This is a link to my own blog. These are just a couple of things I wrote about...
Man in Society: CLIMATE CHANGE
Look. All I'm saying is that of course climate change is a reality; it's been changing for millions (dare I say billions?) of years. Have WE caused the ENTIRE planet to heat up in a mere one hundred years? Not so much...
Foundation WatchAl Gore’s Carbon CrusadeThe Money and Connections Behind It
By Deborah Corey Barnes | Aug 2007
Former Vice President Al Gore’s crusade against carbon dioxide emissions could make him millions of dollars. With help from friends at Goldman Sachs, Gore has established a network of organizations to promote the “climate crisis”—and keep himself in the spotlight. Gore’s crusade already has had an enormous impact on corporate decision-making and government policies. But how will it affect his personal and political fortunes?......CLARIFICATION: The article indicated that Henry (Hank) Paulson, the Goldman Sachs CEO who later became U.S. Treasury Secretary, was “co-founder” of Generation Investment Management (GIM). Paulson played a role in the creation of GIM, but the firm does not identify him as a co-founder.
View the full version in PDF Format
By Ian Wilhelm
The Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank, is questioning the motives behind former Vice President Al Gore’s advocacy campaign to garner public support to stop climate change.
The three-year, $300-million campaign, which started this week, will be run by the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit organization in Menlo Park, Calif. Mr. Gore is estimated to have contributed $2.7-million to the effort.
But the center, in Washington, suggests that the former vice president could benefit financially from the campaign as chairman of Generation Investment Management, a private company in London that invests in environmentally friendly businesses.
On the center’s blog, Matthew Vadum, editor of the think tank’s publications, writes that the investment company has “considerable influence” over carbon-credit trading groups and that if the new advocacy campaign succeeds in convincing Americans to support carbon-emissions trading, “Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in.”
However, Richard Campbell, a spokesman for Generation Investment Management, called the suggestions a “nonsense story.”
In an e-mail message to The Chronicle, he writes that neither Mr. Gore nor any other members of the investment company’s board will make money from the expansion of carbon trading.
“To suggest then that they are somehow benefiting from the growth of this industry betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the carbon offset industry,” he writes.
What do you think?
"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):
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. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric 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).
As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/11/gore-admits-financial-stake-advancing-global-warming-hysteria#ixzz1EcJGtIL8
By Sally Peck 12:01AM BST 11 Oct 2007
Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.
The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.
In the documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, the former US vice president and environmental activist calls on people to fight global warming because "humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb".
But Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration" in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming.
His criticism followed an unsuccessful attempt by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor, to block the Government's plan to screen the documentary in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales.
The film's distributor, Paramount, warns in its synopsis of the film: "If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."
But the judge ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.
It is, he ruled, a "political film".
The nine alleged errors in the film
ASPEN — He may have been preaching to the choir, but former Vice President Al Gore stirred an Aspen audience Friday with a passionate speech about the effects of global warming, at one point pounding his fist on the podium and declaring it “a moral issue.”
Gore, 62, delivered a 50-minute keynote address for a symposium on “Forests at Risk: Climate Change and the Future of the American West.” The event, hosted by the local nonprofit For the Forest, was held in the Doerr-Hosier Center at The Aspen Institute.
Gore told the standing-room-only audience that his remarks on global warming, and the presentations throughout the half-day symposium, should not be taken as merely “interesting” or “an intellectual exercise.”
“It is a call to action,” he said, “if you love these forests, if you think for a moment about the obligation we have to those who come after [us].
“This is a forest issue. It's a political issue. It's an economic issue. It's a national security issue. It's a jobs issue. But at bottom, it is a moral issue,” he said to widespread applause. “And we have to be willing to stand up and do the right thing.”
Gore spent much of the first half of his speech discussing the loss of millions of acres of forests in Colorado and elsewhere in the Rockies, connecting that decline to various factors such as pine-beetle infestations and wildfires.
