Follow Revelation1217 on Twitter

How To Save The Environment? Get Al Gore The Heck Away From It

Today more people than ever are talking about how we can save the environment. Well, if you want to save the environment here is one good first step – get Al Gore the heck away from it. The truth is that carbon dioxide is one of the basic building blocks of life on planet earth, and Al Gore’s crusade to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide levels around the globe is not only foolish, it threatens to absolutely destroy the very environment that he claims that he is trying to save.

In his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, Al Gore stresses the “spiritual side” of preventing climate change and make this stunning admission: “Simply laying out the facts won’t work.”

Now why in the world would Al Gore say something like that?

Could it be that he is starting to realize that the facts are not on his side?

In fact, it is being reported that Al Gore is now saying that carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of “global warming”.

But that isn’t stopping the “eco-prophet” from continuing his reckless crusade against carbon dioxide.  Gore continues to tirelessly advocate a “cap and trade” carbon credit trading scheme which could allow him to reap billions of dollars in profits if it is ultimately implemented.

Apparently what is good for the environment is very good for Al Gore’s wallet too.

But that is not what this article is about.

What this article is about is showing how Al Gore’s environmental policies would be an absolute disaster for the environment.

Firstly, let us examine the absolutely ridiculous claims that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming.  The reality is that any global warming that was going on was caused by the sun.

You see, a few years ago when the sun was experiencing record sunspot activity, our entire solar system experienced a period of “global warming”.  It was not just the earth.  Every single planet circling the sun experienced a warming period.

Now that our sun has entered into a period of very low sunspot activity, our planet and the rest of our solar system is experiencing a period of “global cooling”.

And yet carbon dioxide levels on earth continue to increase.  If the rising carbon dioxide levels were causing global warming then the earth should still be warming.

But it isn’t.

The truth, as you will clearly see in the outstanding video below, is that rising carbon dioxide levels follow a rise in earth temperatures.  Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.  It never has and it never will.  Instead, scientists have now been able to show that when there is higher sunspot activity temperatures on earth rise, and when there is low sunspot activity temperatures on earth fall.  The following video absolutely tears apart Al Gore’s theories from “An Inconvenient Truth” and it shows what the primary cause of climate change actually is…..

But does it matter if Al Gore’s theories are nonsense?

Perhaps his ideas will not save the environment – does that mean that Al Gore is harming the environment?

Unfortunately the answer to that question is yes.

Al Gore, in his reckless crusade to help the environment, is determined to reduce levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by as much as possible.

But there is a problem.

Plants need carbon dioxide to live.  It is one of the key building blocks of life on earth.

In fact, natural sources produce far, far, far more carbon dioxide than humans do.  Wikipedia puts it this way…..

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth.

Have you got that?

Over 95 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions would still occur even if you took the entire human race off the earth.

So even if carbon dioxide was causing global warming (which it certainly does not), the truth is that if all human carbon dioxide emissions went to zero, over 95 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions would still be occurring.

So to reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent or more, Al Gore and his fellow global warming cultists will NOT be able to do that by reducing carbon dioxide emissions caused by man.

Instead they will have to attack all life on earth.

In other words, Al Gore and his followers would have to brutally attack the earth’s environment in order to get the kind of carbon emissions that they are after.

In fact, any reductions in carbon dioxide will seriously affect life.  Less carbon dioxide emissions would mean less carbon dioxide for plant life.  That means that crops would suffer.  Less crops and less plant life would mean that there would be less food for men and animals.  In a world that is already teetering on the verge of a major food crisis, any drop in the world food supply would be an absolute disaster.

The truth is that Al Gore absolutely does NOT know what he is talking about when it comes to the environment.  He is simply a con man and a greedy investor who is looking forward to making a lot of money.

But if Al Gore’s vision of a world with dramatically reduced levels of carbon dioxide comes to pass, the reality is that life on earth will greatly suffer.  Starvation would be rampant.  In fact, if carbon dioxide levels were reduced far enough, it just might be your own family that starves.

For those who do truly care about saving the environment, there is one thing that you need to know what it comes to Al Gore…..

Al Gore must be stopped.  For the sake of life on earth, Al Gore must be stopped.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Be Sociable, Share!
  • Tad Cook

    This argument that reducing carbon threatens the environment is quite clever and actually funny, but of course, it is nonsense.

    Also nonsense is the statement that “a few years ago when the sun was experiencing record sunspot activity, our entire solar system experienced a period of global warming”. Despite bogus graphs and number juggling by skeptics, sunspot cycles do not correlate well with climate.

