Climategate: CRU looks to "big oil" for support

More importantly… look at the year of the email… 2000 !!!

There’s also uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc in the documents.
Talks of possible funding for Tyndall center from Shell in return for Shell being able to partially set the research agenda.

Imagine if DeSmogBlog had found emails from Richard Lindzen to Pat Micheals outilining a strategy of partnering with big oil companies to fund their research.
The warmers would be howling!
But I’m sure they will either ignore these emails or actually promote them as a sign that even big oil has joined their pseudo-religion.

A naive question: Which would it be Shell’s benefit?
Another naive question: Was it a competitor or someone not funded the whistleblower?

I remember when Exxon was big in oil shale and all the majors had coal divisions. They get hammered so long and sell struggling units. I suspect the Majors will spend money on climate research. it effects their economic forcasts for heating oil and natural gas. It costs a lot of money to evacuate drilling platforms and refineries. They have a duty to follow and study the weather. They are a lot cleaner in research and modeling than are the other earth scientists. Contrary to the claims from the extremists, the Oil companies are good citizens. Exxon collects and remits 100 billion dollars a year in taxes. During the Clinton years, everyone fed the erotic passion for the dot.coms. Well other than some payroll taxes, they were not paying income taxes. They lost money.

Big Oil is not in the oil business, they’re in the money business. If a firm sees a competitive advantage in causing their competitors distress (witness the UPS-vs-FedEx railway-labor-law dispute) then they’re going to do so. And they will pay attention to the political winds.
CO2 is the perfect trading commodity – it’s a product literally pulled out of thin air, and about which the general public has been convinced there’s something nefarious.
Want to get people’s attention? Start by banning carbonated soft drinks. More health benefit than a world of cap-and-trade laws.

@Jonsell
Shell is hedging bets versus legislation, if legislation like cap and trade comes down the pike, their lobbyists could use the fact that they were funding AGW research to earn them free credits, perhaps enough to be exempt from the program effectively, and perhaps even enough to sell at a profit.

“I think an investigation of industry supporters to Penn State, etc. etc. ”
Just make sure that the University at Albany is one of those et ceteras.

I may even have to change my moniker again to reflect my brightening nature! I will however continue to bear the onerous handle of INGSOC until freedom and truth are again prominent features in science. Heck, in life as well! Looks like it may not be a long wait.
I must say though, and I apologize for being a tad OT in editorializing a bit here. But as much as my hopes are lifting with the news these days, I am chagrined at the damage that has been wrought by those who supposedly spoke for environmentalism. The truly saddening thing is that real environmentalism was hijacked by what can only be described as a large and malevolent group of ideologues bent on advancing a religio-political agenda at the expense of what should be a noble goal. Environmentalism will have a tough time recovering from the damage brought upon it from the likes of Gore, Suzuki, Mann/Jones/Schmidt/Hanson etc. etc. I believe the political left in North America has also been corrupted by the same conniving wannabee dictators. I know a poor few friends that are still “left of centre” that are also skeptics, but are more or less without political affiliation due to their adherence to truth; and the sorry lack of a party on the left that places honesty before a corrupt ideology.
Things are looking up though!

“A naive question: Which would it be Shell’s benefit?”
As background, Shell has a lot of off-shore gas rigs in the North Sea and a large part of the undersea pipeline network which brings the gas onshore. These fields are approaching the end of their useful life.
I went to a conference at the Royal Society a few years back, which had the chairman of Shell as one of the speakers. He was spouting the normal warmist line and going on about carbon-capture coal power stations.
His interest was in pumping the CO2 out through the pipeline network to the offshore rigs, and pumping it down into the exhausted gas reservoirs.
Naturally, Shell would be paid for getting rid of the CO2. Also, they would defer the abandonment costs of the pipe and rig infrastructure for a couple of decades.
When the government is offering taxpayers’ money for free, you don’t need much of a commercial instinct to figure a way to get your snout into the trough.

If you’re not in the game you’re assured of losing. I don’t blame Shell et al from getting involved. New energy sources, new energy markets, grants, and legislation demanding they do as ordered. It’s a legitimate business hedge. Large banks are also involved as they set up mechanisms for carbon trading etc, though I wonder if those investments have now gone south and they’ll be stuck with big write-offs… again.
It’s nice to see that the warmers went gun-in-hand to extort money. To bad that, even though the gun was loaded, the barrel was pointed the wrong way when it went off.

Hat tip to Ray in 1st comment on this thread, where his sharp eye caught caught the year = 2000 in the email header. IOW:
They’ve been trying to milk this for almost TEN YEARS.
JHFolsom is also correct: Shell is just hedging its bets versus legislation; in an ever-more hostile legislative environment. Can’t blame them for that.
BUT: IF there was any justice (don’t count on it), this would be the end of the shrill ”skeptics are just shills for Big Oil” mantra by the AGW crowd.

Carbon Capture and Storage ==> CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSGm18AJaMkk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery

@Robert Cote.
Youre MacBeth is pretty appropriate.
Here is some more from Dick III.
The cat, the rat and Lovell the dog all rulen England under a Hog.
And my favourite: (pinned to the Duke of Norfolks tent on Bosworth Eve)
Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold for Dickon, thy master is bought and sold.

It’s time to convert the name of Oil company with Energy Company. To offer the guarantee of a high price for oil(reference base for the cost of energy) through higher taxes, Get those tax back through money to invest in new fields for free and get the profit of this very expensive energy(because indexed on oil) for the stock holder and bonus to gain much more power on a weaker government.
This is the real consequence of Governementalitisme drive the people by all means so they self impose slavery

There is also this email
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1041&filename=1254832684.txt
Which reads, in part:
“Hi Phil,
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I’m
in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million
employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here
in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into
question (again) observed temperature increases – I thought we’d moved the debate beyond
this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
Kind regards,
Andrew”

Now what do the Big Oil boys do when all the Green-Energy commericials that the Agenda arm-twisted them into producing suddenly look stupid?
Ooh, ooh, I know, throw the crumbling Copenhagen Agenda on the Barbie.
Brilliant !!
Hmm… interesting thought.
All those cc’ed emails.
Nah. Couldn’t be that simple, could it?
Boxer-get-the-hackers-ignore-the-emails
CYA, barking up the wrong tree, transfixed on dangling carrot or out-on-a-limb?
Choices, choices.

