Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

link photos: link

Nobel Laureate Al Gore purchased a $9 million mansion in the luxurious hills of Montecito, California, recently, and with the exception of the Los Angeles Times and Fox News, America's media couldn't care less.

You think it might be because the Gore-loving press wouldn't want people to consider the possibility that all of his global warming hysteria was really about lining his wallet and not saving the planet?

Formulate a response to that question as you look at what all that money the former Vice President is making off of spreading this myth can buy (h/t Doug Ross):

Sweet, wouldn't you say? (Readers are encouraged to view more pictures of this fabulous estate here.)

Certainly not bad for a guy who supposedly was worth between one and two million dollars in 2000.

Were the "Always Fascinated by the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" press interested?

Heck no.

According to LexisNexis, apart from the Los Angeles Times that broke this story last Wednesday, and Fox News's Sean Hannity who spoke about this on consecutive nights last week, America's media were totally mum.

Why might that be?

You think Gore's adoring press don't want folks to know how much money he's making off this scam?

Before you answer THAT question, consider what the Nobel Laureate told Congress last year as the House was deliberating cap-and-trade legislation:

AL GORE: Every penny that I have made, I have put right into a non-profit deal, Alliance For Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. And Congresswomen, if your, if, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you do not know me.

Now, imagine for a moment there were actually journalists still in America and not advocates pretending to be journalists.

A former Vice President who last year told a House committee he was putting all of his earnings into a non-profit company to "spread awareness of why we have to take on" global warming a year later buys a $9 million mansion with six fireplaces, five bedrooms, and nine bathrooms for him and his wife.

Don't you think SOMEBODY should have reported it other than Fox News, the LA Times, and conservative bloggers?

Where'd the money come from? Was this purchased by his non-profit corporation, and if so, how does he get away with that?

Did he sell some of his Google or Apple stock?

And how about some questions about how green the house is? Are there solar panels and windmills to power this facility? If not, what are their plans?

Forgetting all of that, if the Clintons, Bushes, or Cheneys bought such a place, do you think the media would cover it, at least as a human interest story?

For over three years, Gore's adoring press have followed virtually every move he's made since becoming the voice of global warming.

He buys a STUNNING villa as the unemployment rate stands at almost 10 percent and Americans are struggling to regain their footing after 2008's financial crisis, and the media are suddenly disinterested in him?

On exactly which planet, be it cooling or warming, does THAT make any sense?

100502-gore-house1.jpg

100502-gore-house4.jpg

100502-gore-house5.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um. He's a rich guy. He bought a house.

So what?

Because it's not very environmentally friendly is it?

In the UK we are all going to have to live in shoeboxes with walls 2ft thick so we can afford the heating bills thanks to the carbon emissions tax we are all now forced to pay.

That was what it was always about - money.

Money for individuals selling a lie and more taxation for governments.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's not very environmentally friendly is it?

In the UK we are all going to have to live in shoeboxes with walls 2ft thick so we can afford the heating bills thanks to the carbon emissions tax we are all now forced to pay.

That was what it was always about - money.

Money for individuals selling a lie and more taxation for governments.

:blink:

+1 If this is the house he bought, it is pure hypocrisy. I'm more inclined to trust what comes out of someone's mouth if they walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

Moreover, there is also an issue concerning where this man's wealth has come from. It has increased dramatically since 2000, when his claimed wealth was 1 to 2 million USD. He has stated in a congressional interview that all the money he has made from his green projects has been funneled back into a charity/non-profit. You can find the video on youtube. Something doesn't add up does it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!!

His carbon footprint must be absolutely gargantuan.

Apart from that hardly dusk and every single room lit up and ablaze with light.

Ha, he's probably "offset" it some how with some bogus financial product. :blink: A truly wasteful house!

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/enron_kyoto_and_trading_pollut.html

About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA's $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today's proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron's stock to rapidly rise.

Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission. Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits' of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction.

Gore - is/was chairman of carbon credit trading company.

That is where the money has come from, feeding off a scammer company's new scam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people keep falling for the hysterias. Like when all these rich celebrities are flying around the world telling us the sky is going to fall unless we (but not them), cut back on our standard of living.. I just laugh.

Recycling, carbon controls, ozone layer, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, it just keeps going. Once they ban one thing, they immediately are on to the next thing to ban.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um. He's a rich guy. He bought a house.

So what?

So What? Here's why "so what": He's rich because he has made huge personal wealth from three sources:

1. Media sales of his hysterical global warming campaign, much of which is based on evidence that has big holes in its reasoning (see www.climateaudit.com) and other websites that present PROPER data.

2. He charges $145,000 PER SPEECH about a subject on which he has no qualifications or veriable facts to draw on.You would have thought, since he claims to be so concerned about this subject, that he might deliver a few free speeches. Like Blair, he is cashing in on his own bullS*it.

3. He has earned a lot of cash from his investments in so-called "green" technologies, many of them state-subsidised and a direct result of his own lobbying. Slight conflict of interests here!

4. He owns several large houses, all of which have a massive carbon footprint by his own standards. He owns a corporate jet, several 4x4 vehicles, several other vehicles and his own use of co2 is something he tells everyone else they should do without. That makes him a total hypocrite.

5. His total worth is estimated at between $100 and $200 milllion, all earned from his own exploitation of his "concerns about the environment".

FACT: If you want to make the world greener, then stop REAL pollution. Carbon is essential to life and CO2 in the atmosphere is the LEAST concern we should have compared with real pollutants. Even if Gore was correct about the source of "warming" (actually the earth has slightly cooled in the last few years), it would take his carbon reduction policies, implemented fully, over a hundred years to reduce global average temperatures by a tiny fraction.

