Who Profits from Global Warming?

Question

Im trying to gather the facts on global warming, and in a lot of these threads people say they want us to believe it to get money from us?

Im just wondering who is getting this money? If I believe in global warming who do I pay?

Im not trying to be a smart a**, I just see that as an answer a lot and would like it cleared up for me.

Thank you.

Answer 1

Let's look at one example.  If you are a climate modeler, you kind of get paid on how well your models predict the environment.  Global Climate Change has become a multi-billion dollar industry.  So if you are competing with thousands of other scientists for government grants, which ones goning to get the money?  The guy who's doing research on how lightwaves effect memory, or the guy who is doing research on a "life-threatening" crisis.  He even has a website dedicated to making sure the whole world knows just how dedrimental and "important" his research is.

But if his modling research gets proven to be no more than wishful thinking, where does he go to get his money?

Let's look at another example, Al Gore, shining star that he is.  This man has virtually no scientific training.  Yet he is the poster child for "Global Warming?"  And how is it that he pays a company owned by himself so that he doesn't have to stop being a resource hog.  

Ask the previous posters claiming "No proff" to disprove these facts.

Answer 2

The writers

Answer 3

Well there are several companys that sell carbon credits.  Which is the biggest scam since the pet rock. Basicly you add up how much energy you use then you pay them so much money to plant trees for you to help erase you carbon footprint. One of the most popular companys that does this is actually owned by Al Gore....What a surprise the biggest pusher of global warming is making money off of it. I won't name his website because I don't want anyone to get suckered into paying him anymore money for his scam. This is just a start of the scammers making a buck off of the biggest sham since Orson Wells convinced us we were being invaded.

Answer 4

Tuba in the rose,

You must really be fanatical--calling those that disagree with you anti-semites or skinheads. Listen to yourself when you think that, does it make sense? Does it do anything for your argument?

The original question,

Anyone who doesn't believe that millions of people stand to gain massive of amounts of money really must be naive. We are on the cusp of a major change in our means of power, and you believe no one is, or wants to be, making money off of that. Just think how much money people made off oil...  Now we are starting to transition from oil to new technology. That is obviously a big money-maker. Why would NBC--owned by GE--have a "green week" after they had bought off the green technology from enron? Why would the oil industry--like Shell and BP-- have commercials stating their promotion of green technology? Business big and small will make trillions of dollars off of this forced transition, and all the while the alarmists will be oblivious to their real motivation.

Frflyer,

Lets get back to the original question of who profits from global warming. The amount of money Exxon doles out to various organizations and institutes is practically negligible. Under 20 million over the past 12 years in total.

Hardly enough to "buy" any scientists.

Its funny that you say that the really big corporations (exxon) are all about profits, but other mega corporations have become environmentally conscious by jumping on the bandwagon. It is obviously about profits. This transition to new technology will be a massive money-maker and mega-corporations want to be at the forefront.

Answer 5

What you are actually seeing is big businesses waking up to the fact that it's more cost effective to do things more sustainably. Walmart is putting solar on their roofs, so are many Silicon Valley companies. Is that cashing in? Solar stocks were one of the hottest sectors in the stock market last year. Google is investing $1 billion for developing alternative energy.

There is a lot of oppurtunity in alternative energy and clean technology. In the long run it will both save money and boost the economy with new economic development.

The REALLY big money is still mostly on the other side of the issue. Oil for instance. Did you know that there are huge hidden costs to our oil addiction? One estimate is over $800 billion a year. Huge oil and gasoline subsidies are a big part of it. Around $100 billion annually for military protection of oil shipments. Hundreds of billions in environmental and health costs. All this would add about $8 to the price of a gallon of gasoline if you paid it at the pump. You still pay it, but it's hidden in the economy and taxpayer money.

And I hear people complaining that the price of gasoline includes 65 cents in taxes or whatever it is. If they only knew.

And then there are all the geopolitical problems with oil, like wars in the mideast.

By comparison, alternative energy is cheap.

When you hear that solar or whatever is too expensive and needs tax credits, they aren't including these hidden costs in the equation.

We already have solar thermal plants that can generate power at prices competitive with gas and coal. 1% of our southwest desert could power the whole country. No hidden costs, no fuel to import, mine, transport, store, or burn.

1% of the Sahara Desert would power the whole world.

Scientific American Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

With a clean electric grid we could have all electric cars that are charged with clean energy.

So you see, it isn't like we don't have good alternatives. It's the common sense and political will that is lacking.

It's continuing to do the same thing that is devestatingly expensive. Unless you're naive enough to believe, that the war in Iraq isn't largely because of oil, then you know what that is costing us in lives and trillions of dollars.

Corporations don't have much trouble selling us stuff. I wouldn't worry too much. Our consumerism economy is why, and it is extremely wasteful. Watch this video to see what I mean. "The Story of Stuff"

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

If you are worried about the oil companies, they are doing all right. Exxon just reported $40 billion in 2007 profits. The top five oil companies reported a combined $123 billion.

  Skeptics keep claiming all kinds of nonsense including scientists jumping on the AGW to get more money.  That is explained as the absurdity that it is here.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

Everything DP says is bullsh..

Automakers are exploiting global warming?  Come on, they have resisted making the required changes and have been dragged kicking and screaming into the new era in energy.

  Where does he get the information that ethanol production for one year will contribute more pollution and global warming to the Earth in one year than our crude oil emissions have in the past 100.   that is a ridiculous statement.  And I am not a big proponent of ethanol as a long term solution.  It does have it's problems as most environmentalists will agree.  It's big agra business that is pushing for it.

Probably his most absurd statement is this.

"BTW, there's been a one degree Celsius drop in overall Earth temperature in the past year, it has offset the global warming effects, if any, of the last 100 years."   What is he smoking"?

I_the_ R says carbon trading is a scam.  Really?

I would rather see a carbon tax, myself

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

  

  And he says "independent scientists generally find no facts to support global warming"

yet another myth expoused by the skeptics, which has no merit whatsoever.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_peti...   dispells the myth about 17,000 scientists who are skeptics on AGW

Senator James Inhofe and his supposed list of skeptic scientists has been proven to be a fraud.  He's the one who perpetuates the other myth about how;  "The climate scientists want to make us poor peasants."

That is debunked here:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

Beam  claims:   "If you are a climate modeler, you kind of get paid on how well your models predict the environment."  

Another absurd idea, which is debunked here:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

  Most climate scientists are underpaid compared with what they could get in the private sector.

"The problem with this argument is that climate scientists aren't asking you to give them more money.  They are asking you to fix the problem.  Climate scientists simply do not have the expertise and training to develop nuclear fusion, the next generation of solar panels, or other forms of alternative energy.  If we develop those technologies then money would go to people who have nothing to do with climate research.  Climatologists also aren't in the position to benefit from carbon taxes.  So this argument has some serious flaws."

"Then there is the argument that scientist are doing this only because controversy or the IPCC pays well.  Again, these people need to look at how much professors and research scientists earn for a living.  Of all the professional fields, hard science requires the most education and has one of the lowest levels of pay."

"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money....  The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""- William Connolley Ph.D.



  There is not one skeptic argument that hasn't been debunked by thousands of real scientists. You know, the ones not funded by the fossil fuel industries.

"Mars is warming too"    This was used as an argument by Sen Imhofe.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-...



"We are now in global cooling"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-c...

"Scientists predicted global cooling in 1972 so why should we believe them now?"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-197...

Yeah, I think that was about seven scientists.  The lead scientist recanted in 1975, admitting that he had underestimated the amount of CO2.  There are about 14,000 scientists working with the IPCC, some have been studying global warming for over 30 years.

"Climate models overstate global warming concerns."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

"We are headed for a new ice age."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-we-h...

"Where are all the hurricanes predicted?"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-glob...

"CO2 lags higher temperatures in previoius warmings"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-doe...

Answer 6

Nobody is getting rich off of my efforts to slow global warming. All the lights in my house are compact fluorescents, which the San Diego energy company sold for 30 cents apiece. I wear a sweater indoors when it's cold instead of turning the heater on, and I ride my bike to school.

If deception and profiteering is what you're looking to uncover, then look at the masters, the automotive and oil industries. With oil over $100 a barrel, there is a lot more money to be made on oil speculation than on any eco-friendly technologies. Electric cars are expensive now, but in an economy of scale they would be just as cheap as gas, yet they would require less upkeep, meaning lower maintenance costs for the buyer. And then of course, you wouldn't need to pay for gas. The automobile and oil industries make so much more money than green companies could ever hope to.

Think about it. If you were going to dream up a big hoax to scare people into buying your product, would you tell them that the Earth was heating up imperceptibly slowly, and that they should stop driving their main method of transportation, change every lightbulb in their house, and use less of everything in general? It's really a horrible business plan. The world is already running on oil. You don't tell a junkie to quit, you tell him that the price has gone up and that he owes you money.

Answer 7

Well, first global warming would need to be real to be profitable. If it were real, the electric companies would profit (More A/C anyone?) the oil companies would profit, because people would spend more time in their air conditioned cars, the media would profit, because they profit from anything that causes fear, and of course politicians would benefit by promising to fix it.

Answer 8

Smart people who see this as an oppurtunity to stop being held hostage by multinational corporations.   My woodlot is worth much more now; I can sell wood for $200/cord instead of the $100 it was a few years ago.

Answer 9

If we Just believe and do nothing about it, it costs nothing, until global warming causes us to spend more on protection and living conditions.

But the governments, that accept global warming is a real threat, invest in research, development and application of methods to reduce CO2 emission, increase forests, etc. and we pay for these increased government spending, through the tax we pay.

But many os these new sources of energy are actually cheaper than the existing solutions, for example, power from wind energy is cheaper than power from coal.

All these alternative technologies are becoming available slowly, some are more expensive than existing solutions, and the governments make us use the new technologies by regulation or by subsidy. That also means that the governments have to spend more money on the new technologies, which means higher taxes.

Answer 10

Al Gore and his fraudulent self, General Contractors of construction companies charging more to make "green" buildings,

the farmers in Iowa who created Ethanol and E85 ethanol, both of which have contributed more pollution and global warming to the Earth in one year than our crude oil emissions have in the past 100.

The automakers who create these expensive alternatively fueled vehicles that cost twice as much, as does the fuel they require.

The government whenever they apply a "green" tax.

BTW, there's been a one degree Celsius drop in overall Earth temperature in the past year, it has offset the global warming effects, if any, of the last 100 years.

Answer 11

No one is actually making money from this. Converting your house to a "green" house will actually save you money in the long run, same with buying a fuel efficient automobile. I haven't sent any checks to Al Gore, so i don't think hes making any money from me. And he isn't making any money from his movie either. It all goes to "green" charities. Recycling is free, using less electricity is saving me money, and saving the environment. As far as i can see i am actually saving money from being green.

Answer 12

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government:

"And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway)."

There are many people who stand to gain from alternative energy sources.  Take Ethanol for example.  There are many environmentalists who say that due to the amount of energy needed to produce Ethanol, it is not a good alternative source of energy to reduce co2 emissions.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

But government is promoting it, why?  Because there are politicians who think it is sound policy, because it reduces our dependency on foreign oil.  Other politicians who have constituents who are farmers like the idea because it help out farmers, and increases their income.

You might say, what is wrong with that.  The problem is that by helping out some you are hurting others.  'One country's policy to promote biofuels while protecting its farmers could increase another (likely poorer) country's import bills for food and pose additional risks to inflation or growth,' the (IMF) report said" http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/...

Answer 13

If sea levels, rise, the price of real estate around the world will rise as well, especially in areas which are near the oceans, but are a few feet above sea level.

Answer 14

Global Warming is a political agenda. If you look you will find that most scientists that support global warming are funded by left wingers. Independent scientist generally find no facts to support global warming. It's not a money maker as much as a campaigning tool.  "Elect me, I can stop global warming", or "My opponent didn't sign a bill that slows our economy by 10% so that we can protectedly lower our planet's temperature by .005 degrees in 20 years."

Answer 15

Persons who are feeling much are just only doing their routine duty of passing information under the banner Global Warning .There is no effective intention whatsoever to stop this once and for all.As long as this the attitude there is no use of global warning as the case may be.We are moving fast with all the amenities and not in a tendency to turn back from this tempo unless stopped in toto .Then the warning lies as for Tobacco and AIDS as the case may be .

Answer 16

No one. it's just a ridiculous right wing myth designed to get people to hate the environmentalists even more. I've heard so many times about the "liberal eco-n**i agenda" but NO one has been able to explain what or why it is.

The only thing that would come about is people driving more fuel efficient cars and using less resources, which from what I can see is a great thing. that means YOU will pay less at the pump and it will be cleaner for the air.

The closest thing that profits from global warming is the Oil companies, whose billion dollar profits depend on people not being concerned about it and using more oil and gas

Answer 17

In the short term, people with ties to big oil, whoever they recruit, and antisemites throughout the world.

In the longer term, the algae who will replace us as the dominant form of life on the planet unless these people can be stopped.

People with ties to the oil industry, and whatever supporters they can recruit by whatever means promote the idea that Global Warming is some kind of a hoax or conspiracy.  The big oil interests benefit from high oil prices, the other people are ignorant dupes, similar to Hitler's Brownshirts.

Israel plays a key role in this.  Most of the Arab states in the Middle East are dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, regardless of their stated policy.  Most of the money comes from high oil prices.  The USA also pours money and arms into Saudi Arabia, who then distributes those things to the other countries.  That includes Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians of course.  The Arab states would have no special capability to effectively harm Israel without the money from high oil prices.  This was demonstrated to them twice by the Israelis within 20 years of the establishment of Israel in 1945, and before they began to raise the price of oil.

Where Iraq fits into the picture is simple.  The USA supported Saddam Hussein's rise to power during the Cold War, when Russia was in Pakistan and the USA feared they would move against the oil fields.  The USA supplied him with money and arms, and he played the role of "balancing" power in the region, theoretically keeping the Soviets at bay.  His regime was wholly secular, and he had no interest in attacking Israel.  He needed his friends in the West so that he could menace his enemies, Iran and Syria.

After the Cold War Saddam became an inconvenience and had to go.  The neighboring arab regimes hated him because his government was secular and not anti-Isreali.  The USA no longer wanted or needed him because he sat on big oil reserves that he exploited only to meet his own needs.  He also charted his own course politically, and was not in synch with the countries keeping the price of oil high.  All agreed he had to go.  It's the same deal as when Anwar Sadat made his own peace initiative to Israel and recognized Israels right to exist.  He didn't live long.  Without the arab/israeli conflict the arab states would not have needed all the money required for their ongoing efforts against Israel and the price of oil could be lowered.

Now obviously none of these guys want people running around saying that their method of getting rich and practicing antisemitism is destroying the earth we all live on.  Also obviously they will support any effort to ridicule and discredit anyone making an effort in areas like alternative fuel, alternative power, more fuel-efficient cars, etc.

Answer 18

People being paid to study the "crisis" (Scientists).

Liberal politicians using it to advance their agenda.

People trading in carbon credits (Al Gore and his partners).

Answer 19

the newspaper publishers