Anyone wishing to email Channel4 news can do so news@channel4.com

Big business LOVES big government since regulation DISPROPORTIONATELY affects its smaller and nimbler competitors. It effectively prevents new start ups by making new entry costs prohibitive. Big business thrives off big government.

“Shill” out of context? What stinkin context. We don need no stinkin context.
Cheers,
Phil and da boys.

Maybe CRU and GISS are like the mafia of AGW… they “ask” for money (for “protection” against bad publicity) from all the polluters and when certain polluters don’t want to pay anymore, they go and do business assassination. Maybe this is why Henson is so against the coal industry… they said no to him. I guess Al Gore is the Godfather then.

Actually, this is standard operating procedure for “researchers” and certain foundations with a politically-leaning “green” agenda.
It’s a shakedown; nothing more.
As “strategic partner” surely means “someone we can get a lot of money from,” the idea is to bilk these oil corporations into jumping onto the green bandwagon. It’s a form of extortion that the large energy companies are generally more than happy to comply with, as it “covers” them in what could be, in their minds, a growing public sentiment that “oil companies are bad meanies that kill the envoirnlent.”
It’s a P.R. move for them, and most, like shell, even have entire departments dedicated to throwing the company’s money around at researchers and foundations such as the CRU.
This is insurance policy for what they see as a stark possibility of more and more world leaders and policies that wish to strip them of every future dollar they generate. Regardless of what the truth is, and regardless of what the data shows, Shell’s responsibility is to protect it’s assets, and this is one way for them to attempt keeping their company, if many world leaders had their way right now.
Shake.
Down.

BTW here is a big big game changer:
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/10/20/the-amazing-shale-race.aspx
Shale gas is going global. Just as AGW is going room temperature…

MattN (12:09:29) :
I believe I read one where they also met with Siemens.
Corporate toadies….
Of course it had nothing to do with this
http://www.energy.siemens.com/entry/energy/hq/en/?tab=energy-1213565-1213615-Renewables

Channel 4 news has revealed that the British Government had to justify running the infamous climate change advert about the little girl and the drowning puppy and bunny rabbit.
http://www.channel4.com/news/
See the advert here
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/government+forced+to+defend+climate+change+advert/3450237
Updated on 04 December 2009
By Cathy Newman
The government’s chief scientist has been forced to justify controversial claims in the government’s latest climate change advertisement, Channel 4 News has learnt.
The “storybook” TV campaign features a father reading his daughter a frightening bedtime story about global warming. This programme understands that Clearcast, the body responsible for vetting TV adverts, has questioned the scientific evidence used in the campaign.
Clearcast’s role is to check that adverts touching on issues of public controversy are impartial – in line with broadcasting rules. After learning that questions had been raised, the government’s top scientific advisers penned a furious retort to Clearcast.
The letter, seen by Channel 4 News, states: “We are concerned that the basic scientific inferences referred to in the latest…campaign are being brought into question by Clearcast. We are both surprised and disturbed that the premise of the television campaign is being questioned, given the incontrovertible nature of the science that underpins the campaign material.”
Download the letter from the government to Clearcast in full here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/media/2009/12/day04/climate_change_letter.doc
(The full text is at the bottom of this post.)
The government says it hasn’t broken the rules because the advert is based on fact. It was eventually cleared for broadcast, but is now being investigating by the advertising watchdog after triggering 785 complaints from members of the public.
The fresh dispute comes after a week of allegations that scientists are manipulating official data. Leaked emails have led to charges the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has distorted the evidence on global warming.
The chief scientist John Beddington and the energy department’s main scientific adviser Robert Watson wrote the letter to Clearcast. It’s emerged that Professor Watson is director of strategic development at the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit.
A ‘mendacious’ advert
Lord Lawson, the Conservative former chancellor who has just launched a think tank devoted to challenging conventional wisdom about climate change, told Channel 4 News the advert was “mendacious”.
He said: “There are two things wrong with this ad. First, I am sure that if a commercial organisation had tried an ad which is as imaginative, as inventive as this one and as mendacious, it would not be permitted. The second thing is the focus of the ad is to scare young children and I think that’s positively immoral.”
But the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told the programme: “The problem is that the sceptics who want to cast doubt on this are the modern equivalent of the Flat Earth Society because the science is very clear about this. Climate change is real. It’s happening. It’s man-made.
“Frankly it’s irresponsible to suggest that it isn’t happening and it isn’t man-made and it’s trying to suggest that there is an easy way out of climate change. Well I’m afraid there isn’t an easy way out. We want to make it as financially possible as possible for people to make the transition but the truth is these are hard decisions that we have to make in order to make this transition. It’s necessary and the science is very clear.”
Climate change survey
Private research commissioned by the energy department – and seen by Channel 4 News – shows the scale of the challenge facing the government as it attempts to persuade people to combat the threat from global warming. Those surveyed didn’t see climate change “having a serious impact in the UK”. And they wanted the government to do more about the problem before they individually would do their bit.
Worryingly for the government, the research also found “a lack of understanding…of what climate change actually is, how it is caused, what the impact will be, what that might mean to human life and when the consequences might happen”.
Not only do ministers have to convince a sceptical public about the effects of global warming, but they also have to persuade people to pay for measures to fight it. The government estimates that by 2020 the average household energy bill will increase by £92 a year as energy companies pass on to consumers the cost of tackling climate change. On top of that, many householders will have to dig into their own pockets for energy saving devices around the home.
The government is to encourage householders to pay for loft lagging, cavity wall insulation and other green initiatives by applying for long-term loans from supermarkets, banks, local authorities and energy companies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What the letter said…
Letter from Governmental science advisors for Clearcast substantiation
Department of Energy & Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place,
London SW1A 2AW
http://www.decc.gov.uk
23 September 2009
To whom it may concern
RE: AMV-BBDO/Department of Energy Change’s climate literacy campaign (‘Storybook’)
We are concerned that the basic scientific inferences referred to in the latest DECC ACT ON CO2 public engagement campaign are being brought into question by Clearcast.
We are both surprised and disturbed that the premise of the television campaign is being questioned, given the incontrovertible nature of the science that underpins the campaign material, which is founded on basic physics, a vast body of peer-reviewed scientific literature, and an overwhelming consensus of climate science experts.
A remarkable and compelling degree of international scientific consensus exists on the relationship between rising CO2 levels, global temperature increase, sea level rise and changes to weather patterns. Indeed, there is now absolutely no doubt that some future change is inevitable.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the most authoritative source of information on the subject of climate change, issued its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Its conclusions and its summary texts were agreed by every nation on Earth. The IPCC AR4 was clear and unequivocal in asserting that global temperatures continue to rise and human greenhouse gas emissions are very likely the ultimate cause:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”
The AR4 also laid out the observed changes to weather patterns as a result of climate change, demonstrating the prevalence of more severe weather events:
“At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones”
The conclusions of the AR4 have been further strengthened by more recent scientific findings, as reported at the International Climate Science Congress that was held in Copenhagen in March this year. The report from this congress delivered six key messages from the scientific community to the world leaders, which highlighted the need for a successful global agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen talks this December.
There is also compelling support from other quarters for the scientific basis for climate change. In June this year, the National Science Academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa all signed a joint statement on climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future . It called on world leaders to undertake a range of actions, saying:
“… climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”
The scientific basis is now accepted by world leaders, for example President Obama delivered a speech yesterday to the United Nations General Assembly saying, “No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”
The UK Government bases its response to the threat of dangerous climate change on the IPCC’s findings and these other robust assessments; and DECC’s campaign needs to provide simple messages based on this overwhelming scientific consensus. The purpose of the campaign is to raise public understanding of the causes of climate change and its effects. In particular, it aims to show that climate change is an issue which affects us all and which requires co-ordinated action, domestically and internationally.
We recognise and strongly support your role in ensuring TV advertising is accurate and substantiated. In this instance we are clear that the fundamental science underpinning DECC’s script is entirely consistent with these principles. It is imperative that we communicate clearly and authoritatively the strong, peer-reviewed evidence linking manmade CO2 emissions with climate change and its impact on the UK. In the context of the forthcoming critical talks in Copenhagen in December it is crucial that we help the public to understand the serious challenges facing the UK and the rest of the world due to climate change. Unless we are able to present the evidence in a valid and compelling way, we believe the campaign’s immediate objectives and arguably the Government’s overall objective to reduce CO2 emissions could be compromised.
Yours faithfully,
Professor John Beddington
Government Chief Scientific Adviser
Professor Bob Watson
Defra Chief Scientific Adviser and acting
DECC Chief Scientific Adviser

The AGW theory couldn´t be 100% proven, due to quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, and quantum fluctuations, as well as, if true, it´s not, solved by socialism, i.e. Cap and Trade, with a total world price tag of $145 trillion.
Say No To Climategate!!!

I haven’t listened to the whole thing yet, but these guys would best be advised to keep their mouths shut:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/04/press-call-michael-mann-gavin-schmidt-and-michael-oppenheimer-climategat/

Oops, forgot to add this chestnut from Mann:
Michael Mann:“Decades of research [has been conducted.] There is a very robust consensus that humans are warming the planet and changing the Earth’s climate.”
“There are a handful of people and organizations who have tried to cloud the debate…. They have engaged in this 11th-hour smear campaign, where they have stolen personal emails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context to twist their words, and I think this is rather telling…. Those advocating inaction don’t have the science on their side, so they turn to this last minute smear campaign.”

The horror of this situation is the idea that “Big Oil” began switching sides when they were informed there was enough profit in this “Brave, new, Green world” for everyone who helped to ram it down our throats. For so called “renewables” to compete, Fossil fuels need to “necessarily skyrocket”. And Big Oil would dislike this …..?

The ‘shill for big oil’ argument is absurd on the face of it.
If less oil is needed, the price tends to go up. There’s this magical thing called supply and demand. The oil companies would be better off if global warming were real and intense. We’ll still need plastics, lubricants, and yes, gasoline and jet fuel. There ain’t no electric jets.
On the other hand I’ve noted that rarely is the accuser familiar with economics or even capitalism, seeming to favour some sort of command economy mental model.

Big business and finance left the station long ago and put money down on AGW.
Goldman-Sachs into carbon credit trading schemes big time looking to be a regular Enron.
That big business is funding the people who question AGW is one of the Big Lies of the AGW proponents.
In truth, it is the other way around, Big business has been in bed with the AGW crowd for years.
Why?
Because they know they can “game” the system.

Shell has a big refinery in The Netherlands and reading the e-mails I found out that the Dutch are also involved in Climate Gate.
Shell is currently involved in a test for Carbon Capture and Storage under the city of Dordrecht.
This sounds very odd to me because one of the objectives is to find out if their CCS concept is safe. I always learned that any personal risks should be avoided in an experiment that has to proof the safety of a concept, so I wonder why they risk the lives of an entire city population of a town to proof safety?
I personally would not like to live in a town where they have a 200 Bar Liquid CO2
system to pump CO2 under the ground.
In one of the e-mails between Phil Jones and Michael Mann the KNMI was mentioned
and Van Engelen et al, a report about the Dutch winters from the year 800 to today.
The report concludes that the hottest winters happened in the past fifty years from the current and past century, in perfect support with the Mann’s Hockeystick Graph.
There is more interesting information in this e-mail here:
http://climate-gate.com/email.php?eid=178&keyword=KNMI
I also found an e-mail where the Dutch request for cooperation to get a 100 million Euro grand, see here: http://climate-gate.com/email.php?eid=293&keyword=Pavel
So if we make a fast calculation:
The last e-mail i about a 100.000.000 Euro grand, the Shell CCS project is about 680.000.000 Euro in grands and participations, totals 780 million Euro = over one billion dollar, a lot of money to keep the scam alive. And that’s only the Netherlands.

BP and it’s absorbed Amoco were very “green” for the last decade or so. If I were not a cynic by nature I might think them sincere*. Their HQ in Houston has a big solar array on one of its many garages. Incidentally, it is covered with snow today in the earliest snowfall in the history of weather records hereabouts (and still accumulating). Unsurprising that BP would fund the enemy – perhaps they thought that the greens might give them a break – or, again, they could be sincere.
The greens shamelessly bash big oil while taking their filthy lucre. Apparantly they don’t “stay bought”. No honor among shills on that side of the equation, eh?.
* But, really “beyond petroleum”? Give me a break!

I did a research on internet after I heard about a meeting in the White House, 4.th of August 1997 between Bill Clinton, Al Gore, government officials and 7 energy exectutives, one of them was Lord Browne of BP. I have reedited an essay that I put up on a blog in Norway some days ago.
About the Kyoto Protocol.
It was signed the 11th Desember 1997, and from Wikipedia, pr now it is signed 187 nations. The Protocol says that 37 developed nations have to reduce their discharge of anthropogenic gases by 5.2 % within 2012 compared to the levels in 1990.
But, it is possible to avoid this demand by Emission trading, from Wikipedia:
The Protocol provides for several “flexible mechanisms” which enable Annex I countries to meet their GHG emission targets by acquiring GHG emission reductions credits. The credits are acquired by an Annex I country financing projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I countries or other Annex I countries, or by purchasing credits from Annex I countries with excess credits. The flexible mechanisms are emissions trading, the clean development mechanism (CDM) and joint implementation.
Bying and selling CO2-quota have grown into big business. From Wikipedia:
Since allowances and carbon credits are tradeable instruments with a transparent price, financial investors can buy them on the spot market for speculation purposes, or link them to futures contracts. A high volume of trading in this secondary market helps price discovery and liquidity, and in this way helps to keep down costs and set a clear price signal in CO2 which helps businesses to plan investments. This market has grown substantially, with banks, brokers, funds, arbitrageurs and private traders now participating in a market valued at about $60 billion in 2007.[14] Emissions Trading PLC, for example, was floated on the London Stock Exchange’s AIM market in 2005 with the specific remit of investing in emissions instruments.
From Tim Carneys webside, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm . At the end of 2008 the value of CO2-quota, cap and trade, will be ca $ 126 bn, the origin mainly from Europe.By 2020 the value vil increase to $ 3.1 tn. But he the volume of trading will be about $ 20 tn, according to Matt Taibi´s essay in Rolling Stone. The Obama administrations is planning to sell CO2-quota for the amount of $ 646 bn.
From other source I have learned that investment bank like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are positioning themselves for this market. The government in Norway now offer CO2-quotas to private person.
Question is, can cap and trade have any influence on emmisions and global temperature. Probable very little. The calculated effect of the Kyoto Protocol was to lower the global mean temperature below 0,06 oC at 2050.
The cost for every single person will be huge. In USA, for every family it will increase to about $ 4600 in 2035. In Norway we are paying 15 c pr liter of gasoline and oil in CO2-taxes. We have to pay for socalled green certificates, increased to $ 140 in 2020 to the utilities. From next year we have to pay a CO2-tax on our renewabel hydro electric power to EU. And the government is bying CO2-quotas for million of dollars, many of the scemes are obscure. The government tactic in Norway is to deversify the carbon taxes.
Then back to Tim Carneys webside, how late Kenneth Lay, CEO of ENRON, was one of the main arcitects of the Kyoto Protocol and cap and trade. The 4th of August 1997 it was a decisive meeting in The White House, 3 months before the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. Attendees were Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ken Lay, Lord Browne of BP an 6 other energy executives. Kenneth Lay managed to convince the others that there should be a market approach to the reduction of anthropogenic gases. That was the reasen behind the artical 17 in the Kyoto Protocol, cap an trade.
There are to important things to notice in TC webside. First, before the meeting in The White House, the Oil Industri was negativ to anthropogenic global warming, AGW. But, they became convinced, they could benefit of the new of cap and trade. THEY CHANGED THEIR POSITION IN 1997! The NGO´has not told us. Some years ago there was a big row in UK when a hospital had to by CO2-quotas, and from where they had their origin.
The second point is that after 1997 the Big Oils started to support NGO´s financially. ENRON had knitted into new alliances and started to fund NGO´s like Greenpeece and World Wild Life Fund:
From TC: In addition, Enron began to cultivate new friends in the environmental community. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation gave nearly $1 million to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promoted global warming theories. Another $1.5 million was donated to other groups advocating international controls to curb global warming, including Greenpeace.
ENRON´s business plan was to parasite, profitt on the coal dependant industries:
From TC: In 1997, Enron set about to promote an international treaty to impose cuts in CO2 emissions while allowing emission rights trading. Such an agreement would produce a gigantic windfall for Enron because it would boost the usage of natural gas at the expense of coal and it would help Enron’s growing commodity trading business.
They created institusions that should marginalize AGW sceptics; Bjoern Lomberg became one of their victims:
From TC: As the push for a treaty gained more support around the world, Enron CEO Ken Lay and other business leaders wrote to President Bill Clinton on September 1, 1998, asking him to create a bipartisan blue ribbon commission that would essentially shut off the scientific debate on global warming and discredit those scientists who opposed the treaty and did not support the global warming theory.
ENRON studied AGW. The conclusion was not obvious, but they managed to attach the most prominent experts on the field:
From TC: Simultaneously, Enron commissioned an internal study of global warming science, only to find the results did not support the theory. In conclusion, the report noted, “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.”A primary consultant for that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, the very same scientist who now castigates the Bush administration for its stance on Kyoto and who trashes scientists who dispute global warming as being in the hip pocket of big business. That certainly did not keep Mr. Hansen from cashing Enron’s check.

Google search results for “climategate” as of 4:35pm EST today:
Results 1 – 10 of about 13,800,000 for climategate. (0.10 seconds)
Earlier this morning, it was 30,000,000 — NOT 13,800,000.
Perhaps there is a valid reason for this, but it seems odd because I have been watching it steadily grow all week long.

Here’s showing where the big money is out. Obama handing out almost $1B right here:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200912041510DOWJONESDJONLINE000671_FORTUNE5.htm
Also it was Enron who promoted these sorts of things. A lot of people who are behind AGW don’t realize they’re getting in bed with Kenny Boy Lay…or for that matter all these other companies, like Shell, BP, Esso, etc as has already been pointed out. Paul Krugman worked for Enron, so is it any surprise he accuses others of being paid corporate shills as a form of projection? Krugman should own up and say how many billions/trillions of dollars are involved and what big businesses stand to gain.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to naive lefties that big oil supports fake environmental problems. The naivety is astounding.

Nobody’s mentioned it, but I assume many of you saw the Shell ad campaign on the Scientific American website along with those two wonderful apologist stories on Climategate.
It’s pretty hilarious. With a Shell ad in the right sidebar, there’s this in the copy:
“That’s not something some folks want to see, primarily those working in the fossil fuel extraction and/or burning business.
There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action.”
In case the ads have changed, I’ve got it documented here:
http://co2realist.com/2009/12/03/scientific-american-and-shell-partners-in-climate/

My code:
:
; Its free, and you can improve it:
;
If (planet==cooling) {
minusfood=true;
morefamine=true;
morediseases=true;
if (youhidethis && saythatplanetiswarming) {
youareacriminous=true;
jailtoyou=true;
algore=-nobel;
copenhagen=false;
WUWT++;
}
}

I am now coining the term “Climavirus” as the underlying affliction of people who act in mild-mannered, sincere ways whilst spreading AGW propaganda. You can tell a person afflicted with Climavirus by their refusal to admit their AGW campaign went wrong. Or that ClimateGate has international impact. Or that climate change is a fabrication of a small cultist clan who hoped to bamboozle industrialized nations into paying for one-world socialism.
People in the final stages of this disease are on the lookout for those uninfected. If they find such people – they quickly assume the pose of Donald Sutherland in the photo above. Creepy is Climavirus.
NOTE: Climavirus is a fictional invention based on zero medical or scientific evidence – mostly.

It seems that there isn’t any stigma accepting Oil money if the money goes to the “right” scientists.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=204&filename=973374325.txt
In this email exchange Mike Hulme is alerted by Simon J Shackley:
“looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from
this largesse?”
Pretty sure TC is the Tyndall Centre which Mike Hulme was the founding Director 200-2007 acccording to http://mikehulme.org/

I am this site for several years in France without learning to read English through translations of the net …
My message is translated the same way …
I beg you to excuse me for my imperfect message.
I complained on the forums French complicity between the IPCC (IPCC English) and CEA (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique) has long been here but no one hears me?
The CEA funds the IPCC and all agencies of climate research in France!
It is time that someone in the U.S. survey on this subject, I think the biggest fish here at CEA …
Thank you, I spent dozens of hours you read, is always with renewed pleasure that I return here.
read comments from people of integrity gives me the balm to the heart.
THANK YOU.
Nobel peace: Researchers at the Laboratory of Climate and the Environment (LSCE), Saclay have participated in the IPCC:
http://www-centre-saclay.cea.fr/fr/fr/La-recherche/Actualites-scientifiques-de-Saclay/Prix-Nobel-de-la-paix-Des-chercheurs-du-Laboratoire-des-sciences-du-climat-et-de-l-environnement-LSCE-de-Saclay-ont-participe-aux-travaux-du-GIEC
Welcome to LSCE:
http://www.lsce.ipsl.fr/
CEA :
http://www.cea.fr/le_cea/actualites/evolution_preoccupante_du_taux_de_co2_present_da-4500

Dear Mr. Matthews,
Unfortunately Phil Jones is travelling and will probably be unable to offer a separate reply. Since your comments involve work that is his as well, I have therefore taken the liberty of copying your inquiry and this reply to several of his British colleagues. The comparisons made in our paper are well explained therein, and your statements belie the clearly-stated qualifications in our conclusions with regard to separate analyses of the Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and globe. An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you refer to are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-reviewed
literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run by individuals sponsored by ExxonMobile corportation, hardly an objective source of information.
Owing to pressures on my time, I will not be able to respond to any further inquiries from you. Given your extremely poor past record of reporting on climate change issues, however, will leave you with some final words. Professional journalists I am used to dealing with do not rely upon un-peer-reviewed claims off internet sites for their sources ofinformation. They rely instead on peer-reviewed scientific research, and mainstream, rather
than fringe, scientific opinion. Sincerely,
Michael E. Mann
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=362&filename=1065125462.txt

Indiana Bones (13:56:47) :
Give the patient some Climacillium and a few Tylenols.

CO2 Realist (13:46:36) :
Well, the ad is only there because we exposed the big oil conspiracy, and now they are trying to make us a part of it. You see, the same hackers that put these emails out also hacked in to our website and put that ad up. Then they hacked a bunch of fake checks into our bank account. No, really! They are trying to distract you from the truth. The truth that the Earth is warming because it suspects the oil companies too.

Hypocrisy, thy name is legion.

Mike
BGS are now on board, so please leave them in the text : I have drafted a
letter for David Falvey to sign and sent it. I hope we shall get it back in
time…
The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they’re having to get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer )just a few weeks ago, so we’ve had to work around the new CE, to whom all this is news…). They know the deadline and will do their best for us.
Finally, my short informal CV is attached, as requested.
Hope the drafting is coming together well.
John

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=159&filename=951431850.txt

Indiana Bones (13:56:47) :
Tim S. (14:15:44) :
Ray (14:16:07) :
We are the three….Climanistas!
Arrrriba!
You guys are killing me.

I am lost for words. The utter hypocracy stinks to high heavens. I have just bookmarked the emails just in case I am accused of being supported by oil. In fact where’s my check?

Not much ClimateGate news in Norwegian media today. They are still silent and are more interested in when and how long Obama stays in Oslo for the so called peace prize. And of course they continue to send the usuall green propaganda.
However one interesting report on the main state TV channel today talked about the close connection between the Norwegian green organizations and big business, including Statoil.
It seams to me that this is more a form of protection money for bad press and blackmail than as a mean of free money contribution.
The greens here, well they are not short of money.
Here is the link !
You can go to Google and have it translated

Newsnight bbc2 just now
hilarious – an argument between a UEA prof andrew Watson and marc morano ( communications director us senate environmental committee)
the uk prof accuses sceptics of relying on ad hominem attacks, tells the other guy to shut up, and just as they finish says “what an asshole”. He also admits not knowing anything about data deletion
excellent. Should be available on the BBC website soon (sorry I can’t YouTube this)

Did anyone catch the end of Newsnight (BBC2 10:35pm ish)?
I’m sure a professor at East Anglia called Marc Morano an a**hole live on air. Did I catch that right?

OT but breaking news – just seen Morano verses Watson on Newsnight (BBC2m UK). After bizarrely accusing the sceptics of charactor assasinations rather than science – Watson was clearly heard stating “what an asshole” at the end of the discussion! Good to finally see the BBC finally covering clomategate (and Channel 4 earlier this evening) but both interviewers were clearly uninformed/biased – in that they only mentioned the emails, when the real meat is in the programmers’ code and notes.

Oil Companies are like anybody else. They are run by people. They have been duped just as much as anyone. Even their own science experts jumped on the “end-of-the-world” bandwagon – it makes for puffing out your chest, it sure beats another obscure petrochemical patent for cracking hydrocarbons. The science experts at big oil jumped on the AGW chance to be able to sound real important at global conferences and executive tables and those who shout loud enough are often so good they can be promoted to “distinguished lecturer” at the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Big Oil is run by people – just like you or me – they are just as gullible – and please don’t forget – they are doing a service to mankind – they are often far more environmentally conscious than all other market sectors because of the risks involved and the sensitivity of the public to oil spills. Their people are extremely hard working and passionate about the good work they do as well as being more often Green than not. Remember that energy produces the food we eat and transports it to market, not to mention heating our homes. The days of Rockefeller and secret behavior & collusion of Big Oil is long long long over…

Oil, shcmoil.
I’ve just discovered the evil force behind this whole thing!
It’s dry ice manufacturers! They’re plotting to force the world to capture CO2, thereby flooding the market with their cheap raw material. Then, they have colluded with government officials to popularize cheap parlor tricks thatconsume dry ice, thereby increasing the market for their product.
Cheap raw material, bigger market. They’ll make a fortune!
Don’t believe me?

(Zoom to ~4:30)

Jh
Just watched that….brilliant. I thought the CRU Prof was debating Morano though. The presenter, Martha Kearney just had to apologize for the bad language.
Soon to be seen on youtube (and here I guess) the Prof makes a real fool of himself.

@UKIP Yes, I nearly fell off my sofa laughing. I’ve watched it several times. What is particularly delicious is that his whole beef with Mark Morano (who completely wiped the floor with Watson) was that the skeptic’s only device was character assassination! What with him and Bob Ward being annihilated by the chap from the Spectator, it’s been a good day! 🙂

This one works
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

Andew P. (14:57:38) :
Do you have a link?

Major integrated oil companies have long been supporters of the ‘environmental movement’.
Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. fund these groups which clamor (and sue) for tighter ‘environmental’ restrictions, with the intent of raising the barrier to market entry. This keeps out any possible smaller competitors and protects their monopoly.
I thought people would have caught on to this scam by now.

There’s even a MS error routine for it. The MMGW BSOD. (scroll down a little)
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-happens-when-you-run-climate.html
(mods, feel free to snip the following, contains potentially offensive language)
And more on googlegate
http://grumpyoldtwat.blogspot.com/2009/12/googlegate.html

Another politician frantically ties himself to a sinking ship. From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6729833/Gordon-Brown-climate-change-sceptics-are-flat-earthers.html
“Mr Brown last night insisted that the science on climate change in settled, and accused those who question the consensus of being outdated.”
He said: “With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.” ”
For those in other countries Mr Brown is Gordon Brown the British Prime Minister who single handedly saved the world last year at the time of the Banking crisis.
I know many politicians are rogues. The trouble with the present lot is that they seem to be very stupid rogues. Blair and Clinton were pretty slick and slippery but I never got the impression that either was a half-wit.
I don’t know who I will vote for next year but I know who I won’t vote for.
I think this tells us what will happen to the Downing Street petition.

Phil A (15:14:55) “So why wouldn’t the oil companies now want to push the AGW agenda?”
And so, slowly, lights started coming on.
People started realizing: 2+2=4
… just a little too late to stop the capitalist schemes that are well-underway. [ :
Staggering to see how many lefties whole-heartedly & naively bought into what has been a right-wing ploy all along.
i.e. watch the spin change the narrative now…

This is the link to the original Reuters article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B24ZV20091203

On Youtube I searched “Solar Minimum” and my video came up at the top of the list. If you want to have your video at top of the list, make a video with Solar Minimum in the title.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=solar+minimum&search_type=&aq=f

could someone please rebut this article in New Scientist yesterday
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?full=true
They buy their whitewash by the barrel

A WUWT Solar Minimum Youtube video contest explaining the current solar minimum and its connection to climate would be pretty cool.

I would be willing to donate $50 toward in a Chipin or tip jar to pay Solar Minimum video contest winners.

This is just chilling. From the Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
“The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.”
The Times should be pressed for their source on this claim, and if validated, then this should be top news. Unbeliveable.

Greg S (11:46:29) :
A partial list of CRU financial backers.
British Petroleum,
Eastern Electricity,
Greenpeace International,
Leverhulme Trust,
National Power,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Shell,
Sultanate of Oman,
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)
Interesting!
Then checkout WHO funds WWF
Goldman Environmental Foundation, Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller foundations(4)
And Greenpeace
the Rockefeller foundations(4) Among others
It is fun to browse through the foundations (click at the top) at activist cash to see who is in the pay of whom. http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/103

JEM (11:58:11) :
…Want to get people’s attention? Start by banning carbonated soft drinks. More health benefit than a world of cap-and-trade laws.
What a brilliant Idea. Maybe we should campaign to get those soft drinks banned INSTEAD of cap and trade. At least it directly addresses the supposed problem and does not hurt people….
Let us see Barbara Boxer et al try and wiggle out of that one.

If journalists were to do their job they could make Obama and other politicians real uncomfortable. For instance someone could ask Obama (or other high ranking politician) what the carbon footprint of:
1) The war in Afghanistan
2) The military in general
3) The federal government
Then if they can’t answer ask why not given what they are trying to do us. If they do give some answer, then ask what the carbon offsets will cost. Of course Obama isn’t going to subject himself to what private businesses are going to have to pay, so he’ll say he wont offset the massive carbon he’s putting out to fight the war in Afghanistan, the military in general or the entire federal government. It could make Obama and a number of others who support Copenhagen very uncomfortable because it will look like they’re applying a huge double standard on one hand while on the other hand it would show how crushing the cost could be (I’d expect the cost to the federal budget would exacerbate the deficit) if the federal government (or just the military) had to buy carbon offsets, like what they want to impose on the public.
Here’s an article talking about the carbon footprint of the Iraq war and the Pentagon in general:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/27/ethicalliving.carbonfootprints
It looks like they have a HUGE footprint (the military consumes more oil than most countries), but you aren’t going to hear Obama taking responsible for his own use and all the heat he’d get on running up the deficit…he’ll just do that to businesses.

illya (16:31:57) “Anybody know anything about this new hack? True or not: http://www.desmogblog.com/breaking-impersonators-attempt-access-canadian-government-centre-for-climate-modeling-and-analysis “
That is alarmism at its best.
That is a standard practice of thieves operating on university campuses. At a university where I had a contract a few years ago, thieves would pull tricks like that and make off with thousands of dollars worth of goodies. I remember one case where a $10000 projector was taken down in front of a whole lecture theater full of students, as the prof lectured. No one asked for ID. E-mails from angry administrators then went out saying: “Ask for ID.” Thieves usually flee if/when asked for ID.
It’s not uncommon to see these leaps of reasoning from alarmists. Here the logic seems to be: They left when asked for ID; therefore they must be associated with climategate. Perfectly logical (by some standards).

