Al Gore is a fraud

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Nick Leeson Jr, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. Pay your carbon offsets . . . LOL

    Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.

    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," writes blogger Dan Riehl.

    Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere."

    But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.

    Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.

    Hobbs points out Gore stand to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.

    "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," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."

    As WND reported, Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.

    The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.

    Remember "its not a political issue, its a moral issue", pay your carbon offsets . . .pay Al Gore . . . LOL :D :D :D
  2. PolarisT



    You mention that the global warming threat "is disputed by many mainstream scientists."

    I guess those mainstream scientists that you refer to went into hiding :p when the official document regarding global warming was put together during the current Bush administration which mentioned that "most analyses of future GHG emissions indicate that, in the absence of actions taken to address climate change, increases will occur in both emissions of GHGs and their atmospheric concentrations."

    It concluded that "basic scientific research and voluntary actions can curb greenhouse gases linked to climate change." (US Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan, September 2006)

    The issue here is that there is not a whole lot of scientific research nor voluntary actions going on.

    The "carbon offsets" are available to many customers these days. They are not stock shares. Being this a forum for traders, I hope you know the difference.
  3. "which is disputed by many mainstream scientists"

    Just like all those scientists hired by the tobacco companies "proved" that smoking was harmless.

  4. I don't believe that sending Al Gore a check (buying carbon credits) will curb greenhouse gasses, no matter what Bush Admin neo CON program you quote. But write anyone a check you want, if it makes you feel better.

    And incidentally AL Gore uses more electricity in a month that you probably do in a year, and his personal energy usage has INCREASED since the first showing of inconvenient truth, but don't let that stop you from buying his carbon credits and keep conserving.
  5. So a capitalist (Al Gore) kills two birds with one stone, i.e. makes money by funding green power, which helps the environment, and that makes him a fraud?

    I would think the capitalists here would stand up and applaud him for making so much money for himself, while promoting a good cause...

    Or do the capitalists only applaud those who make money by promoting bad causes...
  6. fhl


    Or those economists hired by unions that prove a higher min wage doesn't cause unemployment?
  7. Cesko


    Lack of transparency is a problem.
    The way you understand capitalism is actually correct by the definition. By the same definition, disregarding morals, there has never been anything else but capitalism. Meaning hoarding wealth,power etc. by any means necessary. It's all the same to you. OK you are right but how is it possible for you to differentiate bad cause from good one?
    What I want to say you are not consistent in your thinking since you differentiate between good and bad only when it suits you.
    ZZZ...... we are all capitalists in our hearts aren't we?? Why people like Gore, Bono etc. are lying about it?? Why politicians are lying about it?? That's what pisses me off.
  8. Lack of transparency? You mean like the oil companies having secret meetings with Dick Cheney? The cigarette companies? The pharmaceutical companies putting out products they know can kill people?


    No, we are not all "capitalists."

    Wanting to make enough to live comfortably is one thing, willing to share excess wealth with others to uplift the whole society, is another thing.

    I am not enamored with Gore at all, but I do agree with the general message that we are polluting our earth as a byproduct of greed.

  9. Buying carbon offsets,(AKA, Al Gore Inc.), is another feel good program that accomplishes nothing. All show, no substance! Typical of the radical left.
  10. You guys crack me up.

    Not only is there no evidence (just a weak correlation) that higher CO2 has anything to do with global warming, but there is no proof that there even IS global warming. Sure, we've heated up the past 30 years. Guess what we did the previous 30 years? Guess what CO2 was doing from 1940 to 1970? Yup, going up. The earth was cooling while CO2 was rising. This little stat that most like to ignore puts a major hole in the CO2 correlation of the past 30 years. Another little problem with the theory is that the upper atmosphere is barely heating at all, especially compared with temps on the ground. The opposite should be occurring. No one can explain this one.

    That is all we have to show that CO2 has anything to do do with heating. A correlation that was dead opposite from the previous 30 years.

    Polar ice sheets melting and falling into the ocean? Yep. But the center of Antarctica is gaining mass, getting thicker.

    Greenland melting away? Sorta. But Iceland is cooling.

    And, the Earth is almost exactly the same temperature as it was in 1880! Its 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer (Source:

    And, no, I am not some neocon that wants to pollute away. I support something similar to Kyoto, but for pollution in general, not just CO2. Gore manipulated the hell out of the stats he used. For example, he used charts just showing recent years so the slope looked dramatic. If he went back a hundred years, there would be no slope, just blips up and down. I am looking at such a graph as I write this. And BTW, the early 30's were just as hot as now. The difference is about .1 degree Celsius which is within margin of error for even taking records of temperature from around the globe. Although it is very PC to just accept as fact that humans are heating the earth, we simply do not know.

    It will be years before we have any idea if CO2 is doing anything. The forces of nature that heat and cool the Earth are WAY more powerful.
    #10     Mar 3, 2007