Climategate: CRU looks to "big oil" for support

One of the favorite put-downs from people who think they have the moral high ground in the climate debate is to accuse skeptics with this phrase: “You are nothing but a shill for Big Oil”

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) from Flixter - click for details

Who amongst us hasn’t seen variants of that pointed finger repeated thousands of times? The paradigm has shifted. Now it appears CRU is the one looking for “big oil” money. See the email:

See the entire email here:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt

There’s more.

click to enlarge

But wait that’s not all!

Further down in that email,  look at who else they were looking to for money. Oh, this is horrible, it just can’t be, they wouldn’t. They were looking to not only BP but, but EXXON in its Esso incarnation:

See the entire email here:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt

Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.

h/t and thanks to WUWT reader “boballab”


Sponsored IT training links:

Need help for SY0-201 exam? Join the 70-640 training program to successfully pass 70-680 exam.


0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

223 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rbateman
December 4, 2009 12:18 pm

What a tangled web they wove.
My oh my, the power brokering was astounding.

Mike Core
December 4, 2009 12:18 pm

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.

Kate
December 4, 2009 12:21 pm

In Britain, Shell has been the sponsor of many 30-page full-color glossy pull-outs of every AGW propaganda story you have ever heard. These have all appeared in the left-wing “New Statesman” magazine this year.

rokag3
December 4, 2009 12:21 pm

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

Michael
December 4, 2009 12:21 pm

How about the billions the warmers are giving to big coal?
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is one of the major reasons for promoting the fraud of man-made global warming. Billions of tax payer dollars are now being spent to make a select few filthy rich from this useless technology. Senator John D Rockefeller is the major player behind this scam.
Rockefeller is a longtime champion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Earlier this year, he helped secure $3.4 billion for the Fossil Energy Research and Development programs, including CCS research, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=317677&amp

Charles Higley
December 4, 2009 12:23 pm

The oil companies are not stupid. They are on board with cap and trade as they also stand to make a lot of money as cap and trade makes everything more expensive and they can trade and sell carbon credits and such. There is such a morass of potential trading and “green” (stupid) ideas, e..g., sequestering CO2, that they almost cannot lose money.

Charles Higley
December 4, 2009 12:23 pm

The oil companies are not stupid. They are on board with cap and trade as they also stand to make a lot of money as cap and trade makes everything more expensive and they can trade and sell carbon credits and such. There is such a morass of potential trading and “green” (stupid) ideas, e..g., sequestering CO2, that they almost cannot lose money.

Mark
December 4, 2009 12:23 pm

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”

Max
December 4, 2009 12:26 pm

OMG Channel4 news is trying to fob Climategate as emailgate…unbelievable
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/ten+scientists+on+climate+change+aposemailgateapos/3450137

rbateman
December 4, 2009 12:28 pm

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.

Michael
December 4, 2009 12:29 pm

“After the hearing, Rep. Sensenbrenner said the refusal of committee Democrats or President Obama’s representatives to take the leaked emails seriously indicated that the “the President’s science advisers are at the bottom of the whole climate change debate,” and just as intent as the East Anglia scientists in not having a full and open airing of the issue.”
WSJ
Climategate? What Climategate?
Congressional Democrats are Climategate deniers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576021674770950.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

December 4, 2009 12:29 pm

Oil companies look at this from different aspect. It is more preferable to make large profit with a minimum investment than huge sales at low prices. Unrestricted sales push prices and margins down, resources run out, huge investment is required for development of new fields.
Restricted sales by elevated ‘AGW’ taxation provide more room for pushing up producers profit margins, resources are depleted at lower rate, larger part of profits can be distributed to shareholders rather than ring fenced for exploration.
Additionally if they are in government’s ‘good book’ less likely imposition of ‘windfall tax’.

Kum Dollison
December 4, 2009 12:30 pm

The “Payoff” was that the Watermelons would Turn On Biofuels. Especially, Ethanol. Really, really, especially, corn ethanol.
Before you start howling at me, think. The Truth IS coming out, now.

Max
December 4, 2009 12:30 pm

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

December 4, 2009 12:33 pm

IMHO, your photo for this post is bloody brilliant! I’m still laughing.

Back2Bat
December 4, 2009 12:36 pm

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.

rbateman
December 4, 2009 12:37 pm

Charles Higley (12:23:04) :
Big Oil isn’t stupid, and they are NOT going down with someone’s pet project ship, especially not when they see it listing that heavily.

Glenn
December 4, 2009 12:39 pm

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

Michael
December 4, 2009 12:39 pm
Ray
December 4, 2009 12:42 pm

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.

Neo
December 4, 2009 12:43 pm

Gerald R. Davis and Douglas D McKay of Shell International Limited, London mentioned …
Thank all of you who have attended the SRES Lead Authors’ meeting (17-19 September 1997) (0876171248).
Meeting at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California to review the work progress of the four modeling groups (0884731847).
Request for firm number of attendees to IPCC SRES Meeting (0885318160).
Report of minutes of minutes of the SRES informal modelers’ meeting (0887665729).
RE-schedule of the next IPCC-SRES Full Authors meeting will be held the week of 27 April 1998 (0888364876).
Info on upcoming IPCC SRES meeting (0888611422).
A solicitation for review of the influence of social and economic policies on future carbon emissions for the SRES (0889047457).
Sending you a copy of Ged Davis’ IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on storylines and scenarios (0889554019).
Change of venue for Lead Authors meeting (0893188400).
Guidelines on how to present the IS99 storylines and scenarios (0894639050).
Info on upcoming next SRES Lead Authors meeting in Beijing, China (0904080701).
Request for RSVPs to next SRES Meeting (0904762907).
A solicitation of input for the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) AR3 (0914013281).

Steve
December 4, 2009 12:44 pm

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.

Gareth
December 4, 2009 12:45 pm

The understandable concerns of the past (however shaky the science was and remains) were rapidly commandeered by politicians and corporations because there was capital to be made by both. The green agenda will aways attract those with an eye for an opportunity to grab power, money or both.

Douglas DC
December 4, 2009 12:48 pm

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…

AdderW
December 4, 2009 12:52 pm

The Guardian:
The carbon-cutting crew’s faulty logic
If localism is a cure for climate change then the assumptions that the scientific consensus rests upon are wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/04/climate-change-carbon-emissions

Verified by MonsterInsights