Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, November 5, 2009

Al Gore has been on the defensive over his financial motives for pushing for a cap and trade system to reduce CO2 emissions, arguing that he is merely putting his money where his mouth is, however, a startling revelation in a recent Newsweek article proves that Gore is only interested in solutions to environmental problems that line his pockets.

For argument’s sake, let’s accept the highly contentious premise that the life-giving gas that humans exhale and plants absorb, carbon dioxide, is a dastardly evil threat to the planet, despite the fact that Al Gore himself admits CO2 is not the major driver of global warming.

If there was a solution to neutralize CO2 emissions that didn’t involve devastating the economy, taxing the citizens into oblivion, de-industrializing the west and giving government huge regulatory powers over our private lives, would Al Gore, Maurice Strong and the rest of the kingpins of the globalist environmental movement be interested?

You can bet your bottom dollar they’re not interested.

One of Gore’s global warming advisors, CEO Timothy LaSalle, told Gore’s team that CO2 emissions could be neutralized completely by clever use of agriculture and technology, without the need for a global carbon tax or the use of cap and trade systems that Gore, along with people like the Rothschilds, Maurice Strong and Barack Obama, have a huge financial stake in promoting.

The Newsweek article states:

“If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit,” says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore’s assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn’t.)

So there you have it – LaSalle proposed a way of solving the CO2 issue but was basically told to shove it by Gore’s team because the methods he advocated would eliminate the need for what Gore and his cronies are really pursuing, nightmare regulation, taxation, and control over American’s lives, along with billions of dollars flooding into the coffers of Gore and the rest of the “carbon billionaire” globalists via the carbon trading systems they own.

“Could it be that Mr Gore and his team want the US economy and its free market system to be overturned regardless of the science? Could it be that they do not want to know about any science that does not allow them to tax and interfere in the lives of every American?” ask Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer.

“This is an outrageous interference in science for a political purpose. But what is the political purpose? Al Gore has called for stopping the use of fossil fuels and the complete restructuring of the economy in the US within ten years but when offered a chance to remove “harmful” CO2 from the atmosphere his team tries to change the science.”

That’s because Gore doesn’t give a damn about the science and he doesn’t give a damn about the environment. Like the rest of the vultures circling around the rich pickings of the global warming fraud, his only interest is in feasting on the corpse of the U.S. economy and the American taxpayer once he manages to ram though the cap and trade scam that will enrich the very carbon trading systems he owns.

Finally ~ exposure. Why did anyone listen to him in the first place? He never had any credentials to talk about this stuff. It is not just about what stupidity he spouted, but also about what people wanted to believe. He couldn't have gotten this far along without a whole lot of people buying into it just as ignorantly as he presented it. And now we are faced with the global buy-in. Come on. Copenhagen? Screw it.

As with most science, they are so pre-occupied with the "HOW" that they tend to forget about the "WHY".
there may be many many contributing factors to "global warming" but it is all irrelevant. there could be just as many unwatched factors that equally contribute to global cooling.
we can't monitor every process that goes on throughout the entire planet. or even across our solar system and beyond.
there are factors beyond even our galaxy that will effect our climate.
I think the most important thing is that we think about why.
firstly, why is it an issue. why does it affect us so. our planet has gone through many periods of fluctuation in hte history of the universe.
humanity has adapted to many different environments and flourished the world over.
now we are even planning to go and colonise other worlds.