|Image: Cartoons by Josh|
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.
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
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.
You’d think such simple elementary errors in data would have been caught in
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
environmentalguardian.co.uk. He is an environmental scientist and risk assessor and also
contributes to (UN)SkepticalScience.com." (LINK)
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.
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 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’.
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
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.
“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?”
#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.
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.
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.