I was reminded by a reader, of further duplicity by greens. No matter who they wish to smear, they accuse them of being funded by ‘Big Oil’. But, how many greens are themselves funded by ‘Big Oil’? And how many hide it?
I don’t know if you have noticed, but ‘Big Oil’ now have slick advertising on TV and in other media, boasting about their new projects. Companies are using new (well, old really) ways to create oil, from squeezing rock to squashing organic beings. This has nothing to do with environmental concern; it is just about money, as usual. Big Oil - ANY big organisation – will follow the trend to make money, whether it is strictly ethical or useful, or not.
Large conglomerates don’t care where their money comes from. If a trend takes companies from their main income – such as oil – it won’t do much damage, because they’ll just switch to something else, or make out they are at the forefront of renewing their commitment to the trend. They can do it because they are stinking rich and ethics is a word found only in the dictionary, not in fat-cat living!
Al Gore and many green organisations regularly shout-down unbelievers in their nonsense, by saying they have no credibility because they are funded by ‘Big Oil’. And this is where you might be surprised (though people who do more than follow already know) to learn that greens are also funded by the same ‘Big Oil’! (I thank Andrew from Ottawa, for reminding me). Oil companies will fund whatever brings them best rewards, whether it is oil or cotton-stuffed Easter bunnies.
CRU – Funded by Big Oil
The Climate Research Unit in East Anglia University, the one that was shown to be fraudulent, was created in 1972. Know where the money came from? Shell and BP! This oil funding was still flowing in 2008 and probably to today; and besides coming from oil, the money came from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and the company that gets rid (?Oh yeah?) of nuclear waste, NIREX Ltd. So, CRU gets funding from government, oil and nuclearists.
As Andrew points out, this is important because the “key institution providing support for global warming theories, and the basis for IPCC findings, receives funding from ‘Big Oil’ and the nuclear power industry.” In other words, greens are two-faced liars. They accuse others of something they are themselves guilty of. As Andrew comments wryly: “The CRU is, in fact, a business”.
It is intriguing to see that the founder of the CRU, Prof Hubert H Lamb, actually thought climate was a constant. The University says that it has know come to see this is not so. Well, that’s a surprise to us all, eh? Then why is the CRU still fixed to the spot by saying it IS a constant? It might deny it, but this is what it is implying by its green stance! By claiming to know with certainty that the climate will change by this or that action by humans, they resort to the idea of climate constancy! (Or, maybe they haven’t quite understood the implications yet).
Phil Jones has been praised by the University for “guiding CRU through what have been generally good times as far as successful funding is concerned”. The trouble is, what might have started as sound funding became essential to departmental survival and then greed! And that was the undoing of Jones (though, as I predict, he will be reinstated). Meanwhile he stays on with full pay, and will no doubt be at the University’s Christmas party, where the boss will smile and say “Don’t worry, Phil – just wait until everyone calms down! You’ll be back making up conclusions before you know it. It’s just a trick!”
The University wrongly ascribes the CRU’s successful funding to science: “The fact that CRU has, and has had, a number of long-standing research staff is testimony to the quality and relevance of its work.” What ‘quality’, when Jones led a fraudulent programme? And what ‘relevance’ when the only thing it was relevant to was gaining funding from ‘Big Oil’? The university itself says that such longevity of a department was “unprecedented”. You’re telling me! But, when government relies on that department to provide reasons to muscle in on the people, if the department gives it what it needs, it will be long-lived!
Am I being cynical? You betcha!
Another problem with CRU was its sticking to only one theory. Disregarding all others is a recipe for disaster, and eventually causes a department to stagnate. To deliberately ignore or reject another view just because it doesn’t fit the funding requirements, is not scientific. It is just plain book-keeping.
Anyway, the thrust of this article is not the science; we all know now that the CRU was acting fraudulently. The thrust is that greens use the ‘Big Oil’ accusation to smear the opposition, when, in fact, they also take money from the same source. On the part of oil companies, by the way, it is a win-win situation, because they can control all colours of the spectrum.
BP, several British government pro-green departments interested in taking money off voters, the infamously fascist EU, Greenpeace, the very biased Royal Society, Shell, the US Department of Energy and the US EPA (which shows their complicity in fraud), and the equally infamous WWF, are amongst funders of CRU. Inevitably, they will want results that suit their causes. The WWF and Greenpeace want green results. Governmental agencies and departments (and there are many) all want the power that comes from green results. No wonder Jones fell for the lie and gave them what they wanted.
But one question: why on earth does the UK’s Department of Health fund the CRU, when hospitals and healthcare are desperate for money? What has green research got to do with delivering healthcare? Government is simply being clever, diverting much-needed cash from a variety of its own departments, so that the true amount being wasted on the CRU is not discovered.
Sarah Palin
I have a lot of time for Sarah Palin, though she was too honest for US politicians before Obama! In her view of Climategate (Washington Post, 9th Dec), she recognises that it “exposes a highly politicised scientific circle”. She said: “The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change the economy for the worse.”
“This scandal,” she said, “obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen.” It was Palin who, as governor of Alaska, took a stand against ‘politicized science’ when they tried to list the polar bear as ‘endangered’, when it clearly was not, having doubled its population!
Palin also reminds voters that Obama promised to “restore science to its rightful place”, yet, he is flying out to the Copenhagen Summit at the crucial end part, to make sure a deal is signed, though any deal will be founded on fraud and lies, and on oil deception between the Middle East and the USA.
Al Gore
As Vice-President, Al Gore signed away the oil drilling rights of Kitanemuk Indians, to Occidental Petroleum. I wonder why greenies don’t advertise this? The same thing happened to the U’wa tribe in Colombia. And Gore’s interest in oil is more than administrative: his father was into oil, and so is Gore. He received a handsome annual royalty from Occidental for mining rights, right up until he was found-out; then he sold the mine. Gore was also funded by Irani sources in return for oil rights. If you want more on Gore’s duplicity, go to HYPERLINK "http://www.corwatch.org" [url=http://www.corwatch.org]http://www.corwatch.org[/url] and look for ‘Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate’, 29th August, 2000. The reason both Clinton and Gore gave away Indian land to ‘Big Oil’ was that Occidental gave huge funds to the democrats. Nothing to do with being green! Simple really.
Algae and other Money
The University of Tulsa was given $75,000 funding from the federal government for its algae-to-gasoline research. The department is partnered by an alternative-energy company, Sapphire Energy Inc., who want to see algae-gas hitting the car industry big-time. Now tell me – in what way is this different from the aspirations of ’Big Oil’?
There is no difference, because both want – money! There is no reason to reject ordinary oil, when there is so much of it under the ground (enough for many centuries), and CO2 does not harm the environment. The fact that algae fuel is zero-carbon is irrelevant, seeing as how CO2 harms nothing!
Mann, Oh Man!
Now working at Pennsylvania State University, Dr Mann is said to be a “highly regarded member” of the staff, even though he has led the way with fraud after fraud, and his ridiculously unbalanced ‘hockey-stick’! The University says he has published many papers in respected journals. So he has – but those respected journals are also complicit in climate fraud, so what’s to be respected?
Not surprisingly the NAS ‘investigated’ his research into temperature and found it “sound”. Well, they would, being deaf to reality and blind to truth. The NAS also led the way in denouncing the Oregon Petition with minor and petty objections, and it loathes criticism of its pro-green stand. It is in its interests to side with Mann, Jack the Ripper, the Emperor Ming, and anyone else who is not looking out for the well-being of mankind.
Covering all its bases, the University is now investigating the more recent claims uncovered by the email scandal. I have no doubt it will come up with more carefully-worded answers, protecting itself and supporting Mann. I apologise in advance if I am proved wrong (excuse a smile). The university, through ‘Scholarship and Research Integrity’, says it trains its graduates “in the responsible conduct of research”. Let’s see the results of its investigation!
Think Outside the Box!
Now for a bit of peripheral thinking on the issue of funding! The Met department of Penn university says little about its funders. But it says other things that are very interesting. It offers a course in its department, titled EMSC301: ‘Energy Commodity and Futures Market’. Just one unit is “How to manage price risk in energy markets’. Isn’t it interesting that a met department shows its students how to manage price risk in energy markets? Isn’t this very much like insider trading (an alleged comparison; it’s only an academic question)? Hedge funds, here we come!
Look at a Bloomberg report: ‘Hedge Funds Pluck Money from Air in $19 Billion Weather Gamble’ (Aug 1st, Bloomberg.com). It tells of math whizz-kids pouring huge investment monies into weather futures. Like true gamblers, they look at weather reports and predictions, from hurricanes to early frost. The market formerly used to insure against weather problems that affect energy use. Nowadays, these investment kids are selling predictions to energy companies so that they can exploit possible savings and investments.
Brokers say the huge increase in this market is down to climate fears (induced by people like Mann and departments of meteorology). Even minute changes can rake in the cash. “Fears of global climate change are helping too, drawing in companies from power suppliers to ski resorts, that want to transfer the risk of adverse weather to outside investors.”
The fact that climate change is expected, by climateers, to be unpredictable, just adds to the excitement. “If volatility is the issue, nothing is better than financial markets at valuing the risk and spreading it out.”
And “A trader can pay a premium to another trader, the seller, for an option that lets them wager on future weather temperatures…” Most of these contracts are traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Note that they must rely on scientists to give them the temperatures in the first place. (Keep that in mind).
An Imaginary Scenario – Just For Fun
Imagine a scenario where a meteorology department, say, engineers figures, thus knowing in advance the likely effect on stock and contract prices. Imagine a stock market insider who is complicit. Imagine that this gives a distinct ‘edge to hedge’, and those in the know make killings, not just now and then, but almost daily. Imagine that those same persons continue to engineer figures just to get very rich, though it sends the world into s spin. Imagine a department gaining this secret funding continually. Imagine it will not find its staff fraudulent in any way because there is too much to lose. Imagine!
From Big Oil to Big Investments. No difference. Of course, this is just imagination. Just curious – I wonder how many met departments hold hedge funds on the weather market? In reality I am very sure there are no naughty departments or scientists, because they all work to exacting standards of integrity. Don’t they?
Barry Napier runs christiandoctrine.com.
The Global Green Agenda’, Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009.
For other anti-green books by Barry Napier contact the author: barry.napier@ntlworld.com
