Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection

Subject:	Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
Date:	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:54:38 -0800 (PST)

Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection

By James Delingpole Politics
December 18th, 2009

Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a
British Climate research business?

Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG,
and developed and installed new CO2 removal
technology in their process; this lowers the carbon
footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive
electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is
taxed. They have no problem with this whole thing.

Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in
a different position, they have a problem with this
whole thing.

Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in
the Sultanate of Oman or Saudi Arabia would change
it from really hot to really hot.

Maybe it is just good business.

http://www.omanlng.com/

Oman LNG L.L.C
Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
Location: Head office:
Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur
(approx 340 km from Muscat)
Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal
Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%,
KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui
2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up
in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described
in the book: =93The history of the University of East
Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)=94 By Michael Sanderson.
The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP,
the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex
LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)

This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global
Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings
receives funding from =93Big Oil=94 and the nuclear power
industry.

Secondly, the research from the institution which is
perceived to be independent publicly funded research,
is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a
business.

The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page
from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

So, there a business set up in the early 1970=92s, so what?

I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got
to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to
me it looks like this may have been a very, very long
term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental,
but it does seem to fit the observable information.

A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to
a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said =91Why
would they do it?=92 I indicated the Jones had received
22 million, etc, but he countered, =91For a fraud this
large, going on for this long, there would have to be
billions of dollars to be made, not millions=92. That
made sense.

So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing,
it covers two or three decades, involves many countries
and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone
has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar
number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it
not political in the partisan sense of the word.

If, and this is a big if, you make the assumption that
the objectives were:

1. Provide a smooth replacement of the use of oil in
power generation and transportation, so as to
avoid a panic over Peak Oil.
2. Get people to buy into Nuclear Power so that base
load electrical power generation would not
consume the available fossil fuel supply.
3. Get the people to really want to pay for it all.

Note: The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS
WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are
already starting to put the =91Peak Oil=92 story into play. It
is also the 2020 date, why am I not surprised.

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3D150657=
19

Then the following is not unbelievable.

The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was
moving along well back then, and in fact today their
scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except
CO2. However there is really not much money in coal,
it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to
the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired
power plant is not much more complicated, or
expensive, than a good steam engine.

Since there was not enough money in coal it would not
be financially rewarding to simply try to promote coal
as a replacement for oil.

So they looked at the situation and realized that the
difference between the different technologies to
replace base load power generation was the amount
of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.

At that point CO2 became the target. That happened
sometime between 1985 and 1988.

Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly
of followers, you can look up =91dihydrogen monoxide=92
(water), on many occasions at environmental
conferences comedians and light news organizations
have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a
petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently
they do not do a lot of independent analysis before
making a conclusion, they are mostly followers.

So if you need a large number of followers, there is a
ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to
tell the followers what to think. The followers do not
need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason
or the facts; they just need something or someone to
follow.

Now you gain control of a climate research business,
and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize
that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of
dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage
to get control of the worlds climate data and begin
adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the
marketing people to present the information needed in
as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the
two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this
case, because of the number of followers greed will not
work. There are simply too many followers to pay them
all off.

So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-
science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately
drive the followers to do something that would just not
have been possible after Three Mile Island.

They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in
support of nuclear power. They do not know this of
course, but that is what the plan on the table says.
Check it out, look at exactly what are the big
technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give
you a hint, it is not windmills.

They are also marching in Copenhagen against big
business, while supporting one of the biggest
businesses possible, the World Bank. Is it not strange
that the Dutch Text looks to have the World Bank
control the trillions being put on the table? So they are
marching against exactly what they are supporting,
they are simply followers.

Perhaps you can fill in the blanks between the possible
objectives I mentioned earlier and where we find
ourselves today. Fill in the blanks, connect the dots
and follow the money. Look at the funders, how many
are involved in delivery, support, financing and
maintenance of the movement of liquid energy and
the generation of nuclear power.

I do not think this was ever about the environment.

There are lots of other things that may tie into this, like
GE buying and now selling a TV network, they needed
then but do not need it now, a bit of a stretch perhaps
but GE is a big player in gas and nuclear power
generation. Look around, there are others.

That said; I do believe that the world does need to move
to nuclear power for base load power generation, and I
do believe that the Peak Oil problem is a real threat to
stability.

So I agree with the objectives and encourage the
outcome, I just do not like them messing with the
science and trying, nay succeeding, in conning the
masses to agree to it all.

Perhaps there was someone inside the CRU that felt the
same way; the means were wrong regardless of the
merits of the objectives, so they let slip the package in
the hope that someone could figure out what they could
not just come out and say publicly.

This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be
involved. All that was need was for one or two people in
perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data.
Anyone using the data when making a comparison to
CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into
the data. The scientists would not be aware that they
were being played. They would honestly think that their
conclusions were correct. Only none of their
predictions would ever be confirmed.

All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that
used those papers for support, would therefore be
invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect
that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake.
The mistake was encoded into the base data before they
even started

Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw
data and making the =91adjustments=92 needed to know of
the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to
seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist
begins to say things like =93the data must be wrong=94, or
=93our monitoring is deficient=94, perhaps they might not
have been in on the =91adjustments=92 and they are likely
frustrated because their model =91works=92 for the past
and recent past. Think =93We can=92t explain the lack of
warming=94, perhaps the author of that email could not,
but perhaps someone else could.

It would only have taken a dozen people in just the
right places, and remember it took years to pull this off.

So who might have put these people in just the right
place all those years ago, and why?

=97=A0=97
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena