The Log in the Eye of Greenpeace

Source: SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

As Greenpeace publishes yet another attack on a reputable scientist, (Dr Willie Soon), who happens to disagree with the IPCC, they again ignore the massive funding going into the “green” movement, from corporations including “big oil”, foundations and governments.

Their constant attacks on the integrity of  genuine scientists are classic diversionary tactics to avoid close examination of the millions of dollars going into the Global Warming project. A commentary by David and Amy Ridenour in the Washington Times of June 14th last year, showed the major extent of funding to environmental groups by BP, who were being attacked by those same groups over the oil spill in the Gulf.

BP was also a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, (not the same as the Climate Action Network) contributing substantial funding to the climate-change-related lobbying efforts of the environmental groups within it, which include the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute.

The new “climate friendly” BP was first promoted by BP CEO, Lord John Browne in 1997, (then Sir John Browne), now on the Climate Change Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank along with Dr Pachauri of the IPCC and Professor John Schellnhuber of the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

A report in the Washington Examiner, entitled “Working for Big Green can be a very enriching experience” by Mark Tapscott, showed that the leaders of 15 top Big Green environmental groups are paid more than $300,000 in annual compensation, with a half million dollar plus figure for the top “earner”.

He mentions that Environmental Defense Fund President Frederic Krupp, receives total compensation of $496,174, including $446,072 in salary and $50,102 in other compensation.

Close behind Krupp among Big Green environmental movement executives is World Wildlife Fund- US President Carter Roberts, who was paid $486,394, including a salary of $439,327 and other compensation of $47,067.

Krupp and Roberts are particularly interesting because EDF and WWF-US both receive funding from the Grantham Foundation and both are on the joint management board of Jeremy Grantham’s climate institutes at the London School of Economics, (LSE), and Imperial College, London.

Jeremy Grantham is the chairman and co-founder of GMO, a $140 billion global investment management company based in Boston with offices in London, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich.

His first excursion into climate funding in the UK was “The Grantham Institute for Climate Changeset up with £12 million, (~$19million) at Imperial College, London in 2007. The chairman of the LSE Grantham Institute, Lord Stern of the infamous Stern Review, is heavily involved in carbon trading via carbon ratings agency, Idea Carbon. He joined IdeaGlobal, the parent company in 2007, as Vice Chairman. He also advises HSBC on carbon trading.

Environmental Defense boast on their website of their influence on policy in Washington and how they get around the law on lobbying caps: http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=8943

“EDF has long been a powerful voice in Washington, and when the need began to exceed the $1 million annual cap on our lobbying established by tax law, we created a sister group, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, which is free of spending limits. This has enabled us to ratchet up our legislative efforts, particularly on climate, and to advocate strong environmental laws even as the stakes increase.”

A BBC investigation in 2007 by reporter Simon Cox found that the European Commission is giving millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to environmental campaigners to run lobbying operations in Brussels. Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE), received almost half of its funding from the EU in 2007.

Greenpeace also don’t mention the money that the EPA gives to NGO’s, for example National Resources Defense Council are currently in receipt of a grant of $1,150,123, (XA – 83379901-2) for promoting carbon trading.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) has received $3,879,014 from the EPA in the last nine years for propaganda projects and promotion of emissions trading schemes, $715,000 in the current period 2011/12. If the EPA really were interested in science, they would be funding the genuine research undertaken by people like Dr Soon, rather than policy promotion for their own agenda.

Members of the board of WRI, are Al Gore and Theodore Roosevelt IV. Mr Roosevelt is the chairman of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. and is the former chairman of the ill-fated Lehman Brothers’ Global Council on Climate Change and a board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection, whose chairman is Al Gore. The 2008 income for Gore’s “Alliance” was over $88 million.

Greenpeace really should be very careful when they seek to muddy the waters on climate science by discrediting opposing scientists, they may well find that the water is full of dirty green linen.

See also SPPI paper by Joanne Nova: Climate Money

and Donna LaFramboise, BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot , the text of which follows here:

*****************

BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot

In what passes for debate about climate change one of the most tiresome allegations is that skeptics are lavishly funded by big oil. As a result of this funding, so the argument goes, the public has been confused by those who’ll say anything in exchange for a paycheck.

“Follow the money” we’re told and you’ll discover that climate skeptics are irredeemably tainted. Ergo nothing they say can be trusted. Ergo their concerns, questions, and objections should be dismissed out of hand.

It’s therefore amusing that the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is now drawing attention to the close relationship between climate change activists and BPaka British Petroleum, an entity for which the descriptor “big oil” was surely invented.

According to the Washington Post the green group Nature Conservancy – which encourages ordinary citizens to personally pledge to fight climate change – “has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.”

Gee, didn’t Greenpeace build an entire ExxonSecrets website to expose the allegedly diabolical fact that, over a 9-year-period (1998-2006) ExxonMobil donated a grand total of $2.2 million to a conservative think tank?

$10 million versus $2 million. Who do we suppose has the cozier relationship with big oil?

But that’s just the beginning. The Washington Post also points out that Conservation International, another green group which insists climate change represents a “profound threat,” has “accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years and partnered with the company on a number of projects.”

Funny, Greenpeace doesn’t talk about that. Nor does it mention:

  • that BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years
  • that BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”
  • that ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”

The only dollar amounts Greenpeace cites in its explanation of why it decided to launch ExxonSecrets is that measly $2.2 million. Versus 10 + 2 + 30 + 500 + 100. Let’s see, which all adds up to…wait for it…$642 million.

If the world is divided into two factions – one that believes climate change is a serious problem and another that thinks human influence on the climate is so minimal it’s indistinguishable from background noise – one group has pulled off a bank heist while the other has been panhandling in front of the liquor store.

In the same document in which Greenpeace talks about the ExxonMobil money it chillingly asserts that climate “deniers” aren’t entitled to free speech. Why? Because “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.”

Actually, the big thinkers on the subject have consistently taken the opposite view. John Stuart Mill was adamant that no one has the right to decide what is or is not propaganda on everyone else’s behalf. He would have looked Greenpeace in the eye and told it to stop imagining that its own judgment is infallible.

More than a hundred years later Noam Chomsky famously declared that if you don’t believe in freedom of expression for opinions you despise you don’t believe in it at all.

If Greenpeace would like to have a serious conversation about who, exactly, is spreading misinformation I’m up for that – since it’s overwhelming obvious that the big oil jackpot was awarded to those on the Greenpeace side of the debate.

The fact that climate change activists have enjoyed such a powerful funding advantage and yet insisted all the while that the exact opposite was the case is troubling. It tells us a good deal about their intellectual rigour. About their character. And about their ability to distinguish fact from fiction.

If there really is a climate crisis, if our grandchildren’s future really is imperiled, these aren’t the people to lead us out of the wilderness.

 

UPDATE (June 6): Reader Terry Kesteloot alerted me to the fact that the Greenpeace.org website is apparently infected with a “very low” risk computer virus. The links in this post to Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets FAQ have therefore been replaced with links to a copy of the document that resides at Archive.org (scroll down once the page loads).

If your machine has virus protection, the document may be viewed directly on the Greenpeace website HERE.

..

>> Slurs, smears & money
>> Independent bloggers vs corporate environmentalists
>> Money to burn
>> Shielding climate orthodoxy from free speech

104 thoughts on “The Log in the Eye of Greenpeace

  1. Whenever I travel to Brussels, capital of the EU, by train or airplane, I am impressed by the number of posters put up by the likes of Exxon, BP and Shell, telling the Eurocrats what a good job they are doing on GREEN ENERGY and how more EU taxpayer money shoud be directed to them so they can carry on the fight for a greener future.

    Big business in the EU LOVES green. Green equals more taxes, and more taxes means more money spent on EU big business that they don’t have to fight the Chinese for, so that means big profits.

  2. What say we get an opinion poll going: “How fast do you think sea level is rising?”

    I just got three answers ranging from .5cm to 1 ft per year. Then send the results to the press and see what happens (almost nothing?). Or has this been done? –AGF

  3. Not to mention the money that the Suzuki Foundation receives from other Foundations and Trusts, mostly out of the US. I am sure an interesting tree of connections could be made if the donors to the various trusts and foundations were identified. It gets murkier and murkier and very political.

    Here is an article from the Toronto Sun. It may be off base and totally wrong, but boy it makes you think a little and wonder what is sitting below the surface. Where is the rest of the iceberg.

    http://m.torontosun.com/2011/06/17/saudis-have-west-over-a-barrel

    PS Not aimed at Saudis in particular, but just to say the Environmental movement funding is complex.

  4. That virus on the Greenpeace website is likely tracking and ID software. Just the type of thing these paranoids do.

  5. In other words, once again Anthony’s line of argumentation amounts to “But, mommy, mommy, they did it fiiiiiirrrrrsssttt.”

    How does Greenpeace’s funding alter where Soon get’s his funds? Tribalism begets tribalism, Anthony.

    =========================================================================
    REPLY: My goodness how juvenile. Do all people from UPenn act this way?

    Point of order: before launching juvenile attacks, at least learn to read the header and launch the attack against the correct person.

    In saying “once again Anthony’s line of argumentation amounts to …” he fails to notice the most basic and important point:

    by Dennis Ambler

    Please be cognizant of who you wish to insult before engaging your rant. – Anthony

  6. How intellectually bankbrupt for Greenpeace to presume Dr. Soon is a “pawn” of “Big Oil” when they are much more in that pocket than any one else. And do they say which one of his works are tainted, inaccurate, etc. by this? Nope!

  7. Greenpeace and the rest of Big Environment are just like Captain Renault shutting down Ric’s cafe in Casablanca because of gambling.

    Greenpeace: “I’m shocked, SHOCKED!, that they received money from Big Oil.”
    Courier: “Your donation from Exxon is here.”
    Greenpeace: “Thank you very much.”

  8. Gotta admit, though, that Soon did get a lot of money over recent years.

    ‘Boo-hoo the enviros get money too’ is a rather weak argument to counter a concealed conflict of interest of that magnitude.

  9. Excellent article. Information I will store and use for years to come. Here in Canada we’re also familiar with the Pembina Institute funded by Suncor Oil Sands.

    The green movement wants to move North America’s economy away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy production and consumption, a model that coincides with what “president-elect [Barack] Obama has put forward.”

    The Rockefeller Fund said it gave Corporate Ethics International a US$200,000 grant in July.

    In a statement, Corporate Ethics said the money would be used “to stem demand for tar sands-derived fuels in the United States by building awareness of the growing amount of dirty tar sands fuels entering the United States from Alberta, Canada, and encouraging consumers, including companies and cities, to commit to avoiding use of these fuels.”

    Rockefeller Fund manages about US$1-billion for descendants of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil Co., predecessor of U. S. oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips, all of which are oil-sands developers.

    Other major endowments supporting anti-oil sands causes include the US$6-billion Pew Charitable Trusts, a legacy of J. Howard Pew, founder of a company that eventually became oil-sands pioneer Suncor Energy Inc., and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a legacy of the co-founder of computer giant Hewlett Packard with assets of more than US$7-billion.

    And that is only the tip of the iceberg of the Green groups interrelated throughout the western world. Nevertheless, it seems to me President Obama and his administration is the ring leader of this group of hypocrites and fools.

  10. “Greenpeace.org website is apparently infected with a “very low” risk computer virus.”
    This virus must be afforded all possible protection in its current habitat. The sensitive eco-system supporting the virus must be carefully and responsibly managed as we would hate to have another species extinction on our conscience as a result of any human interaction. Please support my bid for funding to study this delicate virus and its effects on the fragile environment.

  11. Other than the fact that greenpeace SHOULD be classified as a terror organization, nothing better defines the phrase “follow the money”.

  12. Maybe I’m reading this wrong but my interpretation is, they (env groups) are being funded by the very people they are complaining about. If so, it’s a good thing for the env. groups that those who grant the funds have thick skins. Otherwise, the env. groups might have to pan handle rather than rob a bank…

  13. “one group has pulled off a bank heist while the other has been panhandling in front of the liquor store”

    More like one used “normally accepted accounting practices” wink wink, and the other was caught DWNG (driving while not green) in an exclusivly progressive neighborhood (deserving of a hardcore beat down while “resisting authority” at a minimum).

  14. Finally!!!!! Someone else has finally noticed!!!

    Let’s not forget, Shell still remains as a member of http://www.us-cap.org/ Check out the other environmental organizations in bed with the corporations of the worlds. Huge mining outfits, energy companies, oil companies and more. The myth that big oil is funding skepticism is simply more of the same projection alarmists use. Big oil funds the warmistas, along with other major corporations of the world.

    Berkeley and Chu lapping up the $500 mil like a dog would from a grateful master.

  15. God I hate those people, and I told them about six months ago there was a virus on their crappy site lmao

  16. The green movement is going away. Target just had a union vote in New England vote against unions. Walmart is shifting away from green marketing saturation. Just 1 week ago, a top engineer working on walmart stores let GE know they were into saving money and scaling back on the green bandwagon. In the next hot summer and frigid winter, there will be a lot of lashing out about energy price inflation and people will demand economical energy and not PCGreen dragon energy.

  17. Contrary to what most people thing, Big Oil is pushing CO2 taxes and cap and trade for 2 reasons:

    1. To price coal out of the market. Currently coal is the lowest cost fuel source, with the highest amount of CO2. By adding CO2 taxes to fuel, oil beocomes cheaper than coal, and major oil companies become big winners.

    2, To pay oil companies to pump CO2 into the ground. Oil companies use CO2 to extract oil from older oil fields. They pump CO2 into the ground which costs them money. By forcing power companies to install carbon capture technology, oil compnies can then get paid to pump this CO2 into the ground increasing profitability.

    This has nothing to do with the environment from the point of view of oil companies. There are simply using environmental regulations to eliminate competition and pass along costs to the consumer. Like a wolf in sheeps clothing, they are dressing themselves in “environmentally friendly” disguise to hide their true intentions. To lead the sheep (consumers) to the slaughter.

  18. All the braying and hollering and impugning and finger-pointing and scolding and bluster and self-righteous hooey is a sure sign that the whole thing is groaning under the strain of untruth, and will rupture catastrophically one of these days. What a pack of lies these groups have wrought.

  19. Prize winning physicist, Energy Czar Chu says BP will help save the world.

    Of course they donated money to the University.

    If you give people money, they will say good things about you. (that is scientifically proven principle in psychology)

  20. I have long been puzzled by the view that the oil industry and the environmental movement are adversaries. The oil industry has a vested interest in the partial success of the environmental movement. If the oil companies conspired together to force prices up by limiting production, they would quickly find themselves in court on antitrust charges. So instead, they happily give a few hundred million dollars to the environmentalists, the greens lobby the government to limit production and force prices up, and everybody gets what they want. The greens can feel good for “saving the planet”, the politicians get more power, and the oil companies rake in their billions. Only the consumer is left out.

  21. Money for environmental advocacy = Greenpeace = failing miserably despite the millions shovelled their way [pathetic], what a damnable waste of resources: promulgating a scandalous lie [AGW].
    And in failure, all that’s left [for Greenpeace et al] is character assassination of good men, what a bunch of misanthropes they all are, their venal tactics betray and diminish the whole of mankind.

  22. “In the same document in which Greenpeace talks about the ExxonMobil money it chillingly asserts that climate “deniers” aren’t entitled to free speech. Why? Because “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.””

    Well, i guess we all know that they follow the old adage of accusing the enemy of your own biggest crime here. The first time i noticed they’re liars was when they exaggerated the tonnage of oil in the Brent Spar by a factor of 100. So they’ve been lying for decades now.

    The call for a boycot of Shell stations in Germany led one Greenpeace follower to attack a gas station with a gun; shots were fired. So they have some mentally unstable whackjobs amongst their followers; i became pretty suspicious of all peace loving hippie mass movements at that time. Still don’t trust them.

  23. So when Mike “Hokey Schtick” Mann talks about shills for big oil, he was really talking about Greenpeace, and not the people who question his research who DON’T actually get money from big oil. I understand now.

  24. Let me try to summarize:

    Illegal CRU-Hack was a good thing, because everyone should know I often read here.
    It seems to be important to know who funded environmental movements.
    But it seems not to be ok to know, who funded Willie Soon, although the fundings were revealed by a legal FOIA request.
    As a interested reader I always appreciate to know all facts. And it’s a fact, that Willie Soon got about 1.2m $ from fossil fuel industry in a decade. I think all readers are able to draw conclusions by their own, there’s no need to protect us from some facts.

  25. This is very valuable information. I hope that Mr. Ambler can be persuaded to keep us updated and maybe do more in-depth posts.

  26. Long ago, when the true deep “red” of Greenpeace’s new Democrat Underground leadership became clear, this Apache was asked to leave Greenpeace notwithstanding my life membership.
    They made it real clear in the parking lot after some of U.S. spoke up.

    It is a large mote with a mean dangerous red streek down its back.

  27. Grantham means well, but he could not tell a lepton from a leprechaun. I worked for his firm for a while. He is not evil, just stupid when it comes to science.

  28. Shoveling money at Greenpeace is good business. It keeps ‘em from invading your refineries. Better have ‘em chasing Japanese whaling boats.

  29. Joshua says:
    June 29, 2011 at 9:25 am
    In other words, once again Anthony’s line of argumentation amounts to “But, mommy, mommy, they did it fiiiiiirrrrrsssttt.”

    Hmm, funny, my read on the article was that if you’re going to criticize your opponent’s funding sources, you should make sure you’re not taking the same kind of “dirty” money or you’re just making yourself look bad.

    Further, as pointed out in the article, two of the biggest enviro-groups receive money with links to carbon trading, which obviously benefits from the CAGW theory. The implications of a conflict of interest are fairly blatant there, but of course we’re supposed to believe that these organizations couldn’t possibly be in it for the money (despite the mid-six-figure salaries of the presidents of these groups) because they’re “charities”.

    So, to sum up, if you’re an “evil denier”, you need to make sure your money is clean as a whistle, but if you’re a “charity”, it’s okay that your money quite possibly comes with strings a mile long attached. Glad we cleared that up!

  30. Capo ,
    1.2 million over a decade is a drop in the bucket compared to the figures shown above . In other words , so what ? That the oil companies play both sides of the street should come as no suprise . The disproportionate amount they give to the greens should .

  31. Capo says:
    June 29, 2011 at 11:05 am

    Let me try to summarize:

    Illegal CRU-Hack was a good thing, because everyone should know I often read here.
    It seems to be important to know who funded environmental movements.
    But it seems not to be ok to know, who funded Willie Soon, although the fundings were revealed by a legal FOIA request.
    As a interested reader I always appreciate to know all facts. And it’s a fact, that Willie Soon got about 1.2m $ from fossil fuel industry in a decade. I think all readers are able to draw conclusions by their own, there’s no need to protect us from some facts.
    ===============================================================
    lol, almost sis.

    I don’t care who funded Soon I don’t deem funding sources proxies for validity. Irrational whack jobs do, but that’s only because they lack the ability to discern for themselves whether the science is valid or not.

    If oil industry funding of Soon taints his work, what does it mean about the oil funded green work?

    Seeing that you errantly summarized the post, let me help you with this. The funding meme is over. The post is about the consistent unrepentant blatant hypocrisy constantly displayed by the warmistas. (I thought most would recognize that by the scripture invoked,…. but morality is sooo passe for some these days.)

    BTW, you have absolutely no proof there was an illegal hack done at the CRU. But, thanks for displaying the type of behavior which has become so typical of alarmists, but we have enough poster-girls and poster-boys for the amoral watermelons.

    Thanks again,

    James

  32. The argument being put out be Greenpeace is that Willie Soon took money from the fossil fuel industry, therefore he is putting out research to say what the fossil fuel industry want him to say.

    The knee jerk response the reader is supposed to feel, is that Dr Soon’s research is anti AGW propaganda. But as every astute reader should know, the fossil fuel industry also funds the AGW movement (and to a much larger extent). Are the AGW people therefore also putting out propaganda for the fossil fuel industry? Why would they fund one group to put out an anti AGW message and the other to put out a pro AGW message? The argument is so self contradictory that one wonders how Greenpeace thought they would get away with it.

  33. pochas says:
    June 29, 2011 at 11:47 am
    Shoveling money at Greenpeace is good business. It keeps ‘em from invading your refineries.

    No, that is called greenmail (blackmail but above board).

  34. Henry chance says:
    June 29, 2011 at 10:51 am

    If you give people money, they will say good things about you. (that is scientifically proven principle in psychology)

    If there is one thing I have learned since getting involved in the Climate Change “discussion”, it is never to make an assertion without being able to back it up with solid evidence. So, what is your evidence for the above assertion (that it is scientifically proven that giving people money means they will say good things about you.) References to the appropriatre peer reviewed science will be sufficient.

    Oh, and by the way, it doesn’t appear to work with Greenpeace, who have been given shed-loads of money by Big Oil but they keep on badmouthing them.

  35. Capo says:

    June 29, 2011 at 11:05 am

    “Let me try to summarize:

    Illegal CRU-Hack was a good thing, because everyone should know I often read here.
    It seems to be important to know who funded environmental movements.
    But it seems not to be ok to know, who funded Willie Soon, although the fundings were revealed by a legal FOIA request.
    As a interested reader I always appreciate to know all facts. And it’s a fact, that Willie Soon got about 1.2m $ from fossil fuel industry in a decade. I think all readers are able to draw conclusions by their own, there’s no need to protect us from some facts.”

    But, Mommy, he does it too!!

  36. Really? Some of you think $1.2M per decade is a lot of money? That’s what I make… except we don’t call it a “grant”, it’s a “salary” and also comes with a health plan and dental. And I can assure you, for that kind of money, my employer doesn’t own me or my opinions.

  37. “If Greenpeace would like to have a serious conversation about who, exactly, is spreading misinformation I’m up for that – since it’s overwhelming obvious that the big oil jackpot was awarded to those on the Greenpeace side of the debate.”

    And that’s the conundrum of all “climate” NGOs.

    It used to be that hippies had to work long hours, put in their own cash by the numbers, to get to a position of leadership. But it all changed in the 90’s. Don’t know which organization was first but I know NGOs in my country points WWF. Instead they took on hard core financial geniuses, not proper capitalists mind you, but from the plain greedy ranks, who, of course, started to lead with a top down hierarchy thereby scrapping the grassroots democracy.

    They literally took on the same people they were fighting, or their friends and what not, so of course they today, even in official capacity, claim it is better to work with the “bad guys” rather than fighting them.

    But who is more greedy? The greedy bastards, and their friends, who now effectively rule the NGOs from the inside (although, like I said the NGO zealots claim it’s the other way around) or the dumb grassroots hippies who brought them in just to up the money flow in the first place.

    Even a few years ago it took one million people donating $6 per person to cover the salary and expenses for the head of WWF international and that was about one million dollars more than what WWF international “donated” to the poor polar bears (which major cost, apparently, was helicopter fuel and rent.)

    People think UN is a black money hole, but it is nothing compared to the “major” NGOs money sinks.

    People who for what ever reason feel bad, can be made to feel worse, and therefor want to donate to feel a little better, which is why they don’t question where their money goes (because they do not want to feel bad again.) It’s really become that simple and sad and evil.

  38. coeruleus says:
    June 29, 2011 at 9:38 am
    Gotta admit, though, that GREENPEACE did get a lot of money over recent years.

    ‘Boo-hoo SOON gOt money too’ is a rather weak argument to counter a concealed conflict of interest of that magnitude.

    FIFY

  39. coeruleus says:
    June 29, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Gotta admit, though, that Soon did get a lot of money over recent years.

    ‘Boo-hoo the enviros get money too’ is a rather weak argument to counter a concealed conflict of interest of that magnitude.
    ==========================================================
    lol, is a goose and gander discussion.

    Why do you people believe the funding is a proxy for valid vs invalid? Either the science is correct or not. It has nothing to do with funding. What kind of nut job thinks that only oil money causes a bias? Here’s a revelation for everyone that doesn’t understand this, Wealth, or the prospect of wealth, is a temptation towards corruption regardless of the source.

    It really isn’t that hard to understand. Now, run along and go find me some science done without funding. Then you’ll see unbiased work. It won’t necessarily be correct, but it won’t be tainted by money.

  40. If oil funded automatically invalidates research, they better start by scraping CRU work given the amount of money they taken form ‘fossil fuel companies, OK that is perhaps not the best example becasue both sides would agree with that idea.
    But if the source of funded is enough reason to reject research, regardless of the quality and validity of the research, there is an awful lot of research they have to reject on their own side . But you know I have I feeling that would ‘different ‘

  41. REPLY: My goodness how juvenile. Do all people from UPenn act this way?

    Well. There’s an interesting turn of logic. You’d suggest characterizing some tens of thousand of people based on the email address of one commenter? Is this is the kind of logic the grounds the WUWT tribe? Hopefully not. I’d prefer to believe that you’re the exception.

    Allow me to explain in somewhat more detail. When I was a child, my parents explained to me that crying “but….but…. they did it first (or they did it too),” was no excuse for my own poor behavior.

    Anthony reads of a potential conflict of interest in Soon’s science, and his response is too instead suggest that the work of others is tainted by dint of where they get their funding? That was the kind of behavior my parents taught me to stop engaging in.

    If Anthony’s outrage is based on the opinion that the origin of a scientist’s funding is not sufficient to cast doubts on his/her work – then I would agree with him. But if he felt that way, then one would think he’d address the tens of posts in virtually every thread in the history of WUWT that cast aspersions on the work of thousands of climate scientists by dint of their funding source (that evil of all evils known as “the government”).

    On the other hand, if Anthony’s concerned about the potential conflict of interest among “consensus scientists” by dint of their funding sources, then he should apply the same concerns to Soon’s work, and only after his work receives the highest of scrutiny, should he deem it above criticism based on his funding sources.

    No matter how you slice it – Anthony’s post is based on a juvenile, and tribal, approach – and unfortunately, such an attitude predominates on both side in the climate debate. That isn’t a generalization based on a limited sample. It’s a description of what happens.

    A pox on both your houses.

    REPLY: And once again, Joshua can’t read the author line. Bizarre. – Anthony

  42. Finally you got round to covering this. With normal posts and hat tips I must have raised this issue at least a dozen times only to be ignored.

    I am a nobody so go ahead and ignore me but here is a blog that nobody who frequents this site should ignore

    http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/

    It points to NOT ONLY funding of Green activist organizations but it describes how money is laundered through third party “shell” companies. It also suggest that elections in Canada are possibly being manipulated by American Corporate Wealth funds in order to limit competition from Canadin

  43. Please be cognizant of who you wish to insult before engaging your rant. – Anthony

    Please explain.

    REPLY: Are you blind or just some kid out of high school without a clue? Look at the author name. and you are making the words as if I wrote them. By your logoc then shall all press releases carried here become my words? – Anthony

  44. James Sexton says:
    June 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm
    Why do you people believe the funding is a proxy for valid vs invalid? Either the science is correct or not. It has nothing to do with funding. What kind of nut job thinks that only oil money causes a bias?

    It actually has to do with the “shoot the messenger” syndrome. When dictators get bad news that they are powerless to do anything about, they tend to shoot the messenger (try to discredit the person instead of the facts). It really has nothing to do with the truth, but they think they can deny the truth if it does not come from someone they approve of – which is only people that would never speak the truth.

  45. Big Oil, as I posted elsewhere, knows it can’t lose. Renewables, despite the hokey distorted figures tossed about and legislated by proponents and promoters, haven’t a snowball’s of meeting demand. Even nuclear has huge lead times and a narrow bandwidth compared to fossil fuels. So when the sh**mobile hits the wall, fossil fuels will be used, or the world will starve. Big Oil is betting the world will eventually acknowledge it prefers Option A.

    Meanwhile, the protection money it pays the Greenistas gives it implicit cover, and also a humongous hammer. Imagine the consequences if all that funding ended tomorrow.

  46. Distraction, its right up there along with Character Assasination as part of the Greenpeace persausion portfolio.
    They might win battles for hearts in the short term but they’re never going to impress anyone with half a brain with Distraction and Ad Hom

  47. By your logoc then shall all press releases carried here become my words?

    By my logic, Anthony, often when you post something written by others, you editorialize to make your perspective clear. Sometimes when you don’t agree with the content of something you post written by someone else, you use a title (usually sarcastically) to make your perspective clear. Infrequently, I suppose, you post a “pro-AGW” article without editorial comment – but no one doubts where you stand vis-a-vis the perspective of the article, and the majority of comments in the thread show that non one questions where you stand.

    If you want to slink away and claim that you weren’t giving your tacit stamp of approval to the perspective of this post – go ahead and do so. It’s your blog and no one will prevent you from posting a comment where you spell out your disagreement – with the article itself and/or the majority of the comments in reaction.

    Or, you could just keep insulting me. That is a very instructive response to my discussion of your juvenile approach to debate. Maybe you can follow it up with some comments about my “lack of courage” because I don’t post under my full name?

    REPLY: Oh puhleeze…maybe you can just admit you are wrong and move on? That would be the right thing to do, but I doubt you will. – Either way it doesn’t matter because your opinion is of no consequence – Anthony

  48. There’s another strange thing about Willie Soon:
    In May 26, 2011 Sonn writes an op-ed in The Wall Street Jounal titled “The Myth of Killer Mercury”. He claims that mercury emissions of coal plants are not harmful. So he is not only a contrarian of the AGW consensus, but also of the world health organisation (WHO).
    Did the article above mention Soon being funded of coal industry, too?

    It’s correct, the crucial point isn’t funding, but the quality of Soon’s papers.
    Soon, Balieras 2003 was proven wrong at a time, nobody knew about his fundings. But maybe the paper wasn’t aimed to win a nobel prize, who knows. Did he publish a peer-reviewed paper since then?

  49. I think the US should seriously consider following New Zealand’s policy regarding Greenpeace. They have revoked Greenpeace’s charitable status which I assume means Greenpeace will now have to pay taxes and donations are no longer tax deductible.

    source:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/09/greenpeace-loses-charity-status-in-new-zealand/

    Also, the EPA should not be using tax dollars for WRI propaganda. Congress needs to investigate departments that are making contributions to NGOs and put a stop to it.

  50. “Finally you got round to covering this”

    It’s not really good for part of his audience, and he is more science that politics, but I too would like to see more. But a lot of posters are rightists of the corporate fetish sorts. The kinds to which “cap and trade” must be dumbed down to “cap and tax” in order to elicit critical thinking. The sorts who are Republicans who when they see all the banks’ money going to Democrats do not think “these banks are corrupting the system” but rather mumble in stunned disbelief “how come these guys are not giving all their money to Republicans?” They are political squares. Look how many talk about the actual content of the article on this thread. At least prissy “Joshua” and “FairPlay” are hip enough to try to mess up the argument with tu quoque spam. But look how many don’t get it.

    I’ve seen it many times, a lot of the rightists just get glassy eyed when they confront the fact that sainted businesses are not on their side! Maybe they read the Ayn Rand novels, and believed them. I hope Anthony has more articles on the money of AGW. I also would like to see stories on Government (and other) money going to journalists and bloggers to “promote” carbon trading. I think the money to EDF mentioned here might be illegal, used in a non-education purpose. I believe most environmental securitization schemes promoted in the government (fishing rights, etc.) have an EDF alumnus behind them. Europe Greenpeace and WWF are practically arms of the UKGov. Corporate leftists some call them.

  51. @Joshua:
    June 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    On the other hand, if Joshua is concerned about the potential conflict of interest of Soon by dint of his funding sources, then he should apply the same concerns to the funding of Greenpeace and its funding sources.

    That is not going to happen. Not until before hell freezes over anyway. Or until Joshua reads the full post at the top of this page. I wont hold my breath either way.

  52. If using the FOI on Climate Scientist is like a death threat does this mean the AAAS will condem Greenpeace?
    Also I wonder if the Smithsonian put up much of a fight WRT Soon’s records?

  53. Joshua
    May I say – my criteria and I suspect virtually everyone here regardless of where individuals get their bucks “check the work” then double check it again and again. This then is why Anthony places the info here on his website knowing full well we have the freedom to rip it apart of confirm the article. On the other hand, it is quite interesting you seem to give Greenpeace and other assorted eco-groups a complete free pass. For instance, if oil companies give money to this side you grip about their interests and question their scientific results. Where may I ask, prior to today, have you dismissed all of the environmental handiwork due to oil company participation and their scientific competence?

    Moreover, I ask if you would be so kind as to point out the differences between democratic and republican government monies assisting universities and or government departments? Which is the majority of all western nations (minus Canada and Germany who is NOT in debt) who have to borrow said monies and in this particular case America which is a basic 50/50 nation while the America and other western nations are flirting on bankruptcy? Is Hansen an honest broker? GISS? IPCC? Greenpeace? The Brit Met Office? East Anglia? And other assorted eco groups – if so which ones?

    BTW, blaming Anthony is immature – he is merely passing along the piece. And might I add the freedom to post your displeasure – and THAT, sir, is more than what any of us get when WE try and argue on AGW believer website. We’re always barred from those sites if WE question the religion.

  54. Good heavens, who knew there were so many.

    A partial list of NGOs the US government should (IMO) not be funding with tax dollars:
    10:10
    350.org
    Climate Action Network-International
    Climate Action Network-US
    Friends of The Earth
    Greenpiece
    Natural Resources Defense Council
    Sierra Club
    The Nature Conservancy
    World Resources Institute
    World Wildlife Fund

    Actually, to make it easier, they should not fund any 501c3 organizations with tax dollars. The tax codes are already set-up in favor of 501c3 organizations.

  55. Please note that later this month, Greenpeace will be launching their lovely new sailing yacht, Rainbow Warrior 3, paid for with lots and lots of other peoples money

    The launch is timed to coincide with the sinking of the original Rainbow Warrior

    Please googe for details

    It will only use engine power 10% of the time. As Greenpeace are not reknowned for reliability around energy consumption, please be sure to remind them if you see them motoring everywhere.

    They also seem a bit touchy about it being called a yacht

  56. Please forgive a possible double-post – I thought I posted this already but when I come back to this thread, I’m not seeing a message indicating that my previous post is in moderation. Let me try posting again (because I know you all are waiting breathlessly to read my next post).

    On the other hand, it is quite interesting you seem to give Greenpeace and other assorted eco-groups a complete free pass.

    Not at all. While I think that on both sides funding sources suggest the potential for a conflict of interest in the results of analyses, an argument based only on assumptions about the corrupting influence of funding sources is weak. The fact that such arguments have been used extensively by the “pro-AGW” side is to that side’s discredit, IMO. Funding sources can be instructive, but not sufficient to support conclusions. I just happen to think that the same logic applies to the other side as well.

  57. Brilliant article! A very through case of ” follow the money”.

    On a related note, does anybody know what the salary of Greenpeace’s head makes? I’ve tried to look it up myself but no luck. I’ve angered many a Greenpeace vendor on the street when I’ve asked them that. Who would of thought they don’t like to look in a mirror?

  58. Enron and the Politics of Influence
    25 January 2002

    Rent-seeking in Washington is a highly developed art-form and when really humungous amounts of money are involved, it is always the case that a Baptist-bootlegger coalition has been put together to get the necessary legislation through Congress.
    snip

    The Baptists provided the political cover and the bootleggers pocketed the proceeds.
    snip

    Enron was at the centre of an awesome Baptist-bootlegger coalition, but there is no shortage of evidence of the connections which the company and its CEO, Kenneth Lay, had with their Baptist allies
    snip

    The organisation which has done more to build and sustain the Baptist-bootlegger coalition which continues to push for US ratification of Kyoto, or an equivalent de-carbonisation programme for the US, is the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, headed by Eileen Clausen,

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/politics/evans2002-2.php

  59. How did Pachauri, with his links to BIG OIL, ever get along with Greenpeace? How did Al Gore, with his former links to BIG OIL, ever get along with Greenpeace? What made them all get along?

    2011 USA government funding of climate science – $2.48 billion

    http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2011/

    Al Gore & Big Tobacco
    “Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco…I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”
    New York Times

    Al Gore and Big Oil
    “To put it bluntly, Occidental made the Gore family rich………….”
    AIM

  60. Joseph Goebbels I believe “If you tell a lie often enough; people will believe it”

    All the rebutals, all the explanations will not change it. They have taken a leaf out of the playbook eloning to the best propagandists of the last couple of hundred years. Science will out, how long it takes and how much damage they do before hand?

  61. Has climate funding reached its peak yet? Let’s hope so before it all get out of hand.

    Exxon: “(how about $100 million for Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for Biofuels research).”

    “The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 – to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics.”

    “The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation.”

    “According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1079483,00.html

    Follow the green backs. >>>>>>>>

  62. CRU are grateful after receiving funding from the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Sceptics are on the payroll of big oil, nuclear and the dirty fossil fuel industries. / sarc

    British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
    Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre (Food to Ethanol)
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Eastern Electricity
    KFA Germany (Nuclear)
    Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
    National Power
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
    Shell (Oil, LNG)
    Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
    Tate and Lyle. (Food to Ethanol)
    UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)

    There are probably more new names. ;>)

  63. More fossil fool involvement in the great carbon scandal.

    Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron in the spring of 1997, back when Enron was everyone’s darling in Washington. It proved to be an eye-opening experience that didn’t last much beyond my expressing concern about this agenda of using the state to rob Peter, paying Paul, drawing Paul’s enthusiastic support.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/15/lessons-from-the-global-warming-industry/

  64. From Capo on June 29, 2011 at 2:11 pm:

    There’s another strange thing about Willie Soon:
    In May 26, 2011 Sonn writes an op-ed in The Wall Street Jounal titled “The Myth of Killer Mercury”. He claims that mercury emissions of coal plants are not harmful. So he is not only a contrarian of the AGW consensus, but also of the world health organisation (WHO).

    The op-ed:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329420414284558.html

    Excerpt:

    According to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which actively monitors mercury exposure, blood mercury counts for U.S. women and children decreased steadily from 1999-2008, placing today’s counts well below the already excessively safe level established by the EPA. A 17-year evaluation of mercury risk to babies and children by the Seychelles Children Development Study found “no measurable cognitive or behavioral effects” in children who eat several servings of ocean fish every week, much more than most Americans do.

    The World Health Organization and U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assessed these findings in setting mercury-risk standards that are two to three times less restrictive than the EPA’s.

    The EPA ignored these findings. Instead, the agency based its “safe” mercury criteria on a study of Faroe Islanders, whose diet is far removed from our own. They eat few fruits and vegetables, but they do feast on pilot-whale meat and blubber that is laced with mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)—but very low in selenium. The study has limited relevance to U.S. populations.

    Interesting reading. So even though mercury isn’t a problem in the US, the EPA wants even tougher standards than the WHO. It’s the EPA that’s being a contrarian to the WHO.

    Perhaps you need to actually read the material you are critiquing rather than relying on blog blurbs.

    Another excerpt:

    How do America’s coal-burning power plants fit into the picture? They emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. But U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons; Chinese power plants eject 400 tons; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year.

    All these emissions enter the global atmospheric system and become part of the U.S. air mass. Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere.

    Maybe the EPA should visit Yellowstone National Park and look into regulating Old Faithful to protect tourists and park staff from excessive mercury exposures. Do it for the children!

  65. This is why YOU must reduce your ‘carbon footprint’. It’s so others can increase theirs. It’s as simple as that. Hypocrisy , indulgencies, greed, easy profit and the Messiah Complex.

    Gore’s second OCEAN VIEW villa with SIX fireplaces and many ‘necessary’ fountains.

    We have a “planetary emergency” according to the single Al Gore with 2 very large houses. How much more of this crap are honest people willing to swallow?

    IT’S A SCAM!

  66. “Big Oil” has always LOVED the idea of Cap ‘n’ Trade. In fact, the original model is called OPEC.

  67. G’day Jimbo,
    Surprise, surprise – East Anglia are temporarily unavailable.

    No worry SPPI have a good listing of the reference numbers of the documents.

  68. Joshua
    Read all of my comments, and references, then jump off the sinking ship which used to be called CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING – now called Climate Change Global Climate Disruption – in other words the weather.

    The clue about the scam is in the name change. ;O)

  69. Joshua says:
    June 29, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    By your logic then shall all press releases carried here become my words?

    By my logic, Anthony, often when you post something written by others, you editorialize to make your perspective clear.

    Anthony has added editorial notes to some of my guest posts, but he always make it clear what he is adding and what is mine. He does have to remind me from time to time to add a “Guest post by Ric Werme” because a lot of people skip the dateline after the title.

    If you don’t like Anthony’s blog, we have a lot of people who would be glad to show you the door. If you make comments that add to the discussion or add some of your own research, e.g. how Soon’s research funds were distributed, then you’re welcome to stay.

  70. How about that BIG GREEN getting an exclusive piece of the BIG OIL Green Pie?
    Kudos to the Washington Examiner and Post for exposing the Jolly Green Giant.
    Perhaps Shell’s sin was that it didn’t contribute enough to BIG GREEN: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/ ??
    The EPA’s decision had to do with failure to consider icebreaker operation. Oh my, I thought that the Arctic was doomed to melt completely by 201x.

  71. I find this extract from the article of special interest:

    “…Krupp and Roberts are particularly interesting because EDF and WWF-US both receive funding from the Grantham Foundation and both are on the joint management board of Jeremy Grantham’s climate institutes at the London School of Economics, (LSE), and Imperial College, London.
    Jeremy Grantham is the chairman and co-founder of GMO, a $140 billion global investment management company based in Boston with offices in London, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich.
    His first excursion into climate funding in the UK was “The Grantham Institute for Climate Change” set up with £12 million, (~$19million) at Imperial College, London in 2007. The chairman of the LSE Grantham Institute, Lord Stern of the infamous Stern Review, is heavily involved in carbon trading via carbon ratings agency, Idea Carbon. He joined IdeaGlobal, the parent company in 2007, as Vice Chairman. He also advises HSBC on carbon trading…”

    Anthony also ran an article on an interview of Bob Ward, a PR spin man from the Grantham Institute at the LSE

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/abc-interview-wrongly-torches-skeptic-position/

    The original Oz ABC radio “Science Show” interview went viral around the world, attracting titles like: Was this the worst Interview ever? Nevertheless the Science Show and the ABC, still regard Bob Ward to be A Principal Relevant Perspective on climate change, not requiring any balancing material or apology.

  72. Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 9:25 am] says:
    Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm] says:
    Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 1:09 pm] says:
    Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 2:09 pm] says:
    Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 3:52 pm] says:

    That’s five posts, four after Anthony corrected you for mistaking him for the author of the post and still you have not been able to man-up and just state: ‘oops, my bad’.

    In my experience, eyes-wide-closed arrogance is the mark of a juvenile, teenager most likely, or very immature adult.

    Anyone else would make sure their very next comment leads off with such an admission of a mistake.

    Your next post will clearly say a lot about you personally. But, No Pressure. ;-)

  73. “oeman50 says:
    June 29, 2011 at 9:35 am
    How intellectually bankbrupt for Greenpeace to presume Dr. Soon is a “pawn” of “Big Oil” when they are much more in that pocket than any one else. And do they say which one of his works are tainted, inaccurate, etc. by this? Nope!”

    You’ll find ‘Chicken Littles’ like Greenpeace and their minions use similar tactics opposed to their view. Our own NZ Chicken Little blogsite Hot Topic use similar tactics. Often uses the term “Climate Crank’ against those not going long with the AGW/CC meme.

    Here’s just some recent examples:

    The Climate Show #15: Michael Ashley and the ineducable Carter
    More lunacy from Lomborg
    The (un)principled sceptic
    The Climate Show #14: volcanoes, black carbon and crocks from Christy

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/

  74. The money is currently lined up to flow towards CAGW proponents since CAGW gives governments excuses to expand their power. As a business person that has spent much of his career dealing with high level business people, I know that such business people are very pragmatic, especially when it comes to dealing with government officials. Business people are much more concerned about getting on the “right side of the trade” rather than worry about which side is correct. Since the merits of the case remain very much debatable (and since the outcome will depend on the actual interaction between human activity and natural events) the CAGW proponents have been able to have their cake and eating it since they can bash the bad old oil companies while taking their money.

    The day it becomes clear CAGW has been dramatically oversold is the day the tables will dramatically turn. You can bet your bottom dollar, euro, yen, pound or whatever that those business people and people in the MSM currently on that side of the trade will on that day turn ferociously on their suddenly former beneficiaries. Since the outcome remains very much to be determined, those making the case on the ACAGW side (anti-CAGW) should continue pressing on.

  75. Blade @ June 29, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    You quoted:

    Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 9:25 am] says:
    Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm] says:
    Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 1:09 pm] says:
    Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 2:09 pm] says:
    Joshua [June 29, 2011 at 3:52 pm] says:

    My memory of the Biblical Old Testament is a bit rusty but I recollect that Joshua was a really gloomy guy, and he backed the Egyptians rather than the Babylonians whilst Judah was the meat in the sandwich. It turned out in the otherwise recorded history that he screwed-up because Jerusalem was ravaged twice by Babylon’s Nebuchadnezzar III, wherein he doubly took the Jewish elite to Babylon to fragment their leadership etc. (the exile that apparently they enjoyed in the fertile crescent, and subsequently did not enjoy the idea of returning to Jerusalem without “encouragement“). One of the more famous exiles was the aristocratic youth Daniel, (of the lion’s den fame etc) who mysteriously became wiser than all the wizards in Nebuchadnezzar’s court even before he had been educated in their language and culture as detailed in an earlier chapter!

  76. UEA CRU was founded by BP and Shell in 1969.

    Rajendra Pachauri has spent most of his professional career in the oil industry and founded GloriOil an oil exploration company.

    “Climate Science” is merely an oil/gas industry attempt to shut down competing but much cheaper coal power stations.

  77. It was already mentioned, but all BIGS (Big Oil, Big Government, Big NGO, Big Industry, Big Academia, Big Banks…) have been on the CAGW bandwagon BIG time. Big Climate is a huge cash cow.

  78. Bananabender: ““Climate Science” is merely an oil/gas industry attempt to shut down competing but much cheaper coal power stations.”

    Wow, that’s an interesting thought. I have been puzzling over Big Oil’s motives for paying these green extremists. Somebody above used the expression ‘protection money’, but Bananabender’s different take on the subject may be right on target. What an unholy alliance THAT would be!

    P.S., “Big Oil” is not an insult. Energy is arguably the single biggest foundation of human prosperity.

  79. Like water to wine, Mercury becomes quite benign when it is inected into CFLs, according to the EPA anyway. /sarc

  80. there are big oil. and there is big oil & coal…. exxon is one of the largest Coal Companies in the world. But all big Oil/Coal love the enviro creeps. give them some money. make it expensive for the customers. buy less oil from the arabs. still make good profit. everything is hunky dorey. as for getting rid of coal fired plants ( power, steel, cement etc. )… do these people even understand the size of the economies. you cannot replace all the coal fired plants in a few generations. let alone in a 10-20 yr period. and can’t afford those trillions of dollars for that . And to boot, Steel needs Carbon for the chemistry, not just for energy

  81. It’s long been known that Big Energy plays both sides of the board. Their C-suites may be filled by scheming, manipulative people, but those people aren’t stupid. Why, if I owned a mega petroleum company, I might even be tempted to do the same. That is, try to extend the run of fossil fuels as long as possible by obfuscating the facts even while I spent millions seeking a competitive edge in clean energy for the time when the scientific truth about climate change can no longer be hidden, as they know very well it’s going to be. In other words, funding green energy research doesn’t in any way mean a corporation or an industry isn’t simultaneously deeply involved with the Professional Denial Industry. It’s like a gambler putting money on both teams, you know?

    Besides, even if Greenpeace turned out to be the dirtiest, slimiest, nastiest, most evil, and most corrupt organization in the history of the planet, that wouldn’t mean a thing so far as the climate is concerned: the environment is warming rapidly, and all the denialist blather in the world won’t change that one iota.

  82. Joshua,
    Sorry, but in Bob_FJ says June 30, 2011 at 12:51 am
    In my Old Testament recollection, I mixed the metaphors, and confused you with Jeremiah. (I think)

  83. Yes, I agree, it’s rather nasty and dirty to launch a smear-attack by means of FOIA requests.
    Greenpeace did it and some climate scientists are being rather flooded with similiar FOIA requests from skeptics. e.g. Cuccinelli vs. Mann/UVa.

    Think about it next time before celebrating the next smeary FOIA request.

    And think about the CRU-Hack supplying skeptics with thousands of mails written by climate scientists. Oh, remember the hype, everyone here looking forward to finding a scandal or a reason for further smeary attacks. Everyone would have been pleased, if someone had found there a similar scandal. Greenpeace launched only one nasty, but leagal FOIA-attack. Boom!

    And think about, that not only skeptics have a right to be nasty, Greenpeace is nasty, too.

    BTW: What about an idea of mine to confine FOIA requests only to scientific data, methods etc.

  84. Pull My Finger – I think the point on the mercury exposure is that there is a net-reduction overall. The overall reduction in mercury exposure via lower power generation is greater than the risk of exposure due to bulb breakage,

  85. Neapolitan says:
    June 30, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    the environment is warming rapidly, and all the denialist blather in the world won’t change that one iota.

    Nice to see a pragmatist speak the truth, except for the parting shot. The only problerm with your last statement are the facts. You know, those dirty little things that get in the way of a good homily.

  86. Bystander said on June 30, 2011 at 4:38 pm:

    Pull My Finger – I think the point on the mercury exposure is that there is a net-reduction overall. The overall reduction in mercury exposure via lower power generation is greater than the risk of exposure due to bulb breakage,

    From the EPA:

    Mercury exists in various forms, and people are exposed to each in different ways. The most common way people in the U.S. are exposed to mercury is by eating fish containing methylmercury. Other exposures may result from using or breaking products containing mercury. (…)

    Recent human biological monitoring by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1999 and 2000 (PDF) (3 pp., 42 KB, About PDF) shows that most people have blood mercury levels below a level (5.8 µg/L of whole blood) associated with possible health effects. Consumption of fish with higher methylmercury levels can lead to elevated levels of mercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young children and may harm their developing nervous system. These disabilities have been documented in ability to use language, to process information, and in visual/motor integration. U.S. EPA’s 2001 Reference Dose (RfD) for methylmercury was calculated to protect the developing nervous system. Currently, U.S. EPA uses a RfD of 0.1 µg/kg body weight/day as an exposure without recognized adverse effects. A description of EPA’s Reference Dose for methylmercury may be found at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm.

    In U.S. EPA’s Mercury Study Report to Congress (1997) EPA estimated that 7% of women of childbearing age would have blood mercury concentrations greater than those equivalent to the RfD. The estimate of 7% of women of childbearing age above the RfD was based on patterns of fish and shellfish consumption and methylmercury concentrations present in fish and shellfish. Blood mercury analyses in the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2000 NHANES) for 16-to-49 year old women showed that approximately 8% of women in the survey had blood mercury concentrations greater than 5.8 ug/L ( which is a blood mercury level equivalent to the current RfD). Based on this prevalence for the overall U.S. population of women of reproductive age and the number of U.S. births each year, it is estimated that more than 300,000 newborns each year may have increased risk of learning disabilities associated with in utero exposure to methylmercury. More recent data from the CDC support this general finding.

    If overall reduction in mercury exposure is desired, clearly the maximum result comes from the banning of fish and shellfish from the human diet, at least those known for historically high mercury levels. There should be at least batch monitoring, the testing of samples to determine if an individual “catch” is acceptable. Given the prevalence of natural mercury sources, including many undersea sources, this should be done to screen for localized elevated levels.

    But what about the power plants?

    Recent emissions estimates of annual global mercury emissions from all sources, natural and anthropogenic (human-generated), which are highly uncertain, are about 4800-8300 tons per year.

    U.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the total global emissions, and the U.S. power sector is estimated to account for about 1 percent the total global emissions. EPA has estimated that about one third of U.S. emissions are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle.

    Current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the U.S. comes from U.S. sources, although deposition varies by geographic location. For example, compared to the country as a whole, U.S. sources represent a greater fraction of the total deposition in parts of the Northeast because of the direction of the prevailing winds.

    If the EPA’s goal is to protect US citizens (and other residents) from dangerous mercury exposure, then clearly they need to do something about exposure to fish and shellfish sources as that is the most common way of exposure. Next on the list is exposure from broken mercury-containing items. The government could mandate a rubberized coating on CFL tubes to contain the mercury in case of breakage, such coatings are already used on “rough service” incandescent bulbs to prevent breakage and the dispersal of glass shards.

    Instead they’re attacking the very tiny mercury emissions from US power plants. The only goal that is serving is the backdoor-banning of coal-fired plants by making them uneconomical by ever-escalating requirements that yield no discernible improvement for the population the EPA is supposed to be serving.

  87. After ICCC-6 ended, I wandered out in search of lunch, and passed a couple of Greenpeace canvassers. When I came back, they were still there, so I let one accost me and had a friendly chat about how I doubted Greenpeace got all their funding from members like those they were signing up. He didn’t know that the EU gave them money (apparently I misrecalled that), no big deal.

    He also didn’t know about the ICCC going on at the same time and I pulled out the program, showed him Willie Soon’s photo and let him know that I was not pleased with Greenpeace’s recent attacks on him.

    I left, still not a Greenpeace member, but satisfied that I at least slowed them down a little bit.

  88. Ric Werme @ July 1, 2011 at 7:23 pm concerning Greenpeace canvassers.

    Maybe a year ago, I had a knock at the door, to find an interesting guy replete with very apparent golden nose and lip rings, together with a challenging coiffure. The hair was a fairly conventional Mohican style except that it was an astonishing luminescent green. OK, no problem, there could have been an interesting conversation looming, was my immediate reaction. However, my eyes then fell upon his bright green T shirt upon which, far from subtly, was emblazoned the word GREENPEACE.
    Arghhh…. I don’t know what came over me, but I advised him that I was not interested in having any intercourse with him. I still feel guilty that I did not display the patience that you described above.

  89. Hello,while I agree with the main article and most of the statements made,there is a thing that baffles me.I’m not from the US so I don’t have a clear picture of the politics.Bearing in mind this could anyone explain why most of the Tea-Partiers and the Republicans are anti-AGW and most of the Democrats pro-AGW?

  90. Atma – it is not an “anti-AGW” versus “pro-AGW” with Tea Partiers and democrats.It is “Anti-big-government” versus “pro-big-government”. That the climate is changing, very few dispute (that is a strawman by Trenberth and associates). That man may play a part is a little more in dispute (a very little more), but again not the issue. The issue is if you support a total confiscation of your rights in order to basically do nothing but confiscate your rights. Since NO ONE has any solid data on the quantification of man’s effect on the climate, surrendering your rights to the government for basically nothing is an anathema to Americans. THAT is the difference. But like Abortion, those pro and con try to frame the debate in order to look the more reasonable. The problem is – as with Abortion – that the MSM basically takes sides and so only presents one side of the debate. And that is where the misconception you spoke of arises from.

Comments are closed.