Al Gore’s climate change predictions IMPLODE as everybody realizes the North Pole didn’t completely melt

(Natural News) For some people, it doesn’t matter how often former Vice President Al Gore has been wrong in his dire predictions of planetary demise, thanks to human-caused “global warming” and “climate change.” They’ll believe him no matter what, until the day they die (from natural causes, of course, not from planetary demise due to “global warming” and “climate change”).

But for those of you who like and appreciate honesty from politicians and public figures, you have long given up any hope that Gore is anything other than a hapless, feckless Alt-Left partisan when it comes to his environmental activism.

That said, our job is to set the record straight, which is why we found it prudent to remind our readers that roughly nine years ago today, Gore predicted that many of you were going to be swallowed up by rising sea waters caused from tons of melting ice.

Needless to say, that didn’t happen.

In January 2006, Al Gore claimed that “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency” due to human-caused global warming.

Again in 2009, Gore told an audience in Copenhagen, Denmark, that there was a “75 percent chance” that during “some summer months” the “polar ice cap” would disappear completely within “five years.”

The claims were tied to his widely-debunked 2006 “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth, in which he won a very politically motivated Nobel Peace Prize. (Remember when Obama won a Nobel after just a few months in office based not on any accomplishments but on what the committee ‘hoped’ he would accomplish?)

As for Gore, nothing this man has said would happen as regards to the earth warming and slipping closer to self-destruction has come true. Nothing.

But that didn’t stop him from releasing a follow-up film to his original ‘documentary’ earlier this year called, An Inconvenient Sequel. “Sooner or later, climate deniers in the GOP will have to confront their willful blindness to the climate crisis,” Gore tweeted.

Right. Perhaps “sooner or later” climate-change and environmental hoaxers will have to confront the fact that most of us are onto them and no longer believe the lies. (Related: U.N. official actually ADMITS that ‘global warming’ is a scam designed to ‘change world’s economic model.’)

And with good reason. Not only has Gore’s wild claims of doomsday been debunked, so have other so-called environmental experts who have similarly predicted doom and gloom.

They include Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, a longtime environmental icon and author of the 1968 book “The Population Bomb.”

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Ehrlich confidently predicted in a 1970 issue of Mademoiselle, as reported by Investors Business Daily. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”

He further claimed to readers of The Progressive that same year that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people including 65 million Americans would be vanquished in the “Great Die-Off.”

In a 1969 essay called “Eco-Catastrophe!” he wrote that “most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born.”

The fact is, scare-mongers like Ehrlich have cried “Wolf!” so many times that few people believe them anymore. Gore is on that list.

So, too, is S. Dillon Ripley, longtime head of the Smithsonian Institute, who was once cited by Sen. Gaylord Nelson in Look magazine decades ago that, within 25 years, “between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

And so on.

To underscore Gore’s bogus predictions, there is now a cycle of global cooling, not warming, and sea ice and polar ice caps are growing, not receding.

Here are some constants: The climate is always changing, the weather is not the same as climate, and everything Al Gore says about both is wrong.

J.D. Heyes is editor of The National Sentinel and a senior writer for Natural News and News Target.

Sources include:

For more stories like these, visit The Common Sense Show

Please donate to offset the costs of The Common Sense Show




 Dave Hodges is a satisfied customer.  Listeners to The Common Sense Show will receive 5% off their next order by mentioning “Hodges9” in the coupon code box.  Don’t wait until it is too late. Click Here for more information.

From the Hagmann blood sugar protocol to the Hodges joint protocol, Dr. Broer has helped hundreds of thousands of people. There is something for everybody at Take 5% off the cost of your order with coupon code DAVE5

From the Hagmann blood sugar protocol to the Hodges joint protocol, Dr. Broer has helped hundreds of thousands of people. There is something for everybody at  FOR COMMON SENSE SHOW LISTENERS, YOU CAN TAKE 5% OFF OF ALL ORDERS FROM HEALTHMASTERS.  ACT NOW, THIS IS A VERY LIMITED TIME OFFER. USE THE COUPON CODE “5COMMON”


Source Article from

Mainstream Media Finally Realizes the Federal Reserve is a Private Bank that Controls the Govt

federal reservefederal reserve

(ZH) — While the concept of ‘independence’ among the unelected central bank cognoscenti is as cute as the tooth fairy or santa claus, it is nevertheless defended by those on high as sacrosanct to our very democracy. That is until The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board finally had enough of Fed officials joining the ‘resistance’ against financial reform…

Via WSJ,

Janet Yellen didn’t run for President, but you wouldn’t know it from her policy démarche Friday at the Federal Reserve’s annual Jackson Hole retreat. The Fed Chair unleashed a defense of post-crisis financial regulation that shows how political the world’s central bankers have become.

“Already, for some, memories of this experience may be fading—memories of just how costly the financial crisis was and of why certain steps were taken in response,” Ms. Yellen said.

She added that regulatory changes “should be modest” and retain the superstructure built under Dodd-Frank.

Ms. Yellen’s comments followed a blunter recent warning from Fed Vice Chair Stanley Fischer, who told the Financial Times that “one can understand the political dynamics of this thing, but one cannot understand why grown, intelligent people” would “reach the conclusion that” you should “get rid of all the things you have put in place in the last 10 years.” Thank you, Senator Warren, er, Fischer.


This is extraordinary. Fed officials are launching a political campaign to retain their vast discretionary control over the American financial system. The brazenness of the effort shows how far afield central bankers have roamed from their traditional remit of monetary policy, which Ms. Yellen barely mentioned. You’d think she’d focus on that duty given that the Fed faces a watershed as soon as next month as it decides whether to begin rolling back the $4.5 trillion balance sheet it has amassed since the 2008 financial panic.