    The record sunspot activity occurred during the peak of sunspot cycle 19, from 1957-1959. This did not correlate with any warming; in fact average global temperature has risen since then. Those who claim that climate is cooling are cherry-picking the data. Cycle 19 was by far the largest sunspot cycle in recorded history,

    Right now we are at a sunspot minimum, which is normal, although this one at the start of sunspot cycle 24 is longer than many people expected. But it does not correlate with any cooling trend. Also, if you look at the period before cycle 19, you will see a long and low minimum, so just because a minimum is longer than normal doesn’t mean that it doesn’t precede a big rise in sunspot numbers.

    Recently, in fact, there has been quite a bit of sunspot activity, and statistically, based on past solar activity, we should see more and more sunspots as this cycle progresses. But it doesn’t affect climate.

    I can’t blame the skeptics for being confused, because there is so much nonsense being promoted to spread doubt about the work of climatologists, and climatology is a very complex subject. Also, I WISH the climate change skeptics were right, because global warming will be a big, big problem.

    Here are some suggested resources:

    Now I realize you may dismiss these out of hand, but I urge you to take a look, as I have.

    Also, get this book which I just checked out from the library, which explains the movement that is confusing the public about climate science:

    “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming”
    by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore


  • David Servin


    You talk about sunspot cycle 19 and sunspot cycle 24 and try to pick out 2 little spots from among all the data in which a slight tick in the graph doesn’t correlate 110% perfectly with how you say it should be, and then YOU and the global warming wackos push forward with your cult-like religion. How old are you anyway? If you were around in 1975, when I was graduating from high school, you might remember the terrible scare these same climate change fanatics were putting out then. Oh yes, the coming ice age! We were going to sprinkle coal dust on the polar ice caps to absorb the sun’s rays and heat the earth. Growing seasons were expected to shrink and half the World was going to starve because of global COOLING! Mirrors in orbit around the earth would focus the sun’s rays on the earth to save the planet! Al Gore is a total idiot, going back to the terrible environmental catastrophe he caused when he forced into law the mandated use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as an oxegenating agent in gasoline. What an environmental catastrophe that was! That’s a whole other story I could write a book about! I wonder how many people will end up dead because of that stupidity on Al Gore’s part! I say we bring all the carbon fuel under the surface of the earth up on top and burn it for energy. Then, all that carbon will enter the carbon cycle and cause more rapid vegetation growth. Then we can cut down the plants and make fuel out of them. Burn carbon- grow carbon. That would be a sustainable source of energy that would last for thousands or even millions of years!

  • John at Cell Phone Recycling

    I don’t care about Gore or any politician. I don’t want to depend on them. if we depend on them too much and debate on what they did it will only make the situation worst. We should be starting on our own. Our home is the perfect place to start to save our environment.

  • JG in TX

    In light of the past scares about a coming “ice age” (yes I remember them well!) and then the change to “warming”, now it is “climate change”. From the named lists of scientific supporters and the recent revelation about “doctored” data to support their cause, they have a specific agenda. Yes, climate does change, seasonally and over time, the planet has a natural history of heating up and cooling down that started way before mankind began the industrial age. This is a specific agenda founded in the likes of Margret Sanger, Adam Smith, The Rockefellers’, G. Soros, et al… to “reduce the population of humans.” This lie is counter productive to any true enlightenment and growth of humanity. The majority of the true scientist that study climate will tell you that mankind has NO impact on anything climate related. It is a naturally occurring process that has been shown to track with solar activity. I would throw a large party if somebody would put a gag in the elite mouths that think they are best positioned to rob us of our personal wealth and choices!!!

  • OpenMinded

    I would just like to say that i have been following the whole climate change ordeal and think that there is too much evidence for you to deny the fact that the climate is changing not only because of the emissions that we put up there but because of the burning off, cutting down and wasting trees, plants, materials of our earth. There is no way you can deny that population has DRASTICALLY increased, along with CO2, along with temperature and along with the absolutely disgusting DECREASE in biodiversity. In every argument here i see failure to mention the fact that our animals and plants are becoming endangered and extinct faster than you can say butter chicken.
    As for the sarcastic genius with the idea of burning more to make carbon to make plants grow you clearly overestimate the effect of CO2 on plant growth, as if you had studied it you would know that there is only such a level of CO2 that a plant will take in and the amount DOES NOT in fact make it grow faster or more yielding.
    Your alegations against Al Gore are intriguing but nevertheless clearly obnoxious. If he were to have fabricated such a thing then he would be in jail and his evidence clearly justifies that he is right, as of when he made the movie and wrote the book, scientific evidence that may or may not prove otherwise at this moment in time does not change his intentions at the time when he wrote what he did. He cared abotu the environment. Saw something staggering. And endeavoured to tell the world before it got worse.

  • Swamp Dog

    The following is from a 2009 article that covers how Al Gore is about to become a billionaire from global warming, ALONG WITH BUDDIES FROM GOLDMAN SACHS. The entire article can be found at:

    From the article:
    Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.

    The Times report notes how Gore “has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.” As we reported back in March, before he became President Barack Obama also helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to implement as law.

    The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

    Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

    Both Strong and Gore come from the Club of Rome clique, who in their 1991 Report, “The First Global Revolution” openly admitted how they were planning to exploit the contrived hoax of global warming in order to further their agenda.

    I have problems trusting Al Gore on climate change when he’s in bed with Goldman Sachs types, setting up corporations to make billions off of any climate change regulation. It appears to me that Al Gore is more about making money off carbon trading than about saving the planet. As the old saying goes, “follow the money.”

  • Hash


    kill your TV…

    Al Gore is a liar and a crook, he should be hung on the capitol steps.

    read UN Agenda 21

  • Noah Vaile

    Where’s Al Gore now that the Gulf of Mexico is turning red? Is he still fixated on the Alberta tar-sands triggering Armageddon?

    Do you hear us, Al Gore? What have you to say to BP CEO Tony Hayward? (HINT: “You are under arrest”.)

  • Stephen Kriz

    I don’t know what kind of a whack job owns this website or if it is just a front for the oil and gas industry, but it is utter crap and junk science. You simply don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe when your children get cancer from air pollution or when a couple of coastal cities like Boston or Miami are underwater, you will get it through your thick skull how dangerous the burning of fossil fuels is!

  • amicus curiae

    Al Gore saw..Money! and crusades to get more of everyone elses.
    he isnt a hero or a messiah, hes a REALLY corrupt and wrong! little boy.
    Carbon boosts plant growth, it also doesnt harm the oceans critters till its close to 800+ppm, and even then it turns out that oysters and mussells were then the most affected, everything else did fine.
    Warming/carbon credits…brought to you from the Liars at ENRON, yup. they worked out the trading scheme. Gore and others liked it a lot..yeah, wonder why?

  • steve

    The problem with believers of the anthropogenic(man-made) global warming theory is that,if you don’t believe it then they think you are against the planet.
    the fact is that indeed co2 rises after warming,and co2 isn’t the main greenhouse gas (water vapour is),man-made co2 makes up only a small amount of co2 levels,and the sun is definitely the main factor of climate change.
    Some idiots think that by disagreeing with al gore and ipcc you don’t believe in global warming,what those morons don’t realize is that you merely disagree with anthropogenic warming,although currently there is cooling in fact.
    man-made global warming is false,does that mean we should keep using oil,pollute the atmosphere and cut down all the rainforest?no absolutely not,but putting a global tax on carbon emissions(the system is absolutely flawed and easy to take advantage of by the way)which only decreases a far to insignificant amount of co2 and leaving the undeveloped nations to remain undeveloped isn’t gonna save them rainforests
    also anthropogenic warming-believers often fail to realize that there is in fact a debate

  • http://Rense Bill Jackson

    Algorian Logic

    A reasoning technique that entails reaching a conclusion about a subject in which one has no expertise and subsequently finding or creating factoids to support the supposition without using critical thinking skills or research to discern the obvious implausibility of the facts or the conclusion.

  • Penny


    James Hoggan and desmogblog , a public relations man and his public relations blog are nothing more then shills for Al Gore and his money making ventures.(Generation Investment)

    I have done some digging on my own, well actually lots of digging…

    you may be interested in

    Also some latest news on dropping temperatures

    I concur completely, getting Al Gore away from the environment and humanity would be the best thing on both counts

  • Perry

    In January I was sent this link:

    O.K I may not trust Al Gore.
    O.K. the CO2 content and greenhouse effect might not be the main climate driving force, and CO2 increase may follow temperature instead of preceding it.
    Still I haven’t read an argument concerning the difference between “natural” CO2 that is part of a cycle, released and reabsorbed, versus the oil and charcoal derived CO2 that will not be recycled (not in 800 years). Does it make any noticeable difference, I do not know.
    Some arguments exposed are completely insane and discredit the discussion, as an example plants not getting enough CO2 because they need some; even if we cut man made CO2 emission by half, plants will not suffer.

    What is crystal clear is that to save the world we must abandon this dogma of necessary growth (supposedly the only way to increase wealth) at the cost of plundering the world, it’s fossil and living resources and bring war to secure the access to those resources.

    What about this one to save the world:

  • Perry

    Didn’t work, I’ll remove the brackets “” aroun my link
    Sorry for the noise.

    The link this time, I expect.

  • Tim

    Only one thing is and has been causing the increase of carbon dioxide worldwide.

    I remember learning it a very long time ago when teachers actually taught instead of indoctrinating.

    The Amazon rain forest is so important to the earth that its destruction would cause CO2 to increase in the earth atmosphere.

    They are cutting it down and it is just as predicted.

    A rise in CO2.

  • Jim Phelps

    Greetings All,

    I personally would demand to put Tennessee’s Al Gore in prison for cover up and misleading the public on the real issues, as his so called science totally ignores the major role that water vapor and its state plays in the climate change processes. It is a big Dollar Game afoot and Gore is the Wizard of Oz leader of the biggest cover up conspiracy with national security industries.

    There is very much corruption on climate science these days as it relates to Global Warming. Al Gore is the center of the biggest corruption and to see why one only has to follow the money and blame trail. Al Gore’s CO2 game is a “Straw Man” hatched up in Oak Ridge to cover it their anthropologic connections to destroying the natural order of the environment and the climate change factors linked to that industry’s cover up. Oak Ridge used one chemical in massive quantities and even is linked to its invention and huge losses to the environment that is the biggest factor in Anthropologic Climate Change.

    The main problem with climate change is the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere and human mistakes that changed the rates and area coverage of water vapor into reflective water aerosols. CO-2 is pure non-sense to hatched by Gore’s good ole boy networks in Oak Ridge to get the environmentalist blame game’s attention off the real major culprit of Freon and disruption of the Ozone and UV-b protective layer. This rise in UV-b then directly associated to harming the Ocean’s phytoplankton growth rates and their conversion to DMS and DMSO that is directly tied to cloud making and cloud cover over the Oceans that keep things cooler.

    Since this chemical’s looses are causing the loss of cloud cover over the oceans there is a net increase in the amount of heat reaching the oceans from the Sun. This sets up a rise in the ocean’s temperatures that change the levels of CO-2 they can absorb and convert. It is worst around the Southern Oceans and is directly tied to the rise of CO-2 in the atmosphere, the changes in ocean current and melt rates in ice caps, even the “El Nino” effects. It isn’t really correct to call this effect “Global Warming,” but more correct to call it “anthropologic linked climate change” that sets up warming in many critical zones and regional cooling in others.

    Hence, We find one more big reason to point the finger at Al Gore as to another reason that Tennessee has been named as the most corrupt state in the US. Al Gore is the sponsor of major political lies to the public to protect industry, particularly Oak Ridge, from being blamed for highly damaging the environment. So, lets part the waters to show the world what we need to do with corrupt politicians. Put him and his partners in prison, and do the real science on water vapor’s dominance of the warming / change equation.

  • Rik

    Excellent video. Good luck convincing
    know-nothing die-hards who eat up Gore’s self-serving, pompous junk science
    with a coke spoon. The truth about climate change is this: It’s the sun,
    stupid. Get a clue and find something else
    to worry about, the evidence does NOT support
    significant climate change as a function of
    human activity. The evidence DOES support
    climate change as a function of varying
    solar output.

  • Xave

    Hi all,

    In the above discussion, I have seen many different arguments that clash in weird ways. They come, according to me, from : either relevant informations, or sometimes irrelevant informations, transformed numbers and percentages without meaning, or relevant numbers followed by wrong conclusions. I think the understanding of the Earth system is very complex for scientists already. Besides, it is a fact that some lobbies and think tanks produce numbers and ratios at different scales to promote the skepticism about global warming. Therefore, I am not surprised when I see the ambiant confusion about this topic (though many of the hereabove writings were indeed clever and relevant, according to me).

