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

Paul Budline did a great job!

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.”

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.”

‘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.

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)

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?

Tom McClintock R. Cal. Anthony Watt’s congressman, at the Heartland conference
Why is this guy not the Governor?

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.
.

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.

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.

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.

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.