the interview, Ehrlich stood by his predictions, saying it was obvious that, by the year 2000, the ecoalarmist rant would be proven true. Ignoring his own lack of credibility since the world was not starving and people were not killing each other for the few remaining morsels of food, Ehrlich said: "Unless we have a big increase in the death rate, all of the projections, even the most optimistic, show us adding another two-and-a-half million people. It is slowing, but we are already in a situation of near disaster. And the concern within the entire scientific community is, of course, that unless we do a lot of things right, and start pretty quick, we're going to be in deep trouble." First, note that Ehrlich attempted to make it appear this was a consensus of the entire scientific community�when only 13% of the scientists (those paid by the oil industry or the environmental movement) believe there is a problem. Second, thanks to carbon dioxide emissions�greenhouse gases�(that Gore blames for all of man's problems) have increased crop yields to such a level that we are able to produce enough food globally to feed the world...and will continue to do so.

Unless, of course, Gore's ecoalarmist advocacy plan works and carbon dioxide emissions are curbed. Carbon dioxide is the food that plants feed on. Remove carbon dioxide and you starve the plants reducing crop yields everywhere. When you starve plantlife and deprive it of carbon dioxide, the plants also stop producing oxygen�the basic element human's need to live. In other words, if Gore gets his way, the doomsday catastrophe he and Ehrlich are predicting will actually occur�but not because man-induced global warming is a fact, because it is not. The catastrophe will happen because social progressives, in charge of lawmaking, will legislate a genuine, world-threatening crisis while trying to protect mankind from an imaginary one that the oil giants need to drive up the price of oil to obscene levels that will greatly curtail consumer usage while protecting oil company profits.

The case ended up in the British courts when Stuart Dimmock, the father of a secondary school student objected to the school system forcing his child to watch An Inconvenient Truth. The film, he argued, was full of ecoalarmist and political bias, and factual errors about climate change. Dimmock argued that the film should not be shown in England's public schools without a warning label pointing out the biases and the factual errors. Dimmock insisted that if the film was shown, presentations of counter-evidence from the scientific community�87% of the scientists which disagrees with the views of the ecoalarmists who believe the sky is falling�should be shown as well. The court agreed that An Inconvenient Truth "...is not simply a science film...but that it is a political film." The court referenced letters by the United Kingdom's Department of Education and Skills [DES] that was sent to every public school teacher suggesting to them that "...[t]he debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over...Our energies should now be channeled into...moving to a low carbon future...Children are the key to changing society's long term attitude to the environment. Not only are they passionate about saving the planet, but children also have a big influence over their own family's lifestyles and behavior."

The public school systems, working under large grants from the oil, coal, natural gas and timber industries (the fossil fuel industries), have taken a page from the Soviet Union's, Communist China's and Nazi Germany's playbooks. Stalin, Mao and Hitler realized that they would be forced to fight a new revolution every generation if they did not take seize control of the school systems of their nations so they could indoctrinate the children to believe what they wanted them to accept as fact�even when it was fiction. Generations of Soviets grew up believing Russian scientists developed the steam engine, the first internal combustion engine, the first airplane, and even the first traffic light. Dictators in every country in the world who have managed to hold generational power have done by indoctrinating the children into accepting the dictates of totalitarianism as truth.

Fiction becomes fact if it is repeated enough�and especially if it is taught as science in our schools to grade school and secondary school children. That is precisely why former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. can confidently say, the debate is over. When the facts don't support either your premise or your conclusions, and you have the power to do so, don't debate it�mandate it.

The British high court disagreed with the DES view that the debate is over. The court referenced nine specific things that An Inconvenient Truth distorted or simply blatantly lied about, noting countless other areas where they felt falsehoods may also exist. The court concluded that there are very credible scientific views that dispute Gore's premise that humans are causing global warming.

In addition, the court singled out Gore's ecoalarmist assertion that sea levels may rise 20 feet in the foreseeable future due to the Antarctic and Greenland ice melt, and that people are already evacuating Pacific island nations due to the sea level rise. That statement is a bald-faced lie. Gore also predicted that the oceanic "conveyer belt" that controls the 53 different ocean currents (like the Gulf Stream current that warms Northwest Europe and makes it more moderate than any other region of the world on the same latitude) will simply stop working.

In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore warns that "...man-made global warming is really not a political issue so much as it's a moral issue...Our ability to live is what is at stake. In the end, the debate over global warming may well harm humanity by disturbing the environment, by forcing the world's poorest people�2 billion of whom have never turned on a light bulb�to use more expensive and technically challenging fuels who also cause great harm."

In Gore's universe, however, the good news is that transferring the carbon dioxide pollutants�along with our jobs�to the underdeveloped third world nations where the human capital needed by the barons of business and industry to maintain their profits well into the 21st century, renders those harmful emissions harmless. What's wrong with that picture? In Gore's parallel environmental-friendly universe, factories in underdeveloped third world countries to spew carbon dioxide, and the massive billions of people don't generate enough body heat to raise the earth's surface temperature. In Gore's world, that only happens in the industrial nations with depleted populations where nasty factories churning out nasty black clouds of greenhouse gases.

Gore is right about only one thing. The world is going through a period of climate change. It does every 50 years or so, every 100 years or so, every 1,000 years or so, and more dramatically, every 10,000 to 100,000 years or so. Gore's version of global warming is pure Tennessee bunk. Global warming is real, but it is not a threat to mankind. Not today, not next week, and not even a hundred years from now. Global warming (and cooling) is caused by cyclic solar activity and intergalactic gases. Research on the sun's role in global warming was reported in the October, 2003 issue of Astronomy & Geophysics. By studying solar activity over the last 11,000 years, the British Antarctic Survey predicted that the sun's contribution to global warming will decrease over the next 100 years. What that means is that the world is heading into a cooling phase. So much for Gore's inconvenient truth, which turns out to be a convenient lie.

Throughout the 20th century, solar flares, sunspot activity and geomagnetic storms on the sun increased in number and strength. According to Astronomy & Geophysics, "...this rise is simultaneous with emissions of greenhouse gases and an estimated increase in solar heat output, which together have warmed Earth's temperature by a global average of 0.7� centigrade." Science Daily concluded, from their studies that solar activity is about to peak. Astronomy & Geophysics predicted there will be far less solar activity in the 21st century. This will result from fewer space storms�which are predicted to decline by as much as two-thirds. That means as we reach mid-century, around 2050, we will be experiencing global cooling and the ecoalarmists will then be screaming that we are entering a new ice age and its all man's fault. Too many people left the refrigerator door open when they were looking for midnight snacks.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

While Gore refused to comment on the British high court's decision, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider attacked Stuart Dimmock in a Washington Post op-ed piece, raising the question how a simple working class father raises the type of money needed to launch a lawsuit against Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The rest of us should be asking how a simple working class Brit can scare the UN enough that it would feel obligated to join a simple parental right lawsuit to respect a father's wishes that his child not be brainwashed with Gore's SCI fi fantasy.