Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova – The Ecologist speculates that the aim of the ISIS terrorists, who have claimed responsibility for the recent Paris terrorist atrocity, might have been aimed at protecting ISIS’ oil business from an anticipated new climate agreement.
According to The Ecologist;
Is it a coincidence that the terrorist outrage in Paris was committed weeks before COP21, the biggest climate conference since 2009? Perhaps, writes Oliver Tickell. But failure to reach a strong climate agreement now looks more probable. And that’s an outcome that would suit ISIS – which makes $500m a year from oil sales – together with other oil producers.
…
But we must also ask: Why Paris? And why now?
Yes, France has been especially active in its air strikes against ISIS in Syria. And yes, there there is a huge reservoir of discontent among the socially excluded youth of the banlieue, the concrete jungle of impoverished outer suburbs that surround Paris and other big cities – where ISIS can perhaps find willing recruits to its ranks.
But is that all? In just a few weeks time, the COP21 climate conference will take place, in Paris, the biggest such event since COP15 in Copenhagen six years ago. The event offers the world a desperately needed opportunity to reduce its carbon emissions and limit global warming to 2C.
And that’s surely something the attackers, or at least their (presumably) ISIS commanders, must know all about.
Read more: The Ecologist
This line of reasoning is deeply flawed. ISIS are not a legitimate supplier of oil, they are oil smugglers. If a future climate agreement were to place a prohibition on oil, or slap on a massive global carbon tax, the black market price of oil would skyrocket – groups like ISIS would make a fortune, helping oil consumers avoid carbon taxes which legitimate providers would have to pay. It seems much more likely that ISIS didn’t know or didn’t care about the COP 21 climate conference, or who knows – perhaps the recent atrocity was just a prelude, a distraction from a much bigger planned attack on world leaders, when they gather in Paris.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dear alarmists:
Contrary to what you’ve tried to do, MOST people don’t obsess and worry about your sad, sorry, disproved climate hypothesis. At all.
TRUTH^.
If I were a terrorist and had the slightest clue that COP21 was about to happen, why in the world would I attack the site a few weeks before the high value targets arrived?
As a warning? So they can increase security and reduce my odds of success?
To prevent the conference from happening? Unlikely. Now, there is the risk that the alarmist faithful will be seen as brave heros charging on despite the danger.
If anything, the attacks may draw attention to a meeting that is otherwise a global non-event. Maybe they were funded by alarmists.
Come now, I know you are being sarcastic, but that’s uncalled for. However, given how this attack will solidify the fight against ISIS from multiple fronts, and the fact that it was against unarmed civilians at entertainment venues will undermine recruiting. I don’t think there was much brains or thought behind this.
I can definitely see the conspiract theorists running rampant on this, though.
For all we know they read the Calendar the wrong way.
Attacking COP21 could have reached high value targets, true. But they would be more heavily guarded. Attacking when they did, the terrorists had a much higher chance of success, they got nearly the same terror effect that an actual attack on COP21 would have, they get security diverted to COP21 to the point where they have better odds for whatever attack elsewhere they have planned, they get governments running around like headless chickens deciding what to do about COP21 diverting attention away from other things, … I cannot imagine why any smart terrorist would think for one second about waiting until COP21 when they could get so much by an unexpected attack.
Bingo! You win a new colander and 10 pounds of pasta.
Is the pasta not new?
The buffoon chief (codename: wild strawberry) said France:
– abandons its “stability pact”: the deficit target of 3% is gone; France will borrow even more. Now there is a “security pact”.
– will change its Constitution: the change is NOT specified, the direction of change is NOT specified, nothing is specified, but the Constitution needs to be changed because more a hundred people died.
Yes, that’s how France is governed and has been for a few decades.
Maybe it’s a banker plot. Or politicians plot. Or constitutional law experts plot.
“simple-touriste
November 17, 2015 at 10:13 pm”
Oooooh, now that sounds very scary. Template for the rest of the EU, and possibly the a pre-cursor to another war Europe?
The state of emergency has be decreed (for 12 days). It allows searches without warrants, by the administrative authority, without judicial review.
The government has already said the state of emergency will take a law to extend the state of emergency beyond 12 days.
The state of emergency also allows control of the press, and the confiscation of legally held weapons.
As usual, follow the money.
As a retiree on a fixed income, I do, indeed, obsess and worry about the climate hypothesis and its advocates. They have shown themselves to be unscrupulous, devious, pathetic liars, who will stoop to any means to advance their agenda. Their agenda would, as Obama has said, necessarily cause the cost of electricity to skyrocket. Such would likely make staying in my home unaffordable.
“Such would likely make staying in my home unaffordable.”
The standard response to this concern from the “Climate Justice” crowd would be to berate you and compare your relative well-being to some poor family in Africa. Because they care so very much (maybe not about you, though) and want everybody to know it.
Shouldn’t you feel guilty for even being able to live in a home?
I quit being a Lutheran over the guilt programming, but it took liturgical inclusion of having caused climate change to wake me to the cult nature of the “Holy Saviors of Gaia”, whence I took my leave.
Yes indeed.
The fun part is that French electricity by EDF (Electricité de France, not the other EDF) was at the same time very low carbon and relatively cheap, all included (no subsidies by taxpayers, except maybe for the potential “subsidy” of dual-purpose military research) while at the same time paying for exceptional social advantages of EDF agents (including paying only 10% of their energy bill) and subsidising the CGT (the communist union). IOW, without the communist union subsidies and other exceptional advantages, energy (electricity and gas) would be cheaper (with a risk of anti-nuclearism from the communist party).
France’s real low carbon targets are of course not IPCC related but imports (esp. ME imports) related, as France has few fossil carbon resources (or maybe it has frackable resources, but French are afraid of fracking).
The idea that ISIS would care what COP21 agrees, is ludicrous.
Quite so, when considering the recent public announcement by Islam supporting the fight on climate change.
http://islamicclimatedeclaration.org/islamic-declaration-on-global-climate-change/
I would guess this was a regional cell with an insane leader and is comparable to the Boston marathon incident. Sad, there are enough disillusioned youngsters out there that would buy the dogma.
They’re probably just trying to line up their excuses beforehand for when the conference flops.
most probably
This article and its conjecture is so stupid it is not worthy of serious comment.
But if ISIS was intent upon disrupting the Climate talks why not ait until the Friday before the conference, or the evening of the conference, or even during the conference when world leaders would be present. Much more disruption would ensure if they had waited 2 to 3 weeks.
The author (and indeed the Economist itself for publishing the article) is contemptuous trying to make such a link. What ISIS need would be to persuade their paymasters (the Saudis) to reduce production thereby limiting the over supply in the market place. This would result in immediate increase in funds since this would push up the price oil, but Saudi are themselves waging their own war on US shale and have no interest on closing the taps just yet.
If a deal can be done in Paris it will have no significant impact on Oil demand for at least a decade, if not longer. Such a time lag is no immediate interest to ISIS.
What this appears to be is a poor attempt at damage limitation. The green blob know that the prospects of a worthwhile deal being struck at Paris is remote, and now they can deflect attention away from the reality, namely that the economic implications of making drastic CO2 reductions is simply too large, and the developed West will not destroy their economies for futile gestures, and the developing world will press on regardless with coal since they need energy and need to supply their citizens with cheap and reliable energy. In short, no one cares enough about Climate Change notwithstanding the lip service given that it is the most pressing cause/challenge of our times.
“richard verney
November 17, 2015 at 4:28 am
But if ISIS was intent upon disrupting the Climate talks why not ait until the Friday before…”
To create a state of fear so that people look to “leaders” to announce “solutions” or “plans” to “fight back”. Which is exactly what has happened.
But can you imagine the panic that would have set in if this had been on the 27th November? The security forces would have been fully stretched with the investigations into the bombings and pursuing perpetrators whilst the trail was still hot, such that they would not have had any spare capacity to attend to COP21 increased security requirements (and this will now have to be ramped up – but there is now a couple of weeks to attend to it).
