Dave's Top Ten Reasons Why the Oil Industry Doesn't Spend its Billions on Disproving the Junk Science of AGW

Guest post by David Middleton

In my Internet “debates” with warmists, I occasionally encounter challenges like this…

We don’t yet not know the real global impact man has on the environment. It may be negligible. What we do know is that if the oil companies with their billions could disprove this manmade warming they could in an instance. They have not.

My response to this challenge is in the style of David Letterman…

Dave’s Top Ten Reasons Why the Oil Industry Doesn’t Spend its Billions on Disproving the Junk Science of AGW

10) It’s impossible to prove a negative.

9) The burden of proof is on those who wish to bankrupt these United States of America in order to reverse this…

8) The climate is always changing, always has, always will. There is absolutely no evidence that modern climate changes are exceeding the pre-human range of variability. There are anthropogenic influences which modify the climate’s natural oscillations. Very few scientists in the oil industry doubt that anthropogenic activities affect the climate. We just know for a fact that those effects are not causing the climate to change in ways that exceed the normal variability of the Holocene and that such effects are likely to be so small that they can’t be differentiated. Otherwise, the Warmists would have long ago clearly differentiated the anthropogenic from the natural. Furthermore, none of the proposed solutions are economically feasible, nor would they mitigate climate change in any measurable way.

7) The “oil industry” is composed of corporations engaged in the various aspects of oil & gas exploration, drilling and production. These corporations are owned by people, usually shareholders, who invested their own money for the purpose of making a profit on the exploration, drilling and production for and of oil and natural gas. They didn’t invest their money in science projects, particularly not junk science projects.

6) We already have full time jobs. I do this as a hobby because it combines my professional skills as a geoscientist and 25 years of experience (out of nearly 33) working in a Quaternary-Upper Tertiary sedimentary basin, with my longtime interest in palaeoclimatology.

5) The Warmists have already proven that AGW is wrong. The lack of global warming since the late 1990’s forced them to morph “global warming” into “climate change,” “global weirding,” “global climate disruption,” and other temperature-neutral descriptions.

4) The Warmists have already proven that AGW is wrong – Part Deux. Every conceivable weather, health, agricultural, botanical, zoological and even geophysical incident is “consistent” with the Gorebotic AGW “theory.” Thus rendering their “theory” un-falsifiable and rendering it unscientific. Kevin Trenberth of NCAR even declared the no longer scientific theory to be un-falsifiable when he stated that the “null hypothesis” principle should be reversed for AGW.

3) The Warmists have already proven that AGW is wrong – Part Trois: That pesky climate sensitivity thing.  Gorebot Prime, James Hansen, formerly of NASA-GISS and now a full-time political activist, first proved that AGW was wrong 25 years ago and then delivered an endless stream of idiotic alarmism. Back in 1988, he published a climate model that, when compared to his own temperature data, substantially disproves AGW…

GISTEMP has tracked the Hansen scenario in which a Gorebotic utopia was achieved more than a decade ago. Hansen’s model used an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 4.2°C per doubling of pre-industrial CO2. The IPCC “consensus” is 3.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS is no more than 2.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS, consistent with the observations, is about 1.0°C.  Recent papers have concluded that solar forcing has been underestimated by a factor of six and CO2 forcing is much lower than the so-called consensus estimate. “Scenario B” might be the most relevant prediction because CH4 and CFC’s have followed closest to the “C” trajectory, while CO2 has tracked “A”. If you look at the model results, there is little difference between “A” and “B” in 2010…

Hansen describes “A” as “business as usual” and “B” as a more realistic or “Lite” version of “business as usual.” “C” represents a world in which mankind essentially undiscovered fire in the year 2000. The actual satellite-measured temperature change since 1988 tracks below “C,”  with the monster ENSO of 1998 being the only notable exception…

Since CO2 tracked “A”, CH4 and CFC’s tracked “C” and temperature tracked below “C,” the atmosphere is far less sensitive to CO2 than Hansen modeled.  The atmosphere was essentially insensitive to the ~50ppmv rise in CO2 over the last 24 years. Hansen may have inadvertantly provided solid support for this “inconvenient truth.”

