[Orion27]

Gotta hand it to Al Gore. He buys his Carbon Offsets from his own company! Interesting stuff, no wonder Al insists it's the end of the world: He's making money off the panic.
Link:Ecotality � Why the Gore Story Matters

[RAILhead]

At least his transactins are Carbon Neutral.

[Big Mac]

I'd love to know exactly why he uses so much power. Is his home really that opulent?

[subego]

This would qualify as shady if I actually gave a rat's ass.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

This would qualify as shady...

I don't see how. Instead of just using a service that (allegedly) helps the environment, he also helped create that service too. I don't see what the big deal is.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't see how. Instead of just using a service that (allegedly) helps the environment, he also helped create that service too. I don't see what the big deal is.

The service his company provides is investment in eco-friendly businesses.

I find it difficult to believe that this is an equitable trade regardless of Gore's involvement. It would be about as empty of a gesture you could make if not for the fact that one is parted from their money.

Which, as co-founder and chairman, he's kinda sorta not.

[tie]

I don't think Gore should be allowed to have or spend money, because he is a Democrat. And starting a company!? -- that's definitely only for Republicans.

I think the government ought to regulate -- set standards for -- companies offering carbon offsets.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't think Gore should be allowed to have or spend money, because he is a Democrat. And starting a company!? -- that's definitely only for Republicans.

I think the government ought to regulate -- set standards for -- companies offering carbon offsets.

From what I understand, offsets are not available for sale from his company. I may be wrong but that is my understanding.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't think Gore should be allowed to have or spend money, because he is a Democrat. And starting a company!? -- that's definitely only for Republicans.

I think the government ought to regulate -- set standards for -- companies offering carbon offsets.

I guess your admitting Big Oil and those sponsored by such can do real science. Al Gore is not what you thought he is. No confllict of interest here The point being it depends on who's ox is being gored, no pun intended. There is a noticeable lack of the usual lefty suspects commenting on this topic. I commend you recognizing the market, in the end, will solve the problem, not government. Al Gore is just another in a long line of snake oil salesmen. He's just trading on your fear.

[nonhuman]

Why should he give money to his own competitors?

[BRussell]

I bet he uses Macs too, and he's on Apple's board. What a scumbag hypocrite.

[goMac]

My post from the other thread:

Ok. So he buys the offsets from a company he is on the board of. So what?

Is this more jealousy that *gasp* he is making money? And that, gosh darn it, it's possible to actually make money from Carbon offsets? Say it ain't so!

In the end, this means nothing about his environmental concerns. Gore, more to the point of the original topic, is still carbon neutral. If anything, this is proof the original post here is bunk.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I guess your admitting Big Oil and those sponsored by such can do real science. Al Gore is not what you thought he is. No confllict of interest here The point being it depends on who's ox is being gored, no pun intended. There is a noticeable lack of the usual lefty suspects commenting on this topic. I commend you recognizing the market, in the end, will solve the problem, not government. Al Gore is just another in a long line of snake oil salesmen. He's just trading on your fear.

Cept he's not funding "studies" like big oil is. He is simply presenting other people's studies that he did not fund.

It's not like he owns the company.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Cept he's not funding "studies" like big oil is. He is simply presenting other people's studies that he did not fund.

It's not like he owns the company.

From the article"

"...As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

And it is not clear at all that Gore’s stock purchases - excuse me, “carbon offsets” purchases - actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all, while the gas lanterns and other carbon-based energy burners at his house continue to burn carbon-based fuels and pump carbon emissions - a/k/a/ “greenhouse gases” - into the atmosphere...."

[Buckaroo]

This thread is a continuation of my thread above. Let this one die.

[Orion27]

I find it interesting, over several threads, Gore deciples have disputed the truth and validity of scientific studies simple om the basis the scientists who authored such studies were funded by politically incorrect corporations. The science was irrelevant because they were somehow tainted by the funding. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Pope of Carbon Offsets has been found to profiting from from his position as the global town crier and now the it seems since his motives are pure, profit is irrelevant. Let the science speak for itself and let the evangelism pass as it must.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

This thread is a continuation of my thread above. Let this one die.

I think the subject deserves it's own thread, you buried the lede ( sic )

[tie]

Orion, my previous post wasn't fully serious. Except I do think that there need to be better standards on carbon offsets. I think I read about emerging nongovernmental standards in the Economist -- there are a few companies which review other companies' offsets procedures -- but I can't find the webpage now. I would be quite interested in how Gore's company is rated. If it is rated well, then I don't see any problem. But I have no idea either way.

I don't understand your response to my post, about how big oil can do good science. I'm sure it does fantastic geology -- but it does very poor climate science.

Interesting link: U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

Orion, my previous post wasn't fully serious. Except I do think that there need to be better standards on carbon offsets. I think I read about emerging nongovernmental standards in the Economist -- there are a few companies which review other companies' offsets procedures -- but I can't find the webpage now. I would be quite interested in how Gore's company is rated. If it is rated well, then I don't see any problem. But I have no idea either way.

I don't understand your response to my post, about how big oil can do good science. I'm sure it does fantastic geology -- but it does very poor climate science.

Interesting link: U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions

If you want to discredit the science which offers alternative explanations and theories to that of Al Gore's anthropogenic causes of Global Warming, based on the fact the science was sponsored by companies defending themselves against such accusations, the same standard should apply to Gore and his accolytes. The fact that Gore has set up a company to profit from the sale of snake oil he would have the government require me to purchase, based on dubious science and a political agenda apart from the dubious science is fraudulant and, kindly put, cynical.

[subego]

Maybe this is not the case with the participants here, but I think all this kerfuffle is based in Republicans being a bit scared at Gore's potential as the Democratic contender for the Presidency.

They're like "he's from the South, is smart enough not to start running a year before the primary, and isn't a chick or a black dude... oh ****!"

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by subego 

Maybe this is not the case with the participants here, but I think all this kerfuffle is based in Republicans being a bit scared at Gore's potential as the Democratic contender for the Presidency.

They're like "he's from the South, is smart enough not to start running a year before the primary, and isn't a chick or a black dude... oh ****!"

I think it's more likely the Democrats would just be annoyed. Hillary would have none of it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I think it's more likely the Democrats would just be annoyed. Hillary would have none of it.

Who cares what Hillary thinks? I just hope that she'll give up on ever being popular once she loses the primary. I think I'd rather vote Bush in for a third term than see her be president.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

If you want to discredit the science which offers alternative explanations and theories to that of Al Gore's anthropogenic causes of Global Warming, based on the fact the science was sponsored by companies defending themselves against such accusations, the same standard should apply to Gore and his accolytes. The fact that Gore has set up a company to profit from the sale of snake oil he would have the government require me to purchase, based on dubious science and a political agenda apart from the dubious science is fraudulant and, kindly put, cynical.

Still not seeing the connection, sorry. Gore isn't a scientist, and as far as I know his company isn't funding any climate scientists. The article just said it funded alternative energy sources.

If you want to discredit thousands of mainstream scientists, you need evidence. Which you don't have. This is really stretching.

Edit: I see. Reading your post again, you seem to have the misconception that Gore himself is a scientist, perhaps the scientist you came up with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This is not the case, however. Gore is a politician.

[goMac]

You know, there is one thing the right has strangely glassed over, considering it should be public record.

Does Gore actually own stock in this company? If so, how much?

He's Chairman, yes, but if he doesn't actually have any stock, he can talk carbon neutrality up to high heaven, and he won't make a dime.

In fact, let's do some basic math. Let's even assume Gore does own stocks, and even better, we'll assume his stock pay dividends. For simplicity's sake, we'll assume he owns a pretty high percentage of the company. %10.

a) Gore pays $1000 to the company for carbon credits.
b) Company makes $1000 from carbon credits.
c) Gore makes $100 from his stock.

