Al Gore wins an Oscar!   For his "research" on Global Warming

Learn from the 9/11 attack! 

On the day of the September 11 attack, the news reporters and government officials lied to us about what happened in order to trick us into hating the Arabs. We were never encouraged to discuss or research the September 11 attack, nor were we encouraged to discuss what our response to the attack should be. Quite the contrary! The media and government will not tolerate a discussion. All suggestions to investigate or discuss the September 11 attack are suppressed with insults that we are unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, or anti-Semites.

Why trust liars about Global Warming?

Some of the news reporters and government officials who lied about 9/11 are now telling us that global warming is a problem, and they are telling us what the solution should be. As with 9/11, they are not encouraging any discussion.

On 25 February 2007, the mysterious group of people who give Oscar awards decided to promote Al Gore's documentary on global warming.

The evidence suggests that Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and virtually every other government official who is given publicity and funding are puppets of the Zionist crime network that is often referred to as the New World Order or the Illuminati.

We would be fools if we did not consider the possibility that this same criminal network helped create Al Gore's documentary, and that they are now promoting it because it proposes solutions that benefit their crime network.

Who in the British government is trying to push Al Gore's documentary on British schoolchildren? Take a look at this report, or this (new link).

Only a fool would trust Al Gore, Hollywood, or other media officials on the issue of global warming after they lied to us -- and continue to lie! -- about the 9/11 attack and other crimes.
 

Unfortunately, we cannot trust the scientists. They are also lying about 9/11, or they are silent about the truth, which is the same as lying. Some of the possible reasons the scientists are lying:

 Scientists are just ordinary people with intelligence

Have you noticed that the scientists who work for chemical companies "discover" that their pesticides and other poisons are perfectly safe?

And that the scientists who do medical research discover that those same chemicals are dangerous?

Scientists may be slightly more honest and intelligent than "ordinary" people, but that is nothing to boast about. Smelling slightly better than a dead fish is still stinking very badly.
 

It doesn't matter why a scientist is lying about 9/11. The important concept is that we are fools to trust anybody who lies.

The issue of global warming has a tremendous effect on corporate profits, government policies, and the future of the world.

Since scientists are willing to lie about 9/11, why wouldn't they also lie about global warming and other issues of major significance?

The only issues scientists seem to be 100% honest about are the issues of no financial or political importance, such as the boiling point of water.
 

Global warming is an "issue", not a "problem". We can't have "solutions" to issues; we can only have "policies".

Al Gore and others are trying to manipulate us when they tell us that global warming is a "problem" and that they have the "solution".

This is a subtle method of fooling us into thinking that there is no point in discussing it any further. They are trying to convince us that the problem has been identified, and the solution has been devised. Case closed.

In fact, in this (new link) news report we find that some mysterious "international team of scientists" announced that the debate is over and the solution has been found. Don't you dare consider debating the issue!

Before I continue, let me provide an alternative view to the global warming issue to show you that there are different ways of looking at this global warming issue.

This recent report about the formation of the Earth made me realize that I forgot to include the formation of the Earth in my sequence of drawings about the Earth's atmosphere. Specifically, if the Earth began as a hot ball of molten material, it would not have had a significant atmosphere. It would have accumulated an atmosphere over time after it cooled down.

The Earth has more gravity and is cooler than Venus. This would allow the Earth to hold onto more gases, and more of the light gases.

The pressure at the surface of the Earth was higher than what we see on Venus, and the carbon dioxide kept the temperature of the planet much warmer than what we find today.

Shallow pools of hot water covered the Earth. There was more dry land than ocean. There were no mountain ranges or deep oceans.

The hot water would have contained a lot of dissolved gases, minerals, and salts.

The first living creatures were similar to the organisms of today that live on carbon dioxide, and which produce oxygen as a waste product. The oxygen mixed into the atmosphere.
 

Oxygen increased the production of water

There is a very significant difference between the top of the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth.

The top of the atmosphere is subjected to constant bombardment by protons, electrons, ultraviolet radiation, x-rays, and gamma rays.
 

Water, oxygen, and other molecules are occasionally broken down by the radiation and particles from space.

Many of the molecules recombine into exactly what they were before they were broken down.

However, the living creatures in the oceans were producing oxygen, and this oxygen altered the reactions that were occurring at the top of the atmosphere.

The free oxygen from the living creatures was allowing water molecules to form.

The Earth's atmosphere is bombarded with protons, and some of those protons would pick up an electron and eventually combine with the oxygen molecules to make additional water.

There does not seem to be a perfect equilibrium between the creation of water molecules at the top of the atmosphere, and the destruction of water molecules. Rather, there appears to be a very slight increase in the formation of water.
 

Living creatures reduced carbon dioxide

As the living creatures converted carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreased.

The temperature of the planet decreased slightly, also.

The pools of water grew in size and depth.

This helped to maintain an even temperature and high humidity on the planet.

Plant life developed on the dry land. Eventually there were animals on the land. The climate was moist and very warm.

Although the living creatures were reducing the content of carbon dioxide, the atmosphere was denser compared to the atmosphere today. The dense atmosphere made it easier for the creatures to glide, and eventually fly.

The tropical climate, high levels of carbon dioxide, and vast amounts of relatively flat land allowed enormous amounts of plant life, which in turn supported enormous animals with enormous appetites.
 

Water transformed the surface of the Earth

As the water accumulated, the ocean grew in size and depth. The weight of the water pressed down on the ocean floor.

The amount of dry land decreased.

It also reduced the transfer of heat from the daytime side to the nighttime side.

However, this was compensated to some extent by the increase in the depths of the oceans. The swirling of the ocean water would have helped maintain an even temperature on the planet.