2) The Warmists have already proven that AGW is wrong – Part Quatre: A model of failure. Let’s give Gorebot Prime, Jimbo Hansen, a pass. His 1988 model reflected old science and old computers and surely the models have gotten better over the last quarter-century… Or not.

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means June 6th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. […]

In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations. In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise. If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce? Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. […] Dr. Roy Spencer

[Assuming whiny Gorebot voice]… Oh… That tricky Roy Spencer. That’s just the tropics and it goes way back to 1979… That’s unfair! The science is verified! The models are right! Or not… The following CMIP5 model was parameterized (fudged) to accurately retrocast HadCRUT4 from 1950-2004.

Eight years and out! Within eight years, the observed temperature is on the verge of dropping out of the lower error band. This model from Kaufmann et al., 2011 simulated natural and anthropogenic (primarily CO2) forcing mechanisms from 1999-2008. Natural forcing won by a score of 3-1.   Although, the authors seem to have concluded that anthropogenic forcing related to global cooling were masking theanthropogenic forcing” related to global warming. This is to be expected because, obviously, the Earth’s climate was static prior to the incorporation of Standard Oil Company… Models are great heuristic tools; but they cannot and should never be used as substitutes for observation and correlation. I can build a valid computer model that tells me that a geopressured Cibicides opima sandstone at depth of 15,000′ should exhibit a Class 3 AVO response. If I drill a Class 3 AVO anomaly in that neighborhood, I will drill a dry hole. A little bit of observation and correlation would quickly tell me that productive geopressured Cibicides opima sandstones at depth of 15,000′ don’t exhibit Class 3 AVO anomalies. 99% of petroleum geologists and exploration geophysicists would laugh you out of the room if you seriously thought a model was superior to actual observations.

2) The Warmists have already proven that AGW is wrong – Part Cinq: That pesky climate sensitivity thing – Subpart Deux. In our last episode of climate sensitivity, we reviewed Jimbo Hansen’s spectacularly wrong Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of 4.2 °C. Now we will move on the current alleged consensusECS of 3.3 (±1.1) °C (Nothing like a 33% error bar to instill confidence!)…

The equilibrium climate sensitivity values for the AR4 AOGCMs coupled to non-dynamic slab ocean models are given for comparison (Box 10.2, Figure 1e,f; see also Table 8.2). These estimates come from models that represent the current best efforts from the international global climate modelling community at simulating climate. A normal fit yields a 5 to 95% range of about 2.1°C to 4.4°C with a mean value of equilibrium climate sensitivity of about 3.3°C (2.2°C to 4.6°C for a lognormal distribution, median 3.2°C) (Räisänen, 2005b). 

For good measure, the consensus-teers of the IPCC toss in this bit of gratuitous alarmism…

Studies comparing the observed transient response of surface temperature after large volcanic eruptions with results obtained from models with different climate sensitivities (see Section. 9.6) do not provide PDFs, but find best agreement with sensitivities around 3°C, and reasonable agreement within the 1.5°C to 4.5°C range (Wigley et al., 2005). They are not able to exclude sensitivities above 4.5°C. 

This explains the Gorebotic caterwauling from Climategate University

“Our research predicts that climate change will greatly reduce the diversity of even very common species found in most parts of the world. This loss of global-scale biodiversity would significantly impoverish the biosphere and the ecosystem services it provides…


The good news is that our research provides crucial new evidence of how swift action to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases can prevent the biodiversity loss by reducing the amount of global warming to 2 degrees Celsius rather than 4 degrees.”

The Washington Post’s energy and environment inexpert

“The current level of action puts us on a pathway towards a 3.5–4°C warmer world by the end of this century.”

