Sadly, all the funny pictures and the links are no longer visible, but this is a post from 2009 that I wrote in response to the drumbeat of AGW. I'd put them back if I could. I think the post is as relevaant today as it was 10 years ago... alas, nothing has changed. The MSM and IPCC are still beating the same drum, and the re-election of the Australian Government that is opposed to the drumbeat of carbon taxes etc. was accomplished by only the slimmest of margins.
The links are still active on the original
Seeking Alpha post.
Not that I think this particular post did much, but Thank God that Cap-n-Trade was finally defeated in Congress. If I did anything in my life to help achieve that result, I will die happy and fulfilled.
I hope you find it as fun and illuminating as I did when I wrote it.
Marketplace
Seeking Alpha
SUBSCRIBE
Portfolio
People
News
Analysis
Sign in / Join Now
Thomas LaCour
Thomas LaCour's Blog
Send Message
Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.
THERE IS NO GOD BUT GLOBAL WARMING AND ALGORE IS HIS PROFIT
Oct. 27, 2009 11:23 AM ET|Includes: Aflac Incorporated (AFL), AQNT, GE, GS, MSFT
TEXT of the Copenhagen Treaty
THERE IS NO GOD BUT GLOBAL WARMING, AND ALGORE IS HIS PROPHET
“The earth has a fever! And the fever is rising…[Something] basic is wrong. WE are what is wrong…If we continue at the present rate, virtually all the species of fish in the ocean will be extinct in the next 50 years…sea-level increases of 20 feet or more worldwide…We have seen the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees from an environmental crisis like Katrina. Imagine 100 or 200 million!” – Al Gore
So the fanatical haters of humans and industry would have us believe: coal-fired power plants, our barbecue pits, and our very breath have brought us to the Brink of Disaster. Poor Gaia, prostrate Mother Earth, ravaged by a cancer called humanity! Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by burning ex-plants, whether renewable wood or “fossil” fuels, is causing temperatures to rise. Too many people on the planet! Their breath emits more of the pollutant CO2! Their vast herds of cows and other food animals fart potent clouds of methane into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases (NYSE:GG) trap incoming solar heat to the earth, temperatures rise, Catastrophe Looms: rising temperatures beget rising oceans that release yet more GG that traps more heat, and voilá! runaway Global Warming. We get cooked. And drowned. The planet dies.
Harass your Senator with calls, emails, letters. Sign a petition to stop Congress from crippling us based on falsified alarmism: here (1.8k signatures), here (70k signatures), here (179k signatures).
If you meet the qualifications (degree in science), sign this high-impact Global Warming Petition and send it in. Congress MUST be stopped from enacting Cap-n-Trade, the EPA must be stopped from its contemplated regulation of Greenhouse Gases, and Obama's Copenhagen Treaty must not be ratified by the Senate.
“Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination.” – Al Gore
Cattle (1.5 billion worldwide) are “responsible for 18% of “human-related” greenhouse gas (hrGG) emissions, more than all transportation combined, according to Livestock’s Long Shadow, a 2006 “report” from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Actually, it is 4% of hrGG, but various formulae transform cow flatulence and manure into a threat greater than jets and the internal combustion engine. And those ruminants produce 64% of “human-related” ammonia, which – get this – “contributes significantly to acid rain.”
Well. Ammonia is a base. It reduces acidity, acts to neutralize acid, for those who missed high school chemistry. And, how strange that the enormous population of cows, buffalo and bison (500 million – 1 billion) in the 1800’s didn’t give us Acidified Oven Earth…
“The planet has a FEVER! If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action!” – Al Gore
The European Union (NYSEARCA:EU) is hot to take action! They are pursuing a new Emissions Trading Scheme Item for Cow Farts.
At $175 per cow, it matches that under consideration by the EPA here. Dairy and beef operators would face bankruptcy if these regulations go into effect, and prices will have to increase to keep solvent. Add the effect of increased oil prices baked into Carbon Tax legislation, and we will pay even more: $6 per pound MORE for meat, more for milk (get ready for $8/gal), butter etc., and pay EXTRA in other ways to fund the offsets the industries will surely get Congress to pass.
