Climate Change Alarmists Get Funding From Energy Corporations

[Constructive Anarchy]

Why are so many environmental preservation organizations and climate change scientists getting money from energy corporations? What could their motives possibly be? How does this make sense? What's their game? How does promoting the narrative of impending disaster help their business?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It shuts the loons up.

 

[flacaltenn]

Interesting piece. But to be fair. The guy conflates "big oil" donations to environmental groups with "support of climate alarmists".. Money from oil companies go to enviro causes of ALL kinds. And granted, even my beloved Nature Conservancy is trying to get donor money by climbing on the climate alarmism bandwagon. But a group like Nature Conservancy or WWF is not a leading edge "science creator". NOT directly involved in research or publishing papers.

ALL companies want to look green and concerned. SOME of that --- might just be genuine. Some of it might be guilt. And still a part might be just cynical PR value. There is also a flawed premise in the vid. That oil companies sponsor GW research and aid climate alarmism because they want to attack coal. Which the guy calls "oil's greatest competitor. This is phoney. Because coal produces electricity and oil (by and large) does not. They are NOT head to head competitors.

The REAL reason oil money shows up in Climate Change science and alarmism, is that the oil companies want to preserve their access to the $BILLs available in subsidies, tax breaks, clean energy credits and other Washington/Paris/Bonn handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. This is a cash cow for them. Until the 2000s -- BP Oil was the world's largest system integrator of solar panels. It was a business that gave them a HEDGE against the volatility of the oil products. And many companies like Dutch Shell have invested heavily in some of the "weirder" renewables like tidal power demonstrations.

In FACT --- what's better for an oil company's retail gasoline sales than a highly subsidized and MANDATED commodity like corn ethanol to "WATER DOWN" THEIR GASOLINE with.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming. Papers that are "pro warming", but stop short of screeching about death and destruction predictions. OTH -- I've only seen 2 or 3 renown GW scientists who accepted big oil money to write "skeptical" papers about GW.

I love it when a faithful catastrophic GW believer shoves a paper in my face and I find Shell Oil on the credits.
Makes them rethink the program and the players in this complicated "industry".

 

[ding]

Interesting piece. But to be fair. The guy conflates "big oil" donations to environmental groups with "support of climate alarmists".. Money from oil companies go to enviro causes of ALL kinds. And granted, even my beloved Nature Conservancy is trying to get donor money by climbing on the climate alarmism bandwagon. But a group like Nature Conservancy or WWF is not a leading edge "science creator". NOT directly involved in research or publishing papers.

ALL companies want to look green and concerned. SOME of that --- might just be genuine. Some of it might be guilt. And still a part might be just cynical PR value. There is also a flawed premise in the vid. That oil companies sponsor GW research and aid climate alarmism because they want to attack coal. Which the guy calls "oil's greatest competitor. This is phoney. Because coal produces electricity and oil (by and large) does not. They are NOT head to head competitors.

The REAL reason oil money shows up in Climate Change science and alarmism, is that the oil companies want to preserve their access to the $BILLs available in subsidies, tax breaks, clean energy credits and other Washington/Paris/Bonn handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. This is a cash cow for them. Until the 2000s -- BP Oil was the world's largest system integrator of solar panels. It was a business that gave them a HEDGE against the volatility of the oil products. And many companies like Dutch Shell have invested heavily in some of the "weirder" renewables like tidal power demonstrations.

In FACT --- what's better for an oil company's retail gasoline sales than a highly subsidized and MANDATED commodity like corn ethanol to "WATER DOWN" THEIR GASOLINE with.

BP sold their solar business. I don't remember to who. I agree with what you wrote. It seems kind of funny to me that oil companies are trying to market themselves as being "green" when the primary product they sell is intended to be burned.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Good I am glad. So is the denier cult.

 

[westwall]

Why are so many environmental preservation organizations and climate change scientists getting money from energy corporations? What could their motives possibly be? How does this make sense? What's their game? How does promoting the narrative of impending disaster help their business?

They get to make money for doing basically nothing. A good portiong of their expenses are paid for by the taxpayers so it's a win, win for the energy companies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, the energy companies, if they wish to remain as energy companies, had better jump into the renewables market. This alone justifies that;

Cheapest Solar, Now Undercutting Coal
by
Anna Hirtenstein
May 3, 2016, 9:20 AM PDT

• 2.99 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour is 15% lower than old record
• Cheaper than new coal-fired electricity in the Gulf emirate

New Record Set for World's Cheapest Solar, Now Undercutting Coal

And now GM has a reasonably priced EV

Chevrolet Bolt EV - Car and Driver

Quick on its feet and fun to drive, the Bolt EV gives Tesla a run for its money—and it’s a 10Best winner, too. A floor-mounted battery powers a 200-hp electric motor; in our testing, we recorded 96 MPGe and a 75-mph highway range of 190 miles. It rides well over rough roads and acceleration is great, launching the car to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds. The cabin has a 10.2-inch touchscreen and a driver-facing 8.0-inch digital gauge cluster. Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, and 4G LTE Wi-Fi are available.

And then there are the grid scale batteries that will make both wind and solar 24/7

Primer: The now and future impacts of energy storage

Cost estimates vary, but all show storage rapidly becoming more affordable, he said, citing four sources. A Navigant study predicted a 4 hour battery storage system would be as low as $700 per kWh by 2020 while Oncor foresees a $350 per kWh cost in 2020. Morgan Stanley estimates battery-only costs will eventually approach $125 per kWh and Tesla has said its lithium-ion battery-only cost is already $110 per kWh.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Why are so many environmental preservation organizations and climate change scientists getting money from energy corporations? What could their motives possibly be? How does this make sense? What's their game? How does promoting the narrative of impending disaster help their business?

They get to make money for doing basically nothing. A good portiong of their expenses are paid for by the taxpayers so it's a win, win for the energy companies.

I have no idea who or what to believe any more. It seems like everyone in positions of power and influence have some kind of hidden agenda.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming. Papers that are "pro warming", but stop short of screeching about death and destruction predictions. OTH -- I've only seen 2 or 3 renown GW scientists who accepted big oil money to write "skeptical" papers about GW.

I love it when a faithful catastrophic GW believer shoves a paper in my face and I find Shell Oil on the credits.
Makes them rethink the program and the players in this complicated "industry".

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

 

[Crick]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming.

"DOZENS"??? Let's see a few.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming. Papers that are "pro warming", but stop short of screeching about death and destruction predictions. OTH -- I've only seen 2 or 3 renown GW scientists who accepted big oil money to write "skeptical" papers about GW.

I love it when a faithful catastrophic GW believer shoves a paper in my face and I find Shell Oil on the credits.
Makes them rethink the program and the players in this complicated "industry".

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

 

[Crick]

Because you do not EXPAND generation with supplements like wind/solar.

Why can't we?

And I'd still like to see a few of the "DOZENS" of scholarly papers on global warming you say you've seen with funding credit given to oil companies.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming.

"DOZENS"??? Let's see a few.

I was talking about YOU CrickHam.. You were the one pushing studies of the effect of GW on penguin colonies in my face a couple years back. You don't REMEMBER me pointing out who sponsored about 4 studies on penguins and sea life? Don't ask for links to old convos. Work on your memory Squidward.

 

[flacaltenn]

Because you do not EXPAND generation with supplements like wind/solar.

Why can't we?

Because for every MEga watt of SKETCHY UNRELIABLE "alternative" you bring on-line, you need a RELIABLE fossil/nuclear/hydro MAIN generator to keep from KILLING PEOPLE when the alternatives take time off.. EXPANSION of supply starts with reliable 24/7/365 electrical power or people and countries start dying.

You also have to ask yourself the moral question of why the West is PUSHING wind/solar on backwards 3rd world countries in an attempt to KEEP THEM from developing.. It's actually sadistic, cruel, and immoral..

 

[Crick]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming.

"DOZENS"??? Let's see a few.

I was talking about YOU CrickHam.. You were the one pushing studies of the effect of GW on penguin colonies in my face a couple years back. You don't REMEMBER me pointing out who sponsored about 4 studies on penguins and sea life? Don't ask for links to old convos. Work on your memory Squidward.

I'm afraid I do not remember such a thing. But if you can't produce a single example, I think you need to back down from your claim of "DOZENS".

 

[Crick]

Because you do not EXPAND generation with supplements like wind/solar.

Why can't we?

Because for every MEga watt of SKETCHY UNRELIABLE "alternative" you bring on-line, you need a RELIABLE fossil/nuclear/hydro MAIN generator to keep from KILLING PEOPLE when the alternatives take time off.. EXPANSION of supply starts with reliable 24/7/365 electrical power or people and countries start dying.

You also have to ask yourself the moral question of why the West is PUSHING wind/solar on backwards 3rd world countries in an attempt to KEEP THEM from developing.. It's actually sadistic, cruel, and immoral..

And how does having to have a backup of some sort mean that supply cannot be expanded with wind and solar?

 

[flacaltenn]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming.

"DOZENS"??? Let's see a few.

I was talking about YOU CrickHam.. You were the one pushing studies of the effect of GW on penguin colonies in my face a couple years back. You don't REMEMBER me pointing out who sponsored about 4 studies on penguins and sea life? Don't ask for links to old convos. Work on your memory Squidward.

I'm afraid I do not remember such a thing. But if you can't produce a single example, I think you need to back down from your claim of "DOZENS".

I've seen Dozens. YOU YOURSELF have seen 3 or 5 because I was the one that pointed them out to you -- you senile hoser.. .

 

[Crick]

Then you should have no problem producing links.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming. Papers that are "pro warming", but stop short of screeching about death and destruction predictions. OTH -- I've only seen 2 or 3 renown GW scientists who accepted big oil money to write "skeptical" papers about GW.

I love it when a faithful catastrophic GW believer shoves a paper in my face and I find Shell Oil on the credits.
Makes them rethink the program and the players in this complicated "industry".

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

Mr. Flacaltenn, you are full of shit. Nuclear is the most expensive of all, when factoring in the waste. And it is intensively government supported. Also a point source, vulnerable at it's source and in transmission of the power. Like hell there is not a big nuclear lobby. That is the ideal situation for the utilities and the companies that make the very expensive equipment used in the plants.

With adequate grid scale storage, both wind and solar are 24/7. And both are the cheapest forms of installed energy available at present. Barring breakthroughs in fusion, they are the future. And we will add the necessary capacity to the grid for EV's. And, with the continued price declines in home batteries and solar, many that own there own homes will find they cannot afford not invest those and an EV.