Why has global warming become such a huge problem, or rather a reported problem? One natural conclusion is that those promoting it have a great deal to gain from it – namely their employment. That doesn‘t explain the news media support, the support of business, of governments and bankers. Could it possibly be money?
Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing ―green cars‖. General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs to force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs. (General Electric has just closed a plant in West Virginia that was producing incandescent bulbs and laid off 200 people for they will be getting the fluorescent light bulbs to replace them from China). Farmers and ethanol manufactures have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product (since they could not sell it ), as well as massive subsidies.
Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars to deal with all aspects of global warming.
An article in Human Events dated August 10, 2009 entitled, How the US Government Subsidizes Global Warming Industry contains the following:
By the end of 2009, U.S. tax payers will have subsidized the American global-warming industry to the tune of $79 billion – with trillions more to come. Climate Money, published last month by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), is the first study to compile the cost to U.S. taxpayers of national climate-related policies taken from figures in the government‘s own documents . Author Joanne Nova points to a ―well- funded, highly organized climate monopoly‖ that, she says, is wasting billions of dollars through the lack of any proper science ―audit‖.
Most scathing is the accusation that massive public expenditure has ―created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests‖
drawn by the prospect of lucrative profits soon to be garnered from carbon trading (CCX is examined later).
Climate Money says the U. S . Government has ―poured in $32 billion for climate research – and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies‖ over the last 20 years. Yet, ― after spending $30 billion on pure science research, no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate. The report makes the telling point that a burgeoning industry employing thousands and receiving billions in free government handouts simply has no ―real incentive to ‗announce‘ the discovery of carbon‘s role ―.
Nova also perceives a ―ratchet effect‖ whereby pro-AGW (anthropogenic – man made – global warming ) theory is ―reported, repeated, trumpeted and asserted‖ while anti AGW findings, often the work of unfunded, retired scientists , lie unstudied, ignored and delayed‖. Unfunded volunteers exposed how 89% of the temperature sensors at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) were being collated from sites polluted by being too near heating and air-conditioning outlets and car parks and other artificial sources of heat.
The World Bank reports that carbon trading has doubled from $63 billion in 2007 to $126 billion in 2008 primarily in Europe. Bart Chilton of the commodity Futures Trading Commission predicts carbon trading will become a $2 trillion market and the ―largest commodity market in the world‖
Which leads us to the other reason for them demonizing carbon dioxide.
In 2001 a new organization was founded in Chicago – The Chicago Climate Exchange (CXX). ( Notice that the CCX was formed in 2001- way before Cap and Trade was passed). In anticipation of a Cap and Trade program the exchange was founded to process the trading that would take place under the program. It was anticipated that trading volume would eventually reach trillions of dollars and with a 4% commission that would generate over $40 billion dollars to the owners. In 2009 the CXX declared their membership to represent 17% of Dow Industrials, 20% of US Utility sector and 10% of Fortune 100 companies. There are lots of groups and people that are ready to trade emissions and who would benefit from a Cap and Trade bill such as the Waxman-Markey bill.
We have the new report from Patrick Henningen (August 10,2010) .
13
―Plagued by a free fall in carbon emissions prices and the perennial failure of Washington to pass any binding Cap and Trade Bill, it seems that the Chicago Climate Exchange is on its last leg, announcing that it will be scaling back its operations.
―Chicago Climate Exchange or CCX, is North America‘s sole voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas trading and carbon ―offset‖
projects in North America and Brazil. Rueters reported on Aug 11th that Intercontinental Exchange Inc, the operating body who purchased the struggling CCX in May this year, will be scaling back major operations this month, a move that includes massive layoffs. This is likely due to the complete market free-fall of their only product… carbon emissions.
―Anthony Watts from the climate watchdog website Watts Up With That posts a graph from the CCX which shows carbon prices dropping like a stone, bottoming out this week at the embarrassingly low figure of 10 cents per tonne. Compare this to trading prices during its brief hey day in May and June 2008 where market highs reached $5.85 and $7.40 respectively, and you can say that most investors will be evaluating carbon as one of today‘s more worthless commodities.
―Unlike most real markets, the carbon market was created by banks and governments so that new investment opportunities could seamlessly dovetail with specific government policies. It‘s a fantasy casino based on a doctrine of pure science fiction. Certainly, gaming the system has always been at the top on the agenda of the new green eco-trader. Most people, investors included, might innocently ask the fundamental question, ―what‘s the point of having a CO2 commodities market?‖ The answer to that question should be obvious by now, and you can certainly look to the initial stakeholders in the various international climate trading bodies for a
‗Who‘s Who‘ list of individuals that have actively been pushing the global warming concept from its inception.
―Carbon trading is underpinned by an equally dodgy product called ‗carbon off-sets‖, most of which are taken on face value by the buyer. Not based on an actual ton of carbon emitted, rather governing agencies are issuing certificates for a fictional commodity of emissions not emitted. A rather wild concept. Worse than this however, it is near impossible to verify which of these thousands of so-called off-set projects in the developing world are actually legitimate. In the coming years, we will no doubt see or read a number exposes detailing the depths of this fantastic green scam.
―Get in early and then get out.
―The formula: create an investment vehicle, hype the new commodity, buy low, watch share prices rise, sell high. The result is money, lots of it. In some cases it‘s been about driving up the share prices of companies Gore‘s group has already invested in. The fact that the original shareholders of the CCX have already bailed out with their sale to Intercontinental Exchange Inc. for a modest $600 million earlier this year only reinforces the reality that its creators have already lost faith in their elaborate invention. Likewise, the self-styled leaders of the climate change crusade Maurice Strong and Al Gore have already cashed in carbon fortunes already, whilst other active politicians like US President Barrack Obama, and United Nations IPCC Chief Rajendra K. Pachauri (arguably the world‘s wealthiest retired railway engineer) are engaged in similar play with their own financial Interests in the Carbon Markets.
―Like all government rigged quasi-commercial schemes, the only real beneficiaries are the initial shareholders- a special inner circle who are naturally ahead of the curve knowing about legislation and policy before it comes into existence. They are sometimes called the great and the good, the in-crowd, or the smartest men in the room (again, see Enron). Of these, almost all have jumped ship out of the market while their preferred shares- or in the case of the larger energy and manufacturing monopolies, their gratis ―carbon allowances‖ given to them free by their governments- are still worth something. If you‘re on the inside, it‘s simple: get in early, make money and then get out‖.
So, global warming and carbon dioxide demonizing are schemes to enrich those who can influence and even control the news media and governments and the CCX and its demise are excellent examples of that‖.
U.S. companies and interest groups hired 2,430 lobbyists in 2008 - up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities – spent $ 51 million on lobbyists in just six months. The largest wind-turbine manufacturer , Vestas, sponsors CNN‘s Climate in Peril , and urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market.
S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia and President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project , said, ‖Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams.‖.
Conclusion
Weather Channel founder John Coleman said, ― global warming is the greatest scam in history‖
There are many who are making and have made lots of money from it, some in salaries, some in subsidies (manufacturing, farming and development) , some in university grants, some in publishing, some in trading and some in banking and many in government. It has taken the cooperation of many, many individuals, groups and organizations – so many in fact that it almost seems unbelievable.
That would require ―scientists‖ who would use incorrect measurements to prove the existence of global warming, and who would agree to a treaty on global warming, and who would alter reports from organizations that were investigating global warming, and who would attack those that were opposing their contentions. It would also require those ―scientists‖ to try to silence all those disagreeing 14
and even try to destroy any publication that might present the other side. If questioned those ―scientists‖ would need to appoint a friendly group to investigate them in order to clear them of malfeasance. It would necessitate ignoring those who objected and would require the news media to promote the global warming view and to deny the existence of opposition even when that opposition presented petitions and books showing the other view.
It would require hundreds of lobbyists representing ethanol manufacturers, algae producers, electric car manufacturers, windmill manufacturers, battery developers and solar panel producers to try to gain financing for their schemes. It would require stupid or corrupt politicians ( maybe insane?) to grant funds for that effort.
It would even require some ―scientists‖ to invent erroneous data like ―hockey sticks‖ and change known past history in order to further their agenda. It would require mistakes by NASA in identifying the temperature that existed at certain dates and then using that erroneous data to establish their incorrect position.
It appears that all of those requirements have been met.