Peter
www.marketwatch.com
The International Finance Corp. has floated a $500 million green bond to raise capital for climate-friendly investments around the globe.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Friday, May 4, 2012
Waste More Of Your Money On Global Warming
There are stupid ideas, and really, really, really stupid ideas. Investing in bonds to fund projects aimed at stopping "global warming" or climate change tops the list of dumb ideas. How anyone thinks throwing a few Million, or Billion, or Trillion dollars at trying to change the world's climate is laughable if it wasn't so sad and tragic. All it is going to do is further enrich amoral SOB's like Al Gore, George Soros, and a host of other one-world government advocates. Wake up people. They don't want to control the weather.......THEY WANT TO CONTROL YOU!
Peter
Peter
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
A Majority Of Meteorologists Do Not Believe The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming?
How can this be? When people say the "debate is over", "we must act now", the United Nation's IPCC says they are sure, and others claim their is a "consensus" among "climatologists". What utter and total nonsense. See the following article; is this a lie, does this person work for "Big Oil", is it just "propaganda", is this meteorologist evil? Or are there just educated and informed people out there who want the public to know the truth. There are many honest people who believe the myth of man-caused global warming is harming the economy of America and the world. What do you think?
Peter (source)
Meteorologist Says Money Behind Warming Alarmism 'Can Corrupt Anybody'
Cullen adversary argues he knows only one broadcast meteorologist who is 'on the global warming bandwagon.'
By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 6/17/2008 11:27:10 AM
A year and a half ago, James Spann questioned the money and the so-called scientific consensus pushing the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Today, he says it’s losing steam. Two imminent surveys of meteorologists may further complicate the climate debate.
Spann, a broadcast meteorologist for ABC 33/40, an affiliate in Birmingham, Ala., downplayed the future of the global warming movement in a June 13 appearance. He was interviewed by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council for its Washington Watch Weekly broadcast. Spann told Perkins:
“[Y]ou know, there was some great power in that movement back in January of 2007,” Spann said. “It’s pretty rapidly running out of gas and it just seems like every day more and more people are coming out with the fact that that’s pretty much a hoax. And these are Ph.D climatologists that are pretty much saying what I said all along.”
In January 2007, Spann received national attention when he wrote a post on his blog challenging a post by The Weather Channel climate expert Dr. Heidi Cullen. Cullen had argued that meteorologists should have the American Meteorological Society (AMS) credentials taken away if they doubt the validity of manmade climate change.
“If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval,” Cullen wrote for Weather.com on Dec. 21, 2006.
Spann fired back on Jan. 18, 2007: “Well, well,” Spann wrote. “Some ‘climate expert’ on ‘The Weather Channel’ wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for ‘tolerance’, huh?”
Spann claimed at the time he didn’t know any broadcast meteorologists who were sold on the theory touted by global warming alarmists. Since then, he has managed to find one.
“Again, one of my statements in that original article – I did not at the time know of a single broadcast meteorologist that was on the global warming bandwagon,” Spann said in his interview. “Now since then – and it’s been a year and a half, I found one, one guy and I know hundreds. I’ve been doing this for 30 years and I know meteorologists on television in some of the most liberal markets in this country that agree with me and I did find one – and that’s fine. And I certainly respect his opinion.”
Spann’s comments about broadcast meteorologists come two weeks prior to the AMS 36th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology, set for June 25-29 in Denver. At the conference, two separate surveys of broadcast meteorologists’ opinions on climate change are set to be unveiled – one by the National Environmental Education Foundation and one by Sean Sublette, a meteorologist for WSET, the ABC affiliate in Lynchburg, Va.
Spann explained it wasn’t his belief that carbon dioxide was a pollutant, but he told Perkins to understand the motivation of those who say it is – they should follow the grant money.
“Of course, the root of this whole thing is money,” Spann said. “And, there is a vast amount of wealth being generated by this whole issue. And I always recommend to folks – if anyone speaks on the subject, get a disclosure and find out their financial interests in it.”
The same claims are often made by climate change alarmists – global warming skeptics are in it for the money from big energy corporations. Spann told Perkins he has never accepted any money for speaking out about global warming alarmism, but he had reservations about money’s effects on government policy pertaining to climate change.
“When I speak on this topic, I’ve never accepted one dime,” Spann said. “It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other – if warming that we’ve seen in recent years is natural or not. But, there’s a vast amount of grant money going to very, very powerful people and I think that maybe that flows into some of the lobbying efforts and it goes and winds up in Washington.”
He pointed to former Vice President Al Gore as an example of how money behind climate change and global warming alarmism can perpetuate a theory that shouldn’t warrant as much merit otherwise.
“I’m not a politician, don’t understand it – I honestly don’t know,” Spann said. “But, I will tell you that there’s a lot of people who have gotten very, very wealthy – filthy rich off this subject. I think former Vice President [Al Gore] collects a minimum of $200,000 per speech on this and all of this money – it can corrupt anybody, and I just think it’s all about money.”
Related Links:
A Special Report from BMI: Global Warming Censored
BMI's Special Report "Fire & Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice or warming"
Climate of Bias: BMI's page devoted entirely to global warming and climate change in the media
Peter (source)
Meteorologist Says Money Behind Warming Alarmism 'Can Corrupt Anybody'
Cullen adversary argues he knows only one broadcast meteorologist who is 'on the global warming bandwagon.'
By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 6/17/2008 11:27:10 AM
A year and a half ago, James Spann questioned the money and the so-called scientific consensus pushing the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Today, he says it’s losing steam. Two imminent surveys of meteorologists may further complicate the climate debate.
Spann, a broadcast meteorologist for ABC 33/40, an affiliate in Birmingham, Ala., downplayed the future of the global warming movement in a June 13 appearance. He was interviewed by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council for its Washington Watch Weekly broadcast. Spann told Perkins:
“[Y]ou know, there was some great power in that movement back in January of 2007,” Spann said. “It’s pretty rapidly running out of gas and it just seems like every day more and more people are coming out with the fact that that’s pretty much a hoax. And these are Ph.D climatologists that are pretty much saying what I said all along.”
In January 2007, Spann received national attention when he wrote a post on his blog challenging a post by The Weather Channel climate expert Dr. Heidi Cullen. Cullen had argued that meteorologists should have the American Meteorological Society (AMS) credentials taken away if they doubt the validity of manmade climate change.
“If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval,” Cullen wrote for Weather.com on Dec. 21, 2006.
Spann fired back on Jan. 18, 2007: “Well, well,” Spann wrote. “Some ‘climate expert’ on ‘The Weather Channel’ wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for ‘tolerance’, huh?”
Spann claimed at the time he didn’t know any broadcast meteorologists who were sold on the theory touted by global warming alarmists. Since then, he has managed to find one.