Now it's time for some basic substraction.

$100 - $1000 = -$900

In other words, Gore can't pull a profit from his own purchases or carbon credits from this company. So either the right can't do basic math, doesn't want to do basic math, or are going to fall back on the excuses I debunk below.

The right will say "Well gee, he's got a company selling carbon credits." Well no, that's not true. Gore's company does not sell carbon credits to anyone else. So no, Gore talking up Carbon neutrality won't get him any more money. Sorry righties.

Ok, so talking up carbon neutrality won't net Gore anything. So what does his company do? They promote alternative energy. Now let's forget for a moment Gore didn't fund the research saying global warming is real, let's forget he didn't even invent global warming. Let's again assume Gore actually has stock in his company, because despite the silence on this, there is a chance he still could.

Gore is part of an investment company. They don't build the power plants. They don't sell power. So what do they do?

They're a bank. They're basically a think tank that gives out loans. That's right. All they do is give out loans to startups developing alternative energy. They're funding research. Will they make money? Yes. Will they make much money in the short term? No. Gore is providing an avenue for funds to go to companies to develop alternative energy by creating a fund that the public can invest in. The public investments then are used to develop alternative energy companies, which provides a return on the public investments, making money for the people who invested in the foundation. Again, no where does this prove he owns stock in this company. It only proves Gore has created a source of funds for alternative energy startups.

The evidence is flimsy at best. But leave it up to the right to take a weak case an run with it. Party of George Bush.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Hillary would have none of it.

Gee.

If she was that much of an ass-kicker she'd have my vote in a second.

She would actually have my vote now if she hadn't sold out on flag burning.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

In other words, Gore can't pull a profit from his own purchases or carbon credits from this company. So either the right can't do basic math, doesn't want to do basic math, or are going to fall back on the excuses I debunk below.

This is why you don't want your accountant to be a Democrat.

They forget the little details. Stuff like, oh, I don't know... that you can sell your stock.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well no, that's not true. Gore's company does not sell carbon credits to anyone else. So no, Gore talking up Carbon neutrality won't get him any more money. Sorry righties.

He only sells credits to himself?

This may actually be shadier than I imagined.

[tie]

Interesting article: Warm Winters Upset Rhythms of Maple Sugar

Warmer-than-usual winters are throwing things out of kilter, causing confusion among maple syrup producers, called sugar makers, and stoking fears for the survival of New England’s maple forests.
...
Since 1971, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased by 2.8 degrees.
...
Dr. Perkins [director of the Proctor Maple Research Center at the University of Vermont] studied the records of maple syrup production over the last 40 years and found a fairly steady progression of the maple sugaring season moving earlier and earlier, and also getting shorter.

“We had this long list of factors we started with that could possibly explain it,” Dr. Perkins said. “We have eliminated all of those various factors. We are at this point convinced that it is climatic influence.”
...
“One hundred to 200 years from now,” Dr. Perkins said, “there may be very few maples here, mainly oak, hickory and pine. There are projections that say over about 110 years our climate will be similar to that of Virginia.”

(I realize that Perkins is obviously just a corrupt scientist, since he's an American and not from some obscure Russian institute that nobody has ever heard of.)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie 

Interesting article: Warm Winters Upset Rhythms of Maple Sugar

(I realize that Perkins is obviously just a corrupt scientist, since he's an American and not from some obscure Russian institute that nobody has ever heard of.)

So what does this have to do with the thread topic again?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You know, there is one thing the right has strangely glassed over, considering it should be public record.

Does Gore actually own stock in this company? If so, how much?

He's Chairman, yes, but if he doesn't actually have any stock, he can talk carbon neutrality up to high heaven, and he won't make a dime.

In fact, let's do some basic math. Let's even assume Gore does own stocks, and even better, we'll assume his stock pay dividends. For simplicity's sake, we'll assume he owns a pretty high percentage of the company. %10.

a) Gore pays $1000 to the company for carbon credits.
b) Company makes $1000 from carbon credits.
c) Gore makes $100 from his stock.

Now it's time for some basic substraction.

$100 - $1000 = -$900

In other words, Gore can't pull a profit from his own purchases or carbon credits from this company. So either the right can't do basic math, doesn't want to do basic math, or are going to fall back on the excuses I debunk below.

The right will say "Well gee, he's got a company selling carbon credits." Well no, that's not true. Gore's company does not sell carbon credits to anyone else. So no, Gore talking up Carbon neutrality won't get him any more money. Sorry righties.

Ok, so talking up carbon neutrality won't net Gore anything. So what does his company do? They promote alternative energy. Now let's forget for a moment Gore didn't fund the research saying global warming is real, let's forget he didn't even invent global warming. Let's again assume Gore actually has stock in his company, because despite the silence on this, there is a chance he still could.

Gore is part of an investment company. They don't build the power plants. They don't sell power. So what do they do?

They're a bank. They're basically a think tank that gives out loans. That's right. All they do is give out loans to startups developing alternative energy. They're funding research. Will they make money? Yes. Will they make much money in the short term? No. Gore is providing an avenue for funds to go to companies to develop alternative energy by creating a fund that the public can invest in. The public investments then are used to develop alternative energy companies, which provides a return on the public investments, making money for the people who invested in the foundation. Again, no where does this prove he owns stock in this company. It only proves Gore has created a source of funds for alternative energy startups.

The evidence is flimsy at best. But leave it up to the right to take a weak case an run with it. Party of George Bush.

He can sell his stock. Tax policies would also allow write-offs. The point that is lost on you and Tie as well is that Gore has a Democrat agenda and is motivated by profit which colors the science he chooses to promote. Science promoted by the United Nations, which is particulary socialist in intent and policy. It's the pot calling the kettle black when the left chooses to discredit science funded by those defending against claims they are responisible for a theoretical, unproven anthropogenic doomsday.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Interesting article: Warm Winters Upset Rhythms of Maple Sugar



(I realize that Perkins is obviously just a corrupt scientist, since he's an American and not from some obscure Russian institute that nobody has ever heard of.)

Uh, this has nothing to do with the cause of global warming whatsoever. This would be the case even if the Russian scientist is right and it's caused entirely by increased solar radiation.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Uh, this has nothing to do with the cause of global warming whatsoever. This would be the case even if the Russian scientist is right and it's caused entirely by increased solar radiation.

Taken directlly from NOAA: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Link: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

Water Vapor
Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.

[Wiskedjak]

OMG! Environmentalists can also be Capitalists! Quick, discredit them before people start to realize you can make money off of environmentalism!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

OMG! Environmentalists can also be Capitalists! Quick, discredit them before people start to realize you can make money off of environmentalism!

You totally miss the point of the discussion. Making money, entreprenurial capitalism and profit is not being criticized. Reread the posts and get back to us..

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

You totally miss the point of the discussion. Making money, entreprenurial capitalism and profit is not being criticized. Reread the posts and get back to us..

[reread]
nope, that's pretty much what it sounds like.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

[reread]
nope, that's pretty much what it sounds like.

Really? Where is profit, business creation criticized? The point of the discussion is whether the fact science is colored by an agenda, not the fact one may make a profit from one.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

He can sell his stock. Tax policies would also allow write-offs. The point that is lost on you and Tie as well is that Gore has a Democrat agenda and is motivated by profit which colors the science he chooses to promote. Science promoted by the United Nations, which is particulary socialist in intent and policy. It's the pot calling the kettle black when the left chooses to discredit science funded by those defending against claims they are responisible for a theoretical, unproven anthropogenic doomsday.

