Has Al Gore Remade Silicon Valley in his Image?

Guest essay be Leo Goldstein

The story of Silicon Valley’s embrace of climate alarmism and all things hard Left went from mystery to crime thriller.  In fact, Al Gore played an enormous role in Silicon Valley’s transformation from technological marvel into marketing/finance/software/censorship hub, animated by Leftist passion for destruction and deep-ecology anti-humanism, both amplified by artificial intelligence.

No, this is not because Al Gore invented the internet.  In fact, he has never said he did.  Al Gore made a much stronger statement: “I took the initiative in creating the Internet” (1999 video). Inventing is only a small part in creating.  Thus, Al Gore pretended to be almost a Creator of the Internet.  Of course, it is not true.  But he has done a lot to remake the technological industries and the whole U.S. economy in his own image.

Al Gore has been involved in the tech since his vice presidency and after that. From Forbes, 2013:

“Along with cultivating Current [TV], Gore, 64, joined the board of Apple in 2003 and served as a senior adviser on green issues to Google beginning in 2001, three years before the company went public.   As of February, Gore, who is still an Apple director, held more than $35 million in stock and options in the Cupertino, Calif. technology firm.”

Al Gore made more than $30M on Apple options alone (1).  The eBay billionaire Jeffrey Skoll financed his 2006 movie The Inconvenient Truth.  But probably the most important among Al Gore’s connections to Silicon Valley was his role in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) venture capital firm, which he joined as a partner in 2007.  He probably is not active today, but his name still appears on KPCB website.  He probably retains interest in some of the KPCB investments, and is still liable to the investors as a general partner (VCs are not limited liability corporations).  Al Gore remained politically active after he lost 2000 elections.  He considered running for President in 2008 and participated in the launch of the notorious “Attorneys General for Clean Power” witch hunt in 2016.  His party comrades also remained in the federal and state governments, especially in California and Washington.  KPCB is a legendary venture capital firm.  Its investments include Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, and countless other successful companies in the Silicon Valley ecosystem.

In 2013, Larry Bell wrote in Forbes:

“In 2004, Gore co-founded London-based Generation Investment Management (GIM) with Senator Feinstein’s husband, former Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Managing Director David Blood to invest money in businesses that were “going green”. Public filings show that GIM raised profits of nearly $218 million between 2008 and 2011, split among 26 partners. By 2008 Gore was able to put together $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc.

It was Skoll’s Participant Media company that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening science fiction 2006 film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’”

“Gore also found himself to be a sought-after star among elite Silicon Valley investors. In late 2007, he became a senior investment partner at one of the world’s most successful venture capital firms, Kleiner Perkins. He was combining forces with longtime friend John Doerr in a joint mission to spur clean tech.

Doerr had won legendary status at Kleiner by betting early on the meteoric rise of Internet start-ups Google and Amazon. But by 2007, he had switched his bets to green energy and vowed to raise $500 million to invest in what he called the next ‘mother of all markets.’” – carbon credits.

How big? $10 Trillion a year. In 2010, Jo Nova wrote in ABC Australia (2):

“Commissioner Bart Chilton, … has predicted that within five years a carbon market would dwarf any of the markets his agency currently regulates: “I can see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market. … Richard L. Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of Climate Exchange Plc, agrees and predicts trades eventually will total $10 trillion a year.”

Silicon Valley VCs did not want to miss such investment opportunity, and it is not hard to imagine them investing or divesting from unrelated tech companies based on the former vice president’s wishes.  The current crop of the “tech” tycoons seems to be a beneficiary of crony capitalism to a larger extent than it was thought.  Support for the Internet and internet businesses has been bipartisan, but Al Gore and his accomplices apparently abused their power to aid their investments in seriously unfair ways.  I can also speculate that they also influenced the internal politics of the companies in which they invested. In 2012, before being acquired by Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Washington Post wrote (4):

“Fourteen green-tech firms in which Gore invested received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of President Obama’s historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money.”

“In last week’s presidential debate, Romney criticized the $90 billion that went to promote green technology, saying a number of businesses owned by Obama campaign contributors were winners.”

“Gore’s investments coincided with the government’s largest investment in clean tech. A full 10 percent, estimated at $80 billion to $90 billion, of the 2009 stimulus package was devoted to clean energy.”

Gore’s investments did not “coincide” with the government’s ones – he and his accomplices caused flow of the taxpayer’s money into his and his buddies’ pockets.  But the focus of this article is on the GFTM and other Silicon Valley “successes” that threaten our freedom now. This is how Charley Munger, the right hand of legendary Warren Buffet, described Al Gore’s investment strategy:

“So his idea when he went into investment counseling is he was not going to put any CO2 in the air,” Meager [Munger] explained to the investors noting that Gore’s simple strategy of buying only service company stocks enabled the former Vice President to become very rich.

Meager [Munger] explained: “So he found some partner to go into investment counseling with and says we’re not going to have any (carbon dioxide). But this partner is a value investor and a good one. So what they did is, is Gore hired staff to find people who didn’t put CO2 in the air. Of course that put him into services. Microsoft and all these service companies were just ideally located. And this value investor picked the best service companies. So all of a sudden the clients are making hundreds of millions of dollars and they are paying part of it to Al Gore. Al Gore has hundreds of millions dollars in your profession. And he’s an idiot. It’s an interesting story. And a true one.”

Munger might think that Al Gore won by chance, betting on a single sector despite the ordinary wisdom of diversifying investments.  But, he is only half-right.  Al Gore and his fellow Democrats actively stifled and damaged other economic sectors. This made Gore’s investments stand out compared to the broad market. Democrats used government power to persecute almost all economic sectors, making physical goods and services: energy industries (including oil and gas exploration, extraction, transportation, and refining; coal, nuclear, and hydro-power), mining, manufacturing, pharma, health care, even staple foods.  Excuses for persecution included environmental protection, affordable health care, employees’ benefits, anti-discrimination, etc. (the effects include $20T debt, vulnerable electrical grid, losses of jobs and health insurance, but this is out of scope of the article).  The means were legislation, regulations and, the worst of all, litigation.  Silicon Valley has obviously benefited from the forced divestment from energy and infrastructure sectors – something that Trumps has vowed to fix, incurring Silicon Valley’s wrath.  Within the hi-tech sector the effects were offshoring manufacturing and the wealth redistribution from technology and infrastructure builders all over the country to the content and app providers in Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

The Al Gore’s logic in preferring companies producing digital services to those producing physical goods was that former ones consumed energy, thus contributing to “climate change” while the latter did not.  In the high school, Al Gore scored 488 out of a possible 800 in physics (5), and comments on his reasoning is unnecessary.  I guess that some scientists and engineers from manufacturing companies did not know that and argued with Gore on global warming, unknowingly sealing their fate.

Our hi-tech has been gored almost as badly as the academic science. The technology-intensive industries have been replaced almost entirely with the software mono-culture.  Physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and manufacturing engineers with various specializations have been replaced with programmers who are being replaced by ‘app developers’ and people whom Eric Schmidt calls “smart creatives.”  They are also ardent globalists, and oppose any assertion of the American sovereignty.  This combination of ignorance, anti-patriotism, and corruption leads them to sedition.

I don’t intend to lay all the blame at the feet of Al Gore and his buddies.  But I hope that this crime thriller will have a happy ending: perp walks, indictments, trials, and convictions.

Remarks

  • The term Silicon Valley is used here broadly, including “similar” corporations, especially Amazon, Microsoft, and Expedia, located in the Washington state.
  • The attribution to Al Gore of the “inventor of the Internet” phrase became a strawman argument and probably spread through repetitive debunking by sundry “fact checkers.”  Internet technology was invented in 1969. The internet prototype known as ARPANET was deployed in the Department of Defense.  The word internet was coined in 1974 (RFC 675).  By 1991, the Internet already had about a million hosts.
  • I cannot get used to how quickly the Left rewrites history, and how uncritically the public accepts this re-written history.  In the fake net neutrality “Battle for the Net”, a number of special interest groups and content producers, most of which ride the Internet like fleas ride a dog, are depicted as “the team Internet”.  The companies that have built up a large portion of the Internet, such as AT&T and Verizon, are depicted as enemies of the Internet. See also Who’s behind “Battle for the Net” and Net Neutrality Realism.
  • Al Gore’s GIM claims $17B under management and describes its investment strategies as follows: “We are one Firm with four high-conviction strategies – Global Equity, Asia Equity, Growth Equity and Global Credit.”  It’s no surprise that Al Gore is against putting America First.

