Thursday 19th of May 2022

clear misunderstanding...


Several top oil-producing countries stacked their delegations to the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow with oil and gas industry executives and officials from their oil ministries. In some cases, oil personnel represented significant portions of their overall country delegation, according to a DeSmog analysis.

The UK organizers of the COP26 climate conference very publicly declined to offer international oil companies any slots in the conference or any formal role in the event, and oil companies without credible climate programs were also barred from sponsoring events at the high-stakes international talks currently underway.

But that has not stopped the oil majors and state oil companies from showing up under the guise of business and trade groups or national delegations. The official participant list is full of executives and employees from the largest publicly traded oil companies in the world, including Royal Dutch Shell and BP.

Gulf States Top Countries Sending Oil Officials

Among the national delegations, oil producers in the Middle East stood out, with Saudi Arabia sending more than two dozen people that either worked directly for state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco, or had formerly worked for the company. That amounted to roughly 45 percent of the entire Saudi delegation.

Other Gulf States had similar patterns. More than a quarter of Kuwait’s 64-member delegation came either from the Ministry of Oil, or state-owned firms like the Kuwait Oil Company, the Kuwait Oil Tanker Company, or Kuwait Petroleum International.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) sent at least 20 officials from its Department of Energy, the state-owned oil company ADNOC, or the publicly listed oil company TAQA.

“Fossil fuels are everywhere at this COP except in the decisions being negotiated by governments,” Nikki Reisch, the director of climate and energy at the Center for International Environmental Law, wrote to DeSmog from Glasgow. “Simultaneously, there are unprecedented restrictions on civil society access to the talks, which only exacerbate the gross imbalance of power between people and polluters, and threaten to undermine the legitimacy of COP26 outcomes.”

In some cases, the affiliation with the oil industry was publicly declared on the participant list for COP26. For example, Mohammad Haider from Kuwait is declared as an employee with Kuwait Oil Company.

In other instances, their connections are less clear. For example, Hamoud R. AlOtaibi is registered as a senior consultant on climate change for Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy. But, according to his LinkedIn page, he works as an advisor for Saudi Aramco. Others are listed with even less detail. Mohammed A. Alakil is simply attending under the Saudi Energy Ministry, with no other biographical information. But his LinkedIn page says he works for SABIC, the Saudi petrochemical company, which is owned by Aramco.

The Saudi delegation is replete with many more former employees of Aramco. Khalid M. Abuleif is Saudi Arabia’s chief negotiator at COP26, a position he has held since 2012. But he got his start working at Aramco in the 1990s.


Read more:



COP26 to rob the poor?...



COP26: Greening Finance?


by Thierry Meyssan



COP26 is an entertaining show, designed to divert the public’s attention from what is going on. The IPCC, the COP’s committee of climate experts, does not predict the apocalypse to deaf governments, but provides them with a discourse to justify their political ambitions. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, who are resolutely hostile to the financial projects of the COPs, have refused to attend, while the big bankers are talking about 100 billion dollars of investment.


« UN Climate Change Conferences » are always accompanied by apocalyptic rhetoric, but never result in quantifiable and verifiable commitments. They only result in promises signed with great fanfare, but always couched in the conditional.

The conference currently taking place in Glasgow, UK, from October 31 to November 12 2021, is no exception. It began with a spectacular video of a dinosaur announcing the possible extinction of the human species at the UN General Assembly and continued with a keynote speech by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson on what James Bond would do about the climate challenge. The drama continued on the streets with a demonstration led by Greta Thunberg to declare all the world’s governments illegitimate and to denounce the "failure" of the conference which has only just begun.

The political leaders who have called for saving humanity from an imminent end are the same ones who are investing billions of dollars in nuclear weapons capable of wiping human life off the planet [1].

The least we can say is that this conference is quality entertainment for the world’s spectators, not a diplomatic meeting to reduce greenhouse gas production. So what is the reality behind this circus and why are all the UN member states taking part?



To answer these questions, we first need to get rid of some erroneous beliefs about ’global warming’.

