Paxety Pages

A Periodical - Internet Edition


Daily News and Commentary
Mahone Speaks
Lehamic's World
Cuba Libre
Bluenotes and Three Heads
Feature Articles
Tales and Humor
Our Animal Companions
9/11 Memorial
Guest Appearances

Site Meter

An Incontinent Truth:
Friday, June 16, 2006   By: Mahone Dunbar

Al Gore, Voodoo Science, And The Politics Of The Apocalypse


Above is a depiction of Al Gaea (also referred to as Gorea) fused with the traditional image of Gaea, the ancient tutelary deity of the earth. The synthesis of Gaea with Al Gaea began in the early part of the 21st century when, for unknown reasons, people started associating an otherwise insignificant and failed political figure with the ancient goddess of the earth. (Source: The Smithsonian Archives)


Junk science: What you get when you use junk brains. - Mahone’s Dictionary Of Obscure Terms


Voodoo Science And The Politics Of The Apocalypse


Al Gaea Saves The Earth

There's good news and bad news. First the bad news: Bill Clinton has finally made it official democrat policy; George W. Bush is responsible for the weather. And the good news? Thank God, Al Gore is here to save us.

I had a lot of involvement during the late seventies and early eighties with study groups (from Masonic-affiliated to native-American related and Western occult tradition to free-form weirdness) whose focus was on various apocalyptic scenarios; be it Mayan, Christian, Mormon, Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce, the one thread woven through these incense-laden think-tanks was the imminent destruction of the earth. Inevitably, a political POV was tied to the theories, and I soon realized why. My conclusion was that the people who comprised these groups had a vested interest in seeing civilization-as-we-know-it destroyed. The only way they had a hope of a political takeover, (as well as receiving a smug moral justification for being right) was by getting rid of all those nasty over achievers, suburbanites, armies, capitalists and . . . well, everyone who is not a radical hippie who thinks that the zenith of existence is to sit around smoking herb and banging on a drum, attending the occasional rally to show your political relevance by partying and protesting, and drawing a check from the government instead of being productive.

During my period of intense study of cataclysm through the ages, here is what I learned: Nature is nothing if not cyclic. Creation and destruction always arrive again - even if not exactly on schedules deduced from occult oracles - or their modern equivalent, computer models of the environment created by climatologists. No matter if you are a citizen of imperial Rome, white bread wasp America, Communist China, a dusty Islamic state, an Inca theocracy, a perpetually hungry African state, or even if you're simply a member of a bisexual Polynesian misanthropic anarchist commune which disdains intercourse with civilization, it is an indisputable fact that at some point nature will step in and level your collective karma.

This is inevitable. And when the tsunami, or earthquake, or polar shift, or tectonic slide, occurs, or when the ozone hole lets cosmic rays burn you to a fritter, or when global warming causes a melting iceberg to drown you in your beach house, it has not a thing to do with God/nature being mad at you for your politics, or religion or not keeping the Covenant of Abram. As a wiser man than me said, "It rains on the just and the unjust alike." Chew that one over. However, it is also inevitable that shortly after the tragedy some political or religious huckster will step up and point a finger at someone else.

Yet, all of the ancient apocalyptic-seekers, like their modern versions - which we'll call Goreans - spend their time lamenting how the opposition - Gnostics, Republicans, Christians, Cathars, heretics, Pagans, Godless-communists, i.e., all the other groups not hip enough to see how cool the truth is like they do - are responsible, be it from generating bad karma or driving SUVs, for the coming destruction. From the ancient God-kings to Hitler to Al Gore, leaders have always known this political and sociological fact: people always want someone to blame, be it for actual ills (say, taxes and crime or failed crops) or projected ills (cosmic destruction, or the weather).

And just as in medieval times the ruling hierarchy of priests (who where the political force of the times) explained to the peasants that each illness was a sign that some bad genie was at work, and a warning to the afflicted to get with the program, so too does each and every theology and ideology use the signs they've defined as pointing to world-wide destruction to anchor their point of view to the psyches of the population. If going to Hell some time in the by and by doesn't frighten the beJesus out of you, the reasoning seems to be, then perhaps the threat of immediate physical destruction in the here and now will do the job.

This is what Al Gore and Company are selling: salvation from destruction. Thanks anyway, Al, but given the track record of the democrats on . . . hell, everything else, I'd rather take my chance with Jesus - or maybe even the devil - before putting my hope in you and your voodoo science. It's the same old snake oil that's been around since the beginning of civilization.

An additional benefit of the apocalyptic-paradigm is that you get plenty of "signs" to interpret. If a flood happens in your enemy's territory, it's a sign, part of the cosmic lexicon. And if a hurricane and a tornado are a set of parenthetical brackets, and an earthquake a question mark, then surely a tsunami is an exclamation point. Since the weather is always happening, there are always plenty of signs. Whether tepid and ambiguous temperature rises, melting icebergs, ozone holes, or stronger hurricanes, nature is always mumbling at us. But is the wind whispering "Vote for Al Gore?"

It has been pointed out numerous times that many of the scientists trumpeting global warming (defined as the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change) are not experts in the very fields applicable to the temperature (mood) swings of mother earth. So what do actual climatologists think of the theories of which Gore has made himself the champion, as personified in the movie An Inconvenient Truth?  The following synopsis of data and scientific opinion from scientists who work in fields pertinent to global climate change gives us a pretty good idea.  (data source: "The Inconvenient Truth" by Tom Harris)

Should A Doctor Of English Literature Make Decisions About Brain Surgery For You?

The consensus of scientific opinion that Gore frequently refers to is misleading, at best. Professor Tim Ball, formerly of the University of Winnipeg climatology, explains that "climate expert" is the operative term, and that what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial since only a small fraction of them work in the climate field. Furthermore, among the fraction of those who do, many focus their studies on the impact of climate change, not the cause. Hence, Ball explains,

"While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change." So the fraction of "experts" becomes divided into an even smaller group. And even smaller still, since of this last group many are involved with designing and running computer studies of hypothetical futures. Ball continues, "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

Ball suggests we listen to climate scientists who use real data to try and understand what is occurring in the realm of global climate change. Despite what Gore and his ilk say, when it comes to the small community of scientists involved in actual research into global climate change, there is no consensus of opinion.

Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak," says Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia, "that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Former marine researcher for the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology at the University of Helsinki, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, addresses Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers falling into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier." (Emphasis added)

Dr. WibjOrn KarlOn, emeritus professor in the department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, at Stockholm University, concurs the phenomena is natural and expected. "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems." However, he states, the ‘mass balance of Antarctica is positive, with more snow accumulating than melting away, resulting in an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica grows and flows to the oceans. Assessing Greenland and Antarctica together, he says their mass balance might possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm per year, which is, KarlOn concludes, "not much of an effect."

The precipitous drop-off in the amount and thickness of the Arctic ice cap, starting in 1970, mentioned in Gore’s film is misleading, states Professor Tim Ball. Antarctica has weathered warming and cooling global temperatures for millions of years. Meltdown is not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology." And KarlOn, citing a study by Professor Igor Polyakow of the University of Alaska, published in 2003, explains that the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears has showed fluctuations since 1940, but have given no indication of an overall temperature rise. In fact, over the last 50 years, published records show a decrease."

Former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at the University of Exter, U.K., Dick Morgan, admits that, while "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years," there has been no melt down. Over the past few decades, Canadian Ice Service records show that though there has been a flux and flow of ice thickness, overall it has remained average. Morgan notes that Gore’s beliefs about worldwide warming, cooling trends are found in the NW Atlantic, massive cooling in the North and South Pacific Ocean as well as the Amazon Valley, the north coast of South America and the Caribbean, the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea, New Zealand and the Ganges Valley in India. Had, Morgan says, the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change, which is a thirty year average, instead of the Mercator, which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean, "warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Many of Gore’s citations turn out to be misleading. In the film he points out that 200 cities and towns in the American West set "all time high temperature" records. Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, replies that, "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records. The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson, testifying before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development at Carleton University last year, put his opinion succinctly: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this (geologic) time frame." He continued, explaining that, " . . . when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 459 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." (Emphasis added) Patterson concluded his remarks by asking the committee the rhetorical question "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" Then what is responsible for the rise in temperature? Patterson explains, referring to "hundreds of other studies," that there is a very good correlation between fluctuations of the Earth's temperature and certain celestial phenomena, such as changes in the energy output of the sun.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, cited above, summarizes Gore's polemics and activism tersely: "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In conclusion, it is safe to say - if you believe actual climate scientists - if there is a meltdown in our future, it will most likely happen to Al Gore. Meanwhile, supported by voodoo science, Gore and the Goreans will use propaganda and fear-mongering to influence politics by scaring the masses, resulting in legislation that you can be sure will curtail your freedom to choose and act in an independent fashion. This is what democrats do. What they can not achieve politically by careful persuasion, they achieve by lies and fear.


(c)1968- today j.e. simmons or michael warren