Gore Has Personal Stake in Anti-Warming Campaign

[Graybeard]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gore_profit_warming/2008/04/11/87256.html?s=sp&promo_code=4938-1

Friday, April 11, 2008 2:22 PM

By: Phil Brennan 

Al Gore, alarmist-in-chief of the anti-global warming campaign, stands to make money from his investments in "green" firms selling various climate change remedies.


Gore spoke in Monterey, California, at a March 1 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference, which bills itself as "an invitation-only event where the world's leading thinkers and doers gather to find inspiration." He admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put their money into,"according to NewsBusters.


Said Gore: "There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model.


"Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense - I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there - geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation."


Commented NewsBusters Noel Sheppard, "As Gore spoke these words, pictures of hybrid cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power)."


Sheppard noted Gore's recommendations that people put money in companies in which he has a financial stake is like "an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients. And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in."



© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
 

[woodchukhntr]

Hey, give the guy a break!  Of course he is feathering his nest, he is a politician, that is what they do!  Some day they guy will be without a job (we hope), and will need a lot of money to keep up his extravagant lifestyle.  I wonder if he actually paid for stock in those companies, or whether they were "earned" some other way!

Technology, Entertainment, and Design Conference!  That's a weird combination!

[KN]

Money is his sole motivation for what he's doing. Saw a report that claimed he's already made some thing like 38 million since he started the "global warming" charade. He knows it's over blown bunk but he'll cash in as long as there are suckers out there that will buy into it.   KN

[woodchukhntr]

You've got that right, KV!  Follow the money and you'll see the truth.  Imagine, $38 million for being a spokesman against global warming.  I wish I would have thought of that first!  I wonder how many trees were killed to print the 38 mil?  How about the fossil fuel needed to cart him around to places where he fakes concern about fossil fuel.  If he was really concerned, he would donate his speaking fees to the cause.  But if he did that, who would pay for all the fossil fuel needed to cart him around and fund his high lifestyle?

I ran across an old article in Time magazine that was saying that global cooling was the big concern in the early 70's.  Maybe if we taped some of the politicians mouths shut there would be less hot air warming the globe!

[deltecs]

31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:24 PM

By: Philip V. Brennan  Article Font Size   
 
An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.

Gore calls scientists and others who question the reality of human-caused global warming “deniers” and claims they are a tiny minority among the scientific community who he insists almost universally agree that the planet is being threatened by the alleged warming of the earth.

Gore told CBS’ Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" recently, "I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat."

These 31,072 scientists do not believe the world is flat, and they say there is no convincing scientific evidence that so-called greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.

On Monday, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, (OISM) announced the results of a drive asking scientists to sign a petition stating: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limit on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

The petition went on to say, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses 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.”

Robinson explained that the purpose of OISM’s petition project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.

Despite Gore’s extravagant claims, the petition shows that no such consensus or settled science exists.

In 2001, OISM circulated what was known as the Oregon Petition, and according to Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of “The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud,” that effort, spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, gathered an astounding 17,800 signatures.

To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the 2001 effort was spearheaded by Dr. Seitz, a towering figure in the world of science.

Solomon wrote, “The Oregon Petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

According to Dr. Robinson, “As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.”

Solomon asked, “How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?”

I think there are many more skeptics on global warming than the liberals care to admit, so that's why they are so hot to have polar bears on the endangered species list.  It lends credibility to global warming advocates to protect the bears, from the governments point of view in light of all the controversy.  And it is about money, not protection of a species.  These polar bears have been protected from hunters, since the Marine Mammal Act of 1972. 

 

[deltecs]

Environmentalists' wild predictions

By Walter Williams
 
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.         

Someone should have read this article to the Dept of Interior before classification of polar bears.