Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Climate Gate: Is "Big Oil" really behind the Global Warming deniers ?

Since the leaking of the e-mails/ corrupted code etc., and the resulting scandal known as Climategate, we have been hearing alot of claims from the man made global warming believers that 'big oil' was behind the leak.
Were they?
I am inclined to say, doubtful. But, will concede that is just my opinion.

I am more inclined to say the Big Oil stands firmly behind the man-made theory and the drive to massively increase energy prices. And profit from carbon credit trading/carbon capture.
It would really be a win/win situation for them.

Let's look first at Al Gore. The name and face of the man-made global warming movement. Interesting fellow. With ties to Occidental Oil. It seems Al Gore is Big Oil and Big Coal, perhaps he is big Nuclear Power also. Nuclear stands to benefit, as much as all other energy producers from the man-made Global Warming theories. What with massively increased energy prices across the board Nuclear Power may become highy profitable, however problematic it may be.

Al Gore claims the shares were sold in Occidental, but were they really?

Occidental shares are set to soar profit wise. Al Gore would be privy to much insider information through his many high level contacts, surely he would be aware of the money to be made?

Occidental: Well-positioned for oil's next vault to the stratosphere

I'm Reiterating my Buy rating for Occidental Petroleum , first recommended on April 27, 2009 at a price of $54.81. If you bought OXY in April, you're up an impressive 52%. Occidentalis well-positioned to capitalize on oil's likely upcoming surge to triple digits.


Interestingly, besides making money off of increased oil prices. Big Oil is set to get into the Carbon Capture and Sequestration business

Company/Alliance: BP: Hydrogen Energy and Edison Mission Group, with sponsors and participants Fluor, GE Energy, Occidental Petroleum, and West Basin Water District

Then as most know Al Gore is tied to the carbon credits selling market
Yup, Generation Investments Management.
So it does seem, Al Gore is well positioned for profit.

Then there is this: Global firms seek climate deal.

The group called for "immediate and deep" cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, as world leaders meet at the UN in New York for climate change talks.

The companies are members of the Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change.

They include Tesco, German insurer Allianz and oil giant Shell.

Shell, calling for a firm climate deal?
Not possible, Big Oil is behind the deniers!

And the Prince of Wales Group?

Corporate Leader: James Smith, Chairman, Shell U.K. Limited
Working Group Member: David Hone, Group Climate Change Advisor

Corporate Leader: Graeme Sweeney, Executive Vice President Shell International EU Renewables B.V Working Group Member: David Hone, Group Climate Change Adviser

Big Oil behind the deniers? It just doesn't appear that way at all.

BTW: If your reading this post, take the time to read about big oil and banksters profiteering for additional information.

47 comments:

  1. No, big oil is not behind deniers. Logic and a strong root in reality is behind the global warming "deniers". There has not been one shred of evidence that any climate change is not a natural and reoccurring pattern. Peolpe who claim that the sky is falling are nothing more than a bunch of loonies. I suppose the temperature changes throughout the rest of our solar system is also due to "EVIL" global warming too?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think it even matters. The easily verifiable fact is that nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, that any of the AGE supporters have ever said has ever been true ! Some of it has been "colorably" true, but not outright truth. Its been half truths and half truths are worse than lies.

    (1) Carbon Dioxide is NOT a major greenhouse gas. It is in fact insignificant and its affect is lost in the noise of the data

    (2) Carbon dioxide content does not cause global warming. The opposite is true.

    (3)Polar bears are not dying off.

    (4)Deniers are being funded by Big Oil.

    It just goes on and on and on.

    The only thing that is true is that the earth has been warming over the past 100 years or so, but this is statistical and needs to be understood. It is not a fact. If you don't know what a moving average is or what an interpolation is, you have no business considering this. Mans out put of C)2 has nothing to do with this. Most of the CO2 comes from Oceanic life.

    We must get away from the politics and focus on substantiative fact. X number of scientists say this and say that. It means nothing in fact.

    Who funds it means nothing, it only suggests. Here you have shown another lie put forth by the AGW supporters.

