Video summary of the Heartland #ICCC9 conference – plus a look at the “big oil” connection

This short video (4:30) was shot and edited by videographer Paul Budline from New Jersey, and it encapsulates short clips from many of the speakers at the conference. It is a good summary and worth your time. There’s a bit of a “Friday Funny” on “big oil” that follows too.

For the purpose of full disclosure, Budline in an email to me noted that:

“I pitched the idea to Heartland because I have been following this for so many years.  But I can not afford to do anything that has to do with those dreaded Latin words pro bono, so I gave them a very reasonable budget. They [Heartland] provided no guidance on who to interview or on any of the writing or editing or anything else…”

It should also be noted that Heartland did not pay the speakers, including yours truly, but did cover our travel expenses. I think “low budget” would be the best way to describe the conference compared to say, the Fall 2013 AGU conference I attended, but I think the “bang for buck” factor was pretty good.

One notable difference between ICCC9 and the AGU 2013 Fall conference were the sponsors. On the left is the AGU sponsors, on the right, Heartland’s (click to enlarge/read).

AGU_Thanks_sponsorsHeartland_ICCC9_sponsors

For those that don’t believe the AGU sponsorships, note that I covered this at WUWT last fall, and of course you can still see the page at AGU here http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/general-information/thank-you-to-our-sponsors/

…where they thank “big oil” for the money to put on their science extravaganza.

 

 

About these ads

43 thoughts on “Video summary of the Heartland #ICCC9 conference – plus a look at the “big oil” connection

  1. It’s worse than you thought. Clicking thru to look at the list of AGU sponsors reveals that not only are half of the top sponsors from “Big Oil” but Schlumberger, one of the Big Oil service companies that provides fracking services and fluids, is also a major sponsor.
    If there’s a clearer indication than this that these guys are just in it for the money, I can’t imagine what it would be — their hypocrisy is blatant.

  2. The sinful oil is washed clean by the purifying caress of Green virtue.

    It’s a miracle.

  3. Can you imagine the level of hate the AGU would issue against big oil if big oil actually refused to buckle under to the green shakedown? Big oil is cutting their losses and passing the expense on to their customers. When your customer base is the global population the burden on each customer is spread thin, so it becomes a matter of principle to insist they stop paying ransom to Big Education.

  4. Great video. Thanks for sharing!

    A big thanks to Heartland for making the whole thing happen. What a wealth of knowledge that was on display!

  5. the speakers are working on this computer so if I want to really watch this have to do on another computer.

    Did you see Varney and Tom Steyer go at this morning.Steyer stated he wast against the minimum wage, wants lower spending and lower taxes. He did not seem to accept that things he wants and does not want are the opposite of Obama for whom he hosts fundraisers.

    Also I saw that Huckabee came out for the RINO running for re-election in KS.

    Charles

  6. Excellent capsule of the conference, in my mind at least. I’d like to make a comment about AGU and “big oil.” You have to understand “big oils” true point of view. They really don’t want to use petroleum as an energy source. That IS there position, thus the “green wedding” makes real sense. They would rather use the oil to create recyclable items where they can make money on oil more then once. They envision there future in recyclable plastics, not gasoline, thus they will support the green agenda up until the agenda starts to truly attack plastics – and you may have noticed that “big green” doesn’t discuss the plastic masses in the oceans nearly as much as they used to, and you also can understand why – “thanks big oil for your contributions to our anti-human positions.”

  7. I’m guessing the closest thing to “Big Oil” at the Heartland conference was a rental car leaking a bit in the parking lot or maybe one of the attendees still uses Brylcreem? I’m sure there’s a connection in there somewhere.

  8. The well funded machine is the Global Warming machine ( now known as climate change) The Us government as spent 165 billion dollars on it, 35 billion toward the “science” The Apollo project cost 130billion, which is why there is no moon base and NASA smartly so ran to where the money is.

    If its the US, then its the taxpayer. And what have we got.. almost 20 years of no temp change, and a list of excuses rivaling the Dog ate my homework, and a bunch of people screaming that there is a well funded big oil denial machines.

