Saturday, 24 July 2010


…cries a banner headline on the front page of The Times on 19 July 2010. “One of the world’s largest oil companies has broken its pledge (why and to whom one wonders) to stop funding groups that promote scepticism about man-made climate change”. Only a few days earlier, in the Economist of 10 July 2010, I found again the litany that the only climate scientists that seem to matter are those 'behind closed doors' by order of the IPCC. As noted before, there are, of course, many other scientists outside these confines, as well as thousands of scientists who have signed petitions pleading 'audiatur et altera pars' instead of relying exclusively on the IPCC's Lysenkoism.


to Exxon for deciding to get out of the climate cabal’s coercion and giving a few pennies to organisations that promote scepticism about man-made climate change, i.e. about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Pennies? – Yes when compared to the AGW cabal’s propaganda machine having spent an alleged 100 billion dollars (10 billion dollars annually in the US alone) to promote the AGW fable. Fable? To wit: consider published estimates of annual global carbon dioxide emissions in Gt C/year (Gigatonnes of carbon per year):

Gt C/year; average; %

Respiration (humans, animals, phytoplankton) 43.5-52, avge 47.75, = 22.96%

Ocean outgassing (tropics) 90-100, avge 95, = 45.68%

Soil bacteria, decomposition 50-60, avge 55, = 26.45%

Volcanoes, soil degassing 0.5-2, avge 1.25, = 0.60%

Forest cutting, forest fires 0.6-2.6, avge 1.6, = 0.77%

Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.2-7.5, avge 7.35, = 3.53%

TOTAL 192-224, avge 207.95, = 100.00%  [1]

I find it hard to believe that about 7 Gt C/year out of total global emissions amounting to some 200 Gt C/year should alone and exclusively be responsible for affecting ‘global climate’, no less - let alone the unresolved question whether even the total of annual CO2 emissions does. Is scepticism not the only possible rational response in the light of these figures? Anthropopathetic is a word that springs to mind. Those sponsors of AGW fables should perhaps take a lesson from the Brothers' Grimm ‘Die Sonne bringt es an den Tag’, i.e. 'Truth Will Out'. And only sceptics will ever find it.

Meanwhile, don't lose your focus on the Clean Energy challenge - nothing else really matters if you take sustainability serious.

[1] Robert M Carter: ‘Climate: the Counter Consensus — a Palaeoclimatologist Speaks’, Stacey International, London 2010

[PS:  for my full story start with Blog (1) 2009]


  1. re EXXON cash: found this explanation:

    <<<< Source: Greenpeace, May 26, 2009
    According to ExxonMobil's 2008 Corporate Citizenship Report and Worldwide Giving Report, the oil giant is still funding global warming skeptics. Following an unprecedented rebuke from Britain's Royal Society in 2006, Exxon said it would stop funding -- in the Society's words -- groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change." ……..>>>>
    Pasted from: The Centre for Media & Democracy at
    See also:
    <<<<< Overview
    The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation….. >>>>>
    Pasted from

  2. So there we are, seeing some forces in the royal British society that can persuade the British Royal Society to issue rebukes to Exxon for funding global warming sceptics, heavily supported by Greenpeace newspeak about 'climate change' when climate – which has been doing its changing for billions of years - and which is not the issue, but anthropogenic global warming - AGW - which is.

    In the knowledge that it is the pre-ordained political manifesto of the IPPC, viz “Is not the collapse of the industrial civilisation the only hope for this planet? Is it therefore not our responsibility to ensure that this collapse happens?” [Maurice Strong, first director of UNEP: Wood 1990 and Rio 1992], to which end Dr Stephen Schneider, lead author of Working Group II of the IPCC provided the IPCC’s official indulgence in 1989, viz. “To this end we need to announce horrifying scenarios and make simplified dramatic statements omitting to mention any possible doubts we might harbour. In order to get attention we need dramatic pronouncements leaving no doubt as to what is said. Every one of us researchers must decide how far he prefers to be honest rather than effective.” [my italics] [see Bachmann reference in ‘2009 Year End Musings’].

    What really is surprising is how far the Gleichschaltungs-cabal managed to muzzle scientific journals and institutes, the media and governments to toe the IPCC line. Governments, of course, mostly borrowing beyond their mandate, were bribed by the provision of ‘dead horses’ for sale, e.g. CO2, and carbon taxes, and other industry and banking ruses like CCS to force the taxpayer to fund their financial mismanagement – as long as they attended and paid for the pilgrimages – if not Canossa kow-tows – to the regular climate jamborees.

  3. What I dislike most is the disrepute which science, scientists, their journals and institutes have been allowed themselves to be instrumental to. I wish to quote here only one exception to the rule, as sent to me by Burt Rutan, here is a link:

  4. meanwhile, some useful links to gain a perspective on the 'bribes to governments' for holding the IPCC Gleichshaltung's party line: