Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Who funds climate PR?

There is no difference in conspiracy theories on climate change. They are equally present on both sides, with of course the sceptics quoting the vast amounts of money flowing into the research and renewables system mainly from our taxes, and the believers quoting the money going to organisations promoting moderation and questioning is coming from what they label 'big oil'.

Therefore both accept human nature generally stinks, especially at the top, but disagree over basically which group is the worst, with one believing scientists, besides the odd rogue and denier, are basically decent, while businesses by default are greedy and crooked. The others distrust politicians and academics, who are both openly expressing ideological views about imposing their preferred ways of life on others without any authority to do so (as they work for us, they do not rule, as they are all our equals).

Let us look at the evidence. On the sceptical side we have direct quotes going back to the 1940s onwards of plans to rearrange the world economy, threats of climate change and global warming being the means to a new world order, coming straight from the highest levels of the UN and politicians. None is in dispute, all are direct and recorded quotes. Then we have Enron, the largest organised fraud in the 20th century, which created the foundation of climate policy, carbon trading, which is fraudulent as deemed so in a criminal court. It is no longer illegal as the law was changed, but it must still be fraudulent as the court put the board away for organised fraud by carbon trading. Therefore we know for certain both the foundation and means of controlling global warming are based on control and deception. I cannot see a single gap in that conclusion as many people have stated it is a fraud and carbon trading is confirmed as fraudulent in a court of law.

On the other side we have funding. The Heartland Institute and GWPF receive little money, and what they do is recorded and comes from a variety of sources. MoveOn.Org, the Sierra Club, Environmental Media Services, and many like them all the way up to the Climate Research Unit which is the UK source of the IPCC research were also funded by a variety of sources, many of them the same or similar as the first. Therefore we have a series of energy or oil companies, Shell, BP, Exxon etc, all funding both sides. It is all on public record, much of the funding for the CRU came from energy companies, as does for many environmental groups including WWF and Greenpeace. In fact said 'oil' companies are energy providers, tending currently to invest 1/5th of their companies in renewables, so benefit either way. George Soros, behind at least four environmental PR groups, recently sold a $960million holding in Brazilian oil company Petrobras. Other sources of funding such as the Rockefeller Foundation, entirely supporting the environmental side, is founded solely on Rockefeller oil money.

So our bottom line is both sides accept there must be a conspiracy, but disagree over which group are the conspirators. On my own research, all based on legal processes of discovery, show basically the same people are funding both sides, basically creating an artificial divide, and it would be almost impossible on funding and spin alone to decide who is being paid to lie or not. But at least if nothing else could we all accept those in charge are most probably mainly crooked, dishonest and working together to remove trillions (as stated in the latest UN meeting) from the economy, and whether you believe in warming or not, you are almost definitely being ripped off regardless, as the evidence guarantees the vast majority of those at the head of climate change are working together and dishonest. That is what we should unite to fight against, not each other as whatever our beliefs, we are all being hurt equally.

No comments:

Post a Comment