    Given the world of the parasitic climatic ambulance chasers this ilk really is, if you want to fight it a quote Sheriff Ed Bell in No Country for Old Men has to be considered:

    ” A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He’d have to say, “O.K., I’ll be part of this world.”

  9. Geophyics (seismic surveys) is the main tool in exploring for gas and oil, hence the presence of so many oil companies as sponsors.

  10. ‘Big Oil’ is like any company, even ‘small pool installers inc’. They want to make money.

    Since 1970 the share of the US economy devoted to energy has gown down a lot. The only way to make more money if you are an energy company is to charge radically more for the same product. Since people don’t want any more energy in the developed world, rising prices is the only solution.

    Green energy projects are perfect as they create very little energy and are very expensive, and are protected by govt subsidies and laws.

    They are protected at least until the govt gets sick of it all and does what Spain did – claw back.

  11. I think some of the commenters here are somewhat misguided about AGU and its being sponsored by Exxon, BP Chevron etc. AGU is not only about climate change. AGU covers all sorts of geophysical science, and some of that is related to oil and gas exploration and production.

    It is not that surprising that oil and gas companies sponsor a meeting of AGU because they are interested in geological, geophysical, mathematical and computing science as it relates to the science that goes into hydrocarbon exploration, production, data processing, drilling and so on. They are also interested in research undertaken by universities, sometimes paid for by consortia of oil and gas companies. Finally they are interested in graduates and where they are taught well.

    (This comment from a long-time visitor to WUWT who enjoys this blog tremendously)

  12. Tom O-
    Your statements are unsupported by the facts, and quite frankly they don’t make a lot of sense.
    Firstly Big oil does not make plastics, that would be chemical companies such as Dow and Dupont.
    Secondly plastics are mainly made from natural gas, not oil.

  13. Keith 11.04: What you say makes a great deal of sense. The other factor is that “big Oil” KNOW that the CAGW narrative is false and unsustainable and that “renewables” cannot conceivably replace fossil fuels to any extent. The developing nations will not, under any circumstances, buy in to an emission reduction agenda. In other words, the demand for their products is unassailable.
    The current targets of the greenocracy are coal and nuclear – Big Oil’s only challengers. Of course they are happy to fund the environmental delusion. How much funding have they provided any “sceptical” player in this game? The allure of “renewables” is rapidly fading in those entities (i.e the EU) who have committed big time. What can replace those failing resources but Oil and Gas?

  14. ossqss says:
    July 25, 2014 at 11:02 am
    Note: All of the recorded presentations at the conference are available for viewing here. Hopefully they will make their way to their YouTube channel so they can be shared and embedded more easily.

    http://climateconference.heartland.org/

    ————————

    All but seven of the presentations have been uploaded to YouTube. The rest (bringing the total to 79 vids) will be up next week. A good place to seek out and view presentations by speaker is at the Climate Conferences Archive Page, which now has ICCC9 added to the eight previous conferences.

    http://climateconferences.heartland.org/

    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute

    [Thank you. Please consider adding links to this site from your organization's permanent website. .mod]

  15. A nicely produced video. But where will it be distributed? If it only appears on the Heartland web site or here on wattsupwiththat then you are just preaching to the choir.

  16. Mumbles McGuirck,

    Nothing is stopping anyone from sharing the video themselves. Between the article and the comments, there are several buttons that can be clicked on to share the video with whomever you wish. Alternatively, you can click on “Youtube” at the bottom of the video window to open the video on its native youtube page. From there you have many avenues for sharing the video. I sent a link to the video on youtube via email to everyone on my normal email list. I also shared it on my facebook page.

  17. That really was an excellent video. Not a word wasted, topics varied and with perfect length. Leaves you wanting more.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  18. I was adult when the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo hit. I saw the gas lines that today’s kids read about in textbooks. I remember the astonishment when gas rocketed in price all the way up to an astonishing 50 cents per gallon (today there is not even a cents key on my keyboard). I remember the outrage about this gouging and efforts to stop gasoline price rises by gasless Wednesdays or similar absurdities.

    And I remember the Oil Companies’ reaction. They felt their profits were not secure if they were only into gasoline. They invested quite heavily in alternative energy technologies. They positioned themselves to win if the world ever transitioned out of petroleum energy. That is one of the reasons you find Big Oil on this post–and sponsoring East Anglia’s CRU in Climategate.

  19. What a well produced load of anecdote. Seems like a conference of cranky old men thinking they know better.

  20. Praxis:

    And what do you “know” that’s better?

    I know that age usually begets wisdom, and there was a lot of wisdom at that conference. I was there. Were you? Or are you just taking a pot shot from the peanut gallery?

  21. dbstealey,

    +1

    I was there too. I’m 59 but have the mentality of a 19 year old! Disclosure: I am a practicing mechanical engineer.

    Met many smart, wise people and my brain is on fire from it! I talked with a meteorologist about tough to measure weather phenomena and now have a ton of ideas… think about this: UAV mounted instrumentation – have we even started? Just about everyone I talked with was technically educated either in earth science or engineering of one sort or another. People were willing to offhandedly offer political opinions, but mostly wanted to talk about the state of climate science. Praxis, were you there?

    Climate and weather prediction are really in their infancy. Too bad the usual suspects have stolen the show with the CAGW nonsense (you know who you are) and the amateur data manipulators (you know who you are) because there is a lot we don’t know, unfortunately there is also a lot we know and ignore (much of this highlighted at IPCC 9).

    Praxis, you want to know what’s really happening or are you just happy to toss zingers and play word-games?

  22. Diogenes2 says: Big oil supports greenery because its main targets are coal and nuclear, etc.

    Interesting point. but I think that it assumes that “Big Oil” has an agreed over-arching strategy for dealing with the situation. Big oil comprises majors, independents, mid-size and minnow companies from a range of different countries. The staff and directors of these companies form a diverse population and therefore reflect the opinions of the population at large, namely there is a split of opinions, maybe close to 50 / 50 on CAGW.

    Some companies have a green agenda to improve their PR. Remember they sell products to the public. Some have a green or renewable project because people within the oil company pushing it genuinely believe it is right for them to do so. Others may have a green project cynically relying on government sponsorship in their profit model. Most are committed to improving their health and safety and therefore conduct operations in demanding areas in an environmentally friendly and safety conscious manner.

    There is no single “Big Oil” strategy relating to CAGW.

    .

  23. @ Gregole re:
    think about this: UAV mounted instrumentation – have we even started?

    As far as I know meteorologists on many airports and weather stations all over the world have been sending up helium balloons up to 2x a day with instrumentation packages for decades I believe it is aworld wide effort. I have watched them and followed the info on Environment Canada, a phone call to a local airport and their Met people would more than likely happily set a time for a demo ( I took my children a few times they loved letting go of the balloon! and the scientists loved the attention and probably would be willing to set up a demo for a school class to boot!).

  24. Tom O and Tom Anderson say: Big Oil policy on plastics etc.

    Many oil companies are still integrated although there has been a recent move to split upstream and downstream areas. Many integrated companies do have a chemicals division where a big product is the production of plastic. This area is not just down to Dow or Dupont. Also, several oil companies have joint ventures of some sort with Dow or Dupont or their equivalents. However strategy relating to this is more related to changing margins over time. Simplistically though, higher oil and natural gas prices mean an emphasis on oil and gas exploration and production, and lower prices generally improve margins in refining and chemicals. So, depending on an individual company’s position, it will react to market forces. With the differentials between prices in the US and elsewhere at present, North American companies are reacting differently to International companies in this regard. There is no single “Big Oil” strategy in this area.

  25. Win Win

    Get to party in Vegas and save the world from a bunch of Totalitarian Eco Zealots

  26. Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
    If there is no warming for the last two decades, while CO2 continues to increase, why do we have costly policies to reduce CO2 when there is no direct connection to actual climate change? This very short video helps answer that question.

  27. Stephen Skinner says:
    “I thought Las Vegas was powered by the Hoover Dam?”

    Nope. Most of the hydropower goes to California as Las Vegas wasn’t much when the dam was built and didn’t get in on the allocation. Las Vegas’s power sources (and how energy efficient they are) described here: https://www.nvenergy.com/company/energytopics/where.cfm

    Las Vegas does get much of its water from Lake Mead and is also quite good at conserving. It’s a desert out there.

    Just something else Montague was wrong about.

  28. UK subscribers when did Montague ever write for the Daily Mail ,The Mail on Sunday then.What was he doing writing for The Sunday Times a Murdock Newspaper.

    Has Montague ever published a list of his writing credits.

  29. Keith says:
    July 25, 2014 at 11:23 pm
    Tom O and Tom Anderson say: Big Oil policy on plastics etc.

    “Many oil companies are still integrated although there has been a recent move to split upstream and downstream areas. Many integrated companies do have a chemicals division where a big product is the production of plastic. This area is not just down to Dow or DuPont. Also, several oil companies have joint ventures of some sort with Dow or DuPont or their equivalents…”

    Keith, you are absolutely correct, it always surprises me when people claim to know about big oil and there secret motives, but don’t really have a clue especially, our politicians who enjoy all the benefits of fossil fuels while flying around on fund raising activities, consuming more fossil fuel than the peasants and having the largest CO2 footprint than others by far. I am not a Chemical Engineer but I know that the business including Chemicals is extremely complex and high Tech. One of the many benefits of hydrocarbons is that our research chemists continue to develop new, innumerable products that improve our lifestyle significantly.
    Besides having some of the largest chemicals plants, the oil companies sell feedstocks to the DuPont’s and Dow’s of the world who turn them into various plastic and other products. Yes chemicals is big business for Oil companies.

    This URL shows just one oil companies CHEMICALS division. Also, if you check out the financial statements in the USA you might find that often the companies make more profits in the Chemicals divisions as opposed to marketing gasoline and fuels, so their interest and continuing research in Chemicals is significant.

    http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Chem-English/productsservices/butyl-polymers.aspx

    From this website you will see that one US oil company invented Butyl rubber in 1937, and note that was extremely critical since the Japanese were taking over all the natural rubber plantations, and we would not have been successful in WW ll without tires for our military machine.

    Yes the Chemical Companies as well as the oil companies are enjoying the big increase in Natural Gas in the US. I consult regularly with one of the largest US clemical companies and earlier I was told they would never build another plant in the US. Now New plant construction in that industry is booming in the US because of Hydraulic Fracturing in the shale fields. Everyone is building new plants to take advantage of cheap natural gas. Just look at the Journals if you don’t believe me.

  30. asybot says:
    July 25, 2014 at 11:21 pm

    That’s cool! I was vaguely familiar with Radiosonde balloons…http://www.ua.nws.noaa.gov/factsheet.htm
    But I was thinking more along the lines of launching UAVs from ocean platforms to sense and measure ocean currents, temperature, and near-ocean atmospheric conditions. Just thinking!

    And speaking of big funding, I’m with Joe Bastardi above; we have spent way too much public money for way too little climate science. We are getting a raw deal. As Dr. Judith Curry has noted, “we have lost a generation of climate scientists.”

    Big funding going to those questioning catastrophic man-made global warming simply does not exist as far as I know. Too bad the real money is directed at the academic, post-doc, computer modeler crowd. Just think if there was a real passion to know just what is happening in the atmosphere through measurement. We could (should?) be measuring a host of areas if we really want to know earth’s climate…Here’s some suggestions for better uses of public funding:

    1. Far north Arctic land-based measurement stations ringing the Arctic
    2. Argo is a good idea for the seas; what about permanently anchoring measurement stations to the sea floor? I believe there is a conjecture that CO2 trapped heat from the atmosphere has crept to the abyss and lurks there. Let’s check.
    3. Space based atmospheric probes – near-earth orbit satellites are launched that periodically drop probe packages into the upper atmosphere; once the probes are exhausted the satellite re-enters the atmosphere taking measurements until it burns up.
    4. More permanent weather and climate measuring satellites.
    5. A permanent moon-based earth observatory, manned by a combination of humans that rotate in to the moon station, and then back to earth, and robots that stay permanently.

    These are just my wild ideas and guesses. But I am sure we could do a better job of measuring.

    And perhaps we could even get kids interested in science and a science career if they knew it was real, valued by the public, and exciting. Just think if you were young and had a prospect of a career in science where you could work in the most remote places on the planet, and even work on the moon!

    Instead, we have been funding junk science, and second-rate academics. We need to do better.

Comments are closed.