Re: FYI: Live Earth concert on BRAVO.

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:54:39 -0700, "Dave Bugg" <davebugg2@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I can imagine that he was speaking of his taking a
leadership position as an elected member of the U.S. legislative
branch in support of funding to develop necessary infrastructure and
to finance information technology research that made the Internet
happen, which in fact he did.

True. But I also think that in his exuberance to paint himself as the
foremost political supporter of internet technology, he ended up
making himself look foolish.

Looking foolish is one thing, enduring this sort of endless insult is
quite another.

That's what happens when you're in the public eye.

I believe a respectable case can be made for Gore's
being the foremost political supporter of Internet technology.

Maybe.

He
clearly reference his political position in the statement you quoted.
Thanks for the quote, by the way.

http://www.generationim.com/
They appear to me to be an investment firm devoted to making money
from sustainable businesses. What's the big deal?

No big deal at all. But contrary to Blake's statement Gore *is*
making bucks off HIS notion of global warming morality. His company
came into existence virtually the second the notion of 'carbon
credits' was invented. I admire that bit of capitalism and wished I
thought of it first. But it is still a snake-oil scam.

Here's where we part company. And I'm puzzled about why you are so
convinced that Gore's argument is a snake oil scam.

I didn't say a thing about Gore's argument. I was talking about his company.

There is a
powerful lot of international scientific opinion in support of his
general position that global warming will have serious effects on the
current business model. Several European reinsurers -- the big guys
who insure the insurance companies who insure us little guys -- have
begun working politically and otherwise to mollify human-caused
climate change. These corporations don't move willy-nilly. They
hedge their bets on the best information available to them. Hundreds
of billions of dollars are involved. It's not hysteria. It's
capitalism at its coldest.

Corporations have risen and fallen by making and hedging bets on models and
predictions based on what they consider to be the best information
available.

I've got
investments, too. Those guys seem to be trying to make money in a
capitalist system while directing their support towards laudable
goals. I'll keep looking, but so far I don't see anything in their
Web site that refers to scamming people about carbon credits.

Carbon credits is the laughable notion that you can plant as big a
carbon foot-print as you want, as long as you pay for it. Al Gore
buys his 'carbon credits' from his own company, and you should see
the industrial companies that his company has contracts with. He is
making a bundle. There is now no

I know what a carbon credit is. It's been discussed for years in the
debate on global warming solutions.

There have been government run carbon and emissions credit trading. The
notion of consumers paying a private business is a new model.

I looked a little at the information at the Generation IM Web site
(thanks for plugging me into this, BTW) and saw references to
investments in, e.g., Mexican developers who are conveniently located
in areas where desalinization plants can supply fresh water to their
clients when the locally available fresh water dries up. These guys
are betting on the rightness of Gore's general assessment of the
situation, and they're betting with their own money. $60 million of
the launch money for the firm was contributed by their founders.

And the high tech boys bet billions in the eighties on that bubble. None of
what GIM does reduces the carbon footprint of anything. It allows a
'penance' to buy absolution from the global warming high priests.

need for celebrities and politicians to actually do what they
preach, 'cause they can buy forgiveness for their artificially
created notion of carbon excess that they want to beat humanity over
the head with.

Dave, You know a lot about barbecue, and I respect your knowledge in
that area,

I appreciate that. There are many others who know a whole lot more
than I do, though.

I meant it.

but I don't think in this instance you are thinking for
yourself as thoroughly as you might.

There are too many implications that can be negatively taken from
your statement; it sounds very dismissive.

I didn't want to be dismissive, but I understand why you read it that
way. My phrasing could have been more intelligent. It's just that,
by my reading, you were saying things that were not your ideas
originally, but reflections of the products of a political machine
that cares nothing for either of us. I apologize if it was offensive.

There are some very powerful
economic interests at work trying to shape the dialogue on Gore and
climate change issues, and those interests care nothing for either
of us or our happiness or our values. We need to be extremely
careful about how the questions we answer are phrased.

You are correct, there *are* economic and political agendas that are
desperately engaged in shaping dialogue and opinion.. They want to
cut-off scientific debate and declare that the whole issue is
closed. They call folks who are not convinced of their position as
the equivalent to Holocoust Deniers, and wish to terminate the
employment of scientists that hold differing opinions. There is a
highly religious undertone of self-righteousness and dogma behind
all of this. To them, Gore is a figure-head, something that their
marketing department can identify as part of their branding.

Cutting off scientific debate is not in anyone's power. Scientists
will talk to each other. Framing the public discourse is demonstrably
an operation of power. In fact, it may be where power currently
lives. My dispute with your characterization of the matter (as far as
I can tell) is about the economic interests involved.

And about the economic interests afoot, please note that Generation IM
was founded with $60 million of capital from its founders in 2004.
(the source is their Web site) As of March 2007 that number had grown
to a billion dollars. They anticipate that they can invest a total of
$5 billion efficiently and expect a reasonable return on equity.
That's beaucoup d'argent.

Capitalism at work.

As of Friday's market close, Exxon/Mobil was valued at $487 billion,
Chevron at $188.45 billion, and Shell at $280.82 billion. (Source is
Yahoo finance) That's nearly two hundred times more beaucoup d'argent
than the forecast put forward by Generation of its best possible
investment scenario. Further, I didn't look into BP or the coal
companies or TXU or any of the other carbon emissions-based big guns
involved in the debate -- ....

Again, capitalism at work.

I'd say that there is a decided disparity in economic interests
engaged in this debate. And that Gore's potential benefits pale when
compared with the benefits of Exxon's (et. al) obfuscation of the
facts involved in the issue.

Disparities are relative. Gore's paleness of profit and benefits appears to
be a third degree sunburned tan to me. Entrepreneurs have started investment
companies on the promise of returns much less then what GIM currently
enjoys. The energy companies are also providing a commodity that is driving
the economic engine of virtually every country, so the comparisons are a bit
apples and oranges.

That is why I mentioned big financial
interests and their lack of concern for us. Exxon doesn't give a ***
about barbecue. Or either of us. But Exxon has been most active in
funding studies that will support their obfuscatory climate-change
agenda. There are malefactors of great wealth who care only for
growing their wealth, and not the in the least for your or my health,
happiness or survival.

There probably is some of what you say that has and will occur. Global
warming advocates have hardly been squeeky clean in this regard. But it is a
bit too Michael Moore for me agree that the majority of science disputing
man-made climate change is funded by special interests.

The economically-based snake oil accusation is more convincing against
Gore's foes than it is against global warming.

From one viewpoint, perhaps, but certainly not from all.

And I can put together Power Point presentations like nobody's
business :-)

Not me, but I have to learn soon.

It's a hoot to learn. Not difficult at all.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


.