"A CBS News poll released last week shows the undeclared Gore running a strong second at 32 percent among Democratic voters nationwide, only five points behind presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Moreover, Gore polls much better than Clinton against Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, 52 percent to 46 percent, compared to Clinton's 49 to 47 percent, according to a poll released by CNN on Oct. 21."

Is Al Gore an advocate of positive environmental policy change? Or is his position on global warming actually an advocacy for Al Gore and his corporate agenda?

We know that our cars and lawnmowers are contributing to the pollution problem and that the products we buy come from factories that dump toxic wastes into rivers and release a steady stream of toxic smokestack emissions. We look around and we see particulates in the air and pollutants in the water. We know that the people, plants and animals are getting sick from this nonstop creation, emission and accumulation of toxic material.

But what about the megatonnage of toxic particulates the government loads into the stratosphere as platforms for technologies with military applications like communications, cloaking, and weather control? If the fleet of private trucks and SUVs are contributing to "global warming," what about the U.S. military's fleet of planes, tanks, ships troop carriers and helicopters?

In his discussions about global warming, Al Gore does not mention ongoing military operations as being contributory factors when declassified documents and common sense prove that government is the greatest contributor to environmental degradation and the only entity with the resources required to disrupt the balances of nature on a global scale.

Meanwhile environmental groups such as the Sierra Club are happily forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate, as a pollutant, a naturally occurring gas produced by all life on Earth—carbon dioxide.

The prime beneficiaries of the global warming hysteria are nuclear power and polluting agri-businesses. Tax-generated subsidies of $118 billion have been designated for "solutions" such as genetically modified corn, which poisons both the soil and other plants and animals, uses almost as much energy to produce as is generated and the air pollution released by its use and production is far more toxic than that released by petroleum products. Not to mention that billions of acres previously used to produce food here and in third world countries are being converted for government mandated "alternative fuel."

If the true villain behind global warming is carbon, existing nuclear plants save only about five percent of total carbon emissions, hardly much of a bargain given the costs and risks associated with nuclear power and the accumulation of terminally toxic nuclear waste.

The idea of carbon dioxide as a cause of global warming was hatched in 1975 by then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when the cost of oil suddenly doubled and the coal miners went on strike. She needed a crisis to justify funds for research into nuclear power. At the time the panic was global cooling and the coming ice age, since global temperatures had been going down for 35 years. Politicians, both then and now, consider nuclear power to be a "clean" solution, and the unsavory subject of eliminating deadly radioactive waste is avoided.

In the past, toxic waste facilities located in poor black communities such as those in South Bronx, the "toxic donut" in Chicago, and "Cancer Row" along the shores of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, have received more than their fair share of radioactive nuclear waste.

Today nuclear waste is being dispersed in Middle Eastern countries in the form of particulates from exploded ordnance and armored vehicles reinforced with toxic depleted uranium (DU).

The nuclear lobby, which has invested $13 million in political contributions to RNC and DNC (Republican and Democratic National Committees) coffers and those of key senate and house members, successfully encouraged the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. It provides four different government subsidies for atomic power plants, and reduced regulations required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, speeding approval for new plants that are now popping up all over the globe. The nuclear lobby has also enjoyed a long and profitable relationship with both Clinton and Gore, as we will see.

A November 13, 2000, press release of the Nuclear Information Resource Center quoted Gore saying, "I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable," and that "legislation on electricity restructuring should specifically exclude both nuclear and large scale hydro-energy, and instead promote increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy."

Gore also wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his book Earth in the Balance (1992). He earned his stripes as a congressman protecting the interests of two of the nuclear industry's more problematic enterprises, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Oak Ridge Labs. In addition, the TVA Board of Directors became the national finance chair of the presidential campaign committee for vice-President Al Gore in January, 2000.

Prior to winning the Nobel Prize for Peace, Senator Gore voted for the neutron bomb, the B52 bomber, the Trident II missile, the MX missile and the Midgetman.

As governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton backed Entergy's outrageous plan to make Arkansas ratepayers pay for cost overruns on the company's Grand Gulf reactor, which provided power to electricity consumers in Louisiana.

People thinking of voting for Al Gore over Hillary Clinton seem to forget that Al Gore was Bill Clinton’s vice-president for eight years.

If Al Gore truly believed CO2 is causing global warming, wouldn’t he be focusing his attention on the Amazon and Congo rainforests which are being exploited and destroyed for money and financed by the World Bank?

These tropical woodlands are considered to be the planet’s lungs and affect rainfall across the North Atlantic. They are crucial to the future of climate stability and a bulwark against runaway climate change.

While the Amazon has been rapidly dwindling for years, the Congo, which up until 2003 was protected from exploitation by civil war and disease, is now considered safe for logging. One quarter of the Congo’s forests, about the size of California, is controlled by giant U.S. and global timber firms – with the World Bank providing the capital to "buy" unsupervised development.

Because the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) owes $4 billion to the World Bank, the bank, rather than the DRC, determines how the country is logged. The 156 timber companies working there are supposed to support local development and follow sustainable, 25-year logging rotations, but most ignore these laws with zero regard for the long term damage they cause.

The DRC should be able to determine the illegal acts and environmental impact of these companies and revoke the contracts of those who cheat them of taxes and rape the environment, but the process is slow and, meanwhile, logging continues.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) could cut off funds to the DRC, enforce green criteria and encourage European governments to subsidize forest conservation but, instead, the IFC continues to invest in the worst Congalese logging firms, including a $5 billion-per-year, Singapore-based firm that removes over its allotment of hardwood, lies about it, doesn’t pay its taxes, and has been guilty of various forms of environmental fraud.

The DRC is a broken, impoverished kleptocracy that, if it were given financial incentives to protect its rainforests, the deforesting might stop and "the lungs of the world" could continue "breathing" normally.

By not bringing attention to the greed-driven, globally-financed, corporate realities of tropical deforestation, Al Gore, once again, shows that his desire to halt global warming is not as strident as his theatrically-expressed concerns.

Bailing out the DRC would cost a fraction of what the U.S. government expects its citizens to pay for corn ethanol. Instead, Al Gore’s buddies in the United Nations and Congress have come up with a "carbon tax" to tax us on our CO2 usage and "carbon credits," which they plan to sell among themselves, from developed countries that emit less carbon, to those that emit more. This allows them to continue producing as many emissions as they want, while imposing the "Kyoto Accord" on third world countries that haven’t yet had a chance to develop their own coal or oil reserves or factories.

What is the Kyoto Accord? The Kyoto Accord (1997) is an international treaty whereby countries agree to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit if their neighbors do likewise. It is a very complex agreement that allows trading pollution credits. If it is cheaper to reduce emissions in country A, then country B can buy the pollution credits and have them count toward its own quota of reductions.

The current Kyoto round calls for a greenhouse gas emission reduction of six percent in Canada and five percent in the U.S. The 1997 agreement, ratified by some 141 countries accounting for 55 percent of Kyoto qualified greenhouse gas emissions (apparently only man-made CO2 count as viable greenhouse gases), sets targets for industrialized countries to cut these emissions a whopping 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The treaty suffered a massive blow in 2001 when the U.S., responsible for about quarter of the world's emissions, pulled out, saying implementing it would gravely damage the U.S. economy and the treaty does not adequately require developing countries to commit to emissions reductions.

The UN says industrialized countries are now well off target for the end of the decade and predicts emissions will be 10 percent above 1990 levels by 2010. Europe and Canada are currently experiencing the utter failure of the Kyoto-style cap-and-trade approach. Thirteen of the EU-15 nations are failing to meet their emissions targets. Canada's environmental minister recently said that for his country to meet Kyoto's emission reduction target, it would suffer an economic collapse similar to the fall of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, China is on track to surpass the United States as the world's largest emitter within the year.

The Kyoto failure. Patrick Moore of Greenpeace states that the Kyoto/environmental movement has become the strongest force for preventing positive growth in third world countries and the devastation to their economies and life expectancy is irreparable. They are being told they can’t touch their oil, natural resources and coal and must develop only the sustainable energies, such as wind and solar, that developed countries do not want to bother with.