“snopercod (15:34:56) :
Major integrated oil companies have long been supporters of the ‘environmental movement’.
Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. fund these groups which clamor (and sue) for tighter ‘environmental’ restrictions, with the intent of raising the barrier to market entry. This keeps out any possible smaller competitors and protects their monopoly.
I thought people would have caught on to this scam by now.”
Are you implying that Rockefeller support for environmental causes is not entirely altruistic?
Next you’ll be telling me the Easter Bunny is a fertility symbol!

INGSOC (12:09:55) :
…. I believe the political left in North America has also been corrupted by the same conniving wannabee dictators. I know a poor few friends that are still “left of centre” that are also skeptics, but are more or less without political affiliation due to their adherence to truth; and the sorry lack of a party on the left that places honesty before a corrupt ideology.
Things are looking up though!
AHhh an enlightened one. Yes the Megalomaniacs figured out they could hide behind environmentalism and socialism to use Political Activists to gain money and power. The UN NGOs are the perfect vehicle to seduce bright young things into thinking they are saving the world while advancing the UN s power plays.
Once you see that it is clear the democrats are used for the big steps forward. The Federal Reserve Act in 1913, The World Trade Organization in 1995 and now Copenhagen. All are about handing control of money, then food and trade and now energy over to an elite cabal.
Simple really once you catch on.

On an entertaining note, read this from Ed Milliband’s petition page:
“We, the undersigned, believe climate change is real and man-made, as demonstrated by the science, and we must take action as citizens of Doncaster to tackle climate change. Doing so is necessary for the environment and future generations, and can be good for our economy and society.”
so climate change is man made, and can all be remedied from Doncaster. (Population: 67,977)

And finally, news of ClimateGate hits MSM. Our local ABC station carried the story of the Hollywood conservatives wanting to yank Al Gore’s Oscar over the global warming scandal.
Oooohhhh!

Buddenbrook (17:01:27) :
“This is just chilling. From the Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
“The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.” ”
This is “cheering news, in a strange way….”
I was waiting for an disinterested but affected party to realize their jeopardy and the Met has. If this is to be a transparent re-assesment, as they claim, it is what skeptic and alarmist alike should relish!

Noelene (17:14:54) :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

Hopefully they will invite people from “both sides of the fence” as well as posting their progress in every detail as it develops so everything is wide open.
Transparency will be a must otherwise this will go on for ever.

Whats up with climateGate on Twitter. No posts?

For what it is worth, I believe I recall that Cool Climate, the releaser of the files also said or implied that there is more information and possibly some further files to be released sometime in the future.
It is known that there are still a lot of e-mails from CRU that are not in the currently released file.
One of those still missing e-mails was Jones somewhat infamous e-mail to Warwick Hughes of the “Errors in IPCC climate science” blog where Jones simply dismisses Hughes request for data with the contemptuous ” Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. … Cheers Phil”
Could get even more interesting if Cool Climate decides to go for the kill regardless of the personal consequences and releases another file or files and further lot of coding.

Several of the oil companies are among those pushing for the carbon reduction initiatives. Both Shell and BP are fully behind cap and trade for example. Shell is even lobbying the U.S. govt. to remove of any restrictions on carbon credit trading and asking for the allowal of trade in financial derivatives/toxic paper.
Shells wants very badly to trade in some of those sweet sweet derivaties. Exxon Mobil on the other hand, apparently favours a carbon tax.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/cfd/shell-calls-for-derivatives-on-carbon-trading-20091117-ij67.html

LOL, this just in.
US President Barack Obama has changed his plans to attend the UN summit on climate change, and will be in Copenhagen at the end of the conference rather than the beginning.
The White House says Mr Obama has moved his appearance from 9 December to 18 December after talks with other leaders and after seeing progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the BBC reports.
The White House says he believes “continued US leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference”.

Breach in MSM coverup of AGW/CRU fraud.
…-
“Breach in global-warming bunker shakes foundations of climate science
Leaked e-mails from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit threaten to undermine Copenhagen summit on carbon emissions”
“a crisis of confidence in global-warming science that is threatening to destroy the political consensus around next week’s carbon-policy summit in Copenhagen.”
“On a political level, coming on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, the controversy has been catastrophic”.
“Saudi Arabian officials now say that they will argue in Copenhagen that carbon-emission controls are pointless because the CRU scandal has nullified any evidence of human-caused atmospheric temperature increase.”
“Unusually, even sympathetic scientists and some activists have concluded that the credibility of climate science has been seriously harmed.”
“Prof. Hulme is one of several scientists calling for the raw data of climate-change research to be made available to everyone, including climate-change skeptics, on the Internet.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/breach-in-global-warming-bunker-shakes-foundations-of-climate-science/article1389842/

Roger (16:58:40) :
Thx for the info! It’s sometimes hard to check the facts from the other side of the globe and our dear alarmist friends seem to use every argument they can get hold of nowadays.

LOL. Great pic and great catch.
Their hypocrisy has no bounds. I love it!

Gail Combs (17:35:04) :
None of the oil/coal companies stand to lose from any of this just the poor and middle class who have another tax added to their backs while the bankers and politicians make more money.
The Great Depression led to WWII. Despite his boasting, Bernanke is powerless to fix the economy. It could not be otherwise since an economy is too complicated for top down control (socialist calculation problem). The PTB had better realize the peril that a Greater Depression will put them in too and LET GO.
Too much is lining up:
1. the economy.
2. Middle East troubles
3. possible crop losses due to cold weather.
This is no time to be stupid.

maz2 (18:57:57) :
Maz2, I hope the leaker is reading those statements?/headlines?
Time to erect a statue and start a defense fund.

I’m glad BO moved the date in Cophenhagen. That will give Climategate an extra week to fester in his craw.

singularian (11:45:24) :
There’s also uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc in the documents.
Talks of possible funding for Tyndall center from Shell in return for Shell being able to partially set the research agenda.
That document is dated 11.Sep.2000 and signed Mick Kelly. It seems like he e-mailed it (or a close version of it) the same day — see here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt
From: “Mick Kelly”
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell International
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:05:29 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike and Tim
Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
Sorry about the delay.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably
the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation
including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top
levels.
Mick
Attachment Converted: “c:eudoraattachshell.doc”
Some points from the document:
What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.
1. Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.
2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.

Steve S.: I doubt CRU had any believable data in the first place. If they had, the people who gathered the data should be outraged that their work was carelessly tossed. There have been no such people who have come forward. But even if they had, the fact that the process has been so secretive (and then they “lost” the secret) means that the data must be redone. If they truly believe in the science, the carelessness of the global warming scientists have set their science back at least 20 years. Probably longer because of the public relations damage.

““The rationale behind the research is that quantitative comparison of reconstructions and simulations of climate over the past two millennia can provide an assessment of the extent to which natural and anthropogenic forcing can explain observed patterns of climatic change.””
What a scam. Getting simulations to better compare with reconstructions is why the climate models went kaput in the first place…if they get the past wrong there ain’t no way they’re gonna be able to predict the future.
I’ve been saying for almost two weeks now that the hockey stick and the team’s insistence on covering for it actually sabotaged the models and climate science.

“Looks like “Hockey Stick” Mann also got money for reconstructions (the grant is still active):”
You found a job that Obama saved! Unfortunately, it’s not even in America.
““The rationale behind the research is that quantitative comparison of reconstructions and simulations of climate over the past two millennia can provide an assessment of the extent to which natural and anthropogenic forcing can explain observed patterns of climatic change.””
What a scam. Getting simulations to better compare with reconstructions is why the climate models went kaput in the first place…if they get the past wrong there ain’t no way they’re gonna be able to predict the future.
I’ve been saying for almost two weeks now that the hockey stick and the team’s insistence on covering for it actually sabotaged the models and climate science.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which”
—

http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/environment/climate_change/our_approach_to_climate_change/approach_to_climate_change.html
Shell Energy
“Our approach to climate change
We support urgent and wide-ranging action to address climate change. Our approach includes reducing CO2 emissions from our operations and products; helping customers manage their emissions from using our products; and advocating the wide-ranging policy changes needed from governments.”
Here’s the Wingerville headline for you: The time’s they are a changin.’

There is far more profit in oil trading and distribution than in exploration/refining. That is why John D. Rockefeller captured the distribution networks while the wildcatters went broke in a cutthroat competition. Eventually, Rockefeller expanded into banking.
Big business hates competition and welcomes big government to suppress competition. A leftist historian, Gabriel Kolko documented this in his 1963 book “The Triumph of Conservatism.” By conservatism he meant maintaining the status quo, not political conservatism as we understand it today. Kolko shows how big business actually welcomed the “progressive era” reforms as they would discourage new market entrants and maintain profits.
With cap & trade, climate taxes etc. big oil would have less pressure to engage in risky exploration. Supply would be capped and prices maximized without high cost exploration and refinery expansion. Unit profits would increase. Any losses due to taxes could be recaptured by political lobbying. In fact it is easier to make profits in the political (and leveraged CO2 exchange) worlds than from consumers.

Re: Roger Knights (04:49:53)
It’s worse than that. They think clouds are a part of weather, but not climate, and they’ve never heard of integrals and boundary conditions.
…but this is the least of our worries. Whichever way the debate & the politics go, the elite will be running that wagon and truth will only be welcome to play a role in its navigation when that is convenient. Boom & bust, sways left & right – very convenient opportunities for those with sufficient resources since they are positioned to leverage any change. Left & right players in this game are just pawns – the screaming strings being fiddled by the elite bow. Since CRUgate, political neutrality is even more appealing than it was before.

Heyyyy! No love for me for my reference to the Donald Sutherland “Body Snatchers” image in the comments of the first story on this scandal on 11/19? No biggie. It would have been good to show my wife though since she is sick of me “wasting time” on this topic (I have made it a hobby over the last several months to jump into the AGW fire over at Media Matters for America).
I have fallen out of the MMfA fray over the last week as my “real” computer is in the shop for upgrades, but I will return to battle soon (poor timing, I know). I have several times made the Body Snatchers reference over there as I believe it does perfectly illustrate the often rabid response to “deniers” (as I mentioned in that initial WUWT comment, one woman said, “I hope you drown yourself when the sea level increases.”). I have taken to calling the cult there “AGW-fraud deniers” as their responses to this story, though predictable, epitomizes the “nothing to see here” mentality (another phrase I frequently drop) prevalent amongst the believers.
I am glad to see new skeptic blood over on MMfA and I suggest others do the same. Going into “the belly of the beast” there may do more good than you might realize as many people inadvertently pay visit to the site when generically searching through the news and some may not realize just how one-sided their presentation is on AGW. My hope is that my efforts, as well as the efforts of the few other skeptics who raise their voice there, will help to balance it out at least a bit (can be a losing battle many days).
As for this story, it’s great to see WUWT bring attention to it and my hope is that doing so will increase the visibility of the “Big Oil” angle (and let’s not forget the associated and IMO even more important “Big Redistributionist” angle–still think the Horsman/Kelly document needs more play). We know that the AGW issue has been losing steam among the public for quite a while now, but this story cannot be allowed to go away. The stakes are way too high. So even though Christmas came early this year, there are more presents to be unwrapped yet.
Keep up the good work here. As the leading voice online attempting to balance the discussion against what is indisputably an overwhelming pro-AGW machine, WUWT and CA are doing the Lord’s work in my opinion. I am raising my son to have a love of science and to be an independent thinker. He is still too young to appreciate this story, but when the time comes I intend on using this topic to illustrate what can happen to scientific investigation when it is corrupted by politics.