Gore's team caught attempting to buy fake evidence of global warming

Yes, you read that title correctly.

If it was not for the principles of Australian Filmmaker Chris Tangey, the footage would have been used by Al Gore to deceptively support his AGW theory.

Here is the email:

On 25/09/2012, at 2:52 AM, Jill Martin wrote: Hi Chris, I work for former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Gore recently saw the amazing footage of the fire tornado taken on September 11th, and is interested in showing it during some of the presentations he gives on environmental topics. Could you give me an idea of what you might charge to license that footage to us? Here are some details about how it would be used: Usage: in live, PowerPoint-type presentations to live audiences Where: worldwide Term: for up to five years Context: Mr. Gore often shows photos and video of wildfires in his presentations. This video would augment that section. Thank you very much, Jill Jill Martin | Office of the Honorable Al Gore Jill@xxxx

Now, Chris knows that the fire tornado had nothing whatsoever to do with man-made global warming. He clearly explains that in his email.

To: Jill Martin Subject: Re: Licensing the “fire tornado” film clilp Jill,

Sorry for the late reply but I have been in Melbourne on a shoot down there. I’ve now had time to look at your offer to license my footage, no doubt for a substantial amount of money, and have carefully considered it. Having now had time in the last couple of days to research Mr. Gore and his usage of third party material previously I have to say I am a little concerned about the context in which my footage might be used. To be honest, in terms of a global warming/climate change presentation it is difficult for me to imagine a fire event less relevant. This was, by all accounts and as reported, a highly localized event. The fire occurred in a patch of highly flammable spinifex grass, renowned for its intense heat, which had remained unburnt for a period of over 50 years, possibly causing an unprecedented build up of oils and resins in that small area. The local cattle ranchers had been protecting the habitat of the nearby mesa, Mt.Conner right up until this month’s fire. On top of that it has been reported that the 10 day-old fire it emerged from was deliberately lit, not a natural event. In fact with not a cloud in the sky that day or even the slightest breeze, the only “weather” around had to come from the very-much contained area of the fire itself.

I am aware that you may have missed the reporting on the very localized nature of this firestorm. However, in any case, I am confused as to why you would offer to buy a license to use it at all unless you had conducted even elementary research which might indicate that this Mt. Conner event had direct linkage to global warming/climate change. I am happy to hear your response, but I can’t personally imagine one that I would find convincing.

Having taken all of the above into account I have had to make a decision not based on monetary reward but on what is the right thing to do. Hopefully I have demonstrated that I have not dismissed this offer lightly. For me, if I were to allow this footage to be used in an out of context scenario, even by insinuation, I just wouldn’t feel right. In fact if I were to use it myself in any climate change framework I would feel like I were being deliberately deceptive, so please thank the Vice President for your offer, but I must respectfully decline. Kind regards Chris Tangey

For a full reading of the emails, please visit the link below. This is a damming insight into the tactics involved in this 'social engineering' project.

blogs.news.com.au... witterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I wonder how widely this has been reported. Maybe under-reported is a better word.

reply to post by deessell


No

Man Bear Pig

IS REAL!!!!

Still reading, couldn't help it.


EDIT: Done reading.

Looks like a non issue, and obvious bias by certain parties...
I don't trust anyone who would want to make money "saving" the environment by burning DVDs for 25 dollars or whatever he charges (al gore) for his silly movie...

What I have not been able to figure out is does he even believe what he says/shows?

Maybe South Park creators know more than they let on, making fun of him so many times??

reply to post by deessell


If this is true, then it is better than that "coca cola ad" about surveillance camera's showing the good of humanity.
Bravo to Chris Tangey!?

The email sent by gore's assistant does not say they will use the footage of the firestorm as evidence for AGW... They just wanted to use the images as part of a presentation for what a warmer world, with more extreme weather events will look like. The reaction of this guy is a bit puzzling realy...

Originally posted by Atzil321
The email sent by gore's assistant does not say they will use the footage of the firestorm as evidence for AGW... They just wanted to use the images as part of a presentation for what a warmer world, with more extreme weather events will look like. The reaction of this guy is a bit puzzling realy...

The point being that Gore CANNOT use that photo as an example or ANYTHING else than what it is. The photographer clearly explains the reason as to why the localized event of that firestorm occured.
So you can't even say that this might happen if the Earth got a whole degree warmer or what ever bull # they are peddling these days.

Really Gore has nothing to do with his time, he has no skills, so he has to keep at it.

Originally posted by Atzil321
The email sent by gore's assistant does not say they will use the footage of the firestorm as evidence for AGW... They just wanted to use the images as part of a presentation for what a warmer world, with more extreme weather events will look like. The reaction of this guy is a bit puzzling realy...