    Its the most ridiculous lie - that Big Oil has an earth destructive policy for short term profits. No one has a policy like this because everyone lives on the earth. Saying this is pure insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good points Doug:
    CO2 is not a major 'green house contributor. I believe that is acknowledged by the man made crowd.

    Also that more CO2 is made by volcanoes, etc. in other words nature then man could make.

    One thing I just can't get my head around is the whole carbon trading, how can you trade carbon.
    If the idea is to reduce carbon as a green house gas, how can you trade for profit, without eventually losing profitability.
    From what should be the inevitable decline in CO2?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Penny - as I think you know this has absolutely nothing to do with the environment.

    This is a massive 'money-making' machine (or money changing - whatever you like).

    Doesn't anyone find it odd that the push for these 'trading' schemes is the same time that the world's reserve currency aka the US$ is tanking?

    This thing is the biggest scam ever.

    I also think that the discrediting of the 'science' is a double edged sword.

    No one argues that it isn't warming, but what isn't settled is the mechanisms and drivers behind this. As Doug mentions, CO2 is not a 'driver' it lags - one can see this so easily in the geological/paleoclimatological reconstructions of past environments.

    As I've said before, the eco-movements have been hijacked and this is nothing but another elite ponzi scheme.

    Buff

    ReplyDelete
  5. More on the topic:

    There’s more to climate fraud than just tax hikes

    December 4, 2009

    http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/theres-more-to-climate-fraud-than-just-tax-hikes/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Buff:
    I hear yah, massive money changing scheme seems to sum it up right.
    Trickle up?
    From my further reading the whole carbon capture thing is an untested, unproven technology, never been done and what is it worth?
    Makes me think of the wasteful move to mass produce ethanol
    This does seem to be more subsidization of the same old industries, oil, coal and wall street.
    With no real intent to reduce dependance on fossil fuels.
    I'll be adding more to my latest tomorrow.

    Thanks Atheo, I will check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The oily echo machine behind "climategate"
    Tags: American Enterprise Institute, Center for a Constructive Tomorrow, Climate Gate, Climategate, Kevin Grandia, Media Research Center
    The most vocal organizations around the University of East Anglia hacked email story (aka. "climategate") have been involved in a decade-plus campaign to delay action on climate change.
    The goal of this campaign, which began around the time of the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations, was to assemble a group of like-minded "free-market" think tanks and pseudo-experts that would bring into question the scientific realities of climate change, create doubt with the public and politicians and effectively delay the introduction of clean energy policy in the United States.
    It's no coincidence that the groups pushing this story the hardest have a long history of taking money from oil and coal companies to attack the conclusions made by climate scientists.
    What I wouldn't do to have a few of these organizations private emails over the years!
    Here's a few of the groups I'm talking about and a very brief background on their previous activities, as well as funding sources:
    Center for a Constructive Tomorrow: owns and operate ClimateDepot.com, which has been a main clearinghouse for the right-wing climategate echo chamber. ClimateDepot.com is managed by Marc Morano, former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe. CFACT has received grants from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and well-known right-wing foundations like the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
    American Enterprise Institute: Offered to pay "experts" $10,000 to write papers that countered the IPCC reports. AEI has received close to half a million from oil-giant ExxonMobil, former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI's board of directors.
    Media Research Center: run by Brett Bozell, this group also operates the popular right-wing blog, Newsbusters.org. The Media Research Center has received over $257,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.
    Cato Institute: Is the main front group for the most prolific climate denier, Patrick Michaels. Cato is the second largest recipient of funding the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

    Heartland Institute: Organizes a "denier conference" every year for the past three years. Used to receive funding from ExxonMobil, still recieve grants from tobacco companies and are also a major recipient of grants from the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

    Heritage Foundation: Heritage is massive and operates on about $50 million a year. They have received significant funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies.
    National Center for Policy Analysis: the NCPA is a small, but very vocal Dallas, Texas-based freemarket think tank and has received over $540,900 from oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998.
    Competitive Enterprise Institute: The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, especially after their infamous set of television ads with the tag line "C02, We Call it Life." Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.
    While these are some of the most vocal, there are more. So please leave a comment below if you think there's anyone else who should be added to this list and we'll do the research.



    http://www.desmogblog.com/oily-echo-machine-behind-climategate
    =========
    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  8. Competitive Enterprise Institute ad Industrialists must be gratified at all the UIs!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Brian I see you are making the rounds.

