This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


How Al Gore built the global warming fraud - And changed the alarmism from global cooling to global warming, and now climate change

Paul Driessen's picture
Senior Policy Analyst Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Heartland Institute

PAUL DRIESSEN is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Heartland Institute, public policy institutes that promote...

  • Member since 2001
  • 37 items added with 71,365 views
  • Oct 19, 2018

Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”

Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?

Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.

This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.

TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.” 

Global cooling gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.

Al Gore Sr., a powerful Senator from Tennessee, saw to it that his son was elected to the House of Representatives, serving from 1977 to 1985, then going on to the Senate from 1985 to 1993.  Gore Junior’s primary issue was his conviction that the Earth would perish if we did not eliminate fossil fuels.

Gore advanced to Vice President under President Bill Clinton, where he was able to enact policies and direct funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority of the United States Government. Gore’s mission was boosted when Clinton gave him authority over the newly created President’s Council on Sustainable Development. 

It will come as no surprise then that, when the Council’s Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, the “Scope of Activities” included the following direction to the Council:

Advise the President on domestic implementation of policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council should not debate the science of global warming [emphasis added], but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements. The Council should, at a minimum, identify and encourage potentially replicable examples of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across diverse sectors and levels of society.

Considering that the Council was tasked with advising the President “on matters involving sustainable development,” and alternative points of view on the science of climate change were effectively excluded, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton administration would go in the direction Gore wanted. Indeed, in their cover letter to the President accompanying their 1999 report, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, the Council stated: “Our report presents consensus recommendations on how America can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other steps to protect the climate.”

A cornerstone of Gore’s strategy was to ensure that all high-ranking government officials who had any involvement with funding policies relating to climate change were in line with his vision. These agencies included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.

Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, provided a series of graphic images showing the apocalyptic consequences that some had predicted if fossil fuels were allowed to continue warming the planet. Images included melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.

This compelling propaganda played a major role in frightening an entire generation about the future, causing young people and many parents to feel guilty about the role that they and their country were supposedly having in destroying our beautiful planet.

Since then, Americans have been told constantly that they should feel irresponsible if they drive cars or use fossil fuel energy to heat their homes or power their businesses. A rapid, massive conversion away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, we are told, is the only hope for saving the planet.

Now children are increasingly depressed about their future, thanks to the constant barrage of global warming propaganda that they receive at school. Indeed, they have become so brainwashed and cowed by their peers that they no longer dare to question any statement made about catastrophic climate change.

Yet, essentially everything in Gore's climate change agenda is either wrong or highly misrepresented.

Now that he is President Donald Trump’s Senior Scientist for the National Security Council, Dr. Happer needs to show there is no “scientific consensus” on these issues, rekindle informed debate on climate and energy issues, and help bring hope, common sense and real science back into the discourse – to help end the dangerous mythology of dangerous manmade global warming.

Authored by Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

Dr. Jay Lehr is the Science Director of The Heartland Institute of Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Portions of this article were excerpted with permission of the publisher and author of the 2018 book The Mythology of Global Warming, by Bruce Bunker, PhD, published by Moonshine Cove.

Paul Driessen's picture
Thank Paul for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Guy Dauncey's picture
Guy Dauncey on Oct 20, 2018

What is this? Since when did The Heartland Institute offer the best thinkers on energy and the climate? They are flat-out climate deniers, and this article is a science-denying waste of cyberspace, and an insult to members of the Energy Collective.

"The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources. The Union of Concerned Scientists found (PDF) that “Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects.” [1] (

Who is managing things here? 

Peter Shepherd's picture
Peter Shepherd on Oct 20, 2018

Why is the Energy Collective publishing articles that dispute mainstream science from the Heartland Institute? This same organization is also on record for denying any link between smoking and lung cancer: 

Nalla Namwob's picture
Nalla Namwob on Oct 20, 2018

If you really want to lose your credibility and memberships, publish utter rubbish like this article. If this bunch of propagandists has some proven published, and third party validated SCIENCE behind their rant, then publish it, otherwise it's nothing more than a Trump lie and rant. 

Rachael Lewis's picture
Rachael Lewis on Oct 22, 2018

As a platform for energy industry professionals we allow all respectful content and discussions related to the industry.

