I agree with EYEJAW ..
Global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.
Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008.

“One of the reasons the clean energy sector is starved of funding is because mainstream investors worry that renewable energy only works with direct government support,” said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of New Energy Finance. “This analysis shows that the global direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around ten times the subsidy for renewables.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 12 Times Support for Renewables, Study Shows
By Alex Morales - Jul 29, 2010 9:59 AM PST Thu Jul 29 16:59:49 UTC 2010

NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
http://steveothegreat7.blogspot.com/2011/12/nasa-climate-change-may-bring-big.html
JPL/NASA, 14 December 2011 By 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth's land surface and will drive the conversion of nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one major ecological community type - such as forest, grassland or tundra - toward another, according to a new NASA and university computer modeling study.

All the babble about the high cost of renewable energy completely ignores the external costs of climate induced ecosystem changes

Poirot

Yes, I agree with your first sentence, but how can these people be concurrently funding the Green movement AND the Skeptics as you say?

The fact that many former and present major corporates and the mega rich substantially fund the climate movement was always a puzzle to me until I realised that the money extracted from the West will not go to the Developing nations but will be 'managed' by the mega wealthy under the guise of a climate fund throught the World Bank.

The rationale of 'saving the planet' is merely a ruse to collect money, they hope by legal treaty, from which point it will go to the UN who will distribute it 'as it sees fit' ie to itself to increase its own power and to its mega wealthy associates. Little will go to Africa ostensibly because they are not meeting 'climate obligations'.

In the meantime Africa will have its development delayed or controlled by denial of funds which they will incur if they dare to use fossil fuels consequently increasing their disadvantage. As Africa is resource rich, many countries might be willing to allow their resources to be 'managed' by guess who??

After all why the hell would Rothschild be a the 1992 Rio Earth Summit? He wasn't there to undermine his own investments but to sure them up for the future

Prompete,

If you don't understand sexual competition and aggression you must be either living under a rock or totally devoid of human sex hormones.

Usually people avoid this understanding because they are working the social equality "angle" while maintaining sexual aggression privately. Al Gore comes to mind and I suspect our current author. You seem to be different so explaining the uncompromising brutality of human sex hormones to you is like explaining the second law of thermodynamics to a frog.

Warning:
In the battle of the sexes, don't be an unarmed bystander and DONT be an ENVIRONMENTAL ASSET!

Hiya bonmot,

Great clip.

eyejaw,

I myself don't tune to radio Pyongyang, but I'll take your word for it.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1263

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

Here's a lengthy paper by Clive Hamilton delivered to a conference in Brussels in 2010, titled "Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change"

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/why_we_resist_the_truth_about_climate_change.pdf

Poirot-

Can you explain why the rich and the UN fund the Green movement, if as you say, they also fund big corporates? Unless you can answer that question you cannot understand what climate change is all about.

I trust Clive Hamilton is not trying to silence dissent? Silencing of dissent is one of his big beefs - excpet when it comes to climate change of course.