    Rockefeller Brothers Fund grants over $200,000 which in some way aim at “Combating Global Warming”:

    Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, Inc. 6/18/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
    1Sky Education Fund 6/18/2009 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 6/18/2009 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Evangelical Environmental Network 6/18/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    American Council on Renewable Energy 6/18/2009 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Sustainable Markets Foundation 3/12/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Rockefeller Family Fund, Inc. 3/12/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Aspen Institute, Inc., The 11/20/2008 $600,000 Sustainable Development Global
    American Council on Renewable Energy 11/20/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    President and Directors Georgetown College (Georgetown University), The 11/20/2008 $700,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Center for American Progress 11/20/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 10/7/2008 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Resource Media A Nonprofit Corporation 6/19/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Corporate Ethics International 6/19/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Earth Island Institute 3/13/2008 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    2030 Inc. 3/13/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Better World Fund 3/13/2008 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Ceres, Inc 3/13/2008 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
    International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives U.S.A. Inc. 3/13/2008 $650,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Regional Plan Association, Inc. 3/13/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
    1Sky Education Fund 12/13/2007 $1,000,000 Sustainable Development United States
    American Council on Renewable Energy 12/13/2007 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Corporate Ethics International 12/13/2007 $250,000 Sustainable Development Canada
    Public Interest Projects, Inc. 12/13/2007 $350,000 Sustainable

    ReplyDelete
  10. Development United States
    Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/13/2007 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Better World Fund 10/11/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Rocky Mountain Institute 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    National Environmental Trust 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Regional Plan Association, Inc. 6/14/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
    National Wildlife Federation 6/14/2007 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Rainforest Action Network 6/14/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Arabella Legacy Fund 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Clean Energy Group 3/15/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    SmartPower Connecticut, Inc. 3/15/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    National Religious Partnership for the Environment Inc. 12/14/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/14/2006 $550,000 Sustainable Development United States
    National Environmental Trust 10/12/2006 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 10/12/2006 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Resource Media A Nonprofit Corporation 6/15/2006 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Earth Island Institute 3/9/2006 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Ceres, Inc. 3/9/2006 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Better World Fund 3/9/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    American Council on Renewable Energy 3/9/2006 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
    ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc. 3/9/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Climate Change Organisation, The 12/15/2005 $300,000 Sustainable Development Global
    Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/15/2005 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Rainforest Action Network 6/9/2005 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/16/2004 $225,000 Sustainable Development United States
    World Resources Institute 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development Europe
    SmartPower Connecticut, Inc. 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    Clean Energy Group 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development Canada
    Climate Change Organisation, The 6/9/2004 $750,000 Sustainable Development Global
    National Environmental Trust 12/11/2003 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    WWF-UK 10/9/2003 $400,000 Sustainable Development Global
    Climate Institute 3/13/2003 $200,000 Sustainable Development Caribbean

    ReplyDelete
  11. right arheo, just balancing your silly notions that big oil and capitalists have gone green! And want to save us from their own actions...which is your take.
    Big oil WANTS to control the climate science.,.either by denying it or seeking to channel it, eg the carbon credits stuff....
    But your assumption that climate scientists are corrupted by govt grants and have invented man-made (aka industry made) global warming is LOL!

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wait a minute here, wait a minute.

    I see Brian and Atheo are familiars.
    Ok.
    First of all the link Atheo, excellent article.

    Now, I used to believe, however upon closer examination I simply cannot any longer.
    Reasons: the climate has ALWAYS changed.
    Where I live, well hell it used to be under ice, lots of it, and as the ice retreated due to the previous global warming it left behind a unique area. And at that time, there were hardly any people, because that was 12,000 years ago.

    People of the Niagara Escarpment
    "Hunters and gatherers arrive as the great ice fields retreat at the end of the last Ice Age.
    With the glaciers gone, the landscape warms"

    The idea that scientists can not be corrupted by government grants?
    How does that make sense?