“Again, one of my statements in that original article – I did not at the time know of a single broadcast meteorologist that was on the global warming bandwagon,” Spann said in his interview. “Now since then – and it’s been a year and a half, I found one, one guy and I know hundreds. I’ve been doing this for 30 years and I know meteorologists on television in some of the most liberal markets in this country that agree with me and I did find one – and that’s fine. And I certainly respect his opinion.”
Spann’s comments about broadcast meteorologists come two weeks prior to the AMS 36th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology, set for June 25-29 in Denver. At the conference, two separate surveys of broadcast meteorologists’ opinions on climate change are set to be unveiled – one by the National Environmental Education Foundation and one by Sean Sublette, a meteorologist for WSET, the ABC affiliate in Lynchburg, Va.
Spann explained it wasn’t his belief that carbon dioxide was a pollutant, but he told Perkins to understand the motivation of those who say it is – they should follow the grant money.
“Of course, the root of this whole thing is money,” Spann said. “And, there is a vast amount of wealth being generated by this whole issue. And I always recommend to folks – if anyone speaks on the subject, get a disclosure and find out their financial interests in it.”
The same claims are often made by climate change alarmists – global warming skeptics are in it for the money from big energy corporations. Spann told Perkins he has never accepted any money for speaking out about global warming alarmism, but he had reservations about money’s effects on government policy pertaining to climate change.
“When I speak on this topic, I’ve never accepted one dime,” Spann said. “It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other – if warming that we’ve seen in recent years is natural or not. But, there’s a vast amount of grant money going to very, very powerful people and I think that maybe that flows into some of the lobbying efforts and it goes and winds up in Washington.”
He pointed to former Vice President Al Gore as an example of how money behind climate change and global warming alarmism can perpetuate a theory that shouldn’t warrant as much merit otherwise.
“I’m not a politician, don’t understand it – I honestly don’t know,” Spann said. “But, I will tell you that there’s a lot of people who have gotten very, very wealthy – filthy rich off this subject. I think former Vice President [Al Gore] collects a minimum of $200,000 per speech on this and all of this money – it can corrupt anybody, and I just think it’s all about money.”
Related Links:
A Special Report from BMI: Global Warming Censored
BMI's Special Report "Fire & Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice or warming"
Climate of Bias: BMI's page devoted entirely to global warming and climate change in the media
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
A Lot Of Money Being Spent On Arctic Oil Exploration
Oil companies just spent a record $2.7 BILLION dollars for the "right" to drill exploratory wells in the Chuckchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska. This is a huge amount of money, in fact, the most ever spent in Alaska, onshore or offshore. This tells me, as a geologist who is familiar with the area and its history of oil exploration and development, that the oil companies are very confident there is a lot of recoverable oil in rocks beneath the Chuckchi Sea. It also means they think they can find it, produce it, and move it to market. This is by no means a simple task, in what certainly must be the world's harshest environment.
Another aspect of this lease sale by the United States Federal Government, and one that is often overlooked, or ignored, is that all of the money from the winning bids goes into the governments coffers. Look at the amount of money the government has collected from lease sales in Alaska in the past (see the list below). The amount is mind-boggling. So much for the idea that "big oil" is bad. The government must love the oil and gas industry for all of the revenue it provides.
There is yet another aspect to this sale that I'm sure a lot of people overlook. Where does the oil industry get all the money to spend on these lease sales? Well, they get it from you and I, and anyone and everyone who uses petroleum products. The cost gets passed on to the consumer, of course. When you think about it, this is another form of taxation; in this case the money goes from your pocket to the oil companies, who then pay a large portion to the government. This does not even include the royalties companies pay when they actually produce oil and gas.
To make things even more depressing, think of the taxes you pay when you buy the gasoline made from this oil. We're being taxed, and taxed, and taxed again. Think about this the next time you fill your car with gas and complain that you're being "ripped off" by "big oil".
Peter
source:
Record bids for oil, gas leases in Chukchi Sea
$2.7 BILLION: Alaska won't get a penny from federal sale of remote Chukchi Sea tracts.
By WESLEY LOY
wloy@adn.com wloy@adn.com
Published: February 7th, 2008 12:11 AMLast Modified: February 7th, 2008 03:23 PM
Oil companies flush with cash and hungry for new discoveries bid nearly $2.7 billion Wednesday in a blockbuster competition for drilling rights in the forbidding Chukchi Sea.
The sum of winning bids is the most ever generated in an Alaska oil and gas lease sale, whether on land or offshore. The tally tops the $2.1 billion raised in a 1982 sale in the neighboring Beaufort Sea, and the $900 million in a 1969 land sale at Prudhoe Bay that launched giddy Alaskans into a new era of fabulous oil wealth.
All proceeds from Wednesday's sale go to the U.S. government, and none to the state, as the offshore acreage is under federal jurisdiction.
Oil men, journalists and others packed a Loussac Library auditorium in Anchorage and listened with anxiety and awe as officials announced hundreds of often jaw-dropping bids on tracts totaling 2.8 million acres in the Chukchi, a shallow and icy polar sea between Alaska and Russia.
The competition was pitched as two global powers -- Shell and Conoco Phillips -- offered fortunes on some of the same tracts. Onlookers sometimes sounded like a football crowd, going "ohh!" or "aww!" when one company barely beat out the other.
The day's highest bid for a single tract came from the Dutch company Shell at $105,304,581.
"It's fabulous," Jason Brune, head of the Resource Development Council for Alaska, said during a break in the three-hour bid reading. "The big boys came -- flexed their muscles."
Not everyone was happy.
A handful of environmental activists and Native leaders from the coastal villages of Point Hope and Barrow stood in subzero cold outside the library to protest the sale. They fear industrial activity and spills could drive away or kill whales villagers hunt for food.
"Our ocean is our garden," said a shivering Earl Kingik, a Point Hope whaler.
He and other protesters said they don't believe oil companies can clean up offshore spills, and they said the companies demonstrated with their huge bids they have the power to steamroll village concerns.
Point Hope and a coalition of environmental groups have filed suit challenging Wednesday's lease sale.
Oil company executives and officials with the U.S. Minerals Management Service, which regulates offshore industry, said whales, polar bears and other wildlife will enjoy many protections from explorers. For example, all the leased acreage is at least 50 miles out to sea. And companies would be encouraged to use pipelines, not tankers, to carry oil to market.
Randall Luthi, director of the Minerals Management Service, said world energy demand is rising and the Chukchi Sea offers a chance to reduce U.S. dependence on oil and gas imports.
The government estimates the Chukchi could hold 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Those numbers compare to reserves in the Prudhoe Bay area.
"It's a great sale, a great commitment," Luthi said. He noted the $2.7 billion in winning bids far surpassed his agency's prediction a couple of years ago that the Chukchi sale would generate $67 million.
The last Chukchi sale, in 1991, generated $7.1 million.
Much has changed since then. The price of oil has rocketed to nearly $100 a barrel, and Shell and Conoco ran seismic surveys to test the geology beneath the Chukchi in the last couple of years, sometimes sharing the cost and the data, said Erec Isaacson, Conoco Alaska's exploration and land vice president.
Of the seven companies bidding, Shell was tops with $2.1 billion in winning bids, followed by Conoco with more than $506 million. Other bidders included the Spanish firm Repsol, the Italian firm Eni, Statoil Hydro of Norway, and two others.
The biggest bids centered on abandoned well sites in the Chukchi. Between 1989 and 1991, Shell drilled four exploratory wells with names like Popcorn and Burger, finding signs of oil and gas, and Chevron drilled one.
Because the Chukchi is so remote and devoid of roads, pipelines and ports, it'll take a major strike to justify the enormous cost of commercial development, oil company executives said.
But with other oil provinces around the globe either closed or played out, and with oil prices soaring, the Chukchi looks like a good gamble, they said.
"The time's right to come back to Alaska," said Annell Bay, a Shell exploration vice president.
Shell, which re-entered the Alaska picture in 2005, plans to drill in the Beaufort Sea this summer assuming it can overcome a court challenge.
Biggest Alaska oil lease sales
Year Sponsor Location High bids
2008 Federal Chukchi Sea$ 2.66 billion
1982 Federal Beaufort Sea $2.06 billion
1969 State North Slope $900 million
1984 Federal Beaufort Sea$ 867 million
1979 State Beaufort Sea $567 million
1976 Federal Gulf of Alaska $560 million
1984 Federal Navarin Basin $516 million
1979 Federal Beaufort Sea $489 million
1988 Federal Chukchi Sea $478 million
1983 Federal St. George $426 million
Sources: U.S. Minerals Management Service; Alaska Division of Oil & Gas
Another aspect of this lease sale by the United States Federal Government, and one that is often overlooked, or ignored, is that all of the money from the winning bids goes into the governments coffers. Look at the amount of money the government has collected from lease sales in Alaska in the past (see the list below). The amount is mind-boggling. So much for the idea that "big oil" is bad. The government must love the oil and gas industry for all of the revenue it provides.
There is yet another aspect to this sale that I'm sure a lot of people overlook. Where does the oil industry get all the money to spend on these lease sales? Well, they get it from you and I, and anyone and everyone who uses petroleum products. The cost gets passed on to the consumer, of course. When you think about it, this is another form of taxation; in this case the money goes from your pocket to the oil companies, who then pay a large portion to the government. This does not even include the royalties companies pay when they actually produce oil and gas.
To make things even more depressing, think of the taxes you pay when you buy the gasoline made from this oil. We're being taxed, and taxed, and taxed again. Think about this the next time you fill your car with gas and complain that you're being "ripped off" by "big oil".
Peter
source:Record bids for oil, gas leases in Chukchi Sea
$2.7 BILLION: Alaska won't get a penny from federal sale of remote Chukchi Sea tracts.
By WESLEY LOY
wloy@adn.com wloy@adn.com
Published: February 7th, 2008 12:11 AMLast Modified: February 7th, 2008 03:23 PM
Oil companies flush with cash and hungry for new discoveries bid nearly $2.7 billion Wednesday in a blockbuster competition for drilling rights in the forbidding Chukchi Sea.
The sum of winning bids is the most ever generated in an Alaska oil and gas lease sale, whether on land or offshore. The tally tops the $2.1 billion raised in a 1982 sale in the neighboring Beaufort Sea, and the $900 million in a 1969 land sale at Prudhoe Bay that launched giddy Alaskans into a new era of fabulous oil wealth.
All proceeds from Wednesday's sale go to the U.S. government, and none to the state, as the offshore acreage is under federal jurisdiction.
Oil men, journalists and others packed a Loussac Library auditorium in Anchorage and listened with anxiety and awe as officials announced hundreds of often jaw-dropping bids on tracts totaling 2.8 million acres in the Chukchi, a shallow and icy polar sea between Alaska and Russia.
The competition was pitched as two global powers -- Shell and Conoco Phillips -- offered fortunes on some of the same tracts. Onlookers sometimes sounded like a football crowd, going "ohh!" or "aww!" when one company barely beat out the other.
The day's highest bid for a single tract came from the Dutch company Shell at $105,304,581.
"It's fabulous," Jason Brune, head of the Resource Development Council for Alaska, said during a break in the three-hour bid reading. "The big boys came -- flexed their muscles."
Not everyone was happy.
A handful of environmental activists and Native leaders from the coastal villages of Point Hope and Barrow stood in subzero cold outside the library to protest the sale. They fear industrial activity and spills could drive away or kill whales villagers hunt for food.
"Our ocean is our garden," said a shivering Earl Kingik, a Point Hope whaler.
He and other protesters said they don't believe oil companies can clean up offshore spills, and they said the companies demonstrated with their huge bids they have the power to steamroll village concerns.
Point Hope and a coalition of environmental groups have filed suit challenging Wednesday's lease sale.
Oil company executives and officials with the U.S. Minerals Management Service, which regulates offshore industry, said whales, polar bears and other wildlife will enjoy many protections from explorers. For example, all the leased acreage is at least 50 miles out to sea. And companies would be encouraged to use pipelines, not tankers, to carry oil to market.
Randall Luthi, director of the Minerals Management Service, said world energy demand is rising and the Chukchi Sea offers a chance to reduce U.S. dependence on oil and gas imports.
The government estimates the Chukchi could hold 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Those numbers compare to reserves in the Prudhoe Bay area.
"It's a great sale, a great commitment," Luthi said. He noted the $2.7 billion in winning bids far surpassed his agency's prediction a couple of years ago that the Chukchi sale would generate $67 million.
The last Chukchi sale, in 1991, generated $7.1 million.
Much has changed since then. The price of oil has rocketed to nearly $100 a barrel, and Shell and Conoco ran seismic surveys to test the geology beneath the Chukchi in the last couple of years, sometimes sharing the cost and the data, said Erec Isaacson, Conoco Alaska's exploration and land vice president.
Of the seven companies bidding, Shell was tops with $2.1 billion in winning bids, followed by Conoco with more than $506 million. Other bidders included the Spanish firm Repsol, the Italian firm Eni, Statoil Hydro of Norway, and two others.
The biggest bids centered on abandoned well sites in the Chukchi. Between 1989 and 1991, Shell drilled four exploratory wells with names like Popcorn and Burger, finding signs of oil and gas, and Chevron drilled one.
Because the Chukchi is so remote and devoid of roads, pipelines and ports, it'll take a major strike to justify the enormous cost of commercial development, oil company executives said.
But with other oil provinces around the globe either closed or played out, and with oil prices soaring, the Chukchi looks like a good gamble, they said.
"The time's right to come back to Alaska," said Annell Bay, a Shell exploration vice president.
Shell, which re-entered the Alaska picture in 2005, plans to drill in the Beaufort Sea this summer assuming it can overcome a court challenge.