We wrongly ’believe’ that ’global warming’ threatens the survival of our species. The climate has always changed, not in a linear way, but in cycles. The Earth was warmer seven centuries ago than it is today. Here in France, the glaciers in the Alps were smaller than they are today and there were wild camels in Provence. Some of our coasts were further out to sea than they are today, but others were further back, etc.

We have seen that the warming of the climate in Europe corresponds to the industrial revolution. This is why we ’believe’ that the climate changes we are witnessing have been accelerated by the industrial production of greenhouse gases over the last two centuries. This is possible, but concomitance is not causality. There are other hypotheses, including that of the Yougoslavian geophysicist Milutin Milanković based on variations in the Earth’s orbit (eccentricity, obliquity and precession of the equinoxes).

By creating the IPCC, Margaret Thatcher intended to take the lead in a new industrial revolution based on oil and nuclear power. In practice, her policy was to close down much of British industry and to financialise its economy; this led to COP26 and the use of the rhetoric of global warming to justify the indebtedness of the Third World to the City.


Note by Gus: This view on "global warming" by Thierry Meyssan is ERRONEOUS. The IPCC scientists calculations take the long term Milanković cycles into account. The present culprits for the "warming" are the warming gases: CO2, methane and NOxs. The addition of these in the atmosphere by industrialisation is undeniable. Presently the Milanković cycles indicate that the planet should be going towards a COOLING period, BUT WE'RE NOT. With CO2 now 120 ppm above the natural maximum, we can expect temperatures rise of between 6 and 9 degrees Celsius by 2200. COP26 is only a fraction of what has to be done to prevent future damage... Greta is correct, but we won't understand the full catatrophe that we're facing till we reach critical weather switch (2032 as calculated by Gus).


Meyssan is wrong about the science, but not about the politics...



Let’s turn to the UN conferences. In 1988, Canadian and British Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney and Margaret Thatcher convinced their partners (the United States, France, Germany and Italy) to fund an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation. Shortly afterwards, Mrs Thatcher claimed that greenhouse gases, the ozone hole and acid rain required intergovernmental responses [2]. This rhetoric masked political objectives. It was, as her advisers would confirm, to put an end to the coal miners’ unions and to promote a new industrial revolution, based on North Sea oil and nuclear power [«Le prétexte climatique», seconde partie : « 1982-1996 : L’écologie de marché », par Thierry Meyssan, Оdnako (Russie) , Réseau Voltaire, 22 avril 2010.]].

The IPCC is not a learned academy of climate scientists at all, but as its name suggests an ’intergovernmental group’. It does not discuss climate science, but climate policy. The vast majority of its members are not scientists, but diplomats. The climate experts who sit on the panel are not there as scientists, but as experts in their government delegation, i.e. as civil servants. All their public interventions are controlled by their government. It is therefore preposterous to speak of a "scientific" consensus when referring to the political consensus that prevails in this assembly. This is not to understand the functioning of intergovernmental institutions.

Contrary to what Greta Thunberg thinks, the IPCC does not predict the apocalypse to deaf governments. It faithfully obeys them and, together with climate scientists, develops a rhetoric to justify policy changes that normal people would otherwise refuse.

The work of the IPCC is the basis for an annual ’Conference of the Parties’ (COP) to the ’United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ (UNFCCC). The 26th edition is being held in Glasgow (COP26). In its first report, in 1990, the IPCC considered an unambiguous increase in the greenhouse effect "within the next few decades or more" as "unlikely". But what was true in 1990 has become heretical in 2021.

The first conferences were devoted to informing and raising public awareness of climate change. It was clear to everyone that some regions would become uninhabitable and that some populations would have to move. It was only over time that people began to say that the changes would become so great that they could threaten the survival of the entire human race. This change in discourse was not due to a sudden scientific discovery that challenged a one-day truth, but to the changing needs of governments.

