From Bloomberg[1]: Gore Is Romney-Rich With $200 Million After Bush Defeat

In 1999, Al Gore…had a net worth of about $1.7 million…In January, the Current TV network, which he helped to start in 2004, was sold to Qatari-owned Al Jazeera Satellite Network for about $500 million [of which Gore] grossed an estimated $70 million…

Two weeks later, Gore exercised options, at $7.48 a share, on 59,000 shares of Apple Inc. stock…about a $30 million payday…

How Gore achieved this is as much about timing and luck as it is about business skills. His Apple board tenure has coincided with a 5,900 percent increase in its stock price. Current TV was a moribund “fixer-upper” when Al Jazeera stepped in to buy it at “a huge valuation,”…

Gore also had his share of flubs, most of them in his efforts at green-tech investing…

The article goes on to report praise of Gore – from people who likely got money or power by being connected with him. And to give numerous examples of Gore making money from, in essence, being well-connected. Here is one pair:

After losing to Bush [in 2000], he had enough wealth by March 2008 to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through Capricorn Investment Group…founded by his buddy, Canadian billionaire Jeffrey Skoll…

By the time of the Capricorn investment, he was already starting to rake in cash from Generation Investment Management – - a fund that incorporates “sustainability” into its investment approach. [ed: I read that as government "green" subsidies] Gore co-founded GIM in 2004 with former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Managing Director David W. Blood. [ed: Goldman-Sachs are top Obama donors]

Public filings show that in 2008 through 2011 London-based GIM racked up almost 140 million pounds ($218 million) in profits to be split among its 26 partners.

There are more examples; you can read the whole thing. What I find interesting is:

• The latest confirmation that, actually, Democrats are the party of the super-rich.
• The Gore-Romney contrast; how each man got rich. Romney did it by adding to the economy’s productive power[2]. Gore did it by exploiting his connections to the American government’s power and largesse, and also by pandering to the prejudices of various anti-Americans.[3]

(more…)

There was a LOT of Global Warming interrupting our drive from Spartanburg to York in South Carolina this afternoon.

An hour drive took two hours. And my goodness, do people in the South NOT know how to drive!!!

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

As we shiver here in Los Angeles with unseasonably cold temperatures which seem to have spread beyond the Southland, I wonder again where is all the global warming the the various environmentalists around town have promised.

It seems that whenever I ask them if there’s a formula to forecast the weather for the coming years, they hem and haw and promise that it will be warmer, but few offer actual temperature ranges.  Last week on Powerline, John Hinderaker posted a piece suggesting why this may be.

John cited a number of failed predictions of the past, notably those made by Paul R. Ehrlich, asking whether the Stanford biologist was the most consistently wrong man in history.  in 1968, Ehrlich made many predictions, forecasting, for example, mass starvation in the 1970s and depletion of the world’s resources in the 1980s.  Those of us who survived those decades know just how wrong he was.

In an update to his post, John quips, “Note that the global warming hoaxers have learned from their forebears: they generally avoid making predictions that are falsifiable in a time frame that would cut off their gravy train.”  So that’s why they don’t offer such predictions; they don’t want to provide data which might allow skeptics to question their science.

In December, we reported (along with other conservative bloggers) that a Media-hyped global warming “skeptic” was no such thing.

Wonder if Yahoo! (who led with a story about said supposed skeptic) will similarly hype this story about a global warming alarmist recanting:

Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change’s deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were ‘alarmist’.

Lovelock admits he “made a mistake”:

The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. . . .  We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.

The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world

[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.

He told MSNBC that “he now thinks he had been ‘extrapolating too far.’”  (MSNBC link via Instapundit.)  Well, at least MSNBC has reported the story.  Wonder if other left-leaning media outlets will do the same.

Yahoo! is leading this morning (PST) with tales of a global warming skeptic suddenly seeing the light — and embracing the gospel of climate change.

Interesting they should choose to feature this “skeptic” on a day like today (at least for those of you on the east coast):

Only there’s a problem with this, um, well, former “skeptic.” Problem is, as Don Surber found with just a few key strokes and mouse clicks. that the

. . . “skeptic” in question — physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley — embraced the theory of man-made global warming 30 years ago. An online search easily disproved his claim of skepticism. He co-authored a book, “Physics For Future Presidents,” that explained climate change among other things. Now he has re-branded himself a former skeptic — the better to sell global warming.