The seeds of knowledge escape you.

The footage in question has nothing to do with current/future trends.

Knowing this, there is no legitimate use of the footage except to tell a specific story, about some fire..

I'll make a video showing snow and then tell you the world is freezing to death. Sounds good right?

Edit; I get it now.

This needs a much wider audience than it is currently receiving, especially in Australia, and especially since Australia is one of the few remaining countries interested in the second state of Kyoto.

The second phase of Kyoto is expected to go ahead but with fewer nations compared to number that agreed to cut emissions in the original 1997 deal. The US signed but never ratified that agreement because obligations were not imposed on big developing economies like China, India and Brazil. More recently, Japan, Russia, Canada and New Zealand have indicated they will not sign up to a second commitment period.

This leaves only the EU countries, Australia and probably Norway and Switzerland that will recommit. These account for a minority and declining share of world emissions, but Brazil and other developing nations say size is unimportant as long as the principles of Kyoto - particularly the idea that earlier developed nations should shoulder a bigger burden - are maintained. Countries currently outside of a binding deal, such as the US, China and Brazil, are supposed to implement voluntary pledges made at the Copenhagen conference. But scientists say the commitments on the table are far from sufficient to stay within the 2C goal.

www.theage.com.au...


And, Australia has implemented the carbon tax.

Whether man made or not the climate is wacky.
And if there are those that don't think oil companies
aren't cooking the books for their evidence as well,
they are being fooled too.

Your topic title is incredibly misleading. "Gore's team caught attempting to buy fake evidence of global warming".

This insinuates that they knew it was "fake evidence" (whatever that means), which is not true. They requested the use of his material. What they planned on using it for, was not determined. He could have used that video as evidence of man made fires ... who knows. Certainly not you.

"Context: Mr. Gore often shows photos and video of wildfires in his presentations. This video would augment that section". This was a video of a wild fire. I don't see how on earth you got the title to this post, other than willful neglect of information and biased views.

Don't spread ignorance on this forum please.

reply to post by Ryanssuperman


No, the video, as indicated by the man in Australia, that the fire was intentionally set.

What would Gore use it for, his new video of "Fire tornadoes set by man, which has nothing to do with climate change and seems to be a fluke not cause by weather or anything else?"

Yeah, sure sure.

So, whats new?
The art of video enhancing of somebodys views is far from new....
The Hamburger you see in the ads in TV would make you deathly illfrom eating it, its so covered with varnish, or other enhancements to make it so yummy looking on screen.
The entire world engages in this sort of lyng by inference, so that one cannot believe in anything seen anywhere that supported someones agenda....If Gore even knew his staff was seeking this footage is doubtful....buyt if so it shows.
Gores just another peddlar hoping to make a buck by selling fear.

It is quite obvious that film maker spotted the lack of concern as to what the film contained. He is telling her off, and rightly so. Whether Gore knew about, or saw the film is beside the point. What is equally unsettling is that Gore's material already being used, could just be sourced in the same way, without regard to its providence and context. that's deception, and there has been no shortage of deception in the science field on this same subject, as the University of East Anglia e-mails debacle shows. There were even threats, (which also contained downright lying) to bloggers over those e-mails by a leading figure concerned with those e-mails, and is also published e-mail. So, regardless of what you may think about funny weather, AGW, global warming, climate change, global dimming, and a host of other titles, the whole scenario is riddled with the bandwagoneers who want to cash in on it, just to line their nest.

imo who gives a rat's?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the release of millions of years of captured carbon dioxide in only a couple of hundred years (since the industrial revolution) wouldn't have an enormous effect on our climate. This point alone should make the debunkers think twice. But nope, no one seems to want to actually explain this. Maybe because they can't

LOL, What?

It's a scam. Nothing more than a NWO commodities exchange. A new game for them to play on us.

It would probably be smart to jump on the bandwagon early and become a broker for credits now.

HERE is a nice article from back in May, on InfoWars.com, called "Australians Face Huge Fines For Speaking Ill Of New Carbon Tax"

BTW: Here's a warning for all of you from Down Under, from the article:

“SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact,” reports the Daily Telegraph. According to ACCC deputy chairman Dr Michael Schaper, the warning applies, “to comments made by staff over the phone, on the shop floor or in meetings. It also covers advertising, product labels, websites, invoices, contracts and contract negotiations.”

*The emails from the OP obviously show Gore (his representatives) attempting to gain the rights to use in a misleading context, which was seen through immediately by the owner/artist. Good on him.

this is not a political issue, it is a science issue.
this is not about one man, it is about all of us


don't stick your head in the sand.

the proof is all aorund us

Originally posted by Dogdish
LOL, What?