The size and scope of that balance sheet is itself a political intrusion because the Fed’s bond purchases are a form of credit allocation. The purchase of mortgage securities favors housing, while the Fed’s focus on long-duration bonds has been a deliberate attempt to push investors into riskier assets.

These decisions haven’t done much for the real economy, which has grown at a historically slow pace since the recession ended in June 2009. But the Fed has succeeded in lifting some asset prices, and no one knows what will happen to those prices once the Fed begins unwinding its portfolio. Perhaps it will all unfold without a hitch, but some very smart people aren’t as sanguine.

As for the stability of the financial system, Ms. Yellen and Mr. Fischer are at pains to assure us that, due to their efforts, all is well. “Banks are safer,” she says, thanks to capital and liquidity mandates and the wisdom of financial regulators. Oh, and “credit is available on good terms.”

But Ms. Yellen wasn’t nearly as optimistic about lending in the later Obama years. She often fretted that tight credit conditions were limiting growth, and the facts bear out that concern. Bank lending in the current expansion has trailed that of seven previous recoveries, and lending for small business has been especially slow. None of this is cause for Fed triumphalism.

Banks are safer, but they should be after eight years of modest expansion. The real test of financial stability comes in times of economic stress, when interest rates rise or investors get nervous and rush to safer assets. The system has already had one liquidity panic, in October 2014, when the yield on U.S. Treasurys moved some 40-basis points in a day.

You have to ignore history to believe that regulators are suddenly so wise that they know the current regulatory regime will prevent the next crisis. The Fed misjudged the economy in the mid-2000s and kept feeding easy credit that produced the housing bubble. Fed officials Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner then underestimated the financial risks in early 2008 when the stresses were already apparent.

That’s one reason to support a financial regime with high levels of capital to defend against potential losses but with less regulatory micro-managing. This is the trade-off that House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling has proposed, which contrasts with the lower capital and lower regulatory barriers that the Trump Administration seems to prefer.

This is the debate we should be having, but the Fed wants Americans to believe that Dodd-Frank is gospel and the only alternative is to return to pre-crisis policies. The irony is that Ms. Yellen is thus associating the Fed with the post-crisis status quo that has been splendid for Goldman Sachs and giant banks that have gained market share and can afford higher regulatory costs.

Ms. Yellen did concede that “there may be benefits to simplifying aspects of the Volcker rule” that limits propriety trading, which is the least she can do since the rule as written is more than 950 pages of text and explanation. But until she runs for public office, she and the Fed ought to stick to executing regulatory policy rather than trying to dictate it.

Ms. Yellen’s term as Fed chair expires early next year, and her Jackson Hole foray is a signal to President Trump about what he can expect if he reappoints her.

The Fed needs a leader who won’t bend to political pressure. But it also needs a leader who understands the limits of the Fed’s political role.

Source Article from

WATCH: Cop Throws a Tantrum When He Realizes He’s Being Filmed, Attacks Innocent Man


Anne Arundel County, MD — Even though a young Texan named Phillip Turner won a lawsuit at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, setting a precedent for Americans to record their interactions with police, some clueless officers simply don’t get it.

Anne Arundel County police officer Cpl. Scott Wolford is one such cop. He was caught on camera attempting to take a video camera from a citizen and just got suspended as a result.

Officer Wolford responded to a business dispute whereby a man was claiming a homeowner did not have the right to put his hands on him. The homeowner was accused of pushing the man out of his home. Wolford responded to the call for police intervention and began to explain to the man that the homeowner was within his rights to remove the man from his premises.

Neither the man who was complaining, nor the other gentleman who was recording were at all angry or disrupting the peace, but the presence of the camera was enough to set Wolford off.

“Are you recording me? That’s really nice,” Wolford said to the man who sounded like he may be Latino (Elias Crespo Tejada reportedly uploaded the video to social media but it cannot be confirmed if Tejada is the man recording the incident).

Knowing the company the man worked for would want to know precisely what transpired at the address, the man responded by saying, “I’m in my right.”

Wolford then scoffed at the idea that citizens have a right to record police interactions and then immaturely mimicked the man like a child when he asserted his right to record in public.

“I’m in my right to do that – for my company,” continued the man who was filming. At that time, Wolford lost his composure, one could say, and grabbed for the recording device. “Let me see that real quick,” he said. There appeared to be some sort of struggle, and the man recording ran away.

The unnamed man who was recording exclaimed, “he’s trying to push me, hit me!” Wolford said a few inaudible things, got into his police cruiser and left the scene. But the attempted camera confiscation was not the end of the incident.

Anne Arundel County police later issued a press release which reads in part:

…members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record officers while they are conducting official business in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity.

Such a response by the police department was likely given because of the great number of lawsuits being brought against officers who have confiscated and destroyed citizens’ cell phones, video cameras, and other recording devices.

The settlements of such lawsuits cost money for counties and police departments when they have to pay for the violations of free speech.

Anne Arundel County Police Chief Timothy Altomare made the following statement.

The Anne Arundel County Police are 100% committed to providing courteous service and protecting the rights of the citizens we serve. When we see these standards not being met, we will deal with violations of our policies forthrightly and with integrity. We are doing so in this case.

Internal Affairs is now conducting its own investigation into the camera grabbing officer. Meanwhile, Officer Wolford has been suspended, probably with pay, and will likely resume his official police duties once the matter has been resolved. In other words, the officer has been given a free vacation at taxpayer expense.

Remember, always film the police.

Source Article from