Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

Cashing in on carbon credit scam

Posted by Richard on March 15, 2007

It's long been obvious to me that the environmental fear-mongers are chiefly interested in power — their solution to every perceived problem, whether it's overpopulation, pollution, cooling, warming, or whatever, is always less freedom and more government compulsion. And it's been equally clear that many of them are hypocrites, lecturing us for not being green enough while they live in humongous mansions and jet to their second and third homes in their private Gulfstreams.

It turns out that some of them are also greedy money-grubbers using climate-change hysteria to enrich themselves (emphasis added):

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

There's a fine compendium of information about Gore, Knight, and the GIM carbon credit scam at The Global Warming Hoax. Interest in Gore's carbon credit firm grew after the Tennessee Center for Policy Research discovered that Gore's 10,000-square-foot mansion near Nashville used $30,000 worth of electricity and natural gas in 2006. Here's a photoshop picture of the mansion (from FreakingNews.com; used with permission):

Al Gore's mansion, per FreakingNews.com

This isn't the first time Gore and Strong have cashed in on the environment. Back when Gore was Veep, he praised and promoted Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI), which supposedly was developing innovative recycling technology. MMTI got over $30 million in DOE grants, and its stock soared to $35. The company was largely owned and run by Maurice Strong and several Gore associates. Just before news that the technology didn't exist and that the DOE was cutting off funding, Strong and his pals cashed out to the tune of $15 million.

Strong is a piece of work. A wealthy Canadian businessman, U.N. diplomat, and father of the Kyoto Protocol, he was lined up to become U.N. Secretary General before being implicated in the Oil for Food scandal. In 2002, Canadian papers carried a book excerpt profiling Strong and his desire to change the world:

He told Maclean's magazine in 1976 that he was "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology." He warns that if we don't heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.

Strong has always courted power – but not through any shabby election campaign. He was a Liberal candidate in the 1979 federal election, but pulled out a month before the vote.

How could a mere MP wield the kind of international control he had tasted in Stockholm? Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN.

"He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda," wrote Dewar.

"He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn't have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives."

Strong prefers power extracted from democracies, and kept from unenlightened voters. Most power-crazed men would stop at calling for a one world Earth Charter to replace the U.S. Constitution, or the UN Charter.

But in an interview with his own Earth Charter Commission, Strong said "the real goal of the Earth Charter is it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and commitments of people everywhere." Sounds like Maurice was hanging out at his spirit ranch without his sunhat on.

In 1990, Strong told a reporter a fantasy scenario for the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland – where 1,000 diplomats, CEOs and politicians gather "to address global issues."

Strong, naturally, is on the board of the World Economic Forum. "What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…

In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"

Strong may still want to bring down the rich Western industrial democracies. He and George Soros, with whom he's worked on both political goals and business ventures, are pouring money into the Chinese automobile industry, with the goal of flooding the U.S. market with cheap Chinese cars. Strong lives in China these days, and he wants to help China overtake the U.S. economically and become the world's dominant superpower. Never mind what that does to China's "carbon footprint." 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ice age

Posted by Richard on February 16, 2007

They’re having fun at Al Gore’s expense over at NewsMax.com:

Gore claims that global warming is an immediate problem facing the United States and the world, and places like New York and Chicago could feel like Caribbean haunts.

If there is any doubt that God has a sense of humor, it has to be dispelled by a headline in Wednesday’s Drudge Report: "House hearing on ‘warming of the planet’ canceled after ice storm."

He followed up with this: "Save it for a sunny day: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area canceling screening of Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ because of a snowstorm."

Author Phil Brennan went on to critique Gore’s climate-change thesis at length. He brought up some things I knew and some that were new to me. For instance, I knew that the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and that we’re about due for another. But I didn’t know about the correlation between ice ages and CO2 levels:

As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2, atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been an ice age. Every time — without exception.

