Gore Funding Plan For "A New World Order"

If your employer began paying you 80 cents on the dollar, but, not to worry, the other 20 cents was going to support "good causes", thereby giving you value instead of capital, would you be pleased?

If not, you won't like what Al Gore has been quietly planning along with his Global Warming initiative. He and others are working to achieve that very thing and to bring it about in a manner which doesn't give you a vote in which values your dollars end up supporting.

Gore is quietly funding an assault on Capitalism as we know it, one that begins but doesn't end with Global Warming. That's only the model for what's coming next.

Sans news conferences and Oscar nods, it's a well-funded, grand design to re-shape, not just America, but the global economy in such a manner so as to inculcate Liberal values into the world's system of finance.

Defeated at the ballot box, it seems Gore has figured out that if he can follow, or perhaps even lead the money, he and other liberals can bring about the social and economic change they want, whether the middle class likes it, or not.

Gone unnoticed in the recent controversy over Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) is this blurb below from the European partnership's web site:

Dedicated to thought leadership on sustainability and capital markets -5% of our profitability is allocated to the Generation Foundation

The Generation Foundation is not your typical foundation involved in giving money to what it views as deserving causes. And the ramifications of its work should be of genuine concern for fiscal and social conservatives, civil libertarians and anyone who supports the free market system and the economics, or laisser-faire capitalism of Milton Friedman.

By their own admission, Gore and his well-heeled, high-minded brand of liberal thinkers believe Capitalism is either dead, or deserves to be. Here's the first quick look at a now Gore supported and funded, self-proclaimed New World Order as ruminated upon back in 2002.

Above all, the man is wondering whether Americans need to pause for a moment, now that the millennium has turned and the market has crashed and corporate ethics seem like the quaint idea of a bygone era. And then, after this pause, the man wonders if we need to think long and hard about what we want and how money -- and, in particular, value -- figures into the arc of our lives.

He has come up with an idea that admittedly might not solve any of our financial and social ills, but that he hopes might solve quite a few of them.

The man's name is Jed Emerson. And his idea is called the "blended value" proposition.

Jed Emerson used to spend his afternoons walking into shooting galleries to dispense clean needles and condoms in San Francisco's Tenderloin district and now lecture(s) to the most powerful business leaders on the planet. (emphasis mine)

Those facts aren't inserted to disparage Emerson's work, but to highlight precisely the brand of social values Gore wants to build into our economic system so that they are realized though a non-democratic system controlled by wealth, as opposed to votes. And conservatism's good friend George Soros is linked to the work, as well.

Gore's foundation has employed the now well-credential-ed Emerson as their first senior research fellow.

Jed Emerson is the first Generation Foundation Senior Fellow. Learn more about his body of work on Blended Value.

Additional Link: Jed Emerson Wants To Change The World His goal: a kind of capitalist utopia in which sound business practices are rewarded, shareholders are empowered and our portfolios do more than just make money.

GIM is based in Europe, that's fitting, as Gore's plans for the American economy appear to be based more on socialist European values than America's. Actually, the effort is much larger than Gore and impossible to paint as anything other than the fiscal championing of an extreme Left wing ideology: Capitalism 3.0.

In Capitalism 3.0, Peter Barnes redefines the debate about the costs and benefits of the operating system known as the free market. Despite clunky features, early versions of capitalism were somewhat successful. The current model, however, is packed with proprietary features that benefit a lucky few while threatening to crash the system for everyone else. Far from being "free," the market is accessible only to huge corporations that reap the benefits while passing the costs on to the consumer. Barnes maps out a better way. Drawn from his own career as a highly successful entrepreneur.

Really? But wait. I thought Capitalism 3.0 was the conceptualization of Gore's minion Emerson?

Capitalism 3.0 February/March 2006
by Jed Emerson and Sheila Bonini
Originally published as part of the Blended Value Map and a chapter in the book series The Accountable Corporation

And who is Peter Barnes?

Peter Barnes, founder of Working Assets and a board member at the Tomales Bay Institute's On The Commons

You might recall my post on Working Assets, the Leftist publishing company that plucked Glenn Greenwald out of the blogosphere to publish a hastily written book to bash Bush and oppose the Patriot Act. Their financial backing links them to the Phoenix Group, does the name George Soros ring a bell? It isn't me making these connections, it's the New York Times.

To understand the financial connections that can now be documented, you'll also want to understand the Phoenix Group (PG), as reported on here in The Hill, and in depth through the New York Times, Wiring the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, July 2004. Wealthy associates of the group have been propping up the Netroots movement, enjoying the cachet of a ground up grass roots movement that's actually financed and, I'd argue, controlled from the top down by big money, just as is most all contemporary politics. The Times piece is an absolute must read.

Some of the key PG players, though far from all, are Howard Dean, George Soros, Simon Rosenberg, Andy Rappaport, and SEIU President Andy Stern.

Take a moment and process that. Some of the very same individuals, now well networked, can almost immediately launch a New York Times best seller written by an all but unreadable blogger, a book intended to attack Bush and defeat the Patriot Act; meanwhile the same individuals are drawing a road map for the US economy based upon a self-labeled Utopian neo-capitalist ideology. Scary? It should be, as the Right has not kept up.

This is not a battle to be won or lost tomorrow, or even next year. It's a battle conservatives and libertarians must understand and engage over the next decade if they wish to prevail.

Now that we understand who would design this new values-based economic system Gore and his Leftist buddies have in mind, it's important to understand the notion behind Blended Value. Building moral or social value into our economic system may sound nice, but whose values? Who gets to decide? Not you. The system only works provided the society marches in lockstep on difficult choices. In Gore's proposed system, decisions don't flow from the bottom up, as with democracy. They flow from the top down with the money.

If Gore has his way, the wealthiest of the world, those who invest and support corporations in the largest measure, get to decide how everyone gets to live, what causes are supported, or dropped. And he has the nerve to call it freedom? It's not even close.

Corporate valuation based upon social and moral judgments means one could devise a better mouse trap, one that every body wants, but if it doesn't measure up within some grand Utopian plan, it's corporate valuation will always be sub par, so it would not attract the type of investment required to launch. What happens to choice? You can't choose to buy, or not buy, that which never gets built.

And what of the cost of building these social and moral values into our system of economics? Given what we have seen from Gore and other elitists preaching Global Warming, while preparing to preach social values, do you think the seven and eight figure salaried elite are going to do the sacrificing? You can call social programs value, they still cost money in the end.

The result of such a system would be upward pressure on prices and downward pressure on wages as profitability declines. In Gore's developing system, the middle class will pay the price for the implementation of a left wing, liberal-socialist agenda - and they will never even be asked to vote on whether to do it, or not. Gore's efforts regarding Global Warming establish precisely that paradigm. There's no telling where they'll go next.

For maximum valuation, will a corporation need to plant trees? build abortion clinics? pass out hypodermics, as one of its authors once did? Whose to say? Not you or me, that much is clear.

In short, what globally thinking socialists like Soros, and now Gore, have not been able to achieve through America's ballot box, they would seek to impose on our economic system. If you think I'm crazy, take a look at one of Gore's tracts. Both the illustrations and the text remind one more of the Eastern Block than the freedom we've come to know as Americans.

It’s time for capitalism to mutate again. We’re due. Here’s why: “Release 1.0” — the original model — created not only wealth, but also a blizzard of economic, social, and environmental costs. In succeeding in its mission, it also exploited the world’s resources and peoples as if there were no tomorrow.

“Release 2.0” — evolving since the late 1960s — has been increasingly regulated and “civilized” as it has attempted to keep pace with increasing awareness of its costly “side effects.” But Release 2.0 has hit a plateau in its efforts to build wealth and at the same time make deposits in the bank of social value.

Layering regulations over regulations, and social initiatives over more social initiatives, just isn’t going to result in the hoped-for economic, social, and environmental returns. The problem is that even the most forward-thinking corporations are still driven by a mindset that is obsolete.

What’s needed is the next iteration of capitalism — a new model that stems from an understanding that our common goal should be to maximize our value potential. The model should be based on a common understanding of what value is (to our minds, it should be a blend of economic, environmental, and social factors). And, it should be implemented with the common understanding that maximizing value, regardless of whether one is the “customer of” or the “investor in” the entity, requires taking all three elements into account.

Capitalism 3.0, as we’re calling it, represents an opportunity to break existing frameworks and create a model of accountability that addresses the realities of the world we’re living in.

Read the other publications if you wish, they make it very clear. And Global Warming is only the beginning, albeit a critically important one. If Gore has his way, if we alter our economics to address his over-heated fear of Global Warming, we will be walking on the very path Gore and Soros and whomever else wants, while putting money in their pockets to fund their agenda. It's a path to the ruination of a free America, not some cure.

As Friedman knew, in capitalism money is freedom. If Gore and his new found European friends succeed in controlling our money while selling us on the concept of greater value through support for social programs of their liking, not necessarily ours - it won't be freedom, or Capitalism 3.0, it'll be a sham akin to Socialism from which America may never recover.

The current Global Warming debate is only the beginning, not the end. Just ask Gore, after all, it's his plan. If you think it isn't critical to push back, or tread carefully around global warming, you may want to think again.

Comments

[iftheshoefits]

Hmm. I've been trying to make the point, on this blog and other places, that carbon offsets don't seem to be a very effective way of actually reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, if that is in fact the real goal of all of this carbon offset promotion.

This post makes some interesting points that CO2 reduction isn't the real goal after all. That would tend to follow, wouldn't it?

So I guess that, as Hydrogen is an energy transport media, CO2 is a political transport media?

[scarshapedstar]

"Defeated at the ballot box"

*cough*

[Doug Ross]

Dan, outstanding post. I felt like I wanted to bold and increase font-size on this sentence:

This is not a battle to be won or lost tomorrow, or even next year. It's a battle conservatives and libertarians must understand and engage over the next decade if they wish to prevail.

[Gary Maxwell]

Dan seen this?

Channel 4 Thursday 8 March at 9pm

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

Image from the programme

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun's radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

'The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have,' says Tim Ball, Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg in the documentary. 'They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up'.

In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. 'So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.'

'I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,' says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. 'Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.'

The film examines an alternative theory that explains global temperatures, based on research by Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish Space Center. The professor and his team found that as solar activity increases, and the sun flares, cloud formation on earth is significantly diminished and temperature rises.

Ian Clark, Professor of Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology at the Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa explains: 'Solar activity over the last hundred years, over the last several hundred years, correlates very nicely, on a decadal basis, with temperature.'

Finally, the film argues that restricting CO2 emissions could actually be damaging for people in the developing world. James Shikwati, Kenyan director of the Inter Region Economic Network, says: 'The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.

'I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network, it might work, maybe, to power a small transistor radio.

'The thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide.'

[Boris]

Oooh...A conspiracy theory with illustrations. Bravo!

[Boris]

"In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause..."

Well then this would disqualify their opinion right away, as no one who knows anything about atmopspheric CO2 would claim the increase is natural. Unless they have a new chemical equation for burning fossil fuels and an explanation for changing isotope ratios?

Didn't think so.

[Gary Maxwell]

On the one hand:

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

On the other Boris and "No way"

You be the judge, better yet wait for the howls of and screams of indignation. They will be along shortly and an indicator of how close this documentary might be to the correct theory. Can the Green left tolerate a true debate on the facts? History is not giving us a warm feeling but lets see, although Boris is likely a quick preview.

[Purple Avenger]

Scratch a lefty's paint job and there's a totalitarian commie underneath every time.

[benrand]

"Can the Green left tolerate a true debate on the facts?"

*cough*

LOL

[gahrie]

"Well then this would disqualify their opinion right away, as no one who knows anything about atmopspheric CO2 would claim the increase is natural"

Could you then explain for me then how atmospheric CO2 levels rose in the past, before civilization?

[Bill D. Cat]

Dan ,
What about Chairman Mo ( Maurice Strong ) ? This whole debacle that is GW , is slowly but surely unravelling .Twentyfive years ago if this lunacy was this far along , who knows ? Bet Gore's pissed he invented the net .

[ljm]

New Capitalism? Sounds like feudalism to me. There was a reason Europeans fled to America by the millions. I like my Bible in English. I like my American Constitution. I like my own business.

[Buzzy]

Then Boris how would you, or anyone else, explain the fact that CO2 levels were historically higher long before the burning of fossil fuels etc. In fact these high CO2 levels were present before man was on this planet. CO2 results from natural forces also.

But to be brutally honest this isn't about global warming or saving the whales or planting a tree. It is about the political growth of BIG BROTHER of the likes this world has never before seen. It's about the crushing of all voices of dissent and open questioning of government agenda and process.

I care very little about what party affiliation such a radical shift of power may come from, I oppose it because it removes the phrase "WE THE PEOPLE" from the political power equation.

It is about political power being put into the hands of people we don't vote for, can't vote for, and probably wouldn't vote for. I don't like it from the right or the left and it takes us one step closer to the point where "WE THE PEOPLE" have to retake power from a government that we no longer control or submit to its will.

[Zifnab]

*sigh* So Al Gore wants to pass out heroine needles and corner the world-market on energy? Is he in it with Jimmy Carter? Are they going to make a peanut-biodesiel cartel to rival our current corporate overlords?

This would all be a great deal of conspiracy hogwash if we didn't already live under exactly the system you describe - one in which large percentages of American tax dollars flow to a handful of "in-crowd" corporations a la K-Street and Congressional connections.

The last 6 years has been nothing but a feeding frenzy of corruption, graft, kickbacks, no-bid contracts, and greed and suddenly Dan Riehl starts seeing visions of the deadly marriage between SuperCorps and American Government. Except, this time its those damn pesky low profit-margin Green Energy firms who secretly plan on conquering the world. You are so detached from reality, it boggles my mind Dan.

[Phoenix]

"a common understanding of what value is (to our minds, it should be a blend of economic, environmental, and social factors)."

"...to our minds..."

Right. Does anyone not get it, now?

[Jeff]

Great post Dan. The one thing that I think needs to be emphasized, is that this isn't anything new, just it is finally being debated. Rush Limbaugh has been talking about this Global Warming "New World Order," except in other words. In a way Al Gore winning an Oscar (which is like an election, if it makes him feel better) has spurred debate.

But we have seen in England that there are Green Taxes being proposed, and the Kyoto Accords have been adopted in many (decreasingly important) economies. And that is just the start.

Again Dan, Grade A post.

[skh.pcola]

"...The last 6 years has been nothing but a feeding frenzy of corruption, graft, kickbacks, no-bid contracts, and greed..."

You must've been born 6 years ago and/or been asleep since the last election. Idiots, such as your egomaniacal self, think they are clever by throwing rhetorical devices around that impugn one person or group and totally absolve others of exactly the same (or worse, in this case) behavior. Fact is, assclown, conservatives disown other conservatives who violate their core principles. You socialist progressives embrace depravity and corruption of your idols, and will defend them without question.

"This would all be a great deal of conspiracy hogwash if we didn't already live under exactly the system you describe - one in which large percentages of American tax dollars flow to a handful of "in-crowd" corporations a la K-Street and Congressional connections."

Very few tax dollars get spent on K Street, as the lobbying industry is fueled by private dollars. Studies have shown that lobbying is one of the most cost-effective activities on earth, with returns hundreds of times greater than the expenditures. Your ignorance is showing...you might want to cover it up better.

[seekeronos]

What Liberals SAY... (and really WANT) :

"We want (pretty much) Equal Wealth Distribution. (equally into the pockets of only the Liberal elites. The rest of you sorry proles can have your potato-battery powered mud huts and like it!)

"We want a woman's right to choose"... (actually, we want to choose for you. Euthanasia for the less productive proles, and eugenics to weed out the proles who we don't like, such as those pesky white folks).

"We want a globally balanced ecology, with lots of carbon offsets to balance out the USA with the ecological footprint of Sudan..." (actually, we will keep OUR 30,000 sq.ft. homes while you have your mud huts and potato batteries!)

