Al Gore was silent for days after the Hadley e-mails pointing to global warming the scam were leaked out. Fearful that his gig was up, Gore carefully crafted his next message as the fallout from Hadley began. He waited until Thanksgiving to give it a play. Interestingly enough, as Al Gore speaks up for the first time in days, he says nothing about global warming or climate change--nope, it's about responsible long-term capitalism.
Gore with David Blood ask, "Why do investors and business leaders continue to focus on the short-term and ignore the fact that businesses that think long-term end up more competitive and profitable?"
While immediately there are not obvious themes of global climate change in the essay, we know Gore's long-term plans have been to profit from the long-term scare tactics of climate change which are now public record in the Hadley e-mails. His essay is really a what is at stake for Al Gore, who has spent the better part of a decade frauding the world to fulfil his long-term goals of carbon domination similar to the very same practices liberals attack the oil for, even though Gore has made plenty of investments in big oil in his time--remember Occidental? Read More at BBCW
3 comments
If he said something about it, you would have condemned him for speaking while the evidence is in question.
November 28, 2009 at 10:06 PMI find it hilarious that you think there is a conspiracy to come to a conclusion that's bad for our society. Since the industrial revolution, and therefore most of our modern economy, is based on burning stuff, it's crazy to think we'd WANT to come to the conclusion that the cost of burning stuff is higher than we think. It goes beyond wishful thinking and into pure stupidity.
It's going to be hard for libs to swallow this pill. This very well may be the beginning of the end of the AGW hype.
November 30, 2009 at 12:37 AMCJ - Your point is an ideological talking point disgiused as rational science:
November 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM"Since the industrial revolution, and therefore most of our modern economy, is based on burning stuff, it's crazy to think we'd WANT to come to the conclusion that the cost of burning stuff is higher than we think. It goes beyond wishful thinking and into pure stupidity."
Where is your scientific proof in your argument? I believe that the earth has been and will be much hotter. It has been and will be much cooler. The wishful thinking is that man can in some way change this. Plausibility is not the same as science.
The ideological talking point is simply a variable of the times. The ethos being pushed is that man can operate outside of the realm of creation as opposed to being part of it. In a sense, the belief is that we defy nature as oppposed to being part of it.
Yet, as more carbon is produced, the environment has increased its absorption of carbon. As time goes on, man naturally moves to more efficient energy use.
The differences in beliefs have dire consequences for what should be done to combat potential increasing/decreasing temperatures. Your belief has a morality attached and so it also rules out many potential solutions.
Understanding why temperatures are rising and/or falling is an essential part of answering the question, how do we deal with it!
Post a Comment