Tuesday, October 30, 2007
SAINT AL'S STOCK PORTFOLIO
Al Gore, inventor of the internet, saint of the global warming movement, winner of the Nobel & Oscar for convenient lies, war criminal involved in genocide ethnic cleansing & child rape in Kosovo Croatia & Bosnia/Herzegovina & discoverer that smoking is a major cause of global warming & believed by everybody on Earth (but not Mars), has had his ethical stock portfolio examined.
""Despite its widely publicized rhetoric, the Gore firm's stock portfolio looks to be that of an ordinary diversified mutual fund," said JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy. "If this is 'sustainable' investing, then it is a meaningless term," Milloy said.
GIM, of which Al Gore is the chairman and founding partner, filed its Form 13F-Holdings report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2007. The report may be viewed at http://www.junkscience.com/oct07/GIM_Holdings_102307.pdf.
According to the report, GIM has $438 million invested in the following 22 companies: AFLAC, Amdocs, Autodesk, Becton Dickinson, Blackbaud, Donaldson Company, General Electric, Greenhill & Co., HDFC Bank, Johnson Controls, Laboratory Corporation of America, Metabolix, Millipore, Mueller Water Products, Northern Trust, Procter & Gamble, SPDR Trust, Staples, Techne Corp., UBS, Varian Medical Systems and Waters Corp.
GIM's top five holdings are Johnson Controls, AFLAC, Becton Dickinson, General Electric and Procter & Gamble.
Al Gore says on the GIM web site that, "Integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense."
But with the exception of General Electric ─ which actively lobbies for global warming regulation while its stock significantly underperforms the broad stock market ─ GIM's portfolio doesn't seem to have anything to do with climate change. Notably absent from GIM's portfolio are energy and utility companies ─ even those that claim they will benefit from global warming regulation. With the exception of GE, corporate members of the pro-global warming regulation lobbying group called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership are also missing from GIM's portfolio.
"GIM's portfolio is a run-of-the-mill mix of financial service, healthcare, consumer products, technology and industrial materials companies that hardly seems to live up to Gore's rhetoric about social and environmental sustainability allegedly driving GIM's investment choices," Milloy said. "There seems to be no particular focus on energy efficiency, alternative energy, reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, or other so-called 'green' business ideals" Milloy said."
Doubtless Roger Harrabin or somebody else on BBC news will be reporting this hypocrisy with due prominence. Or not as the case may be.
""Despite its widely publicized rhetoric, the Gore firm's stock portfolio looks to be that of an ordinary diversified mutual fund," said JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy. "If this is 'sustainable' investing, then it is a meaningless term," Milloy said.
GIM, of which Al Gore is the chairman and founding partner, filed its Form 13F-Holdings report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2007. The report may be viewed at http://www.junkscience.com/oct07/GIM_Holdings_102307.pdf.
According to the report, GIM has $438 million invested in the following 22 companies: AFLAC, Amdocs, Autodesk, Becton Dickinson, Blackbaud, Donaldson Company, General Electric, Greenhill & Co., HDFC Bank, Johnson Controls, Laboratory Corporation of America, Metabolix, Millipore, Mueller Water Products, Northern Trust, Procter & Gamble, SPDR Trust, Staples, Techne Corp., UBS, Varian Medical Systems and Waters Corp.
GIM's top five holdings are Johnson Controls, AFLAC, Becton Dickinson, General Electric and Procter & Gamble.
Al Gore says on the GIM web site that, "Integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense."
But with the exception of General Electric ─ which actively lobbies for global warming regulation while its stock significantly underperforms the broad stock market ─ GIM's portfolio doesn't seem to have anything to do with climate change. Notably absent from GIM's portfolio are energy and utility companies ─ even those that claim they will benefit from global warming regulation. With the exception of GE, corporate members of the pro-global warming regulation lobbying group called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership are also missing from GIM's portfolio.
"GIM's portfolio is a run-of-the-mill mix of financial service, healthcare, consumer products, technology and industrial materials companies that hardly seems to live up to Gore's rhetoric about social and environmental sustainability allegedly driving GIM's investment choices," Milloy said. "There seems to be no particular focus on energy efficiency, alternative energy, reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, or other so-called 'green' business ideals" Milloy said."
Doubtless Roger Harrabin or somebody else on BBC news will be reporting this hypocrisy with due prominence. Or not as the case may be.
Comments:
<< Home
Neil, here's an idea: in order to discredit all "Global Warming" skeptics, how about saying that they are "all in the pay of the big oil companies"?
Still doesn't work? How about comparing all of them to "Holocaust deniers" (a la Marko Attila Hoare & Oliver Kamm of the UK Henry Jackson Society)maliciously labelling as "Holocaust deniers" all those independent researchers who "deny" that the late Bosnian muslim "president", Alija Izetbegovic, was "a moderate, secular, Western-oriented liberal committed to a multi-ethnic democracy" and who expose Izetbegovic's own writings and actions to prove that he was an Islamofascist WW2 Nazi SS collaborator, whom like Franjo Tudjman, was openly dedicated to genocide of the Serbs in Bosnia, Krajina & Croatia?
If that still doesn't silence these stubborn "Global Warming deniers",how about sending them death threats via e-mail?
Darn it, looks like that's been done already!
"...In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked.
"In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats.
"There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust.
"In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
"This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms."
Global Warming: A Convenient Lie
by Andrew G. Marshall
Global Research, March 15, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086
[Excerpt]
"...It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so.
"So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money.
"However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.
"...Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made.
He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.”
Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.”
Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it.
Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician.
Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing.
Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”
Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.”
He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.”
He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.
An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.”
He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change.
Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”
In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.”
Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming.
However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.”
Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers?
Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)”
Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”
Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite.
It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue.”
Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year."
With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately.
What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change.
Post a Comment
Still doesn't work? How about comparing all of them to "Holocaust deniers" (a la Marko Attila Hoare & Oliver Kamm of the UK Henry Jackson Society)maliciously labelling as "Holocaust deniers" all those independent researchers who "deny" that the late Bosnian muslim "president", Alija Izetbegovic, was "a moderate, secular, Western-oriented liberal committed to a multi-ethnic democracy" and who expose Izetbegovic's own writings and actions to prove that he was an Islamofascist WW2 Nazi SS collaborator, whom like Franjo Tudjman, was openly dedicated to genocide of the Serbs in Bosnia, Krajina & Croatia?
If that still doesn't silence these stubborn "Global Warming deniers",how about sending them death threats via e-mail?
Darn it, looks like that's been done already!
"...In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked.
"In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats.
"There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust.
"In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
"This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms."
Global Warming: A Convenient Lie
by Andrew G. Marshall
Global Research, March 15, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086
[Excerpt]
"...It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so.
"So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money.
"However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.
"...Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made.
He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.”
Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.”
Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it.
Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician.
Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing.
Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”
Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.”
He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.”
He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.
An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.”
He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change.
Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”
In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.”
Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming.
However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.”
Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers?
Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)”
Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”
Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite.
It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue.”
Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year."
With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately.
What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change.
# posted by 
: November 08, 2007
: November 08, 2007 << Home
