The BBC recently broadcast a three part series entitled “Big Oil vs The World“.
The theme of the three hour documentary was that the oil and gas industry discovered over forty years ago that their product produced large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and that the increase in these greenhouse gases would lead to climate change.
The documentary alleges that the oil and gas industry deliberately disseminated misinformation in order to prevent or slow down any legislation that would hurt its profit margins.
Many interviews are shown of former employees of the oil and gas industry that have had damascene conversions and now see that they were part of a huge crime against humanity or at least humanity yet to come.
I watched all three hours of this documentary on BBC iPlayer. It was very well done with many clips of hurricane damage, floods, wildfires and industry pumping out pollution.
The music reinforced the sense of doom and horror that these oil and gas company executives put profit ahead of saving the planet.
The trouble is that even though so many people consider the subject of climate change ‘settled science’ not one shred of evidence was put forward in the whole three hours.
One of the climate change experts was asked what his reaction to his predictions coming true was. He said he was angry, yet his predictions were not offered and subsequently it was not demonstrated how they were true.
Graphs and documents with certain phrases highlighted were flashed up but there was no time to evaluate them.
A ‘methane hunter’ declared that she had provided overwhelming evidence to the U.S. regulators but to no avail. During this segment images from thermal cameras were shown which looked very scary but there was no explanation as to what to look for to determine that methane was present.
The Attorney General of Massachusetts was interviewed and it was detailed how Exxon Mobile was going to have to answer in court to the allegations. It was detailed exactly what they were going to accuse the company of and footage of the team discussing the wrongdoings was shown.
That segment finished with the fact that the New York State Attorney General had tried the same thing but Exxon Mobil had won that case. Nothing further was said, no reference to the court documents, nothing to suggest that the company had pulled the wool over the court’s eyes. Nothing.
I would imagine that if I had bothered to complain to the BBC I would receive a response along the lines of them not having to provide evidence because the science is settled, but you have to ask the question, why?
If there is so much evidence and they know that the oil and gas giants have had evidence for four decades, why, in a three hour documentary, can they not produce one single piece of evidence?
How many more decades will we have to live with this constant barrage of doom-mongering before they finally see that the climate changes and there isn’t much we can do about it but continue to adapt and mitigate as we have been?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Science is a religion.
There’s no need for evidence when you have faith.
Not quite. We have “The Science” which I agree is a quasi-religous cult and Science which is what most on here would accept is the real thing.
“The Science” is like “My truth”; absolutely meaningless. The following comes to mind, from Through the Looking Glass’; by Lewis Carroll
“There’s glory for you!”
“I don’t know what you mean by glory”, Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously, “Of course you don’t – till I tell you.
I meant there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”
“But glory doesn’t mean a nice knock-down argument”, Alice objected.
“When I use a word”, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means
just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Oil, gas and coal should be lauded as exciting and innovative industries using hard work, skill and courage to make life for humanity vastly more comfortable and secure
Not cast in the role of apocalyptic demons by the malign and pseudo-scientific Climate Change / environmentalist movement.
There’s probably a middle way where we can reduce our dependency on these sources of energy without harming our civilisation.
With one benefit being to reduce our habit of giving money to foreign states which then use some of it to increase geopolitical tensions (Middle East countries particularly).
Leaving aside any geopolitical arguments about legitimate sources the UK is sitting on hundreds of years worth of gas (fracking) and hundreds of years worth of coal.
Plus the North Sea is not being properly exploited for either oil or gas, indeed the SNP intends to progressively run it down.
And look which prganisation owns the buried energy: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority Have fun reading the bumf they’re churning out.
“And look which prganisation owns the buried energy: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority Have fun reading the bumf they’re churning out.”
Interesting to see on the website’s front page that the Coal Authority is attempting to banish even a hint of C02 emissions from the industry by switching the power for their mine water extraction activities to solar;
Well zero C02 apart from the vast amounts associated with solar panel construction and transportation, also the need to have fossil fuelled backup at all times when the sun doesn’t shine etc etc (not of course that I have a problem with any continuing C02 output, just highlighting the lack of consistency involved in all things Green)
And I wonder what the cost to the tax-payer of installing all these expensive and inefficient panels will have been.
But at least their shiny.
Is this a cack-handed way of stating that our current dependence on fossil fuels is in fact “harming our civilisation?”
There is no need to reduce our dependency on these fantastically useful and efficient power sources and the ideologically-driven attempt to do so harms our civilisation in exact proportion to the extent to which it succeeds.
As a glance at the current catastrophic economic and material situation (re unaffordable energy prices and general massive inflation) in the UK and wider Western world clearly shows.
Well done to Anonymous for their gallant act of endurance in watching 3 hours of BBC propaganda. I couldn’t have done it! I just about managed to wince my way through 1 hour of the infantilising indoctrination project that was “Unvaccinated” (only so I could “know thy enemy” in order to rip it to smithereens), but this would push my limits.
Those teetering on the precipice of the event horizon of the state’s brain washing machine will be pulled in and put on a spin cycle by parodies such as these, enraptured into a trance by emotive music, unable to escape the thrall, gripped by the unrelenting gravitational field of Planet Doom.
Planet Doom is fictitious. As with any science fiction, it exists purely as an abstraction behind our TV screens and in print. Switch off the television, close the newspaper, and return to your reality on planet Earth, and, just like walking out of a cinema at the end of an epic sci-fi film, note how your everyday experience bears no resemblance to this contrived media.
Of course there is a devastating war in Ukraine. Of course people have tragically died of Covid. Perhaps the climate is changing. But the mainstream media guzzling masses are choosing to experience the hysteria associated with each of these all at the same time from the comfort of their own living rooms, at the same time choosing to believe that this representation is an accurate gauge of the welfare of the planet, when it is really an agenda-driven caricature.
Excellent post.
Very well expressed.
Yes, well said!
It seems to me that it is not only the BBC who sees ‘climate change’ as a fixed and done deal with nothing further to discuss (other than doom, of course). This constant drip drip of propaganda seems to have really got into the psyche of a great many millenials, and climate change disaster is seen as inevitable as next Christmas. Conversations about buying heat pumps and electric vehicles and worries about moving somewhere that might succumb to sea level rise are par for the course. I find it all so depressing. Wait for their outcry when the government waters down its march to net zero (which surely they will have to), they have been primed, now they are almost panting for it. The government has got many people just where it wants them.
James Corbett maintains that it’s actually Big Oil, or at least, families that originally made their money through oil, that has been promoting the climate change narrative. His two 2017 documentaries “How Big Oil Conquered The World” and “Why Big Oil Conquered The World”, available as video or audio, are a lot more interesting than anything the BBC puts out. https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
Do other readers suffer this reaction if they ever express sceptical views, people all too often say I’m being ‘negative’! In fact the inverse is true. I’m being positive by suggesting that; the world isn’t about to end, that we aren’t about to be fried or drowned, that we aren’t at risk from deadly virus, that whilst energy prices are going up you can always choose to wear a coat & gloves in the red house. It’s odd that people are conditioned to believe they’re helpless in the face of insurmountable existential threats, when in truth, they aren’t at all.
We need to reclaim the positive.
While I agree with your general sentiment, your idea of coping with cold is a bit over-optimistic. If you want to stay warm, there are essentially two options: Wear clothing which is sufficiently insulating and keep moving (thereby generating & keeping heat) or don’t move at all and keep covered with blankets.
Because of my job, I have to spend hours each day essentially motionless in front a computer. Last winter was the first winter ever since 1998 where I had somewhat adequate heating for that: With two electrical convectors and an additional radiator, I can get the room I’m sitting in sufficiently heated that it’s only uncomfortable (shivering, maybe some chattering of teeth) but not outright painful anymore.
Pretty sure anyone would be proponents of looking after our environment and reducing any waste and excessing consumption (this throw away type-world) but since fossil fuel consumption is directly linked to economic output and therefore quality of life, one can’t help but be highly sceptical of this net zero agenda – at least in regards to social equity and equality, or whatever the latest buzzwords are. Extreme poverty has been reduced because of their wide availability. To replace these with ‘something else’ appears on its face pie in the sky nonsense (unless we really do achieve fusion one day).
Then there’s the obfuscation around so-called renewables and their reliance on fossil fuels in their creation. We can’t cheat thermodynamics. All we seem to be doing is off-setting this carbon elsewhere – granted we might have cleaner cities because of “green energy” and then declare.. “look, we’re saving the planet”, but that comes at a huge cost somewhere else rarely spoken about so to simply ignore the processes that give us the solar panels, batteries etc is absurd since their creation is a huge undertaking and resource intensive in itself. I question whether they’re either up to the job or ‘green’ or ‘renewable’ at all quite frankly. Just seems like the latest grift.
Would love an honest perspective and independent study on the true cost of renewables, whether there are enough rare earth minerals in existence to meet our needs (can you imagine the amount needed if we’re to replace out internal combustion engine fleet, let alone the public’s, or providing a similar output to the existing fossil fuel network?) and whether we’re wasting our time trying to achieve any of that. Or… we’re all going to have to accept a huge lowering of living standards – which is the complete opposite of this apparent premise of taking the fossil fuel industry to task.
The Lost BBC: The Kitchen Front
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-lost-bbc-the-kitchen-front-2/
Margaret Ashworth
Yellow Boards By The Road BUILD BACK FREEDOM …
Monday 8th August 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A329 London Road &
Fernbank Rd, Winkfield Row
Ascot SL5 8ED
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
In what way was this NOT a 3 hr propaganda broadcast?
I’m still waiting for my cheque from ‘big oil’ as I have been a faithful sceptic of AGW for at least 20 years. Where’s my money?!! I’ve also not received any welcome pack, or any demands for support or allegiance, so I’m pretty disappointed and will be re-considering where my loyalties lie. Maybe George Monbiot is a better bet?
1
Surely an action must lie against the BBC for breach of its charter obligation of impartiality. When the Danish Meteorological Institute reported a few years ago that the extent of the arctic ice was back to where it had been in 2006; and, in many places, was 30% thicker, not a peep about it was made by the beeb. Every month Prof Roy Spencer updates the UAH satellite measurements showing that no increase in global temperatures has occurred for 40 years; no increase more, that is, than the gentle 1-degree-C-per-century rise that has been going on with no human agency since the end of the ‘little ice age’ 200 years ago. A recent report on the great barrier reef says it is at its most healthy and extensive for decades. Hear anything about that on the BBC news? Dr Judith Curry, American climatologist, in a 2019 report, found no evidence that slightly rising global sea levels are associated with human activity. Coe et al, in a Dec-2021 IJAO paper, estimated the entire contribution of human-emitted CO2 to global warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution at 0.25 C. These are mainstream and qualified not marginal or wacky people saying these things. A national broadcaster with an obligation of impartiality should cover these views. We ought to be able to take the BBC to court for bias and scaremongering.
I recommend you to spend a few minutes on the BBC “TwentyEightGate” saga.
Try http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/what-price-the-bbcs-support-for-climate-policy/
for a good summary, with key links, on the BBC’s shameless adoption of an entirely one sided, weapons grade, GangGreen promotion, broadcasting strategy.
I guess they didn’t consider the possibility that Big Oil funds the Climate Change narrative to destroy competition from smaller local producers, fracking and coal mines as well as funding opposition to renewable energy schemes. The Rockefeller & Bush family fortunes are tied to oil monopolies.