Monday, December 14, 2009

Who Stands to Profit from Global Warming Hysteria?

The Daily Telegraph's James Delingpole's has blogged almost non-stop since Climategate broke nearly three weeks ago. It is safe to say he is definitely off the Christmas card list of Michael Mann and Phil Jones; in fact, he is probably up for a "Denier of the Year Award" somewhere or other.

But I don't care if he believes climate change is caused by little green men. His expose on who is promoting the AGW agenda and stands to cash in big time is extremely illuminating. If the allegations in this article prove to be true, it is all over but the crying for the AGW Alarmists, in my opinion.
"After the Climategate scandal erupted, few were quicker to dismiss the significance of the leaked emails than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
OK, so who is this Dr. Rajendra Pachuri? What follows is a long and detailed list of Dr. Pachauri's corporate connections and his centrality in the world of AGW activism. Turns out that Dr. Pachauri's financial interest in downplaying "Climategate" runs into the millions of pounds. And so . . . who better to investigate the whole thing and re-assure an increasingly skeptical public?

Read it all here before you comment. I'd be glad to hear your perspective.

1 comment:

Peter Dunn said...

I find that those on the left are very provincial in their beliefs. They accuse others of doing what they themselves do. For example, they accused the Tea Party movement to be one of "astroturfing", yet it is Obama's Axelrod who is the professional astroturfer. They can't even imagine that the Tea Party movement could be a real grass roots movement. Likewise, it's become clear that everyone from Al Gore on down is profiting from the paranoia that they themselves have created. But for 10 years now, I've suffered abuse from activists and other "believers" who say that the experts I cite are on the payroll of the oil companies. This has been their mantra, even by Josh on your blog. It is a knee-jerk, unscientific and anti-intellectual manner of argumentation. It is ad hominem because it offered in the place of real arguments; but as your post shows, it backfires on them.

Al (Forest) Gore himself is incapable of debating a true scientist like Lord Monkton and has refused offers to debate 100% of the time. He's not even able to take question from journalists. Consider his pathetic response to this fair question:

This is shameful. This is the way you promote a movement based on science? By choosing choosing an idiot, who failed two master's programs (divinity and law) and then followed his father's footsteps into politics--by choosing a snake oil salesman--to be your leading voice and spokesman. I wonder how history will judge these people? I don't think kindly.