Claims that oil interests fund climate scepticism and impede climate policy-making have long been at the centre of green mythology. But it's a fantasy, and a grotesque inversion of the facts.
Wonderful article Ben. It must have taken a tremendous amount of research effort. In my time debating the climate I have met some people who I think genuinely believe we are burning the planet and we need to change. I've also met a good few who have nefarious motives. Yet I've not met one who is prepared to forgo the benefits of fossil fuel derived products (such as thier Smartphone) - with no fossil fuels you have no fossil fuel products. When confronted with reality they remarkably cry all manner of excuses (my favourite being 'we want system change' but when I further challenge them on setting an example to others [as they want the UK to do so China, Russia, India et al will follow us] they quickly move the goal posts). It's clear that most proponents of AGW think that any energy transition will happen without any disruption. Some, the powerful, I reckon know it will, but it's 'disruption for me not for thee'.
The way the debate has circumvented democracy is shocking and one of a few big reasons I've checked out of society - I have almost zero faith in it (AGW, Covid, Wokedom and Brexit have strengthened my views considerably). I detect that you are a bit more optimistic than me and think reality will bite and is even biting now. At best I think we are in for another 10yrs before economic collapse. At worst, maybe 30. I recently watched a County Council climate meeting online where a Nottinghamshire MP declared 'a climate emergency' so a raft of policies could be brought in. This guy was a Conservative no less - promoting more control over the population!!! What does a Climate Emergency even mean for Nottinghamshire??? It's totally illogical and infantile. And if he and others believe it's a genuine emergency why aren't they spending every single minute and resource trying to combat it and making sure that everything is directed at the here and now. Like you would if you got stuck in a burning house type emergency - you know a real emergency.
This is gato, talking about woke Covid believers, but he might as well be talking about climate activists, like Lynas:
"they are deeply brainwashed zealots who lack the ability to conceive that any right thinking human could disagree with them because they inhabit a broken ethos that is neither intellectual nor ethical, merely echo chamber.
their entire signal is a screech of feedback generated by the endless repetition of their own unquestioned and unquestionable dogmas that they have mistaken for ideological and intellectual purity and perhaps worse: consensus.
it's just another totalitarian movement but accelerated and made more pernicious by its own lack of awareness that it is a totalitarian movement.
so it breaks the brains of all within it forcing projection and hallucination to resolve the massive cognitive dissonance of quite literally being every single thing they purport to hate.
the more insane, aggressive, and hateful they become, the more insane, aggressive, and hateful they must call us in order to avoid the self-examination that would shatter the false sense of self they have created to cast themselves as the heroes of this morality play: for this would destroy them utterly.
they may not be questioned because deep down they know they have no answers but the admission of this would amount to self-abnegation and annihilation.
they have no real self, no real center. they are the activism they inhabit and they must therefore protect it to the last breath because in most truly meaningful ways, they will die if they lose it.
it makes every issue into a seeming existential treat. this is why they go so disproportionately wild when challenged. they will use this hair trigger rage as a weapon seeking to deter others from saying them nay."
Big Oil supports climate change as it's obvious from their own sites and actions.
They are also one of the most powerful lobbies on the planet and it would be naive for anyone to believe that they would allow the agenda to go forward without their approval.
Now why would Big Oil support an agenda that seemingly puts them out of business?
It's because it doesn't!
On the contrary, it gives them the opportunity to tap into government subsidies for their own renewables projects and, most importantly, it impacts their smaller higher-leveraged competitors.
They also know that global oil demand is projected to increase substantially for the proximal decades no matter the supposed net zero efforts. It's win-win squared for them but the public craves simplistic explanations for a very complex world.
Hence the massive propaganda campaign and the cult of alarmist believers!
I intend to read this fully later - as I have also just posted a Substack along similar-is lines. This looks even deeper than my own. I look forward to reading it. And a happy new year. Tom
Ben, I've just watched you on https://rumble.com/v3z0hj8-why-there-is-no-climate-crisis-ben-pile-climate-debate-uk.html At the 26 min mark you say infant mortality in the UK was 25%. I'm sure you meant to say 2.5% as that's what the graph says. That detracts from the rest of a brilliant presentation. Is there any way you can redo that section and it can be edited in?
I beg to differ Ben. You were talking about the 1970's weren't you? Child mortality then went from 2.1 to 1.5%. At least that's the way I interpreted what you were saying. Unless you were talking about living memory, at that point, referring back to 1880 when that 25% figure first appears scrolling backwards?
What do you interpret as 'living memory', Ben? It came across on the video, to me, as 25% infant mortality in the 1970's. IN the 1970's, as a young doctor, I wouldn't have thought of 25% infant mortality as anywhere relating to me but as a distant past.
And I'm not needing you to Ben. Many people would have been in their 90's during the 1970's which would fit the bill for them. But for younger people, like me, it wasn't in our living memory. So, it was initially confusing for me but clear now. Thanks.
Have you a similar comparison to government subsidies on green energy production as opposed to hydrocarbon energy production? The latter is said to receive more.
Excellent, well researched article Ben. I understand why it had to be so long and quite complex. However, we need to find a way to simplify that message at get it to a wider audience. I sense that there's a yearning from the public for the truth about all this stuff.
I am reminded of another long ago The Conversation article, where Neil Levy, a Professor of Ethics waded into the climate debate, with very limited knowledge. In the comments Neil referred to the 'dark money' article at Sci American, referencing Brulle's 'analysis' of where dark money goes to as evidence of funding
Prof Paul Matthews, responded, with tongue in cheek.
"I have looked at the paper about “dark money” by Robert Brulle and now I am a bit concerned.
One of the organisations Brulle includes in his list of climate change countermovement organizations is the Templeton Foundation.
And it says here that Neil Levy has funding from the Templeton Foundation. So it appears that Professor Levy is linked to the “Climate Change Denial Effort” discussed in that Scientific American article he refers to."
Revkin - "Robert Brulle pushes back on @Guardian $1 billion/yr spin on his study of "climate change counter movement" funding: "You may have seen the Guardian article on my paper: I have written to the newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this: “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.” It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities, and so saying that they spent $1 Billion on climate change issues is just not true. I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle
Wonderful article Ben. It must have taken a tremendous amount of research effort. In my time debating the climate I have met some people who I think genuinely believe we are burning the planet and we need to change. I've also met a good few who have nefarious motives. Yet I've not met one who is prepared to forgo the benefits of fossil fuel derived products (such as thier Smartphone) - with no fossil fuels you have no fossil fuel products. When confronted with reality they remarkably cry all manner of excuses (my favourite being 'we want system change' but when I further challenge them on setting an example to others [as they want the UK to do so China, Russia, India et al will follow us] they quickly move the goal posts). It's clear that most proponents of AGW think that any energy transition will happen without any disruption. Some, the powerful, I reckon know it will, but it's 'disruption for me not for thee'.
The way the debate has circumvented democracy is shocking and one of a few big reasons I've checked out of society - I have almost zero faith in it (AGW, Covid, Wokedom and Brexit have strengthened my views considerably). I detect that you are a bit more optimistic than me and think reality will bite and is even biting now. At best I think we are in for another 10yrs before economic collapse. At worst, maybe 30. I recently watched a County Council climate meeting online where a Nottinghamshire MP declared 'a climate emergency' so a raft of policies could be brought in. This guy was a Conservative no less - promoting more control over the population!!! What does a Climate Emergency even mean for Nottinghamshire??? It's totally illogical and infantile. And if he and others believe it's a genuine emergency why aren't they spending every single minute and resource trying to combat it and making sure that everything is directed at the here and now. Like you would if you got stuck in a burning house type emergency - you know a real emergency.
This is gato, talking about woke Covid believers, but he might as well be talking about climate activists, like Lynas:
"they are deeply brainwashed zealots who lack the ability to conceive that any right thinking human could disagree with them because they inhabit a broken ethos that is neither intellectual nor ethical, merely echo chamber.
their entire signal is a screech of feedback generated by the endless repetition of their own unquestioned and unquestionable dogmas that they have mistaken for ideological and intellectual purity and perhaps worse: consensus.
it's just another totalitarian movement but accelerated and made more pernicious by its own lack of awareness that it is a totalitarian movement.
so it breaks the brains of all within it forcing projection and hallucination to resolve the massive cognitive dissonance of quite literally being every single thing they purport to hate.
the more insane, aggressive, and hateful they become, the more insane, aggressive, and hateful they must call us in order to avoid the self-examination that would shatter the false sense of self they have created to cast themselves as the heroes of this morality play: for this would destroy them utterly.
they may not be questioned because deep down they know they have no answers but the admission of this would amount to self-abnegation and annihilation.
they have no real self, no real center. they are the activism they inhabit and they must therefore protect it to the last breath because in most truly meaningful ways, they will die if they lose it.
it makes every issue into a seeming existential treat. this is why they go so disproportionately wild when challenged. they will use this hair trigger rage as a weapon seeking to deter others from saying them nay."
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/endgame-when-the-woke-hallucination
Big Oil supports climate change as it's obvious from their own sites and actions.
They are also one of the most powerful lobbies on the planet and it would be naive for anyone to believe that they would allow the agenda to go forward without their approval.
Now why would Big Oil support an agenda that seemingly puts them out of business?
It's because it doesn't!
On the contrary, it gives them the opportunity to tap into government subsidies for their own renewables projects and, most importantly, it impacts their smaller higher-leveraged competitors.
They also know that global oil demand is projected to increase substantially for the proximal decades no matter the supposed net zero efforts. It's win-win squared for them but the public craves simplistic explanations for a very complex world.
Hence the massive propaganda campaign and the cult of alarmist believers!
I intend to read this fully later - as I have also just posted a Substack along similar-is lines. This looks even deeper than my own. I look forward to reading it. And a happy new year. Tom
Ben, I've just watched you on https://rumble.com/v3z0hj8-why-there-is-no-climate-crisis-ben-pile-climate-debate-uk.html At the 26 min mark you say infant mortality in the UK was 25%. I'm sure you meant to say 2.5% as that's what the graph says. That detracts from the rest of a brilliant presentation. Is there any way you can redo that section and it can be edited in?
HI Darag. I am glad you liked the presentation, but I made no mistake.
Infant mortality was extremely high by today's standards in the 19th Century.
You can explore the data here -- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality
I beg to differ Ben. You were talking about the 1970's weren't you? Child mortality then went from 2.1 to 1.5%. At least that's the way I interpreted what you were saying. Unless you were talking about living memory, at that point, referring back to 1880 when that 25% figure first appears scrolling backwards?
I was talking about high levels of infant mortality being living memory in the 1970s.
What do you interpret as 'living memory', Ben? It came across on the video, to me, as 25% infant mortality in the 1970's. IN the 1970's, as a young doctor, I wouldn't have thought of 25% infant mortality as anywhere relating to me but as a distant past.
I'm not going to split hairs with you on what is or not 'living memory', Darag.
And I'm not needing you to Ben. Many people would have been in their 90's during the 1970's which would fit the bill for them. But for younger people, like me, it wasn't in our living memory. So, it was initially confusing for me but clear now. Thanks.
Where is the hope in counter reasoning when these lockdown agencies fabricate the world economy https://esango.un.org/civilsociety/login.do
When there is no elected representatives at these global lockstep summits https://themostimportantnews.com/archives/the-un-has-come-up-with-a-shockingly-insidious-plan-for-global-domination
If it wasn't for tntradio we wouldn't know anything. Your interviw with Rick Munn was great. Thankyou for the work that you do in awakening awareness.
Have you a similar comparison to government subsidies on green energy production as opposed to hydrocarbon energy production? The latter is said to receive more.
Excellent, well researched article Ben. I understand why it had to be so long and quite complex. However, we need to find a way to simplify that message at get it to a wider audience. I sense that there's a yearning from the public for the truth about all this stuff.
I am reminded of another long ago The Conversation article, where Neil Levy, a Professor of Ethics waded into the climate debate, with very limited knowledge. In the comments Neil referred to the 'dark money' article at Sci American, referencing Brulle's 'analysis' of where dark money goes to as evidence of funding
Levy - "Here’s a link that begins to fill in the side of the picture that you point is missing. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/"
Prof Paul Matthews, responded, with tongue in cheek.
"I have looked at the paper about “dark money” by Robert Brulle and now I am a bit concerned.
One of the organisations Brulle includes in his list of climate change countermovement organizations is the Templeton Foundation.
And it says here that Neil Levy has funding from the Templeton Foundation. So it appears that Professor Levy is linked to the “Climate Change Denial Effort” discussed in that Scientific American article he refers to."
The 'conversation', continued at the Practical Ethics blog away from the very harsh moderation of 'The Conversation' , where it became clear that Neil knew very, very little about the topic. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/10/cross-post-what-do-sugar-and-climate-change-have-in-common-misplaced-scepticism-of-the-science/
And even Robert Brulle has said the headlines were inaccurate of his 'dark money' 'analysis - in an email he sent to Andrew Revkin. (who tweeted it)
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1ru6cd9
Revkin - "Robert Brulle pushes back on @Guardian $1 billion/yr spin on his study of "climate change counter movement" funding: "You may have seen the Guardian article on my paper: I have written to the newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this: “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.” It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities, and so saying that they spent $1 Billion on climate change issues is just not true. I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change
💯💯💯