It's a scam. Nothing more than a NWO commodities exchange. A new game for them to play on us.

It would probably be smart to jump on the bandwagon early and become a broker for credits now.

HERE is a nice article from back in May, on InfoWars.com, called "Australians Face Huge Fines For Speaking Ill Of New Carbon Tax"

BTW: Here's a warning for all of you from Down Under, from the article:

“SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact,” reports the Daily Telegraph. According to ACCC deputy chairman Dr Michael Schaper, the warning applies, “to comments made by staff over the phone, on the shop floor or in meetings. It also covers advertising, product labels, websites, invoices, contracts and contract negotiations.”

*The emails from the OP obviously show Gore (his representatives) attempting to gain the rights to use in a misleading context, which was seen through immediately by the owner/artist. Good on him.

nice try at manipulation but try to put things into perspective. Your apparent "terrible law" actually stops people from putting high prices on goods or services then blaming the carbon tax for the increase. a good example is the blatent lie spouted by the opposition that the electricity bills were up to 70% higher because of the carbon tax. But when this was examined, ONLY less than 10% was connected to the carbon tax and that the general public were actually compensated for this. In fact, they were given compensation that was MORE than the effect.

imo your example is nothing more than a good display of chinese whispers. The more it is propagated, the further from the truth it gets.

And back to the point I made, maybe YOU can explain how so much carbon dioxide locked up over millions of years wouldn't have a huge effect on our climate when released over just a couple of hundred years. You seem to have a great handle on NWO stuff, and profits from carbon credits, how about a bit of in depth reasoning to explain the carbon dioxide release stuff.

I thought this would be another Al Gore making himself look stupid thread, but it's actually a Chris Tangey making himself look awesome thread.

What integrity!

Originally posted by steve1709
imo who gives a rat's?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the release of millions of years of captured carbon dioxide in only a couple of hundred years (since the industrial revolution) wouldn't have an enormous effect on our climate. This point alone should make the debunkers think twice. But nope, no one seems to want to actually explain this. Maybe because they can't

This might help,

wattsupwiththat.com...

Carbon capture and release is an ongoing affair, undersea earthquakes, earthquakes in general, volcanos, land fires, underground fires and earth dynamics in general also over millions of years all make supposed AGW pretty much in the junior league.
Humans are not even coming to the table to date.
If you want to debate with an open mind, you could go here,

www.skepticalscience.com...

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
this is not a political issue, it is a science issue. this is not about one man, it is about all of us don't stick your head in the sand. the proof is all aorund us

The deception is all around us, starting with Gore's very fancy graph that takes up six screens in his presentation. perhaps you remember it. It was done in red. It showed perfectly well the correlation between CO2 and an increase in overall temperature. He always gets a laugh when he suggests there is no correlation, because it is obvious at a glance that there is.

Only one small problem.

The outgassing of CO2 took place from 800 to 1000 years AFTER the temperature rise. In other words, what likely happened is that the temperature increase CAUSED the increase in CO2.

But Gore won't debate with anyone. Believe me, there is AMPLE evidence this whole AGW nonsense is NWO related, in spirit if not in reality. There is so much deception going on here that it is frightful. The funny thing here on ATS is that you have thousands of people who will tell you 9/11 was a government plot, chemtrails are real, FEMA is a plot, the MSM is faking it, and these same people turn around and say,

AGW is real. You doubt literally EVERYTHING else then fall on you sword for this one. Un-friggin'-believable!

Well, if you are REALLY interested in studying the issue in depth and seeing where the deceptions lie I suggest reading (I know, it's tough) The Hockey Stick illusion; climategate and the corruption of science then come back and with a straight face and tell us AGW is real.

Hey, want another one? Want to know what "Hide the decline" means?



See how that green line disappears? What is the green line? Tree-ring data. CONTEMPORARY tree ring data. Now why is this important? Because our AGW friends used tree ring data (from half a dozen trees in Siberia) to "prove" that the Medieval Warming Period "never happened." Tree-rings are a "proxy" for way back when when we did not have thermometers. Now we do, and within THIS graph it shows temps going up, except tree rings show it going down. It wasn't going down at all, THEREFORE the tree ring data is wrong, and if it is wrong, how can they still use it for historical temperatures? It's much easier to erase it than to explain it and that is precisely what they did here. They "hid the decline."



And there's a graph that shows NO global warming in the last 16 years. None. And if you will actually STUDY this issue, rather than take whatever the MSM tells you hook line and sinker, then you might find a REAL conspiracy here rather than some idiotic one about chemtrails and reptilian aliens.