Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria

NB Interview: Jonah Goldberg, Author of 'Liberal Fascism' (Part I)

Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria

By Noel Sheppard | April 11, 2008 - 09:38 ET

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):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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.

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.

I'm sure the sycophantic climate alarmists in the media will be all over this in the days to come...not!

*****Update: Readers should be reminded of an exchange last week between NewsBuster Matthew Vadum and a Gore representative.

If you recall, on April 1, Vadum wrote about how the media are ignoring Gore's global warming profiteering. The following day, Richard Campbell, a spokesman for Gore's Generation Investment Management fund, had an e-mail exchange with Ian Wilhelm from the Chronicle of Philanthropy:

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.

Now that Gore has admitted having investments in companies that will benefit from global warming hysteria, I wonder if Campbell's opinion might change. Stay tuned.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Topics:

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Just so it's known, I'm

April 11, 2008 - 09:44 ET by Schnikeys

Just so it's known, I'm loving every minute of driving my non-hybrid vehicle.

------------------------------------------------------------

“If I had my choice, I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast."
-General Sherman

Al Gore is a Propagandist and a Fraud

April 11, 2008 - 23:10 ET by PopularTech

The same here schnikeys. The bigger the engine the better. : )

Too bad that the propagandist and fraud Al Gore still suckers in new people everyday...

Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore caught lying (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOXNews)
35 Inconvenient Truths (Science and Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
23 Scientific Errors (Science and Public Policy Institute)
20 More inaccuracies (PDF) (UKPRwire)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science and Public Policy Institute)
6 Inconvenient Truths Indeed (Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography)

Hypocrite:
Al Gore and Global Warming - Is He a Hypocrite? (Video) (10min)
Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
- Environmentalist Gore allowed zinc mine (USA Today)
- From Al to Zinc: Mine Story Shows How a Fatherly Favor Haunts Gore (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Stock Portfolio Exposed (PRNewswire)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump (NewsMax)
Al Gore, polluter? (WorldNetDaily)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate (CorpWatch)
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's (CNSNews)
- George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion = True (Snopes)
Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter's party (Daily Mail, UK)
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average (WorldNetDaily)
- Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe (USA Today)
Hypocrite Gore Should Practice What He Preaches (The Tech, MIT)
Integrity in the Balance: Al Gore's Record On the Environment (CorpWatch)
Meet the real Al Gore (WorldNetDaily)
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Connections (The Wall Street Journal)
Old-Growth Timber used to Rebuild the Veranda of the Vice Presidential Mansion (Newsweek)
Whose Ox Is Gored? The Former Vice President's Environmental Exaggerations and Hypocrisy (The Wall Street Journal)

Al Gore Pushes 'Pollution Tax' (NewsMax)

Profiteering:
Al Gore Gets Rich ($100 Million) After White House (ABC News)
Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300 ($6,757) per-minute green speech (Daily Mail, UK)
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns (WorldNetDaily)
Gore Cashing in on $6 Trillion Energy Business (NewsMax)
Gore makes sustainable investment his business (The Age, Australia)
Gore to Rake in IPO Millions (NewsMax)
Gore Warns on 'Subprime Carbon' Industry (NewsMax)
Global Warming, Inc. (The Wall Street Journal)
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade (Human Events)

Will Not Debate:
Dennis T. Avery Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (The Heartland Institute)
Lord Christopher Monckton Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (Center for Science and Public Policy)
Ivy League Professor Bets Al Gore $10,000 He’s Wrong About Global Warming (NewsBusters)
Why Won’t Al Gore Debate? (The Heartland Institute)
Will Al Gore Melt? If not, why did he chicken out on an interview? (The Wall Street Journal)
Sign the Petition: Al Gore, Debate Global Warming (6500+ Signatures)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

This ought to help out in

April 11, 2008 - 09:45 ET by mattm

This ought to help out in the lawsuit against Alfraud Gore:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

I didn't know John Coleman

April 11, 2008 - 10:07 ET by Indiana Joe

I didn't know John Coleman founded TWC. I remember watching him on the Chicago ABC affiliate years ago.

But didn't they have a trial on AGW in England not too long ago? And our side lost, didn't it? With the way liberals skew legalities, that would probably count as a precedent in any trial here.

NBC channel 5 WMAQ was the

April 11, 2008 - 11:06 ET by red_dragon311

NBC channel 5 WMAQ was the channel here in Chicago

I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist

Noel, it might be

April 11, 2008 - 09:57 ET by Hunter12

Noel, it might be insightful to add GIM's portfolio list to the post. For example, I think at one time they had BG, formerly British Petroluem, read "natural gas", in the list of companies in the fund and Al was touting how clean gas was.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill

AlBore making money?

April 11, 2008 - 09:55 ET by Delsa

Al is making money off of the global warmongering hoax?

I for one am just SHOCKED!

NOT!

