Some global warmists seem to have goals other than "saving" the "planet," as suggested by this Reuters report:

"To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country. Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries--including fast-growing economies China and India--are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up."

If carbon is really destroying the planet, why in the world would it be desirable for developing countries to "catch up"? "Climate change" here appears a convenient pretext for reviving socialist ideas that have been economically discredited--although somehow we have a feeling Al Gore would somehow manage to stay rich even under a regime of class warmfare.