Global warming alarmism generates political and financial incentives

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Dominant media" editors and others frequently accuse climate disaster
skeptics of working for organizations that received funding from
corporations. The accusation is intended to squelch debate on the merits -
by implying that any such writer or organization should not be trusted, as
they have a financial stake in the issue - which believers in climate
catastrophe scenarios supposedly do not have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

The ink has barely dried on its new code of conduct, and already Congress is
redefining ethics and pork to fit a global warming agenda. As Will Rogers
observed, "with Congress, every time they make a joke, it's a law. And every
time they make a law, it's a joke."

However, life-altering, economy-wrecking climate bills are no laughing
matter. That's why we need to recognize that the Kyoto Protocol and proposed
"climate protection" laws will not stabilize the climate, even if CO2 is to
blame. It's why we must acknowledge that money to be made, and power to be
gained, from climate alarmism and symbolism is a major reason so many are
getting on the climate "consensus" bandwagon.

In accusing ExxonMobil of giving "more than $19 million since the late
1990s" to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust "denial,"
Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered both the
donor and recipients. Moreover, this is less than half of what Pew
Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on
Climate Change alone over the same period. It's a pittance compared to what
US environmental groups spent propagating climate chaos scare stories.

It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 that the US, EU and UN spent since
1993 (some $80 billion all together) on global warming catastrophe research.
And it ignores the fact that the Exxon grants also supported malaria
control, Third World economic development and many other efforts.

Aside from honest, if unfounded, fears of climate disasters, why might
others support climate alarmism?

Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve
their chances of getting research grants from foundations, corporations -
and US government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global
warming in 2007. They also increase the likelihood of getting headlines and
quotes in news stories: "Climate change threatens extinction of rare frogs,
scientist says." Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants,
headlines and quotes.

Politicians get to grandstand green credentials, cement relationships with
activists who can support reelection campaigns and higher aspirations,
magically transform $14-billion in alternative energy pork into ethical
planetary protection, and promote policies that otherwise would raise
serious eyebrows.

Corporate actions that cause even one death are dealt with severely; but
praise is heaped on federal mileage standards that cause hundreds of deaths,
as cars are downsized and plasticized to save fuel and reduce emissions.
High energy prices are denounced at congressional hearings, if due to market
forces - but praised if imposed by government "to prevent climate change."
Drilling in the Arctic or off our coasts is condemned, even to create jobs,
tax revenues and enhanced security; but subsidizing wind power to generate
2% of our electricity is lauded, even if giant turbines despoil millions of
acres and kill millions of birds.

Alarmist rhetoric has also redefined corporate social responsibility,
created the Climate Action Partnership and launched the emerging
Enviro-Industrial Complex.

Environmental activists have turned climate fears into successful
fund-raising tools - and a brilliant strategy for achieving their dream of
controlling global resource use, technological change and economic
development, through laws, treaties, regulations and pressure campaigns.
Recent developments promise to supercharge these efforts.

Environmental Defense is collaborating with Morgan Stanley, to promote
emission trading systems and other climate change initiatives - giving ED
direct monetary and policy stakes in the banking, investment and political
arenas, and in any carbon allowance or cap-and-trade programs Congress might
enact. Other environmental groups, companies and Wall Street firms will no
doubt follow their lead.

ED designed and led the disingenuous campaign that persuaded many healthcare
agencies to ban DDT, resulting in millions of deaths from malaria.
Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, ED and other groups
still post deceitful claims about DDT on their websites, further delaying
progress against this killer disease. By blaming climate change for malaria,
they deflect criticism for their vile actions.

Climate catastrophe claims enable activists to gain official advisory status
with companies and governments on environmental issues. They also make it
"ethical" for Rainforest Action Network and other pressure groups to oppose
power generation in Third World countries, where few have access to
electricity - and thereby keep communities perpetually impoverished.

Meanwhile, Prince Charles gets lionized for appropriating 62 first class
jetliner seats for his entourage of 20, on a trans-Atlantic trip to receive
an environmental prize and lecture Americans on saving the Earth - because
at least he didn't use his private jet.

Companies in the CAP and EIC can develop and promote new product lines,
using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates and regulatory provisions to
gain competitive advantages. They get favorable coverage from the media, and
kid-glove treatment from members of Congress who routinely pillory climate
chaos skeptics.

Some worry that this could become a license to further redefine corporate
ethics, present self-interest as planet-saving altruism, and profit from
questionable arrangements with environmental groups and Congress. Certainly,
cap-and-trade rules will create valuable property rights and reward
companies that reduce CO2 emissions, often by replacing old, inefficient,
high-polluting plants that they want to retire anyway.

DuPont and BP will get money for biofuels, GE for its portfolio of climate
protection equipment, ADM for ethanol, Lehman Brothers for emission trading
and other deals. Environmental activists will be able to influence
corporate, state and federal policy, and rake in still more cash. Insurance
companies can blame global warming for rate increases and coverage denials.

Lobbying and deal-brokering will enter a new era. As Thenardier the
innkeeper observed in Les Miserables, "When it comes to fixing prices, there
are lots of tricks he knows. Jees, it's just amazing how it grows." Indeed,
the opportunities to "game the system" will be limited only by one's
"eco-magination."

To determine the losers, look in the mirror. Activists and politicians are
creating a Frankenstein climate monster on steroids. Were it real, we'd need
to dismantle our economy and living standards to slay the beast. How else
could we eliminate 80-90% of US and EU fossil fuel emissions by 2050, to
stabilize carbon dioxide emissions and (theoretically) a climate that has
always been anything but stable?

Think lifestyles circa 1900, or earlier. Ponder the British environment
minister's latest prescription: World War II rationing, no meat or cheese,
restrictions on air travel, no veggies that aren't grown locally. France
wants a new government agency that would single out, police and penalize
countries that "abuse the Earth." Others want to put little solar panels on
African huts, while kleptocratic dictators get millions of dollars for
trading away their people's right to generate electricity and emit CO2.

We should improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution, and develop new
energy technologies. But when we demand immediate action to prevent
exaggerated or imaginary crises, we stifle debate, railroad through programs
that don't work, create enough pork to fill 50 Chicago stockyards, and
impose horrendous unintended consequences on countless families. That is
shortsighted and immoral.

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/Sho...np&date=070206


One of the well known climatic episodes (to well-educated climatologists) is
the Little Ice Age. The hemispheric cooling started in the 1400s, really got
going about 1570 (see Frobisher's journal) and was full-blown by mid-1600s.
The Pilgrims picked a lousy time to come to America. After a little
amelioration, things got worse culminating in the "Year Without a Summer".
Since then the hemispheric temperature has risen, and we even have
thermometers to attest to it. Gee, getting back to what it used to be sure
doesn't sound like the sky is falling and catastrophe looms. Besides, warmer
weather reduces the Climatic Overhead and we get more income per unit of
energy used.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/...phd-dsc-dengr/

You don't hear much about the ozone hole any more. Has it gone away? Nope.
NOAA and NASA say in 2006 it was bigger and deeper than ever.
But wait, you say, we implemented the Montreal Protocols in 1989,
eliminating ozone depleting CFCs. Kofi Annan called the Protocol, "Perhaps
the most successful international agreement to date." CFC concentrations
have been falling since 1995. How can the ozone hole be worse?

It's not worse, says NOAA, it's better. It's just that you can't see how
great the Protocol is working because colder than average temperatures in
the Antarctic mask the benefit. Cold weather "result[s] in larger and deeper
ozone holes, while warmer weather leads to smaller ones."

Colder in Antarctica? Al Gore told me it was melting! Al Gore told me there
was consensus. Consensus!

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016725.php



--
__________________________________________________ _______________
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides;cuius fidei merces est videre quod
credis
HD RADIO is here! http://www.HDRadio.com
DUNCAN HUNTER for PRESIDENT http://www.GoHunter08.com
WHAT THE LEFT WON'T TELL YOU http://www.FrontPageMag.com
WHAT COMMUNISTS WON'T TELL YOU http://China-E-Lobby.blogspot.com
WHAT ISLAM WON'T TELL YOU http://www.WhatTheWestNeedsToKnow.com
__________________________________________________ _______________