 |
| Image: Cartoons by Josh |
How often do you see articles (eg LINK)
saying that “sceptics are funded by BigOil?”
OK, please BigOil, we NEED funds, we have not received our share. Where
are they?
(see Hey Big Oil! Where's our $$$$s?)
“Sceptics are
lavishly funded by BigOil.”
Well, no! The Wall Street Journal last year exposed this to
be a lie. (link)
When did it become received media wisdom that global warming skepticism was all the work of shadowy right-wing groups lavishly funded by oil companies? As best we can tell, it started with a 1995 Harper's magazine article claiming to expose this "high-powered engine of disinformation." Today anyone who raises a doubt about the causes of global warming is accused of fronting for, say, Exxon, whatever the facts.
We know that BigOil sponsors the influential “progressive”
think tank of Pew Charitable
Trusts thanks to Joanne Nova (link)
and also, from the same link, we know that the Heartland institute does NOT
depend on BigOil funding even though that has constantly been an assertion.
The favorite target of global warming alarmists is the group of big international oil companies. Big Oil is accused of generously funding the global warming skeptics, like The Heartland Institute. (link)
We also have recently had a paper by Cook et al (2013) claiming a “consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.”
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
This paper has been rebutted everywhere, including by Lord
Christopher Monckton
0.3% CONSENSUS,
NOT 97.1%
Also by Anthony Watts: (link)
You’d think such simple elementary errors in data would have been caught in peer review, after all, that is what peer review is for.
I think that there was a goal by Cook and his crowd, and that goal was to match the 97% number that has become a popular meme in the literature and the media. This intent seems confirmed by a recent statement by one of the co-authors, Dana Nuccitilli in a media argument that 97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism
The above-mentioned Dana Nuccitelli describes himself as "a
blogger on environmentalguardian.co.uk. He is an environmental scientist and
risk assessor and also contributes to (UN)SkepticalScience.com." (LINK)
(UN)SkepticalScience is a blog run by the aforementioned
John Cook. Of Cook’s blog, Realist Scientist
and author John Droz Jr writes: (link)
I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.
The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.
Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.
Anthony Watts recently put Dana Nuccitelli under the search light and found….uh oh! He is payed by BigOil. That’s right – this alarmist blogger and contributor to (UN)Skeptical Science is in the pay of BigOil.
His Linkedin page (Link)
describes him as an Environmental
Scientist at Tetra Tech.
Alex Jones reveals more of the Alarmists funded by BigOil: (link)
WWF
Donna Laframboise‘s recent article entitled, The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money chronicles the rise the globalist green charity – seeded with funding from global petroleum giant Royal Dutch Shell, who’s former President of 15 years, John Loudon, later served as president of WWF International for four years after that.Greenpeace:
Greenpeace dictate on their own website that the idea of free speech no longer applies when it comes to the climate debate, and will often attack climate skeptics based on their alleged connections to ‘Big Oil’.However.....
Their own militant stance makes it all the more interesting that Greenpeace itself is funded by Standard Oil money, and so is Sierra Club – according to the watchdog website Activist Cash.
Rockefeller Brothers Foundation
Greenpeace $1,080,000.00 1997 – 2005
Sierra Club $710,000.00 1995 – 2001
ACORN $10,000.00 2002 – 2002
Rockefeller Family Fund
Greenpeace $115,000.00 2002 – 2005
Sierra Club $105,000.00 1996 – 2002
ACORN $25,000.00 1998 – 1998
Rockefeller Foundation
Greenpeace $20,285.00 1996 – 2001
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Sierra Club $38,250.00 1997 – 2000
Suffice to say that the neither of these champions of climate change and global government – the WWF and Greenpeace, would exist without all that juicy Big Oil Money.
and, lest we forget, Al Gore sold his TV Channel to .....yep....BigOil. (link)
“He’s supposed to be the face of clean energy and just sold [the channel] to very big oil, the emir of Qatar! Current never even took big oil advertising—and Al Gore, that bulls***ter sells to the emir?”Yet these hypocrites and their supporter still continue their relentless lies. Carbon Sense Coalition's Viv Forbes was attacked on Menzies House.(Link) e.g.
#8. As Viv Forbes is a coal miner, he will be ripping far more carbon (coal) out of the ground to be burned to form CO2, than Tony Abbott could ever bury to offset an increase in CO2 levels.
To detractors Viv replied: (link)
We have spent our lives in productive tax-paying endeavours, mainly in activities related to farming and mining. We were both reared on farms, me a dairy farm near Warwick, and Judy a cattle grazing property near Mackay. We have overseen the operations of large beef properties, and owned two farms ourselves – one a hobby farm, one a real cattle and sheep operation where we have lived for the last 23 years.
I have also spent a lot of my life in exploration, financial analysis, consulting and management involving base metals, oil/gas and coal, mainly in northern Australia.Well done, Viv for standing up to the real science and opposing the falsified AGW hypothesis.
Those who would like to silence me will accuse me of being an apologist for the coal industry. It is true that I am a non-executive director of a small coal exploration company and we hold shares in it. But this company does not produce coal and is largely unaffected by what the politicians are doing now. My experience in the coal business does mean that I understand the science and politics of coal.
Thanks to Dale for the heads-up.
