The debate goes on and more and more evidence points to the fact that Gore and Suzuki are way out of line with their predictions. Gore just received an Academy Award for hie propaganda film and, unfortunately, the majority of society seem to think this ex-veep has all the answers. As for Suzuki, consider that he, too, sometimes chooses his own comfort and convenience over the environment. The Suzuki-diesel-bus story, which is now making national headlines, has been an eye-opener for Canadians. He's not drastically changing how cross-country tours are done. He had all kinds of options on what mode of transportation to use. If he were practising what he preached, he would have chosen something much cleaner than a massive, diesel tour bus, which his own spokesman admitted was fancier than what they needed. Suzuki could have chosen biodiesel, a smaller vehicle or a hybrid. Yet he lectures us, ad nauseam, about the need to make daily choices to reduce our carbon emissions, telling us if we don't drastically change how we live, we're going to damage the Earth. Consider also that Suzuki's own group, the Suzuki Foundation, gets some of its funding from ATCO Gas, an Alberta-based natural gas distributor. And he and Gore deride Exxon for paying scientists to study global warming. Funding which has since been cut off. We're supposed to take these two as the gods who will save us from ourselves. Hardly.

Al Gore utility records show the family paid an average monthly electric bill of about US$1,200 last year for its 929-square-metre home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, bills spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5 showed. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours a year. In fact, it is more than ten times the average use. Okay, he has a big house to heat, but ten times? Gore's Nashville home is more than four-times larger than the average new U.S. home built last year, to the National Association of Home Builders said. So this translates into ten times the usage rather than four? A spokeswoman for Gore said he purchases enough "green power", renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas, to balance 100 per cent of his electricity. Gore apparently participates in a utility program that sells blocks of "green power" for an extra $4 a month and he purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and to help subsidize renewable energy sources. Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, said, "The group disputes whether global warming is a serious problem. We wanted to see if he was living by his own recommendations and walking the walk." His group said Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said the figures were obtained from Nashville Electric Service. Johnson says it's unclear whether global warming is caused by humans and that the threat outlined in Gore's documentary is exaggerated.

And both Gore and Suzuki want to be leaders. Gore as a possible president of the USA and Suzuki as the pre-eminent scientist whose views should be taken as gospel. Sorry, I for one don't buy it. I've seen enough of the ‘do as I say, not as I do' way of leadership. I'd rather have someone leading me who knows more about what I go through in my day to day struggles.
Johnson has a valid question. He says that "it's unclear whether global warming is caused by humans." Many other people are saying the same thing, but Gore and his followers try to shout them down at every opportunity. Man produces greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases cause global warming, most scientists agree, but how do greenhouse gases cause global warming? Of all the elaborate computer models incorporating a multitude of gases and other climatic factors, none have been conclusive. This is confirmed by more and more scientists, as they look for debate into the issue, but ignored by the ‘science is settled' crowd. Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center has been pursuing an explanation for why Earth cools and warms. His findings were recently published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the Royal Society of London, and they don't point to us. Svensmark's study had its origins in 1996, when he and a colleague presented findings at a scientific conference indicating that changes in the sun's magnetic field could be related to the recent rise in global temperatures. He was castigated in the press by the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, the chief agency investigating global warming, who said, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible." Others accused them of denouncing the greenhouse theory, something they had not done. Svensmark and his colleague had arrived at their theory after examining data that showed a surprisingly strong correlation between cosmic rays and low-altitude clouds. Earth's cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines. Low-altitude clouds are significant because they, in particular, shield the Earth from the sun to keep us cool. Low cloud cover can vary by 2% in five years, affecting the Earth's surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square metre during that same period. "That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square metre estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution," Dr. Svensmark explained.
The sun's magnetic field deflects some of the cosmic rays that penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, and so limits the immense amounts of ions and free electrons that the cosmic rays produce. Something changed in the 20th century: The sun's magnetic field more than doubled in strength, deflecting an extraordinary number of rays. The question was, could the lessening of cosmic rays in this century have limited the formation of clouds thus making the Earth warmer? To answer this, Svensmark undertook an elaborate laboratory experiment in a reaction chamber the size of a small room. His team duplicated the chemistry of the lower atmosphere by injecting the gases found there in the same proportions, and adding ultraviolet rays to mimic the actions of the sun. The results were rather stunning. A vast number of floating microscopic droplets soon filled the reaction chamber. These were ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules that had been catalyzed by the electrons released by cosmic rays. "We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work," Dr. Svensmark remarked.
Svensmark has never disputed the existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect. In fact he believes that an understanding of the sun's role is needed to learn the full story. However, not only does no climate model today consider the effect of cosmic particles, but even clouds are too poorly understood to be incorporated into any serious climate model. And Gore and his henchmen don't want you to even think about clouds as a possible source of global warming.
His cry of ‘the sky is falling and it's all man's fault' might ring a bit too false for his liking.
Sources: Lawrence Solomon The Deniers Pt. VI The Financial Post Kristin Hall Gore Overuses Electricity CNEWS Tom Brodbeck Suck It Up, Suzuki The Winnipeg Sun