Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

There are still people who assume that anyone who questions climate orthodoxy is clearly in the pay of “Big Oil”, and receives regular brown envelopes stuffed with used notes.

The truth, of course, is quite the reverse.  In his book “Watermelons” (please read it!), and falling over himself to make generous estimates, James Delingpole says that the energy industry could have contributed up to $200 million to sceptical organisations over the last fifteen years.    Delingpole also quotes Richard North’s estimate that over a similar period, the EU alone has spent over $100 billion promoting climate alarmism.  That’s billion with a B, by the way, not million with an M.  That would be five times as much as the Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb (and it was our money, by the way — when did we vote for that?).

Then you can add the spending by the UN, the USA, individual EU countries (including local authorities); NGOs; Think Tanks and what-all.  Promotional spending on climate alarmism is almost certainly at least a thousand times greater than the pittance received by sceptical organisations.

My good friend Emeritus Professor Fred Singer of the University of Virginia allegedly received around $10,000 of funding from an energy company, about 20 years ago.  Yet eco-warriors dismiss any reference to him today because he’s “funded by big oil”.  The hell he is.  He’s spending his retirement and his own money to try to bring a little common sense into the debate.

Just for the record, I’ve been campaigning on the climate and energy issue (because I think it’s of critical importance to our country and my constituents) for five years, and I’ve never received a penny of funding from big oil, or anyone else (except MEP information fund money from the European parliament).

So what about the other side?  There’s Tim Yeo, said by the Daily Telegraph to be making £140,000 a year from Chairing “green” companies.    He’s also the (Conservative) Chairman of the Energy & Climate Change Select Committee in the Commons.  No conflict of interests there then.

Sorry for the cliché, but this is Gummer’s 15 minutes of fame

There’s also our old friend Mr. John Gummer, now Baron Deben.  According the Christopher Booker, John Gummer is Chairman of Forewind (the clue is in the name), planning to build the world’s largest offshore wind farm in the North Sea; and Chairman of Globe, an international green lobby group/NGO.  Baron Deben has been nominated by David Cameron as the new Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, created under the preposterously expensive and infamous Climate Change Act.

We sceptics have for years been accused of being hypocritical and venal, yet none of us (to my knowledge) was.  Are Yeo and Gummer hypocritical and venal?  You’ll have to judge for yourself — I couldn’t possibly venture an opinion.  But I can say one thing with certainty.  With such a massive conflict of interests, they are both hopelessly compromised and therefore unfit to serve as Chairmen of such public Committees.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

  1. Charles Wardrop says:

    They are, if Chris.Booker is right about their special interests, undeserving of any public trust.
    Terrible advertisements for their Party.
    Cameron’s a fool if Yeo and Gummer are knaves, but fools and knaves, beyond average-normal human frailties, abound in politicians: “Don’t vote for them, you’ll only encourage them!”
    Therefore, these three, at least, are damaging democracy as well as public trust.

  2. tomgowans says:

    The thing that leaves me breathless is that no one seems to get it. I was going to allude to the blind leading the blind but it is more a case of venal self serving b******s leading the blind.

    Complaining appears to me to be little more than p*****g into the, er, wind. Please keep banging on about it for the sake of common sense. I hope you don’t get your shoes too wet but hopefullly you will be able to dry them out before a coal fire and boil a kettle with cheap and clean nuclear generated power.

  3. Peter Stroud says:

    To appoint one chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee with a conflict of interest might be an accident. But to appoint two is pure carelessness.

  4. Andrew Shakespeare says:

    If climate sceptics are funded by Big Oil, so what? A person’s personal reasons for supporting a given cause are of no relevance to the cause’s validity.

    There are plenty of people out there who are funded by anti-smoking organisations to campaign against smoking. That doesn’t mean that everything they say about the dangers of smoking is untrue.

  5. Koch Industries, an American oil and gas conglomerate partly funded The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project headed by Richard Muller. It has found the earth is warming and is manly responsible to Human released CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels.

    Climate scientists dont employee ex tobacco industry lobbyists to spread doubt about climate science unlike the fossil fuel industry

  6. Lt. Columbo says:

    Again there are clear perils, in contraventions of the UK Fraud Act 2006 here, for both Yeo and Gummer. A wise decision for each of them would be to resign any such public posts, and to decline any such future appointments. Alternatively they could divest themselves of all conflicting commercial directorships, chairmanships, shareholdings and fees from such activities.

    Yeo would be also well advised to take the equivalent sum that he has “earned” during his time as chair of the cross-party select committee, and donate this to a charity or charities. This will not prevent Yeo from being tried for his culpability in past mis-deeds, but might be used as part of a plea in mitigation if, or indeed when eventually he has those charges libelled against him, by the appropriate authorities.

    Those breaches of Statute Law exist, so then who has the will to prosecute such cases? Are our Judicatures so enamoured of the current Parliamentary Administratration, or indeed overawed by the imperiousness of our Political Leadership, that they are paralysed from acting to enforce the Law of The Land? The Government and its executive officers are not above The Law.

    “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”
    – Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart (1924)

  7. NeilMc says:

    Excellent as ever Roger, but I think language is vital. The left have hijacked language and rewritten it to further their aims. Likewise the Libertarians have to do the same.

    The term Sceptic is considered in some circles as tantamount to Denier, as in Holocaust, thus, as the left always play the ball and not the man, the individual is instantly a knuckle dragging, bigot, thus their opinion worthless.

    The term Climate Realist, as opposed to Fanatic, Fantasist etc, always used by the anti AGW majority would help the cause.

  8. As of 11.45, Friday, 24 August, the total output of the UK wind factory fleet is 0125 Gigawatts. This is 0.32% of total demand and 1.9% of installed capacity.
    Subsidy cost? £billions.
    No further comment needed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s