04-12-2009, 08:20 PM
Linda Minor Wrote:In my opinion the climate debate is one being waged by bankers--one side promoting coal, fossil fuels and other methods of infrastructure which have been linked to a distribution of utilities network that they financed over a period of decades beginning in the 1930's. The other side attempting to create a new infrastructure that could finance "green" industrial distribution--such as solar and wind power. In order to build such a system, there must be adequate demand and a means of paying for the research necessary to build the international distribution network. That takes money. In many ways, scientists are just sophists, who argue for the side which signs their paychecks.
That would seem to be the logical way of looking at it, as old guard "dirty" fuel companies protecting the status quo against innovators with "green" fuel, except that it doesn't seem to be true. I made the same assumption and this is the major talking point of AGW proponents, that critics are being financed by Big Oil. But Shell and BP at least are for international measures against AGW, i.e. carbon trading credit markets, derivatives, etc.
Look at email 0894639050.txt in the leaked documents under FOI2009\mail\ (I'm leaving most of the addresses legible because they matter, but adding *'s where possible to keeop bots from harvesting them):
Quote:From: Ged.R.Davis@si.simis.co*
To: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de, dennis.anderson@ic.ac.uk, bob.chen@ciesin.o*g, becon@public3.bta.net.cn, ddokken@usgcrp.g*v, Bert.de.Vries@rivm.nl, ja_edmonds@pnl.g*v, j.fenhann@risoe.dk, stuart@edf.*rg, Fewewar@ternet.pl, kennethgregory@msn.c*m, gruebler@iiasa.ac.at, ehaites@netcom.ca, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, tyjung@his.keei.re.kr, johnson@iiasa.ac.at, kram@ecn.nl, emilio@ppe.ufrj.br, vc@admin.udsm.ac.tz, Nicolette_Manson-Engelbrecht@edf.*rg, roberta@ciesin.o*g, laurie.michaelis@oecd.or*, mori@shun-sea.ia.noda.sut.ac.jp, t-morita@nies.go.jp, rmoss@usgcrp.g*v, hm_pitcher@pnl.*ov, rrichels@msm.epri.c*m, lkprice@lbl.go*, rrichels@epri.c*m, rogner@iiasa.ac.at, A.sankovski@icfkaiser.*om, shukla@iimahd.ernet.in, ssmith@ucar.e*u, leena@teri.res.in, S.Subak@uea.ac.uk, rob.swart@rivm.nl, Lvanwie@usgcrp.go*, rwatson@worldbank.o*g, weyant@Leland.stanford.*du, xing@ciesin.o*g, naki@iiasa.ac.at
Subject: RE: IPCC SRES Scenario Guidelines for Authors
Date: 08 May 1998 10:50:50 +0100
Find below guidelines on how to present the IS99 storylines and scenarios. Could you the nominated authors send me your first drafts as soon as possible.
In writing up your contribution could you cover the following areas, ideally structured as follows:
1. Scenario family narrative to discuss main themes, dynamics and a diagram showing 'grand logic'
2. Key Scenario Family Drivers and their Relationships
Topics you should cover include the following:
* population
* technology developments
* governance and geopolitics
* economic development
* equity
* communication and settlement patterns
* environmental concerns/ecological resilience
3. Scenarios, include reasons for branches: this section should state clearly the reasons behind selection of scenarios and review the key highlights of the scenario quantification
* energy resources/technology, include resource availability
* land use and agriculture
* scenario quantification, include snowflake
* CO2 emissions
There may be other factors you wish to add to the paper.
Regards,
Ged Davis SI-PXG Tel: 0171-934 3226 Fax: 0171-934 7406
Shell International Limited, London
Scenario Processes and Applications
I don't remember the exact ownership of Royal Dutch Shell, but I believe Beatrix and QE2 own major portions (I could be quite wrong). Both monarchs appear to be in favor of a treaty coming out of COP13 or whatever they're calling Copenhagen IPCC officially.
The other point is that the innovators aren't offering any energy products. There is no replacement for oil in their plans, just vague talk of new green technologies. Denmark has made some money off freon-free refrigerators in the past and is doing work with marine wind mills, but first, windmills to generate electricty are never cost-effective, they always take more energy to produce than they ever give back over their working lives, and second, this is a drop in the bucket at best. The thing is I agree with Linda Major that they are trying to sell something, I just don't think it's tangible, it's carbon-based derivatives and debt swaps, so to speak.
I sense the ultimate goal is something like the Khmer Rouge vision of a return to some idyll of medieval agrarian society, a kind of micromanaged command economy with people on a sort of biospere Indian reservation (although the true believers and activists haven't caught whiff of the naked lunch on the end of the fork yet) being driven by an oligarchy of corporate interests using social and peer pressure, slogans and conformism, imho. "There is no scientific debate," "the science is settled," "no serious scholars dispute" AGW, "save the Earth," "your grandchildren will blame you," etc. It wouldn't be the first time that's worked for a time, anyway.