It was bound to happen eventually - someone from the global warming movement tying the recent Myanmar cyclone to the so-called climate change phenomenon.

Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR's May 6 "Fresh Air" broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by "Fresh Air" host Terry Gross about the release of his book, "The Assault on Reason," in paperback.

"And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated," Gore said. "And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China - and we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

If the Earth has a fever, as former Vice President Al Gore suggests, it's not showing signs of it.

According to Climateaudit.org's Steve McIntyre, global sea ice has actually increased.

"On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented' for the month of April in over 25 years," Steve McIntyre wrote on Climateaudit.org on May 4. "Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982."

That data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) suggests the effects of global warming aren't as dire as some media reports would have you believe. A segment on ABC's March 28 "Good Morning America" warned melting sea ice is endangering the global warming alarmists' favorite mascot, the polar bear.

As media turn against ethanol due to the growing international food crisis, there's one idol they need to topple: Nobel Laureate Al Gore.

After all, this man has not only been strongly advocating the use of biofuels for years, but has also admitted to having investments in companies involved in such agri-business.

Of course, it's possible press members aren't convinced enough about the the connection between ethanol and rising food prices around the world that they're willing to fell their Green God.

If this is the case, might I recommend such fence-sitters immediately read Marlo Lewis's spectacular piece "Food for Fuel Is No Laughing Matter" published at the NRO's Planet Gore blog Monday (emphasis added throughout):

Some more pieces of the "How Al Gore is Going to Become Amazingly Wealthy by Selling Climate Hysteria" puzzle came together Friday when the Silicon Valley venture capital firm he's now a part of announced a $500 million investment in green technologies.

Making matters more delicious, the firm already has investments in many of the same companies Gore admitted in March he has a stake in.

To begin untangling this web, let's first take a gander at what was reported Friday by the San Francisco Chronicle (emphasis added):

The blogosphere was abuzz Wednesday evening with a new study indicating that "global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate."

New York Times environment reporter Andrew C. Revkin wrote an article about this Thursday, although it appears mostly to point out to his readers that this hardly disproves man is destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels.

Before we get there, here are the pertinent facts reported by the British Telegraph Wednesday (emphasis added throughout):

Last week, NewsBusters reported the peculiar occurrence of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appearing alongside current Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a global warming ad funded by Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

Included in this piece was an explanation the former Speaker offered at his website regarding this matter which sparked largely uncomplimentary reactions in the rightosphere as well as from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

Two days later, Gingrich appeared on Fox News's "O'Reilly Factor," and answered Rush (video embedded right):

A remarkable thing happened Thursday: a press member wanted to ask Nobel Laureate Al Gore about the growing international food crisis and how it relates to ethanol and global warming hysteria.

Not surprisingly, the man who cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate fourteen years ago mandating the use of ethanol wasn't available, and a spokesman for his hysteria-driving Alliance for Climate Protection declined to comment.

Isn't that convenient?

Regardless, the good news is that press outlets continue to recognize this unholy connection, and that someone, even at the conservative New York Sun, would deign to report it (emphasis added throughout):

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently did a global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi that was sponsored by Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection (embedded right).

Obviously, he has taken a lot of heat -- no pun intended -- from conservatives for not only staking out a seemingly unconservative position on this controversial issue, but doing so in such a high-profile way with the likes of Pelosi and Gore.

Update: Sheppard responds to his critics at end of post.

With that in mind, Gingrich posted the following explanation at his blog (emphasis added, h/t Terra Rossa):

As the international disaster of ethanol begins taking its toll on the planet -- and, maybe more important, as press outlet after press outlet finally begins recognizing it -- will media remember that Vice President Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate requiring this oxygenate be added to gasoline?

After all, regardless of recent reports blaming ethanol for world hunger problems, rising food costs, and increased greenhouse gases, it seems highly unlikely green media will want to tie any of these problems to Nobel Laureate Gore.

Yet, as inconveniently reported by States News Service on August 3, 1994 (no link available, emphasis added throughout):

The problem with Chris Matthews playing footsie with the idea of running for US Senator from Pennsylvania: when he says something nowadays, how can you tell whether he means it, or is just trying to position himself for a possible run?