The congressional solution: Spend, regulate, tax and commission studies. Several "renewable fuels/energy efficiency/global warming mitigation proposals are being floated in Congress. They all have several things in common. Among them, the bills—even if fully enacted—would have a negligible impact on the climate but be costly to consumers, create complex regulatory and tax schemes and would compel the government to commission a seemingly endless array of task forces to "study" energy alternatives.

Our political leaders in Washington are going to demand the American people make significant economic sacrifices by paying an additional four percent, ten percent, or even more for gasoline and home energy costs in order to "do something" to address the climate "crisis."

What do Americans get in return for this economic sacrifice? They get "solutions" that are purely symbolic, or worse. The American people could opt to shut down Washington, D.C. with a flood of phone calls, e-mails, and faxes, commented Senator Jim Inhofe (R OK), before they allow any of these "solutions" to become law.

Carbon tax. One such "solution" is the "carbon tax"—a tax on the carbon content of fuels — essentially a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Proponents claim the tax will be "revenue-neutral," paid far "upstream" (e.g., at the point where fuels are extracted from the Earth and put into the stream of commerce, or imported into the U.S.). Fuel suppliers and processors would then pass along the cost of the tax to the extent that market conditions allow. Hmmm. Revenue neutral for whom?

The website at www.carbontax.org states that, "the levels of CO₂ already in the Earth’s atmosphere and being added daily are destabilizing established climate patterns and threatening the ecosystems on which we and other living beings depend. Very large and rapid reductions in the United States’ and other nations’ carbon emissions are essential to reverse runaway climate change and avert resulting severe weather events, inundation of coastal areas, spread of diseases, failure of agriculture and water supply, infrastructure destruction, forced migrations, political upheavals and international conflict.

"A carbon tax must be the central mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. Currently, the prices of gasoline, electricity and fuels in general include none of the costs associated with devastating climate change. This omission suppresses incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures such as energy efficiency (e.g., high-mileage cars and high-efficiency heaters and air conditioners), renewable energy (e.g., wind turbines, solar panels), low-carbon fuels (e.g., biofuels from high-cellulose plants) [no reference to how much carbon these "low-carbon fuels" require for production], and conservation-based behavior such as bicycling, recycling and overall mindfulness toward energy consumption. Conversely, taxing fuels according to their carbon content will infuse these incentives at every chain of decision and action — from individuals’ choices and uses of vehicles, appliances, and housing, to businesses’ choices of new product design, capital investment and facilities location, and governments’ choices in regulatory policy, land use and taxation."

A carbon tax won’t stop global climate change. The vast majority of the revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions would be returned to the American people, they claim, with some small amount utilized to mitigate the otherwise negative impacts of carbon taxes on low-income energy users:

"Two return approaches would include a rebate of revenues directly through regular (e.g., monthly) equal dividends to all U.S. residents. In effect, every resident would receive equal, identical slices of the total revenue pie. Such a program has worked in Alaska for three decades, providing residents with annual dividends from the state’s North Slope oil revenues.

"In the other method, each dollar of carbon tax revenue would trigger a dollar’s worth of reduction in existing taxes such as the federal payroll tax or state sales taxes. As carbon-tax revenues are phased in (with the tax rates rising gradually but steadily, to allow a smooth transition), existing taxes will be phased out and, in some cases, eliminated. This "tax-shift" approach, while less direct than the dividend method, would also ensure that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral.

"Each individual’s receipt of dividends or tax-shifts would be independent of the taxes he or she pays. That is, no person’s benefits would be tied to his or her energy consumption and carbon tax "bill." This separation of benefits from payments preserves the incentives created by a carbon tax to reduce use of fossil fuels and emit less CO₂ into the atmosphere. Of course, it would be extraordinarily cumbersome to calculate an individual’s full carbon tax bill since to some extent the carbon tax would be passed through as part of the costs of various goods and services."

The carbon tax concept is a ridiculously complex scheme based on scientific fraud, cultural tunnel vision and political naivete.

The truth is that global scientists don’t even agree on the cause of global warming and where this CO2 comes from. Some scientists believe that fossil fuel burning is one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions. That is opposite of other sources which state that, of the five percent of greenhouse gases which are carbon based (water vapor comprises 95 percent of greenhouse gases, of which 99.72 percent are natural in origin), 4.72 percent come from oceanic evaporation, volcanoes and animal excrement.