    Of course they can be corrupted by grants. Are they being generously paid via these grants? Yes. Well then, they can be corrupted.
    Goodness I had a story here on how "ghostwriters" wrote articles attributed to scientists who received kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies. A scientist corrupted by money.
    (who of course went into denial mode when caught)
    Does it matter where the money comes from? Private business or Government. No, by payment, the corruption is possible.
    So that arguement has to be discarded. That one would be considered a logical fallacy.

    From all my own reading, no matter what Big Oil stands to profit.
    Increased energy prices due to this belief in man made global warming- Big Oil profits
    And energy prices will increase across the board,-Bil Oil wins.
    Then the Carbon Capture- Big Oil wins AGAIN. Subsidized by taxpayers,it will of course be a big profit win- it is just another incentive to an industry that doesn't need any more tax payer dollars.(read the info I provided as to who is in the carbon capture market-you will see the big oil names)

    The nuclear power industry wins, and that is a toxic nightmare- Higher energy prices making them viable and profitable.

    In fact there seems to be no intention at all to reduce dependance on fossil fuels, just a scheme to profit off of cleaning up the pollution emitted by them, at you guessed it taxpayers total expense.

    There is even going to be clean coal, thanks to carbon sequestration!

    And the banks, there is always the banks, the banks who have sucked taxpayers dry, are going to profit majorly.

    If Big Oil has funded any denier organizations it is only to create a ruse, so that pseudo environmentalists will jump on board. IMHO a real environmentalist would see right through this scheme for the fraud it is.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scientists at universities are essentially dependent on grants from tax free foundations. This is a well known, well understood problem in universities. The zombies don't know about it because its not on TV and they aren't the kind to go around asking questions.

    Professors will tell you this themselves. The whole goddam university system is set up to be corrupt.

    Public education is for the mores, a term used by theologists for the dumb down masses. Re-legion serves the same purpose and is not theology.

    ReplyDelete
  14. see my new post for more on who benefits from the man made global warming theory, and another one is coming......

    ReplyDelete
  15. "right arheo, just balancing your silly notions that big oil and capitalists have gone green! And want to save us from their own actions...which is your take."

    Brian you obviously have not read my extensive writings on the topic. Please stop making a fool of yourself by pretending to know "my take" while being utterly ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'The idea that scientists can not be corrupted by government grants?
    How does that make sense?'

    Because corruption is associated with big business not govt grants, esp on the scale your thinking of.

    its also not proven the grantees were corrupted...just inferred.


    But congrats Penny: youve allied youself with AEI and CEI, two very dodgy organisations.

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Brian you obviously have not read my extensive writings on the topic. Please stop making a fool of yourself by pretending to know "my take" while being utterly ignorant.'

    This is ironic, when you are clearly being taken for a ride by the likes of the Competitve Enterprise Institute!

    LOL

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  18. Brian:

    Corruption is associated with business?

    And governments are not corrupt?
    And their agencies are not corrupt?

    Are we aware of what goes on with any number of government agencies?
    Collusion, cover-up etc.,

    How much collusion and corruption is there between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry?

    How much on a daily basis, does the government collude with big business against the interests of the people?


    As for aligning myself with whomever the initials stand for.

    Whatever?
    "guilt by association" a tried and true propaganda technique.

    I could say the same thing, by aligning yourself with the cap and trade scheme and carbon credits you are aligning with big oil & bankers.
    To aid them in reaping massive profits and doing nothing for the environment.
    I decide for myself.

    I am also predicting down the road, people such as yourself will realize this has all been a lie, and the environment will degrade.
    And the only beneficiaries will be the upper echelons.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Brian, have you read the posts on the oil companies wanting a deal at Copenhagen, wanting unfettered carbon trade and derivatives????

    ReplyDelete
  20. This whole thing is a double edged sword. On the one hand, exposing the fact that it has NOT been proven that CO2 is a 'driver' of climate change in a scientific manner (ie hypothesis, experiment, data analysis, confirmation of/or change to hypothesis - rinse repeat)is good, clearly allowing for questioning the so-called 'consensus', on the other hand we have now the ability to spin all data.

    Since it is clear that data was manipulated, skewed and cherry picked by organisations with a vested interest, this can and will call ALL scientific inquiry into question.

    So, the next time someone says: Look at the drugs in our water supply - the science itself can be called into question. It's a sort of way out for all polluters.

    That climate is changing is not argued over - that is what it does and will continue to do. Are we effecting this - quite probably - deforestation, river diversions, dams, soil erosion, etc - but it is CO2 which is driving it? NO - and how do we know this: We look at the geological record which shows difinitively that CO2 concentrations FOLLOW warming periods (which makes sense) it is NOT the other way around.

    Thus, this carbon tax scheme is exactly that. A tax scheme, plain and simple, not even pretending anymore to deal with pollution - which btw CO2 is NOT.

    ReplyDelete
  21. We should not forget that in the leaked emails there are references to sponsoring of CRU by oil companies.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

    and here another one showing that even 6th grader can do better than the super consensus whores:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/

    And here a nice one to get a grasp on the context:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    ReplyDelete
  22. im well awaer of the FDA and BIG PHARMA.. What you are saynig is climate scientists seeking govt grants are manufacturing climate data....thats a bogus notion.

    HAD the climate scientists been working for the oil industry or CEI then youd have a case!

    Do the oil comapnies want a deal in Copenhagen,,who knows? Dont assume climate scientists are their liegemen!

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'How much on a daily basis, does the government collude with big business against the interests of the people?'

    Tenny, The irony here is YOU are colluding with the following:

    'Here's a few of the groups I'm talking about and a very brief background on their previous activities, as well as funding sources:
    Center for a Constructive Tomorrow: owns and operate ClimateDepot.com, which has been a main clearinghouse for the right-wing climategate echo chamber. ClimateDepot.com is managed by Marc Morano, former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe. CFACT has received grants from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and well-known right-wing foundations like the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
    American Enterprise Institute: Offered to pay "experts" $10,000 to write papers that countered the IPCC reports. AEI has received close to half a million from oil-giant ExxonMobil, former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI's board of directors.
    Media Research Center: run by Brett Bozell, this group also operates the popular right-wing blog, Newsbusters.org. The Media Research Center has received over $257,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.
    Cato Institute: Is the main front group for the most prolific climate denier, Patrick Michaels. Cato is the second largest recipient of funding the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

    Heartland Institute: Organizes a "denier conference" every year for the past three years. Used to receive funding from ExxonMobil, still recieve grants from tobacco companies and are also a major recipient of grants from the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

    Heritage Foundation: Heritage is massive and operates on about $50 million a year. They have received significant funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies.
    National Center for Policy Analysis: the NCPA is a small, but very vocal Dallas, Texas-based freemarket think tank and has received over $540,900 from oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998.
    Competitive Enterprise Institute: The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, especially after their infamous set of television ads with the tag line "C02, We Call it Life." Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.'
    http://www.desmogblog.com/oily-echo-machine-behind-climategate

    ReplyDelete
  24. The scientists only agreed the warming is “very likely not due to known natural causes acting alone” – and that is spun by the policy-makers and the world’s media.

    ReplyDelete
  25. $50 - $70 billion spent trying to show that AGW is real. All foiled by one whistle blower. Poor, pathetic shills. Evil evil agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am not colluding with anybody.

    I am reading for myself and deciding.

    I already know, KNOW that big oil is behind the push for a climate deal at Copenhagen, as is the nuclear industry.

    I posted here, what oil group is on the Prince of Wales environmental group, a member for the UK and EU,
    Shell for goodness sakes, Shell, then there is BP also, they are the movers and shakers behind carbon capture and sequestration.
    How many links do I have to put up, where they out and out say that?
    Then we have a carbon market that can be gamed, or played as acknowledged.
    Who benefits?
    Big OIl, nuclear industry, Monsanto and I am not standing behind these monsters to profit off of mankinds misery.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I am asking the question, IMO, that the environmental crowd should be asking... Because I care about the environment and the people of this planet.

    What benefit is it going to be to the world to build a bunch of nuclear power plants.

    Is all the tax dollars gifted to big oil for carbon sequestration even viable, look at the money gone on the ethanol?