I also didn’t know that the current interglacial warm period might end quite suddenly:

In 1979, Genevieve Woillard, a pollen specialist in France, concluded from detailed studies that the shift from a warm, interglacial climate to ice age conditions at the beginning of the last ice age, some 100,000 years ago, took "less than 20 years."  …


If the unchallenged results of the work of Woillard and others who studied past ice ages are any indication of the pace of glaciation, once it starts, the transition period is a mere 20 years or so. And we may be well into that 20-year period now. Woillard estimated that the period before that final 20 years — when the earth began gearing up for an end to the interglacial period — could be as long as 150 years and as short as 75 years.

Of course, it’s worth remembering that correlation does not imply causation, and past performance does not guarantee future results. But what if we’re about to freeze, not bake or drown? Robert Felix, author of Not by Fire but by Ice, thinks so, and he’s got a ton of links to supporting evidence and studies. I’ve barely begun to poke around, but the information about dropping sea levels alone is fascinating. Check it out.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pack ice and polar bears

Posted by Richard on February 7, 2007

You’ve no doubt seen the picture, accompanying a story about global warming and tugging at your heartstrings. It shows two polar bears atop what appears to be a remnant of an ice floe. Why, it looks like the poor dears have been stranded by the terrible consequences of global climate change. I feel so ashamed of my SUV. [sob!]

Well, Dan Riehl uncovered the real story behind the photo. For starters, the New York Times had the photo credit wrong — it wasn’t taken by Dan Crosbie, but by an associate of his on the same expedition, Amanda Byrd. I wonder if she’s any relation to the famous explorer. For another thing, the polar bears aren’t stranded on a rapidly melting floe, they’re exploring a wave-carved ice sculpture (maybe to better spot seals) near a large sheet of ice, as is clear from some of Byrd’s other photos of them. Another expedition photo shows someone standing guard with a shotgun in case the bears attack. The expedition encountered unexpectedly thick ice.

Riehl not only found several examples of the picture being misrepresented to sway people’s emotions, he also found an article in which an "environmental journalist" and a climate scientist revel in the fact that reporting about climate change has become one-sided, advocacy journalism.

Meanwhile, polar bears on ice floes are posing a problem in Iceland, which is experiencing a bitter winter with lots of pack ice (emphasis added):

Thick packs of ice, which have not been seen for almost 40 years, have been moving into the western fjords across some of the best fishing grounds, followed by bitter winds and plummeting temperatures. …

Communities living around the fjord of Dryafjordur, have noticed that their inlets have been filled with ice in recent weeks – ice drifting in from Greenland and carrying dozens of polar bears on their floes.

When chunks break off the bears become stranded, drifting helplessly on the floes. There have been a number of stories of bears making land around Iceland and having to be shot because they pose a danger to humans and livestock.

The return of pack ice to Iceland goes against all the forecasts of doom of global warming, although some forecasters think it may just be a climatic aberration.

When the empirical evidence fits the forecasters’ computer models, it proves their theory. When the evidence contradicts the models, it’s just an aberration. Ain’t the world of government-funded science wonderful? It’s so much more objective and honest when the checks are written by power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats with an agenda instead of by greedy oil company executives with an agenda.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

British lord demands senators “honour the Constitution”

Posted by Richard on December 20, 2006

It’s a sad indicator of the sorry state of American politics in general and the U.S. Senate in particular that a British lord has to remind American senators that the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, and that attempts by senators to silence ExxonMobil, accompanied by thinly-veiled threats, violate their oath of office. Bravo, Lord Monckton!

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire/ — Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists.
(http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf)
.

The entire Monckton letter (link above is to PDF) is well worth reading. It begins (emphasis added):

The US Constitution guarantees the right of free speech. It is inappropriate for elected Senators such as yourselves to suggest that any person should refrain from exercising that right, as you have done in your letter of October 27 to the CEO of ExxonMobil. …

You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to “senior elected and appointed government officials” who disagree with your opinion. You are elected officials yourselves. If you do not believe in the right of persons within the United States to exercise their fundamental right under the world’s greatest Constitution to petition their elected representatives for the redress of their grievances, then you have no place on Capitol Hill. You must go.

Your letter says climate change is “a matter of urgency for all mankind”. It is not. The UN’s 2001 report estimates our greenhouse effect compared with 1750 AD as 2.43 watts per square metre. Its new report will cut that figure to 1.6 watts, little more than 1 per cent of the 150-watt natural greenhouse effect.