"We want an education with wholesome liberal values - all is one, gay is ideal, and patriarchal gods washed away from our schools, except for that Allah guy. Can't make our Arab friends feel bad, y'know..." (actually, we will tell YOU what you will think. And if you object? You-then-ay-shia for you!)

Funny thing - the liberal elites would have themselves like the old commissar bosses of the Soviet Union, while us proles get to pick the borscht beets and be thier pet eco-slaves.

[Buzzy]

Well said seekeronos, but I doubt they'll even listen. Much like the 80 million who died in Soviet work camps they'll cheer the socialist ideal while they are herded like cattle to their doom and just so Al Gore and George Soros can make another million bucks or so.

It matters little to them that there are no trees being planted for their carbon offset bucks or that the air will get worse instead of better under this plan. They don't even realize that the same corporations own the left that own the right these days or that corporationism is not a conservative ideal.

[Alex]

Me, I blame the Illuminati.

[Zifnab]

"Very few tax dollars get spent on K Street, as the lobbying industry is fueled by private dollars. Studies have shown that lobbying is one of the most cost-effective activities on earth, with returns hundreds of times greater than the expenditures."

"Exxon Mobil and other oil companies benefit from $2.6 billion in subsidies" in the 2005 energy bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072802085.html

"The federal highway bill contains $37 million for widening and extending the road in Bentonville, Arkansas that is the main access point to the headquarters of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Republican Representative John Boozman (R-AR), whose district includes Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s headquarters, was largely responsible for getting the earmark. He proposed an amendment to the highway bill to exempt retailers, such as Wal-Mart, from federal truck driving rules. To get this amendment to go away, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) offered Boozman an additional $34 million for the road in his final revisions to the bill. "
http://www.progress.org/2005/tcs179.htm

"The FY 2006 budget estimates 2005 farm subsidy spending will top $24 billion. Worse, farm payments have become increasingly concentrated, flowing to fewer and fewer individual farmers. According to the USDA, only 8 percent of producers receive 78 percent of subsidies. At the top of the subsidy food chain, huge corporate operations receive payments in the millions, while the average for 80 percent of farmers is under $1,000."
http://www.progress.org/2005/tcs176.htm

Yes, lobbying and corporate welfare barely scratch the national pocketbook. I know.

Seriously, the Republicans had over half a decade to get their house in order. They spent it pissing away the American dime amid an orgy of gay bashing, war mongering, and race baiting. Now they're out of power and already its a crusade against the vague potential of some distant scheme that Al Gore is planning.

Honestly, that you can believe in this caltrop and staunchly disbelieve NASA scientists on Global Warming itself makes me think you'll believe just about anything so long as a 'Pub is the pitchman. I think Dick Cheney has some beach front property in New Orleans he'd like to sell you.

[Boris]

"Then Boris how would you, or anyone else, explain the fact that CO2 levels were historically higher long before the burning of fossil fuels etc. In fact these high CO2 levels were present before man was on this planet. CO2 results from natural forces also."

CO2 can come from lots of places, where it came from long ago doesn't matter since we know without doubt the recent increase is manmade.

Oh, and the scientists in that documentary are the same ones you see anytime someone wants support for the contrarian arguments. There are about a dozen of them who don't publish or conduct research or experiments. Their ideas are not good so they are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

[seekeronos]

There has been, and as long as the American Republic shall exist, there shall always be some sort of pork spending going on, or fattening of interests particular to various politicians we elect.

It is simply part of the game.

The reality check is: who (of the politicians) is going to do the most harm with thier pork?

I seem to remember the Democrat Congress of the Reagan/Bush41 years having ____quite____ a bit of self-serving pork, and not particularly useful to the public they served.

As for the gay bashing and race baiting... what are you on, mate?

The only folks consistently race-baiting for the past 6 years of Bush43 are the likes of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.

David Duke? Please. Not even us "extreme right wingers" take him seriously.

The stumping about of gay rights to marry/DoMA and state attempts to legislate/adjudicate same-sex vs. hetero marriage?

Most of that has been in state legislatures. The DoMA was defeated by whatever narrow margin simply because most folks really couldn't care less about who is marrying whom; for most of us, marriage is about a man and a woman, and has no need of being codified.

[DANEgerus]

Has everyone forgotten the documented frauds of the architect of Kyoto,
Maurice Strong?

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is "no." The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, 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 that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. " -- Maurice Strong, secretary general, 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

[Claire]

Ya beat me to it, DANEgerus. The UN Rio Conference is a pivotal player in this. Sustainability = Socialist erm, sorry... *Progressive*

[Alan]

Boris: Since when is science about a vote?

Einstein said it best when asked about how many scientists didn't agree with him (paraphrasing) - Wouldn't it only take one to prove him wrong if that one scientist had the truth?

The proof in the pudding about global warming has always been the actions of those warning us and their preferred solutions. Kyoto is nothing but a wealth transfer mechanism. There is absolutely no need to transfer wealth to reduce carbon emissions.

The source and cause of CO2 levels is exactly relevant to this discussion. We know man made emissions have increased but all the rest that the global warming priesthood (and that is what it is) have spouted consists of models and theories that are guesses - not precise, scientific, experimental, evidentiary proof.

Science has because scientism and you are one of the believers in this new church.

[Morgan]

"Their ideas are not good so they are not taken seriously by the scientific community."

