Financial support for church of global warming

Paul Driessen:

The ink has barely dried on its new ethics policies, and already Congress is redefining ethics and pork to fit its global warming agenda.
We need to take a deep breath. Acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol and proposed "climate protection" laws will not stabilize the climate, even if CO2 is to blame. And recognize that there are reasons more people now support climate "consensus" -- other than concern over climate disasters created by deficient computer models and Hollywood special effects.
In accusing ExxonMobil of giving "more than $19 million since the late 1990s" to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust "denial," Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered both the donor and recipients. Moreover, this is less than half of what Pew Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on Climate Change alone over the same period.
It's a pittance compared to what U.S. environmental groups spent propagating climate chaos scares. It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 the United States, European Union and United Nations spent since 1993 (some $80 billion in all) on global warming catastrophe research. And it ignores the fact Exxon's grants also supported malaria control, Third World economic development and other efforts.
A deeper look into the murky waters of climate politics is clearly warranted:
* Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting research grants from foundations, corporations -- and U.S. government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. They also increase the likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories: "Climate change threatens extinction of rare frogs, scientist says." Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants, headlines, quotes and job security.
* Politicians can curry favor with activists who support re-election campaigns and higher aspirations; transform $14 billion in alternative energy pork into ethical planetary protection; and promote policies that otherwise would raise eyebrows.
Corporate actions that cause injury or death are penalized; but praise is heaped on mileage standards that cause hundreds of deaths, when cars are downsized and plasticized to reduce fuel and emissions. High energy prices are denounced at congressional hearings if due to market forces -- but lauded if imposed by government to "prevent climate change."
...

In my post on global warming yesterday excerpting a column by Congressman John Linder, I got several comments, not one of which challenged the science in Linder's piece Most seem to propound some religious reason for either belief in global warming or for accepting the control freak agenda of the watermelon environmental movement.

The church of global warming is very different from Christianity. Even Christians who believe they have found the only sure way to heaven still don't make those who disagree with them join and put money in the contribution plate. No, the church of global warming is more like radical Islam where infidels and apostates must be attacked and subjugated. All the dhimmis must also be made to contribute too.

Alan Caruba discusses how the media has lost its skepticism on the issue of global warming.