Further, hospitals are presently fully stretched, and one cannot have hospitals at breaking point when world leaders are attending just in case of another follow up attack occurs. By the end of November, whilst the hospitals will not be back to normal. it is likely that they will again have some spare capacity.
Yet further, all MSM would be reporting on the terrorist activity, not on the Climate Change talks. Those talks would be secondary, but now given the 13th November attacks, after 2 weeks of reporting about terrorist, victims, solidarity etc, the papers will be desperate for another story, and can now show life getting back to normal in Paris with all the world leaders attending COP 21. So that will now work out well for the media.
I think that if this attack had taken place on the Friday before much more mayhem would have been caused, and ISIS supporters could easily phone in scares about suspicious packages on trains, train stations and at airports etc causing panic at public transport terminals further exacerbating the mayhem without actually carrying out any further attacks.
I remember well 9/11 and flying in the week that followed and how little passengers were on planes. I took about 5 flights that week, and on one flight there were only 3 or 4 passengers and we were all grouped in first class. There were more stewardess than passengers! People are very nervous immediately after incidents, but within a couple of weeks it all dies down, and matters normality begins to return.
I recall flying via LAX from SYD in to NYC soon after too. I pretty much had half of a 747 Longreach all to myself. I just lifted up the armrests lifted, I strapped myself down across the seats and got some sleep. The aircrew didn’t bother to wake me for a feed (Thankyou for that whoever you were).
Dubious though the Economist is, this is actually from the Ecologist – that magnum opus of hessian-backed pipe-smoking green hypocrites.
The Ecologist not the Ecommunist ….. the Ecommunist writers are GLO-BULL warming nutters but not this batshit crazy!!
My bag. Scanned this article too fast.
I should have double checked since I was amazed that a story like that could be published in such a magazine, notwithstanding its political bent.
The Ecologist not the Economist. I suspect word correct did that.
Further proof (as if we needed any) that the climate campaigners have no sense of decency or moral scruples. The bodies haven’t even been buried yet, and they are trading on their dearhs for propaganda purposes.
theyre probably “upset” they dont matter enough to BE targeted
hubristic dweebs
False conjecture fits with false models like this that came out yesterday simulating cities underwater. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/maps-cities-future-flooding-climate-change
From my knowledge of the behavioral sciences and what P-12 education reforms globally are really targeting both The Ecologist article and these false simulations of known urban areas underwater are trying to control and manipulate the internalized mental image of the world and the Paris tragedy. Visual images trump valid informational images grounded in print for most people.
This is what is being created via our schools and then consciously manipulated by the media. UNESCO even calls this startegy of controlling communication of desired ideas–media education.
“The author (and indeed the Economist itself for publishing the article) ”
It was The Ecologist not The Economist.
Oil AND staging a plot to keep people off the streets during the UN climate summit AND destroying Jewish property intending to kill Jews is a triple-header!
I think we should use some modesty before we contribute to wild speculations about the reasons behind this deeply tragic event.
Similarly, we should also use some modesty before we answer to, and link to, some the wild theories we can find around on the internet. After all, this is not what most people believe, “sceptics” or “environmentalists” alike.
This post suggest that environmentalist think that this was a big oil plot, but this is false. Only a very marginal group of confused people thinks that. By insinuating that most environmentalist think that way, you are, as I see it, trying to exploit this tragic event to bash the environmentalist.
I think you should stop with that Eric.
Confronted with this bestiality we should stay together and not use it as an excuse for other political attacks.
/Jan
In all due respect don’t be surprised if it’s not all that marginal a group.
There’s been a persistent theory in the US that President George Bush was aware beforehand of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, but allowed it to happen as a pretext for war on Iraq. One would think it’s likely a very marginal group that held that theory. But, one of the individuals who did was Van Jones who was tapped early on by the Obama administration to head their Green Jobs Initiative. It’a possible the banal thoughts presented by the Ecologist aren’t all that marginal.
Nice try Jan, but I for one am not buying what you are selling here.
Liberals hate reality !!!!
Marcus, I see you on many pages at WUWT. You’re comments commonly reflect the one you just left. But remember than many skeptics are liberals, and even more (like myself) are independents. We strive for non-politicized science. So please don’t lump all people who identify as liberals together. No two liberals (or any person apart of any party, for that matter) are the exact same.
EDIT: I mean to say “YOUR”, not “YOU’RE”.
Jan, we live in troubled times – consider, recently a group of scientists called for people who doubt them to be prosecuted under the racketeering act – and actually meant for federal authorities to act on their call.
The Ecologist is a serious magazine, followed by a lot of people. If narratives like this silly claim from The Ecologist are allowed to go unchallenged, they can potentially lead to greater political silliness.
I have my personal political views, but I have no hesitation praising people from across the political spectrum when they do something sensible on the climate front. I believe the potential peril of letting the climate madness flourish unchecked supersedes normal hairsplitting over competing fashions in economic policy.
Eric,
The Ecologist does not use the words “Big oil plot” in their article. You are the only one who use those words.
What The Ecologist says is that they recognize that ISIS have their reasons for hating France, but suggest that, since their finances depend on oil, they may also hate talk about reducing oil usage, and that this could be one of several reasons to time the attack now, just before the climate summit.
I do not agree with The Ecologist in this, I think the timing before the climate conference was a pure coincidence. However, this suggestion is far more sensible that saying that this is a big oil plot.
I think your headline is an unjust exaggeration of what The Ecologist say and that the words in your headline may feed the rumors and conspiracy theories about this.
/Jan
Smuggling oil. Still haven’t got a grip on HOW that is done. Or who is buying. As oil is sold by the barrel and the legitimate price for one these days is about the price of going to the movies, the discounted smuggling price must be less than the cost of a pizza! Just HOW is this moved unnoticed? And WHY does the US not stop it moving or not punish the buyers?
I guess alcohol was difficult to move about during prohibition days in the USA. Ah nope! Did not seem to affect suppliers or consumes, UNTIL prohibition ended. So, I would say if “it” is some form of container, and you can get at “it” by whatever means, “it” can be sold. Usually at marked up prices…smuggler has to eat.
Its moved by tanker. The make about $50m a month. See http://uk.businessinsider.com/isis-making-50-million-a-month-from-oil-sales-2015-10?r=US&IR=T
I did say “container”. Last time I checked a “tanker” is a rather large container.
That’s essentially the same way oil was smuggled out of Iraq during the sanctions in place following the Gulf War: tanker trucks across the border with Turkey.
Terrys
Very good article which led to several others including this one
http://uk.businessinsider.com/isis-is-setting-a-trap-for-europe-2015-11
It seems strange that it is not part of the wests tactics to destroy the oil fields being used, blow up the tankers leaving from them and shutting down the ‘makeshift refineries.’
Doing this will starve them of money and the ability to move around their large territory
tonyb
Another link to information about ISIS and the oil market:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/
Israels had some of the kurds stolen oil tankers suddenly vanish beacons near the ports
then appear after offloading
and theyre not the onlyplace..look to “at home” also..
was some reportage with ship maps etc some months back on this on various webpages.
You are asking the right questions. Might I suggest to read an article by James Corbett: https://www.corbettreport.com/the-paris-terror-attacks-an-open-source-investigation/.
Actually, and since they brought it up, while not alleging direct collusion between ISIS and climate campaigners, it’s not hard to see a coincidence of interests, since the climate campaign is an assault on devoloped countries and on humanity itself.
Muslim TV laughs at Obama’s climate threat http://iceagenow.info/2015/11/muslim-world-laughs-at-obamas-speech-video/
in that…theyre not alone
most people are still laughing at that assinine speech
In the same spirit of twisted. Because global warming is causing it to snow, again, nobody is boarding the airplanes, so flights are cancelled, schools and work have been cancelled for the day so that people can take advantage of this “rare and exciting event”.
The chain of events then is as follows:
1. ISIS crack team of political and economic advisor’s examine both the impact and level of (dis)agreements at the previous COP 1-20 jamborees.
2. This analysis leads them to believe COP21 will actually reach some binding agreement and that that agreement will have a detrimental impact on their economic situation.
3. They decide to head off this agreement by attacking restaurants and concerts weeks before the COP21.
Alternatively they decided to attack a western country just because they could and they knew there were enough idiots out there who would come up with clever motives for them.
@TerryS
That is a term meaning “our decision that you will not be allowed to reverse!”.
I am quite sure the folks in the Caliphate believe that the weather is “gods will”, everything else is why would weather be different? The don’t believe in man made laws or borders, it is highly unlikely they fell for man made weather.
On NPR this morning, the comment was made that since ISIL generates their income from oil, that makes the Paris meeting critical to ending the use of oil since it finances terrorism. Ugh.
I stopped watching NPR not because of their ideological stance, but due to it’s blatant ignorance and depraved reasoning. This is a good example
It is true if we all start riding bicycles, ground all air travel, and drastically cut the energy and plastics usage of civilization, we will no longer be interested in the Middle East and the terrorists most likely will no longer be interested in us. However the base assumptions to this argument are an insult to reason, logic, and humanity in general.
I listen to National Democratic Party Radio on the way to work in morning. I think it is important to keep tabs on the left as they try to build their “perfect” society.
Oh don’t worry. When the oil does run out, it will be the limousine liberals crying the loudest and pointing fingers of blame for the demise of the fossil feuled civilization they claim to hate so much.
I just worked 13 hours of intense physical labor (like most of the world), and over 10 hours of it yesterday, and I don’t care much about anything right now. Far less, the environment.
These guys live in an ivory tower and flatter themselves that they are typical. The usual Self Esteem as Empty Pride thing. I remember from a couple years back, we royally bombed yet another international academic competition, but surveys afterwards showed the disgraced Americans as feeling “better ” about the test than any of the others. Clueless and feckless.
The commerce in the oil business (as presently structured) puts a lot of money into the hands of these guys…
If they didn’t generate their income from oil they’d generate it through trade in ivory harvested from poachers of endangered and protected animals. (Oops, they already do that.) They’d also generate money through the sale of antiquities looted from the museums in the ME. (Oops, they do that too.) Not yet, but soon they’ll generate money through the sale of drugs from the cartels in South America to Europe through networks in Northern Africa. (If, like Boko Harem, they’re not doing it already.) Or, they’ll generate money through the sale of heroin from Afghanistan once all the troops withdraw. (One of al Qaeda’s sources of revenue.) Or, they’ll generate money through human trafficking in the sale of young Yazidi women and girls. Or, they’ll generate money through arms trafficking. (Most of which they got for free courtesy of the ill advised total withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.) Or, they’ll generate money … the list is endless.
Anybody, anywhere who thinks that the problems of humanity stem from fossil fuels needs a lesson in reality.
at least +1
ISIS split from Al Quaeda mainly because of what they saw as corrupt money influences on the organization. To make any type of insinuation that this had any connection to big oil or climate change is lunacy to be sure…
that’s how weird the agw movement has gotten
maybe you can find it not translated
Would that help. I doubt it. Nevertheless if you want to try, try this.
Hit Subtitles/CC
Then hit settings.
Switch on translation
Select your language. (You need to push it up with your left button depressed (a bit like me :-))
Double Dutch doesn’t seem to be an option. But then, given the translation you get, you’ll not be disappointed.
Online translation has a loooong way to go.
Very interesting interview, thanks. It’s quite difficult to follow, since both the original German and the French dubbing are at similar volumes. I understand both languages somewhat, but the brain boggles at listening to both version at once. If you go to the Youtube page at
https://youtu.be/hZhbwvDyaLo
the French audio is significantly louder and this makes it easier to follow if you know French. There you also find the original poster, marked in the bottom right of the screen “Artemesia College”. Maybe he/she/it could point you at a transcript or at least the origination of the interview.
I haven’t listened long or thoroughly enough to make out everything the interviewee says, but he uses the term “managed terrorism” repeatedly, and from the rest that I could follow, I gather this is a euphemism for false flag operation. In other words, the terrorists may have beleived they were being directed by God, their Islamic leaders, or by their own principles and/or hatreds, but actually, they were being manipulated in a grand plan to socially re-engineer France and Europe. I believe he also said that it’s the government ministers most directly responsible for policing, intelligence and the military are the ones who should be in prison.