And Third World poverty pimps

The World Bank predicts that we are on track to a rise of 4 degrees Celsius in temperatures by the end of this century. This would mean a rise in sea levels of three to seven feet

There is not one single scrap of evidence that the current rate of emissions will lead to more than 2 °C warming (relative to 280 ppmv CO2) by 2100 (we’ll get to sea level in subsequent posts). Every recent observation-based estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of the assumed pre-industrial CO2 level has been in the range of 1-2 °C and nearly 1 °C of this has already occurred. Asten, 2012 found ECS to be 1.1 ± 0.4 °C based on δ18O and δ11B records from fossil forams and the Eocene-Oligocene transition in marine sediment cores from DSDP site 744. Earlier this year, researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center announced that when they incorporated the temperature and CO2 data from 2000-2010 into their instrumental record-based ECS estimate, they obtain a most likely value of 1.9 °C. This work has yet to be published. Lewis, 2013 found a most likely ECS of 1.6 °K (same as C for these purposes) using a Bayesian analysis and incorporating recent data. Masters, 2013 found a most likely ECS of 1.98 °K from ocean heat content and sea surface temperature data… Aldrin et al, 2012 and Forster & Gregory, 2006 also found the ECS to most likely be less than 2 °C. Yet the IPCC, Climategate CRU and other alarmist ideologues continue to prattle on as if the ECS in the range of 4-5 °C or higher…

1) The joke is just too damn funny for us to spoil…

Obama’s global-warming folly

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 4

The economy stagnates. Syria burns . Scandals lap at his feet. China and Russia mock him , even as a “29-year-old hacker” revealed his nation’s spy secrets to the world. How does President Obama respond? With a grandiloquent speech on climate change . Climate change? It lies at the very bottom of a list of Americans’ concerns (last of 21 — Pew poll). Which means that Obama’s declaration of unilateral American war on global warming, whatever the cost — and it will be heavy — is either highly visionary or hopelessly solipsistic. You decide: Global temperatures have been flat for 16 years — a curious time to unveil a grand, hugely costly, socially disruptive anti-warming program. Now, this inconvenient finding is not dispositive. It doesn’t mean there is no global warming. But it is something that the very complex global warming models that Obama naively claims represent settled science have trouble explaining. […] For the sake of argument, nonetheless, let’s concede that global warming is precisely what Obama thinks it is. Then answer this: What in God’s name is his massive new regulatory and spending program — which begins with a war on coal and ends with billions in more subsidies for new Solyndras — going to do about it? The United States has already radically cut carbon dioxide emissions — more than any country on earth since 2006, according to the International Energy Agency. Emissions today are back down to 1992 levels. And yet, at the same time, global emissions have gone up. That’s because — surprise! — we don’t control the energy use of the other 96 percent of humankind. […] Net effect: tens of thousands of jobs killed, entire states impoverished. This at a time of chronically and crushingly high unemployment, slow growth, jittery markets and deep economic uncertainty. But that’s not the worst of it. This massive self-sacrifice might be worthwhile if it did actually stop global warming and save the planet. What makes the whole idea nuts is that it won’t. This massive self-inflicted economic wound will have […] For a president to propose this with such aggressive certainty is incomprehensible. It is the starkest of examples of belief that is impervious to evidence. And the word for that is faith, not science.



newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Don’t forget: We’ve seen about two decades’ worth of insinuations from AGWers that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the oil (and/or coal) industry to knowingly push lies about global warming, but the AGWers have never once produced evidence to prove that accusation. Not once. Ever.

But what if you’re wrong and we all perish?

Steve Keohane

As long as coal is more demonized than oil and gas, why not let it take the heat?


It’s not as if the the demand for oil is going to evaporate, so the oil companies are not going to loose anything by doing nothing.

David Letterman needs to have more top 10 lists like this!