Shocked AND appalled!

April 11, 2008 - 10:03 ET by Indiana Joe

Shocked AND appalled!

But the important thing is...

April 11, 2008 - 10:12 ET by Prester John

...is that he has good intentions.

How about "saddened and

April 11, 2008 - 10:27 ET by motherbelt

How about "saddened and disappointed" a la Tom Daschle...?

Algore has said all along the that going green would be "good" for the economy, and would create new jobs, and increase profits. He just didn't specify that he meant "for me."

Of course any "new" industry is going to create wealth for whichever companies get in on it. What he doesn't say is that in the end, it's the comsumer that gets it in the neck.

"Greedy corporations" making money while the "little guy" suffers is anathema to liberals like Gore, unless it's their pet industry that's raking it in, and they are the ones profiting by it.

Yeah, nothing like getting

April 11, 2008 - 10:49 ET by Indiana Joe

Yeah, nothing like getting in on the ground floor of a new industry.

And what better way than to create one, needed or not?

What a scam. P.T. Barnum would be proud.

Dead on target, IJ!!

April 11, 2008 - 10:51 ET by motherbelt

Dead on target, IJ!!

When Walmart is in.....

April 11, 2008 - 11:18 ET by Polazerus

....you know there is money to be made. If anyone had any question whether or not this was a money making emerging market, those doubts should be gone. Walmart would not be in if they didn't see the dollar signs. They are now being eco friendly by selling you reusable bags.

Yeah, nothing like getting

April 11, 2008 - 11:26 ET by JasonC

Yeah, nothing like getting in on the ground floor of a new industry.

And what better way than to create one, needed or not?

That is the essence of the modern consumer-driven economy. Manufacture desires/problems/voids that people never even knew they had, and then sell the solution. Blu-Ray DVD and hi-def flat-screen TV anyone?

Frankly, we should be outraged at the lot of it. But enough people have been coerced into believing they need (and deserve!) such garbage, that their is only the barest, opiate-like level of resistance.

Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva

I'm not outraged at the stuff I can CHOOSE.

April 11, 2008 - 11:31 ET by sarcasmo

I can choose not to buy a new flat screen TV. (And my TV is getting ancient at this point.) I can't choose to buy one without a "V chip" in it, due to control-freakery on the left and right regarding content. And I certainly can't choose for none of my tax dollars to be spent subsidizing failures ranging from ethanol-pork to a corrupt and racist drugwar.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

True, but the majority of

April 11, 2008 - 11:41 ET by JasonC

True, but the majority of ways in which one can participate in the Green Movement are still highly voluntary. My point is that I resent the implication from manufacturers of consumer goods that my life will be complete if I buy their crap, and the transparency of their attempt to pass off each new thing as a dramatic improvement over its predecessor, as demonstrated by the exponentially higher price tage. Now and then, of course, something genuinely innovative will come off the line. But when I hear someone say they're 'saving up' for a flatscreen TV I just want to ask "Why? Will it make the things you watch better?"

But now I'm just doing my usual song-and-dance bitching about the aesthetics of late capitalism.

Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva

Others may call it "capitalism"

April 11, 2008 - 11:50 ET by sarcasmo

But especially after Bear Stearns, we're way too far down the corporate (and now other) welfare socialism toilet for me -- a real capitalist -- to admit to that. This is, if anything, "pre-hyperinflation early-socialist" and not late capitalist, IMO (that was Tricky Dick, at the latest!)..
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

It's fitting that Al Gore used the drug addict metaphore

April 11, 2008 - 09:58 ET by c5then

Because he is the pusher of an ideology that will kill the economies of any that follow his direction. Notice that he himself is not changing his life-style to save energy.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

But, but, but..... c5, but

April 11, 2008 - 10:30 ET by motherbelt

But, but, but..... c5, but he buys "carbon credits"! Which means he can afford to pay a "consumption tax." The rest of us peons can just walk to work or ride bikes, because we can't afford the extra cost.

It's just more "elitism" and liberal hypocrisy at work.

We are just going to switch

April 11, 2008 - 12:36 ET by ahusser

We are just going to switch roles with the Chinese. They get new cars we get to ride bicycles. American liberals have this utopic fantasy, a blend of a kinder gentler kumbayah communism, mixed with mother earth worship with the noble savage Indians living in perfect harmony with nature (please read the words to John Lennon's "Imagine" to understand this mindset). You know the old hippie commune thing. That's why this Global Warming hoax, fetish and cult is so popular with the left leaning folks it gives them the impetus to attempt to implement their fantasy world, no matter what the economic and political costs are. The want the simple life and civilization.

Dont you know that

April 11, 2008 - 19:02 ET by motherbelt

Dont you know that socialism can work? The problem until now has been that the "right" people haven't done it!! With our good old USA liberals and all their "good intentions" it will indeed be "Kumbayah" and perfect harmony with nature (and cheaper too, so we'll all get rich!)

Environmentalism is the new home of Communists (paraphrasing from Rush Limbaugh)

OH yeah...can't you just

April 11, 2008 - 19:08 ET by bigtimer

OH yeah...can't you just seeing the leftist women having to use cloth diapers ...they wouldn't know how to handle it... Just one quick example...there are tons more... What these people wish for they would not be able to handle, therapist or no therapist...but they impose their will on others...the simple critters....the hypocrites all...at a cost to all of us.

Just in a disgustd mood today...Jason Lewis subbing for Rush had a good show today on global warming...and all that it entails with the outright lies to-boot.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

i like it, of course

April 11, 2008 - 19:14 ET by botg

the environmental thing is to do is cloth diapers, smaller houses, nuclear energy, eschew air travel,

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts

Of course, the only place

April 11, 2008 - 10:00 ET by marpel

Of course, the only place we'll be hearing about this is on Newsbusters. The MSM are not going to breathe a word about this. Thanks, Noel!

Time to push the lawsuit

April 11, 2008 - 10:17 ET by 10ksnooker

The hoax is a provable fraud so it ought to be easy to collect damages. Only a Liberal would use his public personna for personal scams. Must be they know the drive by media won't report it.

In other news today the UN IPCC scammers now say their climate predictions are not predictions after all -- they are just likely scenarios. Since the observed facts don't match the hypothetical computer models, something has to give.

Sixteen ton's or years

April 11, 2008 - 10:20 ET by Scrapiron

The old song sixteen ton's is about the slave labor required to make a living. It has taken sixteen years and $109 million in the bank for the dimwitted democrats to figure out the Clintons are nothing more than con's. They weren't standing alone when selling national security secrets to the Chinese and pardons to dozens of criminals. Algorabge was right there with his hand in the pot. Rumor has it he has banked over $100 million with the global warming con. Makes me wonder how many democrats should be allowed to walk the streets without a guard from the mental facility they should be in. Now they have their heads up and locked in the butt of an even more dangerous con and member of the chicago crime organization + deep connections to radical Islam. Someone or a lot of someones had better start treatment for their BDS.
At least my niece listened to me and changed her major to the mental health field. One more year of school and she is set to make millions treating BDS in future years.

Old, Retired and glad of it.

More Gore Bore

April 11, 2008 - 10:23 ET by Mulligan22

Since we all emmit C02 when we exhale, you'd think he'd be more considerate and shut up for awhile and give the planet a break.

I wonder if he still owns stock in Occidental petroleum, you know one of those "sub-prime" oil companies?

Just a bunch of commies, I guess

April 11, 2008 - 10:28 ET by Agrarian-Decentralist

I'm shocked---shocked---that Noel and his readers disapprove of someone who has found what he believes are good investment opportunities, has put some of his own money into those opportunities, and is recommending that other people do likewise.

No...Not exactly.

April 11, 2008 - 10:40 ET by sarcasmo

Just as conservatives bitch when I "admit" inconvenient truths for them; you're bitching because Noel "admitted" something, repeatedly, about AlGore's 'pure' motivations that he will not admit himself. In the case of Gore & the color green, is it "the environment" or all the fiat paper he plans to make off of unscientific hysteria? And the corn-ethanol boondoggle is proof that one can make money from unscientific hysteria.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

A-D

April 11, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Noel Sheppard

A-D,

You're totally misreading this. I am a PURE capitalist. I don't have a problem with folks investing in companies and hawking their investments for their own personal gain.

The problem here is that media aren't reporting it. Instead, his intentions are depicted as pure and altruistic. As far as media are concerned, his actions are all for the good of the planet. BUT, as we now see, this is also about the good of his wallet.

Isn't that newsworthy? After all, even though Dick Cheney sold ALL of his Halliburton stock in 2000, every chance media get to talk about this company and imply that we went to war for Cheney's financial benefit THEY POUNCE ON. Correct?

Well, now there's a former vice president traveling the world demanding we stop burning fossil fuels and, instead, use technologies which he now admits he's invested in. Should this connection be disseminated to the public? Shouldn't folks know that Gore's got money invested in advancing this hysteria?

Or, should such financial ties only be disclosed when Republicans are involved? HMMMMM? ns

Noel, didn't you pen (or "key")

April 11, 2008 - 11:08 ET by WhoIsJohnGalt

an blurb last week about how someone was taken to task on a national news broadcast when they suggested that AlGore was profiting from this AGW hysteria? I know I remember this...

The usual Gore hypocrisy and lies

April 11, 2008 - 11:20 ET by dbo

http://www.philanthropy.com/giveandtake/index.php?id=541

Playing Devils Advocate

April 11, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Polazerus

Al Gore: I invest in these companies becuase I believe in the product and my intentions are pure.(wink, wink)

Agrarian, then by your

April 11, 2008 - 10:52 ET by bassndude

Agrarian, then by your reasoning, it would be OK for Cheney to have kept his stock in Halliburton, while awarding contracts to said company. Its the same thing. Gore is promoting the green movement, for profit. Not a bad thing. Its a good gig, and it is working for him. But it is a conflict of interest. He promotes the green only because he makes money off of it. Not because the belives it. How many times, in private, has he called folks like you, mindless sheep? Or suckers?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Plus, Gore is trying to

April 11, 2008 - 12:28 ET by HypocriteHater

Plus, Gore is trying to convince governments to do away with fossil fuels which are the competitors to his green fuels that HE invests in. How is that NOT a total conflict of interest?

Are you so blind as not to

April 11, 2008 - 23:13 ET by NL207

Are you so blind as not to see the application of government force that Gore is trying to promote in order to make this stupid enterprise of his viable?

At the present, there is NO, that is zero, demand for carbon credits. Without the application of massive government force, there will be no demand for carbon credits. They are useless pieces of paper unless sanctioned by government regulation.

In effect what Gore is doing is demanding that the Government create transeferable, ENFORCEABLE carbon emissions rights which his firm will then buy and sell. Effectively, Gore's business plan calls for his firm to become what amounts to a license bureau for carbon emissions. The DMV in your state is not a private firm. Why should this be any different?

What's particularly

April 11, 2008 - 10:36 ET by dscott

What's particularly disturbing is that as these people jump on board to buy the suggested stock this in turn artifically bids up the stock, Al Gore's share values go up giving him a nice capital gain. What he is actually doing is running a pyramid scheme which always profits the intitial tiers since their values go up as the next level is built. In essence, when the next tier of people buys the stock at the higher value, that money is transfered to Al Gore's shares. Then Al Gore sells the stock reaping a massive capital gain under guise he is moving his seed money to promote other ventures. If the company fails in the market place, all the rest of the investors loose their money. One thing for sure about liberal boondoogles, they loose money because they are long on talk/sales hype and short on viable product and consumer demand. The sales hype, whatever it might be, is always about distracting the buyer from looking at the fundamentals of the business. This is precisely why giving an Imprimatur is unethical, even by celebrities much less someone in authority.

Now is Al Gore investing in an actual electric car company like Tesla Motors that is producing a viable product attracting consumer demand? Then I might take him seriously.

Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Gotta admit, AlGore's got a

April 11, 2008 - 11:22 ET by ThisnThat

Gotta admit, AlGore's got a smooth operation going here. After collecting his Budda Temple ransom, he invented his slick but fake "Global Warming is man-made" movie. He is using his Vice Presidential connections to scheme with some of the shadiest people around to get them to scare enough people into screaming for a solution to his made-up problem. He then invents this Carbon Credits pyramid which he uses as a psuedo-scientific "scorecard" to establish an artificicial baseline to measure everyone's performance. He then buys into technologies that he knows aren't going to be able to replace the energy sources we already have, at the same time saying we're too dumb to develop the technology necessary to mine shale and bogs. He then points back to his scorecard to convince people there's an even-sum game in town, so even though he is using those old, polluting technologies at a great pace, his investments in the new technologies justify his inefficiencies as long as he "pays" for his sins with his Carbon Credits.

Is this man a con man or what? Are we suckers or what?

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Noel,I fail to see why

April 11, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Leon

Noel,

I fail to see why this is remarkable at all.

Wouldn't stand to reason that you'd invest in products/companies that you believe in?

Look, we all do...

April 11, 2008 - 12:08 ET by sarcasmo

And most of us disclose our interests (including me, though someone close to this thread has occcasionally whined about it in my case, as if I'd care). The point is that the news media and AlGore are painting this as 100% the environmental type of green when there's a lot of the paper kind involved. When this happens with oil companies and science you get outraged, right? Well, it's happening with Bore, so the conservatives get to be outraged for a change, and in the meanwhile I get to make fun of both sides when they need it, as usual.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Leon, sounds to me like you

April 11, 2008 - 12:12 ET by bassndude

Leon, sounds to me like you think it would be OK for Bush and Cheney to buy stock in Halliburton. It runs along the same lines. After all, it stands to reason that you would buy stock in products/companies that you belive in.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Leon, Maybe because he is

April 11, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Sick-n-Tired

Leon,

Maybe because he is pumping $300 million into a new add campaign that promotes a false, fake impending disaster (AGW) that, in turn will equate to BILLIONS of dollars of profits in his carbon offsets company. If he gets the people and the bureaucrats to buy into this issue, which I think has lost a lot of steam (and rightfully so) he will be bigger than Bill Gates.

And AGW'ers try to ridicule scientists who may or may not have received minor funding from energy companies. They don't hold a candle to the Goracle, he takes the cake here in regards to "special interest" funding!!

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

Sick, I really don't see

April 11, 2008 - 13:50 ET by Leon

Sick,

I really don't see what the problem is. The existence of AGW is irrelevant as to whether or not we should pursue a greener, more environmentally friendly lifestyle. Ultimately, the initiatives AGW supporters suggest are the right decisions for our world.

Let's look at one clear example:

AGW suggestion: Lower emissions (hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, & carbon monoxide)

Reality: Has it been necessary to cut down on our emissions regardless AGW concerns? Yes, entirely. Look anywhere in the world that has heavy car traffic and you'll see a filthy sky. Smog is a real problem. It's clear that if we don't cut our emissions, we can destroy our air. Do you support that type of pollution? You may not think AGW is real, but air pollution is very real. So real, in fact, you can see it.

So, I just don't get it. It seems like you're fighting against AGW solely b/c you dislike its supporters. You're ignoring the overall fact of the matter. We make a lot of pollution. If we don't control our waste, we will have serious problems.

Every single AGW initiative accomplishes this goal, so why fight against it?

I realize you don't get it

April 11, 2008 - 14:31 ET by dscott

I realize you don't get it Leon, the point is we don't like a small group of people dictating to us how we live our lives, how we spend our money or how many children we have. It's none of their business, so they should butt out of it. That's called tyranny, the dictatorship of expert busybodies who believe they know better than anyone else and see no problem with forcing their opinions on us.

But let's take your suggestion on face value of lower emissions, we have since the 60's and our air is cleaner than virtually every country in the world, same for water. What more do you want? It's called spending priorities: You can spend 5% of your money to achieve 95% of your goals, by most rational people this makes good economic sense. Or you can spend 95% of your money on getting the last 5% and that is not cost effective or rational. Of course you can quibble with the percentages, but you should have gotten my point by the illustration.

Secondly, with the progress in technology what is not economically feasible today "may" be economically feasible tomorrow. Why not wait on R&D as we are currently investing in to achieve better results without harming people? Good example is ethanol, so now we are set to starve the worlds poor people because we don't have an economic means to convert cellulose to ethanol, instead we use corn. Do you see our point?

Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

dscott, It's not tyranny

April 11, 2008 - 14:41 ET by Leon

dscott,

It's not tyranny for someone to tell you that what you're doing is wrong.

Was it wrong for the government to establish environmental guidelines and rules in the first place or should we have just let our industries continuing polluting our environment unchecked? If somebody hadn't stepped in, the world could be a disaster today.

Companies literally used to dump toxic waste directly into our waterways. Was it tyrannical for someone to finally tell them to stop? To tell them it was wrong?

Things like the EPA's "Superfund"

April 11, 2008 - 14:53 ET by sarcasmo

Literally give 90% of their value to lawyers, Leon, and these lawyers and hyperpowerful regulatory agencies like the EPA do far more than tell people what they're doing is wrong. The legal system could have taken care of a lot of pollution as a trespass crime, since that's what it is. The problem is all this publicly owned land, like "our" waterways, with no individual owner to get angry & sue the crap out of polluters. Everyone in the "capitalist" USA instead relies entirely on big government to protect "our" resources, despite the fact that we can now see from Eastern Europe just how well that worked.

Would lawyers still make out like bandits under such a fiscally-responsible property rights based system as libertarians like me have proposed for the past few decades, mostly to the sound of idiotic media-silence instead of debate? Yes, but they wouldn't take such a HUGE slice of the pie as they do with a Nixonian EPA. Nobody here (AFAIK) disputes the "pollution is wrong" part, we dispute the crappy science that always seems to be biased towards control freakery by an ever-growing obese government. I'm as anti-pollution as any "Green," and I've personally planted more trees than more than 99% of 'em, I'm sure. Some of these oak & cypress trees are now probably as big around at the base as my gut, which isn't too small anymore.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Leon, we the people,

April 11, 2008 - 15:58 ET by dscott

Leon, we the people, through our elected representatives created the EPA, and the laws that govern our society. The EPA did not come into existance outside of our elected government by some unelected click. We the people, get to determine the laws not some unelected group of power hungry schemers. As Sarc pointed out, everyone has the right to sue the bejebbers out of anyone who negatively impacts us.

Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Oh my God Leon, are you

April 11, 2008 - 16:09 ET by Jungus

Oh my God Leon, are you really that blind?

Being told that we are doing something wrong is one thing. What is happening here is that they are using the force of law to MAKE us do something.

Perhapse an illistration is needed: How would you like a law that forced you to pray to Apollo every morning. Under penalty of a fine and possibly jail time? And this law was passed by the efforts of a guy with a great presentation and money invested in the clergy of Apollo? Especially a guy that long claimed that he was doing all of this for our own good and that he had no other stake in the matter?

That's what we are talking about.

Allow me to complete your good analogy

April 11, 2008 - 16:25 ET by sarcasmo

Then, once you imagine the Jungus scenario, imagine not liking it. You decide to express yourself and say so. Then imagine hearing from Apollo's defenders the following claptrap: "It's not tyranny for someone to tell you that what you're doing is wrong." (As if that's the only thing that's happening in most governmental contacts with "their" citizens, which often resemble quiet tyranny due to the power of the government agent to threaten to ruin you in court by literally fighting you with your own tax dollars.)

Can you see now why we're not convinced??? If some idiot is just preaching at me, I can ignore him/her. I have a good track record of ignoring idiot preachers of all sorts. I'm not so good at avoiding the expensive effects of our obese government. And the EPA, which knows nothing of all those trees I planted and doesn't care, is far from the only tyranny problem these days, whether or not a clueless news media will ever use the word.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Leon, you mention smog.

April 11, 2008 - 14:30 ET by Gary P Jackson

Leon, you mention smog. That's a phenomenon of nature as much as anything else. The LA area is in a basin, a hole. The surrounding mountains hold the bad air in. It's a real problem, for areas that are affected. But even if "global warming" was real, it would have absolutely nothing to do with smog.

California has had various emissions requirements for cars since the mid 1960s, and even though the amount of people, and vehicles have grown, the air is cleaner than it was before the problem was worked on. Newer cars all have computer control that have refined their ability to run cleaner than ever before.

Unfortunately, instead of using logic and reason, you are going off of "feelings". That of course is what crooks like Algore depend on. His entire hoax depends on people checking their intelligence at the door, and getting caught up in their feelings. Science is NOT about feelings, it's about facts. And the facts are not on Algore's side.

Gary, 1) Smog is a

April 11, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Leon

Gary,

1) Smog is a phenomenon of nature? Really? Was there smog before industry? Was there smog in the ancestral environment. Point is, with enough cars, there would be smog every, regardless of the natural environment.

2) As I said in my post, AGW has nothing to do with it. My point is that you're fighting against supporters of AGW for their beliefs, but meanwhile, their prescriptions for the environment are right whether AGW exists or not.

3) Yes the air is cleaner than before the problem was worked on, but not even close to as clean as it was before there even was a root of the problem. The point is lower emissions are good for us. The AGW people are certainly right about that.

4) I'm not sure what these feelings are that you're talking about. Concerning pollution, I'm not feeling anything, I'm SEEING it. We are destroying our environment. All aspects of it. Land, air, and water. As I said, AGW is irrelevant as to whether or not we should make moves towards a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. I'm not sure that it exists as they say it does, but that doesn't change the fact that I support all of the moves they suggest to combat it b/c in attempting to combat AGW they're dealing with real, tangible problems that we need to address.

Smog is mostly Ozone

April 11, 2008 - 14:50 ET by CobraMan

"Smog" is mostly comprised of Ozone, a naturally occurring molecule that is generated by various processes including forest fires and lightning.

Look at it this way, we're not polluting nature and killing ourselves by generating smog, we're just replacing the natural Ozone that is destroyed by the absorption of ultraviolet light and which, in return, saves us from dying from skin cancer. By generating new Ozone, we are doing our best to close the Ozone "hole" over the poles and we are saving millions of people from excessive exposure to harmful UV's and the melanoma that UV causes. What's wrong with that?

Come on Cobra, That's the

April 11, 2008 - 14:52 ET by Leon

Come on Cobra,

That's the most absurd thing I've ever read.

The sky is not supposed to be brown. There's no argument that you could make supporting the claim that smog isn't bad for us or our environment.

What color is it "suppose" to be?

April 11, 2008 - 15:18 ET by CobraMan

"The sky is not supposed to be brown."

Talk about absurd arguments! Just what makes you, or anyone else for that matter, an expert about what color the sky is SUPPOSED to be, Leon? The “color” of the atmosphere changes according to the components of which it is comprised. It's not SUPPOSED to be anything. It's dynamic and it evolves over time. What color does volcano produce in the sky, Leon? How about forest fires?

Here’s a perfect example of the “color” of the sky, Leon: Back in the 80's, several volcanoes erupted around the world and spewed trillions of tons of sulfur dioxide, sulfur monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene, hydrazine, and hundreds of other rather nasty and potentially deadly gasses into the sky. Those volcanoes also released thousands of cubic miles of silicon dust into the sky. That gas and dust is DEADLY when inhaled Leon. But it’s also natural. I remember the beautiful sunsets we had that lasted for MONTHS. So, Leon, tell me, was all that gas and dust that turned the sky brown and red for months, and lasted in the sky for years, SUPPOSED to be there?

But, to quell your displaced anger, I was just being sarcastic. But you have to admit; you have no idea as to what “color” the sky is SUPPOSED to be any more than I do.

Ugh, that post was

April 11, 2008 - 15:40 ET by Leon

Ugh, that post was painful.

My point was clear regardless of your bobbing and weaving.

Painfull only to you.

April 11, 2008 - 16:02 ET by CobraMan

It's painful only to you as it highlights your lack of understanding about the real world and how it works.

In case you haven't noticed, many of the gasses released by natural events like forest fires and volcanoes are the same chemicals that comprise "human" smog. The natural world produced hundreds of time as much smog every year than mankind does. In that regard, your point is as "clear" as dirt.

citation please. Do you

April 11, 2008 - 16:05 ET by Leon

citation please.

Do you just make this stuff up?

You're probably right though, the smog over LA is definitely from forest fires and volcanoes and NOT cars.

Look up smog in Wikipedia

April 11, 2008 - 16:17 ET by Jungus

Look up smog in Wikipedia buddy, Smog = smoke + fog. It is natural, and it was there before the first white settlers from what I have heard.

anyhwho: http://en.wikipedia....

Leon,I believe that

April 11, 2008 - 15:29 ET by futbolisgreat1

Leon,

I believe that Noel, in this post, is NOT debating the validity of Global Warming. I believe his point is that in the past Al Gore has denied getting rich out of his believe and push that Global Warming is man made.

Now, you seemed to have ignore questions asked of you. Do you think it would be ok for President Bush and Cheney to invest in Halliburton stock?

You are dancing around the issue.

Furthermore, why would you believe anything Al Gore has to say, if he can't even be honest about his investments and about him getting rich out of his push for people to believe that man made Global Warming is real.

One more thing Leon....remember in the 80s and 90s when the Environmentalist were going crazy about the Ozone layer? Remember that we were told...ahhhh!!! the end, the end is near, there is a hole in the Ozone layer, nothing we can do. All of a sudden....shhhh, silence from the environmentalits, from the scientists, why? Because the Ozone layer repaired itself.

I believe that it is quite amusing to believe that we little humans can destroy the planet. The Earth, nature will always find a way to come back.

And also let us not forget, in the 1960s, it was overpopulation. Countless articles and books were written claiming that by the 1990s and the turn of the century the world would be overpopulated and there would be civil wars raging all over the world, from the USA, to Argentina, etc.

Oooops! The Liberals really missed the mark on that one, right?

then in th e1970s it was man made Global Cooling. Articles, bookss, etc were written.

Oooops, once again, the Liberals missed the mark on this one too.

Now, it is Global Warming......and as we have seen, it looks like you Liberals are once again missing the mark.

The point to all these so called man made disasters is for politicians and Liberals to convince people that we need more government involvement and control. to convince people that socialism and communism is ok.

I find it amusing how Liberals use the hypocrisy of some priests to discredit the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings, yet these same Liberals stay silent about the hypocrisy of Liberals like Al Gore and do not use this hypocrisy to destroy the teachings of Global Warming, etc.

Leon, you have been fooled my friend. Man made Global Warming is a hoax and Al Gore is laughing at individuals like you, all the way to the bank.

→ fut

April 11, 2008 - 15:35 ET by Cool Arrow

I'm thinking Cheney and Bush are invested in blind trusts.

I could be wrong.

♣ a seal

I believe they are.

April 11, 2008 - 15:52 ET by CobraMan

I believe they rely on blind trusts to invest their money. They have no control as to what stocks those trusts will buy or companies those trusts will support. That's done to avoid apparent hypocrisy and possible claims of corruption.

Al, on the other hand, does not rely on blind trusts. He has total control as to what stocks or companies he may wish to invest his money and support into. That leaves him wide open as to questions of hypocrisy and claims of corruption.

Fut, Can you actually

April 11, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Leon

Fut,

Can you actually read your post and tell me it doesn't look like it was written by a petulant child?

My point is simple. Why fight against something when all the behaviors they're advocating are right?

PS did you get a chance to apologize to Curt yet for calling him wrong when it was you that was dead wrong? Ha. Did you look up the defniton of "full" yet? It was so much fun to watch you scream like kid that didn't get the toy he wanted in the toy store and end up being dead wrong. Priceless. Hahaha.

Leon, Will you ever

April 11, 2008 - 15:47 ET by futbolisgreat1

Leon,

Will you ever mature? wow.

1) You are one of the first ones to attack the hypocrisy of anyone on the right....yet you accept Al Gore's hypocrisy?

2) All the behavior's that they are advocating are right? So, you are saying that it is ok for Al Gore to pollute as much as he can, but us the little people should be riding bikes to work?

3) Please Leon, you, Curt, Cool Arrow, Trach, etc, 100% wrong on the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope never said what you, Curt, Boston.com and The Guaridan interpreted that he said. AND even he said it, it was NOT infallible. I don't expect you to admit you are wrong or even see how wrong you are.

It is quite fun to see you laugh at things you don't have the mental capacity to understand.

Leon, once again, man made Globla Warming is a lie....and Al Gore is laughing at you and all those that have bought into his lie...all the way to the bank.