Disclosure: I hold short positions in GOOG, AMZN, FB, and TWTR.

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “Has Al Gore Remade Silicon Valley in his Image?

  1. Algore is, by no means, alone in being financially successful with low grade intelligence.
    I have known more than a few idiots who have done very well financially by cheating and sucking up to the right people. Add government complicity and you have a very strong formula for financial success.

  2. … a number of special interest groups and content producers, most of which ride the Internet like fleas ride a dog …

    This is similar to all the freeloaders who think they should be able to ride down the highway and city streets without paying a toll. Just disgusting.

  3. Then how do we put him out of harms way? He is destructive and the real giuilty parties are those who aided ,sucked on the free teat, and used this imbecile to continue.

    Solutions to the problem, my friends, is required, not rhetoric.

    I wish I could forward a practical solution, but with the media so hostile to the truth and achieving balance for the greater good, will and have continued to destroy for their short term gain.

    You rose up We to vote for Trump, a brake and a chance to realign those elements to achieve that
    balance. Don’t throw it away- please.

  4. My take is different. SV went whole hog Liberal because it’s populated mostly by 20 and 30 something SJWs. If the companies don’t acquiesce they become “uncool” places to be employed and won’t attract up and coming talent. SV politics is a product of it’s location and our education system and not the economy. As far as CC goes they are just more useful idiots.

      • How the green left is financed:

        I refer you to “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement …” a report of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 30, 2014.

        It is an investigation (pdf) of how a group of wealthy, covert funders (many of them foreign, and including the Kremlin) of environmental and leftist groups purchase media outlets and set up fake grassroots movements “(astroturf”) to advance what can only be described as a well-coordinated reactionary anti-liberal, anti-democratic attack on open, participatory government. The report is not only eye-opening, it is stunning in its cold confirmation of your worst fears about the continued viability of democracy in this country. It is 92 pages, very well researched and compiled, and deserves at least a cursory look. It doesn’t take long to get hooked.

        http://leftexposed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2014-Senate-Billionaire-Club-Report.pdf

      • No, it is not Algore alone. Here, for example, is an excerpt of the Senate Report from pages 34-35:

        “Another example of Park’s [a subdivision of the billionaire’s club] paid-for propaganda involves an online news-sharing site called the Climate Desk. It describes itself as a “journalistic collaboration dedicated to exploring the impact . . . of climate change.” In reality, it aids the exchange and spread of climate related news stories between generally left-leaning news partners that include Grist, Mother Jones, the Huffington Post, Slate, The Guardian and The Atlantic.219 The Climate Desk acknowledges Park is one of its “major funders”220 and Park’s IRS Form-990s and its 2013 online grants database reflect that Park gave $300,000 to the Climate Desk between 2010 and 2013.”

        Footnote notations omitted.

  5. Well…not to disregard the entire post, but nano-technology depends entirely on software development. Not to mention the fact that making the thing that requires software is a fairly straightforward and cheap process. But the software requires a high degree of knowledge in both entities, the hardware AND the software, IE think uber expensive. Such endeavors require abstract symbolic 3-dimentional knowledge (complex programming), combined with concrete 3-dimentional knowledge (intricate hardware). So I guess we should get conservatives to major in technology hardware development and programming? I guess I am asking for the point here. Which has escaped my reading of the post.

    • IMO nanotech doesn’t depend entirely on software development. To date, at least, hardware development has been much more important.

      • Development yes, I agree with you. Technology advances needed to make things smaller is first and formost the first step. But I was talking about the different and greater needs of a piece of technology (rather easily manufactured compared to software) already developed that just sits there till it is told what to do. New software development for advanced technology is notoriously difficult and likely always will be.

      • New software developments can often be implemented on millions of computers and functional literally overnight. Hardware, not so much.

      • Precious little. IBM figures prominently in the history of nanotech, along with other companies and institutions outside the Valley.

        The scanning tunneling microscope (STM), capable of seeing atoms, was developed in 1981 by a German and a Swiss physicist at IBM Zürich, for which they won the 1986 Nobel Prize in Physics. Also in that year one of them, Binnig, with two others, invented the atomic force microscope, which has the capability to view, measure and manipulate materials down to fractions of a nanometer in size, including measurement of various forces intrinsic to nanomaterials.

        In 1985, three Rice University researchers discovered the Buckminsterfullerene (C60), more commonly known as the buckyball, which is a molecule resembling a soccer ball in shape and composed entirely of carbon, as are graphite and diamond. The team was awarded the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their roles in this discovery and that of the fullerene class of molecules more generally.

        In 1991, a Japanese NEC scientist is credited with discovering the carbon nanotube (CNT), although there were early observations of tubular carbon structures by others as well.

        In 1992, colleagues at Mobil Oil discovered the nanostructured catalytic materials MCM-41 and MCM-48, now used heavily in refining crude oil as well as for drug delivery, water treatment, and other varied applications.

        In 1993, an MIT scientist invented a method for controlled synthesis of nanocrystals (quantum dots), paving the way for applications ranging from computing to biology to high-efficiency photovoltaics and lighting.

        In 1999, Chinese Cornell University researchers probed secrets of chemical bonding by assembling a molecule [iron carbonyl Fe(CO)2] from constituent components [iron (Fe) and carbon monoxide (CO)] with a scanning tunneling microscope.

        In the same year, a Northwestern University scientists invented (the trademarked) dip-pen nanolithography (DPN), leading to manufacturable, reproducible “writing” of electronic circuits as well as patterning of biomaterials for cell biology research, nanoencryption, and other applications. This has been huge.

        In 2003, another Rice University team developed gold nanoshells, which when “tuned” in size to absorb near-infrared light, serve as a platform for the integrated discovery, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer without invasive biopsies, surgery, or systemically destructive radiation or chemotherapy. In 2006, Rice researchers built a nanoscale car.

        In 2005: a Cal Tech team developed theories for DNA-based computation and “algorithmic self-assembly” in which computations are embedded in the process of nanocrystal growth.

        In 2007, colleagues at MIT built a lithium-ion battery with a common type of virus that is nonharmful to humans, using a low-cost and environmentally benign process. The batteries have the same energy capacity and power performance as state-of-the-art rechargeable batteries being considered to power plug-in hybrid cars, and they could also be used to power personal electronic devices.

        During 2009–10: colleagues at New York University created several DNA-like robotic nanoscale assembly devices. One is a process for creating 3D DNA structures using synthetic sequences of DNA crystals that can be programmed to self-assemble using “sticky ends” and placement in a set order and orientation. Nanoelectronics could benefit: the flexibility and density that 3D nanoscale components allow could enable assembly of parts that are smaller, more complex, and more closely spaced. The team leader also created, with colleagues at China’s Nanjing University, a “DNA assembly line.”

        In 2010, IBM used a silicon tip measuring only a few nanometers at its apex (similar to the tips used in atomic force microscopes) to chisel away material from a substrate to create a complete nanoscale 3D relief map of the world one-one-thousandth the size of a grain of salt—in 2 minutes and 23 seconds. This activity demonstrated a powerful patterning methodology for generating nanoscale patterns and structures as small as 15 nanometers at greatly reduced cost and complexity, opening up new prospects for fields such as electronics, optoelectronics, and medicine.

        So Cal Tech is as close to Silicon Valley as major nanotech advances have come.

    • Thanks for that. I is worth pointing the FAKE news element in this article: the name is Blum not Blood !

      I guess the Blood and Gore thing is a bit of artistic licence, but this article should be corrected to get his name factually right in the text.

      • Yes indeed, I hate giving Mr. Blum a pass on this but the author if this piece is seriously mistaken and should correct it.

        Feinstein and family however, have cashed in on the AGW boondoggle (fraud).

      • Generation Investment Management (GIM) was founded by Al Gore, and a few friends, which included David Blood (former Goldman executive), Mark Ferguson (Goldman) and Peter Harris (Goldman). They are the fifth largest shareholder in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Then in 2006, when the CCX needed some extra funding, who should step up to buy 10% of the company – Goldman Sachs.

        In 2000 the Chicago Climate Exchange was helped to get started by the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is like the George Soros’ TIDES Foundation. In fact, it’s actually bigger than TIDES and even funds TIDES. Think of it as a place where uber-rich and powerful liberals like to dump their money into, so the cash can be spread around to their pet projects without a direct link.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-smell-of-money/

      • a place where uber-rich and powerful liberals like to dump their money into, so the cash can be spread around to their pet projects without a direct link.

        Of course with the unstated objective being getting a great ROI based on fleecing taxpayers.

      • The mistake is in the quoted article. Gore’s partner in GIM is David Blood, not related to Senator Dianne Feinstein. Richard Blum, once husband of Sen. Feinstein, was a Board member of Gore’s Current TV. So, Blood & Gore stands, and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is still involved.

  6. I’m with Markl on this one. Most of these SV people never left their basements when younger and are not the least outdoorsy. The Green thing is just the religion of youth. Never question, no excess is unforgivable, I am holier than thou, you’re going to burn in ……….always the future. All the hallmarks of religion.
    Repent!

  7. There is no “fix” for these shenanigans. Ever since “networking” became so popular, knowledge, talent, intelligence, and hard work have been supplanted with connections and telling people in power what they want to hear. Stupid people can still be shrewd. Add to this the media and educational system, such as they are, and we are well on our way to idiocracy. We will soon be irrigating our crops with Brawndo, “it’s got lectrolytes”. A guy like Trump might have a chance as he should be smart enough to know when people are telling him the wrong answers since folks have been sucking up to him all his life. That’s if he can tell the right answers from the wrong ones.

      • It was that same underestimation by all his opponents in the election and by the media and their talking heads that led to Trump winning the election. It will probably lead to his winning the next election too as the same people do not appear to be able to learn from their mistakes.

      • That our political machine could be capable of fielding Hillary Clinton should be enough evidence that our political system has been broken for many years along many different axis. Personally, I’m gratified the US electorate was successful putting Trump in office over Hillary, who would have been an unmitigated disaster IMHO. However, the situation is less than good. Trump is no prize and it’s my guess that had he not been running against the likes of Clinton, he wouldn’t have stood a chance.

        I have no idea how to fix this with a single action. Getting rid of the legal idea that corporations are people with voting rights would be a very good place to start, but that won’t, by itself, fix the problem.

      • Setting aside most of what passes for your points, please do show us where a corporation has voted in an election.

      • Setting aside most of what passes for your points, please do show us where a corporation has voted in an election.

        Well that’s a truly humorous question! Why would a “corporation” bother to vote? It’s certainly possible but I can’t imagine why it might happen.

        The SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United was just about funding, not voting. It extended “free speech” to corporations and allowed campaign contributions by organizations with a profit motive. Not individual citizens, groups of citizens (and, believe it or not, non-citizens,i.e. Foreign Nationals, aka RUSSIANS!).

        With the Citizens United SCOTIUS finding, individual voters were hamstrung; it allowed large scale profit motivated financial coalitions.

        Why is this a problem? Well, individuals that aren’t members of successful financial coalitions such as Google or Amazon have a proportionally smaller say in the media events surrounding an election. Since they aren’t organized and don’t have a revenue engine, they have either a muted voice, or no voice.

        It’s really not all that hard when you give it a bit of thought?

  8. Leo you only have part of the story right. You need to go back to 1992 and the “Smart Valley” initiative to discover the beginnings of Al’s “work”. His role, then as US VP, was to pave the way to eliminating the lock the large telcos had on last mile service. The carriers, at the time, had a very large (and fully depreciated) investment in POTS (“Plain Old Telephone Systems”) and were unwilling to have upstarts like BBN and MCI depose them with long haul fiber and packet switched routers.

    Al was instrumental in removing legislative roadblocks to that transition and so has laid claim to “creating the Internet”.

    • Bartleby,
      Two (US) legislative or legal events come to mine:

      1. The divestiture of AT&T in ~1984(?), which did open the door for alternative long-distance voice carriers, like MCI and Sprint.

      2. The Telecommunications act of 1996 (when Gore was VP, from memory) more or less closed the door and guaranteed an monopoly for a small number of the largest telecomm companies at the time.

      I’m curious what role Gore played in either or both.

      From memory, MCI started out providing point-to-point microwave links to provide voice (and data??) services to smaller companies that couldn’t afford the government regulated telecomm monopolies.

      In the mean time, BBN, starting in the ’60s and ’70s, was doing quite nicely with data networks, continued to invent, innovate and create in data networks. A lot (most?) of the underlying technology that is “the Internet” today was invented by BBN. Still astonishes me that I’m using technology every day that was created by former colleagues.

      This is way out of line speculation, but I’ve sometimes wondered if Tipper Gore’s interest and advocacy for mental health issues, and separation from Al were related.

      • This is way out of line speculation

        Not really. The business about Tipper certainly is :) but the rest of it isn’t. If you’re interested, take a concentrated look at the 1992 “Smart Valley” initiative and the 1996 legislative reforms you mention. You’re on the right track, you just didn’t go back far enough to tell the complete story.

      • I’ll attest to his effective participation.

        Translation: Al got the job done. I’m not convinced I cared for his methods, but then he’s a lawyer and I’m an engineer; it isn’t often we see eye to eye.

        He got the job done. That’s why we’re talking. His later fetish with climate and environment notwithstanding, he got the job done. He deserves credit for that.

      • BTW? I personally think attacking a man’s wife, in this example Tipper Gore, is beyond the pale. Al did what he did, Tipper did what she did. They are not at all the same.

        Please respect that. I’m not trying to defend Tipper, but don’t even dare paint her with the same brush you paint Al. Al had his faults; they were his. I’m sure Tipper had her own faults. They weren’t the same faults.

        Let’s keep this as clean as we can?

      • I guess there were more than 50 Senators participating in “removing legislative roadblocks,” if any existed.

        You can trust me on this or not; they existed. They were subtle, but effective. We worked very hard to open those doors and make the Internet possible. There’s no doubt at all that Al Gore personally played a significant role in negotiating that deal. I was there. I don’t have positive personal opinion of Mr. Gore, but I’ll attest to his effective participation.

  9. Al Gore has made himself wealthy by trading on political connections. Many politicians have done so in the past, do so now, and will continue doing so into the future–look at the Clinton’s as experts in this path to wealth.

    Humans trade on their connections. There is nothing wrong with this per se. Now, what makes politicians trading on their connections very profitable, and very worrisome, is that politics, hence government, has crept into every nook and cranny of our lives. Limit governmental power, and one also limits what politicians might earn outside of public service, limits cronyism, and allows the economy to breathe more freely. Limiting how well the Al Gores of the world can do for themselves prevents them from eventually dictating how everyone else must live.

    • Too true. Anyone with political connections will seek to have the rules favor their interests, as James Madison noted over 200 years ago. The issue is for the other interests to do the same effectively, and limit the overreach of any one interest group.
      This sort of politics is inevitable, and decrying special interests is more a matter of decrying bad performance by the advocates of one’s own interests.

  10. Al Gore remained politically active after he lost 2000 elections. Al’s a bigger loser than I thought!

  11. I think you give him to much credit. He is a master of deceit, nothing more and nothing less. He rode the green bubble when he saw it take off and fed it while cashing. A cunning freeloader. Hope he will rot in hell.

  12. I find this article a bit odd.

    Acceptance of climate science is in no way ‘leftist’. Climate science is not driven by or part of a political belief.
    Its just science, which you may choose not to accept or point out flaws with.

    The UK government isn’t of the left, yet it supports the Paris agreement and accepts the science of climate change. The governments of Germany, France likewise.

    However this article does give me reason to believe climate scepticism may in part be driven not by science, but a political stance…

    • To the contrary. It is the authoritarian “left” that insisted that anthropomorphic climate change be accepted without question, regardless of the actual science. In large part, as the article points out, this is because certain people make a great deal of money off of it.

    • The UK government is indeed, “of the left”. Theresa May is farther left than Hillary Clinton in many regards. And, Mrs. May is what passes for a conservative, in the UK. As for France and Germany, they’re democratic socialists. Which is just a nice way of saying they’re socialist and actually hold semi-meaningful elections.

      As for ‘Climate Change’, it stopped being about the science quite some time ago. CAGW is, and almost always has been, about politics.

    • Consensus “climate science” is not science. It’s computer gaming. It is without any valid scientific basis, hence is based entirely on political ideology and careerism.

    • Climate science is not driven by or part of a political belief.

      I am afraid that it is Griff.

      I am surprised that that is news to you.

    • Griff, I isn’t science. Whatever’s left is about the only designation wouldn’t you say?

      Scientific debates involve hypothesis, evidence and repeatable observation. Climate science offers none of that. Instead we’re presented with conjecture, more conjecture, and bullying. It’s not science Griff and that’s the entire problem.

      Solve that problem and you’ll have the world at your door. Are you of the impression we all want to die? Or do you cleave to the alternative view; that we’re all unredeemably stupid?

    • You are joking, right? what do you think “the cause” in the Climategate emails was, the cause of good objective science? Please.

      Climate change is the identity politics issue of a whole generation, you seriously think that it is not political?

      Governments support the game because they are in the business of politics, they realise that it is easier to control and fleece the general population , if they pretend to play along and use “climate” as a means to manipulate voters instead of trying to explain that it’s not worth worrying about.

      Telling hoi polloi that they are going to pay 5x more for solar energy and that this will help the banks become solvent again, is not going to go down as well as pretending it is aiming to “save the planet”.

      They also see a means to create jobs, one of the key demands on a govt. This will incur HUGE costs but can be justified as “saving the planet”.

      Govts don’t “believe” in anything , they exploit circumstances.

      The govt of France was nominally “left” at the time Paris agreement went through, even if it is now run by a pres. who says “I’m a banker , I’m a banker, I’m a banker”.

    • Giff,

      I find it more than a bit odd that you continue to comment here after having been shown a shameless libeler of Dr. C and made such a ridiculous “sure” prediction for sea ice this year.

      How many more years of growing sea ice and polar bear populations before you finally see the light and lose faith in the Church of CACA?

      Will ten years without a new record low Arctic sea ice extent do the trick, since five years aren’t enough?

    • Left, right, it’s a bit more complex than that. When you consider the role that Margaret Thatcher had in setting the whole global-warming thing on its momentous journey to world domination, you can’t say that the demonisation of CO2 was a creation of the left, but this is what it looks like to me…..

      The “old left” – a good example of which might be the British Labour party pre about 1960 – had abandoned its traditional precepts and simply run out of ideas. You can see what that means when you look at Tony Blair’s “New Labour” carrying on the same piecemeal privatisation and chipping away at the welfare state that his “conservative” predecessors had been doing. There was a wonderful example in the run-up to the Canadian federal election in 2015, when Tom Mulcair (leader of the notionally left wing NDP) publicly praised the policies of the same Mrs. Thatcher (must have cost him many of his traditional voters without adding any new votes).

      In the near-total absence of an underlying philosophical base, the former left-leaning parties and their followers, all seemed to move in the same direction in the last couple of decades of the 20th century, by latching on to two separate “philosophies” (with apologies to real philosophers, but I can’t think of a more appropriate word for a loose cluster of ideas), namely:
      § Anthropogenic global warming , climate change and its supposed mitigation;
      § Political correctness and its offspring – identity politics

      You can call it “new left” or “green blob” or whatever. Doesn’t matter. It is. And it more or less control One of its defining characteristics is that you have to abandon any tendency to independent or critical thinking to be a part of it. Noam Chomsky, who was one of the icons of the American old left, once wrote “Don’t take assumptions for granted. Begin by taking a skeptical attitude toward anything that is conventional wisdom. Make it justify itself. It usually can’t. Be willing to ask questions about what is taken for granted………….” And now he’s swallowed the whole CAGW thing without any attempt at critical appraisal, and he talks about unchecked use of fossil fuel leading to “the end of life on the planet”. Really. I mean, not even the Potsdam gang goes that far. Love him or hate him (I’ve done both), you have to admit he was a genuine intellectual. With emphasis on the was

      In Canada, the new green left, which now includes the formerly liberal Liberal Party, has a third philosophical foundation:
      § fawning adulation for all things aboriginal (“aboriginal” is a bit passé, now the proper term seems to be “indigenous”). Aboriginal groups, quite astutely, have successfully portrayed themselves as guardians of the natural environment and join forces with new-left-greenies to oppose things like pipelines, To be fair, their objections can sometimes be mellowed down by getting a piece of the action, while green quangos never give up. Who can blame them, after centuries of being marginalized and segregated on reserves, all of a sudden they are the possessors of knowledge and wisdom that are utterly inaccessible to those of us whose origins are in Europe. I once asked “why are you guys objecting to everything before you’ve even seen the proposals?” and the answer was “because we can”.

