Last week, Ed Begley Jr. was invited to discuss global warming on Fox News with Stuart Varney.
Not surprisingly, the discussion became a bit heated when Varney brought up those recent e-mails that some folks are declaring are the smoking gun of the climate change debate.
You see, last week it was reported that hundreds of e-mails about climate change were hacked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. Apparently, those particular e-mails questioned or led to questions regarding global warming.
The jury's still out on whether or not those e-mails were taken out of context or possibly edited, as well. But either way, it has provided great fodder for those who believe global warming is not real.
Now my question is, if you're really interested in debating the climate change issue or you want to further investigate those e-mails, why not do it with a scientist instead of a Hollywood celebrity?
A $700 million wind energy project that hardly anyone knows about
could land you a 112% gain in the next 4 months.
Click here for more.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud Begley for all his work on environmental causes and also shining that celebrity light on the benefits of solar, electric cars, and water conservation on his weekly television show Living with Ed. This guy definitely walks the walk! And his efforts should not go unnoticed.
But let's face it: if I want to research climate change, I'm going to the science community, not Hollywood.
Of course, just to clarify, Fox is not the only news organization to do this. From my local news here in Baltimore to CNN, celebrities put the asses in the seats. And there isn't a single news source that doesn't take advantage of that reality.
But I'm not writing this today to attack mainstream media. After all, I'm no Edward R. Murrow. But what I am is an investor who knows that the market is responding to climate change initiatives — regardless of what you, Ed Begley, or Stuart Varney think about it.
Is Global Warming Real?
About once every week or so, I get an e-mail from an investor who wants to know if I think global warming is real. And to be honest, I never really understood that.
My personal opinion on this topic is irrelevant for the purpose of making money. And if you're looking to investigate whether or not human-induced climate change is real, the last place you should look is the pages of an investment research letter.
However, if your concern is simply the opportunities stemming from climate change — well, these are the pages you can count on.
Because make no mistake about it...
Any kind of climate change legislation, from international treaties to state and local mandates, will only further the integration of renewable energy... and make us even more money going forward.
And don't think for a second that a handful of conveniently-timed e-mails is going to derail the massive flow of capital heading straight toward new renewable energy projects and smart grid development.
I see this stuff everyday, folks.
I look at all the new deals that are in the pipeline, all the new legislation being drafted, introduced, and debated — on a global scale. I've been traveling the globe, checking out new companies and sitting in on multimillion-dollar financing meetings.
The truth is, in all my years analyzing "green" markets, I can honestly say that I've never been more excited than I am going into 2010.
The amount of money up for grabs is mind-blowing. And I want to make sure you have every opportunity to get your share.
So in two weeks, I'll be sending you my 2010 Green Chip Stocks forecast.
From new wind and geothermal technologies to utility-scale developments, it's going to be a very profitable year for us. And I can't wait to help you take full advantage of every opportunity coming around the bend.
To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...
Jeff







Subscribe to
Also, would we have climate change conferences like the upcoming one in Copenhagen? And why are so many countries interested if it is a hoax?
The readership you have that really matters have the intelligence to figure out the truths, relative or absolute, surrounding the climate change debate, without ever tuning in to Fox fictions.
Secondly, you take a cynical position that declares that you don't really care about the truth of climate change, only the profits it can yield. I find this disconcerting since it suggests an expedient if not amoral position. furthermore, if climate change were some elaborate hoax (of course it's not), you have a lot of followers that stand to lose fortunes if you are not critically thinking and making assessments about the veracity of climate change science; if it's a lie this bubble, too, will burst.
Terence Stone
Thanks & Peace
John