Why is a flawed theory (that has been so thoroughly
debunked that it's not funny) still so widely accepted and espoused by media and politicians alike? Follow the dollars, my friend.
Dollars for research grants and
dollars for carbon credits (including
credits from Gore's own company--that he buys from himself) and other emerging climate technologies (such as
biofuels) spell big money for everyone except you common sheep out there.
2007 EU carbon data due out April 1| Environment | Reuters:
Under the EU's carbon market, energy-intensive industry has to submit an emissions permit called an EU Allowance (EUA) for every ton of carbon dioxide emissions.
Emissions data is therefore closely watched because it shows the level of demand for such permits and so the appropriate carbon price.
Check out Dr. Richard Lindzen's (an atmospheric scientist at MIT and a DENIER) excellent piece on the subject. He's another one of those
"outlier" scientists as labeled by Al Gore. Do you believe this MIT climate scientist knows more about the climate science than Al Gore? I hope so...
The Wall Street Journal Online - Extra | Climate of Fear - Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence:
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
More on profiteering below with respect to climate change and Guyana. It's easy to see why it's not going to go away easily, even with all the
mounting scientific evidence and the
opinions of scientists (some who were once on the IPCC); there's too much money at stake--research money for scientists and profit for politicians. When ethical scientists speak up, they're essentially shoved down by the all-powerful "consensus" because the ethical scientists are "taking food off the table."
Remember, our Founding Fathers did this sort of thing, too; they went to war to "free the colonists from evil British oppression," but they were, in reality, protecting their own personal and business interests. Profiteering under noble guises is not a new thing to America; it's almost part of America! History does repeat itself. The Boston "Massacre" and resulting outrage from the inflamed, biased media coverage in the form of Paul Revere's engraving was the major impetus behind stirring popular dissent and starting the Revolutionary War! Don't think the media doesn't still do these things! Don't think our leaders, regardless of party, are no longer elites and out for their own best interests! Your interests only become their interests when popular opinion threatens their hold on power (and thus wealth).
Investor buys Guyana forest's rain and carbon | Environment | Reuters:
LONDON (Reuters) - The British-based investment firm Canopy Capital said on Thursday it had bought a share in the rain-making potential of a chunk of Guyanan rainforest bigger than the Mediterranean island of Mallorca.
The move is a novel twist in an investor frenzy to make money from the prospect of climate change that has also seen businesses snap up permits to emit greenhouse gases and invest in low carbon-emitting technologies.
Need more proof? Here's where two countries are trying to find cheaper "wiggle room" with regard to carbon credits, but you can bet Al Gore and company aren't going to stand by and let that happen. Carbon credits that are cheap would cut into their profits!
Spain, Ireland join cheap carbon credit chase | Environment | Reuters:
That cheaper, alternative route has drawn criticism not only from environmentalists but also from carbon traders who want to make money from selling carbon offsets to countries struggling to meet their Kyoto caps.
Don't be fooled by the article below. Oil firms already wanted to explore these regions and have the technology to do so; they have been prevented by the environmentalist lobby from carrying through, however. The media wants you to fear both the "melting ice" and those evil oil companies who would "compound" the problem.
Ice shrink in Arctic sea may attract oil firms | Environment | Reuters:
Oil and gas companies are pushing north into the Barents Sea, seeking new reserves. Scientists say climate change may make the region less inhospitable and prices around $100 a barrel can justify exploration despite high costs.
