35 2 mins 12 yrs

“Follow the money,”  Octave Tockfield urges at Big Journalism.

The secret to understanding Global Warming – or Climate Change, as The Official Rule Book for the AGW Shell Game now calls it – the secret to understanding Climate Change, then,  is to follow the money.

Al Gore soon will be the world’s first green billionaire thanks to his skill selling  snake oil to the gullible masses.  Gore’s partner in the AGW Nobel Prize,  Dr. Rajendra Pachauri,  head of the IPCC and trained as a railway engineer, now lives in luxury thanks to his skills as an AGW advocate.  

The MSM also profits from the AGW scare, and not just from doomesday headlines and circulation boosts.

The BBC £8billion pension fund has much to gain from AGW advocacy.  In The Express:

“The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. 

Te £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit.

Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of  employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted. “

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

35 thoughts on “Cherchez L’Argent

  1. The secret to understanding Global Warming … is to follow the money

    Estimated daily oil production: 84 million barrels/day
    Current price of oil: $77.62
    Estimated daily value of the oil industry: $6,520,080,000
    Estimated annual value of the oil industry: $2,379,829,200,000

    Follow the money.

  2. Estimated daily oil production: 84 million barrels/day
    Current price of oil: $77.62
    Estimated daily value of the oil industry: $6,520,080,000
    Estimated annual value of the oil industry: $2,379,829,200,000

    Follow the money.

    yes the evil black blood of the earth, follow the oil,,,,, Plastic, electricity, fuel, heat, the list of products made from oil and it’s byproducts is over a million items long. man can not exist without oil.

    But Algore will plant a tree on someones seized land, bring our standard of living back to the 16-1700s, but I’m sure you can get a job shoveling the shit from his horses Jaz.

    While he and the agw elite structure the lives of the rest of the pesants

  3. yes the evil black blood of the earth, follow the oil
    You suggested that the secret of AGW is to follow the money – suggesting that someone somewhere is paying for this argument, or has something to benefit.
    It is certainly true that a green economy is developing and that will generate money for someone. Following your implicit logic that the only driver for action is monetary gain (a suggesting I completely reject and one that reveals an interesting world view) then the obvious question is qui bono?
    The size of the nascent green economy is nothing compared to the size of the petrochemical industry.
    Qui bono if AGW is refuted? Who has the most to lose if the theory turns out to be correct?
    Have a look at some interesting parallels with the tobacco industry. The science was constantly attacked and undermined until the evidence was overwhelming. WHo benefited most from attacking and undermining the science?
    ll I am doing is following your logic.

  4. I went back and checked it after you said it was too high. That was the figure that was still being quoted. But if you have a better figure then by all means share it and we can re-do the sums.
    The point still stands even if the daily production figure is half that – the size if the petrochemical industry utterly swamps the size of any nascent green economy.

  5. Jaz,

    Well, of course the petrochemical industry is much larger than the ‘Green’ version, and is much more broadly owned. So why would it not be a financial giant in comparison?

    I include a link to a BBC q&a which may give some clue why the eco lobby is losing credibility by the day.

    Link

    Like bureaucrats everywhere, they prefer to bully and coerce rather than persuade, and it always backfires on them. That there has been much jiggery-pokery involved over the past few years, in promoting AGW, I find it surprising that all those ‘worthy’ supporters of the idea would rather make excuse after excuse, rather than confront the perpetrators of what is now seen as no more than a global political scam, a device for ‘spreading the wealth’ around. The remarks and attitudes of the third world countries in Copenhagen and their vociferous demands for more than was offered, really gave the lie to just what was going on. The demands of India, a third world, but certainly not a poor country, were quite brazen.

    The tragedy is that when some future global cooperation is required, people will scoff, and cite AGW, as a reason for not doing anything. That’s what happens when integrity is lost, people no longer believe a word you say, – as our politicians have found, to their cost.

  6. Jaz: AGW is no more complicated, useful, or real than: "the sky is falling; here, buy an umbrella."

    Whereas oil actually provides heat and powers motors.

    And, your "green economies?" – I presume you mean windmills and solar panels – Clearly, they are not as effective at producing energy as oil; this is why they don’t thrive in a free market without government edict.

  7. AGW is no more complicated, useful, or real than: "the sky is falling; here, buy an umbrella."
    You are conflating two arguments. Whether or not AGW is useful, or whether or not it requires government support, may be perfectly valid arguments, but are separate to the one you posited – namely follow the money. The truth or otherwise of your original argument is not predicated on the truth or otherwise of the second arguments.
    Your implicit suggestion was that following the money would reveal the true nature of the argument. I am suggesting that following the money leads you most emphatically to the petrochemical industry which is a multi-trillion dollar industry rather than to the nascent green economy, which is worth few million.
    Your suggestion, therefore, that money is the driver of the AGW industry would lead one to the conclusion that the opponents of AGW have more to lose than the proponents have to gain. By your logic that would suggest that the likely drivers, therefore, of the argument are the climate sceptics, not the proponents of AGW.
    QED.

  8. Jaz, your point is a good one, but surely it is a two way street, If the hand of big oil is reason enough to question the bona fides of one line of debate / propaganda; then the hand of big green should mean that the other strand of debate and propaganda is also to be treated with suspicion.

    It is the role of journalism and politics to be sceptical of both. But until recently big eco has had a free ride.

  9. Jaz.,
    It is all about the money and more importaintly the control. It is no mistake that the head of green peace is Gorbachev, it is no mistake that the AGW movement id designed to destroy the industrial nations of the world. The US inparticular.

    ALL the man made global warming and even the fact that the planet is warming has been proven to be a lie. A bad lie at that as the data was begining to truely be examined and revealed that it didn’t even rate as grad school work. The principals destroyed all original data.

    They are frauds not just frauds but frauds that violated every fundemental rule of science. You come up with a theory and then run the numbers, if the numbers prove your theory fine if it does not you don’t change the numbers. Which is exactly what the global warming crowd has done.

    Anyone that believes in this theory after the daily exposure of the fraud commited is a fool.

  10. Troll, I am a global warming sceptic. People here know that. But for someone to accuse someone of being a fool while at the same time arguing that Mikhail Gorbachev is the head of Greenpeace is just down right stupid.

  11. Jaz: "follow the money" if you want to understand why AGW is so popular among politicians, the mainstream media, Al Gore, and others. They profit from this fraud.

    Nothing to do with oil. That’s another topic obviously.

  12. Jaz: "Your suggestion, therefore, that money is the driver of the AGW industry would lead one to the conclusion that the opponents of AGW have more to lose than the proponents have to gain. "

    Wrong. You are mixing 2 issues.

  13. Gorby is associated with green peace, green is the new color of red do your homework.

    I know simple things are hard for you to grasp Seamus

  14. Patty
    We seem to have slightly lost our way in this debate. You made an assertion that if you want to understand AGW one should follow the money. If you line up the players in the AGW debate among the opponents is the oil industry. The oil industry has a great deal to lose if AGW is proved to be correct, therefore it is in their financial interests that AGW is not demonstrated to be correct.
    Following the money – as you suggest – suggests following who has the most to gain or lose from a pecuniary view point. The gains made by any nascent green economy are completely dwarfed by the size of the petrochemical industry.
    Therefore following your predicates leads to the conclusion that one should look at the oil industry.

    All of the other arguments raised may, or may not be, valid. However they are not part of the initial argument and as such are not part of the conclusion. Their truths are not, in the context of the initial argument as you laid out, relevant.

    Wrong. You are mixing 2 issues. I am? How so. I wasn’t aware that I was, but I could very well be.

  15. Troll, you go from suggesting that Gorbachev is the head of Greenpeace, to then suggesting that Gorbachev is associated with Greenpeace. In reality Gorbachev has nothing to do with Greenpeace but is the leader of an organisation called Green Cross. I know facts are hard for you to grasp Troll.

  16. Troll – where do you get your information putting Gorbachev as the head of greenpeace. I can find nothing that says he is associated with them. As Seamus points out, he does run an organisation called Green Cross which in an environmental lobby group.

    ALL the man made global warming and even the fact that the planet is warming has been proven to be a lie.
    Well if so, then if you could point me in the direction where this has been proved, I would be very grateful.

  17. >>I wasn’t aware that I was, but I could very well be.<<

    Don’t worry. You aren’t.

  18. Seamus,
    Thank you for proving my point, yes I said the head of green peace, and it wasn’t excuse me.

    My point is the environmental movement was long ago taken over by the communists. Ask the guy who originally started green peace and left for that reason.

    The environmental movement has done nothing but cause death and misery, while oil has advanced our lives.

    The mother of all environmenat movements Rachel Carson is responsible for the deaths of millions from maleria and other disieses carried by misqeytos by getting DDT banned.

    It has been proven that DDT did not have the effects on the environment that she taughted, and because of her millions have died.

    Just as global warming is a fraud today the people behind the movement have no desire to help mankind or better mans life on earth, they only have the destruction of industry as their purpose.

    Mankind can not exist without Oil, Oil is NOT running out it is a naturaly occuring byproduct of the geothermal forces of the planet.

    Your side has no definitive proof of anything. It’s a con game that can no longer be tolerated.

  19. "My point is the environmental movement was long ago taken over by the communists. Ask the guy who originally started green peace and left for that reason."

    Troll, Environmentalism is a form of post-material politics. Post-material politics favours things like security of the quality of life and rights etc over financial, economic and physical security. It is estimated that roughly 25% of people support post-material politics in the Western World. It also isn’t surprising that many people with a history of non-Capitalism (like many former Communists) are also supporters and active in post-material politics.

    "Oil is NOT running out it is a naturaly occuring byproduct of the geothermal forces of the planet."

    Yes Oil does renew itself over time. But we are burning it at a rate faster than it is renewing itself which is why oil reserves are dwindling.

    "The mother of all environmenat movements Rachel Carson is responsible for the deaths of millions from maleria and other disieses carried by misqeytos by getting DDT banned."

    I would disagree that it is caused the deaths of millions of people. Even in countries that it isn’t banned in DDT has fallen severly out of use for one major reason. It doesn’t work anymore. In most areas where there was a significant use of DDT, DDT resistent or DDT immune mosquitos became the norm within 10 years.

    Also, Rachel Carson never called for DDT to be banned. She gave her concerns on its use and the US decided to ban it.

  20. What is interesting is to trace back the history of a lot of these arguments, and there is an interesting commonality – namely an interesting organisation called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. They were big movers behind the attack on Rachel Carson and were very big (in fact they were one the key players) in the smoking debate.
    Their strategy is not to attack the argument itself, but to seek to undermine the science that supports it. When it became clear in the smoking debate that there was pretty good evidence for a link between smoking and cancer, but no one could establish the actual causitive agent, TASSC sought not attack the science. And for a while it worked pretty well – until the evidence became overwhelming.
    Although TASCC no longer function today, their techniques and strategies have been adopted by the anti-AGW lobby, most famously by the Frank Luntz memo during the second Bush election which suggested that GOP candidates should not tackle the issue of AGW head on, as it was seen as a negative.
    Luntz wrote:

    "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

  21. Troll, DDT is banned in the United States. It is still used in many places around the world. Most of the places with high casualty rates of Malaria still use DDT. It is estimated that over 40% of mosquitos in malaria infected areas are immune to DDT. The best way to treat Malaria would be to ignore US and other Western patents on antimalarial drugs but I doubt you would support that.

  22. In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use of DDT was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[26] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970, and the US in 1972, but not banned in the United Kingdom until 1984. The use of DDT in vector control has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.

    The Stockholm Convention, which entered into force in 2004, outlawed several persistent organic pollutants, and restricted the use of DDT to vector control. The Convention has been ratified by more than 160 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. Recognizing that a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives, the public health use of DDT was exempted from the ban until alternatives are developed. The Malaria Foundation International states that "The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations…For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."[27]

    Despite the worldwide ban on agricultural use of DDT, its use in this context continues in India[28] North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.[13]

    Today, 4-5,000 tonnes of DDT are used each year for the control of malaria and visceral leishmaniasis, with India being the largest consumer. India, China, and North Korea are the only countries still producing and exporting it, and production is reportedly on the rise.

    that’s why they are called patents, rule of law something you have proven means nothing to you

  23. Yes DDT is still used and despite this there are still 900,000 malaria deaths a year, normally in countries that use DDT. Why? Because mosquitos are becoming DDT resistant. The majority of malaria deaths are caused because poor people can’t afford antimalarial drugs.

  24. keep telling yourself that Seamus if it makes you feel good, the fact remains Rachel Carsen lied just like the global warmers lie

  25. Rachel Carsen lied just like the global warmers lie

    Troll

    Have you actually read "Silent Spring"? No, thought not.

    Rachel Carson exposed the poisonous effects of chemicals on the biodiversity which sustains us. Not just DDT, but many others. Think about what the title of the book means, even if you can’t be bothered to read it.

  26. Jaz/Noel: "Follow the money" referred to money related to AGW. Not all money, everywhere. I mean, with your logic, why stop at oil money? why not "follow diamond money" or "follow real estate money" – ridiculous.

    Have you read, Jaz, that not only are the IPCC reports incorrect but the data on which all temperature assumptions are based are not "available" as the guy at CRU admits that he just doesn’t know what happened to his data base!

    Laughable. AGW is based on data which apparently does not exist! Did they throw it out? Make it up? AGW "science" if a fraud.

  27. "Follow the money" referred to money related to AGW. Not all money, everywhere. I mean, with your logic, why stop at oil money?
    I am talking about the money related to AGW. If you look at the debate you must consider who are the protagonists – who has the most to win or lose in the argument. Neither diamonds nor real estate are directly affected by the argument. They may be indirect participants, but they are not direct participants.
    However the petrochemical industry is a direct player, it has a very large direct interest in the outcome of the debate. If AGW is proved to be correct then it is going to directly impact that industry – hence it is very much in their interest that it is not proved to be correct. That makes them part of the argument.
    Your argument was that following the financial interests of the protagonists would reveal a truth. What is clear is that the putative gains by the nascent green economy are dwarfed by the putative losses of the petrochemical industry. Hence following the money – your suggestion – leads one to the door of the petrochemical industry.
    Now that is not to say that the green industry doesn’t also benefit from AGW – of course it does, it woudln’t exist without it, and therefore there are vested interests on that side too.
    What I am suggesting is that by following your logic, the party to the argument with the most to gain or lose is the petrochemical industry – which is the path the money creates.

    As for the other points you are raising, they may or may not be true – but their truth or otherwise does not affect the outcome of the argument you posited. They are not predicates to that argument.

  28. My argument: Those promoting AGW do so because they make money from it. End of story.

    ———————–

    Note:

    Money earned by promoting AGW is not "oil money."

    Money earned from pumping oil is not "green industry" money.

    They are not related.

  29. Jaz: "Hence following the money – your suggestion – leads one to the door of the petrochemical industry."

    This is such nonsense. Perhaps you’ll understand my very simple point if I write "follow the AGW money."

    Does that help?

  30. Jaz: This, I believe, is your point: "What is clear is that the putative gains by the nascent green economy are dwarfed by the putative losses of the petrochemical industry."

    Please note that your point MISSES my point. Whether or not profits from oil v. green economy is a zero-sum game is an unrelated argument, fit for another time, another forum.

    My point is that AGW is promoted because there is money to be earned from said promotion. What I don’t say, but I obviously think, is that AGW "science" does not exist.

  31. Jaz thinks that Big Oil is fighting AGW because Big Oil will lose money to green industries if AGW is accepted.

    But there is no evidence that Big Oil is behind AGW skepticism and even less evidence that Big Oil will lose money to Green Industries if AGW is accepted.

    Jaz equates Big Oil to Big Tobacco.

    Tobacco was proven to cause lung cancer by rigorous science.

    But there is NO science – rigorous or otherwise – behind AGW. So, tobacco and cancer do not equal CO2 and global warming.

Comments are closed.