Who benefits from global warming skepticism?

Question

The scientific case for anthropogenic global warming is now well-established, as is the possibility of great danger to the entire Earth and the future of humankind. As a scientist, I consider this series of articles in New Scientist magazine to be a fair treatment:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Despite the clear warning issued by the vast majority of climate scientists, there continue to be many skeptical voices on these pages. Clearly, the skeptical voices tap into many well-established conservative ideas: distrust of government, of collective international action, and of science. Yet the persistance, and illogical viciousness of the arguments seems out of proportion. I wonder, therefore, if there is some driving motivation. Cui bono? I suggest it is those who would most be harmed by the solution to global warming: the petrol states of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and Nigeria, with the complicity of the American petroleum industry.

P.S. I absolutely support nuclear power as the only technology that, at present, can replace most large fossil-fuel power plants. These should be engineered in a standard way, with emphasis on safety and secure waste disposal. This can be done.

GABY: an odd bit of Swift-boating there. Doubt I'm a scientist? Ha. Check out my hundreds of answers. I would certainly not consider all conservatives "anti-science", and in fact I consider myself an economic conservative, although I've been rather alienated from the Republican party since the Nixon administration. One subtile form of anti-science is the simple failure to follow scientific methodology while making essentially scientific arguments, in other words, to argue a scientific case like a lawyer, rather than a scientist.

Also, I might add, my salary is in no way connected with the government or with the energy industry: I am paid by a non-profit educational institution to do research in (among other things) planetary atmospheres.

Answer 1

Well stated. Here's a couple of things to think about.

>If we shift away from reliance on fossil fuels, this stands to impact three industries (all near and dear to the neoconservative heart): coil, natural gas, and especcially oil. If you remember, the Royal Society recently published the results of an investigation that showed, among other things, that Exxon/Mobile alone had spent $39 million in a single year to produce and dissinate propaganda "doubting" global warming. Further, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the Bush administration (whose ties to the oil industry are well known) actively censored scientific reports on the topic.

The motive is obvious. Over the next 25 years , given the range of new technologies that are or soon will be available, reducing our oil consumption by half or more is not unrealistic--and the same for other fossil fuels. With further reductions likely beyond that. That makes fossil fuels a dying industry--at least as a major economic player. And--as new industries and technologies take hold, they will replace that--leading to enhanced economic growth, further reducing the importance of the fossil fuel industry. Giventhe kinds of profits these companies make--the stakes are incredibly high.

The "skeptics" (to the extent they are not funded by thespecial interests directly) are simply gullible people who have been taken in by sophisticated propaganda. This is particularly true on the religious right. Here, anything they label as "liberal (which includes any environmental issue) is automatically suspect--and thus the people in this social grouping are ready marks for such propaganda. Nor is that an accident. You may not be aware of this, but at least one "evangelist"-in fact the leading one--Pat Robertson--is heavily investend in oil and has close ties to that industry. He and others have turned "denying" global warming/climate change caused by human activity into virtually an article of religious faith for some people.

Answer 2

I asked a similar question a little earlier and got some interesting answers. I approached it from a somewhat different angle, but the responses might still be of interest to you. See the link below.

Personally, I think the main benefit of skepticism is to maintain the status quo and keep the oil companies raking in huge profits. I think that's pretty obvious, which is why I asked what the benefit could be to being on the other side.

Answer 3

Could it be that some of us are just waiting for the science to actually support the assertions made by so many people regarding the dangers and costs of global warming?

Thus far, only 2 of the 9 forcings used by the IPCC surpass the level of low scientific knowledge. GHG's and atmospheric aerosols are the best understood forcing elements. The other 7 are ranked low in scientific understanding. I know people don't like this, but it is very important. Not having a high level of scientific understanding means the current estimates of AGW portion of GW could be high or low compared to reality. To me, this argues for more study, not rash policy decisions by non- scientists.


But, if it makes everyone feel better, go right ahead believing that those of skeptical or calling for caution in policy matters are on the take. Whatever floats your boat.

Answer 4

We all do. "Chicken Little" environmentalism will wreak havoc on our economies, and much worse on the economies of the third world.

And while the "case" is well established, it's not a particularly strong case. It lacks any solid evidence or proven supporting science.

Answer 5

Individuals benefit in the short-term from not having to change their lifestyles.

The biggest benefactor is of course the oil industry, as you've pointed out. And politicians in the pocket of the oil industry.

Not a whole lot of other benefactors. Residents of Siberia, I suppose.

Answer 6

Greedy, money hungry corporations who want to make a profit and suck the energy of its blood just to make money. they would kill us all to put a coin in their coffer.

Answer 7

the same people who say green energy will wreck the economy.....the fossil fuel industries, and their investors.

Answer 8

none of us will benefit in the long run. but of course world has become us and them. hey, we already pay for clean water. the only thing left to privatize is clean air. i bet it happens in 10 years. so either yell real loud right now or learn to hold your breath.

Answer 9

Everyone that likes low gas prices, food prices, electricity prices......

Of course if you believe that it is "the greatest danger to the entire Earth" then I suppose you support nuclear power which has NO greenhouse emissions?

Answer 10

I stopped reading your question at "and Science". It shows me that you are not a scientist. You are a pundit with a liberal bias. How dare you group / label all conservatives as "Anti Science", you arrogant ***.