    That was certainly not carbon neutral.

    This constant talk about big oil being behind the movement against is plain ludicrous when they stand to make out like bandits.

    Where are the environmentalists on the push for gmo, that will be "necessary" because of climate change, after every living plant is patented, intoxicated with round-up and taken from the commons.

    How about the big banks and brokers waiting for the roulette wheel to spin on the carbon market.
    And when that collapses the even more broke taxpayer, further impoverished can bail them out again.

    People who love this planet and all it's inhabitants including other humans should be asking these questions.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And what they like to forget now, is that thanks to the CRU letters there is more than ample revelation that Big Oil is sponsoring the warmistas, all along. Warmistas like to spin that the emails are taken out of context, but never provide the hint of a start of a context, because if one does put them in context, it get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 'And what they like to forget now, is that thanks to the CRU letters there is more than ample revelation that Big Oil is sponsoring the warmistas, all along. Warmistas like to spin that the emails are taken out of context, but never provide the hint of a start of a context, because if one does put them in context, it get worse.'

    Bizzare.are u suggesting BIG OIL like ENRONN are backing climate science,when it will affect their major operations? IF so, youve been successfully conned by their PR boys

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  30. 'People who love this planet and all it's inhabitants including other humans should be asking these questions.'

    What they should be asking is have they been conned by the oil interests PR campaign?


    'The Climate Denial Industry'

    'When I use the term denial industry, I'm referring to those who are paid to say that man-made global warming isn't happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped. Reading Climate Cover-Up, you keep stumbling across familiar phrases and concepts which you can see every day on the comment threads. The book shows that these memes were planted by PR companies and hired experts.
    The first case study I've posted reveals how a coalition of US coal companies sought to persuade people that the science is uncertain. It listed the two social groups it was trying to reach – "Target 1: Older, less educated males"; "Target 2: Younger, lower income women" – and the methods by which it would reach them. One of its findings was that "members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others' motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions on scientific issues".
    Remember this the next time you hear people claiming that climate scientists are only in it for the money, or that environmentalists are trying to create a communist world government: these ideas were devised and broadcast by energy companies. The people who inform me, apparently without irony, that "your article is an ad hominem attack, you four-eyed, big-nosed, commie sack of shit", or "you scaremongers will destroy the entire world economy and take us back to the Stone Age", are the unwitting recruits of campaigns they have never heard of.'
    etc

    http://www.countercurrents.org/monbiot081209.htm

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous Brian,
    your memes weren't planted?

    Here a reference to an article on the emails concerning the securement of sponsoring by oil firms of the CRU
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

    As for the carbon trade scheme, it's funny that you brought up Enron, as it was them that invented it. Don't believe me? Your problem not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ironic isn't it gallier, that Ken Lay lives on, the scum bag that he is through carbon trading?

    Brian:
    I have plenty of links here where shell is asking, nay demanding a deal at Copenhagen.
    Take the time and read them.
    Plus I would appreciate if you would talk as an environmentalist on the benefit to Monsanto and the Nuclear Power Industry, another issue, that is being avoided.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You can read the many informative posts

    starting here
    http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2009/12/warming-environmentalists-heart-nuclear.html

    here:
    http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2009/12/carbon-new-energy-commodity.html

    here:
    http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2009/12/carbon-trade-and-derivatives-who.html

    Here:
    http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2009/12/carbon-capture-and-storage-who-are.html

    for starters and please follow all the links.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ken Lay is alive ;-)

    http://www.kenlayisalive.org/

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hey Gallier:
    lol :)

    But let's just go with the common orthodoxy and say the bastard's legacy lives on through the carbon scheme

    btw, check out my new post

    ReplyDelete
  37. As for the carbon trade scheme, it's funny that you brought up Enron, as it was them that invented it. Don't believe me? Your problem not mine'


    No doubt,gallier...But then ive suspect the carbon 'trading'; is a capitalist way to have ones cake and eat it
    you on th other hand are backing industrialisation , pollution and the corporations that seduce us into backing this life style.

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  38. 'Plus I would appreciate if you would talk as an environmentalist on the benefit to Monsanto and the Nuclear Power Industry, another issue, that is being avoided'

    Mosanto may find itself impeded as their fertilisers are dependent on green house say inducing oil.

    Nuke power has tried to claim its green and pollution free...to those who know nothing of nuclear waste...


    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  39. Brian if you suspect that the cap n trade, carbon schemes are "having ones cake and eating it too'
    then it can't logically be supported, as it is unworthy of support.

    Further to that if you suspect that this is a concocted way to eat ones desert without gaining weight, then that automatically makes the "science" suspect, because it could easily have been fudged to benefit big business and politicians.

    Who btw are the biggest beneficiaries.

    I am not, as an environmentalist, supporting initiatives that do nothing for the environment and humanity and enrich the very polluters that I decry.

    Did you see the post I put up on who are the biggest beneficiaries, no surprise it is the biggest polluters!

    It's nice to wanna 'believe' but like Obama who gave all hope, hope ain't nothing but an empty promise.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 'No doubt,gallier...But then ive suspect the carbon 'trading'; is a capitalist way to have ones cake and eat it
    you on th other hand are backing industrialisation , pollution and the corporations that seduce us into backing this life style.'

    from where you can infere that I'm backing industrialisation, pollution and corporation will remain a mystery. One thing I can say for sure, is that you do not fight these scourges by engaging in a wild goose chases. Addressing fictitious threats (and it didn't need the leaked emails to know that CO2 is not a problem on any possible level) diverts only precious ressources from addressing real problems. I would rather prefer to see all the greenpeace activists and other "useful idiots" fighting against the real threats of the Empire gone wild (be it in Irak, Afghanistan, Africa). How many acres of rain forest or primal forests have to be cut down, to give way to biofuel or GM crops before these jokers learn where the real problems are.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 'I am not, as an environmentalist, supporting initiatives that do nothing for the environment and humanity and enrich the very polluters that I decry'

    Its remarkable how some so called environmentalists are taking the sides of the polluters and groups like CEI and AEI (Yes THAT AEI!).
    it seems PR campaigns really do work!

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  42. Speaking of PR, I understand that the IPCC hired Hill and Knowleton.

    ReplyDelete
  43. brian;

    an environmentalist, a real one, who cared for the earth and the inhabitants including the people could not support the nonsense at copenhagen and the bogus cap and trade/carbon credits, that will accomplish nothing for the environment, in all probabibility make the planet and it's inhabitants worse off then they are now.

    What in Copenhagen addresses polluted water?
    Particulate counts in the air.
    Prescription drugs in the water
    Percholate in the water?
    Will there be less oil spills?
    Will the oil company be held liable?
    Will cap and trade actually reduce carbon emmissions.
    You seem to acknowledge this is bogus, yet you willing to support it?
    Which to me, is incredible.
    Is it because you are filled with hope?
    Well see what hope get's ya?
    Just look at Obama, he is all the hope and change anyone needs.
    lol!

    ReplyDelete
  44. atheo:
    I saw that, oh goodY, perhaps they can put polar bear cubs in incubators and condemn questioners as the people who are causing them to require incubation.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "it seems PR campaigns really do work!" Brian


    yes, they do Brian, and it is funny you should mention that...
    DeSmogBlog, run by a PR Firm, Hoggan and Associates connected to Al Gore's Carbon Trading Firm

    Hence DeSmogBlog is PR, promoting an agenda... And taking a look at your use of it as a resource and refusal to look at anything else I would say that indeed PR worked on you.

    Because the PR firm using "big oil" as the boogey man to scare people into supporting a specific agenda, that will make money for Al Gore.
    Or do you actually think Jim Hoggan is doing that out of the goodness of his heart?
    read it brian, read how PR is being used to manipulate you and other well intention persons

    http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-al-gores-investment-management-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Climate Change" is just another bunch of scumbaggery, like "Peak Oil".

    Remember now...the emails were not "hacked", they were LEAKED.

    It is possible that there are agents of Big Oil behind some of the astroturf groups, but it doesn't change the FACT that "Anthropogenic Global Warming", "Climate Change", whatever the scumbags want to call it, is total BULLSHITE.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS