A topic for discussion

What is really behind global warming alarmism? It can't be genuine belief in catastrophic human-caused global warming. If it were the chief global warming alarmists would not drive SUVs and fly around on private jets. They would be doing a great deal more than prattling on about energy saving light bulbs. After all we are told that if we don't do something RIGHT NOW that within the next 10 years, or 30 years (or whatever, they keep pushing the time back) that human live will become extinct.

If you were Nancy Pelosi and you truly believed that the world might end within the lifetime of your grandchildren you would be, at minimum, using every ounce of power you possess as Speaker of the House, to DEMAND that the US switch over 100% of its electricity production to nuclear power, which does not produce one ounce of greenhouse gas. If you were an organization like Greenpeace which claims to be desperately worried about global warming you would be joining the Speaker in her quest to go nuclear.

If you truly believed that the world was in danger of becoming a wasteland within the lifetime of people currently alive would you be content to advocate for half and quarter measures which scientists admit will have only an insignificant impact on the problem. Would you advocate for a global warming reduction treaty which exempts the planet's worst polluters?

The actual deeds (not the words, words mean nothing) of the vast majority of the global warming Chicken Littles demonstrate only the most minimal degree of concern. So here is the question. Since they really don't believe in global warming as a problem which poses any major threat (remember their deeds are the ONLY thing that count and their deeds indicate a near total lack of concern) what are their true motives for their alarmism?

I'll post my thoughts on this over the weekend, but I would like to hear your theories about this.