Friday November 6, 2009, 5:54 pm
Why...even Gore admits that CO2 isn't even that important. NASA said methane and soot are bigger warmers.

So why would you go through all the rigamarole for something that is only 40% of the perceived problem?

Because Al Gore says your spirit needs to make him the first carbon billionaire and the banks like it. Goldman Sachs loves it.

"Citing the World Bank, the report notes that turnover of carbon trading has doubled from $63 billion in 2007 to $126 billion in 2008. “Not surprisingly,” comments the report’s author, “banks are doing what banks should do: they’re following the promise of profits, and hence urging government to adopt carbon trading.” Bart Chilton of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is quoted as predicting carbon trading will become a $2 trillion market and the “largest commodity market in the world.” Richard Sandor, chairman and CEO of Climate Exchange plc, predicts the market will eventually “total $10 trillion a year.”

Nova believes that climate science itself has become critically important to the new “self-sanctioning circle of vested interests.” She continues, “The stealthy mass entry of bankers and traders into the background of the scientific ‘debate’ poses grave threats to the scientific process” which increasingly “hinges on finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide have a significant role in the climate.” Unwittingly, green planet-saving eco-warriors will find themselves in an unholy alliance making the case that will boost the coffers of global bankers and financiers who, on another day, they would likely “throw rocks at.”
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2167

Friday November 6, 2009, 5:57 pm
Oh judy go post your BS somewhere else...

Thanks Daphna

Big gorilly Hugs

Friday November 6, 2009, 6:02 pm
Oh Gorilly you made me laugh!!!!!!!
A huge hug!!!!!!!!! Daphna

Friday November 6, 2009, 6:11 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

Friday November 6, 2009, 10:10 pm
Thanks for signing the petition!
Thanks Daphna

Saturday November 7, 2009, 1:05 am
Noted & signed. Thanks

Saturday November 7, 2009, 3:01 am
Signed and noted.Thank you Daphna.

Saturday November 7, 2009, 7:12 am
Thanks Daphna!

Thanks for signing the petition!

Saturday November 7, 2009, 8:38 am
Thanks for signing the petition!

Saturday November 7, 2009, 6:19 pm
Good Girl, signed

Sunday November 8, 2009, 6:04 am
Signed and noted!

Sunday November 8, 2009, 11:34 am
Gladly signed!

Sunday November 8, 2009, 4:33 pm
"If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit"

WRONG! Its the management of FORESTS that we should be concerned about, not grasslands. Trees soak up much more carbon than grass ever will.

Not only must we grow millions of trees, but we must also cut down and bury most of them in landfills after about 50 years or so to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere. Then we can plant millions more and continue the process. This will give the lumber industry plenty to do.

Hundreds of millions of years ago, carbon was sequestered from the atmosphere naturally in a simular way, thanks to vast swamp areas. That's how most of our coal was formed.