Tuesday
Mar162010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Big Oil forgets to bribe McKitrick
Mar 16, 2010 Climate: McKitrick Climate: von Storch Hans von Storch reports that Edinburgh University's Tom Crowley has been doing some auditing himself, writing to Ross McKitrick to find out how much loot the Canadian is receiving from Big Oil.
Unfortunately it appears that the well-organised denier movement forgot to fund one of the most prominent sceptics of all.
Which prompts a question:
Are the Hockey Team conspiracy theorists?
Discuss.
Reader Comments (45)
Yes.
It's simply easier and more convenient to blame non-specific enemies, acting in collusion and bad faith for problems of one's own making. The only other alternative is to answer for them oneself.
It has been my experience (for example in Management Consulting) that people in positions of power ascribe motives to their actions based on their own terms of reference.
I have never believed in some grand unified conspiracy promoting AGW. It does not need to work like that. All you need is powerful groups with a common interest and opportunities for gainful advantage. They will form a mass, some will prosper, evolve and develop, some will whither. AGW prospered big time.
They can only react on how they would approach the problem if they were in our shoes. There can be no other explanation than power, reflected glory and paid for opinions. Just like AGW.
it would be worth noting that while Ross McKitrick has taken no money from Big Oil, the geosciences department at Edinburgh is home to the Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage, a consortium whose members include BP, Shell, BG E&P, E-On and Schlumberger.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/consortium.html
Home truths are stranger than any foreign fiction.
Dr Ian B. Butler, School of GeoSciences, Edinburgh University: 2008 - 2011 £100K “Validation and verification of discrete fracture flow models for fractured carbonate rocks” EPSRC/Exxonmobil Case studentship (as co-investigator)
It's strange how research funded by 'Big Oil' is seen as tainted, but research funded by NGOs, envrionmental groups etc is seen as squeaky-clean.
LOL... Hopefully, some government somewhere will give the next set of grant money to M&M for past effort. Seriously, how much is M&M's time and effort worth? After reading HSI, I see that these guys put in huge efforts, spent their own time and money, went to conferences, committees, labored through data, code, emails, petitions, publishing guidelines, etc. We owe them a great debt.
Damn there goes another ironyometer.
Thinking further about it...could we quantify in USD, CAD or GBP what McIntrye & McKitrick's effort is worth? What does a typical Climate Scientists or statistician professor get paid on average based on expertise, etc?
Projection is one of the most common forms of denial and evasion.
Perhaps Tom Crowley could ask a similar question of UEA? I bet he wouldn't get that civil an answer!
Talking about conspiracy, why is the Pope supporting AGW? Did the vatican buy into carbon emission funds or something? Also, did you know Obama is one of the persons responsible for the Chicago Climate Exchange?
All the world leaders seem bent on pushing through some form of carbon tax or emissions scheme. Some bankers and politicians will become mega-rich, on the backs of the taxes we ordinary folk will be forced to pay. Are we going to be taxed and metered for every breath of co2 we exhale? I fear for my kids and our way of life. Feels like something big is on the horizon which will change life as we know it.
Frank, ironically:
Warming Impact of Wind Farms:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/wind-turbines-will-add-up-to-015-c-to.html
(download the pdf so you can check the maths again)
And
Direct Evidence that Most U.S. Warming Since 1973 Could Be Spurious
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/direct-evidence-that-most-u-s-warming-since-1973-could-be-spurious/
"Talking about conspiracy, why is the Pope supporting AGW? Did the Vatican buy into carbon emission funds or something?"
If any organization in the world knows how to run a "selling Indulgences" scam, it is the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church invented this scam so it would be quick to recognize the economic bonanza to be had in selling carbon offsets.
One word...
Pathetic.
Oh the irony, Prof Crowley asks Prof McItrick to confess that he is in the pocket of the oil companies whilst Prof Crowley is himself supping with the devil.
This issue of who funds research is a very large red herring, it doesn't matter provided that the fiunding source is declared and that the subsequent research is open to inspection, warts and all.
First thing out of the box when a Warmist is exposed to skeptic evidence is usually argument ad hominem: "He's a notorious associate of Big Oil." No math; no science, no reasoning. Don't they teach logic in universities anymore? I guess now they teach what to think, instead of how to think. Yes, pathetic.
Someone should put this nonsense to rest. FOIA requests could be sent for the budgets and funding sources for the CRU, NASA, Penn State's funding of Mann, etc. Then skeptics, government funded or not, should voluntarily release the same info. Let's see the real numbers...for funding as well as temperature. And once that info is out, it should be forgotten. If data, models, formula etc. are made public, then the source of funding won't matter. A study that shows that 2 + 2 = 4 is correct, whether paid for by Exxon or Al Gore. Similarly, a study that shows that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong, regardless of who funded it. But it would be nice to put an end to the ability of the alarmists to change the subject every time someone shows a light under their rock. So let's see the numbers.
Video game players have a word for this: `pwned!'.
"Talking about conspiracy, why is the Pope supporting AGW? Did the Vatican buy into carbon emission funds or something?"
Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change includes
Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth
Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford
Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth
Well, they are only doing what David Miliband (atheist) told them, who was at the Vatican spreading his propaganda in 2007:
"I think it is appropriate to address these themes at the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace...well before climate change gained the profile it currently holds, the Catholic Church was warning of its consequences. In 1990, Pope John Paul II...warned us of the dangers of irreversible damage caused by the greenhouse effect...We need to mobilise governments, businesses and citizens across the world to act – what Pope John Paul II described as an ‘ecological conversion’...You first invited the Chancellor Gordon Brown to address this conference. I know he has worked closely with you...and I know he sends his good wishes to this conference and your continued engagement in this agenda...we must establish carbon markets which put a price on carbon emissions...a carbon market in which credits are bought overseas will help enormously...Let me finish with an observation by an organization called the WWF..."
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070506115906/http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/david-miliband/dm070426.htm
As long as we're talking ridiculous conspiracy theories...how about blaming addicts for global warming? Where does it end?
"Dogbert; international business consultant" chuckling as he plays the video to Catbert and the pointy haired boss of "Big Oil inc."...
There on the screen, Ross Mc explains why he does the work for the love of it, not the money...
Sorry AGW believers, you'll need some tissues when you wake up from that dream.
Do you know I think these people really believe they're a target of a BigOil conspiracy. They are as sloppy in their real life thinking as they appear to be in their scientific thinking.
The Hockey Team are definitely guilty (as are most leftists) of Freudian projection.
I have gone over to the Dark Side . . I filled up my tank today at a Shell station so I am now officially in the pay of Big Oil.
Fred
Its worse than that as surely Big Oil is in the pay of Fred from Canuckistan?
tonyb
Is it not pathetic that instead of trying to debate Ross Mc on the science, all Tom Crowley can do is to try and spread some muck that he has read on some blog?
Would this be the same Tom Crawley whose colleague, Professor Geoffrey Boulton, is a member of the Russell Enquiry into the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia ?
If so, one has to question the motive behind Professor Crawley's open letter.
Ross McKitric of course did not accept or get money from big oil. It was the devil himself who paid him. He was paid with sin credits, deposited in a Geneva private bank account. And - the worst of it - he did not pay taxes on it. Or can he show that he did? There you are: he cannot!
meanwhile, BP and the like are in amsterdam for the World Biofuels Markets Conference, which amusingly is not being reported on by the MSM.
16 March: StreetAuthority: How to Turn $25,000 into $3.2 Million
by Andy Obermueller
Disclosure: Andy Obermueller owns shares of DYAI
How to Turn $25,000 into $3.2 Million will draw more than a thousand of the foremost experts together for three days ending Wednesday in The Netherlands. Nearly 300 speakers will talk about the industry's latest developments.
This isn't some ho-hum annual confab of the Midwestern Region Widget Alliance going on at some down-market Vegas venue presided over by Wayne Newton. Rather, the World Biofuels Markets conference is a meeting of the men and women who are inventing a new industry, who are using cutting-edge science to harness new forms of energy that could not only reduce the world's dependence on OPEC but that could help reduce harmful pollutants while opening new markets and creating scores of thousands of jobs.
Among the sponsors: Petroleum giant and clean energy pioneer BP (NYSE: BP), as well as agricultural titan Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE: ADM) and the European Commission's Directorate-General for Energy & Transport.
The guy I want to hear most: Dyadic International (OTC: DYAI.PK) CEO Mark Emalfarb...
http://streetauthority.com/a/how-turn-25000-32-million-1218
9 March: BiofuelsInternat'l: EU exec sued over secret biofuels reports
Legal charges have been brought against the European Union’s executive as documents linked to biofuels and their detrimental effect on the environment have been kept under wraps.
The four environmental groups responsible for the suing say that these reports will add to a growing portfolio of evidence damning biofuels.
The groups, ClientEarth, Transport and Environment, the European Environmental Bureau, and BirdLife International, filed the suit after first gaining access to the documents on 15 October. They claimed that the European Commission failed to release all of the documents by the 9 February deadline under the freedom of information laws.
Some of the reports discuss the possibility of higher EU farm incomes but allude to the fact that biofuels refineries may lead to food shortages for the world’s most impoverished countries. Other documents suggest biofuels will increase the need for land and result in famers from tropical areas expanding their cropland into easily affected areas including wetlands and rainforests, which would have a negative on the surroundings.
The release of this evidence puts the EU 10% target at risk...
Nusa Urbancic of transport campaign group Transport and Environment said: ‘Current EU biofuels policy guarantees that Europe will use lots of biofuels, but it doesn’t guarantee reductions in greenhouse gas emission – in fact it seems likely it will make things worse.’
http://www.biofuels-news.com/industry_news.php?item_id=1853
when will the rest of the environmental groups have the decency to distance themselves from the CAGW scam, which is killing the poor, not helping them.
15 Feb: Actionaid: New Biofuels report shows how Europe is driving hunger
In a major new report ‘Meals per gallon: the impact of industrial biofuels on people and global hunger’ ActionAid estimates that as a result of the legislation, the amount of biofuels in Europe’s petrol and diesel will increase nearly fourfold. It says this will have a disastrous impact on the world’s poor as food prices rise.
Report author Tim Rice said: “Biofuels are driving a global human tragedy. Local food prices have already risen massively. As biofuel production gains pace, this can only accelerate. ..
The majority of biofuels need nitrogen fertiliser, releasing nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Scientists believe that the extent of nitrous oxide emissions has been seriously underestimated...
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/102322/news.html
They are projecting.
They are the big recipients of energy and other moneys.
"ExxonMobil" is specified because it is the one large energy co. that has not bought into the cap and trade game: One reason may be that they are more invested in oil than methane compared to its competitors.
You will never hear them say So and So is in the pay of British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell. That is not an accident. They specify ExxonMobil from their own special knowledge of who is paying their side of the game.
Anyway, the political rhetoric seems to originate in Michael Mann. Makes sense, it sounds American.
Yer Grace
I am puzzled by the imperative to 'Discuss' if the Hockey Team are conspiracy theorists.
The Hockey Team, their scientist supporters and the IPCC have been on the defensive since Climategate and much negative press on IPCC AR4 reports, thus widespread comments from them on the Science and Climate Scientists being under attack. Granted this reaction could be interpreted as paranoid given the ever increasing reported scepticism of alarmist warming and CO2 claims since then.
But, without direct insider evidence, it is a simply a free for all to indulge in speculation on the Hockey Team being conspiracy theorists. I do not think it reflects well on this side of the debate.
Steve McIntyre is under attack from an Australian academic blogger but I do not see Crowley's letter as an attack on McKitrick. One can speculate on why the correspondence was disclosed by von Storch but perhaps time will tell.
Having said that, I do suspect that there is a strategy being played out by invested interests in AGW.
What evidence do you have that the Hockey Team et al think there is a conspiracy theory on this side of the deabte and is that what you meant?
In defence of Professor Tom Crowley, if one takes a quick look at his Home page
(http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tcrowley) and read some of his public commentaries you can see he is a 'moderate' and does not agree with the extent of alarmist claims of extinction etc. due to Climate warming.
