Posted on 03/04/2010 8:13:54 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed. Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.
The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it’s chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses.
Money for Sceptics: Greenpeace has searched for funding for sceptics and found $23 million dollars paid by Exxon over ten years (which has stopped). Perhaps Greenpeace missed funding from other fossil fuel companies, but you can be sure that they searched. I wrote the Climate Money paper in July last year, and since then no one has claimed a larger figure. Big-Oil may well prefer it if emissions are not traded, but it’s not make-or-break for them. If all fossil fuels are in effect “taxed”, consumers will pay the tax anyhow, and past price rises in crude oil suggest consumers will not consume much less fuel, so profits won’t actually fall that much.
But in the end, everyone spends more on carbon friendly initiatives than on sceptics– even Exxon: (how about $100 million for Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for Biofuels research). Some will complain that Exxon is massive and their green commitment was a tiny part of their profits, but the point is, what they spent on skeptics was even less.
Money for the Climate Industry: The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 – to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program. The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it could be…a lot bigger.
For direct PR comparisons though, just look at “Think Climate Think Change“: the Australian Government put $13.9 million into just one quick advertising campaign. There is no question that there are vastly more financial rewards for people who promote a carbon-made catastrophe than for those who point out the flaws in the theory.
Ultimately the big problem is that there are no grants for scientists to demonstrate that carbon has little effect. There are no Institutes of Natural Climate Change, but plenty that are devoted to UnNatural Forces.
It’s a monopsony, and the main point is not that the scientists are necessarily corrupted by money or status (though that appears to have happened to a few), but that there is no group or government seriously funding scientists to expose flaws. The lack of systematic auditing of the IPCC, NOAA, NASA or East Anglia CRU, leaves a gaping vacuum. It’s possible that honest scientists have dutifully followed their grant applications, always looking for one thing in one direction, and when they have made flawed assumptions or errors, or just exaggerations, no one has pointed it out simply because everyone who could have, had a job doing something else. In the end the auditors who volunteered—like Steve McIntyre and AnthonyWatts—are retired scientists, because they are the only ones who have the time and the expertise to do the hard work. (Anyone fancy analysing statistical techniques in dendroclimatology or thermometer siting instead of playing a round of golf?)
Money for the Finance Houses: What the US Government has paid to one side of the scientific process pales in comparison with carbon trading. According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion. This is turnover, not specifically profits, but each year the money market turnover eclipses the science funding over 20 years. Money Talks. Every major finance house stands to profit as brokers of a paper trade. It doesn’t matter whether you buy or sell, the bankers take a slice both ways. The bigger the market, the more money they make shifting paper.
Not surprisingly banks are doing what banks should do (for their shareholders): they’re following the promise of profits, and urging governments to adopt carbon trading.7,8 Banks are keen to be seen as good corporate citizens (look, there’s an environmental banker!), but somehow they don’t find the idea of a non-tradable carbon tax as appealing as a trading scheme where financial middlemen can take a cut. (For banks that believe in the carbon crisis, taxes may well “help the planet,” but they don’t pay dividends.)
The stealthy mass entry of the bankers and traders poses a major force. Surely if money has any effect on carbon emissions, it must also have an effect on careers, shareholders, advertising, and lobbying? There were over 2000 lobbyists in Washington in 2008.
Joanne follows the Money...
.
People need to ask themselves......Would Al Gore even be involved in this if he wasn’t making millions of dollars? I seriously doubt it. He will continue the lie until there’s no money in it for him.
fyi
I bet it does.
Yep, there are a lot of oil companies that give funding to environmental groups. If they can “raise awareness” about an environmental concern these environmental groups will apply pressure to various congressmen to write an obscure law to regulate energy. More often than not, the congressman will write the law to favor that same energy company.
The enviromentalists are duped and think they’ve won, the company gets favorable laws that stifle competition and the congressman gets a nice campaign contribution from both parties.
It’s a toxic and corrupt scheme they’ve got going on.
Is anyone surprised?
Unpaid sceptics are not just taking on scientists who conveniently secure grants and junkets for pursuing one theory, they also conflict with potential profits of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and every other financial institution or corporation that stands to profit like the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, PointCarbon, IdeaCarbon (and the list goes on… ) as well as against government bureaucracies like the IPCC and multiple departments of Climate Change. There’s no conspiracy between these groups, just similar profit plans or power grabs.
DUH!
Investors Representing $13 Trillion Call on U.S. and Other Countries to Move Quickly - on AGW Laws)
“Big Green” needs to become a reviled term just as the lefties use the term “Big Oil”, etc.
No! No!
Only skeptics are evvvvvvvvvvvil and greedddddddddddddy!
1) Several, including myself, have taken the position that rising sea temparatures result in the release of additional levels of gased, including CO2. To me, this is a given. In this instance CO2 is a result, not a cause of global warming.
2) Here's one I haven't heard discussed before. Since carbon is an essential component of all life, animal and human, the decomposition of dead flora and fauna results in CO2 being generated. Now, in colder temperatures, the decomposition occurs much less rapidly than in warmer climates. So, to me, this is another indication that as temperatures increase, the creation of CO2 would also increase; again, the temperature increase causes the increase in CO2.
I would like to see addtional instances - with quantitative measures - of these and similar examples. And, since life forms must contain carbon, it seems to me that we must make a stronger and stronger case to those in authority, and keep pounding away in our messages to the masses that carbon is not evil.
Since the medium is the message, we need to continue to provide actual proof in a rational manner of the real science going on here. And put the numbers with the proof.
The incentive of the oil companies, is that carbon penalties will affect coal more than they will affect oil, because coal puts more CO2 into the air per BTU of energy than oil (which also gets energy from the combustion of the hydrogen in the hydrocarbon molecule). Restrictions on coal power generation shifts things in favor of natural gas.
Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax? ( Some good technical facts )
I've been in the Oil & Gas business for over 30 years and take huge issue with the above statement. Do you not know of the Obama Administration's plans to strip normal manufacturing tax deductions and depletion allownces specifically from Oil & Gas Companies? ? ? The ONLY industry targeted with this punitive elimination of NORMAL tax deductions is the Oil & Gas 'bidness'.
Get your facts straight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
