Bruno at The Simplest Thing has links to a good article on global warming at Capitalism Magazine. Here is one quote:
**The money is in global warming because it’s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. Power in Washington. Power on the international stage. Power over economic development. Power over international monetary decisions. Power over energy. In short, power over the motor of the world. It’s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media.**
The author Tom Deweese, is right about the ignorant and pliable media. But some scientists contribute to the misinformation also. Today, establishment scientists use the field of statistics to conduct "studies." As readers of this site know, statistics is a science that studies probabilities. It cannot prove cause and effect because it is not designed to. The best statistics can do is narrow down a causal factor to one or two possibilities. At that point science steps in to perform an experiment to prove or disprove causation.
A statistical study will usually show that there is a correlation between A and B.
A correlation means only that B happened on or about the same time as A. It does not mean that A is connected to B. It could be that both A and B were caused by C. Or there is no connection and A and B happening together was just a coincidence.
The misleading of the public happens when scientists and reporters decide not to use the correct terms 'correlation' or 'association' but instead use the word link. My dictionary says one of the meanings of link is "that which serves to connect or tie." When the word link is used, a lot of the public will think there is a connection between A and B even though no connection has been demonstrated, only suggested.
Gullable reporters then print articles with bold headlines shouting "A linked to B." Politicians will then wave said media articles around claiming we must save B from A. They promise to allocate more money to study the link between A and B. Scientists begin lining up to fill out grant applications to further study A and B. Some will want to study the effects of global warming on A. Others will want to study the effects of sprawl on B and on and on forever. The only losers in this con game are the taxpayers who have to keep paying and paying no matter what. And in six weeks or months there will appear on page 6A of that same paper a small article saying "A not linked to B new study shows."
By then, not too many people will notice. The hype will have died down. The original article will have served its purpose, a means to many ends. The scientists will have your money. The politicians will be re-elected for trying to save B. The reporters will have had another good day at the office, and you, you will be presented with a new set of "crises" that demand more sacrifices.
This process won't stop until the taxpayers realize that wherever sacrifices are being demanded, someone is collecting them; that when they regret not being able to send their children to a good college or care for their aging parents properly, or buy that bigger house in a better neighborhood, somewhere there is a scientist or politician who says "thank you very much."
When the taxpayers realize that they are being had by incompetent scientists, irresponsible politicians and reporters, maybe the jig will be up. Maybe.