Filed under: Al Gore, Big Banks, big oil, Britain, cap-and-trade, carbon credit system, carbon credits, carbon dioxide, Carbon Tax, climate change, climate hypocrisy, climate science, climategate, Co2, cop15, copenhagen, copenhagen summit, corruption, CRU, deception, denmark, EAU, Economic Collapse, energy, energy tax, environmental taxation, exxon, exxon mobil, federal crimes, FOIA, gas tax, Global Warming, global warming hoax, hacked emails, Hadley CRU, Hoax, ipcc, man made global warming, manipulation, Oil, oil companies, peer reviewed, Petrol, scandal, shell, UN, UNIPCC, united nations | Tags: Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Research Unit, East Anglia University, ESRC, Keith Taylor, Mick Kelley, Mike Hulme, Paul Rutter, Richard Sykes, Simon Shackley, Tim O'Riordan
ClimateGate CRU Sought Funds From Shell Oil
News Busters
December 5, 2009
The Climatic Research Unit at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal sought funds from Shell Oil in the year 2000.
Other e-mail messages obtained from the University of East Anglia’s computers also showed officials at the school’s CRU solicited support from ExxonMobil and BP Amoco, although the nature of this support was not identified.
As climate alarmists and their media minions love to claim that global warming skeptics are all paid shills of Big Oil, it makes one wonder how the press will report these startling revelations discovered by Anthony Watts Friday:
Mick Kelley to Mike Hulme
- Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off
Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s
within the remit.
Regards
Mick
Earlier that same year, the recipient of this e-mail message, Mike Hulme, sent a message of his own concerning getting “support” from a number of entities (emphasis added):
Mike Hulme to Simon Shackley
- Simon,
I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:
– Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
– Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
– Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
– ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.
[…]
>SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
>sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
>contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
>Amoco contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
>engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
>
>We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
>Does anyone know any investment bankers?
>
>Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
>finalise the list.
>
>I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
>support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
>used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
>in brackets).
>
>Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
>Shepherd]
>Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
>[Mike Hulme]
>Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
>Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
>Shackley]
>Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
>Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
>Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
>
>
>Possibles:
>Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
>[Nick Jenkins]
>Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
>Cannell]
>Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
>
>With kind regards
>
>Simon Shackley
Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.
Filed under: Al Gore, Australia, cap-and-trade, carbon credit system, carbon credits, carbon dioxide, Carbon Tax, climate change, climategate, Co2, Economic Collapse, economic depression, Economy, energy, energy tax, environmental taxation, exxon, exxon mobil, gas prices, gas tax, Global Warming, global warming hoax, Great Depression, Hoax, kevin rudd, middle class, Oil, oil companies, Propaganda, Rex Tillerson, shell, Taxpayers, US Economy
Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.
TreeHugger
August 17, 2009
Exxon, the largest oil company in the world has stated that it prefers a carbon tax to a cap and trade system–again–this time, specifically in Australia. This comes on the heels of news last week that Australia’s parliament rejected a cap and trade system for curbing emissions–there won’t be another vote on the bill for at least 3 months (Aussies voted ‘no’ again!). So what’s behind Exxon’s vocal pro-carbon tax stance?
From Bloomberg:
- “A carbon tax is more transparent to consumers, will achieve greater environmental benefits and is more difficult to manipulate than a cap-and-trade program,” John Dashwood, chairman of Exxon’s Australian unit, said in speech notes e- mailed ahead of an address today in Melbourne.
A little puzzling is the fact that Australia’s proposed carbon cap featured relatively low emission reduction targets–as low as 5% reduction from 2000 levels by 2020. Hardly a demanding commitment, at least in the short term (this is why many members of Australia’s own Green party voted against the cap and trade themselves–it wasn’t strict enough).
Nonetheless, some economists, along with experts like James Hansen and Al Gore, prefer the carbon tax option. Throw in Exxon Mobil, and you’ve got yourself an eclectic band of misfits. Economists (and presumably Exxon) argue that the tax is a more efficient and inexpensive way to curb carbon. From Bloomberg:
- Imposing a global carbon tax would ease pressure on the climate more cheaply than emissions trading, according to a study released last week by Danish professor Bjoern Lomborg. A $0.50 tax for each ton of emissions may generate $1.51 in avoided climate damage, compared with costs as high as $68 per ton, resulting in 2 cents of avoided damage, under some emissions-mitigations models, the study said.
Another possible reason for Exxon’s sudden support could be good old fashioned political gamesmanship–the idea of a carbon tax is potentially extremely unpopular (as is anything that includes the word “tax” in its moniker). If the company has reason to believe a carbon tax is very unlikely to actually pass Australian parliament, it can voice support for it and appear environmentally inclined without having to make any actual adjustments. However, Exxon makes for a powerful voice of support, and having the oil giant in favor could draw other businesses’, politicians’, and citizen support for a carbon tax, which could eventually create stricter regulations on the oil giant than a cap would.
Filed under: Al Gore, carbon credit system, carbon credits, carbon dioxide, Carbon Tax, climate change, climategate, Co2, cop15, copenhagen, Copenhagen treaty, energy, energy tax, environmental taxation, exxon, exxon mobil, gas prices, gas tax, global tax, Global Warming, global warming hoax, global warming skeptics, Hoax, main street, middle class, Oil, oil companies, Propaganda, Taxpayers, world tax | Tags: Ken Cohen, Rex Tillerson
Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 3, 2009
A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax.
According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.
In a speech last month, Tillerson brazenly called out the cap and trade agenda for what it was, an effort to impose a carbon tax camouflaged only by a slick sales pitch and deceptive rhetoric.
“It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,” said Tillerson. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,” he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.
Tillerson firmly expressed Exxon’s support for climate change alarmists in stating, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.”
Exxon’s push for a carbon tax was restated last week by its vice president for public affairs Ken Cohen, who told a conference call that he wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax.”
Exxon Mobil and their ilk are not concerned about a carbon tax eating into their profits because they know they won’t have to pay it – the tab will be picked up by the ignorant taxpayer at the fuel pump at an inflated cost which if anything will hand the transnational oil cartels an even bigger cut.
Ideologically, Al Gore and Exxon Mobil are on exactly the same page – the only difference between the oil companies and global warming alarmists is the squabble over who will get to sink their teeth into the taxpayer and reap the dividends of the climate change scam.
noworldsystem.com 