Just a short piece today because it’s late and I’m busy working on the No Agenda news network. Look it up..
I just wanted to drop in this little gem after being confronted at work about it.
“Aren’t all climate skeptics just paid by BIG OIL?”
Which is an interesting argument, except it’s got three major flaws in it.
- Motivation – By describing oil as a diminishing, polluting property, over the last 20 years the oil industry has been able to increase the real world price of fuel by a factor of 9. Which is why every quarter you’ll here the likes of BP, Shell, Texaco all making huge profits. The climate change argument has netted BIG OIL billions. So why would they sponsor anybody to counter that argument.
- Evidence – Like all good organisations its necessary to publish sources of funding. However, bodies like the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia have to have their email systems hacked in order for information requested under the freedom of information act to be released. Why? Well the reality is damaging. Funding for PRO-Climate science outweighs “big oil” funding by a 1000 to 1. Check out this.
- History – And while we are on the subject of the CRU. You might be interested to find out that it was originally established with funds from BP and Royal Dutch Shell. Source: Michael Sanderson (2002), The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, p. 285, ISBN 9781852853365
So apart from being inaccurate, misleading and biased it’s also hypocritical. So.. no change there then.