Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection

Subject:	Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
Date:	Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:33:11 -0800 (PST)

Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 18th, 2009

93 Comments Comment on this article

This is a guest post by contributor Andrew30 (whose full name I=92ll
give you when he reminds me via email). He put it up in comments but
it=92s so interesting it really deserves a blog all to itself).

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/abou=
t/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, then 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 monitorin=
g
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 l=
ack
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