Once this point of equilibrium was reached, additional water could not push the ocean floor any deeper. Instead, it caused the continents to fracture.

They began to slide around.

The mountains and deserts made it difficult for large reptiles to survive.

The atmosphere was becoming thinner, which made it colder at night, and colder near the poles, further making life difficult for large reptiles.

Life requires access to carbon, so if the supply of carbon diminishes, life also diminishes. For all we know, we are doing the Earth a favor by burning coal and oil and releasing the carbon back into the environment.
 

They advocate various "solutions" that will provide tremendous financial benefit to certain companies.

Considering that Al Gore and other Zionists lie about virtually every issue of importance, we would be fools to listen to what they say about global warming.

Chances are very good that the Zionists have no concern about global warming. Rather, they see global warming as a tool to make money, or to manipulate society, just as they tried to use "Peak Oil" to frighten us.
 

However, if my theory about the Earth is correct, the melting of the ice caps would release the weight that is pressing down on Greenland and Antarctica, and that would cause those continents to move upward.

There may be temporary flooding if the ice melted faster than the continents could rise, but after the continents finish rising, the change in the level of the ocean may be trivial.

The most significant aspect (to humans) of a warmer climate that melts Antarctic and Greenland ice would be that it would cause an increase in earthquakes and volcanoes, and more precipitation.
 

Furthermore, changes in the temperature of the Earth are neither good nor bad. Rather, they are changes.

Some areas of the Earth may experience an increase in rain, others may become drier. Whether these changes are good or bad depends upon your point of view.

Some areas of the world may become more pleasant for us to live in, and some may become more miserable. But for all we know, most people will prefer the warmer climate. 

However, how can we stop global warming when we don't know exactly how humans affect the climate?

We are told by the "authorities" that the solution to global warming is to reduce greenhouse gases. 

However, since these people lie about 9/11, they may be lying about this in order to provide contracts to their friends in certain industries, or to allow certain types of government programs.

For all we know, a more significant effect on the climate are our buildings and roads.

It has been known for a long time that cities are warmer than the surrounding forests. Is that because of greenhouse gases? What if our roads and buildings are causing the planet to become warmer because they are converting more solar radiation into heat than a forest would convert?

Some people suggest we switch to solar power in order to reduce greenhouse gases, but how can we be sure that solar panels won't cause more solar radiation to be converted into heat, thereby raising the temperature even more than the burning of hydrocarbons?

What effect does soot and other particles in the atmosphere have on the temperature of the planet? What effect do ice trails from airplanes have on the climate?

We don't know what is going on! So why are we trying to develop a solution?

Furthermore, even if greenhouse gases are bad, what good does it do to reduce our production of greenhouse gases by a small amount while:

2) more people are demanding cars, houses, computers, televisions, and other material items that require an increase in factories, which in turn creates more pollution and greenhouse gases.

Reducing greenhouse gases by a small amount while the population is growing is as silly as a fat person eating twice as much low-fat ice cream on the grounds that it contains 10% less fat.

• We have reports that chemicals are causing girls to become sexually mature while still in their pre-teen years, and they are causing boys to become feminine.

• We have gigantic, organized crime networks manipulating governments and starting wars.

• There is loneliness, crime, fear, and unhappiness all over the world.

Why is Al Gore and Hollywood so concerned about global warming when we have so many issues of more importance?

Our most important problem is that all the world's governments are incompetent and corrupt. Once we get better governments, we can start dealing with all of our other problems.

This requires getting rid of the Zionist crime network that has control of our media, banking system, governments, and school system.

If these people were truly intelligent, honest, and responsible, they could have exposed a lot of the crime and corruption.

It would be very difficult for an organized crime network to get away with their crimes if most of the scientists, professors, and engineers around the world were exposing their crimes. These "scholars" would be a tremendous force to reckon with. But none of them say anything, or they lie to us!

Take a look at three other examples:

French professor Robert Faurisson claims that part of Anne Frank's diary was written with a ballpoint pen, and he also claims that such technology was not available in Holland until after Anne Frank had died.

Faurisson has lots of other evidence that the diary was a work of fiction written by Anne's father in the hope of making money.

If a scientist is not capable of figuring out whether Anne Frank's diary was written with ballpoint pen, pencil, crayon, or fountain pen, and if he is not capable of figuring out when ballpoint pens became available in Holland, why should we assume that he has the intelligence and emotional stability to determine the truth about global warming or other, much more complicated subjects?

Dealing with Anne Frank's diary is much, much simpler than dealing with global warming.

If a scientist can't handle a simple task, why should we assume he can handle a much more difficult task? All scientists should take a look at what Professor Faurisson wrote about Anne Frank's diary:
Anne-Frank-Faurisson.html

• The Holocaust

Almost every scientist is either silent about the stories of 6 million Jews and millions of other people who were gassed in the Nazi camps, or they support the official Holocaust stories.

Does it really take that much intelligence, education, or emotional strength to look through the photos and news reports of WW2, do a few simple calculations, and then make a decision on whether the Holocaust stories have any possibility of being correct. 

Almost every scientist is either silent about the Apollo moon landing, or they support the official story.

Is it really that difficult to figure out whether people landed on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972?

If a scientist is not capable of figuring out whether Americans landed on the moon, why should we assume he can figure out something much more difficult, such as the Earth's climate in the future?
Apollo_NASA.html

Any student who could not provide intelligent analyses of these events should not be allowed to call  himself a "scientist".

We need scientists who are intelligent, emotional stable, and honest.

We don't need monkeys with a college degree; we don't need educated lunatics; and we don't need scholarly criminals.