Hey Boris, glad you so effectively refuted the scientists with your empirical evidence. Best tune out from the other viewpoint altogether since you carry an uncannily accurate global climate model in your head.

Tell me though, what is unreasonable about the statement that the oceans retain less dissolved CO2 as temperatures rise? Water dissolves less gas as its temperature rises, it's not rocket science. Why wouldn't we want to know why the CO2 rise lags temperature rise by 800 years? Since the Hockey Stick is the basis of all of this, shouldn't we take a close look at it? I'm all for keeping the world from burning, but reducing CO2 now, unfortunately, according to the Holy Hockey Stick, we'll only succeed in reducing the temperatures around 1200AD.

Do you even know the overall volume of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you know how much is from human technology, versus natural phenomena? Do you know how much is in the ocean? Just curious, because it would be helpful to know roughly what our surplus is in order to curb it and attain instant climate equilibrium. If you understand the climate so well you should be able to come up with some rough figures like "a reduction of 2.5bln tons of CO2 will lead to a reduction of .5C globally." Unfortunately, just look for some "accepted" CO2 level figures. They vary by orders and orders of magnitude. No one even knows that much yet. And yet they claim to know how much reduction we need to save ourselves.

The entire thing is a religion, and your argument is of the same caliber, a willful ignorance of any facts that might conflict with the view you have chosen. Good luck with that.

[Boris]

"Tell me though, what is unreasonable about the statement that the oceans retain less dissolved CO2 as temperatures rise? Water dissolves less gas as its temperature rises, it's not rocket science."

So? Do you think burning Fossil Fuels doesn't produce CO2?

"Why wouldn't we want to know why the CO2 rise lags temperature rise by 800 years?"

We do know. CO2 is a known climate feedback from orbital forcings. It does rise--slowly--when temps rise.

"Since the Hockey Stick is the basis of all of this, shouldn't we take a close look at it?"

First off, the "hockey stick" is not the "basis of all this." There are many claimte reconstructions that show late 20th century warming is not precedented in at least 1300 years. We don't have reliable information to go back further than that. And the "hockey stick" (by which I assume you mean MHB 1998) has been investigated and determined credible by the National Academies of Science.

"The entire thing is a religion, and your argument is of the same caliber, a willful ignorance of any facts that might conflict with the view you have chosen."

Yeah, I find that the people who claim climate science is a "religion" are usually the ones who know the least about the science, but pretend to have it all figured out because they have read some skeptic's website. Good luck with that.

[Sissy Willis]

Gore's wave may have already crested:

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary

[Buzzy]

So if (and I remain in doubt) all of this Global Warming is due to manmade CO2 why would Kyoto exempt China and India from CO2 emissions restrictions? China will surpass the US in CO2 emissions within several years and already produces more than the EU combined right now.

China is the largest coal consuming nation on the face of the earth and has the largest growing car sales market too. They import coal from Australia because their mines can't produce enough to meet their needs. Every week another dirty coal producing power plant goes online in China. But they are exempt, so no matter what we do in the US or Canada or the EU the CO2 levels will rise because the left exempted the worst polluters on the face of the Earth from this treaty.

So it isn't about air quality or CO2 emissions is it. It's about money, the left's dirty little secret is that the near slave labor sweatshops in China and India are in the left's best interest to protect. Cheap goods mean big profits for the corporations that own the Democratic party just as they are for the outsourcing neocon so called right.

The only green involved in the left's political ecology is the color of the money they put in their pockets. If that wasn't so Al Gore would be stumping around the globe demanding that China and India clean up their CO2 act.... wouldn't he?

Why would China and India be allowed to pollute all they want for the next couple of decades if this was really all about CO2 levels?

[Gary Maxwell]

Sissy

the article has a great line, in typical British understatement they refer to the Manmade Global climate change theory as "total bollocks." About right.

[benrand]

Why do liberals scream "the science is settled"?

Is science ever settled?

But they know a lot more about science than everybody else, so much more. They believe planting trees, or the promise of planting trees in the future for compensation today, will allow them unfettered access to puking forth tons of CO2 without remorse.

They must think they cna use trees as sponges for their waster or something. But it's typical liberal dead-headedness.

[Jon G]

Is since ever settled?

Duh - yes! The list of scientific theories proven true is fairly long.

[BigTires]

Blended Value is just a new way to perform corporate valuation. No big conspiracy here. There have been mutual funds claiming to be socially responsible for years. If Gore and his allies are working to create a financial mechanism that can be used by investors to value a firm by more than the traditional financial metrics, then good on them. Corporations are still members of the community at-large and the people who work for them should not check their morals at the door when the arrive at the office. They should make decisions about pollution and investment that takes into account how it affects the community they live in themselves. If there's a way to tease that out of the corporate bottom line to reward those employees and senior management who keep their moral compass with them in the office, then we should all be for it. There won't be just one way to do it, as some investors will give more weight to CO2 polluters while others will ignore CO2 and focus on labor conditions and living wages. I see this playing out exactly how it went when people finally brought their morality to work and stopped investing in South Africa until apartheid ended. Bravo to the trailblazers then, and bravo to those who use financial markets to bring about other positive change.

All I read above is fear-mongering. There's no way capitalist markets from China to Germany to Australia to the United States are going to just jump at the Blended Value model and fall in lock-step to whatever Al believes in. What a chicken-little outlook.

