Climate Change Hysteria: Who Benefits?

Easy: Liberal-dominated governments who want to redistribute private-sector cash to themselves and their cronies (while impoverishing their subjects), and greedy scientists who sell their soul and diminish their profession for a few pieces of silver. They will prosper from climate change, while the masses, ironically, will shiver and freeze...

Sound like something out of the rough birth of Western Civilization?  It's is, in fact,a regression from our Renessiance and Enlightenment, complete with witch hunts.  But first, the WSJ  reiterates what we know:  High-tech global warming scare tactics are extremely profitable to those in the game:

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet...

Much like the Church, Kings and Feudal Lords made out pretty well in the Dark Ages.

So who loses? Anyone else who dares to want to live a life made more comfortable by progress:

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

And the witch hunts:

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position....


I would love for someone to read this to Mitt Romney, and ask him where he stands on this perversion of our intellectual evolution.  And ask Newt if he still sits with Nancy...