Biggest Alaska oil lease sales
Year Sponsor Location High bids
2008 Federal Chukchi Sea$ 2.66 billion
1982 Federal Beaufort Sea $2.06 billion
1969 State North Slope $900 million
1984 Federal Beaufort Sea$ 867 million
1979 State Beaufort Sea $567 million
1976 Federal Gulf of Alaska $560 million
1984 Federal Navarin Basin $516 million
1979 Federal Beaufort Sea $489 million
1988 Federal Chukchi Sea $478 million
1983 Federal St. George $426 million
Sources: U.S. Minerals Management Service; Alaska Division of Oil & Gas
Friday, January 25, 2008
Follow The Money....It Stinks Of Global Warming
And if you wonder where your money is going....this article may provide a clue. If you think doctors rake you over the coals......taking your last cent....consider lawyers.....
Peter
Lawyers Embrace U.S. Global-Warming
Practice at $700 an Hour
Lawyers are becoming some of the best-paid environmentalists. Twenty of the 100 highest-grossing U.S. law firms have started practices advising companies on climate change, according to a Bloomberg survey of the firms' Web sites. The attorneys help clients finance clean-energy projects and lobby Congress, typically billing $500 to $700 an hour.
Firms including Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Heller Ehrman and Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton joined the global warming cause as real-estate and structured-finance attorneys lost jobs to the worst U.S. housing slump in 27 years. The move into climate-change law is gaining traction as Congress considers a mandatory carbon market to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
``Since the elections last November, climate change has had a higher profile as a political issue,'' said Paul Gutermann, co- leader of Washington-based Akin Gump's group, which comprises 50 of the firm's 1,023 attorneys. Gutermann's team is helping clients including PG&E Corp. push U.S. lawmakers to establish a market that uses so-called carbon credits to penalize heavy polluters financially.
Senators John Warner and Joseph Lieberman introduced a bill inspired by Europe's carbon market, and attorneys predict some legislation will pass after President George W. Bush, who opposes mandatory caps on emissions, leaves office in a year. Global warming, driven by heat-trapping gases, is causing Arctic ice to melt and sea levels to rise, a United Nations panel of scientists said last year. International reaction has sparked interest in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, making energy use more efficient and adding to non-polluting power sources.
Baker & McKenzie, a Chicago-based firm with 3,335 lawyers, was a pioneer, creating a climate-change group a decade ago. It became profitable after two years, said Richard Saines, who heads the U.S. part of the practice. The 60-lawyer team brought in estimated revenue of $15 million to $20 million in 2007, Saines said. The firm's total revenue in 2006 was $1.52 billion, according to the trade magazine American Lawyer. ``We saw this as one of the key international-law issues that would affect U.S.-based multinationals,'' Saines said. ``And that is now the case.'' ....Climate-change attorneys also advise private-equity firms and hedge funds on clean-energy projects.
Worldwide investments in sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar and water power rose 43 percent to $70.9 billion in 2006, according to a UN report. Wind Projects In the U.S., more than $4 billion was invested in wind projects alone, according to Chadbourne's Zaelke, who specializes in financing and developing wind farms.
One of Zaelke's clients, John Deere Renewables, has invested more than $500 million since 2005 in community wind farms in seven states. The company, part of the financial services arm of Des Moines, Iowa-based Deere & Co., gets advice on supply agreements, project development and tax structures, said David Drescher, general manager of John Deere Wind Energy. "They've been to a lot of wind farms", Drescher said.More
here
Peter
Lawyers Embrace U.S. Global-Warming
Practice at $700 an Hour
Lawyers are becoming some of the best-paid environmentalists. Twenty of the 100 highest-grossing U.S. law firms have started practices advising companies on climate change, according to a Bloomberg survey of the firms' Web sites. The attorneys help clients finance clean-energy projects and lobby Congress, typically billing $500 to $700 an hour.
Firms including Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Heller Ehrman and Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton joined the global warming cause as real-estate and structured-finance attorneys lost jobs to the worst U.S. housing slump in 27 years. The move into climate-change law is gaining traction as Congress considers a mandatory carbon market to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
``Since the elections last November, climate change has had a higher profile as a political issue,'' said Paul Gutermann, co- leader of Washington-based Akin Gump's group, which comprises 50 of the firm's 1,023 attorneys. Gutermann's team is helping clients including PG&E Corp. push U.S. lawmakers to establish a market that uses so-called carbon credits to penalize heavy polluters financially.
Senators John Warner and Joseph Lieberman introduced a bill inspired by Europe's carbon market, and attorneys predict some legislation will pass after President George W. Bush, who opposes mandatory caps on emissions, leaves office in a year. Global warming, driven by heat-trapping gases, is causing Arctic ice to melt and sea levels to rise, a United Nations panel of scientists said last year. International reaction has sparked interest in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, making energy use more efficient and adding to non-polluting power sources.
Baker & McKenzie, a Chicago-based firm with 3,335 lawyers, was a pioneer, creating a climate-change group a decade ago. It became profitable after two years, said Richard Saines, who heads the U.S. part of the practice. The 60-lawyer team brought in estimated revenue of $15 million to $20 million in 2007, Saines said. The firm's total revenue in 2006 was $1.52 billion, according to the trade magazine American Lawyer. ``We saw this as one of the key international-law issues that would affect U.S.-based multinationals,'' Saines said. ``And that is now the case.'' ....Climate-change attorneys also advise private-equity firms and hedge funds on clean-energy projects.
Worldwide investments in sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar and water power rose 43 percent to $70.9 billion in 2006, according to a UN report. Wind Projects In the U.S., more than $4 billion was invested in wind projects alone, according to Chadbourne's Zaelke, who specializes in financing and developing wind farms.
One of Zaelke's clients, John Deere Renewables, has invested more than $500 million since 2005 in community wind farms in seven states. The company, part of the financial services arm of Des Moines, Iowa-based Deere & Co., gets advice on supply agreements, project development and tax structures, said David Drescher, general manager of John Deere Wind Energy. "They've been to a lot of wind farms", Drescher said.More
here
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Pain In Feel-Good Environmentalism; 6.5 Billion Dollars Worth In 2006 Alone!
Six and a half BILLION dollars given to environmental groups in 2006 alone! Wow, that buys a lot of lobbyists and votes and spews out a lot of propaganda. Is it any wonder they have been able to fool so many people about global warming? Is it any wonder why they continue with the scare tactics about climate change catastrophe so they can keep the donations flowing in? It would be humorous if were not so despicable.
Propaganda, aside, there is a downside to some of this activity, besides frivolous cruise ships sinking and polluting the sea off Antarctica, as described below.
Peter
The Pain in Feel-Good Environmentalism
Julie Walsh
September 19, 2007
Over six and a half billion dollars were given to environmental groups in 2006, according to the June 28, 2007 issue of “Chronicle of Philanthropy.” But how many of the good people who donated to these groups know that some of their money is used to thwart mining projects destined to help poverty-stricken people in poverty-stricken nations? The groups don’t publicize this fact.
