https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/al-gores-phony-climate-alarmism-exposed/Al Gore’s Phony Climate Alarmism Exposed Al Gore’s Phony Climate Alarmism Exposed by Guest Contributor Mar. 23, 2025 12:20 pm Guest post by Hollywood film director Joel Gilbert In my new film, The Climate According to AI Al Gore, I expose the foundational lies of climate science of Al Gore, the godfather of the climate change movement. Because of Gore, today, governments worldwide spend billions on carbon dioxide reduction policies. It all began in 1992 when Gore published his climate emergency manifesto, Earth in the Balance, where he claimed that carbon dioxide was dooming the planet and called for environmental control to become “the central organizing principle for civilization.” Then, in 2006, with the release of his film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s climate change movement exploded. Three Trump Policies That Have Americans Rethinking Their Retirement Watch the trailer below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3CcBC5Q2OY&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F&source_ve_path=OTY3MTQ Al Gore admitted he was no scientist. The source Gore cited for his climate alarmism was his Harvard professor, Roger Revelle. Gore cited an unnamed course he took from Revelle in the fall semester of 1969. To get some answers, I went to the University of California San Diego where Roger Revelle’s lifelong papers are stored. First, I discovered that the course Gore took from Revelle at Harvard was called “Human Populations”, and was all about world population growth. Gore scored a “C” in the class. There was absolutely nothing about the climate or atmospheric science. Next, I reviewed Revelle’s numerous articles and interviews over 40 years and discovered that Revelle did not agree with Gore’s theories about greenhouse gases, global warming or climate change. Yet Al Gore credited Revelle for his extreme apocalyptic environmental positions, which Gore repeatedly called “a spiritual crisis”. So where did Al Gore’s climate science really come from? In early 1971, after serving only four months in Vietnam as a journalist, Gore applied to the Vanderbilt Divinity School, a draft dodgers’ haven, to cut short his time in service. It was at Divinity School that Gore studied with radical environmental preachers, and where the reading list included a popular 1940s environmental cataclysm book called Our Plundered Planet which maintained humanity was destroying the planet. My analysis of the book reveals that Gore borrowed heavily from Our Plundered Planet to write his 1992 manifesto, Earth in the Balance. However, in order to secularize his apocalyptic religious vision of a “climate emergency,” Gore credited his Harvard professor Roger Revelle. Had Gore told the truth, namely that he just rewrote the apocalyptic ravings of the whacky Our Plundered Planet book, Gore’s climate alarmism would have been dismissed as unacceptable and absurd. Researching Al Gore’s greenhouse gas theory revealed what the media will never say: that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant or a bad gas. In fact, carbon dioxide is our friend. Without it, life on Earth would not be possible. As humans, we release it every time we exhale. Carbon dioxide is the food of nearly all plants on earth. We need more carbon dioxide, not less. More carbon dioxide would result in more crops, more food yield, and the greening of the deserts. Earth’s atmosphere contains only 370 parts per million of carbon dioxide. That’s just .0037 percent. Not even one percent! Even if its concentration were tripled, carbon dioxide would still be miniscule. It is the sun, volcanoes, the tilt of the earth’s axis, water vapor, sunspots, clouds, and ocean cycles, that affect world temperatures, not carbon dioxide. I also learned that the only scientists who agree with climate change theories are those dependent on government funding. Universities and green organizations also reap financial benefits from climate panic. They are all in effect being paid by the government to agree. Why don’t the simple facts about carbon dioxide take hold? Unfortunately, today’s climate movement has taken on the characteristics of a religion. And, religions don’t worry too much about facts. It’s a belief system. Mass movements can rise and spread, without belief in a god, but never without belief in a devil. That’s why people who disagree with climate change are treated as heretics, they are evil, and deserve to be punished. I concluded that “climate change” today is merely the latest scam with the same socialist solutions that Americans would never vote for: central planning and wealth redistribution. It’s really all an assault on freedom and prosperity to try to stop the existence of the free market system. This is because Marxists are furious that free markets have achieved wealth for common workers and want to reverse this economic success to validate Marxism. In my film, I demonstrate that Al Gore pushed his climate alarmism theories to try to garner political support. He felt the environmental issue was a popular one that crossed all class lines and could get him into the White House – and the rest is history. Please check out my new film at: The Climate According to AI Al Gore. Hollywood film director Joel Gilbert is president of Highway 61 Entertainment.
The assertion that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” has been the centerpiece of public policy on climate for the developed world in recent years.
Demonizing CO2 has impacted virtually every aspect of modern Western civilization. It condemns the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, the use of combustion engines for transportation, and the employment of carbon fuels for virtually everything supporting modern civilization – even down to the kind of washing machines and kitchen stoves that are deemed acceptable. It forms the basis for the most grotesque of all the alarmist shibboleths – the “social cost of carbon”.
The theory that CO2 is malevolent was enshrined in the so-called “Endangerment Finding” issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009, which held that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that “threatens public health and safety”.
CO2 radicalism rests on one main assumption – that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause a linear and dangerous increase in global temperature. The belief that more CO2 emitted equals significantly more heat and higher temperature is a cornerstone of the ruling scientific paradigm.
But what if this assumption – the most ubiquitous of all modern conventional wisdoms – turns out to be mistaken?
This conventional wisdom has been questioned over the last decade by impeccably credentialed scientists who have undertaken actual science – not political science – to contradict this primary assumption underlying the AGW belief system.
Case in point is the peer-reviewed analysis completed in June, 2020 by eminent physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden. Mr. Happer is Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and van Wijngaarden is a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York University in Toronto, Both men are accomplished and renowned physicists with over 500 published papers to their credit. Mr. Happer is best known as the brilliant scientist whose insight into the physics of the atmosphere empowered the success of the Strategic Defense Initiative.
They applied highly detailed mathematical analytics to the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere and raised serious doubts about CO2’s ability to absorb heat after becoming “saturated” at current levels of 400 parts per million, and therefore unable to absorb significanty more heat from the Sun. Thus, any further increases in atmospheric CO2 – even doubling that amount to 800 parts per million – would only result in minimal increases in atmospheric temperature of 0.5C, or 1degree Fahrenheit.
This mathematically rigorous finding was validated through a controlled laboratory experiment conducted by a team of seven Viennese researchers in 2024. They measured the back infrared radiation of CO2 in a test chamber with increasing CO2 concentrations emulating realistic atmospheric conditions. They concluded that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels from 400 to 800 ppm “shows no measurable increase in infrared radiation absorption, and thus can lead to just 0.5C warming increase at most”.
This conclusion illustrates the reason why climate alarmists have never been able to explain the reason why the Earth has never experienced runaway warming in the past when CO2 levels were 5-10 times more concentrated than today, nor why the UN climate models based on linear warming theory have been proven to be so terribly wrong.
If the CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere is well beyond the level where increases are causing additional radiation to be absorbed, then all the government policies intended to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions in order to stop climate change are just as effective as King Canute’s efforts to control the tides.
In short, these saturation analyses thoroughly refute the conventional wisdom that increasing levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.
And they are not alone.
For example, in 2020 German chemist Michael Schnell published his study “Experimental Verification of the CO2 Greenhouse Effect” which also confirmed that the saturation effect of CO2 results in minimal warming. In addition, Franz-Karl Reinhardt, a professor with the leading Swiss research facility EPF, undertook another study in 2017 which demonstrated that a doubling of the current level of atmospheric CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm would produce only be one quarter of 1 degree Celsius – too small to even be accurately measured.
The impact of all these recent studies – and there are many more than just the ones mentioned above – is clear: the conventional wisdom regarding CO2 warming is unraveling. The demonization of CO2 – one of the greatest popular delusions in modern human history – may finally be coming to an end.
It may well not be not true that an increase in CO2 causes a linear and catastrophic increase in atmospheric temperature.
The implication of CO2 saturation is a game changer, and should provide the Trump Administration with a substantial line of questioning of EPA’s Endangerment Finding.
Posted originally on Jan 18, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: On Friday, the UK FTSE and DAX closed at new all-time highs, so clearly money is flowing into these indices yet euros and Pounds seem to be flying out the door as they prepare for lower lows and thus this seem confusing. Added to the confusion is that Europe is where the sovereign debt crisis SDC) is likely to begin, so why is capital flowing into these markets? I suppose better to hold UK or German equities vs. their sovereign debt and thus will those equity markets continue to rally during the SDC?
SR
ANSWER: A number of questions have been coming in about the European markets. Keep in mind that we are in the throes of geopolitical and political upheavals, not to mention the entry of Trump and his old-school nonsense about lowering the dollar to sell more stuff overseas and imposing tariffs. Those ideas I have dealt with constantly over the course of the past few decades. It is confusing without question. The press does not understand currency, not even those in government. Absolutely everything has an international value, and this has led to the overwhelming majority getting things wrong. Many ask why mainstream media will not interview me on such important topics as this. The reason is simply – it is too confusing for them as well.
I have told the story at conferences about my Ferarri Trade and how I bought a 308 Ferrari when I lived in London in 1985 when the British pound fell to $1.03. The Italians were getting $60,000 for the car in the States back then. It was still priced in pounds when the pound used to be $2.40. I bought the car for about $35,000 when converted. The Italians could no longer sell these Ferarris for such a price in London. Hence, they doubled the price in British pounds based on $1.03.
Over the course of the next couple of years, the pound rallied and went to $1.90 again by 1988. I drove the car for 2 years, sold it used for £40,000, and virtually doubled my money. Then, people were buying Ferraris as an investment, thinking it was the car that appreciated when, in fact, it was just a currency play. If you did not look at the currency, you missed the whole point.
In fact, I was buying German cars throughout the 1970s as the dollar was declining. A Porsche was $8,600 in 1970, and by 1980, it was $27,700. I would drive the cars for 2 years and then trade them in and get my money back, so cars never cost me a dime throughout the 1970s. I understood it was all just currency – not the cars themselves. My father took the family to Europe for the summer of 1964, which taught me about currency as we traveled from Sweden to Italy and all around. We had to change currency every time we crossed a border. I learned that CURRENCY was actually a mental language. I would listen to the price in Italian lira and convert that back to dollars in my mind to asses if the value was a fair price.
I was really the only true foreign exchange analyst. I was dealing in billions in the early 1980s. Clients would even put me on a speak in the middle of an OPEC meeting. I was being called in around the world all on currency crises. That’s how I became friends with Margaret Thatcher. I was being touted as the highest-paid analyst in the world, all for currency. When I was opening an office in Geneva in 1985, I was going to use some European names to blend in. I went to lunch with the head of one of the top main banks in Switzerland, who was a client and asked his opinion of what European name to use. He asked me to name one European FOREX analyst. I was embarrassed for I could not. He then explained why everyone was using my firm. He said there were no European analysts because they each would tout their own currency because it was a political issue. He explained everyone was using my firm because I did not care if the dollar went down or up. I said it was just a trade.
By 1985, I was summoned to the US. They were arguing to force the dollar down by 40% to reduce the trade deficit as that theory today is espoused by Trump. That was the Plaza Accord, and I wrote to President Reagan and warned that they would cause a crash within two years, and that became the 1987 Crash. The Presidential Commission then called me in for that one. They just do not teach this stuff in school and that seems to be the problem.
In 1997, Robert Rubin, former head of Goldman Sachs, was also trying to talk the dollar down for trade. Again, he did not really understand currency and its impact on markets. The Asian currency Crisis unfolded weeks later. He may have been at Goldman, but that was more related to debt. To one person, a stock rally can look like a bull market, and to another, a bear market. When you get into currency swings of 10%-40%, it alters the perception of value because they still do not teach this stuff in school. We are clinging to old theories like Keynesian economics from the period of fixed exchange rates. Politicians are making the wrong decisions and investors are confused because these concepts are never taught.
As the greenback rallies, then the European share prices will appear cheap, just as Ferarri did in 1985 when the pound fell to $1.03. You will have domestic movement away from public assets as we have seen corporate rates move below that of government rates in France. Here is the FTSE in pounds and then in dollars. While you see new highs in pounds, the FTSE has not made new highs in dollars and has backed off, showing that the rally in the FTSE is not keeping pace with the decline in the pound.
01:56This is why, in Socrates, you can plot any instrument in a host of various currencies. The definition of a bull market is something that rallies in terms of all the key currencies. When it is rising only in terms of the local currency, it is simply a domestic shift and not international.
We do NOT see a major Crash on the horizon in shares, commodities, gold, silver, etc.
The greatest risk of a crash will be in government debt.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 