Big Oil Companies Behind Global Warming Fraud


There was once a company named “Glori Oil” based in Houston, Texas, according to its website, it was:

A Delaware corporation founded in 2005 to commercialize technology developed by ‘The Energy and Resources Institute’ (known as TERI). […]

Our vision is to be the leader in bio-technology solutions to the global oil and gas industry and service provider of choice to both independent and major oil and gas producers. Our mission is delivering state of the art bio-technology solutions to improve and increase recovery from mature oil wells and to solve complex problems associated with the production of oil, gas and water.

It’s important to note that TERI, now unanimously known as ‘The Energy and Resources Institute’ was once actually named “Tata Energy and Resources Institute’, but I’ll get back to that later.

Glori Oil also later changed its name to Glori Energy, Inc. and recently appointed a certain Robert Button as President of Glori Holdings, a subsidiary of Glori Energy.

Here’s how they announced it in their March 2012 newsletter:

… Button will apply his extensive industry experience in support of Glori’ strategy to acquire end-of-life and abandoned oil fields for increased oil production.

Button is a senior Exploration and Production (E&P) business leader with 30 years of U.S. and international industry experience with Amoco and BP.

Button joins Glori from BP where he served in an executive role and was accountable for the Organization Capability of the E&P Segment Operations, Health-Safety-Environment, and Engineering disciplines. (Source)

Glori Energy’s slogan: “Tomorrows oil from yesterday’s wells.”

Many might think that such environmentally unfriendly “Big Oil” company must be lobbying and spreading lies in the anthropogenic global warming/climate change debate to protect its dirty business.

Well, yes that’s true, but here’s the fun part (you’re going to love this).

The Business Week link above lists a certain Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri as founder of Glori Oil/Glori Energy, Inc., but for some reason, his name doesn’t appear on (although it did appear on not just as founder but as head of the

Well, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is none other than the Nobel Peace Prize-winning chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations’ Environment Programme since 2002.

This is the same IPCC that insists that fossil fuels and human CO2 emissions are driving the warming of global climate; that “the
science is settled”, that solar cycles have no or very little impact on our climate, that the earth and its inhabitants are doomed if we don’t tax and trade…I mean ‘curb’ our carbon emissions.

Thanks to (AKA the “Wayback Machine”) one can read his biography on the now disappeared Glory Oil website and find that, apart from being the Director-General of TERI (someone forgot to amend its name there, funnily enough, it’s the only place on the website where it’s still referred to as “Tata Energy Research Institute”).

Climate Coup: The Politics

How the regulating class is using bogus claims about climate change to entrench and extend their economic privileges and political control.



The sister article Climate Coup—The Science contains the science foundation for this essay. It checks the track record of the climate models against our best and latest data, from impeccable sources. It details how you can download this data yourself. It finds that the climate models got all their major predictions wrong:

The latter two items are especially pertinent, because they show that the crucial amplification by water feedbacks (mainly humidity and clouds),1 assumed by the models, does not exist in reality. Modelers guessed that of the forces on temperature, only CO2 has changed significantly since 1750. The amplification by water feedbacks causes two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models, while carbon dioxide only directly causes one third. The presence of the amplification in the models, but not in reality, explains why the models overestimated recent warming.


The climate models are incompatible with the data. You cannot believe both the theory of dangerous manmade global warming and the data, because they cannot both be right.
In science, data trumps theory. If data and theory disagree, as they do here, people of a more scientific bent go with the data and scrap the theory.

But in politics we usually go with authority figures, who in this case are the government climate scientists and the western governments—and they strongly support the theory. Many people simply cannot get past the fact that nearly all the authority figures believe the theory. To these people the data is simply irrelevant. Society needs most people to follow authority most of the time, just like an army needs soldiers who do not question orders.

The world’s climate scientists are almost all employed by western governments. They usually don’t pay you to do climate research unless you say you believe manmade global warming is dangerous, and it has been that way for more than 20 years.2 The result is a near-unanimity that is unusual for a theory in such an immature science.


The government climate scientists and mainstream media have kept at least two important truths from the public and the politicians:

1. Two thirds of the warming predicted by the climate models is due to amplification by the water feedbacks, and only one third is directly due to CO2.

2. The dispute among scientists is about the water feedbacks. There is no dispute among serious scientists about the direct effect of CO2.

They seek to persuade with partial truths and omissions, not telling the truth in a disinterested manner. Instead, we are treated to endless sideshows. Issues such as Arctic ice, polar bears, bad weather , or the supposed psychological sickness of those opposing the authorities, tell us nothing about the causes of global warming. They divert public attention and the water feedbacks escapes scrutiny—hidden in plain sight, but never under public discussion.


The data presented in Climate Coup—The Science is plainly relevant, publicly available, and impeccably sourced from our best instruments—satellites, Argo, and the weather balloons. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media. Have you ever seen it?

If the mainstream media were interested in the truth, they would seek out the best and latest data and check the predictions against the data. They don’t.

The newspapers are happy to devote acres of newsprint to the climate sideshows or to demonizing anyone who criticizes the theory. So why are they unwilling to publish the most relevant data?
Global warning has been a big issue for years. Yet all of the world’s investigative journalists—those cynical, hard-bitten, clever, incorruptible, scandal-sniffing reporters of the vital truths who are celebrated in their own press—all of them just happen not to notice

that the climate models get all their major predictions wrong? Really? Even though we point it out to them?

Good detectives do not overlook clues. The presented data contains half a dozen clues of brick-in-your-face subtlety. How could anyone miss them? Will the journalists who read this paragraph now follow the instructions on downloading the data, and report on what they find? No.

Perhaps they think it’s all too complicated, that it will make our brains hurt? A story with two numbers is too hard? No, we all understand a graph of temperature over time and can spot trends. Judging by the huge response on the Internet, the public want well-explained technical details about the climate.

The government climate scientists and their climate models said it would warm like this and heat up the atmosphere like that. But it didn’t, just download the data and check.

The media are withholding this data, so the “climate debate” is obviously not about science or truth. It must be about politics and power. Reluctantly, uncomfortably, the only possible conclusion is that the media don’t want to investigate the claims of the government climate scientists. Why? Who benefits?

Read Full Article →

Climate Coup: The Science

We checked the climate models against our best and latest data. They got all their major predictions wrong—air temperatures, oceans temperatures, atmospheric warming patterns, and outgoing radiation.



Our emissions of carbon dioxide cause some global warming, and it has indeed warmed over the last century. But this doesn’t prove that our emissions are the main cause of that warming—there might be other, larger, natural forces on the temperature. The key question is: how much warming do our emissions cause?

Climate scientists use their climate models to estimate how much. In this article we check their main predictions against our best and latest data, and find they got them all wrong: they exaggerated the warming of the air and oceans, they predicted a very different pattern of atmospheric warming, and they got the short-term relationship between outgoing radiation and surface warming backwards. The latter two items are especially pertinent, because they show that the crucial amplification due to the water feedbacks (mainly humidity and clouds), that is assumed by the models, does not exist in reality. This amplification causes two-thirds of the temperature rises predicted by the models, while carbon dioxide only directly causes one third. This explains why the models overestimate temperature rises.

We check the performance of the climate models against impeccably sourced, publicly available data from our best and latest instruments. See the end notes for how to download the data yourself.

Checking the Theory of Manmade Global Warming Against the Data

The theory of manmade global warming is that the world has been warming for the last few decades, that this is almost entirely due to our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)2, and that the warming by 2100 will be a dangerous 3–4°C.

The theory is embodied in the climate models, which are used to predict the future climate. We will now check their predictions against the best and latest global data, collected by our most sophisticated instruments. The climate models have been essentially the same for almost 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2 even while they became more detailed as computer power increased. So it is fair to compare their predictions from over two decades ago with what subsequently happened.

Warning, forbidden data: The data in this article is impeccably sourced, from our best instruments, and is publicly available. Yet none of it has appeared in the mainstream media, ever, anywhere in the world. This observation leads into the political argument in Climate Coup—The Politics. As you look at the data, ask yourself whether it is relevant and whether the media should withhold it from us.

Air Temperatures

The best sources of air temperature data are the satellites. They circle the earth 24/7, measuring the air temperature above broad swathes of land and ocean, covering all of the globe except near the poles, and are unbiased. Satellite measurements started in 1979; early problems with calibration have long since been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. The data presented here comes from NASA satellites and is managed at the University of Alabama Hunstville (UAH).6 This is an impeccable source of data, and you can easily download the data yourself. The data is currently collected from this satellite:

One of the earliest and most politically important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the “father of global warming”. Here are his three predicted scenarios, taken from his peer-reviewed paper in 198811 and re-graphed against what the NASA satellites subsequently measured (all starting from the same point in mid-1987):

Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

In particular, look at his scenario C, which is what his climate model predicted would happen if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was no longer rising. In reality the temperature is below his scenario C prediction even though our CO2 emissions continued to increase—which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the warming effect of our CO2 emissions.

A more considered prediction by the climate models (and the earliest that cannot be wiggled out of) was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report:

After 21 years, the real-world warming trend is below the lowest IPCC prediction.

Ocean Temperatures

The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational.

Ocean temperature measurements before Argo are nearly worthless. They were made with buckets, or with bathythermographs (XBTs)—expendable probes that fall through the water, transmitting data back along a pair of thin wires. Nearly all measurements were from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes, so geographical coverage of the world’s oceans was very poor—for example the huge southern oceans were barely monitored. XBT data is much less precise and much less accurate than Argo data—for one thing, they move too quickly through the water to come to thermal equilibrium with the water they are trying to measure.

Argo buoys duck dive down to 2,000 meters, measuring temperatures as they slowly ascend, then radio the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

The ocean heat content down to 700m as measured by Argo is now publicly available, and you can easily download the data yourself. Ocean heat content is measured in units of 1022 Joules, which corresponds to a temperature change of about 0.01°C. The climate models project ocean heat content increasing at about 0.7 × 1022 Joules per year.

The average sea level rise since 2004 is about 0.33 mm per year, or about 3.3 cm (1.3 inches) per century, which confirms the Argo message that the oceans haven’t warmed recently. In contrast, the IPCC in 2007 predicted a sea level rise of 26 to 59 cm by the end of the century if our CO2 emissions continue unabated, and Al Gore suggested in his movie that we might see a rise of 20 feet and half of Florida underwater.

Read Full Article →

50 Astronautas y Científicos de la NASA le piden que Detenga su Propaganda sobre Cambio Climático

El Calentamiento Global Antropogénico es un dogma, dicen los científicos

Lea la carta a continuación:

Lea la carta original en Inglés aquí.

28 de marzo 2012
El Honorable Charles Bolden Jr.
Administrador de la NASA
Sede de la NASA
Washington, DC 20546-0001

Nosotros, los abajo firmantes, solicitamos respetuosamente que la NASA y el Instituto Goddard de Estudios Espaciales (GISS), eviten observaciones no probadas incluyendo los informes públicos y sitios web. Creemos que las declaraciones de la NASA y GISS, que las emisiones de dióxido de carbono han tenido un impacto catastrófico sobre el cambio climático global son infundadas, sobre todo si tenemos en cuenta miles de años de datos empíricos. Con cientos de científicos del clima bien conocidos, y decenas de miles de otros científicos que declaran públicamente su falta de fe en las predicciones catastróficas, sobre todo viniendo de la dirección del GISS, es claro que la ciencia no está resuelta.

La defensa desenfrenada que el CO2 es la causa principal del cambio climático no es apropiada en la historia de la NASA, que por lo general hace una evaluación objetiva de todos los datos científicos disponibles antes de tomar decisiones o hacer declaraciones públicas.

Como ex funcionarios de la NASA, nos parece que la defensa de una posición extrema, antes de que un estudio detallado de los posibles efectos de las causas naturales del cambio climático se haga, no es apropiado. Le pedimos que evite incluir observaciones no probadas y sin apoyo en sus futuras versiones y sitios web sobre el tema. En riesgo está el daño a la reputación ejemplar de científicos de la NASA actuales o ex empleados de la NASA, e incluso la reputación de la propia ciencia.

Para obtener información adicional acerca de la ciencia detrás de nuestra preocupación, le recomendamos que entre en contacto con Harrison Schmitt y Walter Cunningham, y otros que ellos puedan recomendar a usted.

Gracias por considerar esta petición.


(Firmas adjunto)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Mad: Engineer Humans to Combat Climate Change?

by Ross Andersen
The Atlantic
March 13, 2012

The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our technologies to be more energy-efficient. From lightweight hybrid cars to long-lasting LED’s, engineers have made well-known products smaller and less wasteful. But tinkering with our tools will only get us so far, because however smart our technologies become, the human body has its own ecological footprint, and there are more of them than ever before. So, some scholars are asking, what if we could engineer human beings to be more energy efficient? A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.
Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.
The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Liao is keen to point out that the paper is not meant to advocate for any particular human modifications, or even human engineering generally; rather, it is only meant to introduce human engineering as one possible, partial solution to climate change. He also emphasized the voluntary nature of the proposed modifications. Neither Liao or his co-authors,  Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, approve of any coercive human engineering; they favor modifications borne of individual choices, not technocratic mandates. What follows is my conversation with Liao about why he thinks human engineering could be the most ethical and effective solution to global climate change.
Judging from your paper, you seem skeptical about current efforts to mitigate climate change, including market based solutions like carbon pricing or even more radical solutions like geoengineering. Why is that?

Liao: It’s not that I don’t think that some of those solutions could succeed under the right conditions; it’s more that I think that they might turn out to be inadequate, or in some cases too risky. Take market solutions—so far it seems like it’s pretty difficult to orchestrate workable international agreements to affect international emissions trading. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, has not produced demonstrable reductions in global emissions, and in any event demand for petrol and for electricity seems to be pretty inelastic. And so it’s questionable whether carbon taxation alone can deliver the kind of reduction that we need to really take on climate change.
With respect to geoengineering, the worry is that it’s just too risky—many of the technologies involved have never been attempted on such a large scale, and so you have to worry that by implementing these techniques we could endanger ourselves or future generations. For example it’s been suggested that we could alter the reflectivity of the atmosphere using sulfate aerosol so as to turn away a portion of the sun’s heat, but it could be that doing so would destroy the ozone layer, which would obviously be problematic. Others have argued that we ought to fertilize the ocean with iron, because doing so might encourage a massive bloom of carbon-sucking plankton. But doing so could potentially render the ocean inhospitable to fish, which would obviously also be quite problematic.
One human engineering strategy you mention is a kind of pharmacologically induced meat intolerance. You suggest that humans could be given meat alongside a medication that triggers extreme nausea, which would then cause a long-lasting aversion to meat eating. Why is it that you expect this could have such a dramatic impact on climate change?

Liao: There is a widely cited U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization report that estimates that 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 equivalents come from livestock farming, which is actually a much higher share than from transportation. More recently it’s been suggested that livestock farming accounts for as much as 51% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. And then there are estimates that as much as 9% of human emissions occur as a result of deforestation for the expansion of pastures for livestock. And that doesn’t even to take into account the emissions that arise from manure, or from the livestock directly. Since a large portion of these cows and other grazing animals are raised for consumption, it seems obvious that reducing the consumption of these meats could have considerable environmental benefits.
Even a minor 21% to 24% reduction in the consumption of these kinds of meats could result in the same reduction in emissions as the total localization of food production, which would mean reducing “food miles” to zero. And, I think it’s important to note that it wouldn’t necessarily need to be a pill. We have also toyed around with the idea of a patch that might stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins, which could lead to a similar kind of lasting aversion to meat products.
Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller. Why would this be a powerful technique in the fight against climate change?

Liao: Well one of the things that we noticed is that human ecological footprints are partly correlated with size. Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and nutrients and so, other things being equal, the larger person is the more food and energy they are going to soak up over the course of a lifetime. There are also other, less obvious ways in which larger people consume more energy than smaller people—for example a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person, more fabric is needed to clothe larger people, and heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture at a quicker rate than lighter people, and so on.
And so size reduction could be one way to reduce a person’s ecological footprint. For instance if you reduce the average U.S. height by just 15cm, you could reduce body mass by 21% for men and 25% for women, with a corresponding reduction in metabolic rates by some 15% to 18%, because less tissue means lower energy and nutrient needs.