Only because you and I will never know. Sure the zealots who hate any idea of climate change action and just coincidentally, will hear nothing said against fossil fuels (and I never understand that confluence of opinion) will not change their minds. But can you also guarantee me that all readers of that mindset?

Most normal people are sensible enough to know that the great benefits of fossil fuel use are offset somewhat by the costs. I've listed the costs before and wont again. People here have the odd ability, specific to you and other sites preoccupied by avoiding any action on climate change, not to be able to recognise these costs. Sensible people conclude that because these two characteristics would not normally coincide, the one is strongly related to the other and that any claimed skepticism is in fact "skepticism" - i.e. not real.

It turns out to be quite easy to get blocked by Euan Mearns site. All one need do is suggest that there is no difference between the climate science advice Ed Davey could expect from GWPF and that from oil and gas companies (http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-50-2/#comment-5617). This will cause Euan to demand evidence, as if any were needed, for this "VERY SERIOUS allegation".

Euan is clearly on good terms with Benny Peisser, good enough for BP to reveal his sources of funding anyway. Or maybe not that good, just good enough for BP to reassure him about its funding, and that should be good enough for anyone. And so Euan wants there to be no doubt that GWPF gets no funding from oil or gas (maybe he'd be happy with coal?). So that is clear, GWPF receives absolutely no funding from oil or gas. None at all, not even a hint of it.

All one needs to do is post noisy nothings:
//
Euan Mearns says:
December 19, 2014 at 12:12 am

"Raff, your comments as far as I can tell add nothing to the aggregate knowledge of this blog but they sure do add a lot of noise. Good night and farewell. Go join the others wailing about nothing in the wilderness."
//

raff,
The interesting tact you take in claiming that skeptics are "preoccupied by avoiding any action on climate change" raises some questions.
Please more clearly define your terms for this. You might be on to something.
Which climate change are we avoiding action on?
And do please define "any action".

If the evidence is good then it doesn't matter if it comes from God, the Devil or Exxon. If it's bad it doesn't matter if it comes from God, the Devil of Greenpeace. Insinuating people think the way they do because somebody is buying their opinion is highly insulting. If you get shown the door because you've been insulting, you can't gripe.

If the evidence is good then it doesn't matter ...

True, TinyCO2. So why when I draw attention to the correlation of views between GWPF and big oil should anyone need to claim that I'm insinuation a funding link? Just point out how valid their common views are. Unless you think there really is a link, in which case you might want to defend GWPF because of how damaging it would be for such a link to become known. Not that I'm saying there is a link - I think the alacrity with which Euan responded says enough.

not banned yet: the thing is I have kept my posts to a few per thread for the last few weeks (after Euan asked me to) - a much lower posting rate than skeptics are allowed. The reason Euan thinks my posts don't add value seems to be that I disagree with him. If I had instead said stupid things against CO2 as a greenhouse gas or against climate science, as various other posters do, I'm sure I'd have been "adding value". Such comments draw no censure.

How do you know what the views are of organisations that don't publish them? Or how many views of Euan match them. People and organisations hold a great many views, some match some don't. Even within an organisation, employees hold differing views. It's not a crime to work or have worked or have friends in such businesses.

What most engineering people tend not to have is an almost childlike hysteria about fossil fuels. It's silly to pretend we don't need them and while they're dirty they have aided human endeavour as nothing else has. You don't have to have a single direct financial interest in energy of any sort to want to maintain a reliable supply unless change is absolutely necessary. You don't have to have connections in fuelled vehicles to find electric cars not fit for purpose.

You can't accuse everyone who wants to heat their home or travel affordably or live in a viable economy of nefarious intent. It's just life. The warmist habit of trying to make those things somehow greedy, is a very ugly habit. It's the modern equivalent of the Bible bashers of old who tried to make everything a sin. The Greens have a very long list of things they don't want us to have and won't even compromise, to which I say f*** you! For that view I get not a single penny from fossil fuel companies, the payment is all the other way.

Well said RKS. Ego as big as a planet, why feed it.