Who benefits from the global warming myth?

Question

There is absolutely no proof the recent warming trend was caused by human activity, so why is the media saturated with propaganda suggesting otherwise? Politicians, Hollywood entertainers, and pseudo-scientists are spending an awful lot of time and effort drumming up fear about a Doomsday that is unfalsifiable (but will nevertheless scare the public into submission.)

Watch out for influential public figures (ahem) who are most aggressive in pushing this blind-faith agenda. If Al Gore did the research he claimed, he would realize that CO2 is the RESULT of increasing temperature, not the other way around. But who cares about science and truth when the man behind the curtain dangles wealth, prestige, and a Nobel Prize?

Here are my questions: who is the puppeteer pulling Al Gore's strings? Why does this entity have such an abundance of power and money, and what is it ultimately trying to accomplish?

Answer 1

Why do all the alarmists and greenies say that oil companies are to blame for the skepticism about global warming?  And that they want to be free to polute as much as they want?  That argument is rubbish.  All one has to do is look at the data (IPCC, NASA GISS, Al Gore...) that's used to back agw and the scam becomes obvious.  None of these examples are uncorrupted...especially the IPCC and Al Gore.  Anyone who believes anything they say needs to take a second look, and realize they're being lied to.  The IPCC does exactly what the UN tells it to, and gives predetermined results as the UN dictates.  Al Gore is not even semi-believable (I heard at last count there were 35 'errors' in his movie), an arrogant hypocrate who has politicized a natural process for financial gain.  He may know that temperature change leads CO2 change, but it's inconvenient to say so because his theory would be blown out of the water more than it already is, if such a thing is possible.  He's happy as long as enough people still believe, I guess.

Answer 2

How do you know that there's "absolutely no proof the recent warming trend was caused by human activity"?  Have you read ALL the scientific literature on the subject? Have you read ANY of the scientific literature on the subject? Are you even sufficiently educated and qualified to understand the scientific literature on the subject?  If you can't answer "yes" too all my questions, then you are merely asserting something without any basis to support it.

The people who benefit from the MYTH of global warming (i.e. humans are NOT responsible) are the coal & oil industries that will continue to make record profits until people take global warming seriously and start to pursue alternative energy.

Answer 3

Global Warming is not a myth!

Answer 4

Al Gore, T. Boone Pickens, General Electric, Communist China, Any Big Business that sells carbon credits, Left Wing Politicians who will get more power, etc.

Have you noticed that A L L of the solutions to the so called problem of Global Warming / Global Climate Change are to grow government, raise taxes, eliminate perosonal liberty, and increase regulation on everyday life?

I was doing a little opposition research and found the official magazine of the Socialist Workers Party and they were trumpeting the virtues of the Big Government Solutions as a way to curtail capitalism and individual freedoms in a way that Karl Marx envisioned.

If there weren't any form of Global Warming Minnesota, where I live would still be covered under glaciers and would be uninhabitable.

The puppeteer is György Schwartz aka George Soros.

Answer 5

I'm not a scientist but I know it is impossible to take a few hundred years of data a say the sky is falling. Earth has been around for more than 3 billion years. Therefore just the numbers don't work. I say what's wrong with warmer? would we prefer it colder? Who are these scientists to say that the current temperature is perfect. What are they God?

Answer 6

Al Gore, who will get more royalties from his silly book.

Answer 7

ExxonMobil funds dozens of organization to spread unsupported denial claims (such as the wacky notion that global warming is a myth):

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxon...

Exxon finally admits denialists cause problems

Posted by cindybaxter on 05/27/2008 03:55 am

Exxon has admitted - for the first time - that the climate deniers it funds are causing problems for action on climate change.

This is a first for the company which has spent, since 1998, $23 million funding the climate denial industry.

And it's official - Exxon made this statement in this year's Corporate Citizenship Report, released in time for its shareholder meeting.

The statement reads:

"in 2008 we will distcontinue contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."  (page 41 under "public policy research contributions."

"Could divert attention"?  We award Exxon a special prize for the Understatement of the Year.  The denial industry can be held responsible for the US's failure to act on climate. And Exxon has been at the heart of it for more than a decade.  

So which groups is Exxon dropping?  According to Reuters, gone from the funding list in 2008 are the George C Marshall Institute,  the Committe for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Frontiers of Freedom... and others.  