Consumer society is on the brink: you can’t sell people what they already have. If industries collapse, jobs disappear and governments are toppled. There is only one way to avoid this: for example, in the late 1990s, most Western companies were computerised. It became impossible to sell computers. So the hoax of the century was propagated: the "Y2K bug". All computers were going to crash on January 1, 2000 at 00:00. Everyone bought computers and software. Of course, no plane crashed, no lift stopped, no computer crashed. But Silicon Valley was saved and people were now going to invest in consumer computers. Today the solution is the "energy transition". For example: you can’t sell several cars to the same consumer, but you can exchange your petrol car for an electric one. Of course, electricity is usually made with oil and requires batteries that cannot be recycled. In the end, with the energy transition, the planet will be more polluted than before. But this is not something to think about.



During President Bill Clinton’s term, the US took control of the IPCC so that it pushed for the Kyoto Protocol (COP3) but never signed it. The Vice President, Al Gore, was in charge of US energy policy. He approved the war in Kosovo in order to build a trans-Balkan pipeline. But while the Protocol was originally intended to limit emissions of five greenhouse gases and three chlorofluorocarbons, he pushed for the creation of CO2 emission rights for industries and forgot about the other gases. After leaving the White House, he founded the Chicago Climate Exchange with bankers from Goldman Sachs and funding from Blackrock. As the US never signed the Kyoto Protocol, it did not work well. So he opened branches on the other four continents, which grew rapidly. Today, he receives a fee for each trade in CO2 emission rights. To develop his business, he became a climate activist and produced the film An Inconvenient Truth. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, although this work is more about advertising his stock exchange than science [3].

For the record, the statutes of the Climate Exchange were drafted by a young, unknown lawyer, Barack Obama. Soon afterwards he entered politics in Chicago and was suddenly elected President of the United States four years later. Once in the White House, Barack Obama would develop a plan to use climate hysteria to reform the global financial system. This is the plan that will be adopted by COP21 in Paris and should be implemented by COP26 in Glasgow.



This one is being organised by the UK with the help of Italy. Four Brits are in charge: two former ministers, Alok Sharma (Economy, Industry and Industrial Strategy) and Anne-Marie Trevelyan (International Development), a former governor of the UK and Canadian banks, Mark Carney, and a lobbyist, Nigel Topping. None of these people know anything about climate science. All of them, however, have plans to reform the Bretton Woods institutions (the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank).

It is because they are opposed to this financial project and not at all to the fight against air pollution that the Russian and Chinese presidents, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, are not participating in this conference.

The COP26 website states:

it is about "Mobilising finance. To meet our targets, developed countries must deliver on their promise to mobilise at least $100 billion in climate finance. The international financial institutions must play their part and we must work to unlock the trillions in private and public sector finance needed to ensure global net zero.

What is expected to be signed off at the end of the conference is the creation of a body comprising

 the Asian Development Bank 

 the African Development Bank 

 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank 

 the Caribbean Development Bank 

 the European Investment Bank 

 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

 Inter-American Development and Investment Bank 

 Islamic Development Bank 

 the World Bank 

 and 450 major companies

to mobilise this money.

It is important to understand that it is no longer possible to indebt poor countries (and therefore to keep them on a leash) because the World Bank and especially the IMF are no longer credible. All governments now know that grants and loans from international institutions come with drastic conditions that make their countries vulnerable; that when the time comes to pay back, they will no longer own anything.

With COP26, the bankers will be able to lend money to save humanity and, in the process, become the owners of the countries whose leaders have trusted them.


Thierry Meyssan



Roger Lagassé


Read more:



Gus: Robbing the poor to feed the rich is not a new tactic... This has been the only way Kings could survive in their lavish ways...







africa's hunger games...

Recently, various media reports on the manifestation of climate change in the world have become more and more like battlefield reports. These changes are affecting rich countries as well as poorer ones.

Climate change in Africa is a growing threat to Africans as Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change.  According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988, Africa’s vulnerability to climate change stems from several factors. Ongoing expert studies say the continent will experience many more extreme weather events over the next 80 years, including intense precipitation, which could lead to flooding and storms. In addition, these disasters are likely to alternate with more severe droughts during the growing season, which could also damage crops and food production.

Recent meteorological studies by experts and scientists from WMO as well as several research institutes show an increasing impact of rising temperatures on Africa. They indicate that western and central regions will be most affected by the effect of weather patterns. Many countries in these regions, including Niger, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are expected to experience significant population growth and be particularly vulnerable to climate change. Changing precipitation patterns, rising temperatures and more extreme weather contributed to mounting food insecurity, poverty and displacement in Africa, , compounding the socio-economic and health crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The United Nations has already named the first African country on the brink of famine today because of climate change – Madagascar. The worst drought in four decades has devastated farming communities in the south of the country. In the absence of food, people eat locusts, and cactus leaves to survive. Food prices have multiplied, and locals are selling their land for money to eat. “The pain of a more extreme climate can be seen first-hand, as reports of babies dying and mothers unable to assist them due to their own hunger are rampant. The population are unable to find or afford food and disease has become rife as people’s immune systems are lowered. Against this backdrop, dangerous diseases have spread in the country,” reports Africa News. The UN estimates that 30,000 people in Madagascar are experiencing the highest internationally recognized level of food insecurity – Level 5. There are fears that this number could increase sharply as the country enters its traditional lean season.

Earlier, people in eastern Ethiopia faced the consequences of the drought. Somali region Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Bureau reported the death of about 25,000 cattle in the Dawa Zone of Somali Region in eastern Ethiopia. The population of the region is at risk. About 83,000 people need water and food aid. Out of the total number of people on the brink of starvation, 30,000 are refugees who fled their homes because of the inter-ethnic conflict in the north of the republic. Earlier, residents of another Oromia Region also reported the death of 4,000 cattle and impending famine.

Experts have traced the link between climate change and the conflicts that are likely to occur in Africa. Matthew Rendall, a lecturer at the University of Nottingham whose research focuses on climate change and international relations, argues that it is more likely that less stable, more disaster-prone places like Syria or Somalia will become the climate battlefields. Already poor nations are more likely to suffer from severe food shortages and mass refugee migration.

Concerning Somalia, this country has long struggled with armed conflict on the one hand and climate change on the other. The experience in Mogadishu has already demonstrated that the lack of resources and food and the displacement of citizens, including internally, has not only exacerbated clan tensions but has also placed unprecedented strain on traditional means of dispute resolution. There has been increased fighting between nomadic breeders and farmers, inter-tribal violence, mass migration, political instability, and extremism, which are indicators of the link between climate change and conflict, mainly because most Somalis rely on farming or fishing for food, yet many grazing routes are no longer suitable. Under these conditions, nomadic breeders, anxious to prevent a more significant loss of animals, were forced to go to fertile areas occupied by farmers because the prolonged droughts provoked mass climate migration. When clans migrate between regions the risk of violence from dominant groups in those regions increases. These groups are often seeking to maintain control of resources in their areas. At the same time, further temperature increases and unpredictable meteorological phenomena aggravate the situation.

As analysts emphasise that climate change plays into the hands of al-Shabaab (a formation banned in Russia) militants who ostensibly capitalise upon interclan tensions, resource conflicts and natural disasters. The militants of this terrorist group, given the inability of the Federal Government of Somalia to respond effectively to natural disasters, capitalize on local tensions by recruiting vulnerable citizens through the provision of food and protection. The link between climate and conflict is therefore unlikely to weaken in the short to medium term, remaining a key driver of Somalia’s ongoing conflict fuellingviolence in the country.

It cannot be ruled out that Somalia will face increasingly extreme conditions in the near future. At the same time, droughts, floods, cyclones, and dust storms will become more frequent, which will most likely lead to regional insecurity and mass migration to Kenya, Ethiopia.

In this context, the situation in many African countries foreshadows the future climate wars of the 21st century and shows how fragile countries, least prepared to cope with natural climate disasters, are becoming vulnerable to internal conflicts and the actions of terrorist groups.

African nations, objectively unable to cope with the adverse impacts of climate change on their own, therefore looked to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow with great hope, clearly hoping to strengthen adequate support for the region by the wealthy especially Western, nations. However, as evidenced by the results of the ended two-day meeting of heads of states, world leaders have left Glasgow without increased commitments to reduce emissions. Scientists predict a climate disaster for the planet and humanity in this century. Many of these leaders merely used the summit to promote themselves and try to stop the decline of their personal prestige and ratings. For example, American President Biden brought no specific program or initiative on climate change to the summit. And the small moments when he was openly awake on this forum, he used only for another vilification and unfounded criticism of his main geopolitical adversaries; China and Russia.

