Thursday, November 15, 2012

Behind Gore's Fraud

By Sam Huntington
According to a recent report by UPI, Al Gore said that global warming is the real culprit behind Hurricane Sandy, and predicts that global warming could mean even more storms like Sandy.  According to Gore, “Scientists tell us that by continually dumping 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every single day, we are altering the environment in which all storms develop.  As the oceans and atmosphere continue to warm, storms are becoming more energetic and powerful.” 

My only response to this is, Simply Amazing.  I’m cleaning up my vocabulary. 

And it must be true because both Gov. Cuomo of New York and Gov. Granholm of Michigan agree with Gore.  Cuomo recently informed President Obama, “The country is having a 100-year flood every two years, now.  Anyone who says there’s not a dramatic change in weather patterns I think is denying reality.”  Stop and think about what the governor said for just a moment.  

Mr. Gore should know about such things: he’s made a fortunate from the global warming hoax.  But as Gore continues to encourage investment in green energies, Gore’s own company Generation Investment is behaving differently.  In the summer of 2010, Gore invested purchased 440,000 shares of First Solar, paying $144.00 a share.  After the stock price plunged to $30.00 a share, Gore kept buying, eventually acquiring 1.12 million shares.  He recently sold these stocks at $28.00 a share.  

Now it seems Generation Investment is putting its money elsewhere: Amazon, Colgate Palmolive, e-Bay, Qualcomm, and a few biotech stocks and health care products.  Gore’s investments also include private holdings undisclosed to the SEC, but among these are SMA Solar, the largest solar company in Germany, the value of which fell 57% over the past 12 months, and in China, Generation Investment bought into Sun Tech, whose stock dropped 82% over the past year.  Finally, as I sense the reader’s eyes are rolling back into their skulls, Gore invested in EcoSynthetix, Landi Renzo, and Meyer Burger, which have lost 60%, 25%, and 49.6% respectively over the past twelve months.  

No wonder Gore wants you to be concerned about the so-called global warming phenomenon.  He needs the money—preferably, yours.  But I’m not the only one who thinks that Gore is a fraud.   

According to Ian Pilmer, Professor Emeritus at the University of Melbourne, the so-called consensus that mankind has caused climate change is a load of hot air underpinned by fraud.  Pilmer said, “It is a lobby of climate comrades attempting to keep the gravy train going, while governments treat the public like fools in order to increase taxes.  

We’ve heard this before —“Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” even if you have to create the crisis yourself.  And this brings us to the curtain of Democratic/Progressive mantra —behind which we discover the so-called sustainability movement devised by Teresa Hines and her gigolo husband, 

John F. Kerry, the erstwhile senator from Massachusetts and overwhelmingly supported by every member of Congress with a “D” after their name.  It is more than a swindle; it massively exceeds the definition of fraud.  It is stealth Marxism on an unimaginable scale, as revealed in this special report.  

Hat tip: Montpelier View

6 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I, personally, have held this truth to be self-evident since the issue of "Global Warming" first came to public attention:

    "It is a lobby of climate comrades attempting to keep the gravy train going, while governments treat the public like fools in order to increase taxes."

    Of course! What else could it be?

    There is no doubt that weather patterns all over the world ARE becoming more violent, more capricious ad more threatening to human and animal life than most of us have known in our lifetime. I don't think anyone could seriously deny that. However, the way leftists have blatantly EXPLOITED the phenomenon in order to gain more power and tighter control is despicable -- and as transparent as glass.

    ONLY Marxicrats support the curious notion that human beings have caused this and are, therefore, capable of controlling it, if only they surrender their sovereignty to One World Socialism administered by the UN in the form of ever-increasing restrictions on personal behavior and an ever-increasing Global Tax on YOUR money and MINE.

    The only people who might benefit from such a scheme are charlatans like Gore, who hasn't even been smart enough to PROFIT from his elaborate hoax by DIVERSIFYING his portfolio. Gore is no evil genius, however. Instead, he is a simpleton, who's allowed himself to be USED by the TRUE forces of darkness who push The New World Order (Global Socialism administered by Super-Rich, Super-Powerful Self-Appointed, Mutually Supportive Elites) behind the scenes.

    Climate change is real all right, but the sons-of-bitches who seek to profit from it at our expense are con artists without conscience whose only interest is self aggrandizement on every conceivable level.

    Megalomania is a fearsome disease of the soul.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies

    -----
    Man, that's one serious objective source.
    Wouldn't have taken you long to check out this pimp's bona fides.

    ReplyDelete

  6. Alternatively, Al Gore and Co. are in fact correct and simply bringing attention to a growing man-made disaster.

    In line with this article we could follow the equally skeptical argument that it is big business that is making money from the industries that are involved in global warming.

    So who do we believe?

    I am no scientist so I must follow the experts and avoid the political, business and other interests that may wish a particular answer. From this point of view what do we see?

    Rather like the Tobacco industry's campaign in the 70s and 80s there are obviously big money interests in the subject, so that must be carefully taken out of the equation. Similarly, it is almost exclusively from the Right of politics that counter the argument as are quasi-political organisations that are linked to big business. Equally, we know that the "Left" and social-enviornmental activism is heavily involved.

    The impartial organisations that support the view are in fact many.

    The IPCC (that actually won the Nobel Prize and yes was lead by Al Gore) is a creation of the UN (the WMO and UNEP) and is non-aligned and has no financial interests in the matter. What have they to gain or lose on such a decision? I have seen none. Arguments that the UN is a leftist organisations simply does not work.

    They are the main push behind Global Warming. (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html) They actually provided a logical and well documented case (a bit more than one Melbourne Uni professor who's program is actually sponsored by business).

    The International Arctic Science Committee is probably the first group to provide true evidence. This NGO, created by the Artic Council and eight other organisations (as well as 22 countries pushing their views) is very impartial and came to the conclussions purely on academic research.

    They produced the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) which is comprohensive and can be found on http://amap.no/acia/

    ScienceMag.org has been monitoring the process and took a neutral and even skeptical view from day one but came to the conclussion that the facts were undeniable.

    The Royal Society - probably the most well established and stubornly neutral organisation - has also judged the matter purely from a factual and academic basis. Their publication believes in climate change. http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2001/science-climate-change/

    Along with the Royal Society, twelve other leading Academies of Science together supported the findings http://www.pik-potsdam.de/aktuelles/nachrichten/dateien/G8_Academies%20Declaration.pdf

    On 9 December 2006 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) produced a press release claiming the "scientific evidence is clear". http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

    The professor from Melbourne obviously disagrees with the vast majority of Australian academics and scientists whom almost to a totality are members or afiliated with the Federation of Australian Scientific and Teechonological Societies (FASTS) whom on 4 September 2008 provided a Statement on Climate Change and supported the conclussion. http://www.fasts.org/images/policy-discussion/statement-climate-change.pdf

    The list of credible academic institutions goes on but the point is made. The few organisations and academics that counter the view are stand-alones (not attributed to the vast majority) and thus can be considered fringe. The vast majority of evidence against the idea are linked to big-business or political organisations.

    So, whom do we believe?

    Steve M

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. We will delete comments that include any of the following:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective
4. We do not respond to anonymous comments