The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Well, is it? I do not mean this as a rhetorical question.

Has not reducing CO2 emissions a long history as a solution in search of a problem, having been held up in the 1970s as the answer to global cooling? Does it not conveniently involve destroying where they still exist, and not restoring where they have already been destroyed, the high-skill, high-wage, high-status jobs of the working class? (And is it not striking that its proponents are also opposed to such jobs in the form of nuclear power, an obvious solution to global warming caused by fossil fuel use?)

Does it not conveniently arrest the economic development of the poorer parts of the world, even presuming to tell Africans and others that they might not do as Europeans once did and use their natural resources to end thousands of years of cancer for their women and asphyxiation for the children as a result of cooking over indoor fires? Does it not conveniently seek to prevent people of modest means from travelling? And are not its proponents immensely privileged figures such as Al Gore, Zac Goldsmith and George Monbiot?

Well? I'd really like someone to answer this.