Although President Biden has brought America back into the Paris Agreement from which his predecessor Donald Trump pulled out, he has never been able to turn the US public and politicians around 180 degrees and convince them to approve increased or specific commitments to cut emissions. What’s more, by the time the summit opened, which was supposed to be the funeral of the coal-fired power industry, the US had burned 20% more coal than last year, which would lead to an 8% increase in US greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, when two hundred countries signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, they agreed to review their commitments every five years! But there was no review at the Glasgow Climate Conference, either by the US or its closest allies.

In addition, rich countries have still not fulfilled their pledges to provide $100 billion a year to developing economies to offset the loss of costly emission reductions.

In this context, Africa, which has been adversely affected by climate change, will just have to wait. And together with the protesters in Europe regarding the futility of the Glasgow Climate Conference, criticize the predatory policies of the rich Western states, particularly the United States.


Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


Read more:


Gus: "Famine" in Madagascar and Africa have been also emphasised by the changing of ways to growing crops. The introduced Western farming techniques destroyed the traditional cultivation which was able to feed ALL the people. These WF techniques need fertilisers and pesticides that also destroyed the land usage. As well, "charity" often in the form of subsidies to US farmers lead to over-production leading to DUMPING of equivalent crops and supplies (including cotton) that destroyed the African local supplies. I have seen this first hand in the early 1960s... The compassion of the West has only one purpose: serve itself.

a busy coffee machine...


By Tim Flannery


The standout Australian performer at COP26 has been the very popular coffee machine in the official pavilion. It’s attracted an appreciative queue at all hours. Australia has shown very high ambition with its coffee game here in Glasgow, meeting and beating its targets and receiving net zero complaints from the hundreds of caffeine-hungry delegates.


But all the free coffee in the world is not going to cover for Australia’s utter failure to rise to the challenge at this global climate summit.

We’re proud Australians. Our plucky country has been the source of many world-changing innovations. Australian ingenuity has helped beat cancers and restore hearing. It’s helped drive down the cost of solar power. At our best, there is no challenge we cannot overcome. But in Glasgow at the UN climate talks, over these past two weeks, we’ve felt embarrassed.

Australia’s intransigence on climate makes us the outlier on the world stage, heckling from the wings. Almost every comparable developed economy brought a credible commitment to slash emissions at least 50 per cent by 2030 and a clear policy vision to back it up. We brought the “Australian Way”: a grab bag of slogans delivered by the Prime Minister to a near-empty hall and the Santos pop-up stall in our national pavilion – a state-sponsored promotional opportunity for a fossil fuel giant spruiking the fraudulent climate “solution” that is carbon capture and storage.


Thankfully, many other countries brought their A-game to COP26, and there was much over the past two weeks that has given us hope. The opening days saw a series of new agreements designed to accelerate action and help keep alive the ultimate goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees: from a new global pledge to reduce emissions of methane – a highly potent greenhouse gas – to deals on coal phase-out, deforestation, climate finance and more. Australia was conspicuously absent from most of these.


At every COP there are moments when someone manages to cut through the noise with a brutally honest and rousing speech or other intervention. This year it was Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, who excoriated leaders for failing on the promises of the Paris Agreement, demanding that they “try harder”. In a similarly powerful moment, Tuvalu foreign minister Simon Kofe gave a speech by video link – at a lectern, dressed in suit and tie, while knee-deep in the ocean. Yes, for his low-lying Pacific island nation, climate change is an existential threat.

At the beginning of the second week, Australian bushfire survivor Jo Dodds held a press conference outside the Australian pavilion with fellow bushfire survivors from the US, Canada and Turkey.

As the talks entered their end game, news broke of a new deal between the US and China, who – despite their differences – have committed to working together to accelerate action on climate change. Yet another sign that the world is moving while Australia is standing still.


Read more: