Al Gore stands to make millions from scam

So to all those who would say that certain scientists can't be trusted because they get money from oil companies there comes news that Al Gore has set up a company a few years ago that stand to make millions if not billions of dollars from global warming.

billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

www.riehlworldview.com/ca...nconv.html

This should explain why Al Gore is so zealous in trying to convince people why they need to sign on or shut up. Should be interesting to see what people start digging up on other advocates of man made global warming.

motls.blogspot.com/2007/0...hrist.html

It appears that the ASCII value of Al Gore's name is 666. Just a funny coincidence I know and I don't really believe in any of that stuff anyway.

This difference is that Al Gore is standing on a soapbox of fear and lies so that he can profit from it. IMO, Al Gore does not care about this global warming crap for any other reason that it has turned out to be a great vehicle for profit and self promotion just like that commie Suzuki.

Give the guy credit though he has done well at it, so well he is up for a Nobel Prize.

It's like Al Gore started a cult and wants everyone to drink the Koolaid that he owns shares in. (He probably owns shares in a rat poison company too)

Or you could just google - "AL Gore" Hypocrite - for the answer. There are numerous expamples of how Al gore is personally pumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Or do the same for Suzuki or Dion or any of the other GODS of Green. They put more CO2 into the air than any of us regular joes, yet we are the ones that will be footing the bill.

Read Mark Steyn's column for an illustrative and entertaining explanation. www.suntimes.com/news/ste...04.article

My point was that people (including suzuki and gore) use the argument that people (Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Richard Lindzen etc) that make money (even if they actually don't) from their opinion or research putting forth science that disproves AGW should be discounted. Gore and Suzuki both make and stand to make millions if they can get people to buy into their false theory of AGW.

OK, so tell me again why it's bad for someone to believe that we should operate a different way, and make personal investments that mirror that belief? We here all advocate hunting and gun ownership. Would it be scandalous if you found out that some of us bought Remington stock? I think the only sin would be if Gore touted this particular company in his film or speeches and didn't disclose that he was a part-owner.

Just look at Al and you can see he's consuming an unfair share of the Earth's resources.
Grizz

Hey Rug, do you think that what was revealed about gore's own personal lifestyle, coupled his excuse about buying carbon credits from an African wind farm that he part-owns, could possibly tarnish his Oscar win, and any Nobel Prize momentum? Or is it still a gimmie?

Gore is a cinch to win with no tarnish at all...the left (especially the extreme left) love Al Gore. These are the people that do the election process etc. Typically the mainstream media give a pass to left wingers for as long as they can.

I am waiting for Gore to announce he's in for the presidential race. I think he has a good chance to get in with the left and he has the money. He could easily afford to bankroll his whole election campaign himself. Whether he will get into the presidency is another matter but the left wing democrats love him.

Incidentally George Bush's 4000sq foot house in Crawford has geothermal heating and cooling and uses recycled rain water for the yard.

Good column on this by Ezra Levant in the Calgary SUn today as well

Good read by Ezra Levant. Thanks Kanon. Here's the link for anyone else that's interested.

calsun.canoe.ca/News/Colu...4-sun.html

I can't believe that seemingly normal people buy the "carbon credits" argument as being environmentally acceptable. Did his wind farm in Africa make the air cleaner in Tennessee where they had to burn 10 times the carbon for his light bill as compared to Joe Shmoo?

I watched the Suzuki and Rick Mercer a week or so back. That bag of hot air is traveling around Canada in this giant bus burning tons of fuel with a green message painted all over the outside! Just how stupid do these people think the population is?

Ok, so we gotta buy Carbon Credits. Why don't we just buy back our forests from the Multinational companies, we've sold them to?
Grizz

Cuz Al Gore would not make any money off that.

209x50cql

I can't believe that seemingly normal people buy the "carbon credits" argument as being environmentally acceptable. Did his wind farm in Africa make the air cleaner in Tennessee where they had to burn 10 times the carbon for his light bill as compared to Joe Shmoo?

I think the logic behind this is that to build wind farms, ALOT of money is needed up front to buy the land and the equipment. After that the upkeep/maintenance is small. If a company gets enough money upfront, it can start a wind farm and then supplement the local power grid with continuous green energy.
Because Africa is a poorer nation, for African government to get energy to its people, they will burn whatever is needed to generate the energy so a wind farm would help suppliment their energy demands. Tennessee probably has a nuclear generating station so it doesnt make too much sense to put a wind farm there.
I invested some money in tsx wind energy stocks with khd and blx and they are both doing great. They have got huge loans for the land/equipment but the windier the year is, the more money they make. (they own wind farms in Alberta by the way)

Hey Rug, if anyone to ask, it's you. Can the amount of CO2 that is consumed by our forests (as CO2 is vital to the process of photosynthesism with a byproduct being OXYGEN!) by measured?

The reason I ask is that since they seem to 'know for a fact' what we produce, they must 'know for a fact' what our country's forests consume. Kind of like the +/- stat in hockey.

www.co2science.org/script...5/EDIT.jsp

www.co2science.org/script.../N5/C3.jsp

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/co...2/5388/386

Here's few references that seem to indicate that the forests of North America consume more CO2 than is produced in North America making us a net CONSUMER of CO2.

Some of this CO2 would be lost back to the atmosphere to burning, natural decomposition etc. I seem to recall that younger trees sequester more CO2 than old growth trees. Since old growth forests are also more susceptible to forest fires it would make sense from a CO2 balance sheet point of view for forest companies to increase logging and reforestation intensity. This would serve to more permanently lock CO2 into building materials etc rather than risk have them released into the atmosphere by fire.

Personally I don't think CO2 concentrations really have anything to do with global warming to any significant amount. A look at past CO2 concentrations seem to indicate that global warming causes increases in CO2 rather than the other way around.

www.wcel.org/wcelpub/2000/13090.pdf

Of course some enviro weenies don't like the idea of deforesting old growth forests as in the link above. Basically they don't want to lose their old growth forests due to something (Kyoto) they have argued for. Kyoto in fact only credits forest sequestration for forest that has been planted since 1990 thus taking out of the equation existing forests. (I think Canada was arguing that we should be given credit for trees planted where logging had occurred).

I also seem to remember reading somewhere that the amount of CO2 sequestered in peatlands was fairly significant too.

I should add that with global warming forests are moving north increasing the size of the forests and the amount of CO2 being absorbed. So global warming and increased CO2 levels are good for forests.

So a while ago someone asked me what's wrong with Al Gore investing in carbon offset schemes? Here's a good discussion I found on people that buy carbon offsets.

moneyrunner.blogspot.com/...html#links