Friday November 6, 2009, 5:48 am
Good for him...

Big Gorilly Hugs

Friday November 6, 2009, 9:44 am
Lets hope he cam make an impacton the poduim.. and crack the climate code..

Friday November 6, 2009, 2:39 pm
Gore conflict of interest publicised

Buried deep in a Newsweek profile of Al Gore's new book is an accusation that staff of the world's 'first carbon billionaire' tried to get a scientist to stay silent on a promising new method of combating the effects of CO2, because it would undermine support for carbon trading markets and tough emissions legislation.

The devastating new claim is in this paragraph of the Newsweek story:

"If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit," says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore's assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate.

Given Gore's heavy investment in carbon trading, and his instrumental role in supporting the political sledgehammer to usher the new regime in at Copenhagen, the question has to be asked whether Gore's people truly want CO2 neutralised, or whether they merely want to enjoy the money and power associated with appearing to combat it.

Gore has been fighting a rearguard action to quell growing media cynicism, after comments by Marc Morano's Climate Depot hit the front page of the New York Times this week
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/gore-conflict-of-interest-publicised.html

Saturday November 7, 2009, 6:00 am
I listened to several interviews on National Public Radio last month concerning the soil conservation, tilling methods and farming methods that propose managing carbon emissions. The conclusion so far is that a wide debate still exists on that. Not that the debate shouldn't continue, because we definitely must use and harnass in every potentially good method of combating the effects of CO2.

Saturday November 7, 2009, 7:18 am
Judy. You entitle your post "Gore conflict of interest publicized".

And in the first line of your post it says "....is an ACCUSATION..."

Then in the next paragraph it says "...the devastating new CLAIM"

Then in another paragraph it says "the QUESTION has to be asked whether Gore's people truly want CO2 neutralised, or whether they merely want to enjoy the money and power associated with appearing to combat it."

You state Gore HAS a conflict of interest. And it is based on an accustion, a claim, and a question!

This is how a conspiracy theorist is nuts. Throwing something out into the masses as 'truth' or 'fact' or 'proof' , stating it is 'truth' or 'fact' or 'proof' and in the end it is simply innuendo, assumption, accusations, claims, questions. I've seen it time and again on Care2.

You're a chaos merchant Judy. You sell doubt, confusion, half-truths, untruths, gossip, slander.

Monday November 9, 2009, 12:15 am
Did it ever occur to anyone that if cap-and-trade legislation were passed, it would be a nonprofit government agency, not a private company, that would be most likely to manage the carbon credits? So Gore's private businesses concering carbon credits would probably be shut down as unnecessary anyway once the government takes over that function.

So how is Gore supposed to make a billion dollars if he is out of the carbon trading business?