If global warming is a hoax, who benefits by perpetuating it?

Question

I don't pretend to know whether it's real or not, but I hope it is a hoax. This is an issue that I would be squarely on the fence about if it weren't for one problem:
Who benefits by perpetuating a myth of global warming? It's clear who benefits from disproving it, but what would anybody have to gain from making the world believe it is occurring? It's commonly referred to as an "agenda," but what exactly is the agenda?

And in an effort to dispel any anger, here is a friendly joke:
Two muffins are baking in an oven at 350 degrees. One of them looks at the other and says "Whew! It sure is hot in here!"
And the other one goes "Oh my God! A talking muffin!"

I should clarify -- who benefits, and what is the benefit?

Scamming the world for the sake of research grants? That's the benefit? Luxury homes paid for by research grants... that doesn't sound right to me.
Why not ask for research grants for something more tangible like hurricanes? Everyone believes in hurricanes, except maybe solipsists and nihilists.

Answer 1

Good question. Maybe the "green" companies, who would be able to justify a higher priced product because it created less pollution?

I hardly think that they are a big, and well financed lobby group though, are they?

Added - There is an ex NASA scientist who has taken issue with the planned moon station because he says that there is no purpose for it, other than giving work to certain corporations which contribute heavily to both parties. He wanted to use the same funds to study a way to use space technology to better predict and control hurricanes. He (and his program) were cut BECAUSE the program would not need to acquire large pieces of billion dollar equipment like the moon program would.

The problem doesn't seem to be whether or not there is global warming. It seems to be that there is no immediately evident way to make money off of global warming for the companies who contribute to campaign elections.

Answer 2

Any environmental group.

I think the earth is warming, but since the earth has warmed and cooled without our intervention in the past, I don't buy into the fact that "evil" mankind is to blame. Do we have an impact? Of course. And I certainly believe we have an obligation to keep the planet clean. But I won't be buying a hybrid anytime soon, either.

The Great Lakes were formed by glaciers - who's fault was it that those melted?

Even though l feel like it's warmer and drier here, Alaska's mean temperature for 2006 was actually DOWN.

I find it both amusing (it's laugh or cry) and amazing that such a big deal was made out of the 1600 scientists who signed a letter warning us about the "devastating consequences" of global warming, but you sure as hell didn't hear much about the SEVENTEEN THOUSAND scientists who signed a petition stating there is no convincing evidence that greenhouse gases will disrupt the earth's climate. Funny how that works, isn't it?

LOL And the muffin joke made me giggle. I like silly jokes.

Answer 3

I just read an article on BBC that said that we are currently in a stagnant state of warming, contrary to what was projected - and they don't know why. It could be due to the fact that the earth is in a part of its rotation cycle that orbits slightly further away from the sun - I like to thing that will balance the 'warming' situation. there is no question that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are filling are atmosphere at a concerning rate. tied with deforestation, developing world industrialization etc. I would say humans are not doing any favours for mother earth, but mother earth doesn't care about humans.

Answer 4

whether its a hoax or not we all benefit from it. we cut down on fuel, electricity, non-recyled products, etc. anything that contributes to a cleaner environment is to our advantage. so whether it really exists or not at least we r making a better change in our environment, now that's not too bad is it?
Scientists and government we find ways to get money in one way or another, but if the money will go to something that we benefit from like clean and healthy envronment, then why not?
better than spending billions on sending soldiers to Iraq or Afghnistan to for the benefit of individuals which dont include us.
sending NASA people to space, half the world dont even have any idea what they really do up there and how useful it is to us apart from the basic satellites
the money spent on weapons of mass destruction, i mean come on, how can we allow nuclear weapons to be made if we r not gonna use it.
So if u compare where the money goes, i think global warming is the most reasonable that we have encountered so far apart from researches for different diseases.

Answer 5

Good question: environmental groups can profit by raising funds from like minded contributors. Also, industries that compete with polluting industries like oil and coal can profit by like minded individuals purchasing their services instead of oil and coal, etc...

If people believe in global warming, it might make them more likely to buy a hybrid, the hybrid manufacturers profit. Many technologies now embrace calling their product or service "green" to show it's good for the environment; not all of them are and they are using this as a selling point to target global warming enthusiasts.

btw: it's not entirely a hoax, any sane person will know that global temperature has risen, what's disputed is by how much it's risen and what man's role plays in it.

Answer 6

haha arcticchick if you are refering to the petition project, it is a hoax. The signers are not climatogists many are MDs. They say they have a peer reviewed paper but do not say what publication reviewed it. They did make it look like like a National Science Foundation publication but the NFS denies ever publishing it. They claim that their signers have been verified by an independent source, yet they are unwilling to name this independent organization. The whole thing is a scam.

Answer 7

If global warming were a hoax, you would need almost every climate science expert to be in on it (because they're the ones collecting and analyzing the data and concluding that global warming is primarily caused by humans and will have very bad consequences if we don't do something about it soon).

So then global warming deniers think 'okay, what could scientists have to gain by creating this hoax?'. Actually many will just say "It's all Al Gore!" or "Global warming alarmists!" because they don't even bother to think about who discovered that global warming was occuring and what was causing it in the first place (hint - it wasn't Al Gore!).

So if they get to that point, they think "well, the scientists want to get rich!". But if they know anything about how science works, they know that scientists don't get rich (unless they invent something good and patent it, and manage to keep the rights away from the university or company they're working for, which they usually don't).

So then they think "well, they wouldn't be getting funding if it weren't for global warming, so they're just inventing this hoax to save their jobs!". Except that climate scientists had jobs and funding before this supposed "global warming hoax" began, so that's not really true either. Even if global warming weren't a problem, they'd still get funding to study global climate. It wouldn't be as easy to get the funding, but they would manage like they have since the start of climate science.

And the final point is that it's impossible for it to be a hoax, because that's not how science works. If a scientist is found to be falsifying data, his reputation is ruined and his career is over. Science is all about gathering and analyzing data in an unbiased manner.

I'm with you - I wish global warming were a hoax. Unfortunately that's simply wishful thinking, and not the case.

Answer 8

Anyone selling "carbon credits" which are absolutely a scam.

Any energy company foolishly spending their profits on wind farms and solar collectors.

Any company that would receive carbon emissions credits from the government under the "cap-and-trade" systems.

Business basically. And the poor would suffer. But it wouldn't be directly attributable so we could just blame it on the the "rich not paying enough taxes."

Answer 9

You need to look at the groups who are making money by promoting an agenda of "global warming".

Notice that such groups don't try to stay on China's back about its pollution problem. They don't because they know that China doesn't listen to them...and they don't *dare* go and try to protest or raise awareness in the county--they might "disappear".

Answer 10

One conservative commentator quite seriously said that the Weather Channel is getting rich off of global warming. So there you go.