For example, when you go on the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) website you see lots of pictures of adorable animals and stories of WWF projects to save gorillas and macaws. But they don’t publicize the dirty fact that they are working to bring down a mining project in Madagascar, the world’s third poorest country.
Most U.S. citizens care about the United States’ reputation in the world. Yet we’re turning a blind-eye to the developing world’s increasing resentment towards us caused by First-World environmental groups, who seek to impose their green values on the developing world and bring down much-needed projects. In our arrogance, we use our own land for large office buildings, factories, and shopping malls, but we can’t allow them to use their own land for a desired mining project, consigning the world’s poorer nations to slow—and in some cases no—economic growth.
But as Snezhina Kovacheva states, “(E)nvironmental mitigation is a value-added good. As a country's wealth increases, its citizens recognize that a better environment enhances the quality of life. Accordingly, the population starts investing a larger portion of its greater resources into developing cleaner technologies.” As seen in the area of global warming, the United States was able to reduce its emissions (relative to GDP) further through energy efficiency, than those of the Kyoto-signers.
source:
Propaganda, aside, there is a downside to some of this activity, besides frivolous cruise ships sinking and polluting the sea off Antarctica, as described below.
Peter
The Pain in Feel-Good Environmentalism
Julie Walsh
September 19, 2007
Over six and a half billion dollars were given to environmental groups in 2006, according to the June 28, 2007 issue of “Chronicle of Philanthropy.” But how many of the good people who donated to these groups know that some of their money is used to thwart mining projects destined to help poverty-stricken people in poverty-stricken nations? The groups don’t publicize this fact.
For example, when you go on the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) website you see lots of pictures of adorable animals and stories of WWF projects to save gorillas and macaws. But they don’t publicize the dirty fact that they are working to bring down a mining project in Madagascar, the world’s third poorest country.
Most U.S. citizens care about the United States’ reputation in the world. Yet we’re turning a blind-eye to the developing world’s increasing resentment towards us caused by First-World environmental groups, who seek to impose their green values on the developing world and bring down much-needed projects. In our arrogance, we use our own land for large office buildings, factories, and shopping malls, but we can’t allow them to use their own land for a desired mining project, consigning the world’s poorer nations to slow—and in some cases no—economic growth.
But as Snezhina Kovacheva states, “(E)nvironmental mitigation is a value-added good. As a country's wealth increases, its citizens recognize that a better environment enhances the quality of life. Accordingly, the population starts investing a larger portion of its greater resources into developing cleaner technologies.” As seen in the area of global warming, the United States was able to reduce its emissions (relative to GDP) further through energy efficiency, than those of the Kyoto-signers.
source:
Monday, October 8, 2007
Al Gore Getting Rich By Spreading Global Warming Hysteria
It is not possible to separate politics, money and power from the issue of global warming. The following article puts a few of these factors into perspective.
Peter
from: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
Al Gore Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria With Media’s Help
By Noel Sheppard October 3, 2007 - 11:06 ET
Americans willing to look at the manmade global warming debate with any degree of impartiality and honesty are well aware that those spreading the hysteria have made a lot of money doing so, and stand to gain much more if governments mandate carbon dioxide emissions reductions.
In fact, just two months ago, ABC News.com estimated soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore's net worth at $100 million, which isn't bad considering that he was supposedly worth about $1 million when he watched George W. Bush get sworn in as president in January 2001.
Talk about your get-rich-quick schemes, how'd you like to increase your net worth 10,000 percent in less than seven years?
Fortunately for the world's foremost warm-monger - a term I'd love to see become part of the parlance concerning what, in the long run, will likely be viewed as the greatest con ever perpetrated on the American people - his current wealth represents a mere pittance of what it will be if governments around the world are scared into all of his preposterous recommendations.
With that in mind, Deborah Corey Barnes published a marvelous piece at Human Events Wednesday that would be rather sobering for folks on both sides of the aisle if only a global warming obsessed media would be willing to share the information with the citizenry (emphasis added throughout):
Al Gore's campaign against global warming is shifting into high gear. Reporters and commentators follow his every move and bombard the public with notice of his activities and opinions. But while the mainstream media promote his ideas about the state of planet Earth, they are mostly silent about the dramatic impact his economic proposals would have on America. And journalists routinely ignore evidence that he may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore's followers realized how much their man stands to gain?
Of course it would, Deborah. That's why media have largely been mute on this matter.
With that as pretext, Barnes addressed Gore's cap-and-trade carbon scheme, and how he is well-positioned to benefit if governments across the globe implement it:
Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. "Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets," said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.
GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.[...]Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that's almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm's finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.
After addressing how intimately tied to the investment firm Goldman Sachs Gore and his GIM associates are, Barnes presented further nefarious connections that make Ken Lay's Enron network in the '90s look almost amateurish:
We do know that Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley committed to invest $3 billion in carbon-assets projects. Citigroup entered the emissions-trading market in May, and Bank of America got in on the action in June.
Some environmentalist groups disparage Gore and his investment banker friends. They say the Gore group caters to others who share their financial interest in the carbon-exchange concept. The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore's carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange.
The global non-profit organization Winrock International is an example of one IPCC panel member that seeks out groups and individuals with an interest in carbon trading. Arkansas-based Winrock provides worldwide "carbon-advisory services." Winrock has received government grants from the EPA, USAID and the Departments of Labor, State and Commerce, as well as from the Nature Conservancy (whose chairman used to be Henry Paulson). Winrock argues that cap-and-trade carbon trading is the best way to prevent a climate change crisis. But consider this: When a non-profit group takes money from oil companies and advocates drilling for oil as a solution to energy shortages, it is certain to be attacked as a tool of Big Oil. So far, the groups linked to Al Gore have avoided similar scrutiny.
Why is that? Why does everything Gore is involved in avoid government and media scrutiny?
While you ponder, there's more:
In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.
A World Bank blog called the Private Sector Development Blog regularly features items touting Al Gore and the concept of carbon credits. Its articles typically announce corporate "green" initiatives in which carbon credits are said to cancel out "bad" CO2 emissions released by a company's activities.In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore's firm, Generation Investment Management). Can we connect the dots?[...] So it seems banks and investment houses are going green, eager to enter an emerging emissions market. Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests.
Add it all up, Al Gore really is perpetrating a scheme that could end up being much more costly to Americans than anything Ken Lay did. As if that's not bad enough, our media are totally complicit rather than doing their jobs exposing the scam.
I don't know about you, but suddenly I need another shower.
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Peter
from: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
Al Gore Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria With Media’s Help
By Noel Sheppard October 3, 2007 - 11:06 ET
Americans willing to look at the manmade global warming debate with any degree of impartiality and honesty are well aware that those spreading the hysteria have made a lot of money doing so, and stand to gain much more if governments mandate carbon dioxide emissions reductions.
In fact, just two months ago, ABC News.com estimated soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore's net worth at $100 million, which isn't bad considering that he was supposedly worth about $1 million when he watched George W. Bush get sworn in as president in January 2001.
Talk about your get-rich-quick schemes, how'd you like to increase your net worth 10,000 percent in less than seven years?
Fortunately for the world's foremost warm-monger - a term I'd love to see become part of the parlance concerning what, in the long run, will likely be viewed as the greatest con ever perpetrated on the American people - his current wealth represents a mere pittance of what it will be if governments around the world are scared into all of his preposterous recommendations.
With that in mind, Deborah Corey Barnes published a marvelous piece at Human Events Wednesday that would be rather sobering for folks on both sides of the aisle if only a global warming obsessed media would be willing to share the information with the citizenry (emphasis added throughout):
Al Gore's campaign against global warming is shifting into high gear. Reporters and commentators follow his every move and bombard the public with notice of his activities and opinions. But while the mainstream media promote his ideas about the state of planet Earth, they are mostly silent about the dramatic impact his economic proposals would have on America. And journalists routinely ignore evidence that he may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore's followers realized how much their man stands to gain?
Of course it would, Deborah. That's why media have largely been mute on this matter.
With that as pretext, Barnes addressed Gore's cap-and-trade carbon scheme, and how he is well-positioned to benefit if governments across the globe implement it:
Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. "Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets," said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.
GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.[...]Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that's almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm's finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.
After addressing how intimately tied to the investment firm Goldman Sachs Gore and his GIM associates are, Barnes presented further nefarious connections that make Ken Lay's Enron network in the '90s look almost amateurish:
We do know that Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley committed to invest $3 billion in carbon-assets projects. Citigroup entered the emissions-trading market in May, and Bank of America got in on the action in June.
Some environmentalist groups disparage Gore and his investment banker friends. They say the Gore group caters to others who share their financial interest in the carbon-exchange concept. The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore's carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange.
The global non-profit organization Winrock International is an example of one IPCC panel member that seeks out groups and individuals with an interest in carbon trading. Arkansas-based Winrock provides worldwide "carbon-advisory services." Winrock has received government grants from the EPA, USAID and the Departments of Labor, State and Commerce, as well as from the Nature Conservancy (whose chairman used to be Henry Paulson). Winrock argues that cap-and-trade carbon trading is the best way to prevent a climate change crisis. But consider this: When a non-profit group takes money from oil companies and advocates drilling for oil as a solution to energy shortages, it is certain to be attacked as a tool of Big Oil. So far, the groups linked to Al Gore have avoided similar scrutiny.
Why is that? Why does everything Gore is involved in avoid government and media scrutiny?
While you ponder, there's more:
In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.
A World Bank blog called the Private Sector Development Blog regularly features items touting Al Gore and the concept of carbon credits. Its articles typically announce corporate "green" initiatives in which carbon credits are said to cancel out "bad" CO2 emissions released by a company's activities.In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore's firm, Generation Investment Management). Can we connect the dots?[...] So it seems banks and investment houses are going green, eager to enter an emerging emissions market. Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests.
Add it all up, Al Gore really is perpetrating a scheme that could end up being much more costly to Americans than anything Ken Lay did. As if that's not bad enough, our media are totally complicit rather than doing their jobs exposing the scam.
I don't know about you, but suddenly I need another shower.
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Cap-And-Trade Scam
If the global warming issue was only a scientific debate it could easily be dismissed as an intellectual mind game between scientists and computer modelers. It would be comparable to the argument between those who "believe" in evolution, versus those who "believe" in a literal interpretation of the Bible. There would be no end to it and it would not have to be taken seriously.
However, global warming became an emotional, political issue, and now it seems as divisive as the abortion issue, or gun-control, or foreign policy in the Middle East. In other words, it has become a huge issue, one involving enormous power, control, and billions upon billions of dollars. It is past time that rational people take serious notice about what is really going on behind the nightly news and the weather report.
The following article, of which I've posted the majority of, summarizes the idiotic idea of selling or trading carbon caps. It will cost billions and not improve the climate or limit real pollution in any way. In other words, it is a huge SCAM. Yet incomprehensibly, people are falling for it.
Read the original article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200705/COM20070514c.html
Peter
The Great Cap-And-Trade Scam
By Alan Caruba
CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety Center May 14,
Of all the crazed global warming proposals being put forth by the new masters of Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairperson of the Public Works Committee, by far the worst would be a mandated cap-and-trade program that would supposedly offset carbon dioxide emissions.
This program is horrid on several counts. First, there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence -- other than disputed and dubious computer models -- to suggest that any significant global warming is occurring. The warming and cooling of the Earth is an entirely natural phenomenon.
Second, carbon dioxide (CO2) plays only a minor role as a so-called greenhouse gas. The predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor produced by the world's oceans. The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age and, even if a mild warming were to occur, the only result would be an extended period to grow more crops and to enhance the growth of the world's forests that generate the oxygen on which all humans depend for life.
Third, the notion that man-made CO2 emissions -- the result of industrial activity, the use of cars and trucks for transportation, and a host of other things humans do -- is a major contributor to "climate change" is almost too silly to believe. Recently, the European Union identified cow and sheep burping as an even greater threat than human activity, but ruminants have been doing this long before human civilization began.
To get an idea how bogus cap-and-trade emissions credits are, one need only look to see who is behind this spurious campaign. At or near the top of that list is the United Nations for whom global warming has become the Holy Grail. By positioning themselves to save the Earth, the U.N. sets itself up to control all aspects of life upon it. Supporting the U.N. program are the endless non-governmental organizations that benefit from keeping people fearful the Earth will come to an end without their programs to save it.
The adage, however, is "follow the money" and here's where we find the greatest supporters of cap-and-trade emissions credits. Huge financial firms such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are betting they can make billions through government mandated programs in which vast amounts of money move back and forth through "climate exchanges" where companies trade their alleged emissions reduction activities for credits, i.e., real cash.
The absolute worst part of these cap-and-trade emissions programs is the way they will affect the American consumer. A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivered a devastating indictment of the proposal.
In brief, the CBO concluded that the CO2 cap-and-trade scheme would increase home energy costs and the price of gas, unfairly punishing the poor while transferring wealth to the rich who have investments in these industries.
Not one of the nations that signed onto the Kyoto Protocol to limit their CO2 emissions has ever met the standards to which they agreed and none ever will. The cap-and-trade scheme is just another version of these meaningless limits, but one that is designed to enrich those who engage in the smoke-and-mirrors trade in such credits.
If a Democrat-controlled Congress permits this to occur, the global warming scam will have been brought to its full culmination and purpose, the enrichment of those who have been perpetrating it and those who seek to benefit from it.
However, global warming became an emotional, political issue, and now it seems as divisive as the abortion issue, or gun-control, or foreign policy in the Middle East. In other words, it has become a huge issue, one involving enormous power, control, and billions upon billions of dollars. It is past time that rational people take serious notice about what is really going on behind the nightly news and the weather report.