Ok. He can sell his stock. If, as in my scenario, he owned %10 of this group, it would still be impossible for him to actually make money on buying carbon emissions from this company. Actually, he wouldn't even be making money. He'd just be breaking even. But even so, it's impossible for him to break even unless he owns an astoundingly large majority of the company. The entire article is founded on bad math, or a lack of math.

It's an investment think tank. For what it seems, Gore's role is an advisory roll. The company was founded in 2004, well after Gore started to preach his environmental concerns. And again, it's not surprising that an expert in alternative energy was brought in to : gasp : assess alternative energy companies.

The entire case is entirely weak, which is probably why the mainstream news outlets have not picked up on this. You could, at most, argue that Gore's preaching on alternative energy would create enough public interest to create interest in creation of alternative energy companies, which in turn could be invested in by Gore's group. And even then, Gore's ethics aren't very questionable. He's providing financial support for a concept he believes in.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Really? Where is profit, business creation criticized? The point of the discussion is whether the fact science is colored by an agenda, not the fact one may make a profit from one.

That's the other thread.

I believe the point here is that when your trade your carbon for investments, it's not much of a gesture if you get to keep the investments.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ok. He can sell his stock. If, as in my scenario, he owned %10 of this group, it would still be impossible for him to actually make money on buying carbon emissions from this company.

Stock prices can go up. This is what the stock market is based on.

Jeebus. Leave this money **** to people who know what they are talking about.

Edit: All along, the anti-Gore people have been shut down as more facts about the situation have come out. In every case (though I may have missed one) the anti-Goreians have not acknowledged they are wrong, and just start digging for more dirt.

Do you realize you are doing the same thing? Twice now, you have posted information based on your own personal false assumption. Unlike these anti-Gore people, be a man about it, admit you were wrong, and move the fekk on.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego 

Edit: All along, the anti-Gore people have been shut down as more facts about the situation have come out.

No, the accusations have generally been met with "That's not true 'cuz Al said so."

You wanna believe him that's fine but don't pretend it's "proof".

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, the accusations have generally been met with "That's not true 'cuz Al said so."

You wanna believe him that's fine but don't pretend it's "proof".

You're absolutely right. I should have used the word "evidence" instead of "fact".

I will however, stand by the revised statement. I see no acknowledgment of the evidence from the anti-Gore side. Instead I see:

Anti-Gore: Gore is a an energy hog, therefore he is a hypocrite.

Pro-Gore: Gore buys offsets.

Whirr... Whirr...

Anti-Gore: I believe offsets suck, therefore Gore is a hypocrite.

I would expect an honest debater at the least to mention that this evidence changes the nature of the argument somewhat. If you think offsets are a scam, you're introducing your own personal metric. The argument isn't that Gore is a hypocrite by your standards, it's that he's a hypocrite by his standards.

I would also expect an honest debater to mention that what is presented in the above article also changes the nature of the debate. Since one can make the pretty safe assumption that Gore has a basic understanding of business and economics, the fact that he is buying investment offsets from himself should be judged by a rational thinker as hypocritical by Gore's own standards.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, the accusations have generally been met with "That's not true 'cuz Al said so."

You wanna believe him that's fine but don't pretend it's "proof".

Anti-Gore: That's not true 'cuz these guys said so.
Pro-Gore: That's not true 'cuz these other guys said so.

The reality is that there is no conclusive evidence either way. Both sides "wanna believe", while neither has any real proof to justify their beliefs.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Anti-Gore: That's not true 'cuz these guys said so.
Pro-Gore: That's not true 'cuz these other guys said so.

The reality is that there is no conclusive evidence either way. Both sides "wanna believe", while neither has any real proof to justify their beliefs.

I disagree! The left insists on setting policy on speculation on what might occur in the future. The right insists policy should be based on facts not speculation on what might occur.

NOAA:
Water Vapor
Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I disagree! The left insists on setting policy on speculation on what might occur in the future. The right insists policy should be based on facts not speculation on what might occur.

Of course you disagree; the other guys said so.

Relative to global warming, the right insists policy should be based upon speculation of what might not occur. Besides, the right also has a history of setting policy based upon speculation in other areas.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

Stock prices can go up. This is what the stock market is based on.

Let me repeat this again: Gore cannot make a profit off of his own carbon credit purchases..

We also have to assume his company is charging a premium for carbon credits. If they are not, Gore gets no money back from buying carbon credits. Assuming they charge a %10 premium, Gore would only get %1 of his money back through a stock increase, netting him still a huge loss in buying carbon credits.

Let me put it this way. If you bought an iMac through Apple, does your Apple stock go up $1000? First, Apple does not make $1000 from every iMac sale. They only probably have a profit of $200 - $400, which goes towards increasing stock value. That profit is divided among all the shareholders. By the time it gets back to you it's an insignificantly small amount.

By the logic of the Gore haters I should be able to go buy an iMac from Apple today, and see not only the cost of that iMac re-coup'd through my Apple stock, but also a profit, based on my purchase of that iMac.

It simply doesn't make sense.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Let me repeat this again: Gore cannot make a profit off of his own carbon credit purchases..

We also have to assume his company is charging a premium for carbon credits. If they are not, Gore gets no money back from buying carbon credits. Assuming they charge a %10 premium, Gore would only get %1 of his money back through a stock increase, netting him still a huge loss in buying carbon credits.

Let me put it this way. If you bought an iMac through Apple, does your Apple stock go up $1000? First, Apple does not make $1000 from every iMac sale. They only probably have a profit of $200 - $400, which goes towards increasing stock value. That profit is divided among all the shareholders. By the time it gets back to you it's an insignificantly small amount.

By the logic of the Gore haters I should be able to go buy an iMac from Apple today, and see not only the cost of that iMac re-coup'd through my Apple stock, but also a profit, based on my purchase of that iMac.

It simply doesn't make sense.

Honestly, it seems like you're just shooting numbers and words out of your ass.

Stock price isn't determined by profits, dividends are. Stock prices are determined by demand for stock.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

Honestly, it seems like you're just shooting numbers and words out of your ass.

Stock price isn't determined by profits, dividends are. Stock prices are determined by demand for stock.

How do you know Gore's shares in the company give dividends? Even if he does get dividends, as I've shown Gore is not going to be able to somehow turn his carbon credit purchases into a profit. Not unless he owns a overwhelming majority of the company. It's simple math.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

How do you know Gore's shares in the company give dividends?

You've brought up dividends, like, a half-dozen times now, as the only example of how Gore can make a profit/keep hold of the money he pays for offsets.

As has been stated multiple times by multiple people, this is not the only way he can generate income from this venture, and as there is not a direct correlation between profits and stock price, which is what you claim. The math is not simple.

We haven't even brought up his salary yet.

[subego]

Did a bit of Googling.

Hard to say whether the original article was trying to pull a fast one, as my research is a little inconclusive, but from what I can piece together, Generation Investment Management is (and presents itself as) an investment company. One of the perks of being an employee is that they buy offsets for your personal and work emissions.

So he isn't buying offsets from his company, which doesn't sell offsets.

Significantly less shady.

Edit: if the above is true, this seems to be Gore's rep's fault:

"Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she [Krider] said."

Either Gore's rep (Krider) did a really bad job of explaining things or the article's writer was being deliberately deceptive.

As the article seems pretty neutral, I'm going to guess the former.

[tie]

Well subego, I think if you can't prove that Gore isn't lying, then we have to assume he is lying. He is a Democrat, after all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by tie 

Well subego, I think if you can't prove that Gore isn't lying, then we have to assume he is lying. He is a Democrat, after all.

Well, to be fair, it looks as if the Gore crony was giving bum information, just as smac presented was possible.