Feel free to correct this perception, anyone. I’d like to see a transcript in either German or French (better yet, both) myself.
the youtube url got wiped when I posted. but in my browser right clicking on the video image displays an option to copy the video url, which then ends up in my Windows notepad.
Boring conspiracy theories are boring.
At least the 9 11 truthers have a theory where stuff don’t fall vertically. It’s fun to tease them.
Why do you need a transcript of conspirational ramblings?
Yes, soon we will be seeing videos of ISIS terrorists blowing up solar panels.
That would be a welcome change.
Gee, and here I was told that it was the “climate deniers” who were the conspiracy theorists. Now look at the climate alarmists! Tsk, tsk.
I didn’t watch the Democrat candidate debate but from what I’ve read Bernie Sanders blamed ISIS on climate change. The website wasn’t joking.
I did see the debate, and no, Bernie Sanders wasn’t joking either. And I’ll bet my bottom dollar Hillary goosesteps in perfect lockstep rhythm with the cagw wackadoodles.
Obama got angry at the news conference in Turkey because reporters were questioning his lack of will in fighting ISIS. He claimed that he regularly visits wounded U.S. Veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and that he cannot stand to send more U.S. Servicemen to be either wounded or killed.
What this means is that he shits on the men and women who signed up to protect their country and that he should not have ever ran for president or continue to be president if he “cannot” bring himself to send these volunteers to do what they signed up for. To protect their country, and especially, before the battle gets to the home front. If he cannot do what a president is supposed to do, which is first and foremost the security of the Nation, then he should take himself out of the job. But, no…He believes, sickeningly, that his stance (to not send more troops to be injured or killed) gives him some kind of moral authority and contributes to his ‘great’ legacy. The ‘Warrior pacifist, idiot president who would allow more people to die by terror than do anything to actually combat the problem. What a narcissistic wimp and a deluded as* hole. As well as his companion in self hate and hate for his country…Mr. ‘real’ piece of dung, Kerry, who believes that the terrorists who killed a bunch of media people at Charlie Hebdo in Paris last year, had a valid reason for doing so.
I served from 1980 to 1984 under Reagan. I cannot see how anyone serving in the U.S. military under this president, obama, could have any pride at all. I can clearly understand the usefulness of the Roman Praetorian Guard, which, at times, must have been a big relief for the citizens and Empire of Rome.
Yet another patently false claim. CAGW advocates want HIGHER oil prices! The monetary enemy of ISIS is fracking.
If you use the tried and true “follow the money” argument when you’re looking or motives, the Greens and ISIS share the desires OPEC, which is to drive down availability of fosill fuels thereby increasing prices received by the seller. It’s the simplest rule of economics.
Since the 60’s, the Greens have been tools of “Big Oil” or more appropriately organized energy. Without the grass roots campaign to stop nuclear energy our dependence on oil, gas and coal would be greatly reduced, but that would of course been acting on the srong end of the equation, the purpose is not to reduce demand, but to reduce supply since demand reduction doesn’t drive up retail pricing.
That this is so obvious, yet so opaque to the Greens is telling. Why don’t they understand everything they do is playing into the hands of their purported “enemy”?
As liberals like to say … ” Never let a good crisis go to waste ” !!!!
If you have a narrow lens you see everything through it. I have to push myself to get a broader view but I do it. That would be a difference in style with many of our opponents.
They see us as cranks and we see them accurately as mindless fanatics and scam artists. Pretty standard stuff at the hot margins of big issues. Dont despair. The cranks win at least as often as the big machine.
troe writes: “They see us as cranks and we see them accurately as mindless fanatics and scam artists.”
You oversimplify I think, it’s not “mindless fanatics and scam artists” but mindless fanatics in the thrall of scam artists. I think the scam artists are quite mindful rather than mindless and they’ve clearly outwitted the “mindless fanatics”, who are “useful idiots” in the role they’ve taken.