Predicted by those who have adopted Al Gore’s theories about global warming are parched crop fields, wars over remaining traces of water, hurricanes, drought, floods, heat waves, cold waves, desertification, volcano eruptions, food shortages and smog.

His “Inconvenient Truth” movie released in 2006 casts as inevitable such disasters should people around the globe not choose to follow his agenda of eliminating the use of fossil fuels and such.

But there’s a new road bump in Gore’s campaign, a movie deliberately named “An Inconsistent Truth” that undermines Gore’s ideas, and for two weeks straight it was the top movie as measured by per screen gross revenue.

A project of award-winning radio host Phil Valentine, it’s directed by Shayne Edwards. It simply takes the viewer on a quest for the truth about global warning.

“Many people believe in man-made global warming but they don’t know why,” the movie questions. “This is one of the most important issues of our day, yet the average American knows so very little about what’s really going on. Is that by design? Who stands to make billions off cap-and-trade legislation? Why do those who raise their voices the loudest lead the most wasteful lifestyles? Is carbon dioxide really a pollutant or is it a harmless gas that’s essential to life here on Earth?”

The IndieWire film industry website said “An Inconsistent Truth” “inexplicably continued to do solid business in its second weekend.”

Said the movie’s makers, “Hollywood seems to be confounded that an independent film that tells the other side of the global warming issues continues to pack theaters.

“It’s amusing to watch the consternation of those who don’t want this message out there,” Valentine said of the Hollywood head-scratching. “I believe this is one of the only movies, if not the only movie, that tells the other side that’s actually made it to theaters. The truth is loose and they don’t quite know what to make of it.”

Its makers describe the movie as an entertaining, fact-filled odyssey that prompts viewers to think about the questions.

“Valentine goes straight to the experts and so-called experts and demands to know the truth,” the movie promises.

He talks with scientists and politicians and pursues Gore, “the man who brought to world ‘An Inconvenient Truth.'”

The trailer:

A report only days ago in the Daily Mail of London said the purported “consensus” on global warming is disintegrating after new data indicate the planet has not warmed in 15 years.

The report said readings from 30,000 measuring stations globally, released by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, show increases in temperatures stopped in 1997.

Author Brian Sussman, author of “Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Expose the Global Warming Scam,” said the global warming warnings are a scam.

He commented when a series of emails from the CRU was leaked that showed that scientists appeared to be skewing results and doctoring statements to make their case for a continuing threat from man-made global warming.

The emails were leaked by someone tired of the agenda, he said.

“They blew the whistle to alert the world that political activists with Ph.D.s were using their academic cover to manipulate data and professionally blackball scientists with opposing points of view,” he said.

National Public Radio reported in 2007 how Gore took his “climate-change crusade” to Congress and insisted the science on the issue was “settled.” Then in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency declared carbon dioxide and other emissions are endangering the future of the world.

Sussman traced the origins of a “climate-scare” agenda to the “diabolical minds of Marx and Engels in the 1800s – down the ages to the global governance of the United Nations today.”

WND has reported that among the topics discussed by Sussman is whether there soon could be “Green Goon Squads” at citizens’ doors, checking energy usage.

“The legislation [then proposed] authorizes the Secretary of Energy to ‘enhance compliance by conducting training and education of builders and other professionals in the jurisdiction concerning the national energy-efficiency building code.'”

Sussman warned that the focus is not to save energy and money.

“It’s a social-engineering scheme, designed and promoted by the federal government to change your behavior,” he said.

Sussman also had targeted Gore’s financial interests.

“It’s widely reported that Al Gore is worth at least $100 million, although my well-connected [source] believes it may be closer to $500 million. Quite a success story for a guy, who, according to financial-disclosure records released just prior to his bid for the presidency, had a net worth near $2 million,” he wrote earlier.

University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit

It was in late 2009 when the EPA signed two findings that concluded greenhouse gases in the atmosphere “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The EPA’s rulings could mean thousands of dollars in additional taxes for individual consumers.

Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, then cited the doubts about the integrity of “climate change” science in a letter and asked for an accounting of U.S. taxpayer support for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The U.S. since 1994 has given some $50 million to the panel, and contributions under Barack Obama now have doubled.

In the original scandal that spawned the name Climategate, hacked emails of Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, England, and others uncovered schemes to employ “tricks” with warming trends, squelch skeptics and defame journals that published them.

Earth Day is all the evidence of deception needed, said Sussman. First celebrated in 1970 on the 100th anniversary of the birth of communist leader Vladimir Lenin, it was founded by Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis.; former Stanford student-body president Denis Hayes; and author and Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich.

“Lenin’s core political philosophy was linked at the hip with these newly fangled environmentalists who maintained that America’s government must be altered, its economy planned and regulated, and its citizens better controlled,” writes Sussman. “The environment would be the perfect tool to force these changes, and the most efficient way to gain converts would be through the public-school system – the earlier the better.”

Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., at that time suggested the Justice Department investigate scientists for potentially falsifying data. And the Orange County Register had posted a chart for readers to keep up with all the scandals developing in the “global warming” community.

Among the scandals listed are:

  • ClimateGate: The scandal over the Climatic Research Unit emails from East Anglia.
  • FOIGate: In which British officials are investigating whether East Anglia scientists refused to follow that nation’s freedom-of-information law about their work.
  • ChinaGate: In which dozens of weather monitoring stations in rural China apparently have disappeared, leading to higher temperature averages, since city levels frequently are warmer.
  • HimalayaGate: In which an Indian climate official admitted in January that he falsely claimed Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 to prod governments into action.
  • And PachauriGates I and II, SternGates I and II, AmazonGate (in which a claim that global warming would wipe out rain forests was exposed as a fraud), PeerReviewGate, RussianGate I and II and nearly a dozen others.

WND also reported when the St. Louis–based Peabody Energy, the largest private coal company in the world, petitioned the EPA to re-examine its decisions in light of the controversy over the scientists’ e-mails.

The company noted the “seriousness of the flaws” in the work.

Given the EPA’s “extensive reliance” on those reports, “the agency has no legal option but to re-examine the Endangerment Finding in light of this new information,” the petition said at the time.

On its website, the company said the EPA’s earlier ruling “could mean regulation of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of buildings, farms, businesses and other facilities in the U.S.”

Texas officials also filed a lawsuit accusing the federal government of using “tainted” information to arrive at the EPA conclusion and it asks that the EPA’s decisions be set aside. Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, also filed a petition demanding the EPA reconsider its greenhouse-gas finding.

The scientific community actually is anything but unanimous on climate change.

The disunity is documented by the Petition Project, launched more than 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. The effort by Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and cofounder of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in 1973, now lists tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse the following statement:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Among the original e-mails hacked from East Anglia and posted online was, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.