Thursday, 7 June 2012

Hey Big Oil! Where's our $$$$s?

Another delivery of BIGOIL cash to sceptics?
It is a common cry from the alarmist propagandists that Big Oil fund climate sceptics. As an example, THIS from the

Big oil funding climate sceptics? 

An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts claimed last night. 
Today, Marc Morano reports on a great deception by the Union of Concerned Scientists.


Do scientists report the facts or distort the facts?

Union of Concerned Scientists Cooks the Books, Media Swallow It

An environmentalist lobbying group claims corporations pay vast sums to misrepresent climate science. (

So what vast sums of money did the duplicitous executives at General Electric lavish on the Reason Foundation in 2008 and 2009 to support an implied campaign to traduce climate science? Exactly $325. How much did GE spend on matching and direct grants on the six think tanks identified by the UCS as being pro-climate consensus? That would be $497,744. At least with regard to General Electric’s contributions, it appears that the Union of Concerned Scientists has salted a follow-the-money trail with pieces of fool’s gold, which certain unwary news outlets obligingly picked up and reported as real bullion.
Let’s take a deeper look at just how much “support” General Electric has funneled into the Reason Foundation’s coffers. The UCS report notes it identified this “support” by mining General Electric’s two most recent IRS 990 forms, which report charitable giving by the GE Foundation. I asked Reason's development people how much GE has contributed to the Reason Foundation during those two years. The grand total in our files and confirmed by the 990 forms investigated by the UCS researchers: $100 in 2009, and $225 in 2008.
Read more HERE, but the article finishes with ~
The upshot is that a close analysis of this aspect of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ A Climate of Corporate Control report reveals severe shortcomings that do not inspire much confidence in the overall accuracy of the lobbying group's claims. "Follow the money" may be one of the hoariest maxims in journalism, but it's only good advice when the money you're following actually amounts to something.
I repeat, do scientists report, or distort, the facts?

Read also Jo Nova's CLIMATE MONEY (pdf)

(extract) Even if monopolistic funding has affected science, the total amount of money paid to each side won’t tell us whether The Planet’s climate is warming or whether that warming is due to carbon-dioxide. The point of this paper is that the process of science can be distorted (like any human endeavor) by a massive one-sided input of money. What use would money be, if it didn’t have some impact?
Carbon trading will be bigger than oil, and even the promise of a market that massive and lucrative represents a major vested interest.
The point of this paper is that the process of science can be distorted (like any human endeavor) by a massive one-sided input of money.
The danger of the distortion in the scientific process means that we need to focus closely on the question of evidence. This paper calls for more attention to be paid to empirical evidence, as well as ways to use incentives in science that help us discover how the natural world works in the most timely and efficient manner possible.
Read also  Sceptics Lavish funding by Big Oil Exposed as lie.

The Riverina gets it! AGW is a fraud.

No Wind generator turning!
In the previous item, we saw that the Canadian province of British Columbia was waking up to the hoax of man-made global warming.

Keith Wheeler writes for the Riverina Daily Advertiser. It seems that the Riverina gets it!
I enjoyed Tim Flannery’s Two on the Great Divide series which finished a couple of weeks ago. I particularly liked the scene with Tim and travelling companion John Doyle facing wind, rain and sleet in the Victorian Alps.
However, the Lake George wind farm, with Tim up a wind tower preaching how wind power will save the world, while not a wind generator in the background was turning, was the best part.
And near the end of the series, there was Tim Flannery talking about Gaia, unaware that Gaia’s inventor had denounced the whole idea, calling it “alarmist”, and bagging Tim Flannery (as well as Al Gore) in the process.
See James Lovelock turns his back on global warming. Also the quote under the banner above.
Lovelock now says that his terrifying predictions of climate change’s deadly impact on the planet were “alarmist”.
Five years ago Lovelock had claimed: “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”
Lovelock is now quoted in The Daily Mail as saying: “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet.
Mr Wheeler the turns his attention to ABC TV's chief AGW alarmist Tony Jones:
So it was with some sympathy that I watched Australia’s leading climate change advocate, the ABC’s Tony Jones, trying to steer his special Climate Change edition of Q&A back to the dogma.
He should move on. The public is becoming increasingly aware that “climate change” is just a leftist euphemism for higher taxes and big government.