FACT 2: Polar bears are not in danger. In the last few years their population has actually increased by a large factor. Arctic Ice might be melting, but Antarctic ice is growing. The himalayan glaciers are not retreating. Water vapour, sun activity and oceans influence temperature by a factor of about hundred times more than carbon.

Edited by VacantPossession
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched some expose about fox news(journalists in general) and the guy said it was laughable that people still think there are journalists nipping about and looking for a story. Everything they print/put on the telly whatever is leaked/gifted or looked up on wikipedia prob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So What? Here's why "so what": He's rich because he has made huge personal wealth from three sources:

1. Media sales of his hysterical global warming campaign, much of which is based on evidence that has big holes in its reasoning (see www.climateaudit.com) and other websites that present PROPER data.

2. He charges $145,000 PER SPEECH about a subject on which he has no qualifications or veriable facts to draw on.You would have thought, since he claims to be so concerned about this subject, that he might deliver a few free speeches. Like Blair, he is cashing in on his own bullS*it.

3. He has earned a lot of cash from his investments in so-called "green" technologies, many of them state-subsidised and a direct result of his own lobbying. Slight conflict of interests here!

4. He owns several large houses, all of which have a massive carbon footprint by his own standards. He owns a corporate jet, several 4x4 vehicles, several other vehicles and his own use of co2 is something he tells everyone else they should do without. That makes him a total hypocrite.

5. His total worth is estimated at between $100 and $200 milllion, all earned from his own exploitation of his "concerns about the environment".

FACT: If you want to make the world greener, then stop REAL pollution. Carbon is essential to life and CO2 in the atmosphere is the LEAST concern we should have compared with real pollutants. Even if Gore was correct about the source of "warming" (actually the earth has slightly cooled in the last few years), it would take his carbon reduction policies, implemented fully, over a hundred years to reduce global average temperatures by a tiny fraction.

FACT 2: Polar bears are not in danger. In the last few years their population has actually increased by a large factor. Arctic Ice might be melting, but Antarctic ice is growing. The himalayan glaciers are not retreating. Water vapour, sun activity and oceans influence temperature by a factor of about hundred times more than carbon.

6. he is a kunt

Link to post
Share on other sites
He has stated in a congressional interview that all the money he has made from his green projects has been funneled back into a charity/non-profit.

If I were rich, the first thing I would do is set up a charity to support any / all of my pet causes and use it to launder money. I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't happen with actual rich people.

Wow!!

His carbon footprint must be absolutely gargantuan.

Apart from that hardly dusk and every single room lit up and ablaze with light.

In fairness, those could be the EA's photos and maybe Big Al spends his evenings huddled under a blanket eating cold beans straight from the can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My doctor told me I had a bad cancer.

I knew he had to be lying though, because he earns loads of money treating people for cancer.

Then I found this site:

which explains the real science behind the socialist cancer hoax.

I don't really understand the complicated bits, but it was started by an economist so you know it is based upon a clear understanding of real science, true facts and absolutely no political agenda whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic science 101: If you doubt the results of a an experiment, repeat it yourself.

Seems like it's the only thing they didn't do there..

Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT: If you want to make the world greener, then stop REAL pollution. Carbon is essential to life and CO2 in the atmosphere is the LEAST concern we should have compared with real pollutants. Even if Gore was correct about the source of "warming" (actually the earth has slightly cooled in the last few years), it would take his carbon reduction policies, implemented fully, over a hundred years to reduce global average temperatures by a tiny fraction.

FACT 2: Polar bears are not in danger. In the last few years their population has actually increased by a large factor. Arctic Ice might be melting, but Antarctic ice is growing. The himalayan glaciers are not retreating. Water vapour, sun activity and oceans influence temperature by a factor of about hundred times more than carbon.

I do feel that I can now shout 'Bingo'. I've simply linked to the various explanations of why you are wrong - saves me typing things manually that you won't read anyway - and it's a much more economical.

Of course, I could point out that the cognitive dissonance that stopped the people making huge amounts of money out of a financial/property bubble realizing that what they were doing would lead to a crash is very similar to that which allowed people to disregard global warming no matter how much evidence accumulates, but the very existence of that dissonance would prevent people from following the argument..

- The impacts of global warming - including large changes to rainfall patterns, several meters of sea level rise and the loss of much agricultural land - will be minor compared to 'other pollutants'.

- That there has been a statistically significant cooling trend over the 'past few years'.

- All Polar bear populations are strongly expanding.

- The Antarctic ice cap is gaining mass.

- The glaciers in the Himalaya have a neutral mass balance.

- Changes in the sun have two orders of magnitude greater effect on the climate than carbon dioxide.

- Water vapour has two orders of magnitude greater effect on the climate than carbon dioxide.

- The oceans can warm or cool the planet by themselves.

Knock yourself out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, I could point out that the cognitive dissonance that stopped the people making huge amounts of money out of a financial/property bubble realizing that what they were doing would lead to a crash is very similar to that which allowed people to disregard global warming no matter how much evidence accumulates, but the very existence of that dissonance would prevent people from following the argument..

Knock yourself out.

You do understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy" though, surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy" though, surely?

If you're suggesting that Al Gore is being hypocritical, then it is you who probably doesn't understand the meaning of the word. As Samuel Johnson wrote:

Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're suggesting that Al Gore is being hypocritical, then it is you who probably doesn't understand the meaning of the word. As Samuel Johnson wrote:

I'm not suggesting it; he is a prize hypocrite. And the quote you provided shows that it's Samuel Johnson and not me that doesn't understand the meaning of the word - which is surprising, admittedly, but hey, I didn't put the words in his mouth.

FWIW I think that hypocrisy is the single worst quality that a human being can display.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy" though, surely?

Yes. For example, if an oil company paid people to deny climate science whilst also investing billions on the premise that climate science was correct, that would by hypocritical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 441 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.