    • Anything to the right of out right communism is some form of conservatism.

      On the other hand, while science isn’t political, almost all of the advocates of the global warming sc@m are left to far left. It’s not hard to see why. As that guy from the UN said, it doesn’t matter whether global warming is true, since it requires us to do what we’ve always wanted to do.

    • Ms. Merkel, however, sounded a somewhat bleaker note. “The whole discussion about climate was very difficult, not to say unsatisfactory,” she said. “There’s a situation where it’s six, if you count the European Union, seven, against one.”

      “This is not just any old agreement, but it is a central agreement for shaping globalization,” she said. “There are no signs of whether the U.S. will stay in the Paris accords or not.”

    • At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
      Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

      http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

      • If “the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.” isn’t Left wing political, then I don’t know what is.

    • Griff,

      Can you please tell us all what the initials UNIPCC stands for?

      Can you also tell us how much science does the UN and IPCC conduct?

  13. no surprise there. In business or politics morality is secondary, but for those practising both, the best one can hope is that morality finishes as the ‘also ran’.

  14. How could Silicon Valley resist the intellectual might of Al Gore, self made man, and savior of the world?

    /sarc-off

  15. From my earliest days having once lived in Tennessee I have been amazed that Gore actually ever got elected in the first place. He was born in D.C., grew up in D.C. went to school and live there. He only qualified for office in Tennessee because his Dad own land in there and at the time the Democrats controlled the state. It is sort of like Hillary running in NY for Senator. Shouldn’t have happened. I have been told he is bi-polar but doesn’t like taking his meds. He loves his manic phases. It is one reason we don’t hear from him for months or longer and then suddenly he shows up pontificating some position and claiming to be or know something truly bizarre.

  16. Repeat after me: “There’s no such thing as crony capitalism.” It’s getting ridiculous. If politicians in the government are helping their “cronies” in business, it has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Givernment’s involvement in capitalism is putely one as an arbiter and protector of rights. Hence the word free in “free market.”

    The phrase was coined to make it seem as if this is a failure of capitalism, something the left desperately needs. It is not. It is really corporatism, maybe, but better described as a feature of fascism. The fact that so many willingly make this egregious association is proof their goal has been achieved. You do their work for them even in articles critical of the.

  17. Excellent article that puts a lot of unlikely puzzle pieces together that seem to fitcqiite well.
    Follow the money, no matter how thecteail twists.

  18. Commenting earlier here on the activities of the left, I feel I’m dwelling too much on the clandestine wealth that’s fielding attacks of environmentalism, political correctness, and historical shame on what until recently had been pillars of individual liberty and democracy. But …

    The reactionary right seems to stand for more than extreme politics. By the rise of hired propaganda no less than violence, by the formidable instruments of social intimidation, by the sweeping absorption of higher education and popular media, and by the silencing of dissent, the reactionary right’s actions feel, at least some of the time, less like simple corruption than a broad and resolute program of sedition, which my dictionary defines as “an insurrection against constituted authority” – in our nation’s case, transparent government of, for and by the people.

    I again recommend reading the Senate report on, for example, the money that Bill McKibben gets for standing up for them. There is more here than the old two-party tug-of-war at play.

    http://leftexposed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2014-Senate-Billionaire-Club-Report.pdf

  19. The thing that puzzles me is the “why” of it all.
    We have uber rich “socialists” and “communists”, focused on the destruction of capitalism and the democratic system of individualism.
    They owe their wealth and social position to that which they are trying to destroy.
    Why? I don’t get it.

    • I’ve often wondered the same thing and all I can come up with is either guilt or they are easy targets for the Marx Brothers. They are easy to bring into the fold with promises of “making a difference in the world” and it appeals to their view of where they belong in the scheme of things. Why they can’t see what history has proven with attempts to implement the utopian classless society is beyond me.

      • Why they can’t see what history has proven with attempts to implement the utopian classless society is beyond me.

        I expect it’s much simpler than you think– Star Trek.

        I’m not trying to be funny. It’s Star Trek.

    • I’m pretty sure once they’re that rich, they don’t need capitalism or democratic individualism any more. They’ll be on top of any system of governance. And getting rid of the middle classes saves them a lot of hassling!

Comments are closed.