With so much attention on the proclaimed “climate crisis” prevalent in the mainstream media today, it’s difficult to determine the facts from the hysteria.  Add NASA scientist James Hansen and politicians with deep pockets like Al Gore into the mix, and global warming hysteria has become the shot heard around the world. 

Fear-mongering and inexact science have become the rule rather than the exception, but many folks like you, me and author Paul Spite remain skeptical of man-made climate change.  I recently had an opportunity to interview Paul about his book, A Climate Crisis a la Gore: The real profit pushing the perception of manmade global warming.  In this two-part series, I’ll post the 10 questions I presented to Paul as well as his responses.

As a special bonus to readers of Skeptics Global Warming, Paul has graciously agreed to give away a free signed copy of his book, A Climate Crisis A La Gore, to one lucky person.  To enter yourself in the random drawing, simply leave a comment at the end of this week’s or next week’s article.

One random commenter will be chosen on Tuesday, November 4th.  Leave as many comments as you wish and each will be counted as an entry.

If you wish to purchase the book, A Climate Crisis a la Gore: The real profit pushing the perception of manmade global warming, at Amazon.  Now, on to the interview!

SGW: In your book, you said that you were surprised to find that you agreed with many of the points in Al Gore’s book, An Assault on Reason.  Which of those points made in Gore’s book are you in most agreement and why?

PS: There are really several. For various reasons, I completely agree with Mr. Gore that Americans have lost, and are continuing to lose, the ability to reason out the truth. They are as follows:

a. To a large extent, I agree that this has resulted from our dependence upon video for entertainment, first in the form of television, then movies, DVD, the Internet, etc.

b. Reliance upon this type of entertainment has immersed us in continual exposure to advertising, of which the sole purpose is a focus upon our own desires, giving rise to self centeredness that is tearing our once United States apart.

c. Our substitution of this form of non-participatory and passive stimulation for the consideration of ideas once enjoyed in print has made the masses extremely susceptible to manipulation by slick advertising campaigns by those with enough money to afford them.

d. It is morally wrong to falsely link two events together, then use the fear thereby created to seize power or profit from those willing to surrender them in return for the illusion of safety from threats that were always just imaginary.

e. I also agree with Mr. Gore that those using such tactics to manipulate others should never be trusted again.
SGW: It seems that many ideals espoused by the former Vice President changed radically between the writing of An Assault on Reason and the release of An Inconvenient Truth.  Which one of those changes in ideology has the potential to have the biggest impact on Americans today?

PS: I do not agree that any of Mr. Gore’s ideology has changed. He is espousing the same pseudo-scientific environmental nonsense that he has been for many years now. The difference in the ideas in the two presentations lies in their intended purpose. An Inconvenient Truth was intended to frighten the American people into pushing Congress to pass the carbon tax legislation, solely for the purpose of putting huge amounts of power and profit into the hands of a select few. That profit will cost an unthinking public dearly. The Assault on Reason, in part a vengeful and spiteful attack on President Bush for winning their electoral contest, actually has a far cruder (believe it or not) basis. It is another attempt to scare the American public into pushing Congress into another type of legislation, this one to more specifically benefit Mr. Gore. The book urges Americans, for the benefit of our democratic process, to insist Congress pass laws allowing broad band users of the Internet, those who resell parts of that bandwidth to others for a profit, to be allowed use of the Internet for the same fees charged to individual home users. While most would agree that those who use more of anything should pay in accordance with the portion they use, this book lets us know this legislation to prevent such proportional payment is necessary to insure continued freedom and democracy in America. It has nothing to do with Mr. Gore’s recently acquired half ownership in a broadband user attempting to compete with “youtube.” Just as carbon legislation requiring American industry to subsidize projects by “sustainable” companies has nothing to do with Mr. Gore’s half ownership of an investment company buying up ownership of many of the sustainable companies our companies will be forced to pay tribute to. The amazing thing is Mr. Gore counting on America being so stupid as to not notice the difference in the two sets of ideas. As to which has the most ability to influence America, the carbon legislation will as absolutely destroy our economy as it did that of Czechoslovakia. The assault on reason was just a foolish exercise lacking greatly in the sophistication of the first ruse. The difference between the two suggests strongly of other minds behind the environmental coup in progress.

SGW: Mr. Gore had a mentor of sorts in his early days as an advocate for change to fight global warming.  Who was he and how did his relationship with Al Gore change over time?

PS: I do not know if Professor Roger Revelle, one of Mr. Gore’s instructors in college, claimed our environmental savior as his protégé, but Mr. Gore certainly claimed Mr. Revelle as his mentor in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance. We are told Mr. Revelle drew a correlation between the processes of civilization and changes in the composition of the atmosphere, and what would happen if we did not change, and everything was clear. Mr. Revelle did not, in fact, make this projection into the future. In a 1984 interview with Omni magazine, asked specifically if CO2 increases were responsible for worsening weather, Dr. Revelle indicated an increase would be more likely to temper weather extremes. In a 1991 article for Cosmos, he warned against the economic harm and potential human suffering possible from acting precipitously to curtail emissions when decades of research were still required to understand the real effect of such gasses. He advocated that we looked before we leaped. His rebuttal of Mr. Gore’s misrepresentation of his work, claiming the proof was not yet definitive enough to cry “wolf,” changed the nature of the relationship between them. Three months after that article in Cosmos, Mr. Revelle passed away. The differences between what he believed, and what Mr. Gore claims he believed, became national news in the 1992 presidential election. Mr. Gore’s response was to claim his “mentor” had become senile before his death. He also claimed the co-author of the article had lied about Dr. Revelle’s involvement. After a defamation suit, an apology was made in 1994. There is no way to know now what Mr. Revelle would think of his protégés current drastic proclamations. We do know he had no time for them while alive.