Are Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Claims And Tactics Criminal?

Fraud is defined as “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.” Did Al Gore campaign to deceive the world about the role of human produced CO2 causing world ending global warming and climate change. He profited through carbon credits based on the false need to reduce CO2 and advanced his political career by “saving the planet.”

Others distorted climate science for a political agenda, but none with the intensity of Gore. One was Senator Tim Wirth who in 1993 said,

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”

He staged the starting point of deception with James Hansen’s testimony before the Gore chaired Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. He said,

“…we knew there was this scientist at NASA who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify.”

The New York Times headline next day said “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate”. They didn’t report that Wirth deliberately selected the historically hottest day, and …

“What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasnt working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …”

Al Gore, likely knew what was done. He became the most vocal champion of Hansen’s claims. However, he fails to provide accurate unbiased information and to correct errors, as is well documented.

He claimed, incorrectly, the UK court ruled in his favour of his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Documentary producer McAleem asked him :

The judge in the British High Court after a lengthy hearing found that there were nine significant errors (in the movie). This has been shown to children. Do you accept those findings, and have you done anything to correct those errors?


“…..the ruling was in favor of the movie, by the way, and the ruling was in favor of showing the movie in schools. And …..that”s really the…… bottom line on that.”

It wasn’t in his favor. The judge said show the movie but only after bias and errors were identified by the teacher and suggested balance such as the documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. But what about the public?

In contrast, Swindle producer Martin Durkin, withheld release of the DVD at great personal expense to correct a very minor error. The UK Court identified nine major errors in Gore’s movie, but there are some 35 errors. None are corrected, but it’s still used worldwide by hundreds of Gore trained acolytes.

Justice Burton’s commentary is perceptive about Gore’s use (misuse) of science.

“ Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out. Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a online casino vast array of political policies, which he illustrates in paragraph 30 of his skeleton argument:

“(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.
(iv)Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels.”

Gore continued his deceptions with a series of media events, the most recent was The Climate Reality Project. Distortions and errors were numerous. The political practice of inflating participants was apparently used. It parallels Gore use of consensus as ‘proof’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ostensibly the source of his information, was correct. It was implied in his 2007 evidence to the US Senate that inaccurately said, “the debate is over, the science is settled.” Consensus is not a scientific fact. Numbers are meaningless if the data is incorrect. Let’s examine what he said as recently as August 2011 in Aspen with his comment and my reply.

They pay pseudo-scientists, to pretend to be scientists, to put out the message: “This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.” Bulls–t! “It may be sun spots.” Bulls–t! “It’s not getting warmer.” Bulls–t!

Who pays the pseudo-scientists? Almost all climate research funding is from government.

What “climate thing? Climate change is occurring, has always occurred and will continue. Current changes are well within natural variability, despite Gore’s false claims about increasing severe weather. Inadequate computer models aren’t the problem as one editorial claims. The record hurricane record shows no increase in the last 30 years when the IPCC say human CO2 was cause of climate change. Besides, the science say there are fewer severe events with the IPCC warming hypothesis.

It may be volcanoes, but not the small amount of CO2 they produce. The dust they eject is significant and a poorly measured factor. Look at the impact of Tambora in 1815, Krakatoa in 1883 and Pinatubo in 1991.

It isn’t the sunspots per se, but their relationship to changes in the Sun’s magnetic field, which determines number of cosmic rays forming low cloud. The hypothesis is in the literature since 1991 and since proved, but it is not included in IPCC comments or models.

“It’s not getting warmer.” It stopped warming after 1998, a fact tacitly acknowledged by the IPCC when they changed from global warming to climate change.

Apparently the crude language is supposed to indicate anger, concern and the illusion his comments are accurate. It works because few people know or understand. It is as phony as Gore’s actions. Hypocrisy was exposed with his massive carbon footprint, the amount of money he made from the carbon credit delusion and recently we learn the portfolio was not in sustainability. As Junkscience reports Gore,

“…may be “talking the talk” but not “walking the walk” when it comes to investing in so-called “sustainable” businesses.”

He promoted carbon credits, the modern equivalent of medieval church Indulgences. Buy your way into heaven by giving money to the church. Chaucer understood the character when he created the Pardoner who said,

“What! Do you think, as long as I can preach
And get this over for the things I teach,
that I will live in poverty, from choice?
That’s not the counsel of my inner voice!
No! Let me preach and bake from Kirk (church) to Kirk
and never do an honest job of work,
no, nor make baskets, like St. Paul, to gain
a livelihood. I do not preach in vain.

Gore, like most who claim human CO2 is causing warming and climate change, will not debate. He uses personal attacks, propaganda and misleading information. He profits while accusing others of profiting. He uses science for political and personal gain by misrepresenting the facts and evidence. He refuses to correct errors even when identified in Court. It appears to fit the definition of fraud.

You may also like...

2 Responses