BP is valuable to them, in this email

I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:
- Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
- Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International

From here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt

Just as Shell is mentioned in these emails and documents as supplying support, as long as you focus on “practical” (profitable) aspects. From the internal document UEA-Tyndall-Shell-Memo.doc:

2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.

http://junkscience.com/FOIA/documents/uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc

It’s not clear how much (or even if) Shell has given them for the Tyndall Center, but their meetings apparently resulted in the above document.

I expect that BP’s interest is similar.

===|==============/ Level Head

The NYTimes, at Dot Earth, are inviting people to pose questions for their reporters.

In that case, he (the promiment supporter of AGW) should watch his back. It probably means they are getting ready to throw him overboard.

Interesting to see embedded in the article that a promiment supporter of AGW would have accepted a $1 million from BP Amoco. I thought only skeptics were tools of the oil industry. I think Socolow alone has gotten more money from oil than all skeptics combined.

From the article:
“The scientist who will head the American Physical Society’s review of its 2007 statement calling for immediate reductions of carbon dioxide is Princeton’s Robert Socolow, a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming who has warned of possible “catastrophic consequences” of climate change.

Socolow’s research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with climate change and carbon reduction, plus an additional $2 million a year from BP and still more from the federal government. In an interview published by Princeton’s public relations office, Socolow called CO2 a “climate problem” that governments need to address.

“It is Socolow whose entire research funding stream, well over a million dollars a year, depends on continued alarm over global warming,” says William Happer, a fellow Princeton University professor and head of the Happer physics lab who has raised the question of a conflict of interest. The reason: the ostensibly neutral person charged with evaluating a statement endorsing man-made global warming is a leading proponent of precisely that theory whose funding is tied to that theory.”

thanks
edward

Weaver’s Web II

Climate modeler’s break-in caper spreads across Canadian
university, exposing Climategate as monster crossdisciplinary big-oil funded attack on psychology labs

[...]

This news comes from none other than Steve McIntyre (the man who broke Mr. Weaver’s hockey stick) on his world-famous Climate Audit blog. A UVic informant sent Mr. McIntyre a copy of the internal email after reading that Doc Weaver was publicly blaming the oil industry for the break-in at his office at the university, where he is chair in Climate Modeling and Analysis. He says his computer was stolen and implied a connection to the Climategate email scandal at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) a the University of East Anglia. Gosh those oil industry guys are smart and sophisticated–there they are wandering around the University of Victoria, jimmying locks in the psych labs. Look there: Are those lab tests on cognitive impairment part of the climate modelers tool kit?

Steve McIntyre has an even better explanation of what’s going on: “GCM (General Crime Modelers) believe that the break-ins at the Psychology Department at the University of Victoria are the proverbial ‘smoking gun’ that proves the teleconnection between American fossil fuel interests and the Russian secret service, that resulted in Climategate.”

[...]

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2323222#ixzz0ZPb8xtOn