The following article, of which I've posted the majority of, summarizes the idiotic idea of selling or trading carbon caps. It will cost billions and not improve the climate or limit real pollution in any way. In other words, it is a huge SCAM. Yet incomprehensibly, people are falling for it.
Read the original article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200705/COM20070514c.html
Peter
The Great Cap-And-Trade Scam
By Alan Caruba
CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety Center May 14,
Of all the crazed global warming proposals being put forth by the new masters of Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairperson of the Public Works Committee, by far the worst would be a mandated cap-and-trade program that would supposedly offset carbon dioxide emissions.
This program is horrid on several counts. First, there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence -- other than disputed and dubious computer models -- to suggest that any significant global warming is occurring. The warming and cooling of the Earth is an entirely natural phenomenon.
Second, carbon dioxide (CO2) plays only a minor role as a so-called greenhouse gas. The predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor produced by the world's oceans. The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age and, even if a mild warming were to occur, the only result would be an extended period to grow more crops and to enhance the growth of the world's forests that generate the oxygen on which all humans depend for life.
Third, the notion that man-made CO2 emissions -- the result of industrial activity, the use of cars and trucks for transportation, and a host of other things humans do -- is a major contributor to "climate change" is almost too silly to believe. Recently, the European Union identified cow and sheep burping as an even greater threat than human activity, but ruminants have been doing this long before human civilization began.
To get an idea how bogus cap-and-trade emissions credits are, one need only look to see who is behind this spurious campaign. At or near the top of that list is the United Nations for whom global warming has become the Holy Grail. By positioning themselves to save the Earth, the U.N. sets itself up to control all aspects of life upon it. Supporting the U.N. program are the endless non-governmental organizations that benefit from keeping people fearful the Earth will come to an end without their programs to save it.
The adage, however, is "follow the money" and here's where we find the greatest supporters of cap-and-trade emissions credits. Huge financial firms such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are betting they can make billions through government mandated programs in which vast amounts of money move back and forth through "climate exchanges" where companies trade their alleged emissions reduction activities for credits, i.e., real cash.
The absolute worst part of these cap-and-trade emissions programs is the way they will affect the American consumer. A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivered a devastating indictment of the proposal.
In brief, the CBO concluded that the CO2 cap-and-trade scheme would increase home energy costs and the price of gas, unfairly punishing the poor while transferring wealth to the rich who have investments in these industries.
Not one of the nations that signed onto the Kyoto Protocol to limit their CO2 emissions has ever met the standards to which they agreed and none ever will. The cap-and-trade scheme is just another version of these meaningless limits, but one that is designed to enrich those who engage in the smoke-and-mirrors trade in such credits.
If a Democrat-controlled Congress permits this to occur, the global warming scam will have been brought to its full culmination and purpose, the enrichment of those who have been perpetrating it and those who seek to benefit from it.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Global Warming: More On Following The MONEY
Here is another article on the politics and economics of global warming. The more I learn about this whole issue the more appalled I become. Making a little fun about Sheryl Crowe, other Hollywood hypocrites, and Al Gore, is kind of missing the bigger point. This is a serious issue, not just because life on Earth will not come to any quick end because of global warming, and not just because the public is being fooled and misled, but because the laws being proposed are going to waste billions, if not trillions of dollars. Money far better spend elsewhere.
Peter
On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!
Monday , February 12, 2007
By David Asman
It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo.
Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.
There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.
So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann.
Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.” Click here to read the entire blog.
Mr. Spann’s suspicions were born out in a terrific bit of investigative journalism by two of my own colleagues here at FOX News, George Russell and Claudia Rosett. In the course of investigating a high United Nations official, one who has become something of a hero to the global warming worriers, they found that the official’s motivations may not have been entirely altruistic. Click here to read their full report.
Maurice Strong is a founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), a division of the U.N. that has grown into a bureaucratic monstrosity with an annual budget of $136 million. Mr. Strong left his post at UNEP in the 1970s but kept his ecological credentials and helped organize a 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which become the forerunner of the Kyoto Accords. While Strong has spent a lifetime parlaying his UN contacts into business associations, nowhere has he done so more successfully than with his ecological “credentials.”
Recently Strong has been spending most of his time in China, where he’s been linked, among other things, to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America. But his presence there raises some awkward questions for Russell and Rosett: “For one thing, China, while one of the world’s biggest producers of industrial pollution, has been profiting from the trading of carbon emissions credits – thanks to heavily politicized U.N.-backed environmental deals engineered by Strong in the 1990s.”
Could Mr. Strong be benefiting from deals that he helped put together while he was working at the U.N.? We don’t know. What we do know is that Mr. Strong is now on voluntary leave from the U.N. while questions are sorted out concerning a $1 million check that was passed to him by South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad.
Now the Maurice Strong story, however it sorts itself out, is not to say that all or even most of the heroes in the global-warming-worriers network are spreading the message just to get rich. I’m sure that they are mostly good people who believe in their views just as sincerely as those on the opposite side. But the ad hominem charges hurled at global warming skeptics, particularly the charge that they’re just in it for the money, can just as easily be hurled right back at some very prominent proponents of the other side of the debate.
Billions of dollars have been invested so far in studying climate change ($20 billion from the Bush administration alone), and very little of that money has landed in the laps of those outside of the global warming orthodoxy. As weatherman James Spann says: “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.” The only problem is that would leave out an enormous number of scientists who have already cashed in on it.
David Asman is the host of "Forbes on FOX" which airs on the FOX News Channel, Saturdays at 11 a.m. ET.
/**/
Peter
On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!
Monday , February 12, 2007
By David Asman
It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo.
Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.
There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.
So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann.
Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.” Click here to read the entire blog.
Mr. Spann’s suspicions were born out in a terrific bit of investigative journalism by two of my own colleagues here at FOX News, George Russell and Claudia Rosett. In the course of investigating a high United Nations official, one who has become something of a hero to the global warming worriers, they found that the official’s motivations may not have been entirely altruistic. Click here to read their full report.
Maurice Strong is a founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), a division of the U.N. that has grown into a bureaucratic monstrosity with an annual budget of $136 million. Mr. Strong left his post at UNEP in the 1970s but kept his ecological credentials and helped organize a 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which become the forerunner of the Kyoto Accords. While Strong has spent a lifetime parlaying his UN contacts into business associations, nowhere has he done so more successfully than with his ecological “credentials.”
Recently Strong has been spending most of his time in China, where he’s been linked, among other things, to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America. But his presence there raises some awkward questions for Russell and Rosett: “For one thing, China, while one of the world’s biggest producers of industrial pollution, has been profiting from the trading of carbon emissions credits – thanks to heavily politicized U.N.-backed environmental deals engineered by Strong in the 1990s.”
Could Mr. Strong be benefiting from deals that he helped put together while he was working at the U.N.? We don’t know. What we do know is that Mr. Strong is now on voluntary leave from the U.N. while questions are sorted out concerning a $1 million check that was passed to him by South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad.
Now the Maurice Strong story, however it sorts itself out, is not to say that all or even most of the heroes in the global-warming-worriers network are spreading the message just to get rich. I’m sure that they are mostly good people who believe in their views just as sincerely as those on the opposite side. But the ad hominem charges hurled at global warming skeptics, particularly the charge that they’re just in it for the money, can just as easily be hurled right back at some very prominent proponents of the other side of the debate.
Billions of dollars have been invested so far in studying climate change ($20 billion from the Bush administration alone), and very little of that money has landed in the laps of those outside of the global warming orthodoxy. As weatherman James Spann says: “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.” The only problem is that would leave out an enormous number of scientists who have already cashed in on it.
David Asman is the host of "Forbes on FOX" which airs on the FOX News Channel, Saturdays at 11 a.m. ET.
/**/
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Book Reviews - amazon.com
I find it extremely informative to read other people's opinions on global warming and climate change. There is an incredible diversity of opinion. Some scientists do not communicate well and get lost in minute, and often trivial details. On some of the discussion forums I visit, (MSNBC 's "climate change", and "environment" are examples), I find many people hopelessly uneducated, religious fanatics, mystics, ultra-socialist environmentalists, blindly naive haters of everything "Bush", or just plain stupid.
I think it is important to listen to what a variety of people think, because remember, most everyone can vote. Somebody likes Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons; and I just keep shaking my head and wondering WHY???? So being a scientist I guess I'm always curious, and want to understand. I guess that makes me a skeptic.
But one place I find some very intelligent discussion taking place is on amazon.com. Is fabulously easy to access. You type in an author, or a book title or even a subject. When you find a book you want, or one that sounds interesting, you can read "customer reviews". There are some really sharp people out there reading and thinking, which gives me some degree of hope that the people preaching gloom and doom over global warming will eventually be revealed as grossly wrong.
Here are some excerpts of reviews about the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming", by Christopher C. Horner.
Reviewer:
thefonz (Niagara Falls) - See all my reviewsMr. Horner did a very thorough analysis of current popular and widely believed commentary about global climate change. Due to the fact that the media tends to oversimplify the topic in order to create fear and impact for ratings, most of his work was about putting cogent, rational perspective into this debate.............(and)
One extremely important lesson in Mr. Horner's work (and one that immediately shows that some reviewers haven't read the book, and if they did, something was lost in the translation from English to English) is that big oil and government (meetings with the Enron, President and VP in 1994, Ken Lay, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, respectively) were designing plans to basically create a government supported cartel of domestic oil producers. On top of this, energy companies are the ones who get the big taxpayer funded subsidies for alternate energy research and development. ............(and)
It's that last point - your money - where Mr. Horner hits hard. The eagerness of people to support non-governmental movements, ones that are full of unelected persons supporting more layers of regulation in the private citizen's life, under the guise of the greater good is something of concern........(and finally)
There was one surprise. I always thought Al Gore was a lawyer and had a brilliant academic career. So said his handlers and marketing people. Mr. Gore eeked out a BA, which included two science courses with grades of C+ and D (the D reserved for Man's Place in Nature, ironically), yet Mr. Gore plants himself in a career that is about science. He attended, but did not complete, graduate school. This brings back memories of Mr. Gore's condescending eye-rolling in the debates preceding the 2000 election. It's fair to question the motives of all strong opinions in the climate issue, but Mr. Gore's in particular, should be equally suspect, especially given his "qualifications". This is where a "be worried, be very worried" applies.
There's much more to read here, most of it good, all of it interesting.
Peter
I think it is important to listen to what a variety of people think, because remember, most everyone can vote. Somebody likes Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons; and I just keep shaking my head and wondering WHY???? So being a scientist I guess I'm always curious, and want to understand. I guess that makes me a skeptic.
But one place I find some very intelligent discussion taking place is on amazon.com. Is fabulously easy to access. You type in an author, or a book title or even a subject. When you find a book you want, or one that sounds interesting, you can read "customer reviews". There are some really sharp people out there reading and thinking, which gives me some degree of hope that the people preaching gloom and doom over global warming will eventually be revealed as grossly wrong.
Here are some excerpts of reviews about the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming", by Christopher C. Horner.
Reviewer:
thefonz (Niagara Falls) - See all my reviewsMr. Horner did a very thorough analysis of current popular and widely believed commentary about global climate change. Due to the fact that the media tends to oversimplify the topic in order to create fear and impact for ratings, most of his work was about putting cogent, rational perspective into this debate.............(and)
One extremely important lesson in Mr. Horner's work (and one that immediately shows that some reviewers haven't read the book, and if they did, something was lost in the translation from English to English) is that big oil and government (meetings with the Enron, President and VP in 1994, Ken Lay, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, respectively) were designing plans to basically create a government supported cartel of domestic oil producers. On top of this, energy companies are the ones who get the big taxpayer funded subsidies for alternate energy research and development. ............(and)
It's that last point - your money - where Mr. Horner hits hard. The eagerness of people to support non-governmental movements, ones that are full of unelected persons supporting more layers of regulation in the private citizen's life, under the guise of the greater good is something of concern........(and finally)
There was one surprise. I always thought Al Gore was a lawyer and had a brilliant academic career. So said his handlers and marketing people. Mr. Gore eeked out a BA, which included two science courses with grades of C+ and D (the D reserved for Man's Place in Nature, ironically), yet Mr. Gore plants himself in a career that is about science. He attended, but did not complete, graduate school. This brings back memories of Mr. Gore's condescending eye-rolling in the debates preceding the 2000 election. It's fair to question the motives of all strong opinions in the climate issue, but Mr. Gore's in particular, should be equally suspect, especially given his "qualifications". This is where a "be worried, be very worried" applies.
There's much more to read here, most of it good, all of it interesting.
Peter
An Interview With Dr. S. Fred Singer
Here is a short quotation from a PBS interview with a well known Climate Scientist. He is also one of the leading global warming "skeptics". His years of experience gives him a view of the "big picture" on this issue and he should be taken very seriously. He's not trying to fool anyone.
I think he gives a partial answer to the question of why so many people believe this global warming nonsense:
Peter
"The federal government pumps about $2 billion a year into climate research. Now, this money has to be spent by someone. It supports a lot of jobs. It supports a lot of people. And inevitably, many of these people begin to feel that what they're doing is tremendously important and vital. Otherwise, they couldn't really live with themselves. They've talked themselves into the fact that the work they're doing is somehow helping humanity deal with some kind of a problem."
From an interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist....see the entire interview at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
I think he gives a partial answer to the question of why so many people believe this global warming nonsense:
Peter
"The federal government pumps about $2 billion a year into climate research. Now, this money has to be spent by someone. It supports a lot of jobs. It supports a lot of people. And inevitably, many of these people begin to feel that what they're doing is tremendously important and vital. Otherwise, they couldn't really live with themselves. They've talked themselves into the fact that the work they're doing is somehow helping humanity deal with some kind of a problem."
From an interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist....see the entire interview at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)