David L. Hagen

As observed by Richard Feynman, in the scientific method, if the models do not match the evidence, they are wrong. Therefore catastrophic majority AGW is not science.
Why should “oil” waste time disproving something so obviously unscientific?
We need a “red team” to fix the models to match the data and restore integrity to “climate science”.
The far greater challenge is finding sufficient liquid fuel to keep the lights on – which is essential to provide the alarmists’ with their functioning computers, jobs, health care and social security.

It’s cheaper to just give the Sierra Club a few million dollars to shut up than it would be to put up with A) trying to disprove an unscientific proposition & B) having your facilities bombed by eco-terrorists you’ve been funding for the last 20 years.


For the same reasons that the oil industry didn’t spend $billions or $millions or $anything disproving the existence of a 100 mpg carburetor — it was cheaper to just buy up the patents. In this case it’s cheaper to pay bloggers and conservatives and tea partiers and libertarians a few bucks to argue the point and keep the true believers busy playing whack-a-mole.


You have two items labeled #2:
The Warmists have already proven that AGW is wrong – Part Quatre: A model of failure
The Warmists have already proven that AGW is wrong – Part Cinq: That pesky climate sensitivity thing – Subpart Deux.
Otherwise, great post as usual.


I am letting you in on a little secret…the oil industry has decided to fight the proposed EPA rules on GHG. Why you ask? Because they have realized that they are next…


” it was cheaper to just buy up the patents. In this case it’s cheaper to pay bloggers and conservatives and tea partiers and libertarians a few bucks to argue the point and keep the true believers busy playing whack-a-mole.”
LOLOLOLOL!! Steve, you’re a friggin genius!!


how much money have energy companies given to green groups like The Sierra Club, WWF, etc? iirc, it is a substantial amount but those groups never seem to mention it…


Oil companies don’t fight back because they are benefactors of the AGW scare. Oil companies have few oil reserves. They are the preview of sovereign states. They do have a lot of natural gas reserves however. The AGW scare makes natural gas look to be a more acceptable alternative to burning coal. That increases their market share of fossile fuels used in power generation. If someone were calling me names but it dramatically increasedy sales, I’d probably be mute about that too.

they know the science is sound and thats why they do not attempt to disprove it!
Global Climatic Destabilization more to your liking?
“This drift is because of the changes in Earth’s mass distribution” http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2013/12/14/97-Climate-change-causing-Earth-s-poles-to-shift.html … …


The oil companies don’t care. They will add on any carbon tax just like they did with the other taxes and keep right on rolling in the money. It makes no difference to them.


Not to be cynical but Greenshirt carbon and environmental restrictions and regulations INCREASE oil and gas profits by artificially RESTRICTING SUPPLY. If you put the tin foil hat on long enough you could argue that AGW was invented by greedy oil and gas shareholders. It’s the net reality but I don’t think this explains their political correctness. You can trace populist hatred of oil back to J.D. Rockefeller if not further. More things are involved in AGW acquiescence to the meme.
If you were really out to get “big oil” and “corporations” we would deregulate them and watch them kill their profit margins and produce more like airlines. Of course AGW isn’t the only government centered fraud benefiting oil and gas. There is fiat money policy that inflates real goods and the cabal that is OPEC which sponsors cartel pricing, both forces creatures of government. Greenshirt politics were spun out of this reality also, it isn’t just about AGW or “pollution” no matter how it’s misrepresented. Regardless the point is seldom made regarding the benefits of the AGW meme to oil and gas margins.
Fixing hire carbon prices shifts fraud gains to “green energy” in a fairytale about a future without carbon but it increases established production profits….”big oil”. Since there is nothing cheaper about green energy everyone in the world suffers higher cost, essentially a policy tax. Although it can’t be proven but is clearly the historic pattern of regulation economies I would say the artificial high current prices is lowering innovations not sponsoring technology improvements. Green energy is largely a soft fat industry feeding off a cartel price.

