Sunday, April 19, 2009

Death Knell: Part I - Follow the Money

Global Swarming -- The clustering of GangGreed around a money/power hive.
from The Urban Dictionary.

Finally, after 4 months of promises and teasing, I'm starting my serious of posts on Global Warming, entitled "Death Knell". This first installment, "Follow the Money", intends to show who benefits on both the "pro" and the "con" side of the equation from their side coming out ahead in this debate.

We've been hearing for years how 'the science is settled', 'there is a scientific consensus', or 'people who reject global warming are like people who believe in a flat Earth or who deny the Holocaust'. Then there's my favorite: 'the only scientists denying global warming are those working for Big Energy'. Never mind that ALL of the scientists working for alternate energy companies, for the government, or on projects that are government-funded are part of the 'consensus'.

Never mind? Let me take that back. It DOES matter that the 'consensus' emanates from those sources. Why? Like they say in all of the detective shows: follow the money.

There once was a time when the only contrarian data on global warming DID come from those with much to lose from proposed efforts at curbing warming. Not anymore.

Nor is the public as easily duped now: over 40% believe that AGW is mostly hype.

Here is a breakdown of who has a dog in the fight, both Pro Warming as well as those of us who are "skeptics".

George W. Bush
Barack Obama

Nancy Pelosi, who stands to profit handsomely from investments in "green" technology
Harry Reid
John McCommie
John Kerry
Team Donkey
Team Elephant Elite
Carol Browner, Nominated as Obama's Climate Czar

Governmental organizations:
The UN, who views warming as a vehicle for the formation of a new World economy
The World Health Organization
The European Union
NASA (Read this carefully - there are a number of outright lies in this "factbook")
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an organization that would have zero importance were AGW to disappear as a "threat".

Dr. James Hansen of NASA, who believes that warming should be used as a tool for wealth distribution (and who contradicts his pro-warming stance here)

Monetary beneficiaries of AGW hype:
Big Media - via propaganda (see here and here)
Multinational corporations
Al Gorebells, who has made millions from his fraud and stands to make millions more via cap-and-trade
Richard Branson, who stands to make billions from his "green" technologies
T. Boone Pickens, who stands to make billions from his "green" "solutions"
General Electric/NBC Universal, who stand to make billions from selling "green" technologies
British Banks, who seek to jump on the warming gravy train

In the interest of fairness, here is a list of those who will benefit if AGW is not addressed.

Pro-Business Groups (and other monetary beneficiaries):
Richard Mellon Scaife
Heartland Institute
The Science & Environmental Policy Project
The Cato Institute
World Climate Report
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Senator James Inhofe
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic
Sammy Wilson, Environmental Minister, UK
Andrei Illarionov, Chief Economic Adviser to the President of the Russian Federation

Joseph D'Aleo, meteorologist/Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Fred Singer, Scientist/Professor
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel
ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project)
International Geological Conference
Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
International Climate Science Coalition
The International Climate Science Center

John Stossel
Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun/Melbourne)

So I leave it to you, the reader, to discern which of these groups has the most to lose or gain based on the public's belief in AGW. You know which side I'm on; I have been an AGW denier since Kyoto, when this "emergency" was deemed to require the West to resort to draconian measures to "save the Earth" while completely exempting the Third World from action. A true "emergency" would require action by the entire globe. Am I right, or am I right?