Perhaps you should read this.
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica][size=2][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica][size=2]Washington, DC (March 19) – The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee should ask Al Gore the following “inconvenient’ questions about global warming when Mr. Gore testifies before the Committee on March 21. The questions for Mr. Gore were drafted by JunkScience.com.
**1. CONVENIENT JUNK SCIENCE?** In “An Inconvenient Truth”, you showed a graph of historic changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and implied that the graph showed that changes in carbon dioxide levels precede (and, therefore, cause) changes in temperature. While you called the actual relationship “complex,” you failed to disclose that scientific data actually indicate that changes in temperature tend to precede changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide by hundreds of years – a relationship that entirely contradicts the notion of, and alarm about manmade global warming.
**Question:** Did you intentionally mislead movie viewers about the actual relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide?
**2. ‘DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO’ ENVIRONMENTALISM?** At the end of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the movie tells viewers that, “You can change the way you live” – meaning you can reduce the amount of energy you use. Yet a recent report from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research indicates that your Nashville mansion consumed more than 20 times the electricity than the national average. Last August, your mansion burned more than twice the electricity in a single month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Your heated pool house alone uses more than $500 in electricity every month.
**Question:** Isn’t it hypocritical for you to tell everyone else to reduce their energy consumption while you consume energy at levels 20 times greater than the average American?
**3. CLIMATE PROFITEERING?** Your spokesman defended your enormous home use of electricity by stating that you offset your use through purchases of carbon offsets. But as it turns out, it is actually a UK-based business that you are involved with in that purchases the credits. Moreover, the vendor of your firm’s carbon offsets admits on its web site that offsets have no impact on global climate. What is the actual financial cost or benefit to you personally of purchasing the offsets?
**Question:** Do you or does your business profit directly or indirectly from carbon offsets and will you open your financial records to independent inspection as verification of your response?
**4. THE REAL INCONVENIENT TRUTH?** Last week, the UK’s Channel 4 premiered a 75-minute film entitled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Through interviews with prize-winning climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the origins of global warming alarmism; debunks claims of man-made global climate change; exposes the motivations of organizations, scientists and activists sounding the alarm; and explains why it’s been extremely difficult, if not downright dangerous, for climate scientists to question global warming orthodoxy publicly. The entire film, which is creating quite a stir among tens of thousands of web viewers, can be viewed online at [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831).
**Question:** Have you watched the “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” which among other things, exposes your effort to confuse viewers about the historic relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide?
**5. DEBATE DUCKING?** You have been challenged to debate global warming by “Skeptical Environmentalist” author Bjorn Lomborg and have been asked to co-sponsor a televised debate between scientists on global warming by Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com. You’ve rejected both requests.
**Question:** Why are you afraid to participate in a public debate about global warming?
“I hope that the Senators on the Committee have the courage to ask Mr. Gore these and other crucial questions relating to his sky-is-falling crusade to persuade the American people to turn over their energy policy and, ultimately, the economy” to radical environmentalists,” said Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com.
“While global warming alarmism seems to be providing both financial and political benefits to Mr. Gore” said Milloy, “the rest of us are getting a far shorter end of the stick.”