"AGW is a conspiracy folks" exactly HOW are Al Gore & all those scientists benifiting from lying?

Question

I've seen many of you say it's all a lie and all of those scientists are just making it up to either ruin us or benefit themselves.

HOW are they benefiting exactly. What would they gain?

I'm just trying to understand your points of view.

Answer 1

Scientific research can be a well paid professions especially for those who make their way to the top of their field and (like any other line of work) the field is political.  There is no way for a university to assess how good a scientist is except by looking at  how many peer reviewed articles he has had published and how they are regarded by their peers.  This is a 100% political process as it depends only on how that individuals work is perceived.  

If people didn't take climate change seriously there wouldn't be any career prospects in researching it.

Also in my line of work (construction) I see consultants who have  undertaken sustainable design qualifications or 'green building' couses quickly become sought after and able to obtain better salaries than others will a similar level of skill.  I'm not suggesting that is a bad thing, but the system is not without its flaws.  

Most of the guidlines and assessment procedures for 'green buildings' are developed by 'not for profit' organisations who's executive tends to be have an interest in companies that make green products.  The main focus of these 'not for profit' organisations is how to maximise the profits of the companies that fund them.  This leads to some strange rules creeping into 'green' building guidlines.

The main market for green buildings is governments and governments are run by politicians who depend on contributions.  Any politician who insists on government departments only using certified green buildings can expect contributions from the companies and organisations which depend on the construction of 'green' buildings.  Politicians may well want to save the world but they generally only do it if they can find a way of raising funds in the process.

Going 'green' is generally not a bad thing, but in a market economy, nobody does anything unless they can find a way to profit from it.  Nobody makes money from actually saving the world though, only from the perception of saving the world.

Answer 2

Man-made global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are ridiculous, but creationism should be taught in schools.

Answer 3

Trying to persuade paranoid conspiracy theorists is a waste of time.  Their views are not amenable to reason.  Focus on what can be done without them.  They will soon be irrelevant.

Answer 4

The argument is that Al Gore benefits from making money off carbon credits and speeches, and the scientists benefit by making funding easier to obtain.  The Al Gore part would be valid, if Al Gore had anything to do with the science.  He does make money off of speeches and such, but he's just a messenger, not the source of scientific information.  If he was wrong, scientists whould be denouncing him on a daily basis.  You'll notice that worldemperor's links are all about Gore and not about the scientists.

The argument that scientists are creating a conspiracy is very illogical, because climatology existed long before global warming was considered a big problem.  Climate scientists were able to obtain research grants several decades ago, and they would continue to be able to obtain grants to study the planet if global warming were not a big issue.  After all, we want to know how the planet's climate functions, regardless of whether we're influencing it at the moment.

Of course, if there were a vast scientific conspiracy and they were found out (which they would be, immediately), I'm sure there would be a major backlash whereby the funding to the climate sciences would dry up.

Not to mention that it's the job of a scientist to be unbiased and objective, and to think that tens of thousands of scientists would collude to falsify data and deceive the entire world is beyond absurd.  Plus there are several examples of individual scientists who did falsify data, were quickly discovered, and whose careers were destroyed because of it.

People who think AGW is a conspiracy should have a convention with the folks who think the moon landing was staged and there are aliens at Area 51.  They're all nuts.

Answer 5

worldemp - please explain how Gore wisely investing in Google and Apple is connected to a global warming scam and how does the global warming scam increase his wealth even more?

Do you even read the things you link too?

BTW, you failed to address "all those scientists" and how they are benefiting from lying.  Remember, Al Gore doesn't write any of those peer reviewed journal articles that explain the reality of AGW.

Answer 6

Read the links....

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=32819...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar...

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gore_...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/...

Learn the facts...

Answer 7

Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.

CCX has about 80 members that are self-confessed emitters of greenhouse gases. They have voluntarily committed themselves to reduce their emissions by the year 2010 to a level 6% below their emissions in 2000. CCX members include Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, American Electric Power, International Paper, Motorola, Waste Management and a smattering of other companies, along with the states of Illinois and New Mexico, seven cities and a number of universities. Presumably the members “purchase” carbon offsets on the CCX trading exchange. This means they make contributions to or investments in groups or firms that provide forms of “alternative,” “renewable” and “clean” energy.

CCX also has “participant members” that develop the carbon-offset projects. They have names like Carbon Farmers and Eco-Nomics Incorporated. Still, other participant member groups facilitate, finance and market carbon-offset projects to “sequester, destroy or displace” greenhouse gases. CCX aspires to be the New York Stock Exchange of carbon-emissions trading.

Along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Last September, Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX shares for $23 million. CCX owns half the ECX, so Goldman Sachs has a stake there as well.

GIM’s “founding partners” are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Another founding partner is Peter Knight, who is the designated president of GIM. He was Sen. Al Gore’s chief of staff from 1977-1989 and the campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

Like CCX, the ECX has about 80 member companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the European Union to further develop a futures market in carbon trading. What’s in it for the companies? They will benefit either by investing in carbon credits or by receiving subsidies for doing so.

Answer 8

The people who denounce GW as real are the same people who have politicized the whole issue.  basically, the ones that are benefitting from us NOT addressing the issue are all the corporations, like Energy Corps and Auto Corps, that are free to market their products without any need to make them better.  They continue to monopolize the market.  Gore was going to make money whether or not he chose this cause, since he is a former politician and author.  he would have made good coing just doing the speech circuit in colleges.

Answer 9

I am going to check out this question later and see if anybody else has replied because I would also love to know how they think it is a conspiracy. It is a mystery to me...

By the way, 'world emp' is in true form again...LOL... 3221points 1177 answers and  4% best answer...keep it up..!

Answer 10

“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). It was great. We were working to save the planet!"  Dr.  David Evans

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson says his conversion (from beleiver to skeptic)“probably cost me a lot of grant money."

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"

Just listen to all of the "even if if global warming is not true, it can't hurt" arguments.  It is and always has been a political issue.  Environmentalists have been harping on the dangers of car and power plant pollution way before global warming became an issue.  

When the theory started to gain in popularity, and the study of climate science was still in its infancy, there were many who said lets not jump to conclusions, the earth goes through natural cycles, it may not be due to co2 emissions.  Those people were immediately attack and their motives were questions.   We are not taking about today, after billions of dollars and twenties years of research. This was the eighties.  If it is not political why were those people attacked then?  Or  has  the science been settled for twenty years now?