[BH adds: I brought up the subject of conspiracy theories because of the oft-repeated line that sceptics are all in the pay of big oil. This is seen in private - in the emails - as well as in the public pronouncements of many mainstream climatologists. So the answer to your question is yes, this was what I meant. I note however, Ross McK's comment further down this thread.]
Jo Nova has an easy read analysis on the 'funding skew"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
For AGW $ 79 BILLION [ from the US Govt alone] versus AGW Skeptics $ 23 million [Exxon].
UMM! somewhat asymmetrical.
It's a small US Govt investment in future tax receipts. What a deal - the future capacity to tax breathing, breaking wind, livestock, steak eating, hamburger eating etc, etc. Yum, yum exponential
increases in tax revenues and sources
Re. Papal indulgences. I wonder why they closed that market? I'm. sure I need some :-)
A Big-Oil Man Gets Religion
A Big-Oil Man Gets Religion When John Browne broke ranks on global warming, he did more than shock the industry–he began to convert it.
By Janet Guyon; John Browne
March 6, 2000
http://tinyurl.com/yzpm39t
Brent, thank you for that reference - something I've wanted for a long while, a pointer to the history of the changing public pronouncements of the oil companies on the issue over the last 22 years (dating the AGW scare from James Hansen's little chat to Congress and the kicking off by Thatcher of John Houghton into the theory, leading to the IPCC). So, Labour peer Lord Browne was seen by Fortune in 2000 as the first to break ranks, in 1997. That gets me started very nicely.
Richard Lindzen is a hoot on all sides of the conspiracy question. (Hoot as in wise old bird.) Notice how he casually refers these days to the CRU guys and their email friends as conspiring to pervert the science. They were. Totally fair. And by no means an accidental use of language by the MIT professor I bet.
Even in the first few days after Climategate broke I could point to both Phil Jones and George Monbiot painting ridiculous pictures of a global AGW conspiracy that they claimed any sceptic must believe in - as a way of trying to deflect attention from the misdeeds of CRU and its allies.
But there is an element of conspiracy, as Lindzen said. How far it extends we will never find out until we face up squarely to the evidence we already have. And its limitations.
As for an example in history of an organisation that was both highly conspiratorial but also a major believer in conspiracy theories against itself, there's the Nazi Party. It's one of two prominent units I know of in the 20th century that was proud to call itself a conspiracy (the other being the Stasi). And of course its conspiracy theories about the influence of the Jews led to mass murder, disaster and infamy.
Before someone cites Godwin's Law to me I'm not equating the two groups in all particulars - Hockey Team and Nazi Party. But I would say this. I agree with George Will that the wider environmental movement, conspiratorial or not, will, if it succeeds in its aims, cause more preventable death and suffering than the Nazis and their like ever did. That's why I care so much. No oil money was required to make me.
" No oil money was required to make me.
March 17, 2010 | Richard Drake"
This reminds me of theose disclaimers in the credits of films which state that "No animals were harmed or mistreated in the production of this motion picture"
Maybe we sceptics should have something similar?
"No Big Oil money was accepted in the preparation of this post. I have/have not* bought a copy of Andrew Montford's Hockey Stick Illusion"
*Delete as appropriate.
We now have a psychological profile of your average greenie;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/7458105/Liars-cheats-thieves-the-terrible-truth-about-the-mean-greens.html
They have a tendency to lie, cheat and thieve more than your average person.
Why am I not surprised.
Very good.
Joking aside though, I'm sure we'd agree that as others have said sources of funding were always a red-herring, for two reasons: 1) big oil has put in far more to the 'other side' and 2) what matters is that the science is transparent in all respects and survives scrutiny on its own merits.
What was always shocking about the hockey stick illusion - even before the book - was the way perfectly reasonable questions from a self-funded Steve McIntyre led to such outrageous attempts not just to deny him data and code but to blacken his name, including by spurious association to 'fossil-fuel interests'. It's an interesting one, in that before Climategate one might suggest an element of conspiracy, based simply on such evil effects not typically arising at random, but, because of the biases in our culture, you'd be laughed off as a loony. After Climategate, as Richard Lindzen says, there was direct evidence of conspiracy. And what happens? Sceptics are mocked as conspiracist loonies all the more.
Of course, some do go beyond the evidence. But there's already enough evidence in the open - not where a real conspiracy wants it, as a rule - to mean that a great deal of caution is warranted by would-be mockers by now. How about starting like this: "I mocked you for saying that elements of AGW were a conspiracy but the evidence now shows that you were right, at least in one area, and I'm deeply sorry." Heard that one recently, from any of the media pundits or propagandists of doom? No, I didn't think so.
This is where the comparison with the Nazi party does stick: definite evidence of conspiracy combined with an almost Pavlovian response to criticism as evidence of a vast conspiracy against themselves. 'Vast conspiracy' was indeed what Stefan Rahmstorf accused Richard Lindzen of believing in, as part of a typically dodgy bit of work by establishment publishing to give their ally the upper hand in a debate through an unannounced final say after a debate at Yale in October 2005.
Again, it would be hard to parody this: behave exactly like a conspiracy, then mock the person most affected as a lunatic believer in conspiracy. Except of course Lindzen, much of whose family perished in the conspiracy we call the Holocaust, is much too wise to be put off by that kind of reversal of the truth:
No time now for what follows but, as ever, fair comment and prima facie evidence of a very well organised conspiracy indeed.
No Big Oil money was accepted in the preparation of this post.
PS The PDF of Richard Lindzen's response to Stefan Rahmstorf, released by Lindzen in March 2008, which repays careful study, is here
Applying certitude and meaning to loose and baseless coincidences is the basis of all conspiracy theories. And by that token AGW itself is a koo-koo conspiracy theory, compounded by the idea that well respected scientists engaging by-the-book scientific method are actually rogue double agents for big corporations. Even the idea that the oil industry itself has some secret movement to manipulate the truth is a factless proposition.
I'm over a decade into waiting for the Alarmists to propose a predictible and reproducible causal mechanism that is driving the alleged positive CO2 feeback, but it never comes. Even as they claim "science science science". To be sure THEIRS is the wackaloon conspiracy theory. You need look no further than their bumbling assclown leader, ManBearPig, the most legendary living pathological liar....
PaulZ, the pope is campaigning for anything and everything under the sun that distracts attention from the multiple counts of sexual molestation that have been charged against priests in HIS OWN BROTHER'S diocese.
There's a conspiracy theory for you...except that amazingly enough its actually verifiably true!
Picking up on the comment by E O'Connor above, I would like to discourage any notion that Tom Crowley's email to me was meant unkindly. Just the opposite. He saw the allegation rolling around an internet discussion and to his credit he took the initiative to check the facts. And apparently he was the only one who did so, as his was the only email I got, though I am told there were 50-60 people in on the discussion list. Once he had my reply he not only transmitted it to the discussion group, but followed up with me to let me know he was telling his colleagues to drop the subject (or words to that effect). So I am quite grateful for his intervention on my behalf, and I think it was very decent of him.
Ross, that is very heartening and clearly a good example for others to follow.
Ross McKitrick
Thank you for taking the time to post here to provide that clarification on Tom Crowley’s motives.
It didn’t make sense to me that if it was an attack, then to agree to make the letters public. You both have demonstrated integrity, a quality that is less than abundant in climate science and the debate.
Ross, your position on business funding science is logical and ethical. Most assertions on this topic seem to me to be a diversionary tactic to encourage noise over signal focus.
My personal thanks for the pivotal role you played by recognising merit in Steve McIntyre’s investigations and agreeing to the joint 'MM03' paper. It speaks volumes about your ethics and morality as an academic prepared to publish with a non-academic.
Richard Drake,
What I've found is it's a very useful tool to identify "key role players" and very carefully examine their doings in shaping opinion.
They act as Pied Pipers. People make the mistake of thinking that the person must be one of the the world's super elite in themselves. However I stress it's the "role" that is played that is the most illuminating
In this sense probably the principle Godfather of the AGW scam is Maurice Strong, a Canadian I'm ashamed to say.(I'm a Canuck)
(Thank God for McIntyre and McKitrick!! )
Strong's website is here
http://www.mauricestrong.net/
He refers to himself as the worlds leading environmentalist
Maurice Strong is the world’s leading environmentalist. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Rio Environmental Summit, he was the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Maurice Strong has played a unique and critical role is globalizing the environmental movement
http://www.mauricestrong.net/2008072115/strong-biography.html
Strong has often been referred to as a high-school dropout, but I saw an article recently where i think he said he did go back and finish high school.
To my knowledge high school was his highest level of formal education, but I'll certainly stand to be corrected.
Take a look at his honours page. I wonder how many people in modern times have been elected to the Royal Society, Royal Society of Canada etc whose formal education was limited to high school ?
Another very important Godfather of the AGW Scam is Crispin Tickell
His website is here.
http://www.crispintickell.com/
Crispin Tickell (Belief)
Now you come from an Anglo-Irish family. Your great, great grandfather was T H Huxley - Aldous Huxley was in your background too. Now this is a legacy of
seriously thoughtful, intellectual address, isn't it?
Well T H Huxley was in many respects one of my heroes. Aldous was as well. In
fact I think if anybody had any influence on me during my adolescence, it was
Aldous Huxley
http://www.crispintickell.com/page65.html
I wonder why "Brave New Climate" comes to mind?
According to Tickell's Wikipedia page, as warden of Green College he appointed Monbiot to a fellowship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Tickell
I'd say in effect Monbiot's AGW "mentor" was Tickell .
I saw a recent article by Nigel Lawson that I believe said Tickell read history at university. I guess that makes him a science expert (yes I'm being facetious), or perhaps it's genetic since he's descended from "scientific royalty", the Huxley clan. :(
I have to say Monbiot lacks credibility (certainly with me) about throwing Phil Jones under the bus and claiming innocence, when in effect Monbiot was "mentored" by one of the principle Godfathers of the scam.
I think Goebbels would recognise George M as very clever practitioner of the same craft guild.
You'll want to do your own digging
cheers
brent
ANALYSIS
HOW DID I GET TO BE SO GREEN AND BLUE?
Where did her apparent conviction come from? Partly from Sir Crispin Tickell,
then the British Ambassador to the UN
http://tinyurl.com/3aleak
Global Warming: How It All Began
Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. (This is probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue; i.e. Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry)
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Peter Foster: Let the climate debate begin
Mr. Monbiot seeks thus to bury with ridicule the greatest issue of all: How and why did virtually every government on earth buy into what might turn out to be bogus science and potentially disastrous policy? How was a manifestly biased IPCC process able to sell the line — along with its co-Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore — that the science was “settled.” What was the UN-based system’s role in promoting radical environmental NGOs and allowing them into the policy process? How did NGOs manage to scare the public, and threaten and co-opt Big Business? What was the role of government bureaucracies in pushing obviously self-interested plans to erect massive new programmes to control the weather and dictate industrial activity? How were the vast majority of democratic politicians sucked into this blatantly ideological process without issuing so much as a peep of dissent?
http://tinyurl.com/ylf29de
Peter Foster: Chairman Mo’s little red website
http://tinyurl.com/ye3dxhr
Brent, once again, thank you for a fascinating collection. The interaction between John Gummer and Margaret Thatcher in 1988 is a treat. I have a hunch that Thatcher would have been very aware of Mr Strong and his position in UNEP since 1972. She also tells an amusing story of experiencing an earthquake in Mexico with Crispin Tickell, then the ambassador there, early in her premiership. I don't think we often know enough about what goes on at such levels.
In the end there wouldn't have been such a deceitful propaganda campaign about AGW (as Thatcher makes clear she thinks it is in her last book, Statecraft) if it didn't matter what us ordinary folk believe. And that is changing, very radically. It's nice to think how that makes those responsible feel. But we don't need all the names and telephone numbers. Public opinion will defeat them, whoever and wherever they may be. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look intelligently though and I think you're on the right track!