Our network oversight requires the removal of content that is 1) not related to the industry, 2) is blatantly promotional, 3) is profane or 4) is an attack on an individual. "

Since the Energy Central Power Industry Network is a public forum, the contributors of any article, shared article, posting, comment, question, answer or other content is responsible for that content.  We do not editorialize this content. 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Oct 23, 2018

Rachael, Driessen’s entire article is an attack on Al Gore and his motives, not on energy or even the science of climate change. He provides no substantiation for numerous claims, most of which are based upon the absurd assumption publicizing the growing threat of anthropogenic climate change is some kind of get-rich-quick scheme.

It’s not. In fact, Gore made virtually none of his fortune from climate related activities ($24 million in profits from An Inconvenient Truth were donated to his non-profit foundation, The Climate Reality Project).

If there is any profit at all to be derived from publicizing climate change, it pales in comparison to the hundreds of $millions in revenue earned by international oil and coal producers every year. And those profits are threatened by exactly what Gore said they are: an inconvenient truth, specifically that burning them is destroying the world our descendants will inherit.

In 2018, anthropogenic climate change is as much scientifically-accepted fact as “the Earth is not flat”. Can we accept those fundamentals as given, or will contributors be permitted to posit any alternative fantasy they wish?

Rachael Lewis's picture
Rachael Lewis on Oct 23, 2018

The opinions shared in this post are not necessarily those of the Energy Central Network team members, but we do not decline posts based on the opinions shared by the authors. Everyone is welcome to contribute their insights.

Also, Paul Driessen contributed the post, but he is not the author. It was Authored by Jay Lehr and Tom Harris, which is noted at the end of the article.


Michael Marullo's picture
Michael Marullo on Oct 29, 2018

Sorry, but you should reserve articles like this one for a newly created, "Absurd Humor" section. I get the idea of balance, but this is like publishing the rantings of a neo-Nazi in the name of balanced journalism. 

Wayne Lusvardi's picture
Wayne Lusvardi on Oct 23, 2018

In 2018, anthropogenic climate change is as much scientifically-accepted fact as “the Earth is not flat”. 

During the religious Crusades in Europe truth was based on "God is on our side".  Following Karl Marx, the euphemism "climate change" is now based on "science is on our side". 

I enjoy Meinetz's posts, but he apparently makes a living as a public relations and marketing consultant for the nuclear power industry and touts nuclear as the best technology to reduce carbon emissions.  

Consider the source. 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Oct 23, 2018

“Following Karl Marx, the euphemism ‘climate change’ is now based on ‘science is on our side’”.

Wayne, Karl Marx was a German philosophereconomisthistoriansociologistand political theoristBecause his contributions to science were roughly on par with those of Groucho Marx, however, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.

And no, I don’t occupy your imaginary position of “a public relations and marketing consultant for the nuclear power industry.” I only tout nuclear as the best technology to reduce carbon emissions because it is. If your response is limited to shooting the messenger, that speaks for itself.

Wayne Lusvardi's picture
Wayne Lusvardi on Oct 27, 2018

Not shooting messenger, just desiring full disclosure (even though I oppose closing down nuclear plants in California). I respect your opinions but not so much global warming and carbon reduction. 

In the 1930's the Federal government and California initiated massive infrastructure projects to combat "climate change" (also called droughts and overdrafts - some cyclical and some long term).  Those were the Federal Water Project in California and the Colorado River Aqueduct as well as Hoover Dam and Lake Mead.  I was involved in working for such an agency.  

I assume you worked in the nuclear power industry.  I worked for California's largest urban water wholesaler in real estate valuation but played a role on a task force during the 2001 California Energy Crisis and wrote on water and energy for several think tanks. I also appraise public regulated (CPUC) water companies for market value. 

Michael Marullo's picture
Michael Marullo on Oct 29, 2018

The difference here is that you can actualy see the glaciers melting, the oceans rising, weather patterns changing, etc. It's not an 'opinion' or a theory it's a fact!

Wayne Lusvardi's picture
Wayne Lusvardi on Oct 29, 2018

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....


Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Oct 30, 2018

Wayne, I hear you - the idea Jay Lehr, “Science Director” of rightwing think tank The Heartland Institute and convicted felon, might be an authority on climate change does bring a smile to one’s face.

Man Who Defrauded EPA Calls EPA ‘Fraudulent

Takes one to know one! Ha, ha.



Wayne Lusvardi's picture
Wayne Lusvardi on Oct 31, 2018


I have found to only trust the positions of retired eminent scientists who no longer have any skin in the game about global warming/climate change, not Warmists or Deniers. 

I laughed because obviously anecdotal evidence of climate change is not science as it can't be falsified. 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »