A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Solutions to Climate Change ?- Follow up to previous post

No friends of Big Oil on Indymedia | 30.04.2007 08:24

I recently posted my contribution to the debate over Climate Change listing how many people had been fooled by the oil industry into thinking that mankind was in some way responsible and how much of what has been accepted as fact is in reality guesswork, conjecture and in most cases simply lies. I listed six examples. For reasons I was at first unable to understand the post was hidden however I see from reading a special private section that the Indymedia worker hid it because I did not provide proof of my information. I did not see where it was requied to provide proof and indeed many other stories don't contain them however as I have a wish for people to see the truth about how they are being manipulated by Big Oil I have below detailed web links under each relevant section.

I trust this will be sufficient.

Solutions to Climate Change ?
29.04.2007 11:49

Why are you doing the work of the oil industry for them ?

Peak Oil, Man made global warming, rising sea levels the latest in a long line of scare stories created by oil company front organisations and eagerly swallowed by gullible activists all over the developed world.

Ask yourself important questions before doing this. For example

A) If we are approaching Peak Oil why does the USA alone still have nearly 300 years of oil reserves on its mainland which it refuses to allow to be released ? (clue neither Boeing or Airbus have any teams investigating alternative fuels for aircraft)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/May/AirForceenergy.htm

B) Why is the UK still refusing BP to drill for the oil and gas which is below the Falkland Islands 25 years after the war there ?

http://www.american.edu/ted/falkoil.htm

C) If global tempretures are rising why is Northern Europe colder now than it was during the Roman invasion of the area ? (clue: the Roman Governor of Britain grew vines for wine on his Northumberland estate)

http://www.thirtyfifty.co.uk/uk-wine-show-detail.asp?id=35&title=UK-Wine-Show-35-Richard-Selley-Global-Warming-and-Wine-in-Britain

D) If sea levels are rising why is the sea around Australia and New Zealand falling ?

http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/reports.shtml

E) If ice shelves are supposidly melting why do the most recent figures from the Antartic Survey Team (2006) show the majority about the same as they have been for 400 years ?

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/BAS_Science/programmes2005-2010/GRADES/index.html

F) Why does not a single recognised independent Geologist support the mankind influenced climate change theories ?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/308/5720/398.pdf

The oil companies and their PR companies invented all of the above and their tame scientists gave it credibility, now Western governments are jumping on the bandwagon. Big Oil and Governments support it because it allows them to increase profits and taxes and control economic development in the Third World. Fools like Greepeace fell for it because it's what they wanted to hear.

Read, Check, Discuss. Don't swallow what you have heard. It's the biggest lie in the world at the moment.

No friends of Big Oil on Indymedia

Additions

Doesn't compute

30.04.2007 16:19

"A) If we are approaching Peak Oil why does the USA alone still have nearly 300 years of oil reserves on its mainland which it refuses to allow to be released ? (clue neither Boeing or Airbus have any teams investigating alternative fuels for aircraft)"

Link one claims that the USA has proven reserves of 21.4Bn barrels . Here (

http://www.cslforum.org/usa.htm) we learn that USA consumption of oil in 2003 was 20,034,000 barrels per day (2,.034,000 x 365 - an annual consumption of 7,312,410,000 barrels which means 21.4Bn barrels would last 3 =years NOT 300 - and of course consumption is rising)
For example, here: (

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html) we learn that 2001 consumption was 19,993,000,000 barrels per day. Here: (

http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/NfPAGMnotes_feb07.html) we learn that USA oil consumption in 2004 was 7,600,000,000 barrels. Contrary to the claim that Being and Airbus are not investigating alternative fuels, we are supplied with a link which fails to mention Boeing or Airbus, but which notes that:

"The Air Force is proposing new measures to cut aviation fuel consumption by 10 percent within the next six years. Among the initiatives is to substitute up to 50 percent of the fleet’s conventional fuel with synthetic alternatives by 2016, officials said."

Here: (

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/04/22/cnboeing22.xml ) we learn that:

"Boeing, the US aerospace giant best known for making the 747 jumbo jet, is working on plans to develop a "biofuel blend" derived from plants or algae that could power conventional jets. Executives at the company said a hybrid fuel could be available within five years, using the same engines that currently propel aircraft."

Hows this (

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13427343/) for a straight contradiction of the claim?:

"Boeing researchers say the practical concerns go beyond just the rising cost of jet fuel.

“We are interested in alternative fuels because we want to make sure that there’s fuel available for the future,” Glover said."

Hardly worth checking the rest of the links, is it?

unconvinced

why, why, why...

30.04.2007 16:35

Why does the original poster use a series of unrelated links and unsupported assertions instead of a reasoned argument?
Why do they mix up two completely different ideas, i.e. "peak oil" and "climate change," just because both happen to involve fossil fuels?
Why do they post "evidence" that consists of mainly unavailable, inconclusive or meaningless links?
I guess it's because they're muddying the waters, either for money or just out of sheer paranoia.

emigre

Comments

Hide the following 14 comments

Unpopular info

30.04.2007 09:30

I think a lot of people are begining to understand how this issue has been first invented and then manipulated by those in the pay of the oil companies. We saw this in the 1980's when there were numerous new oil field finds by Shell and Aramco. There was a quick flurry of scare stories about the oil running out which of course led to price increases, exactly what the oil companies wanted.

Where they have been most clever on this occasion is getting those who have been their traditional enemies to do their work for them. I am sure the CEO of Exxon finds in very funny to see Greenpeace promoting a story he invented !

The problem is that not many in the climate change movement want to admit their mistakes (who would want to stand up and say, "Yes I was fooled by BP") so it's going to be an uphill task to show the truth (when isn't it !)

Over here in the Netherlands a number of us are begining to expose the Shell involvement in the activist movement and their funding of certain organisations to push the whole myth on the general public.

Erik the Viking

Takes a step back and cringes

30.04.2007 09:44

Well I expect the comment flame wars to start any moment now.
There are a number of cardianl rules on Indymedia and one of them is that nobody questions the whole 'Climate Change is the fault of Capitalism' idea. Any move away from this will soon see you marked down as a trouble maker. Having spent some time looking at the activities of Rex Tillerson and his support for Left of Centre research organisations I like you think we have all been manipulated for the commercial interests of the Oil boys but its not an idea that will go down well here.

Good luck and keep your head down !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the field

Journo investigations

30.04.2007 11:51

There was such excellent investigations done in Italy by Massimo Alberizzi in Il Corriere della Sera who showed how Agip had been secretly funding a score of various 'experts' who were pushing the climate story despite there being no evidence. He showed how the mainstream media had just accepted all they were told without checking any of it.

It was Alberizzi who in Italy also first questioned why no oil companies had been spinning against the theory as might have been expected.

The full story of how Agip manipulated various activist groups in Italy is here

http://edicola.corriere.it/dyneol/dyn/index.jhtml?_requestid=37516

information

Short Memory

30.04.2007 12:59

Maybe I see things a little differently becuase I am older? Because I can remember the first "danger" calls in the 70's "the fossil resources are running out". Because I can remember THEN what was the response of the business as usual folks --- "No they are not. If they were, the price would be increasing" (market knows best theory -- in spite of the fact that "the market" may take an unreasonably short term view based on the value of the "discout rate").

Understand what you are saying now? (when the commodity price keeps going up and up and up)

ESSENTIALLY the "growth can continue forever" side have argued "if the price doesn't go up, it's not runnign out" and now "if the price does go up it's not running out".

OK guys --- what WOULD you accept as evidence that the fossil resources WILL at some point run out and we humans will be forced to live on a sustainable basis?

Mike Novack
mail e-mail: stepbystpefarm mtdata.com

Response to Mike

30.04.2007 14:35

Mike,

Some good points raised there. I doubt if there is anybody who thinks fossil fuels will last for ever !

The point here is that firstly it is clear there is vastly more crude oil than the general public realises and secondly that the oil industry has very succesfully created a series of myths that will allow them to maintain a high oil price when the supply / demand curve doesn't justify it.

The two key myths are of course that the burning of fossil fuels is leading to an increase in world temperatures and that this rise is causing effects like sea height change and ice cap melting.

I suppose it was inevitble some smart little overachiever of a PR man would realise that to have these myths accepted they needed a source that would be as far from the vested interests of the oil industry / government / world banks as possible. The jump to using the global group of those individuals like us who are anti- oil, anti-government, anti-capitalism was an easy one. I don't share the view that groups like Greenpeace should come in for lots of emails or letters of complaint, frankly the chances of them being able to fight back against a concerted PR effort from the major oil companies was none and let's face it we were all fooled for a while.

The next stage is if course to decide how we can deal with this deception

peter-thomas129@hotmail.com

US Oil Reserves

30.04.2007 14:51

The amount of US oil reserves was raised by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in his speech to the Iranian Parliment on February 10th this year ( a speech little covered by the Western media). Here is a direct quote translated into English,

"We know the United States of America has oil enough to last it for hundreds or maybe thousands of years and yet they still generate electricity from nuclear power so why can Iran not do the same"

Dick Cheney has also been known to talk about what the NeoCons call the "NFA First" policy (Not Friendly Arabs). That of getting the Arab nations that the US doesn't get along with to use up their oil first so that the US and its friends can have a total monopoly of world oil supply. The Canadians have been putting off developing their vast fields for at least fifty years by succesive Washington administrations for the same reason.

Norway and the UK are pumping North Sea crude at about 20% of capacity, Australia hides its oil rigs in military bases so that figures about production are not public knowledge.

Pinky

Speaker Request

30.04.2007 15:07

Would the person who wrote the original article be kind enough to contact me. We are setting up a series of talks and workshops on this subject and would be delighted to speak with you.

Our group was formed after the last Climate Camp when we investigated the links between Shell and Perititus Public Relations who provided Global warming data to major UK newspapers that all turned out to be false

thanks

John
mail e-mail: GlobalClimateChange (at) gmail.com

For "unconvinced"

30.04.2007 16:58

did the cheque from Esso arrive on time this month ?

Looks like the PR machine has arrived

Not what a lot will want to hear despite the evidence

30.04.2007 17:02

I know who wrote this article and he is selling himself short. He knows what he's talking about and pissed off a lot of people at a recent meeting in Arkansas by showing some of them how they had been used by the likes of ExxonMobil.

As an earlier poster said expect a flame war over this, not everybody wants to hear the truth over this subject.

Good luck to all you Brits

Nik

To answer those who has responded to my article

30.04.2007 17:10

If you wish to carry on thinking what you think now that's OK by me. I presented information and encouraged you to read more, understand more than you are being told. If at the end of that process you still think what you think now then I don't really mind.

I for one would be pissed off big time if I had been manipulated by an Oil Company for its own profit margin but if that doesn't bother you then it doesn't bother me.

When I have spoken about this subject over the past year I have had the same reaction from many who simply don't want to accept the truth. That is your right

Thanks to all.

No friends of Big Oil on Indymedia

"PR for Esso?"

30.04.2007 17:16

Nope.

Just check the links - Boeing *IS* looking at fuel alternatives and for such a "clever guy" - he was only out by 297 years.

Oh yes - and Airbus are looking at alternative fuels too.

" At the start of the 1990s DaimlerChrysler Aerospace/Airbus of Germany and Russia's Tupolev began work on a project named Cryoplane for hydrogen powered aircraft propulsion systems. The plan was to initially develop a demonstrator, hydrogen powered, modified Dornier 328JET aircraft but by 1999 the project had been halted because of high costs. The project was relaunched in April 2000 with 35 companies from 11 European Union member countries working on a two year preliminary study of hydrogen powered aircraft propulsion systems. EIADS Airbus are leading the project."

http://www.bl.uk/collections/patents/greenaircraft.html

If all that the supporter(s) of the claims can do is attack someone who proves that the links are no good, then I guess they don't actually have a reasoned out argument at all.

even more unconvinced now

.

30.04.2007 17:40

I note the IM admins have promoted two negative comments to additions giving the impression they were posted first. Check the date and time. They were not.

Boeing and Airbus. PR man looks doesn't know his facts.

30.04.2007 17:53

So the websites of Boeing and Airbus say they are looking at alternative fuels. Well that's not really surprising is it ?

The question is are they really doing it or just talking about it ?

Here's an interesting point for you to consider Mr PR man next time you attempt a bit of disinfo. Neither Airbus or Boeing make aircraft engines so why would they be doing the research ?

Better luck next time

sceptic

please don't promote comments selectively as it shows inconsistency and bias.

30.04.2007 20:10

To indymedia: I made a comment which was promoted to an addition just because I disagreed with the original poster. That's not very fair, is it?

To the original poster: If genuine, you're very confused. You start from the undeniable premise that Big Oil are liars and scumbags (which we all know) and come to the conclusion that um... climate change isn't real because... it's promoted by people who are... apparent enemies of Big Oil and... therefore really must be in their pay? That's not logic, i'm sorry, that's just confused.

As for peak oil, there is no doubt that oil companies and their government masters are very smart in manipulating oil prices to their own advantage. That doesn't change the fact that we are close to peak oil, though how close, and what the effect will be, are anybody's guess.

I only bother to spell this out because I guess that you and the other posters on this thread ARE genuine and confused, not trolls. Perhaps I am being too generous.