Global warming has helped to accelerate the losses, he said. Through a slide show, he displayed charts created through scientific data that show the correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in wildfires.
Warmer temperatures have promoted the beetle problem in many ways, Gore said. Because of higher winter temperatures, a large percentage of the beetles are surviving, returning during warm months to wreak havoc on trees. Also, the trees aren't as strong as they used to be, having been weakened by years of drought conditions, making them easy targets for the beetles.
Gore's slideshow contained Google Earth software maps that clearly showed the rapid decline of Colorado's forest lands over the last decade. He then returned to a more general discussion of global warming. His work to promote efforts to recognize global warming and combat it by reducing the world's carbon footprint led to a Nobel Prize in 2007, an honor he shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2006, he was the subject of an Academy Award-winning documentary on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which was based on his book of the same name.
According to Gore, 90 million tons of pollution that contribute to global warming are sent into the Earth's atmosphere every day. The time has come for not just Americans, but the world at large, to make a conscious decision to tackle the problem, he said.
Gore acknowledged that there are skeptics and cynics, but said an overwhelming consensus of the world's top scientific organizations now recognize the causes and effects of global warming. It should no longer be a partisan issue, he said.
Gore said he agrees with U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., on the point that “global warming shouldn't be a conservative or a liberal issue to the extent it is. It shouldn't be a Republican-Democratic issue, but one thing it is for sure — it is an issue for anyone who loves the forest.”
During a question-and-answer session, the former vice president spoke about the intense opposition to the very idea of global warming.
He said many global corporations base their profit margins on the ability to pollute. They have banded together and spent billions of dollars in the media and in political campaigns, even hiring “four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”
“And they said, if the public becomes convinced that this is what the scientists say it is, then it's 'game over' for us,” Gore said.
Their objective, he said, was to transform global warming into a theory rather than a fact. And so the opponents of the effort to recognize climate change embarked upon a “dedicated, cynical, lavishly funded strategy,” utilizing conservative talk radio, commentator Rush Limbaugh and his many imitators, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Fox News and other right-wing outlets.
It didn't help, Gore said, that the scientific community committed some “self-inflicted wounds.” That was a reference to mistakes and misstatements in an IPCC report four years ago that led to a large amount of political debate and media attention.
“I think the mistakes were blown way way out of proportion,” Gore said. One reason for the mistakes, he said, was that a defensive culture developed among some scientists because they were “harassed on a regular basis” by opponents of the concept of global warming.
“But the general consensus [recognizing global warming] is so strong, and so firm, and so widely shared now, that it is clearly the basis for action that the rest of us ought to take,” Gore said.
He was asked about the popular confusion surrounding the topic. For instance, when winter weather turns extremely cold, many people question the concept of global warming.
“With global warming, since the manifestations are distributed globally, it masquerades as an illusion,” Gore said. “It could be a cold winter in one geography while the world as a whole is continuing to get warmer. There can be more extremes of both heat and cold. There can be more volatility in weather patterns.”
Gore quoted comedian and political commentator Bill Maher, who recently said on his HBO program that “believing that winter disproves global warming is like looking outside and concluding that the sun has gone away and disappeared because it's night.”
Gore said human nature tends to discount the notion of global warming because “the length of time between causes and consequences is somewhat longer than we're comfortable dealing with, in the normal way we think about things.”
But, he added, it's also part of our human nature “to use abstract reasoning, and form values-based goals, and stick to them for a long period of time. We have demonstrated that in the history of humankind on many occasions.”
Gore, a Democratic U.S. representative and senator from Tennessee in the 1980s and early 1990s, served as vice president to Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001. In the controversial 2000 presidential election that ended up being settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, he was defeated by Republican George W. Bush, even though Gore won the popular vote by more than a half-million votes.
The Aspen Times
Aspen CO Colorado
The Climate Depot
Not Tricks Zone
Is it Getting Warmer?
The Alliance for Climate Protection