These groups are what you might call the "engine room" of the climate denial industry.  

But even Exxon's walking away from them now.  

The company started dropping groups in 2006, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute being the first to go.  Last year, it dumped the Heartland Institute, which organised the biggest denial conference for a long time, in New York in March and has been running a slightly ridiculous campaign against Al Gore.  

The other groups were all co-sponsors of the Heartland conference which concluded, surprisingly enough, that global warming isn't happening.

We note that this announcement didn't come from the usual spokesman from Exxon, Ken Cohen, who chairs the company's funding committe, but from a new person.  Clearly the new CEO Rex Tillerson is trying to shift his company from the poisoned chalice left to him by former CEO and arch denialist, Lee Raymond.

But is cutting nine groups getting the job done?  

In short, no.  From the 2007 Worldwide Giving Report, posted on Exxon's website on Friday, we can see that Exxon funded a total of 37 global warming denial groups, to the tune of nearly $2 million,  which is pretty similar to 2006. Even cutting nine of them means the company is still funding 28 groups engaged in climate denial.

Tillerson needs to make a much wider sweep if he really wants to shake off Raymond's legacy - he has started, but we think he should apologise to the global community for the harm his company has caused.

1998 communications strategy groups finally seen off

The latest round of Exxon cuts means an end to the funding of the organisations who gathered together in 1998 to plot a communications strategy designed to foster public scepticism of climate science and undermine the Kyoto treaty.  

The plan was drawn up by a small cabal of groups and companies, including Exxon, Chevron and the big energy provider, the Southern Company, and Fred Singer's outfit, SEPP.  In there were also Frontiers of Freedom and the Marshall Institute, who have both enjoyed Exxon funding ever since.

The memo stated that "Victory will be achieved when:

... average citizens "understand" (recognise) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties become part of conventional wisdom;

..."Those promoting the Kyoto Treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality."

Well, sorry guys,  while you may have achieved a certain level of climate scepticism, the IPCC's latest report is absolutely clear on the climate science - and governments are acting on it.

Will this stop the denial industry?

Well, no.  We note that Walt Buchholtz, Exxon's former funding man, left the company and went to work at Heartland for a year. No doubt he helped set up Heartland's new sources of funding from other members of the business community.

There's still a ways to go, but it's a start. When companies like Exxon start questioning this lot, there's not a lot of people who will continue to support them.  

---

Here's a list of the organizations, linking to detail on each:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorg...

Answer 8

"There is absolutely no proof the recent warming trend was caused by human activity ..."

Your definition of proof is a lot different from mine.  Gore has been involved in environmental issues since his college days, and has done a fair amount of homework on this.  Enough to be honored as co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

You may not scrutinize the sites below, but perhaps others who are more hopeful for our future will.  A lot of good information on the sites themselves, and more through links within.

Answer 9

People should start considering to recycle and try to help the enviorment because if we dont lots of natural disasters will start and think about how kids now will suffer then.If parents really care about their children they'll start helping the cause.There are more important things than politics,and wars.Sure it's what people like but if we don't start acting up now then there won't be politics,or almost anything we enjoy now!  

Answer 10

Starting with the obvious, Al Gore.  He owns stock in companies that sell carbon credits.  T. Boone Pickens, he's already made his money on oil and sees an opportunity to capitalize on a fad and political hot button pushing to have mandates and subsidies for inferior "alternative" energies.  Or how about EVERY major scientific organization to quote Bob.  Yes, even they are benefiting from the sham to the tune of $5 BILLION dollars in grants and subsidies per year and that's only rising.  Or what about big Agriculture who are getting massive subsidies to produce a fuel made from corn that is vastly more inefficient than any fossil fuel which is also directly affecting the cost of food.  Probably both Bob and Dana too since I'd be willing to bet they either work for a government agency or and organization which directly receives grants and federal dollars.  Isn't it funny how the entire debate centers around money even for the people who are supposedly trying to "save the planet"?  All it takes is some carbon credits, a more costly, inefficient fuel, and for them to tell you what and how much energy you can consume for the "problem" to be "solved".

Answer 11

That's an excellent question, and I've never thought of a plausible answer.  It's much easier to answer the opposing question: Who makes the profits from denying global warming?  The obvious answer is the oil companies and other industries that want to be free to pollute as much as they want to.  They profit from telling people that there's no such thing as global warming, a preposterous claim in the light of the undisputable scientific evidence.  Even if you don't believe that it's human-caused, you have to be brain-dead to not know it's happening.

[edit]

You deniers are not only ignoring the science; you're completely ignoring reality.  Where are these alleged "higher taxes" you keep ranting about?  Carbon credits are sold by other companies that meet the emission guidelines, so they aren't taxes and don't go to the government.  Can you name even one new tax or fee that benefits the government or the scientists?  I didn't think so.

You Republicans are among the very few people in the world who refuse to accept the reality of global warming.  Most industrialized nations have agreed to the Kyoto Protocol.  Bush is one of the few renegades holding out against it.  Why?  BECAUSE HE'S AN OIL MAN!  He wants to be a billionaire, so he's placing his own selfish interests ahead of everyone else's and he has you people brainwashed into supporting him.  Abusing his power for profit in this way (and on the no-bid contract with Halliburton) is an impeachable offense, and the only reason why he's still in office is that Republicans control 49% of Congress and they voted down Kucinich's attempts at impeachment.

Answer 12

Al Gore benefits and so does every other enemy of American freedom.

Answer 13

Just to clarify your additional point, the 'famous graph' which rises and falls following temperature does so for a reason-because the amount of CO2 produced in the northern hemisphere (containing majority of the worlds population) increases during the cold months, when the sun is upon the southern hemisphere. As the sun approaches the northern hemisphere, the trees breathe out more oxygen, and the carbon dioxide to oxygen ratio is lowered from consumption during photosynthesis. When observing the graph you will notice it rises and falls in a zig zag pattern, and this pattern is change between northern hemisphere and southern.  

Answer 14

At least one answer to this question has stated that there is 'proof' of man-caused global warming.  Okay..... so what and where is this alleged proof??

Not speculation, conjecture, hunches or feelings, but hard scientific proof??

And please..... none of the typical copy and paste library responses.... like some Admiral said so...... or some science organizations' (bureaucratic) leadership said so..... ad nauseum.

Answer 15

As it is not a myth, the answer is no one.

I got as far as "There is absolutely no proof the recent warming trend was caused by human activity..." and almost stopped reading - there is so much proof it is incredible that people are even debating it anymore. Your statements have zero credibility and no support: What research did you do to be able to state "that CO2 is the RESULT of increasing temperature" for example?

You also have some other questions:

1 - I have no idea who is "pulling Al Gore's strings" and don't care. What relevance does an American politician who helped increase awareness of AGW to a mainly American audience have to do with the facts and research about GLOBAL warming - Al Gore is a domestic political issue: Please post in US politics. Nothing to do with AGW.

2 - Even more don't know, don't care, not relevant to this forum.

Take your paraniod conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Answer 16

It's not a myth.  A few details.

CO2 is BOTH a cause of warming (greenhouse effect) AND a result (warming ocean waters release CO2).  That's very basic science.

There's a ton of proof.  EVERY major scientific organization has released an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  They don't get their science from Al Gore, and they don't say things like that without SOLID proof.

Do you think the National Academy of Sciences (1800 of the nation's best, an organization with a higher percentage of Nobel Prize winners than any other) are "pseudo"?  Not credible.  Their positiion:

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate. However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower."

Answer 17

Left wing politicians, who have traditionally been funded by unions, are finding their income base eroded as fewer and fewer people belong to unions and their economic power is diminishing.  They have had to find new sources for political contributions, and the latest and greatest is green industry companies which are prepared to contribute considerable funds as governments are able to subsidise, award contracts and even make the competition illegal.  

Answer 18

Tshhh...typical

Please, try thinking before you spill out inaccuracies.  Global climate change is a real event, backed up not by 'hundreds' of years, but hundreds of thousands of years of evidence through geologic analysis.  Oh wait, you probably are one of those people who think the earth is only six thousand years old huh?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessmen...

This has all the science you will need to assail your doubts, but there is one doubt that remains: and that is that you will read this, 'its to hard and long, i don't like all those big words'

Answer 19

Yes the core question as to where all the money came from to fund the whole AGW/GCC publicity campaign, easy if you look at the whole equation instead of only part of it. Consider how a company that is going to make gigantic profits from a publicity program will do things in such a way it will look like it is on the other side of the issue. First you start the program by providing untraceable funds in small cash amounts to selected groups and agencies that can launder them so you company can not be connected to these programs or funds. Then you find organizations that are on the other side of the issue and openly and publicly donate minor amounts to their activities. So the side of the issue you are hoping to use to enhance your overall profits with appears publicly opposed to the one you are openly funding and apparently supporting.

This is how Exxon is able to use its advertising and marketing groups to create and promotes with the aid of one of its affiliated major stockholders as front man a pogrom of increased profits while publicly taking the opposite position. Those in the public who use up their heart felt emotions on both sides of the issue in question then never realize that they and their emotions/reason are being manipulated for the profitability of the company that will benefit most from the scam.

Problem is all but a few of those on these lists do not have the education in detecting high level corporate manipulations like these to understand just what is really happening. The authors called muckrakers from the early part of the 20th century are good reading to learn proper scam detection methods from. I recommend Upton Sinclair and H.L. Mencken as well as Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) as excellent teachers on this subject.

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.

H.L.Mencken

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamourous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H.L.Mencken

Added

I did forget to name the spider behind the scenes who pulls the strings which make Al Gore move and talk, well it the the man was the prototype for the Batmanns Penguin David Rockefeller!

Answer 20

anyone who has a brain

Answer 21

The beneficiaries are:

1. Politicians - Gain tremendous power by taxing you and I. To them, money is power.

2. Scientist - Once a sleepy field, climatologist now bring in huge money with grants, etc. Over $50 billion has been spent in the last decade trying to prove this theory.

3. Corporations - Ever notice how "Green"  Products cost more? this is because they have a higher mark up. And if that is not enough, they receive tax breaks for selling more of it. I recently bought a low flow cloths washer. I asked the accountant if I could get money back. He said, I could not, but the company will.

4. Socialist/Communist - The AGW theory falls right into their lap. They can rail against capitalism and the USA and try to reduce production world wide. They will also use the myth to redistribute trillions of dollars. Notice the Carbon credit schemes usually involve taking form the rich nations to give to poor nations.

5. Al Gore - He has profited millons off the lie. Al Gore, "The Centuries Biggest Hypocrite"

Answer 22

Everyone that has a GW product will benefit.

GW hasn't even been proven to be a problem yet everyone on the green side seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. No matter how it messes up the economy, or people's lives, or raises the cost of living, or takes away just a little bit more of your liberties.

The largest profiteers will probably be those that get in on the ground for on this fraudulent carbon trading scheme. There is no scientific data to support what the acceptable level should be, there's not even proof that co2 is even a major contributing cause of anything. Yet these dolts will pay through the nose just because some idiot politician has pasted some idiot law. Who gave these people the right to be the "go between" in the first place ? Even it this very unintelligent system does be placed into law...why can't companies trade directly with other companies ?

The whole system is whacked.

Answer 23

A lot of people actually.

First there's all the people at the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) who's jobs depend on this myth. If AGW is exposed as the lie it is then all these people will be on the street.

Secondly there's all the scientists who refused to budge from the untenable view that AGW is happening. Their reputations are at stake here.

Third is Al Gore who could sell carbon credits to people and grow very rich indeed.

Fourth is Greenpeace and other environmental (read political extremist) groups. These groups are heavily invested in alternative energy sources and stand to benefit enormously if the myth of AGW is kept alive.

Fifth is the media who thrive on scare stories. The more they can throw this propaganda around the more money they make. This is because people love to hear about how the world is going to end. Just look at all the people on Yahoo Answers that are asking questions about the so called 2012 doomsday.

Sixth are the low lying countries like the Maldives, Tuvalu, the Netherlands etc. who can demand massive compensation from Western governments for supposed sea level rises.

This is all the groups I can think of in ten minutes but there will be others who stand to gain directly or indirectly from this myth.

Answer 24

Just because you're not aware of the scientific evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  That's like saying the world doesn't exist when an ostrich sticks its head in the sand.

Have you ever heard of the greenhouse effect?  The planet would be 33 degrees Celsius colder if it didn't exist.  That's some pretty compelling proof that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cause warming.

As Bob noted, CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.  If you're interested in learning about the science, see the link below.  If not, keep your head in the sand, but the answer to your question is that global warming is not a myth, no matter how deep you bury your head.