SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (217757)1/12/2002 11:20:41 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Eco-heretic beset by hate campaign
Sunday Times (UK) | 1/13/02 |
JONATHAN LEAKE, SCIENCE EDITOR
sunday-times.co.uk

THE scientist who dared to challenge the establishment view on climate change has been subjected to a campaign of personal abuse, professional vilification and threats to his safety.
Last year Bjorn Lomborg claimed in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist that many of mankind’s worst fears — such as mass extinction of species, climate change and population growth — were largely unfounded.

The book has provoked scientists and environmental groups into producing articles, websites and pamphlets rubbishing its author and his work.

One of the most hostile, in Nature magazine, likens him to apologists for the Nazis. He has been physically attacked and has had to employ bodyguards.

This weekend Lomborg repeated his claims. “My book seems to have hit a raw nerve. For years we have been hearing how the world is deteriorating. I thought that too and then I looked for the evidence and it just isn’t there. In fact, the history of the world is that things are getting better,” he said.

Lomborg, a Danish statistician and former Greenpeace member, thought the book was a controversial but academic work that might do well to sell a few thousand copies. Instead it has become a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic. His arguments range across almost every area of environmental concern. They include claims that there is no evidence for the wholesale loss of species and that the world’s forest cover is increasing.

His arguments on climate change, however, have sparked the greatest reaction. Lomborg, a professor at Aarhus University, accepts that the world is getting warmer but says it would cost so much to stop that it is simply not worthwhile.

“It would cost the world trillions of dollars a year, money which could be spent on helping the developing world to improve education and hospitals,” he said.

The book was published by Cambridge University Press. Last autumn it sent Lomborg on a promotional tour of Britain and America, little realising the reaction that was building up.

It began when Lomborg was heckled and booed at a book-signing at Borders bookshop in Oxford. As he was speaking, one of the crowd rushed forward and pushed a cream-laden baked Alaska pie into his face.

Last week the protester, Mark Lynas, an environmentalist campaigning to save the Arctic from the effects of climate change, admitted the attack and said: “Hitting him with a baked Alaska seemed appropriate. Global warming is destroying one of the Earth’s last wildernesses and Lomborg is trying to pretend it doesn’t matter.”

Even respectable scientific venues are not safe for Lomborg. When he recently gave a lecture at London’s Royal Institution he was protected by four bodyguards, and threats were made against him when he addressed the London School of Economics.

The biggest shock came when Nature, the usually restrained scientific journal, printed a review comparing Lomborg to maverick academics who deny the Holocaust. The reviewers said Lomborg’s text “employs the strategy of those who argue that gay men are not dying of Aids, that Jews weren’t singled out by the Nazis and so on”.

Last week Scientific American, a respected popular science journal, devoted 11 pages to an attack in which Lomborg is accused of “egregious distortions” and of being “ignorant” and “muddled”.

Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute, said: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

Some of the most powerful vitriol is on websites. On www.anti-Lomborg.com there is a picture of Lomborg that was taken as he was hit with a pie.

Lomborg has also clashed with Tom Burke, the former aide to John Gummer when he was environment secretary, at a presentation in Paris to finance ministers at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Burke, who spoke against him and is the author of a pamphlet attacking his work, said: “He is a cunning manipulator and a good communicator. He has a weak case but presents it so well that everyone switches off their crap detectors.”



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (217757)1/12/2002 11:31:52 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
POWER FOR SALE Enron execs regulars on Clinton trade trips
Company gave $100,000 after Lay got seat on lucrative junket to India

By Paul Sperry
worldnetdaily.com

WASHINGTON – "The Bush administration would like to downplay its intimate relationship with Ken Lay and Enron executives," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif, recently charged.

Waxman, the House Government Reform Committee's ranking Democrat, has been pressing for an investigation into contacts between Lay and White House officials to see if bankrupt Enron Corp. got special treatment.

Lay, chairman of the Houston-based energy giant, "has had unlimited access to the administration," Waxman complained.

While that may be true, the same could be said of Lay's access to the previous administration – something Democrats and the Washington media seem to be overlooking.

Government records examined by WorldNetDaily show that, during the Clinton years, Lay and other Enron executives got seats on at least four Energy Department trade missions and at least seven Commerce Department trade trips, including a junket to India that would later get Lay in some hot water.

From Jan. 13, 1995, to Jan. 21, 1995, Lay joined late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on the India junket.

Half way through the mission, two federal export-finance agencies – the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. – announced they had agreed to lend nearly $400 million to an Enron-led group to build a $920 million electric power plant in Dabhoi, India.

The second phase of the power project called for building a 1,320-megawatt plant that would be fired by liquefied natural gas.

The project's overall value was about $3 billion.

Lay pal Mack McLarty, then-White House counselor, helped him close the deal by tracking the project with the U.S. ambassador to New Delhi and briefing Lay on the administration's efforts. (President Clinton even helped. White House documents uncovered by Time in 1997 show he wrote a Nov. 22, 1996, FYI note to McLarty and enclosed a newspaper article on Enron and the power project.)

Then in June 1996 – four days before India gave final OK to Lay's project – Enron gave $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's re-election effort.

Public-interest law firm Judicial Watch has pried away memo after memo showing that both Commerce and White House officials picked trade mission participants based on their support for the president's party.

Enron has denied the gift was political payback.

Seeds to the India deal may have been planted during a July 1, 1994, to July 15, 1994, trade mission led by former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary.

Terence Thorn, Enron's senior vice president for governmental affairs, accompanied O'Leary on that trip.

Clinton said he asked O'Leary to visit India "to further our talks on renewable energy."

Thorn had accompanied O'Leary previously, in February 1994, on a trade mission to China.

In September of that year, the Enron officer went on an Energy trade mission to Pakistan, and again, in August 1995, on a junket to South Africa.

O'Leary caught flak for her junkets because they ran over budget, and she couldn't account for many expenses.

But the controversy didn't stop there.

An analysis of Federal Election Commission records by Investor's Business Daily found that many of the major DNC donors who got seats on the trips tended to open their wallets wider after they returned, often scoring big business deals from the government-sponsored, taxpayer-paid overseas excursions.

There were several other Commerce trips, including one to Russia in March-April 1994 joined by Enron International Chairman and CEO Rodney Gray, one to South Korea in 1999 joined by Thorn, and one to the Middle East in October 1995 in which Lay participated.

Cronyism not limited to Bush

In a report last month exposing the cozy ties between Enron and the Bush administration, the Los Angeles Times pointed out that Lay is on a first-name basis with Bush, an old Texas oil buddy. Lay also has ties to top administration officials, such as White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey, an ex-Enron consultant, and U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, a former Enron advisory board member, the article noted.

Left out of the L.A. Times' analysis, however, were Lay's similarly close ties to Clinton administration officials.

McLarty and Lay developed a friendship while working in the energy field together. Before becoming Clinton's chief of staff, and later his counselor, McLarty was chairman of Arkla Inc., which later became NorAm Energy Corp.

Largely as a result of that connection, Lay was a frequent visitor at the Clinton White House, records show.

Lay returned the favor by snatching up McLarty for Enron after he left the White House.

He also hired as a consultant Betsy Moler, Clinton's deputy energy secretary. She was accused of stopping Energy Department counterintelligence chief Notra Trulock from briefing Congress early on about Chinese espionage and security lapses at Energy's nuclear weapons labs.

In addition, Lay recently hired former Clinton Treasury official Linda Robertson, a Democrat, to run Enron's Washington office.

Enron contributed some $530,000 to the DNC during the 2000 election alone.



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (217757)1/13/2002 1:22:41 AM
From: Carl Shaw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Is it your contention that Lay spent approximately 3 million to purchase shares, aside from those he bought through options and then disposed of??..Just want to be sure I understand your statement.