All farmers would be affected: “Crop production emits nitrous oxide from fertilizer and methane from rice production, and fields that emit 100 tons of carbon would also be subject to permitting requirements as well. Any Florida farm with 500 acres of corn, 250 acres of soybeans, 350 acres of potatoes or only 35 acres of rice would be forced to obtain Clean Air Act permits.” And forced to buy Carbon Credits. And pay Goldman-Sachs hefty brokerage fees to trade them. And pass the costs along to us. Bread at $9 a loaf. Low-cost, mass-produced American beer at $17 per sixpack.
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” – Al Gore
The outrageous exaggerations and outright lies in his despicable propaganda "An Inconvenient Truth" are ubiquitous. Congress and the EPA are enacting laws based on that prairie pizza. Schoolchildren across the world BELIEVE. They have been successfully indoctrinated and some are already VOTING. In England, the High Court ruled that 9 errors were so serious that the movie could no longer be shown in schools without an accompanying presentation of its fallacies. The Court ruled that
"if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
The major exaggerations and lies are rebutted, soundly, scientifically, in Lord Monckton's 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie. And yet the MSM continues to spout the Religionist lies. Algore was awarded an Emmy, Oscars, and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (shared with the infamous IPCC) for this pack of poop. Liberals, Statists and One-Worlders are very keen to continue the push toward UN control of nations by Treaties promising to fight "Climate Change." At the Minnesota Freemarket Institute Conference on Friday 10/23/09, Monckton noted that:
"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it."
The tactics and goals of Islamofascist Jihad and the Global Warming Pushers mesh perfectly. Read Have we no Hannan, no Wilders?. Note the warnings of Geert Wilders:
It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: "Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance", and "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace", and "We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress". End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!
President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic 'Barbary' states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians.
The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?
Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members. The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.
As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: "Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society" - end of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it's a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.
As Algore has become the Prophet of the GW Religion, the UN has become its Temple and repository of the Sacred Writings. The UN is the premier Institutional peddlar of the Global Warming Scam through its creature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, chartered in 1988 under UN Resolution A/RES/43/53 entitled “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.” The resolution states in plain doublespeak the UN’s “concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels,” and directs the IPCC to “provide internationally co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic response strategies.”
In plain English, the UN is already sure that Global Warming is occurring, that its consequences will be bad, and charges the IPCC to document global warming, predict its timing and consequences, and recommend what the UN should tell governments to do to stop it.
The IPCC has issued four “Assessment Reports” (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007) with increasingly alarmist tones that promote the following notions:
1 The climate as of now (or that of 1900) is optimal. We must not let it change. We can stop it changing.
2 The planet is warming. Global Warming = Climate Change.
3 The warming is wholly or mainly anthropogenic (caused by Man).
4 Man and his activities emit greenhouse gases (GG) that cause the warming, the worst being carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, which turns into CO2 over time in the air.
5 If we do not reduce CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise past the “tipping point” and runaway self-reinforcing Global Warming will occur.
6 Observed temperature and sea-level increases, and glacier / polar ice decreases, indicate that we are at or near the “tipping point.”
7 Runaway Global Warming will result in:
a massive, killing air temperature increases (5–20 ºC)
b massive, fish-killing sea temperature increases
c flooding, tidal waves, 20-ft (Algore) or 2-ft (NASDAQ:IPCC) rises in sea level
8 Life – plant, animal, human – will suffer horribly, die out to a great extent, and the planet will essentially be killed
9 Valiant, forward-thinking and Earth-friendly Ecowarriors can best fight hrGG emissions by instituting Carbon Taxes. (“Taxes” being unpopular, most countries use Carbon Reduction Plan, Cap-and-Trade, or other PC terms).
10 Those who do not join #9 to stop #2–8 above will hasten the day #8 arrives and deserve any mistreatment and will go straight to HELL. Convert, or die.
The Global Warming Religionists claim that the “science is settled.” Debate is pointless, “there is a scientific consensus.” Those who raise questions or present opposing evidence are publicly hounded, ridiculed, blacklisted. Scientists such as Dr. Alan Carlin, an EPA science analyst, are being stifled. He was told by his superior at the EPA in March 2009 to stop all work verifying or questioning IPCC reports. An email was sent to him:
The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
The Administration has suppressed Carlin’s report, banned him from writing or speaking about climate change, told him to forget about attending any meetings that addressed his main job function—climate change—and gave him a new assignment: updating a grants database.