Take this evening's Hardball, during which Matthews castigated Joe Lieberman as having been a "terrible" running-mate for Al Gore in 2000. Kiki McLean, a senior Clinton advisor, was Chris's guest. McLean mentioned that she had been an aide to Lieberman in 2000, and to Gore when he was the Veep candidate [1992?]. That set Matthews off.

If you were looking forward to "An Inconvenient Truth, Part II," but this time with a happier ending, don't get your hopes up.

Alison Lehrer, a spokeswoman for Paramount, the production company behind Al Gore's Oscar-winning 2006 film, told the Business & Media Institute April 22 that no movie sequel is in the works.

"There are no plans for a sequel," Lehrer said. "That is the official word."

New York Times reporter John Broder's front-page Week in Review story was titled "Gore-Lieberman: A Hyphen Apart? Try Poles." Much like the story itself, Broder's lead was a lazy attempt at provocation. (NewsBuster Warner Todd Huston also dissected the piece on Sunday.)

Imagine for a moment the Supreme Court had gone the other way in Bush v. Gore in 2000. We would now be in year eight of the Gore-Lieberman administration. Well, maybe not the Lieberman part.

It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.

On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." [audio available here]

Adding delicious insult to injury, this was presented by one of ABC's foremost global warming alarmists Sam Champion during Friday's "20/20":

Want to talk about really inconvenient truths?

Well, despite Nobel Laureate Al Gore's massive campaign to scare the world into thinking the planet is facing imminent doom at the hands of global warming, Americans don't seem to be buying it.

In fact, a new Gallup poll released moments ago revealed, "a little more than a third say they worry about [global warming] a great deal, a percentage that is roughly the same as the one Gallup measured 19 years ago."

Hehehehehe.

Here are the exquisitely delicious details (emphasis added):

If you needed a better example of the hypocrisy involved in Nobel Laureate Al Gore's global warming hysteria, read this delicious segment from an article just published by the British Sun (emphasis added throughout):

The man who is now as much part of the Hollywood Establishment as he was a political player with the Democratic Party is very careful not to upset any of his celebrity friends.

He wouldn’t dream of suggesting that their lavish jet-setting and gas-guzzling lifestyles could be reined in for the good of the environment.

Imagine that. But that was only the beginning of the hypocrisy:

A few weeks ago, the good folks at Citizen Link published a video mocking Nobel Laureate Al Gore's $300 million ad campaign "to change the way you think about global warming" (embedded at right, h/t Joe D'Aleo):

To school-aged children all over the country, he'll shortly be as famous as that bear in the ranger hat who likes to put out forest fires.

The video then marvelously pictured what future transportation will look like in America if Gore and his sycophant climate alarmists get their way:

When Global Warmingest-in-Chief Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, the media's prideful gushing was so obvious it was almost sick-making.

Now, six months later, a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient is part of a group asking the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures."

Since it is a metaphysical certitude media will ignore this Prize winner, the following is a complete reprint of a letter sent to the IPCC on Monday (with permission):

For a man who gets better press than virtually any person walking the planet, one has to wonder why Nobel Laureate Al Gore would ever want to bar media representatives from one of his speeches.

After all, it's not like anyone is going to ask him a tough question, or write something that might expose him as the charlatan most folks not drinking the Kool -- er, I mean Global Warming-Aid understand him to be.

However, that's exactly what happened Friday afternoon when the Global Warmingest-in-Chief spoke at the RSA Conference with specific instructions for no press members to be allowed through the doors of the Moscone Convention Center.

As reported by C/Net News.com (emphasis added, h/t NBer Gary Hall):

For years, NewsBusters has reported on Al Gore's financial interests in advancing global warming hysteria around the world.

On March 1, while speaking at the TED Conference in Monterey, California, the Nobel Laureate admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "sub-prime carbon assets" like "tar sands" and "shale oil."

This occurred as pictures of such products appeared on the screen with names of the companies involved (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00, h/t NBer Sick-and-Tired):