(Last link via Instapundit.)  Guess we just can’t let facts get in the way of liberal shibboleths.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Sonicfrog who follows this stuff from closely than I encourages me to link “this article as an addendum to your post. One of the main scientists working on the BEST project is calling Muller to task for his recent publicity seeking actions. Here is a nice quote to show how vacuous the reporters claim of Mullers certainty really is:” (more…)

That’s what this headline today on AOL’s homepage suggests:

Seems Mr. Gore’s none too happy with the state of public opinion:

Four years ago, when he won the Nobel, 71 percent said they believed that carbon emissions were causing global warming. Four years later, after a crushing recession, Climategate, and an epic failure at Copenhagen, only 44 percent say they believe it. Meanwhile, 69 percent say it’s likely that global-warming scientists have falsified climate research.

Like many conservatives, indeed, many of no particular political affiliation or ideological bent, I am skeptical of the creed of global warming for a great variety of reasons. First, the “science” seems more speculative than sound, based upon computer models dependent on dubious data. In addition, it just seems another excuse for liberals to push their favorite answer to all problems and to demonize their favorite villains. Not to mention the fact that some use this supposed science to explain all manner of extraordinary natural phenomena, as if earthquakes, cold spells, and hurricanes never occurred before the dawn of the Industrial Age.

It seems that every time liberals talk up the threat of global warming, they propose some vast new regulatory scheme, increasing the power of the state and reducing the freedom of individuals and enterprise. It’s all about control and vilifying that most hated economic system, capitalism. Yesterday, in writing about the president’s latest attack on “climate change deniers”, Doug Powers offers an interesting commentary on the dogma of global warming:

Gas prices are around $4 a gallon — and in some areas pushing $5 a gallon — and Chicago is seeing their lowest springtime temperatures since the 1940s. This means it’s the perfect time to talk about what needs to be done to combat global warming before our brains thaw out for a season called “summer” that used to be caused by earth tilt and the sun but is now blamed on capitalism.

Well, in the worldview of some, at least since the mid-nineteenth century, capitalism has been to blame all manner of ills — and not just global warming.

California, as I’ve noted before, has two major problems, the first is a budget out of balance.  And on that score, I commend the governor’s yeoman’s efforts to stop the flow of red ink.  On the second issue, however, he seems AWOL.   That problem relates to the burdens the state’s myriad taxes and regulations place on entrepreneurs.  Reduce some of those tax rates, eliminate certain business fees and cut the red tape and this state will (literally and figuratively) be back in business.

The Golden State would regain its luster.

The state’s most burdensome regulations are perhaps its cap-and-trade policy and other laws which have established some pretty draconian environmental standards.  And Governor Brown, while having become far more aware of the burdens government regulations place on job-creating businesses than when he first helmed the state, seems adamant in his support for these laws.

While he won’t budge, via Sister Toldjah (via Michelle Malkin‘s Buzzworthy), we learn that a judge has placed a hold on California’s global warming program:

A San Francisco superior court judge has put California’s sweeping plan to curb greenhouse gas pollution on hold, saying the state did not adequately evaluate alternatives to its cap-and-trade program.

In a 35-page decision, Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith said the Air Resources Board had failed to consider public comments on the proposed measures before adopting the plan, which affects a broad swath of the state’s economy.

In particular, the judge noted, officials gave short shrift to analyzing a carbon fee, or carbon tax, devoting a “scant two paragraphs to this important alternative” to a market-based trading system in their December 2008 plan. . . . (more…)

35 zoo animals freeze to death in northern Mexico:

Thirty-five animals at a zoo in the northern Mexico state of Chihuahua have frozen to death during the region’s coldest weather in six decades.

Serengeti Zoo owner Alberto Hernandez says 14 parrots, 13 serpents, five iguanas, two crocodiles and a capuchin monkey died. He said Saturday that power failures cut off electrical heating at the zoo in the town of Aldama.

Emphasis added.  Coldest weather in six decades? Must be global warming. I mean, it has to be, right? Al Gore all but said as much. What else could it be?

Remember all the dire warnings about how growing carbon emissions were warming the environment and causing the glaciers to melt, seas to rise and people to become mean.   Well, that turns out not to be the case, at least about the glaciers in the Himalayas:

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

You mean the ice flows are growing rather than shrinking!?!?!   Al Gore could not be reached for comment.

Study: Climate change contributed to rise and fall of Roman empire

FROM THE COMMENTS: gastorgrab quips, “When will Roman Centurions learn that a single horse chariot is enough, and that they need not compete with the Maximus family?”

Ugh, I just can’t stand the comment thread on the last post… so I needed something else to put at the top here.

Rant some about “Global Warming” and all of the inches of it in the South and Northeast.

Some of you need to take some Xanax.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When global warmists tell me about their climate ideology that governments must take action immediately to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere (lest catastrophe ensue), I ask them to predict for me the annual increase in temperature over the next few years.

Should the temperatures increase as they predict (based on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere), then I will join their crusade them in calling for government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Unfortunately, they don’t dare to offer such predictions, saying that if we wait too long, it will be too late.

Well, as I learned last month, there are,  some “climate ‘scientists’ ” who have made predictions about global warming have have seen those predictions proven wrong (via Patterico).

Maybe their problem was that they were looking at the wrong data.  Instead of looking at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, they may have better served themselves by looking at other factors, including solar radiation.  A new paper finds no correlation temperature change and CO2:

The absence of correlation between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning is explained by the weak power of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reduce the outcoming window of long wave radiation.

Via Pirate’s Cove.

With science increasing our skepticism, don’t you think it’s time to start rescinding some of the environmental laws designed to avert a crisis now apparently non-existent.  Repealing the most draconian of those laws in the (once)-Golden State may help the state regain its luster.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Sonicfrog reminds us that

2010 will not be the hottest year on record. As expected, due to the mid year fade of the El Nino and the establishment of La Nina conditions, temps took a late year nose dive and 2010 failed to beat the 1998 mark. As of this moment, average world temp is back to the decade average, meaning there is still no temp rise evident for at least a decade. As was 1998, 2010 temp was abnormal due to a strong El Nino. It wasn’t as strong as 98, but it was strong enough. I expect, if the ENSO / temp correlations hold to the usual pattern, the first few months of 2011 will be below average temp wise.

In the “Confirming-What-We-Already-Know” Department comes an entry from German economist and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) official Ottmar Edenhofer. (Over at the American Thinker, Marc Shepard reminds us Edenhofer is the IPCC “Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change“.)

Given that the only solutions put forward to the supposed problem of global warming have been schemes which increase the power of governments, decrease the control individuals and private enterprises have over their own affairs and operations while promoting policies in line with the statist dreams of past utopian movements, we’ve thought their repetition of the dogma of climate change had more to do with economics than the environment.

And Mr. Edenhofer spells it out in terms so simple a child could understand it:

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. . . .

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Nothing to do with environmental policy? Hmm. . . . To borrow an express, it’s all about spreading the wealth.

UPDATE:   Commenting on Edendorfer’s remarks, James Delingpole calls the unelected bureaucrat and his environmental ilk, “Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. This is the theme of my forthcoming book on the controlling,  poisonously misanthropic and aggressively socialistic instincts of the modern environmental movement.”  (H/t:  Instapundit.)

Global Warming Causes Monkeys To Hate Squirrels (for good reason).

(H/t Reader Sonicfrog.)

Sonicfrog wonders why global warmists respond to their critic not with argument but with ad hominem:

When you can’t defend you actions, attack your enemies. When you can’t defend your scientific practices, attack your enemies. And of course, the pathetic lazy main stream media is all too happy to follow along.

I mean, if they had the science on their side, wouldn’t it be easy to debunk their critics — and skeptics?  Guess than once the science is settled, you resort to attack.

Over at Sonicfrog, our correspondent looks into one of the reviews supposedly clearing “climate science of any wrongdoing in the Climategate scandal.”  He finds that, well, their inquiry was quite selective:

We already knew that the very small list of papers that were reviewed by the Oxburgh panel, twelve to be precise, were cherry-picked to provide as little damning evidence as possible – none of the papers reviewed were those that skeptics have issues with. We already knew that NOT ONE SKEPTIC of note was interviewed to discuss possible issues to be looked into. Well, now we find out that the papers that were chosen, were not only chosen by the University being investigated, East Anglia, but were given final approval by the very same Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the entire Climategate controversy.

Read the whole thing.  To paraphrase Sonicfrog, wonder how Congress would react if BP were allowed to select the sites a commission investigated its safety record was allowed to investigate.

‘Hockey stick’ graph was exaggerated:

The “hockey stick” was used to warn the world of the threat of global warming by numerous individuals and organisations, including Al Gore in his oscar-winning film an Inconvenient Truth and UN body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Sonicfrog who alerted me to this article has more:

The head of the Royal Statistical Society Professor David Hand adds weight to Steve McIntyre’s long held assertion that the infamous Hockey Stick is statistically flawed!

This is devastating news…. for Al Gore.

Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.

Uh oh.

On the good side of Global Warming, here’s the forecast for Charlotte, NC this week.  Lots of sunny GW coming my way!  Yaaaay!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

It’s for the children regulation.

“Fisking” the warmist alarmist’s op-ed in the New York Times, blogress diva Ann Althouse figures out what Gore is all about:

He wants the policies that are sold under the name “global warming” whether the prediction of global warming is right or wrong.

Read the whole thing.  (H/t:  Instapundit.)