The UN will also reduce its high-end estimate of sea-level rise to 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. Morner (2004), a lifelong student of sea level changes, says: “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups. … our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” That is a maximum of 8 inches in 100 years. See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000).

All other imagined consequences of climatic warming are more likely to be beneficial than harmful.

The seven-page letter, which includes references for the studies cited, goes on to provide an excellent, readable summary of the state of knowledge — and misinformation — about climate change, and to deliver a fine verbal thrashing to Senators Rockefeller and Snowe. It closes with (emphasis added):

Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.
 
I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call “disastrous” and “calamitous” consequences. Let me give just two examples from this side of the Atlantic:

The Institute for Public Policy Research, a Leftist pressure-group, has stated that public bodies should act henceforth as though there is no debate among scientists and should assume that “disastrous” and “calamitous” climate change will be a fact.

The British “Foreign Secretary”, one Beckett, responded to a recent newspaper article by me that questioned the science behind the soi-disant “consensus” on climate change by demanding – during an otherwise paralyzing speech on terrorism – that the news media should treat climate sceptics as though they were spokesmen for Islamic terrorism and should deny them column inches or air time. Al Gore, who was Vice-President when the Senate declared 97-0 that it would not ratify any treaty that did not bind fast-growing, heavily-polluting nations such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil because without them no action by the West would make any difference, wrote a reply to my article saying that I should not be discussing these matters in the Press. He said I should rely on peer-reviewed research in journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Research Letters. Within 12 hours, I had published a 24-page refutation of his scientifically-inaccurate article, citing more than 60 references in learned journals. Twenty-five of the citations were from the three journals he mentioned.

You will rightly deduce from Beckett’s sinister remark that after a decade of Socialist government freedom of speech does not figure in our constitution. But let me quote the First Amendment to yours:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I call upon the pair of you to live by those great words, or to leave. Yours truly,

MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

Outstanding. I wish we had some Moncktons in the United States Senate.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Did the earth move?

Posted by Richard on July 20, 2006

Today was World Jump Day. At 11:39:13 GMT, 600,248,012 people supposedly all jumped simultaneously. The purpose was to solve the global warming problem by changing the earth’s orbit:

Hans Peter Niesward, from the Department of Gravitationsphysik at the ISA in Munich, says we can stop global warming in one fell swoop — or, more accurately, in one big jump.

The slightly disheveled professor states his case on WorldJumpDay.org, an Internet site created to recruit 600,000,000 people to jump simultaneously on July 20 at 11:39:13 GMT in an effort to shift Earth’s position.

Niesward claims that on this day "Earth occupies one of the most fragile positions in its orbits for the last 100 years." According to the site, the shift in orbit will "stop global warming, extend daytime hours and create a more homogeneous climate."

It’s hard to tell, reading the ABC News story quoted above, who’s in on the joke and who isn’t. For instance, according to reporter Alexandra Leo, there was organized opposition. Apparently, they weren’t in on the joke:

Members of the online environmental site treehugger.com have been debating not only the physical possibility of the jump’s promise but the morality of its outcome.

Some believe it’s risky to alter Earth’s orbit, while others fear the jump will make the Gregorian calendar obsolete because of the length of Earth’s new orbit. Others doubt the ability of the world’s population to synchronize an event like this.

The folks at madphysics.com have constructed an anti-World Jump Day manifesto, complete with equations drawn up to dispute the validity of Niesward’s — or Lauschmann’s — theories.

If you visit the World Jump Day site, you can buy commemorative T-shirts (but does doing that mean you’re in on the joke or you’re not?) and upload your jump pictures or videos. The organizers say they’re "calculating the results," and promise to report back soon.

Before you depart the site, learn more about the organizers by clicking the little Lambda Omega Lambda (LOL) button — then you’ll be in on the joke. I think. 🙂

If that didn’t do it — and you have broadband — and you want to watch Michell Malkin jumping on a trampoline… hey, where’d everybody go?
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »