How is it that global warming alarmists supposedly make billions of dollars?

Actually, it is easy to see some evidence of profits that are being made as a result of global warming claims.

Farmers (and others) are getting fat on overpriced corn used to make ethanol. Then there are the hundreds of ethanol producers. And the freight lines that haul corn and ethanol. Oh, and the tax handouts.

All of this when we could cut fuel consumption more by making autos even slightly more efficient.

Sorry, I think ethanol is a boondoggle, but my opinion is based on science.

Even investment newsletters are now advising people to invest in "green" companies even though they (the newsletter writers) think most of the businesses are of dubious value long-term. But the flow of money -- due to government handouts and mass hysteria of people -- is an undeniable fact. They consider it to be good economic sense to grab while they can and get out before it collapses.

I wouldn't even count the harm done such as taxes and carbon credits. I think most refer to the scientific studies that are sponsored by the federal government. Climate research was something like 180 million 5 years ago. Now it is something like 1.5 billion (I forget the actual number). That increase is what politicians have decided to spend. Those that produce a product that politicians like will be asked to produce more product. Those that conclude that there is no problem obviously don't need money for further research. There is an inherent tendency to predict gloom and doom so that further research is called for. It is a case where the money pushes the results of the study. That is what it is referring to. Global warming alarmism is a belief system and political movement that is not going to be persuaded by facts. It is their mission to cover up inconvenient facts and they have been remarkably successful thanks to the gullible willing accomplices.

It's a popular myth. I'm involved in the study of climate and global warming. My colleagues and I would make more money switching to pharmacuticals, petrochemicals, medicine etc; these are some of the industries where a lot of money is available for research and study programmes.

There's also a lack of understanding about the carbon trading system, people think that these are sold by companies in the same way that tickets are sold and that people profit from them. Companies are given an allocation in respect of carbon emissions, if they fall below the allocation they can sell their surplus to companies that have failed to meet their targets - for each loser there's a winner. In between there may be a broker taking a commission (it's not obligatory) and as anyone can become a broker anyone can benefit.

The companies that are doing best from climate change are those that have developed new technologies which are in demand. Car manufacturers such as Toyota, Nissan and Honda have improved vehicle efficiency, cut emmissions and 'gone green', consequently sales are booming whilst manufacturers who have not 'gone green' such as Ford and GM are seeing sales rapidly declining.

yep, plus al gore gets from 100K to 500K to speak and he is not the only one out on the tour. Also, his movie generated quite a bit of revenue for the film industry. What about all of the research scientists who are being paid to hold conferences and work on this, all over the world? What about all of the government funding, from almost every major industrial nation to support such research? How about the advertisers who are on the major networks and advertise during documentaries about global warming? How about all of the new "green" companies that are flooding the market?

How about companies that grow, produce and distribute corn based ethanol and additives to cut down on polution? Look some of them up. Look up this symbol on yahoo finance. LYO. They make ethanol and additives, such as MTBE, which was found to be a major pollutant when added to fuel.

so..follow the money.

the world was much more polluted in the '70's and they were saying that due to "carbon dioxide' the world was going into an ice age, since the sun could not penetrate the smog. Now..they are saying that it can penetrate it, but it traps heat. So, which is it?

It mostly has to do with keeping the public in a state of frenzy. You worry about a large problem that is not even a problem while your rights and life are taken away piecemeal.

Al Gore needs to change his title to: "An awfully-financially-convenient for me exaggerated hypothesis". It may not be so catchy, but it's more honest.

Don't worry about global warming. People always make money off of creating mass hysteria, look at 9/11 and the stock market.

Here are the facts.

Scientists agree that we are in between ice ages.

Scientists agree that the world has been in existance for about 5 billion years.

We have been keeping track of temperatures for less than 100 years.

Therefore, scientists have observed and graphed less than 0.000002% of thermal changes on this planet.

Since Ice Ages recur regularly, it only makes sense that there is a natural warming and cooling process, and that global warming is just the earth on its way to the midpoint between Ice Ages.

The human population has been increasing exponentially since we have existed.

Humans produce CO2, which supposedly causes global warming.

With millions more humans heating up the Earth, why isn't that a main concern?

Wouldn't killing a few billion of our own species slow the supposed process down? After all, we are the only species in the history of Earth to openly defy evolution and force those lesser people who would have easily died 500 years ago because of stupidity or weakness or some other fatal thing to survive and reproduce. And in the process, we force viruses and bacteria to evolve at an accelerated rate.

People say that if the Polar Ice caps melt, the world will be flooded.

Scientists agree that they have no idea how much of Antartica is actually ice.

Scientists agree that water expands when frozen.

Scientists agree that the vast majority of ice is already under the water.

Is it possible, then, that the sea level may go down if all of the ice were gone?

People also point to Hurricane Katrina as evidence of global warming.

Does it seem like a bad idea to you to build a city below sea level on the coast?

What about tearing out trees, the only things holding the dirt in place, to build buildings- again, below sea level on the coast.

People (meaning Al Gore, I was excited when he lost the election, I thought I'd never have to hear him open his mouth again... I was wrong, stupid people have a way of showing up in the media after their time should be over. Al Gore, Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, Sanjaya, and William Hung are just a few examples) will always make money from scaring people as long as they are too stupid to look at the facts and reach their own conclusions.

Don't get me wrong, we should start taking better care of the planet, but do it because you like living here and you want your children do live here, too, not because some liberal "scientist" says the end is near, at that point it'll be too late. That's like your parents having to tell you the house will blow up if you don't walk the dog. You should want to walk the dog so it doesn't get ugly and fat, not because of some made-up threat.

Take for example New Zealand, they bought over 300 million dollars worth of carbon credits last year alone, this year they predict that they will have to spend about 625 million to balance their carbon emissions. That's about a billion dollars in 2 years by a small country. I don't know how much larger countries have to pay but I assume its much more.

This source says the cost will be even higher, a total of 1.23 billion dollars for carbon credits.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id...

Also alternative energy companies are making large amounts of money in research grants to look at expanding and refining alternative energy sources. For example solid energy, an alternative energy company has recieved 100 million dollars so for for research.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0702/S00047.htm

It is a billion-dollar industry, now. They mean look at Gore or others because they are rich. They didn't get rich off global warming fears. They were already rich. I met Gore in 1968 and he was becoming worried about it then. The "billion-dollar industry" is all the people and industries suddenly shouting "Look at me! I am "green" now." and suddenly pushing goods and services they had, but kept off the market for decades. michael

Governments are the only organizations that stand to profit from global warming (via carbon taxes, energy taxes, and the like).

The rest of us will have to wait and see. There are going to be winners and losers as we move into the future. Forawrd looking entrepeneurs will begin forming companies that provide green friendly products, they will likely thrive and profit handsomely. Other companies will ignore and and be punished via loss of revenues due to shifting consumer behavior.

Thus it has been, thus it will always be.

Not even global warming can negate the laws of supply and demand.

Somebody's claiming that global warming is a "billion-dollar industry"? Geez, the bullshit never ends from global warming "skeptics", does it?

The worst I've heard is that the global warming concensus among experts is a conspiracy so they can continue to get research funding to study it. With that suggestion they're not making big bucks, but ensuring their next paychecks are safe.

Suggestions like this and the one you mention are not only patently stupid, but extremely offensive. We're talking about scientists here, whose job is to study the world in an unbiased manner and report their findings to educate people about how their world works. They don't become scientists to make big bucks, they do it out of a curiosity to learn about the world.

As with any group of people, there are certainly going to be corrupt scientists. For example, those who take funding from the oil industry to make claims that global warming isn't caused by humans. However, to suggest that over 90% of climate scientists are so corrupt that they came to an agreement to falsify data to perpertrate a scam on the entire human race is completely stupid and offensive to all scientists. Anyone who makes such claims is ignorant, paranoid, and probably a scam artist, since people always accuse others of what they themselves would do in the same situation.

Senators in their valiant crusade against global warming will build all kinds of ''green'' projects (with our money) which will all of course go way over budget. They will also give grants (our money) to corporations to assist them in making their factories environmentally friendly. Most of these companies will be owned or will give board positions to these same senators (and their buddies). Of course none of these actions will reduce pollution in fact we will find out years (and billions of our dollars) later that they actually caused more pollution. We won't find out about this without multi-million dollar studies (which as you may have guessed, will be payed for with our money). Don't you know how ''pork barrel politics'' works?