The scaremongering of the politically motivated global warming movement continues with Al Gore leading the way.

Al Gore has now even admitted that the whole global warming hype is more of a religion than science--something a lot of us skeptics have been saying for years, but it was meant as criticism, not as something to be proud of.

Gore is trying to redefine this as a moral and spiritual issue. 'We all share the exact same interest in doing the right thing on this. Who are we as human beings? Are we destined to destroy this place that we call home, planet earth? I can't believe that that's our destiny. It is not our destiny. But we have to awaken to the moral duty that we have to do the right thing and get out of this silly political game-playing about it. This is about survival,"

Further, Gore is making political statements with the clear intent of circumventing the ongoing rational and scientific debate on the merits of the issues:

"Yeah, but others. And they say: we don't know what causes it and why spend all this money till we really know," Stahl said.

"I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," Gore said.

The issue of global warming is, first and foremost, a scientific question. Is it real or isn't it? If it is, is it man-made or is primarily natural? Gore's efforts to pretend that skeptics of man-made global warming are such a "tiny minority" is a calculated political statement that is standard operating procedures for liberals and Democrats: Repeat a lie over and over until people just get so used to hearing it, they accept it as truth without question.

The Democrats have done this many times before and unfortunately it has generally worked for them.

For example, we've all heard the claim that Clinton reduced the national debt and that George W. Bush inherited a government with a surplus. As has been clearly documented, that's an absolute lie. Yet we hear it in political debates and in the mainstream media on an almost daily basis. Why? Because dishonest people--such as the Clintons, Democrats, and Gore--repeat the same thing over and over and the liberal mainstream media is more than happy to faithfully repeat it without question. Regardless, it's absolutely false.

Or how about the old mantra that the "rich got richer while the poor got poorer?" That's another favorite Democratic claim that is absolutely false.

Then there's the "tax cuts benefit the rich" claim that is, again, made by the Democrats. But that's deceptive at best and, at worst, a lie.

The Democrats have shown themselves to be very effective with their deceptions. After all, don't most people think that Clinton had a surplus and that he paid down the debt? Do people believe the rich got richer and the poor got poorer? Do people buy into the Democratic accusations of the Bush tax cuts only benefiting the rich? The fact that so many people believe these things--and the fact that the liberal mainstream media feels absolutely secure in repeating such fallacies--is proof that the "rewrite history by repeating lies" technique has worked for the Democrats.

Al Gore and other environmentalists are using the "repeat the lie until they believe it" technique against us when it comes to global warming.

These people would have us believe that the science is settled. They'd have us believe that virtually everyone agrees with them and that skeptics are an insignificant minority that can be safely ignored. They'd have us believe that only the oil companies and people "owned" by the oil industry disagree with them.

But regardless of how many times they repeat it, the claims are not true.

The science is not settled.

For example, in December 2007 a hundred climate and physical scientists wrote an open letter to the U.N. and many heads of state stating that climate change is a natural part of the planet and that it is not possible to stop it; rather we should adapt to it. They further note that even many senior IPCC participants acknowledge that climate models cannot, ironically, adequately predict climate. It also correctly notes that there hasn't been any climate warming in the last decade (since 1998).

A physics and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa has written that global warming "will not become humankind's greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around" and has observed that the planet has adapted to far more severe temperature swings--such as ice ages--that are far more extreme than the predicted global warming. Further, he observes "As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it's hotter: Compare ecological diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator." So even if we assume that global warming is real and even if we are to assume that humans are the cause, it is inaccurate to assume that it's necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the evidence would suggest the opposite. We know that ice ages have made things harder for inhabitants of the planet but we don't have any evidence that a global increase in temperature has actually had negative impacts on the planet as a whole.

The temperatures in the Antarctic--normally claimed to be a leading indicator of global warming--have not been increasing. For the last 32 years the temperatures in Antarctica have been steady or cooling. As with virtually all of the supposed global warming, any warming of Antarctica happened decades ago. Even though CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 15% since 1970, the temperature of Antarctica hasn't actually increased at all during that period of time. If CO2 is supposed to have such a major impact on temperature and it's supposed to increase the polar regions first, why isn't Antarctica warming up?

Global Warming Skeptics Are Not An Insignificant Minority

As much as Gore would like to ridicule and shame his opponents into submission, his opponents are not an irrelevant minority. As has been shown above, numerous scientists do not agree with Gore and his global warming scaremongering. The science is not settled. Efforts to portray the global warming debate as "case closed" is a deliberate effort to short-circuit scientific inquiry so that they can move to the real goal: Mandatory wealth redistribution.

Let there be no mistake: the ring-leaders of the global warming movement don't really care about the environment. If they did, they'd focus on clean water or reducing smog or reducing other pollutants in our environment. But that would only give them a local mandate. Cleaning up a river in the Rocky Mountains might be useful and it would be something I'd support. But that kind of real environmentalism doesn't provide liberals any good excuse to redistribute our wealth to poorer countries. The global warming issue does. It allows them to say we need to cut CO2 production which will reduce our productivity and industrialization and effectively give developing countries a chance to "catch up". Or it allows them to convince politicians in developed countries that we should be compelled to transfer lots of money to developing nations so they can be "clean."

That's why Al Gore wants to pretend there isn't any debate about global warming. Right now the global warming scaremongers have convinced a generally apathetic public that global warming is real, it's our fault, and we have to do something now or we're all going to die. They do that because they want to implement their political policy which is more about global wealth redistribution than it is about the environment. And they want to do that now while so much of the public has been convinced that it's a problem.

Al Gore is afraid that if we don't implement his policies now, the temperatures will NOT continue to rise and that will undermine the whole premise of human-induced global warming. After all, if we do nothing for a few more years and the temperature record actually indicates global temperatures are steady or falling then there's absolutely no motive for the world to engage in their massive wealth redistribution. If we do nothing and the temperature stops increasing, the global warming scaremongers know that their scaremongering will no longer be believable.

That is why the global warming scaremongers have to strike now. They need to implement their policies while the world still believes them, before the climate starts cooling all by itself as a result of natural cycles. And if they succeed at implementing their policies and then temperatures go down (even if it's a natural decrease that would happen anyway), they can say, "See, we saved the planet. The temperatures are falling because of our policies." That could open the gate for more and more extreme legislation to "fix" a non-existent problem.

Policies Aimed at Reducing Global Warming Must Not Pass

In short, rational and thoughtful people must insist that extremist policies aimed at curbing global warming do not pass. Because if they pass and the temperatures keep going up, the scaremongers will claim, "We have to pass even more extreme measures!" On the other hand if we adopt their policies and global temperatures go down for natural reasons, the scaremongers will claim, "See, it's working! We need to do more!" Either way we subject ourselves the very real risk of extremist policies for decades to come.

The only way to protect ourselves from decades of extremist policies is to make sure that no such policies are implemented until the science (as opposed to popular opinion or fashionable politics) is settled. The science will be settled when we have real evidence and not just climate models that ultimately can produce anything the programmer of the model wants them to produce.

If we don't accept these policies and the climate's temperature goes down for perhaps a decade, then the global warming scaremongers can finally go away as the planet will have shown that it can adapt with or without our help. Or theirs.

As it turns out, there hasn't been any global warming since 1998. That article was written in 2006 but the trend continued throughout 2007. Global temperatures are not still increasing. And temperatures in Antarctica, supposedly a leading indicator of global temperatures, has actually decreased over the last 32 years.

But you probably didn't know that by reading the mainstream news or listening to Al Gore, did you?