    Several facts:
    1) Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect on Earth. Without water, methane, CO2 and other gases, the temperature would be much lower on average at the surface of the Earth.
    2) There are fluxes of CO2 (that may be calculated as annual fluxes) between at least three important systems: the biosphere, the atmosphere, and the ocean. When you take them into account, you see that these fluxes are in a dynamic steady state, i.e. a constant equilibrium on the long term which includes variations on the short term. This steady-state has dramatically varied in history at the geological scale. The changes were happening slowly as a consequence of different long-term biogeochemical transformations. It has also been varying dramatically for the last two centuries, because of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions (industrial revolution). And these anthropogenic fluxes, small in absolute, are sufficient to create a significant imbalance on the annual budget of CO2. I take the example of the article that states that 95% of CO2 emissions come from the biosphere and 5% only come from fossil stocks. Actually, these are only the out-fluxes (the author could have mentioned it). If you also take the in-fluxes into account (absorption of CO2 by plants to produce biomass), what remains in the atmosphere is approximately the 5% of fossil CO2 (which then constitutes 100% of surplus). On an annual average, the biosphere captures approximately as much CO2 as it releases (otherwise the budget of CO2 would have increased non-stop since plants exists). And it is the annual average that counts in the long-term assessment of whether there is or not an increase in CO2. After every year, the net increase in atmospheric CO2 is mainly due to fossil stocks that are released and burned (man-made), and to deforestation which releases the carbon accumulated in trees.
    3) One of the first consequences is an acidification of ocean waters because the atmospheric CO2 is in equilibrium with the oceanic CO2, and the ocean can still absorb CO2… but it then becomes more acid, with consequences for living organisms, especially corals, but also crustacean and organisms having a shell made of calcium carbonate.
    4) This oceanic absorption of CO2 masks the relatively high atmospheric increase. The observable effects of an increase in atmospheric CO2 are, for the moment, masked since most of this CO2 dissolves into the ocean water.
    5) More atmospheric CO2 (or H2O, gas water, or CH4, methane) increases the greenhouse effect, and hence the global mean temperature of the Earth. The consequences are difficult to predict. A higher temperature will cause more water evaporation, and hence more greenhouse effect. But atmospheric water tends to form clouds, which in turn reduce the solar irradiance at the surface of the Earth. Also, a higher temperature causes the permafrost to melt ; and under the permafrost of Siberia, for instance, are huge stocks of methane. If this methane reaches the atmosphere, the warming machine could really go crazy…
    6) A global increase in Earth temperature may have different local effects on climate because of the complex interplay between atmosphere-ocean-biosphere systems. In general, a warmer system gets an accelerated water cycle. This is not always good for humans. For instance, the river floodings would become more intense, and the overall system would become even less predictable. Also we would see adverse effects locally; for instance, some specific regions could cold down on an annual average because of a change in wind directions or in oceanic currents.
    7) On the short term, a small elevation in temperature will cause an elevation in seawater levels because of the dilatation of surface waters. Hence, the salinisation of coastal subterranean freshwater stocks, and the scarcity of freshwater stocks.
    8) About ecosystems, the important fact is that, by opposition to other warming periods that occurred in the past (geologic time), the change occurs VERY rapidly in the present case. This, in turn, does not leave much opportunities to ecosystems to adapt. This has been shown experimentally several times in Europe and the US in terrestrial systems, and similar suppositions are also made for aquatic systems (though without clear evidence at this stage). More generally, the observed slight increase in temperature combines with other effects to perturbates the environment as we used to know it. Even if it is not yet a “driving force” by itself, the regional warmings aggravate most of the time the nuisance effects linked to other phenomena, such as the occurence and duration of dead zones in the sea, for instance, or the predominance of jellyfish over fish.
    9) About IPCC, they make an extraordinary work, and they deserve respect especially because their production of knowledge is based on the consensus between all participants (which is so hard to obtain when so many people are involved). Their analyses of the present situation are rigorous and reliable. Their projections, however, are associated with uncertainties because of the complexity of the study. That is why IPCC merely submit “ranges” of projected effects associated with “reasonable” socio-economic scenarios.

    I hope this may help.

  • you are nuts

    Wow! You’re a real nutjob!

  • Carly

    Using Wikipedia as a trusted source is a really good way to get your point across… We all know it’s the most complete and accurate of information.

    “In fact, natural sources produce far, far, far more carbon dioxide than humans do. Wikipedia puts it this way…..

    Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth.”

  • Michelle

    before you go quoting wikipedia, try and read the whole article:

    “This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[16] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2009, its concentration is 39% above pre-industrial levels.[2]”

  • http://na Lucy Kelly

    Earth has far more CO2 than it needs. As a consequence, various environmental effects occur until stability is reached. This stability constitutes the ecosystem. It is in a delicate balance, which life has optimised its use of. If this delicate balance is upset, the consequences could be severe. Let us not upset its balance.