A separate UN report last year found that emissions from cows do more to drive global warming than C02 from cars, while a 2006 open letter by 60 prominent scientists to the Canadian prime minister states, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

Even the Kyoto Protocol—a draconian international agreement—assuming full compliance and that its proponents were correct in their global warming predictions, would have a virtually undetectable impact on the climate. But Kyoto would have a massive economic impact on Americans, imposing an estimated $300 billion tax—10 times larger than the previous biggest tax increase in U.S. history.

We are told that manmade climate change is proven without a doubt, but has it?

Al Gore’s Oscar, Eddie, Grammy, Emmy and Nobel Prize-winning argument rests on one all important piece of evidence: Ice core samples obtained by drilling deep into Antarctic ice that allows us to look back into Earth’s climate history hundreds of thousands of years. The surveys reveal a clear correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. When there is more CO2 the temperature gets warmer, Gore says, although the relationship between temperature and CO2 is complicated. He doesn’t say what those complications are.

Professor Ian Clark from the Department of Earth Science at the University of Ottawa, says that the important thing in the ice core data that Gore failed to mention is that the geologic material shows exactly the opposite of his claims. When the temperature goes up, there’s a lag of several hundred years before the CO2 increases. There have been several major ice core surveys, and they all show the same thing. Obviously CO2 didn’t cause the warming, the warming caused the CO2. CO2 is a product of global warming.

Professor Carl Wunson, Department of Oceanography, MA Institute of Technology, says, "If you heat the ocean, it emits CO2. The warmer it is, the more they produce; the cooler it is, the more they absorb. The oceans are so big and deep they take hundreds of years to warm up and cool down."

The current warming trend began at the end of the "Little Ice Age" which ran from approximately the 1400s till around the mid-1800s. Prior to that, a warming trend during the medieval period was a great age of flourishing agriculture, architecture and wealth. Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem, states there were many times in history when we had 10 times the CO2 in the atmosphere than we do today, but it doesn’t show up in temperature reconstruction.

An increasing number of government leaders and scientists are finally realizing that much of the motivation behind the climate scare has nothing to do with science.

Recently, prominent French scientist Claude Allegre recanted his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming and now says promotion of the idea is motivated by money. Professor John Christy, main author at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA meteorological achievement award winner, stated that most of today’s warming occurs on the surface of the planet, not in the troposphere where the warming would occur if it were caused by greenhouse gases.

Christy also said the numbers of scientists quoted by the IPCC as backing the concept of man-made global warming was artificially created; that scientists were not asked if they agreed with the assumption--their names were used even though many resigned in disagreement and, in order to beef up the numbers, reviewers and government workers’ names appear on the list.

Professor Philip Scott, Department of Biogeography, University of London, states that the IPCC is a political entity, not a scientific one and its final conclusions are politically driven.

If the common belief that CO2 is driving climate change is at odds with available scientific data – from weather balloons, satellites, ice core surveys and historical records, what is causing it?

New research by teams of international scientists is revealing that the sun has been a major driver of climate variability. Solar specialist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center explained, "We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years."

Open rebellion. The usual suspects will still insist that there is a "consensus" of scientists who agree with Gore. And yes, many governing boards and spokesmen of science institutions must toe the politically-correct line of Gore-inspired science, but the independent scientific community is now openly rebelling.

Sunspots. In the 1980s, Professor Piers Corbin, a climate forecaster from Weather Action, was able to produce accurate weather forecasts by studying sun spots, intense magnetic fields on the sun. More spots heralded warmer weather and during the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the "Maunder Minimum." Looking back 400 years, he discovered that solar activity rose sharply before the warming trend, and even fell off during the slight cooling period between 1940 and 1975, when the industrial revolution and auto exhaust emissions were at their height. Graphs of CO2 levels, sunspot activity, and polar weather fluctuations demonstrate that, while CO2 levels slowly rose during the 20^th century, including during the 1970s global cooling scare, polar weather accurately matches solar activity.

Meanwhile, ice on Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are also reportedly melting. Could there be SUVs and factories there, too?