Big Oil Behind Copenhagen Climate Scam

Big Oil Behind Copenhagen Climate Scam

www.prisonplanet.com

And who are the radicals calling for such severe measures in the name of fighting the evil life giving gas that humans exhale and plants breathe? Greenpeace? Al Gore?

Namely – James Smith, chairman of UK Shell Oil, Tony Hayward, Group Chief Executive, British Petroleum, along with hundreds of other global corporate giants, many of whom are directly tied in with big oil, and central banks who, far from bankrolling climate change skeptics, are directly invested in the scam of human-induced global warming.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF

The “Copenhagen Communiqué” PDF's:
www.copenhagencommunique.com...
www.copenhagencommunique.com...

This is all no surprise as the leaked CRU emails shows that they were also in cahhots with Shell, BP and ExxonMobil:

One of the favorite put-downs from people who think they have the moral high ground in the climate debate is to accuse skeptics with this phrase: “You are nothing but a shill for Big Oil”

Who amongst us hasn’t seen variants of that pointed finger repeated thousands of times? The paradigm has shifted. Now it appears CRU is the one looking for “big oil” money.




wattsupwiththat.com...

Murderous hypocrites! In a species run amok at all levels in total hypocrisy, the fake left are the most drippingly so. It's really 'awe inspiring'. Perhaps they realize hypocrisy abounds virtually all humans, so therefore they seek to see who can successfully push it the furthest, to show off amongst eachother.




www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The argument is null and void because you can't debate climate change based on fraudulent data, politically and agenda driven bogus science in the midst of a huge scandal.

Man-Made Global Warming is a fabricated illusion.

Climate change happens naturally, and will do so without mankind even in the equation.

This is all about who gets to profit most from a natural climate cycle, and there are global forces who foresee huge profit potential resulting from their scam.

It is an economic war over money and power... The people are victims caught in between both sides of this conflict... and it is we who have the most to win or lose depending on the outcome of this war.

Invest in green technologies today... and Gold too!

Also, consider purchasing protection from raining polar bears.

1. Own huge quantities of a product
2. Make sure the product is rendered essentially useless
3. ????
4. Profit

Yeah that makes a lot of sense

Some other thread suggested that Russia is behind the leak. That makes more sense, because they've got the oil and gas and sure as hell want to sell it. If Copenhagen was a success then in just 20-30 years there'd be no big customers for Russia.

But yeah, Big Oil could also try to downplay AWG for the same exact reasons than Russia. But you're suggesting the opposite here.. ridiculous

Oh and p.s. There is no scam. AGW is very much real.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

And what about the key front man, Maurice Strong, Father of the environmental movement???

He started out working for a Rockefeller Oil Company in Saudi Arabia in 1953. and is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1970 he lead the UN Conference on the Human Environment and became Executive director environment program of the United Nations from 1971 to 1975. isgp.eu...

Now he is in Beijing China as an advisor to the Chinese and also working for iCH2M Hill an international construction company. He, along with Al Gore are part owners of the Chicago Carbon Exchange supposedly set up by Obama.

Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe. www.mail-archive.com...@listserv.aol.com/msg106963.html

Maurice Strong: senior advisor to the President of the World Bank. 1985 and 1986, he served as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and Executive Coordinator of the United Nations Office for Emergency Operations in Africa and was a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development....

Strong started in the oil business in the 1950s. He took over and turned around some small ailing energy companies in the 1960s, and he was president of a major holding company -- the Power Corporation of Canada -- by the age of 35....

Petro-Canada was a sop to Canada's anti-American Left, then denouncing American ownership of the country's oil companies. Strong talked a good economic-nationalist game -- but he himself was a major reason why Canada's oil companies were U.S.-owned. Ten years before, while at Power Corporation, he had enabled Shell to take over the only remaining all-Canadian oil company by throwing a controlling block of shares in its direction....

as an advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund. Above all, he served on the Commission on Global Governance -- which, as we shall see, plays a crucial part in the international power grab.  The Commission on Global Governance. (CGG) was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International. In 1991, the Club of Rome (of which Strong is, of course, a member) issued a report called The First Global Revolution,...

In short, the CGG's blueprint for a more powerful UN closely resembles the movement to expand the requirements of the Framework Convention on Global Climate Change. While the process may be piecemeal, the goal is clear: a more powerful set of international institutions, increasingly emancipated from the control of the major powers, increasingly accountable not to representative democratic institutions but to unelected bureaucracies, and increasingly exercising authority over how people, companies, and governments run their affairs -- not just Americans, but everyone. In short, Col. Qaddafi's definition of his leftist Green Revolution: "Committees Everywhere."



"Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues," notes Peter Spiro. "Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots." The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations. www.afn.org...

And do not miss the Kissinger/Rockefeller/Saudi Royal Family connection www.lewrockwell.com...

All the wealthy are pretty much in bed with each other. If you really wan to get sick check out the connections to Saudi Arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi www.politicalfriendster.com...

it's weird and sick how the polar bear has become something of a "mascot" for cap and trade.

reply to post by rhinoceros

1. Own huge quantities of a product
2. Make sure the product is rendered essentially useless
3. ????
4. Profit

Yeah that makes a lot of sense

That is because you do not understand business. First what would you rather do? Sell 1000 gizmos at a buck a piece or 1 gizmo for a $1000? With a given that the cost of manufacture staying the same at $.02, and your raw material is limited. I am sure the cost at the pump is going to go up and part of those extra dollars will end up in the Exxon/Rockefeller pockets.

Second there are all those oil wells offshore that are running out of oil. Jay Rockefeller in Congress is pushing sequestration projects. As an oil company wouldn't you like to make a bundle off of pumping CO2 down those depleted wells instead of having to shut them down and write them off?

Do a bit of research before falling for the propaganda. I am sure the Rockefellers funded Heartland out of dirty Exxon money while funding Greenpeace out of "clean" foundation money based on Standard oil money, for a very good reason---- can you say SET-UP????

Originally posted by crimvelvet
As an oil company wouldn't you like to make a bundle off of pumping CO2 down those depleted wells instead of having to shut them down and write them off?

How exactly are you going to extract billions of tons of CO2 from the air? Have we seen patents from Big Oil?

Also I think it would be far cheaper to just start using other sources of energy instead of keeping on burning oil and then cleaning up afterwards. We'll run out of oil relatively soon anyways and will then need those other sources..

Anyways nice idea for a conspiracy. Maybe it wasn't as ridiculous as I first thought. One problem remains thou.. AGW is real.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Maybe it wasn't as ridiculous as I first thought. One problem remains thou.. AGW is real.

'Extraordinary claims require extraordiary evidence.".

"Scientific Consensus" (based on the the proven rigged IPCC report) IS NOT extraordinary!

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
'Extraordinary claims require extraordiary evidence.".

"Scientific Consensus" (based on the the proven rigged IPCC report) IS NOT extraordinary!

All the fuzz is about how CRU constructed the past climate record, correct? Regardless of it we've got an instrumental record from mid 1850s onward and we see that our planet is warming up, and it's warming up fast. We've changed the composition of the planet's atmosphere. We've made its oceans more acid. This we know for a fact. Even if there was a conspiracy there somewhere (there isn't) it wouldn't matter. We have to change our ways no matter what.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Nah

sorry


It's not working .....


People aren't buying it


LOL


people are a LOT smarter than the goons at Copenhagen give them credit for


Not buying it

Originally posted by Dock9
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Nah
sorry
It's not working .....
People aren't buying it
LOL
people are a LOT smarter than the goons at Copenhagen give them credit for
Not buying it

At least most people are not buying it. Some have been hit so hard in the face by the propaganda machine they have propaganda dripping from their own mouths.

reply to post by rhinoceros

How exactly are you going to extract billions of tons of CO2 from the air? Have we seen patents from Big Oil?

I first heard about it from someone on another blog who worked on off shore rigs. Here is a link to information about the idea. greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com...

Extract CO2 from the air is done all the time already. Ever heard of dry Ice, CO2 fire extinguishers, or the Co2 used to make fizzy fountain sodas???

well! looks like im going back to using citgo/ chavez gas then***
seems like the mjor gasoline caompanys, are witht he EPA on ths one..pulling off that co2 crisis past congress.....unconstitutional!

LOL

The CRU is the corrupt fascist organization here, not the people who are trying to halt the fascist take over of our government and lives.



"Mike,
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner."

-Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change at Jones' university, CRU scientist.




[edit on 7-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by rhinoceros


You miss the entire point here... big oil can read the writing on the wall, and they realize their days in oil are numbered, so they want to be first to get any money that is given out by the governments for new energy research, which will come mostly from the carbon tax scheme.

When the world finally does switch to new energy systems, who do you think will be on the top providing that energy? Yes, the former big oil companies!

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Regardless of it we've got an instrumental record from mid 1850s onward and we see that our planet is warming up, and it's warming up fast.

Rubbish. Not only is the surface record sketchy and unreliable:
www.surfacestations.org... (for starters)
Even the sketchy NASA data shows yet WHAT warming?:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
The (even remotely) accurate temperature record began in 1980:
upload.wikimedia.org...

We've changed the composition of the planet's atmosphere. We've made its oceans more acid.

Please do provide us reliable information explaining just how much...

We have to change our ways no matter what.

I'm waiting for Al Gore to first. Er, wait, I'm confident I live greener than most Alarmists you could ever find.

But what do YOU propose we do?!?!?

"No matter what"? What, like no matter how many people starve and die as a result?


[edit on 8-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by crimvelvet

How exactly are you going to extract billions of tons of CO2 from the air? Have we seen patents from Big Oil?

I first heard about it from someone on another blog who worked on off shore rigs. Here is a link to information about the idea. greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com...

Extract CO2 from the air is done all the time already. Ever heard of dry Ice, CO2 fire extinguishers, or the Co2 used to make fizzy fountain sodas???

en.wikipedia.org...

Has it occured to anybody that roughly 1/3 of the world population is malnourished, meaning that by reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere more humans will starve?

CO2's role in photosynthesis

Does anyone actually think about how these measures will affect humans? Isn't that what this is about?

Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis

hello, I have lost count of how many people I have emailed asking them to explain how less than %1.00 of the atmosphere (CO2) can heat up the other %99, still waiting for an answer from any of them. Last time I looked, CO2 is 383 parts per MILLION which is slightly over one third of one percent.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Has it occured to anybody that roughly 1/3 of the world population is malnourished, meaning that by reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere more humans will starve?

Well, let me stop you right there. Regardless of whether or not temperature increases are the result of humans or nature, rising CO2 traps heat and and thereby increases the growing season in northern countries such as the United States (Good). However, rising temperatures at countries located closer to the equator would shorten their growing season and decrease their food supply to significant extent. The countries that are "malnourished" and closer to the equator would not be better off with more CO2. Regardless, plants are not in need of additional CO2 right now, so a modest increase in it would not help them in any way.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by andrewh7]