The BIG LIE: Sceptics Funded by Big Oil -no, the Alarmists are.

The BIG LIE: Sceptics Funded by Big Oil -no, the Alarmists are.

First published on Evacuation Grounds - Link

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.

- See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2010/08/skeptical-science-website/#sthash.S9S8R5o7.dpuf

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. 

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.

Well done, Viv for standing up to the real science and opposing the falsified AGW hypothesis.

Thanks to Dale for the heads-up.

We NEED more Carbon Dioxide - aerial fertiliser - to feed the World.

From the CSIRO: Functional Plant Biology (link)

Rice cultivar responses to elevated CO2 at two free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) sites in Japan Toshihiro Hasegawa et al

Functional Plant Biology 40(2) 148-159 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/FP12357
Submitted: 26 November 2012  Accepted: 17 December 2012   Published: 30 January 2013

Abstract

There is some evidence that rice cultivars respond differently to elevated CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), but [CO2] × cultivar interaction has never been tested under open-field conditions across different sites. Here, we report on trials conducted at free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) facilities at two sites in Japan, Shizukuishi (2007 and 2008) and Tsukuba (2010). The average growing-season air temperature was more than 5°C warmer at Tsukuba than at Shizukuishi. For four cultivars tested at both sites, the [CO2] × cultivar interaction was significant for brown rice yield, but there was no significant interaction with site-year. Higher-yielding cultivars with a large sink size showed a greater [CO2] response. The Tsukuba FACE experiment, which included eight cultivars, revealed a wider range of yield enhancement (3–36%) than the multi-site experiment. All of the tested yield components contributed to this enhancement, but there was a highly significant [CO2] × cultivar interaction for percentage of ripened spikelets. These results suggest that a large sink is a prerequisite for higher productivity under elevated [CO2], but that improving carbon allocation by increasing grain setting may also be a practical way of increasing the yield response to elevated [CO2].

Increased population obviously means that the demand for food is rising. The authors state that "the production of major crops will need to increase by 70% by 2050"

As reported by CO2 Science: (link)

What was done
Working in Japan with four cultivars of rice (Oryza sativa) at Shizukuishi in 2007 and 2008, and with eight cultivars at Tsukuba in 2010, Hasegawa et al. employed free-air CO2 enrichment or FACE technology to assess the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment to approximately 200 ppm above ambient - applied each day of the growing season from sunrise to sunset - on rice panicle density, spikelets per panicle, spikelet density, percent of ripened spikelets and single-grain mass, all under the real-world weather conditions that prevailed at these times and places.

What was learned
The eighteen researchers report that the range of final CO2-induced yield enhancements of the several rice cultivars ranged from 3 to 36%; and they say that "all of the tested yield components contributed to this enhancement."

What it means
The fruits of Hasegawa et al.'s labors clearly indicate the extreme importance of concentrating rice breeding efforts on cultivars that have strong positive responses to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, because without the help of this highly effective aerial fertilizer, we have little hope of being able to meet the 70% increase in crop yields that will be needed to feed the people of the world a mere 37 years from now. And for the same reason, breeders of all of the other major food crops of humanity should be pursuing the same course of action as well. In addition, it should be clear to all that we really need the extra CO2 that is being pumped into the air by our burning of coal, gas and oil. (bold added)

Read more at CO2 Science.