Posted on Jan 22, 2012 in Global Giving by 12 Comments

Question by mission_viejo_california: Who still believes International Warming is triggered by man?
International warming ethics, pork and profits

By Paul Driessen
internet posted February 12, 2007

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 is a law. And every time they make a law, it really is a joke.”

However, life-altering, economy-wrecking climate bills are no laughing matter. That’s why we want 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 should acknowledge that money to be created, and power to be gained, from climate alarmism and symbolism is a major purpose so several are finding on the climate “consensus” bandwagon.

In accusing ExxonMobil of giving “more than $ 19 million considering that the late 1990s” to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust “denial,” Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered each 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 Modify alone more than the exact same period. It’s a pittance compared to what US environmental groups spent propagating climate chaos scare stories.

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

Aside from honest, if unfounded, fears of climate disasters, why may other individuals assistance climate alarmism?

Scientists who use climate change to clarify environmental adjustments increase their chances of finding investigation grants from foundations, corporations – and US government programs that spending budget a whopping $ 6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. They also enhance the likelihood of finding headlines and quotes in news stories: “Climate alter threatens extinction of uncommon 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 assistance reelection campaigns and greater aspirations, magically transform $ 14-billion in option power 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 trigger hundreds of deaths, as automobiles are downsized and plasticized to save fuel and decrease emissions. High power costs are denounced at congressional hearings, if due to industry forces – but praised if imposed by government “to stop climate adjust.” Drilling in the Arctic or off our coasts is condemned, even to generate jobs, tax revenues and enhanced security but subsidizing wind power to produce two% 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, developed the Climate Action Partnership and launched the emerging Enviro-Industrial Complicated.

Environmental activists have turned climate fears into productive fund-raising tools – and a brilliant technique for achieving their dream of controlling international resource use, technological modify and economic development, by way of laws, treaties, regulations and pressure campaigns. Current developments promise to supercharge these efforts.

Environmental Defense is collaborating with Morgan Stanley, to promote emission trading systems and other climate modify 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 may well enact. Other environmental groups, organizations and Wall Street firms will no doubt adhere to their lead.

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

Climate catastrophe claims enable activists to obtain official advisory status with companies and governments on environmental concerns. They also make it “ethical” for Rainforest Action Network and other pressure groups to oppose power generation in Third Globe nations, where handful of have access to electrical energy – and thereby keep communities perpetually impoverished.

Meanwhile, Prince Charles gets lionized for appropriating 62 1st class jetliner seats for his entourage of 20, on a trans-Atlantic trip to obtain 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 create and promote new product lines, using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates and regulatory provisions to acquire competitive benefits. They get favorable coverage from the media, and kid-glove therapy from members of Congress who routinely pillory climate chaos skeptics.

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

DuPont and BP will get funds for biofuels, GE for its portfolio of climate protection gear, ADM for ethanol, Lehman Brothers for emission trading and other deals. Environmental activists will be in a position to influence corporate, state and federal policy, and rake in nevertheless a lot more cash. Insurance firms can blame international 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 costs, there are lots of tricks he knows. Jees, it’s just amazing how it grows.” Indeed, the opportunities to “game the program” will be limited only by one’s “eco-magination.”

To determine the losers, look in the mirror. Activists and politicians are generating a Frankenstein climate monster on steroids. Had been it genuine, we’d need to have to dismantle our economy and living standards to slay the beast. How else could we eradicate 80–90% of US and EU fossil fuel emissions by 2050, to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions and (theoretically) a climate that has often been anything but stable?

Assume lifestyles circa 1900, or earlier. Ponder the British environment minister’s most recent prescription: Globe War II rationing, no meat or cheese, restrictions on air travel, no veggies that are not grown locally. France desires a new government agency that would single out, police and penalize countries that “abuse the Earth.” Other individuals want to put little solar panels on African huts, whilst kleptocratic dictators get millions of dollars for trading away their people’s appropriate to produce electrical energy and emit CO2.

We must enhance power efficiency, decrease pollution, and develop new power technologies. But when we demand immediate action to avoid exaggerated or imaginary crises, we stifle debate, railroad via programs that do not work, develop enough pork to fill 50 Chicago stockyards, and impose horrendous unintended consequences on numerous families. That is shortsighted and immoral.

Very best answer:

Answer by ♥Reids girl♥
i do

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Comments (12)
  • Avatar

    ccguy Jan 22 2012 - 9:46 am

    The jury is still out about climate change, but one thing we do know for certain is that there are political agendas to promote socialistic politics. Even if man was partially responsible, if humans changed entirely, there would only be a slight difference of a degree or two in temperature change. I think we should get off fossil fuels because it makes us dependent upon unstable nations for our energy supply, not because of global warming.

