Who Profits from Global Warming? 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.

Additional Details

5 months ago

If I purchase an alternative energy car, dont I then save money in the long run from rising gas prices?

5 months ago

Also, my parents just added solar panels to there homes, which did cost quite a bit (so the guy who put them on did make money), but most of it was tax detuctable, and now they do not only not pay for electricty, but the electric company is paying them for any extra electricty the produce.

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

So you see, it isn%26#039;t like we don%26#039;t have good alternatives. It%26#039;s the common sense and political will that is lacking.

It%26#039;s continuing to do the same thing that is devestatingly expensive. Unless you%26#039;re naive enough to believe, that the war in Iraq isn%26#039;t largely because of oil, then you know what that is costing us in lives and trillions of dollars.

Corporations don%26#039;t have much trouble selling us stuff. I wouldn%26#039;t worry too much. Our consumerism economy is why, and it is extremely wasteful. Watch this video to see what I mean. %26quot;The Story of Stuff%26quot;

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%26#039;s problems as most environmentalists will agree. It%26#039;s big agra business that is pushing for it.

Probably his most absurd statement is this.
%26quot;BTW, there%26#039;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.%26quot; What is he smoking%26quot;?

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 %26quot;independent scientists generally find no facts to support global warming%26quot;
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%26#039;s the one who perpetuates the other myth about how; %26quot;The climate scientists want to make us poor peasants.%26quot;
That is debunked here:

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

Beam claims: %26quot;If you are a climate modeler, you kind of get paid on how well your models predict the environment.%26quot;
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.

%26quot;The problem with this argument is that climate scientists aren%26#039;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%26#039;t in the position to benefit from carbon taxes. So this argument has some serious flaws.%26quot;

%26quot;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.%26quot;


%26quot;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 %26quot;inside%26quot;%26quot;- William Connolley Ph.D.


There is not one skeptic argument that hasn%26#039;t been debunked by thousands of real scientists. You know, the ones not funded by the fossil fuel industries.



%26quot;Mars is warming too%26quot; This was used as an argument by Sen Imhofe.


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

%26quot;We are now in global cooling%26quot;

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

%26quot;Scientists predicted global cooling in 1972 so why should we believe them now?%26quot;

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.

%26quot;Climate models overstate global warming concerns.%26quot;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

%26quot;We are headed for a new ice age.%26quot;

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

%26quot;Where are all the hurricanes predicted?%26quot;

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

%26quot;CO2 lags higher temperatures in previoius warmings%26quot;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-doe... http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

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

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbo...
chart showing CO2 over last 400,000 years.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics similar

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

http://www.skepticalscience.com/
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. %26#039;One country%26#039;s policy to promote biofuels while protecting its farmers could increase another (likely poorer) country%26#039;s import bills for food and pose additional risks to inflation or growth,%26#039; the (IMF) report said%26quot; http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/...

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%26#039;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 %26quot;green week%26quot; 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.