As a Ph.D. chemist, I know damn well that Science is not Law, and terms like “consensus” and “settled” are PC doublespeak, not scientific terminology. As a historian, when I hear “that person is out of the mainstream,” I think of Galileo. I think of Alfred Wegener, ridiculed by the “scientific community” of the early 20th century for his theory of continental drift, and who died disgraced. The theory was later realized to be sound, and is now taught in high school as Plate Tectonics.
The only thing that counts in science is EVIDENCE, and it better be verifiable and reproducible. If a theory or hypothesis is found unable to account for certain facts, it is WRONG. If it does fit all the facts currently known, but makes predictions that turn out to be false, it is WRONG. And even where the theory fits the facts, and makes a few predictions that are verified, it is still not proved. Not ever. It will always remain theory, a working hypothesis, and subject to being disproved if new facts come into evidence.
And so, with respect to Global Warming and the Religion preached by Algore and sanctified in the United Nations, does the theory fit the facts? Should we cripple our economies to stop Climate Change, especially since China, India, Russia and others will not go along? Is it even within Man’s reach to guide the climate of a planet, or is that some hefty hubris?
Most of the following information was known when the IPCC published AR4 in 2007, and all of it was known when the U.S. Congress passed its Climate Change bill. All of it and more is known to the delegates to the Copenhagen Conference in this coming December. The science is flawed, in some cases falsified, and in all cases evidence is insufficient to pursue Climate Change Legislation. But the push is on, harder than ever.
What everyone agrees on: not much. Temperature measurements showed a net global increase of ~0.8 ºC from 1898–1998 (land-sea surface temps), with a 0.4 ºC (land-sea surface) to 0.6 °C rise (satellite) from 1980–1998. From 1998–2009 global temperatures dropped below the 1980 mean (satellite). The year 2009 has not been one of the warmer on record across the world. And measured CO2levels are increasing. Anything else? No. Are surface temperature measurements reliable? How about sea-level changes? Long-term temperature forecast? No.
Pro-Global Warming Graph using only surface temp measurements
Satellite Temperature Measurements (no satellite measurements before 1979)
Carlin’s report discusses six developments that render the IPCC AR4 report suspect, and notes that these are but a few of the new developments:
1. The 1998–2009 rapid cooling even though hrGG levels increased and emissions accelerated, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has now turned negative (meaning lower temperatures to come for ~30 years);
2. Consensus on hurricanes changed from supporting the idea that GW is causing more frequent and intense storms to neutral: GW has no effect;
3. New results indicate no evidence for, and some evidence against, the operation of processes that would cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice;
4. The amount of actual hrGG has far undercut IPCC assumptions;
5. A new 2009 paper disproves the critical IPCC assumption concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor, and shows the feedback is actually negative;
6. A new 2009 paper (Scafetta and West) finds the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures, and that solar changes could account for 68% of the increase.
Relevant excerpts from the literature that debunk the IPCC position on the three main points: Temperature Changes, Greenhouse Gases as a Cause of Warming, and Sea-level Rises. Much more information is available from downloadable .pdf full articles.
1. Temperature Changes
Global Warming: A Classical Case of Alarmism
This is a Guest Post by Dr David Evans
The big temperature picture. Graph and insight from Dr Syun Akasofu
(2009 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 2009).
There was a cooling scare in the early 1970s at the end of the last cooling phase. The current global warming alarm is based on the last warming oscillation, from 1975 to 2001. The IPCC predictions simply extrapolated the last warming as if it would last forever, a textbook case of alarmism. However the last warming period ended after the usual thirty years or so, and the global temperature is now definitely tracking below the IPCC predictions.
The IPCC blames human emissions of carbon dioxide for the last warming. But by general consensus human emissions of carbon dioxide have only been large enough to be significant since 1940—yet the warming trend was in place for well over a century before that. And there was a cooling period from 1940 to 1975, despite human emissions of carbon dioxide. And there has been no warming since 2001, despite record human emissions of carbon dioxide.
There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence. Although the models contain some well-established science, they also contain a myriad of implicit and explicit assumptions, guesses, and gross approximations—mistakes in any of which can invalidate the model outputs.
The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030.
Furthermore, the missing hotspot in the atmospheric warming pattern observed during the last warming period proves that (1) the IPCC climate theory is fundamentally broken, and (2) to the extent that their theory correctly predicts the warming signature of increased carbon dioxide, we know that carbon dioxide definitely did not cause the recent warming (see here for my full explanation of the missing hotspot). The alarmists keep very quiet about the missing hotspot.
No one knows for sure what caused the little ice age or for how many more centuries the slow warming trend will continue. It has been warmer than the present for much of the ten thousand years since the last big ice age: it was a little warmer for a few centuries in the medieval warm period around 1100 (when Greenland was settled for grazing) and also during the Roman-Climate Optimum at the time of the Roman Empire (when grapes grew in Scotland), and at least 1°C warmer for much of the Holocene Climate Optimum (four to eight thousand years ago).
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Cause for Warming
From Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
Greenhouse warming is distinguishable from other forcings
hPa - Left hand side
km - Right hand side
Image
Zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change (ºC per century, 1890-1999), from two natural causes, three anthropogenic causes and one combined cause, simulated by the UN’s PCM model. The “hot-spot” signature of greenhouse warming is visible in © and (f). (IPCC, 2007, p. 675, based on Santer et al, 2003. See also IPCC, 2007, Appendix 9C).
The UN’s diagram shows the pattern of zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999, in °C per century from six causes –
(a) natural radiative forcing from changes in solar activity;
(b) natural radiative forcing from changes in volcanic activity;
© anthropogenic radiative forcing from emissions of CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases;
(d) anthropogenic radiative forcing from changes in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone;
(e) anthropogenic radiative forcing from pollutant sulphate aerosol particles emitted to the atmosphere; and
(f) all natural and anthropogenic forcings combined.
Real-world temperatures in the upper atmosphere have been measured with balloons since at least the 1960's and with microwave satellite sensors since 1979. However, the Hadley Centre’s plot of real-world radiosonde observations does not demonstrate the “global warming hot-spot” at all. The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record –
No “greenhouse warming” signature is observed in reality
hPa - Left hand side
km - Right hand side
Image
–0.6 –0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.3 +0.4 +0.5 +0.6 ºC
No “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic “greenhouse warming” appears in the record of real-world temperature observations. Source: HadAT2 radiosonde observations, from CCSP (2006), p. 116, fig. 5.7E.
The contrast between the five computer models’ predicted signature of greenhouse warming and the Hadley Centre’s plot of observed decadal rates of change in temperature could not be starker. This astonishing result is explicitly confirmed by the UN’s 2007 assessment report, which describes the near-total absence of its own predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming in the observed temperature record, but apparently without appreciating its significance –
3. Sea-level Rises
From an interview with Dr. Nils Axel Morner,
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6, 2007 for EIR.
EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?
Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.
That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it’s a matter of physics. So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend.
Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully.
Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow— I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The metereological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don’t do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it’s not the first thing.
WHO BENEFITS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION?
Follow the money.
Algore
(click on link for full story)
From Media Ignore Al Gore's Financial Ties to Global Warming ...
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
March 2, 2007
As reported by Dan Riehl (emphasis mine throughout):
Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.
Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be all over this tonight? Regardless, that was just the tip of the questionably melting iceberg as reported by Bill Hobbs in Nashville, Tennessee:
[H]ow Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...
Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.
Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he’s buying carbon offsets, he’s actually purchasing these investments from himself.
Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science.
Isn’t that special?
Yet, it is not clear that Gore’s money is going to purchase carbon offsets at all. Riehl reported:
Here's a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore's control. And, as you'll see below, Gore's selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.
AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC (now MSFT property) - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC
According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns.
Putting this in perspective, for years the left and their media minions have posited that George W. Bush started war with Iraq to benefit the company Vice President Dick Cheney used to run, Halliburton, as well as Bush’s oil tycoon friends. In fact, there have been times when you couldn’t swing a dead cat in any pressroom in this nation without hitting a reporter working on such a story.
Yet, as the former Vice President continues to plug global warming as a coming crisis in need of immediate attention, the same media completely ignore his obvious financial conflicts of interest.
STAND AND DELIVER.
YOUR PORTFOLIO, YOUR LIBERTY TO HAVE A PORTFOLIO, OR YOUR LIFE.
Point out what's happening, point out paths to solutions, or "live with it." Or maybe not.
Disclosure - no positions in companies or stocks mentioned
Like this post
Top Authors|
RSS Feeds|
Sitemap|
About Us|
Feedback|
Contact Us
Terms of Use|
Privacy|
Market Data Disclaimer|
© 2019 Seeking Alpha
![[+]](https://www.deepwaveanalytics.com/forum/images/bootbb/collapse_collapsed.png)
