If I get you correctly, you are saying that most people who blame climate change on humanity do so because they can make money for themselves by spreading this idea to others. Well, you may be right there. But I also get the impression that you are saying that those who reject the idea of humanity's responsibility for global warming do so from a mostly rational, objective and altruistic point of view, not because they are motivated by economic self-interest or greed.
Terry can speak for himself, but I'd add... yeah, of course, those motives are in the mix. We're talking about human beings here; not very many of us are as pure as the wind-driven snow. I think we're talking about degrees of dependency here, if that's the right word.
Scientist A has a job where he researches global warming, makes predictions, speaks at conferences (in Bali!), etc.
If he sees trends in his research that contradict global warming theories, he has a choice: speak up and possibly lose his job, or just kind of abandon that line of research in favor of other areas. Scientists are human; most of us would have a hard time giving up lucrative careers for a matter of principle, especially if the data are unclear. Some are more cynical, I'm sure -- if there's a good scam in progress, why not cash in on it? Anyway, there are people who get paid to tell other people about global warming.
Then there are those of us who aren't getting compensated by any anti-global warming groups, but who don't want to spend twice as much as we currently do on groceries, considering that there's still reasonable doubt on the science.
Both economic self-interest. Are they really equivalent?
PJ