By the way, I hope then that you never, ever, ever try to discredit any institution, any political movement, etc based on the hypocrisy of its members.

and I see, nothing to say about the fake Ozone layer hysteria, 1960s Overpopulation hysteria, 1970s Global Cooling hysteria....I understand Leon....ignore the FACTS that prove you wrong.

Liberals, always with blinders on.

→ fut serving menudo

April 11, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Cool Arrow

Was that an add hominy attack?

♣ a seal

Fut, Go back and read the

April 11, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Leon

Fut,

Go back and read the thread. Nothing was interprested. I posted you the exact document that those newspapers were commenting on. Hand written by the Pope. Doesn't get much more direct than that.

The fact of the matter is you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to ecclesial communities or the path to salvation.

You're amazingly dense. It's terrifying to think that you will spread your childish, whiny behaviors onto your own children.

An admissions director that hates students might be the saddest thing I've ever heard of.

Leon, Eh?! Liar, you

April 11, 2008 - 16:35 ET by futbolisgreat1

Leon,

Eh?!

Liar, you linked me to The Guardian and Boston.com, never to the documents that The Guardian and Boston.com used to report on.Furthermore, once again, you Curt and Cool Arrow do not understand the infallibility of the Pope when it comes to matters of faith and moral. So, you all assume things that are untrue.

I find it amusing that you, Leon, would call anyone on NB dense. Looked in the mirror lately? Obviously not.

Stop projecting who you are unto others.

Not only are you dense, you are poorly educated and you constantly believe everything that the MSM tells you to believe.

I feel truly sorry for individuals like you. How can you live in such a disgusting pool of ignorance? But like a typical Liberal, you rather live in ignorance than ever work hard at finding out the truth.

→ I understand it futbol

April 11, 2008 - 16:41 ET by Cool Arrow

When it has been declared, ex cathedra has been used to pollute the faith and bring in more money.

Silly that two requirements of salvation within the Church are barely over 100 years old.

Commanding that they observe days? How silly.

♣ a seal

Cool Arrow, What?!!

April 11, 2008 - 16:48 ET by futbolisgreat1

Cool Arrow,

What?!! more lies about the Church. Where does your hate, lies and ignorance about the Church end? where Cool Arrow?

to bring it more money? Typical anti-Catholic, don't know Catholicism attack. Please get a new attack, this one is old and it has been proven wrong countless of times.

Funny how you don't mention that the Roman Catholic Church is the institution that gives the most charity around the world.

Funny how you don't mention that Catholic priests, monks, nuns, etc don't get paid a penny and yet go to third world nations to end the great ignorance of the world. They teach math, how to read, history, etc, etc. Without any pay!

The two requirenments of the Church for salvation are barely 100 years old?! this should be fun....care to claim what these are?

I am sure it is just like your....."It was only in 1864 that the infallibility of the Pope was discovered"....I proved you wrong and you stayed silent. The infallibility of the Pope, Bishops when it comes ONLY to matters of faith and morals has been taught and preached in the Roman Catholic Church since at least the 9th century.

→ Easy fut

April 11, 2008 - 17:04 ET by Cool Arrow

And this is my last post on the subject since you are so good at revisionist history.

Immaculate Conception. Absolutely unsupported in Scripture, but proclaimed "infallibly" in 1854 by Pius IX.
Assumption. Again unsupported scripturally and declared "infallibly" in 1950 by Pius XII.

Prior to the dates provided, disbelief in either of these doctrines was not heresy. So they invented two more "Holy days of Obligation"

Commanding under pain of Mortal sin that all Catholics attend. Creating occasion of sin. ludicrous.

♣ a seal

Cool Arrow, Oh Cool

April 11, 2008 - 17:21 ET by futbolisgreat1

Cool Arrow,

Oh Cool Arrow, no, it can't be. I have proven you wrong and you run away. How sad, how truly Liberal of you. Pathetic.

You are the one that is ignorant about Church History, you don't revise it, you make it up.

I dare you to read St. Thomas Aquinas and his teachings on infallibility, I dare you to read 9th century Catholic theologians, you will find teachings of infallibility.

what you don't like the truth?

Don't worry, I understand, you are comfortable with your anti-Catholic stances and you are afraid that digging deeper into the truth, will prove you wrong. No different than a Liberal.

Sorry guy, both the Assumption and Immaculate Conception can be proven.

Not that you care about the truth. it is easier to spew out hate, hearsay, etc. and be comfortable with ones believes than to actually do research and find out the truth.

and yes, these two things are infallible. What you fail to understand is that these two Truths have always existed. That just like science discovers new things, you can say that the Church "discovered" these. But the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption have always been there.

It is like saying, "convinient, scientist just made up that there are smaller particles than atoms." WRONG!!

they were always there, that we didn't know they were there is something else.

here to try to educate you...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm