Part II: Ten Questions with A Climate Crisis A La Gore Author Paul Spite
This week I conclude my interview with Paul Spite, author of A Climate Crisis a la Gore.
Don’t forget – 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.Â To enter yourself in the random drawing, simply leave a comment at the end of this week’s or last week’s article. One random commenter will be chosen on Tuesday, November 4th.Â Leave as many comments as you wish and each will be counted as an entry.
If you wish to purchase the book, head over to its page at Amazon (not an affiliate link).Â Now, on to the interview conclusion.
SGW: With carbon dioxide levels increasing every single year, shouldn’t the planet continue to set a new record global temperature every year as well?
PS: This is probably the easiest to answer. Temperature records would be set only if there is indeed any real correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperatures. Since there is no correlation in real life, maybe, probably, even certainly, there is no correlation in theory. At a climate conference in NY last March, it was reported, by meteorologists present, that the average global temperature last year was the same as in 1900, the supposed end of the last ice age. The prudent response to â€œglobal warmingâ€ might be the purchase of cold weather gear.
SGW: You make some references to the Bible in your book.Â How does Gore’s vision of the future contradict with that of God’s?
PS: They are actually pretty much the same, but for vastly different reasons. God is not seeking profit from the prophesied destruction. I think Mr. Gore knows enough about prophecy and its surety to be trying to cash in on what is coming. Unfortunately, when those prophecies begin, they end in a destroyed Earth, not just when Mr. Gore has acquired all the profit and power he desires. Mr. Gore has another home ready in London to retreat to, if or when America realizes the Emperor is wearing no truth. I do not think he has another universe to flee to. I could go into far more detail, and will in an upcoming book entitled Standing on the Edge of Time, but the upshot of what I believe is happening, based on scripture, is this. What we call â€œnatural lawâ€ is actually the authority, the Word, the essence of God, used in Creation to bring the universe into existence. The Bible says the same Word that created the universe also sustains, or preserves it. Scriptures also tell us God is holy, and recoils from iniquity, from sin not repented of, and will not co-exist with evil. The blood of innocent Abel cried to God from the ground, staying resident in the Earth until balanced by God. What do we suppose is the end result of the blood shed in the deaths of millions of innocent unborn children every year? I believe the Spirit of God, once resident in the Earth and keeping it in balance, is departing from the evil building up therein. This withdrawal of Godâ€™s presence from His creation would account for all the â€œsigns of the timesâ€ mentioned in Revelation and referred to by Mr. Gore. The departure of the God, who claimed to be Truth incarnate, would also permit the rise of false prophets to deceive many and account for the growing lack of interest or concern with truth. By now, you are probably sorry you asked.
SGW: Of all the tactics used in Gore’s documentary to convince the viewer that climate change is real, which one works the best and why?
PS: Claiming the support and the agreement of the dead or the unnamed is certainly effective. Claiming a consensus is hard to refute except by extensive and expensive polling. Claiming linkages between two unrelated entities, neither of which has a definable cause, is as effective as claiming that climate change is responsible for the increased divorce rate, but such linkages are hard to actually disprove. But the constantly changing rhetoric is one of the most devastating tactics. It is hard to hit a shifting target. That is why claims of â€œglobal warmingâ€ resulting in â€œmore and more powerful hurricanesâ€ have now been changed to â€œfewer but more powerful storms.â€ This was in response to, you guessed it, fewer storms occurring after that prediction. By the way, there has been no increase in the power of the storms either, just in the amount of property damage due to inflated building prices and more people willing to risk living in harmâ€™s way. What is almost amusing is the current shift from â€œâ€™global warmingâ€ caused by â€˜greenhouse gasses, especially CO2â€™,â€ to â€œâ€™climate changeâ€™ caused by many factors, including many types of emissions.â€ Wow!
SGW: Can you tell my readers more about Gore’s call to keep rivers and lakes clean and the tie-in to the zinc mining on his farm in Tennessee?
PS: In 2000, in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Morrison wrote an article entitled â€œAl Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner.â€ (Read more:www.debatethis.org) will take your readers to more information about this travesty. In it is detailed the real concern Mr. Gore has for the environment, his land, and the nearby Caney Fork River, whose virtues he so extols in his documentary. I live about twenty-five miles from this mine. When I read this, I asked a friend from Mr. Goreâ€™s hometown if he was aware of this pollution of the river coming from Mr. Goreâ€™s property. His response was that while Mr. Gore may have the American people fooled, Carthage would not likely elect him to the post of dog catcher. He seemed a little bitter.
SGW: With all of the conflicting information today around the climate crisis people still have one question:Â is it real or not?Â And if people want to truly understand if climate change is reality or is simply junk science being pushed by someone with an agenda, what is their best option to filter through the noise and come to a conclusion about the subject?
PS: Is â€œclimate changeâ€ real? Of course it is. It changed while you were reading this. It will change by tomorrow. With no climate change, seeds donâ€™t die and we get no crops. The many factors which have influenced climate in the past still influence it today. No amount of legislation, innovation, or interference by man will change that in the slightest. The biggest factor is the sun, and no tax will alter its influence in the slightest. Other very large ones are the jet streams, the ocean currents, cloud formation, and so forth. Atmospheric gasses, especially water vapor, play a huge part. CO2 even plays a very minor role. We hardly have any influence, other than a slight tempering in the climate directly around us. Real scientists, perhaps stirred by this debate, are trying hard to understand and quantify the effects of all these factors. I wish them well, though I believe we are out of time. Claiming we can affect the climate, and inventing fanciful and non-quantifiable claims, is where the junk science comes into play. The best determinate for a source of truth is to look at those offering truth, myself included, with a jaundiced eye. Follow the money and the motive. Why is this person saying what they are saying? If they are making a great deal of money from others believing them, and making no changes to their own lifestyles, despite the supposed catastrophic danger represented by the same, take those things into consideration. Actions speak far louder than words.
SGW: Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer my questions, Paul.Â I wish you the best of success with your book.
Again, Paul Spite’s book A Climate Crisis a la Gore is available on Amazon (not an affiliate link).
Keep up-to-date with the latest at Skeptics Global Warming!
Subscribe to my FREE RSS Feed in your reader today!
Or, subscribe to FREE updates in your email.
Alternatively, you can follow me on Twitter.