    Top scientists have refuted man’s affect on the climate such as Astrophysicist Nir Shariv who stated, “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming. Particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic-rays have on our atmosphere.”

    “The sun’s strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can’t have much of an influence on the climate.”

    Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.”

    Oregon state climatologist, George Taylor said that “the global warming seen in the past century is caused largely by natural events, including cyclical climate patterns and solar fluctuations linked with cosmic rays and changes in cloud cover.” Mr Taylor was recently fired by the Oregon governor for his “scientific” views.

    I don’t think there is a debate about whether global warming is occurring, but the idea that it is man made is a myth. Remember, the UN that came out with a recent report about climate change is a political entity that has done many things to prove it is not a credible, un-biased source. A recent example is the oil for food scandal that diverted millions of dollars to UN members and others. Also, even if there was man made climate change, China (the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter) and India are not going to embrace fossil fuel consumption.

    Additionally, many scientists disagree about climate change and 17,000 signed a petition against the Kyoto treaty. Unfortunately, the sales focussed media who know little about this, spin it to suit their own opinions. So, its highly debatable whether humans are influencing global warming. Another thing to consider is that every 11,500 years, the earth goes through a major extinction with a global warming and cooling phase (ice age.) Paleontologists are able to track this through soil samples. We may actually be headed into an ice age because we are coming to the tail end of the current cycle. The problem is that the media and politicians get focussed on a piece of the puzzle and try to simplify this issue. Don’t be fooled. There is probably nothing humans can do. Even if we could, there is no way you can control China who is becoming a major world polluter. Humans will need to adapt to climate change. Where I live there are small changes in our weather pattern, but nothing major. A lot of the media is hype to sell newspapers. The only caution is that some past climate changes have been more radical, swinging wildly from hot to cold. Others have brought on instant and severe cold conditions. I know the area that I live used to be buried in hundreds on feet of ice, but temperatures are mild today… Humans will just need to wait and see what mother nature brings and adapt as necessary.


    Winter Blast Brings Snow To West LA, Malibu
    CHP To Escort Motorists Through Icy Grapevine
    POSTED: 9:43 am PST January 17, 2007

    Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
    January 17, 2007:

    Global warming ‘just a natural cycle’

    Imminent Global Cooling

    R.G Bromley (1979)and Kenneth J Hsu (1982) – Dramatic sea temperature changes in earlier extinctions
    Norman D Newell – Sea level plunge before extinctions
    Anthony Hallam University of Birmingham, UK

  • Avatar

    Cookie Monster Jan 22 2012 - 10:12 am

    The liberals are the only ones who have ever believed that, after it was proven false in the early 70’s

  • Avatar

    sonny_bargers_tracheotomy_tube Jan 22 2012 - 10:37 am

    The majority of world scientists. What do cons have? LIMBAUGH! LMFAO!

  • Avatar

    John Jan 22 2012 - 11:12 am

    No sane person believes man is destroying the Earth

    It’s called NATURAL cycles

  • Avatar

    Steven H Jan 22 2012 - 11:39 am

    Several millions of people do including the signataries of the Kyoto agreement.

  • Avatar
  • Avatar

    Garvin Studpucker III Jan 22 2012 - 12:18 pm

    I believe man has maybe sped up the process, but I believe it’s mostly down to earth changes. Natural stuff that has happened on a fairly regular basis for billions of years.

  • Avatar

    aid85 Jan 22 2012 - 12:49 pm


  • Avatar

    Taco . Jan 22 2012 - 12:56 pm

    I don’t

    I thiink it was the animals that polluted the planet

  • Avatar

    Super Ruper Jan 22 2012 - 1:21 pm

    Natural processes…absolutely. Man’s contribution…yep. It isn’t a case of one or the other…we just need to accept our role in speeding up the process and see what we can do to slow down, stop or reverse the damage we have done.

  • Avatar

    xorcaobsessedx Jan 22 2012 - 1:27 pm

    i did not read that article and i never will because i am not going to change the FACTS. do you even know what global warming IS?
    The earths outer layer is VERY thin and we are THICKENING that layer with POLLUTION. Then, when the sun rays come in to heat the earth for a bit, they can not come back out because the layer is too thick. The sun beams then are trapped inside earth and keep collecting there. SO IT IS CAUSED BY HUMANS I REALLY DON’T THINK THERE IS ANY ARGUING THAT. watch Al Gore’s an Inconvenient Truth, jerk.

  • Avatar

    Barry L Jan 22 2012 - 1:51 pm

    There is plenty of evidence to support both sides of this arguement. Global warming was never CAUSED by mankind, but it appears to have been enhanced by our activities.


    Here are a few web pages that look at this arguement…

    It has been around a while.

Comments are closed.