[Bob]

Al has done this before. Universal Service anyone? Don't remember? Just Google for "universal service gore".

[Mark C Dallas]

It seems to me that purchasing "Carbon Offsets" is somewhat similar to the notion that someone could do whatever the hell they wanted on Earth as long as they tithed enough to the Church. Then it will all be forgiven and one could still ascend into heaven. The Church made a lot of money on that one, just like Gore is banking on doing with his GW scam.

If you really think that WE are the cause of all this harm, walk the walk by f'ing walking instead of riding in your SUV and flying on your private jet. Live it all day, every day, as if your life, and all the lives on earth, depended on it. As if your eternal life depended on it at any cost.

Isn't that what is espoused by the chicken little GW'ers?

Or is GW an issue that only other, lesser people need to change their lifestyles over.

Most people cannot afford these indulgences, especially if Offsets are billed as well.

[Brock]

As far as I can tell, this post is without the least bit of merit. From an economics p.o.v., I am as libertarian-conservative as they come. I am annually disappointed that Hong Kong and Singapore have more efficient and competitive economies than the USA. I am also not in the least concerned about anything described in the above post.

Basic economics explains that the market's greatest power is to reduce all possible information to a single variable: price. This variable is then used to guide all market actor decisions, and the invisble hand allocates resources better than any single person could. All the Generation Foundation is saying is that the current market (for a lot of reasons) does not properly price for pollution and "social values." They are announcing their intent to "revalue" all companies based on more information than is currently considered by the market, and announce a new (better) price than the market price. This new (better) price should then be used to guide resource allocation descisions.

And you know what? They're right. The market can only price securities based on information available to it, and there is no market price for pollution or slave labor. Or rather, there is a market price, but it doesn't account for externalities. The Generation Foundation (I think, based on what little info is available) wants to internalize those externalities.

There's nothing new here. This isn't news. There have been "triple bottom line" investment vehicles for years now, and Gore is just trading in on his current popularity to make some big Wall Street bucks. Jed Emerson is probably involved for the sole purpose of lending credibility to the endeavor, which in turn will attract more money from Gore's enviro-groupies. It's a time-honored tradition. Dan Quayle and John Snow are senior MD's at Cerberus Capital Management, and Madaline Albright has started her own fund. Chelsea Clinton works at a hedge fund. It's where the money is these days. This is nothing more than a money grab.

In fact, this is just about the dumbest, least clearly written post I have ever bothered to post a response to (though, credit to Riehl, I never post at DailyKos or MyDD). I can't believe I have wasted this much time on it already.

[Hunter]

Brock, you call yourself a libertarian-conservative. Hmmm that's super you started out that way because the economic jargon you post does a lousy job in hiding your contradictions. So lets get this straight: you think the gov or some agency w/ its omnipotent powers is going to decide an appropriate price (you mean taxes & regulation) for pollution/carbon emissions or ________ (fill in whatever socialist hot topic). This will therefore make our markets more efficient because the Gorical hath deemed it so by putting its hand there instead of the invisible one. I am shocked and totally dismayed w/ myself that I have ever bothered to post a response to a response to a post.

[Brock]

"Brock, you call yourself a libertarian-conservative. Hmmm that's super you started out that way because the economic jargon you post does a lousy job in hiding your contradictions."

It's probably impossible to establish bona fides in a forum like this anyway, so whatever. You don't have to believe me. We'll just leave it at this: a quick scroll of RQW's blog roll shows a lot of conservative political bloggers, and not one econo-blogger (libertarian or otherwise). This suggests to me that Riehl really isn't in the whole "econo-blogging" thing, and that the OP wandered away from his preferred topic.

Well, in for a dime, in for a dollar:

"So lets get this straight: you think the gov or some agency w/ its omnipotent powers is going to decide an appropriate price (you mean taxes & regulation) for pollution/carbon emissions or ________ (fill in whatever socialist hot topic). This will therefore make our markets more efficient because the Gorical hath deemed it so by putting its hand there instead of the invisible one."

Pollution causes externalities, yes? This is not controversial. The question is, how do we internalize those externalities?

Well, you could (do that Anarcho-Capitalist thing) create a property right to clean air and let people sue for "trespass" or "conversion" every time someone emits a particle of "bad stuff" into the otherwise clean air, but you can imagine the legal hassles and transactions costs of creating that much litigation (Yay! Everyone in the world sues everyone else for driving a car!!). It would be a mass-tort lawyer's wet dream. There would be so much money to be made (by lawyers, mind you, not anyone else) that even I'd be tempted to switch my practice away from advising large, sophisticated financial institutions.

The alternatives to a pure private property system is regulation. For decades the EPA has tried a very Soviet command & control method of dictating the minutia of how factories can cap their smokestacks. This is a 'bad' system. Proposed alternatives including taxing pollution production and creating tradble pollution credits. Neither of these systems are perfect, but they introduce some market forces to the otherwise purely socialist sytem we've been living with since the EPA was founded.

Yeah, that's right: we're already in a socialist system. The fight is over how it will be reformed. The question isn't whether the new model will be perfect, but whether it'll be better than the current one. Pretty much anything is better than the EPA (except that which came before the EPA, namely the Ohio river catching on fire).

But NONE OF THAT MATTERS, because you totally missed the point of the original post or my response to it. The OP basically amounts to (1) Gore has started a hedge fund, (2) 5% of Gore's profits will be donated to Gore's foundation (how generous of him), which has no effect on investor return, (3) Gore's foundation has lots of liberal weanies as advisors / board members, and (4) Gore's hedge fund will ignore market prices in favor of some better price only they can understand.

I'm really not sure what the problem is here. Lots of people start hedge funds. Lots of people give money to foundations they started (some even give more than 5%!). When you start a foundation you usually staff it with your friends / fellow travellers (I would certainly staff my foundation with other people I consider sensible (namely, not Al Gore)). I'd also like to think that all hedge fund managers believe their prices to be superior to the market price, because if they didn't, well, you (their customer) would be better off buying an Index fund.

I stand by what I said before. This post is hooey.

[bill]

Global warming is global socialism will alGore at the top. Is anyone surprised?

[Rick C]

Scarshaped star--yes, Gore was defeated at the ballot box. Remember that little thing called the Electoral College? I'm guessing you have a problem with Rutherford B. Hayes as well. No? Where's the outrage? The EC is a feature, not a bug.

[Michael]

Brock,

The post is not hooey for the very fact that Soros is involved at all. Besides the Bank of England fiasco, which was much better equipped to put up with his crap. I was in Russia during 1998's ruble meltdown that he caused. I watched as poor Russians ran to the banks. He created a disaster in Russia and as a result you got the publics knee-jerk reation for former KGB's Putin and now crackdown and renationalization of all oil interest, curbing of all media freedoms, cutoff of free elections for Governors of Provinces. Soros single handedly turned a Russia on the way to freedom back into a paranoid Soviet state.

Anything Soros touches I do not trust. Being a financial wizard does not make one a better moral or social agent for change. It just means you have more money to completely screw up more peoples lives. In the case of Russia, Soros screwed over 190 million people.

But what the hell, ignorance is bliss and people due to their fears about global warming, who do not understand science, our earth, our atmosphere, the global climate pendulum that swings back and forth thru history, buy into it.

Soros proved his arrogance twice and Gore has proved his deceitful ways by being tied into a company that accepts the credits.

He's profiteering as a fear-monger. End of the World Al Gore. Between him and the court jestors who dominate our TV screens 24/7, there is no wonder all children are growing up lost and confused.

What a complete blight on our society.

As for the ideological rant above about the last 6 years. Waste, corruption and over-spending by the Democrats is exactly what got the Republican Congress elected in the first place under New Gingrich. The commenter must be all of 6 years old to not understand both parties get corrupted by all corporations and special interest.

I prefer we have competing interest. It worked good while Clinton was President with a republican Congress and its probably going to work good the way it is now. You always get in trouble when one party has both Executive and Congress.

During this day of war, I prefer a Republican President. I think we better damn well worry about global terror, before global warming.

[Sean]

Encourage people to see the video “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

Here is an easy URL to remember to see the program. Pass it along to friends and family.

http://gorelied.notlong.com

[Sentinel]

If this "New World Order" has no place for people like you, I'm all for it. Go, Al, give 'em hell! And Soros is one of the most noble men to walk this earth. If you could match even one-thousandth of a percent of his charity work, your name would be etched in eternity. In the mean time, keep spitting!

[Ismael Appadolo]

Hi,Algore:
I just back from Vietnam-my native country. With the people in Saigon city increase from 800,000 before 1974 to > 7 million in 2008. It is terrible problem for the citizens there. I am handled the project to build An Phuoc paradise with fresh environment and refress the air.
If you interest to assist for the environment and reduce the global warming problem there, please send me your recommendation.
Thank you,

Ismael Appadolo
apadolo@msn.com
iappadolo@student.bcc.ctc.edu
206-427-2332

[geral sosbee]

Fbi's CJIS Corrupted & Used To Threaten People Globally
17mar 00h
Autor(a)
geral sosbee
Fecha de creación
17mar 19:15
Fecha de edición
17mar 19:18
Licencia
Copyright; todos los derechos reservados por el/la autor(a).

fbi seeks to intimidate (through CJIS) all who show NO "fbi respect".
The CJIS must be removed from fbi control.

Personal information seized illegally by fbi is used to fabricate a fictitious profile on the Target .

The fbi, nervous over the recent global attention to fbi/cia crimes against Humanity as Sosbee and others outline, sends a message (seen in the image below ) to Sosbee that the fbi demands "respect". Sosbee responds that VLAD demanded respect and when he received none , he impaled the Targets. Today the fbi/cia impale in a metaphorical sense (via physical and mental torture, forced suicide , murder, & disabling calumny globally-courtesy of fbi's CJIS) anyone who exposes fbi/cia atrocities anywhere on earth; these two evil and corrupt agencies (and their members, associates and ***supporters) control the *political parties in this country. The thugs who run the **fbi criminal justice information systems seek to instill fear in all citizens by threatening to ruin them with fabricated records entered into the CJIS.

****GERAL W. SOSBEE vs. fbi
IP Address 153.31.119.# (FBI Criminal Justice Information Systems)
ISP FBI Criminal Justice Information Systems
State : West Virginia
Time of Visit Mar 14 2008 7:53:33 am
Search Engine google.com
Search Words fbi respect
Visit Entry Page:
www.sosbeevfbi.com/specialupdate.html
Visitor's Time Mar 14 2008 9:53:33 am
Visit Number 55,181

[See original image at site meter of www.sosbeevfbi.comn, March 14, 2008, at the following domain:
"153.31.119.# 7:53:33 am"], or see original site meter entry at:

www.sosbeevfbi.com/hatemail-partten.html

* "Party must not become the servant of the masses, but their master."
Adolf Hitler.

** How the FBI 'Criminal' Justice Information Systems works:
www.sosbeevfbi.com/governmentmustcr.html
***Before you support the fbi and their sociopathic police associates, see:
thehiddenevil.com/
****The fbi has no criminal record on this writer, but the goons (i.e., the 'criminals' in the 'Criminal' Justice Information Systems)would sure like to have one; see:
www.sosbeevfbi.com/nocriminalrecord.html

--------------------------------
This update is repeatedly hacked by fbi punks, apparently by pre-programming.
Note: Washington D.C. not-so Indymedia now refuses to publish all reports by Sosbee.

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
Albert Einstein

Para comentar usa el _ formulario de comentario extendido.

Comentarios
fbi/cia world inhumane domination: Affidavit as evidence
20 mar 2008

por geral sosbee
Contestar a este comentario
See the Affidavit and ask why the uSa government does not respond to allegations; if any statements were false, then the fbi could bring perjury charges. All statement are true and verifiable. Any Questions !
AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF CAMERON

On this 27th day of February, 2007, appeared before me Geral W. Sosbee, an individual known personally to me to be the person who affixed his signature to this document below and who, being by me first duly sworn on his oath, deposed and said: “My name is Geral W. Sosbee; I am over the age of 18 years. I am fully competent in all manner to make this affidavit. The information contained in this affidavit is within my personal knowledge, and is true and correct. I am referred to below as Affiant.

I have documented by direct and incontrovertible evidence and personal testimony the criminal activities of dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of agents, operatives and handlers of the FBI and the CIA of the United States of America, including, but not limited to the following:

A. Obstruction of Justice, Suppression of Evidence, Perjury, Fabrication of Evidence, Criminal Conspiracy, Conspiracy to Violate and the Violation of Civil Rights, Attempted Extortion, Attempted Blackmail, False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Fraud Burglary, Robbery, Felonious Assault and Battery, Destruction of Personal Property, Petty Theft, Theft of and Tampering with U.S. Mail and a variety of other high crimes and misdemeanors as further described in paragraph “B” below.

B. Abuse of civil process, home and car invasions facilitated by physical and wireless electronic surveillance in home and car and further enhanced by the use of a tracking device implanted in the person of the human experimentee, the Affiant; the surveillance of Affiant is ineffect as this affidavit is written and has been in effect twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year, without cessation and without interruption for well over nine years world wide; all such invasive surveillance is accompanied by various terrorist acts against the Affiant as further described in paragraph “C” below.

C. Repeated assault and battery on the person of the Affiant by street thugs and by the use of high technology authorized by the United States Government under a program known as Non-consensual Cover Research and Human Experimentation; in this program the FBI and the CIA perform a wide variety of terrorist assaults on the Affiant; one such assault is accomplished by the injection (or placing) into the Affiant various chemicals, bacterial and viral infections; concomitant with the chemical and biological assaults the FBI and the CIA activate against the Affiant advanced Remote Electronic Human Behavior Influence Technology including psychoelectronic and directed energy assaults sometimes coordinated with fraudulently conceived and illegally carried out (with local police authorities world wide) attempted criminal sting operations designed to lead to the imprisonment or death of the Affiant; also in conjunction with such hi- tech experimentations the Affiant is subjected to FBI and CIA psychological operations (including conditioned response and operant conditioning techniques) which are all designed to cause the Affiant to have a nervous breakdown, physical collapse or to otherwise seek final exit from the torturous campaign, the effects of which are often viewed in real time by the FBI and CIA tormentors who actually watch on computer screens the Affiant react to the injurious and painful dirty tricks and provocations described herein; all such treasonous, inhumane and covert operations are carried out with the full support of all government entities at every level of society as further explained in paragraph “D” below.

D. All three branches of the United States Government (and segments of the community at large) are compliant with the mandates of FBI and CIA terrorist assaults as described above and all government officials at the local, state and federal levels pretend that no such criminal activity as described in the instant affidavit may occur; thus, to date the Congress of the United States, the entire Judiciary and each and every employee of the Executive branch of the government of the United States of America may directly or indirectly support the terrorist activities of the FBI and the CIA as set forth herein and as further amplified in paragraph “E” below.

E. I hereby incorporate by reference into this affidavit and thereby make a part herein as though fully reproduced herein for all purposes the contents of my website (and related links and statements by Affiant therein) located at www.sosbeevfbi.com; this incorporation includes all statements, documents and other corroborating evidence provided, obtained or authorized by Affiant, including all updates by Affiant at www.newciv.org and any other internet site to date.

I hereby further certify and affirm under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States and the laws of the state of Texas that all statements, including those incorporated by reference and made a part herein for all purposes as though fully reproduced herein are true and correct and that all documents (including those incorporated by reference) are true and correct copies of originals and that they are what they purport to be to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Further, Affiant sayeth Naught.”

Notary Seal

Sylvia A. Lopez

My Commission Expires October 10, 2007 _______________________

Geral W. Sosbee

Sworn to and subscribed before me on the 27th day of February, 2007, to witness which I place my hand and official seal of office.

Notary Seal

Sylvia A. Lopez

My Commission Expires

October 10, 2007 _________________________

Sylvia A. Lopez, Notary Public

In and for Cameron County,

Texas