Mike M

1 b) Why should big oil kill the goose laying the golden eggs? Heating and transportation fuel are economically inelastic. Allowing government to limit supply, (e.g holding up the Keystone pipeline, keeping rich offshore reserves off limits), will increase prices without having any serious decrease in consumption thus resulting in more profit. Government collects 40% on those big oil profits making them an unwanted partner of big oil but a partner nonetheless. Limiting supply is good for BOTH of them – CAGW is a great cover story to help do just that.

Bloke down the pub

Follow the money.

#11) The smart devils in e-e-evil oil companies have learned how to profit from hysteria. Collect subsidies to build wind and solar; sell natural gas to actually generate electricity.

Pippen Kool

Russell Cook says: ” about two decades’ worth of insinuations from AGWers that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the oil (and/or coal) industry to knowingly push lies about global warming, but the AGWers have never once produced evidence to prove that accusation. Not once. Ever.”
ExxonMobil has donated over $600K to Heartland. In 2008 or so, they publicly said they will stop their Heartland funding, although who knows what is happening now…
MY favorite reason for their stopping the funding is that the oil companies saw how the cigarette anti science campaign went, and decided to back off. Its not like they arent going to be able sell oil anymore…

Michael D

As a scientist, I find this type of post uninteresting because it is so emotional and full of invective. I prefer Anthony’s calm exposition of facts. Even more reassuring is when a posting does not claim to have all the answers.


Oil companies don’t fight ‘global warming’ hysteria, because ‘global warming’ hysteria benefits them.

The CAGW scare has facilitated the EPA’s attempts to cripple one of Big Oil’s chief competitors – Not So Big Coal. Coal has been regulated into an uncompetitive position vs natural gas for electricity generation. Makes coal too expensive.
The CAGW scare has also taken heat off of fracking – environmentalists are encouraged to support fracked gas, because it has a lower “CO2 footprint” than coal. Some of them do, diffusing effective opposition. Keeps gas cheap.
By these two effects, natural gas – owned by Big Oil companies and windfarm scammer T Boone Pickens (gotta have natural gas powerplants to back up those unreliable windmills that he gets millions in gov’t money to build) has already succeeded in pushing coal out of the top spot in electricity generation. It won’t be long before coal is effectively dead, and that means even more $$$$$$$ for oil companies.
Oil companies LOVE CAGW hysteria. If it didn’t exist, they would have a powerful incentive to create it…


As a sceptic, I am, obviously, funded by the fossil fuel industry. Big Coal in my case. Chas and Dave send me instructions nearly every day and a pay cheque each month. Also, obviously, I believe in conspiracy theories – just like the NASA astronauts who do not believe in the moon landings. They would know, right?
The epitome of Big Oil is Standard Oil – think Rockerfeller. The Rockerfeller Foundation funds warmists. So, it is clear that this is a fight between Big Oil and Big Coal. Big Oil is laughing up its pipeline at all the support the Greenies are giving it. It is a classic case of:
“”‘I don’t keer w’at you do wid me, Brer Fox,’ sezee, ‘so you don’t fling me in dat brier-patch. Roas’ me, Brer Fox,’ sezee, ‘but don’t fling me in dat brier-patch,’ sezee.”

Steve from Rockwood

#12. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

Pippen Kool

Oh, and let’s not forget the Koch funding of the BEST study, which at the time were thought to be climate skeptics. That study didnt work out as planned, i.e., the BEST study ended up supporting the main stream. Hence another reason oil people don’t fund scientists, they often get the “wrong” result.

Les Johnson

Why doesn’t Big Oil sponsor research into CAGW? Because when they have, the results are not believed, because it was sponsored by Big Oil.
Witness Willie Soon’s work, and his sponsorship by Exxon. Of course, his work was not really disproved. It was disregarded becuse he was assoiciated with Big Oil….

Brian H

“1.6 °K ”
No, there are no degrees Kelvin; Kelvins are degrees above absolute zero. You just said “1.6 degrees degrees …”
My explanation is that the oilcos know that AGW is a crock, and that come what may we will come back to fossil fuel when the renewables crash and burn, out of necessity. Rather than stand in the path of the Madness of Crowds, they are just waiting for nature and reality and the Invisible Hand to exhaust Warmist hysteria.
Every country that has tried to go beyond subsidized demo stage has discovered how futile and crushingly costly renewables are, directly and indirectly (e.g., backup duplication of all capacity). Stupidity kills.


Big energy WANTED a carbon trading scam to hedge future declining market shares.


Steve Keohane says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:15 am
As long as coal is more demonized than oil and gas, why not let it take the heat?
Because oil and gas will be next on the list right after Obama kills off coal. The regressives want to kill off all viable energy sources until we’re left with wind and solar.

Joseph W.

Good catch-22 lawyering! If you disagree with CAGW, you must be funded (or duped) by the big oil companies, which proves you’re wrong — the “fact” that these greedy self-interested industrial giants pay for the evil research and argument that disputes CAGW shows this research and argument is tainted and can be safely ignored. (“Follow the money!”) No evidence is required.
But if you’re not funded (or duped) by the big oil companies, that also proves you’re wrong, because the simple fact that these greedy self-interest industrial giants don’t pay for the evil research and argument simply proves that it can’t be done. Again, no evidence is required.
I think you missed an important point — set out in books like this one — which is that corporations (at least, U.S. corporations) simply do not behave like the sinister (or should I say “dextrous”?) conspiracies imagined by the Left. But it may be your points are better tailored to your intended audience.

TalentKeyHole Mole

For #1 I’d add the pic of Obama’s Selfie with Michelle’s expression at the Mandela memorial service. X-D It really sums the entire Obama “administration” (i.e. junta). AGUFall is over so I’m done. Thanks for the feeds. Cheers 🙂


Mike M at Dec 14, 9:51 is right on. Add to that that companies such as Shell are indulging in Grant Farming for their Carbon Capture and Storage projects that are expected to earn them many cudoes (and $$$).

Martin Mayer says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:56 am
#11) The smart devils in e-e-evil oil companies have learned how to profit from hysteria. Collect subsidies to build wind and solar; sell natural gas to actually generate electricity.
A tax break is not a SUBSIDY why can’t people see this?


Missed the big one. It’s not in the interest of oil producers to disprove global warming. AGW policy provides oil companies and oil producers fantastic opportunity for subsidies for new energy projects, green marketing campaigning, and protectionist policies that help ensure market share of current producers and prevent new competition.
With cap and trade, current producers are basically given a share of the production of future producers. As production peaks and declines, they sell the excess rights, taking a share of the income from their would be competition today. It constrains supply and keeps prices high.

Richard M

Sean and Mike M hit the biggest two reasons right dead on. I’ve been explaining this to warmists for a few years now and they have no response.


Pippen Kool says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:57 am
“ExxonMobil has donated over $600K to Heartland. In 2008 or so, they publicly said they will stop their Heartland funding, although who knows what is happening now…”
At the same time, oligarchic Big Government hands out 1.2 billion USD a year to NASA alone to create the warming scare.
You warmists pee your pants about 600,000? My, you must have some mighty science on your side.

Shell and BP have nice long-standing ties with CRU. Oil companies are energy companies.


lorne50 says:
December 14, 2013 at 10:37 am
“A tax break is not a SUBSIDY why can’t people see this?”
Across all of Europe and Canada there are SUBSIDIES, namely a subsidized FIT for wind and solar. I think some US states have copied the German FIT model as well.
The German FIT model has been copied by over 50 nations and 50 regions as the Germans proudly boast.

DirkH says:
December 14, 2013 at 10:55 am
lorne50 says:
December 14, 2013 at 10:37 am
I know this I was talking about the oil gas and coal company’s and sorry about the spelling stupid smart phone [sic]

One of the main reasons the big fossil fuel companies don’t spend millions disproving climate change is because they don’t have to. Excellent blogs like this one, Climate Audit, Bishop Hill and others are doing it for free. Sure, Anthony and others are mischaracterized as being in the pay of Big Oil, but people like me who come to this site with open minds can see that’s not the case. After all, we’re here because we’re skeptics, and that means we’re skeptical of anyone with an axe to grind, even if it’s our axe they’re grinding.

Bruce Cobb

What’s really incredible is that Big Climate, having spent untold $billions hasn’t actually proven anything. They’ve made some hysterical claims and built plenty of models based on those claims, but somehow, reality just keeps getting in their way. Funny, that.

There’s no real revenue for the oil companies proving anything about climate. They will make their investments depending on their own advice and science, anyway.
Big Oil has nothing to lose, anyway. No matter what alternative source is dominant, the world still has to have petroleum to run its transportation industries. So far, there is NO reallistic alternative on the horizon. Plus, there is still plenty of oil to be had as they keep discovering more and more of the stuff, and the drilling and extraction technology keeps improving.
People will not stop buying petroleum products just because of the excess of Gore-like kooks out there screaming that the sky is falling. The CAGW advocates assume the stupid people hypothesie, and it just doesn’t work. When it comes to money, the people will always figure out what is best for them.

Jeff L.

Dont forget that “carbon”enemy # 1 is “big coal” & if big coal goes down on power gen, nat gas will go up – generally a good thing for O&G companies.


I’ve wondered about this, too, and I think there might be an economic explanation. If you have a more-or-less finite amount of something, as do your competitors, would you rather dig it out of the ground and sell it all at once in a glut when prices are cheap? Or would you prefer government regulations that force you and your competition to trickle it out slowly at high prices? If the profit margin is relatively fixed, then the higher prices are what you want.


Why spend money disproving CAGW when with a little patience mother nature will do it for free.


I work in the oil sands and we soon found out we can use science all we want, but it is the Media who have bought into the AGW scam and is responsible for the overwhelming propaganda. Combined with a public with little to no science background it is an easy propaganda exercise as Joseph Goebbels once said during the Nazi era; “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” And the public have. Its there in the media everyday.
Moreover, every study the oil companies put out based on science is readily condemned because it does come from the oil companies. Plus the various US based so called groups like Tides, Greenpeace, and so on buy protesters to keep the myth alive. The real battle in this confrontation is being waged by people like these writing here on this site in newspapers, blogs, and WUWT itself.
Our ace in the hole is the least active sun in memory and winter! And this winter is going to be a hard one that I suggest will do more to defeat the AGW side than all of us combined!

David Middleton wrote in small part, “Thus rendering their “theory” un-falsifiable and rendering it unscientific. ”
Ahh, well said. After Popper’s solution to the Problem of Demarcation of science from nonsense, unfalsifiable is nonsense.

Richard D

We don’t yet not know the real global impact man has on the environment. It may be negligible.
Yet we can readily predict/observe the disastrous effects of green solutions. It’s unconscionable in my view that rich elites would consign perhaps billions of people to fuel poverty and in effect, deny people in the third world basic resources, such as clean water, adequate food, comfortable homes and electricity that they themselves take for granted. Not only do they advocate such policies, they go further and root for plagues, natural disasters and famines to kill as many of these people as possible. It’s really sick.


Speed says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:27 am
For the same reasons that the oil industry didn’t spend $billions or $millions or $anything disproving the existence of a 100 mpg carburetor — it was cheaper to just buy up the patents. In this case it’s cheaper to pay bloggers and conservatives and tea partiers and libertarians a few bucks to argue the point and keep the true believers busy playing whack-a-mole.
You forgot the /sarc.

Kip Hansen

I found this piece consistently spoiled by the author’s repeated rank name-calling, almost total lack of scientific or logical rigor, and — final straw — devolving into a political attack on the President. Not even his own opinion, but just a copy-and-paste attack from the Washington Post.
We learn nothing from this essay — except about the author.