Royal Society of Chemistry Fellow Dr. Leslie Woodcock observes that Green lobbies use unwarranted climate alarm to support a very costly do-good industry. He recently told Britain’s Yorkshire Evening Post, “If you talk to real scientists who have no political interests, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.”

cashYes, lots of money. Those many billions fund the growth of government regulatory agencies that depend upon public fear; university departments that bend objectivity to secure research grants; activist environmental groups that rely upon crisis-premised donations to support lobbying and media programs; anti-fossil — alternative energy — lobbies seeking special subsidies; and a wide host of politicians, prophets and profiteers who cash in on save the world hype, to fill campaign coffers and personal bank accounts. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Al Gore immediately comes to mind as an example. 

Consider that it was only about a dozen years after three decades of global cooling when some prominent scientists were predicting an arrival of the next Ice Age.  It was then that then Senator Gore convened his famous 1988 Senate Committee on Science, Technology, and Space hearings which produced a man-made global warming crisis media frenzy.

As his colleague Sen. Timothy Wirth who helped organize the meetings later stated in a PBS interview, “We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer . . . so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it . . . we went in the night before and opened all the windows so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room.”

By 2004 the very same Al Gore began to amass a large fortune through holdings in companies which were going Green. By 2008 he was able to put together $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group — founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay. 

Climate crusader Gore was also poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets through his stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange if and when Congress passed cap and trade legislation he promoted. 

Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members, “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it . . . There will be unchained investment.” carboncredit

A 2010 Republican Housecleaning swept away those cap-and-trade legislation hopes.

Whereas an earlier presidential candidate Gore had run on a Green platform which included ethanol tax breaks, he subsequently admitted that maybe this wasn’t entirely about saving the planet after all. Speaking in 2010 at a Green energy business conference in Athens, Greece, he said, “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol.” 

He later explained to Reuters, “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa [the first-in-the-nation caucuses state] because I was about to run for President.”

Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever has referred to global warming ideology as a“pseudoscience” that begins with an emotionally-appealing hypothesis and “then only looks for items which appear to support it,” while ignoring ample contrary evidence. 

Tragically, that pseudoscience does the greatest injustice to those who can least afford it. These penalties come in forms of Green energy subsidies, domestic fossil development impediments, and runaway EPA regulatory policies that drive up fuel and electricity costs, food prices, federal debt, and monetary inflation. 

And why are these scams so successful? 

Leslie Woodcock explains that “you can’t blame people with no science education for wanting to be seen to be good citizens who care about their grandchildren’s future and the environment.”

Climate science industrialists and ecology elitist zealots arguing that fossil-fueled economic growth is the enemy of the environment miss a vital point. They overlook the fact that that such progress yields technological innovation and prosperity essential to support more resourceful, cleaner and healthier lifestyles. 

Meanwhile, as global mean temperatures have remained flat now for 18 years despite increased atmospheric CO2 levels, the UN’s IPCC and U.S. EPA continue to pitch this tiny trace greenhouse as a climate-ravaging menace. Ignoring enormous benefits this essential plant food affords, and with cap-and-trade legislation now out of question, the Green lobby’s latest strategy is to tax it. 

zackSo here’s an alternate idea. Rather than further penalizing households and businesses with a pointless and painful carbon tax, why not do just the opposite? 

Let’s impose an anti-carbon tax on profiteering prophets of the climate alarm industry that gives them something to really worry about. 




This article first appeared at;



  • Larry Bell

    CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."