InsideClimate News excels at propagating environmentalist and Obama thinking and policies
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become “common knowledge,” like the following?
Global temperatures are the hottest ever recorded. Melting ice caps are raising seas to dangerous levels. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have never been more frequent or destructive. Planet Earth is at a tipping point because of carbon dioxide emissions. Fracking is poisoning our air, water and climate. 97% of scientists agree. A clean renewable energy future is just around the corner.
It’s as if a chain of command, carefully coordinated process or alliance of ideological compatriots was operating behind the scenes to propagate these fables. This time, conspiracy theorists have gotten it right.
A major player in this process and alliance is one that most citizens and even businessmen and politicians have never heard of. InsideClimate News (ICN) has been called “highly influential,” a “pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism,” the recipient of “prestigious awards” for “high-impact investigative stories” on important environmental issues.
The Washington Free Beacon, National Review and Energy in Depth offer detailed and far less charitable assessments. Less friendly observers, they note, call ICN a “mouthpiece” for extreme environmentalist groups, because it is run by and out of a deep-green public relations consultancy (Science First) and is funded almost exclusively by wealthy foundations that share its and the PR firm’s anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, Bigger Government agenda. ICN was founded by David Sasoon, a true believer in catastrophic manmade climate change who wants to do all he can “to usher in the clean energy economy.”
Even praise from its supporters underscores the dark side of this “influential” force in eco-journalism. Its approach is “advocacy,” not fairness, accuracy or balance. Its goal is to drive a monolithic, hard-line, environmentalist narrative and political agenda, with little suggestion that other perspectives even exist.
Some of its awards come from an organization that has itself become politicized and too closely allied with Big Green views and organizations: the Society of Environmental Journalists. They increasingly operate too much as mutual admiration societies and support groups, say outside observers.
ICN and its Science First alter ego received their 2007 startup grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, where Sasoon once served as a consultant. They now derive the bulk of their funding from the RBF, NEO Philanthropy (aka, Public Interest Projects), Marlisa Foundation and Park Foundation. These and other sugar daddies are covered in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff report, which describes a “Billionaire’s Club” of “left-wing millionaires and billionaires [which] directs and controls the far-left [US] environmental movement.”
The same foundations also give major tax-exempt donations to the Sierra Club, Earthworks, NRDC, EarthJustice, the climate crisis coalition 350.org, and many other anti-coal, anti-drilling, anti-fracking, anti-Keystone pressure groups that together form the $10-billion-a-year US environmentalist industry.
ICN has active partnerships with the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel, Bloomberg News and other media organizations that help coordinate and disperse stories. The Times promotes the “dangerous manmade climate change” meme and refuses to print letters that reflect skeptical views.
The Associated Press has likewise become a reliable purveyor of manmade climate chaos stories. The Weather Channel and ICN teamed up in 2014 on a series of “investigative reports” that claimed hydraulic fracturing was causing serious environmental and human health problems in Texas.
The partners team up and coordinate to “have one group write on an issue, another quote them or link to them, and so on,” Media Research Center VP Dan Gainor explains. “It keeps going until they create this perception that there’s real concern over an issue, and it bubbles up to top liberal sites like Huffington Post, and from there into the traditional media,” which itself is too predisposed to the green narrative.
The foundations “have incorporated ostensibly dispassionate news outlets into their grant-making portfolios,” says the Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay, “creating what some describe as self-sustaining environmentalist echo chambers.”
They make it look like widespread public concern and spontaneous grassroots action – when in reality it is loud but small Astroturf activism, orchestrated by the ICN brigade and the foundations behind it.
InsideClimate News now brags about its involvement in the extensive collusion among the leftist foundations, environmental pressure groups and state attorneys general that are devising, coordinating and advancing AG prosecutions of ExxonMobil, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other groups for alleged “racketeering” and “fraud,” to hold them “legally accountable for climate change denial.”
The efforts “stretch back at least to 2012,” ICN notes, when a meeting was held in California to develop legal strategies. In late 2015, letters from several Democrat members of Congress called for investigating and prosecuting climate skeptics; the letters cited independent journalism “investigations by the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News” to back up their request.
However, the intrepid Times and ICN investigators had conducted no investigation. They simply parroted and amplified “research” from a group of activist professors and students at the Columbia School of Journalism – without disclosing who had funded the CSJ studies. Transparency for thee, but not for me.
It was George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, along with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Foundation, Energy Foundation, Lorana Sullivan Foundation and Tellus Mater Foundation – all of which virulently oppose hydrocarbon production and actively promote climate change alarmism.
Emails subpoenaed by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute later revealed that many of the same environmentalist groups and lawyers met again in January 2016 at a secret meeting in the Rockefeller Family Fund’s Manhattan offices. Yet another secret meeting was held in March 2016, between climate activists and state attorneys general – hours before the AGs announced that they were launching RICO and other prosecutions of “climate skeptic” companies and think tanks.
The success of this campaign thus far, says ICN, has persuaded the activists to “step up efforts to pressure more attorneys general to investigate [more climate crisis skeptics] and sway public opinion, using op-eds, social media and rope-line questioning of [Republican] presidential candidates at campaign stops.”
This collusion among activists, foundations and attorneys general seeks to silence, bankrupt and defund organizations that challenge their catechism of climate cataclysm. These conspirators want to deprive us of our constitutional rights to speak out on the exaggerated and fabricated science, the coordinated echo- chamber news stories, and the pressure group-driven policies that impair our livelihoods, living standards, health, welfare and environmental quality. We will not be intimidated or silenced.
As CFACT’s new Climate Hustle film notes, man-made plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide has not replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven Earth’s temperature, climate and weather.
The problem is not climate change. It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change.
That’s why Climate Crisis, Inc. wants to silence and jail us. Just imagine how much more they’ll be foaming at the mouth after throngs go to ClimateHustle.com and buy tickets for its May 2 one-night-only showing in hundreds of theaters across the United States.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Big Brother now has a face and a name. J. Goebbels would be proud. The psyops side of climate Lysenkoism.
It’s Herbert Marcuse and Co that really would be proud?
Today’s environmentalism is a part of the new Marxism.
Goebbels thanked American Progressives for teaching him propaganda.
“It was George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, along with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Foundation, … – all of which virulently oppose hydrocarbon production and actively promote climate change alarmism.”
Yep, Soros and the Rockefellers are well known Marxist opponents of capitalism.
Ah yes, but the question is how do we stop these bastards? We blog and comment and argue and debate while they send massive tidal waves of misinformation right into ordinary people’s minds. They have significant political support and a $1.5 trillion a year industry built on their propaganda.
We seem to be content to simply wait for nature to show how wrong these activists are. Unfortunately they have the microphone and they will convince people that a different past and present exists because it is just easier to go along to get along.
Watching the ease with which Harper and Abbott were replaced in time for Paris it is obvious we are up against much more than just a manipulated and partisan media. This is a behemoth, a multi-headed hydra that we have to figure out how to kill. Any ideas?
Climatetruth.
I, myself, believe that Man’s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels is not such a good Idea. I would like to add AGW as another reason to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but despite the hype the AGW conjecture is full of holes and is based on only partial science.
Let me explain in a little more detail:
Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science and not science fiction as portrayed by the media.
Willhaas,
Would it make you feel any better about our burning fossil fuels to know that there is vastly more of it than is popularly known? I’m talking thousands of years worth.
Malthusian predictions of scarcity and doom have been wrong for centuries, and mankind will perfect cold fusion or something better long before it becomes difficult to find more fossil fuels.
Your hope far precedes reality. Good luck.
Larry is actually correct, but don’t let reality interfere with your wishful thinking.
Fossil fuels continue to be more difficult to find and extract. Thousands of years is not really long at all considering how long Mankind would like to exist. What is alarming is how dependent on fossil fuels Mankind has become yet the resource is finite. We are not yet to the point where everyone can simply remove themselves from the power grid and never make use of fossil fuels again.
This is an excellent essay, and I thank you for it. While I agree that burning up all the world’s fossil fuels would be a bad thing, I only agree for the reason that if we did, then we wouldn’t have those fossil fuels to burn later on. Luckily, there is no near-term scenario in which we run out. Even if natural gas become sparse at some point in the future, we could easily return to coal. Fossil fuels provide real utility, real economic value to human civilization. They allow us to rise higher than do low energy density forms of energy, such as wind and solar, to say nothing of the land use catastrophe that would occur if we set out to replace fossil fuels with wood or animal dung. Low energy density and chopping and frying birds, not to mention people not having enough energy at a reasonable cost, are all in the CON column for renewable energy. These are huge CONs, that swamp the PROs. Wanting it to be otherwise, as the lefty, eco loons are wont to do, will not make it otherwise.
For the time being there is enough fossil fuel but for the time being will not last forever. Before the fuel runs out Mankind must switch to alternate forms of energy and reduce our human population to where these alternate forms of energy will be sufficient. At present we are not doing that. Right now it is a very long term problem but will become a short term problem if nothing is done about it.
Willhaas, you miss my point, entirely. Running out of fossil fuels is a very, VERY long term “problem.” In fact, it is so far into the future that it’s no problem at all. Because no one can know the economics or priorities of that future. So they cannot possibly know what the solutions are. Emotional guesses at what to do might make things far worse, for all we know. Why would I believe your imaginary fix for the future will improve it, when no comparison can be made?
Have you learned nothing about the failure of doomsayers to accurately predict the end of the Earth? I think you really ought to study on it.
As always, look at all the trends to try and paint an estimate of the future.
You are correct in that there is enough fossil fuel to last us hundreds of years at the current burn rate. The only limiting factor (other than it eventually does run out) is the price of extraction. As technology improves, generally the price of extraction comes down, so more fossil fuel is available at a reasonable price.
The demand for electricity keeps growing, but this is primarily due to two factors – increase in population and the electrification of existing 3rd world populations. In the future I would expect the population increase to slow down, halt, and possibly back down somewhat – the global equivalent of what is happening in most Western countries today (excepting the immigration of new people into them). Eventually everyone is connected to some form of electricity, so this too slows down and then stops.
The amount of electricity used per capita should drop. As houses become more efficient, appliances use less electricity, and factories also gain efficiency the total amount of electricity should stabilize and eventually drop. Probably not soon, but 50 to 100 years out.
Nuclear energy should eventually gain popularity as the early generations of reactors are replaced with 3rd, 4th, and likely some kind of 5th generation technologies. Not only are these much more efficient in the use of fuels, they can burn stuff we consider waste today. This should limit the amount of fossil fuel needed dramatically.
And I almost hate to go there, but so-called Green Energy will start becoming practical in the next 20 years. I don’t think Wind has much of a future, but certainly solar on private home rooftops seems like a reasonable solution to reducing the amount of electricity needed from the grid. It is too expensive (unless you count the subsidies as making it cheaper) and too low in efficiency for now, but it is gathering steam and I believe will be suitable for use by about 50% of the world’s land area in the next 20 years – actually installing it to a large percentage of homes will take longer. Wind suffers from too many problems – unpredictable, needs a storage solution where it will lose efficiency, too ugly, and impacts wildlife too much. It will be a niche player. Tidal zone generators can be used in too few areas to be anything but niche.
So if you accept all of these as likely possibilities, the need for fossil fuels will drop over the next 100 years to a mere sliver of what is needed today. This happens because the market drives it, not because of any green movement, regulations, or other non-market forces. No gnashing of teeth, threats to jail skeptics, rioting, jumping off of rooftops, or other theatrics are necessary.
And your exact climate science education is…?
From what accredited university?
Your published, peer review papers are posted and published where exactly? If you are such a great, acclaimed, respected scientist, they should be easy to find.
You don’t need a degree to have common sense.
You must be part of the 97% of “climate imbeciles”…
J. Philip Peterson May 1, 2016 at 8:59 pm
+1000
michael
@agwisreal3000
Yr: “And your exact climate science education is…”
Well, agwisreal, my “exact” education in the climate science department closely parallels my “exact” education in the “Nigerian E-mail Scam” department”. And in both instances, I examine the claims associated with each by reference to two simple, field-expedient tests:
–The “smell test” (smell-meter digital display reading for the CAGW claims? “What flatulent lefty-herbivore ripped off that “Vegan-Mother” stinkbomb?”)
–The “Bullshit Detector Test” (the detector digital display reading for the CAGW claims? “Climate scientists say CO2 kills babies and polar bears, but the same climate scientists won’t hold their eco-confabs as zero-carbon video-conferences–CARBON-PIGGIE BRAZEN-HYPOCRITES!!!THEY DON’T PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH!!!THEY DON’T LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON-FOOTPRINT REDUCTION!!!CON-JOB!!FLIM-FLAM!!!RIP-OFF!!!”).
In other words, agwisreal, your little flunky-enabler, Gruber-clone, I’m-the-little-credentialed-smarty-pants-and-you’re-not!, bull-shit act just doesn’t work it’s wonted magic anymore. Read the post. Everyone can see through you “greenwashed”, ivory-tower trough-suckers, now-a-days.
P. S. The Nigerian folks’ plucky, good-fun, entrepreneurial scams also failed the above two tests, but with the qualification that the Nigerians, on balance, appear to be a bunch of “regular guy” cut-ups, worth a beer-summit or two, and undoubtedly good for a few laughs, unlike those pompous-ass, hive-tool, geek-ball, climate scientist big-bores.
Why would you care if someone has an education in a “science” that has no demonstrable achievements in its field? It’s all entirely theoretical. Or do you think that climate scientists hold conventions in the middle of a Nevada desert on star-filled nights and conjure up thunderstorms? Maybe you think that climate scientists hold references from numerous alien civilizations around the galaxy testifying to how well Earth’s climate scientists have engineered the climates on those other worlds. How, exactly, do you think any climate scientist can demonstrate that they are good at climate science?
The only thing a climate scientist can do to demonstrate that their quantitative assessment of how our climate behaves in response to a change in any input, whether changes in CO2 or a change in solar irradiance, or airborne particulates, is to make quantitatively accurate predictions. yet all such predictions have been wrong. Horribly wrong.
In truth, though most everyone agrees in the qualitative assessment that adding CO2 should, all other things being equal, raise the Earth’s temperature, there has been no accurate (meaning precise) and reliable (meaning it’s right) measurement of HOW MUCH of a temperature increase is caused by, e.g. doubling CO2. All such assessments are either based on opinion, which is by definition non-scientific, or upon the output of computer models that are simply programmed to emulate how the programmer believes the climate system operates, and thus cannot teach the programmer anything about the climate that they didn’t know when writing the code. I’ll be more blunt about this latter point. The computer modeling performed by your vaunted “climate scientists” is just a fancy way of fabricating data.
agwisreal3000,
Do you guys have a bullet-pointed list of rhetorical strategies that you can refer to when you can’t actually counter somebody’s arguments? Is there an “Agitprop for Dummies” that I haven’t heard about?
And, BTW, how many peer-reviewed papers do you have?
agwisreal3000: Typical lawyer’s trick – dodge the issue by discrediting the witness. The question isn’t his credentials, it’s whether or not he’s right. See if you can find CAGW supporter whose livelihood (or even more importantly world view – that covers almost every eco-activist organization) isn’t wrapped up in turning a minor effect into a job/career sustaining cashcow.
Anyone can read and learn.
My resume is not at issue here.
Questions for agwisreal3000:
Your exact climate science education is…? From what accredited university? Your published, peer review papers are posted and published where exactly?
Please answer, STAT.
Logical Fallacies:
The Ad Hominem Argument (also, “Personal attack,” “Poisoning the well.”): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation…Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about, solely because of the lack of power or status of the person making the argument…
‘Nuf Said.
“I, myself, believe that Man’s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels is not such a good Idea …” (willhaas at 2:30 pm).
==============================
Why ever not, what else are they good for?
Besides naturally occurring fossil fuels will never be exhausted because the cost of recovery will eventually become so prohibitive that they will be superseded cheaper non-subsidized alternatives.
Better to not burn petroleum, if it is a fossil fuel, and coal. Better to make plastic and graphene with them. Natural gas for local fleet transport for now privately adopted, and less wasteful flaring would be almost optimal til better commercial options come.
The earth isn’t a ball of oil. And all energy if finite. The universe is finite. This is why birth control is so important even though right wingers hate this information. We cannot have an infinite number of humans.
Limitations are physically real. This cannot be ignored but people are capable of ignoring a lot of stuff.
emsnews, while your generalities are true, they are for now somewhat irrelevant. Try these links…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
There are other sources of energy to create plastics. Regardless, who knows if we will still be using plastics in 100 years?
emsnews? Right wingers? I love it when so self declared moderates out themselves.
If you can get past your unthinking hatred and actually learn something, you would discover that not all us right wingers are opposed to birth control. Only to govt mandating of the same.
As to your belief that we need contraceptives to stop the growth of the population, once again reality has destroyed that myth.
As to rest of your Malthusian nonsense, you discredit yourself better than I ever could.
If we seriously want to get the message out, Climate Hustle shouldn’t be a one-night-only showing in hundreds of theaters across the United States.
It should be available on line to thousands of millions of PC monitors in homes world wide !!
Alarmists won’t go see it anyway and wouldn’t watch it if it was free.
We don’t need to educate alarmists or skeptics… we need to educate the general population, the alarmists captured the MSM years ago, so we have to use all methods open to us.
“Alarmists won’t go see it”
Why not? If it’s so easy to refute some may look into it just for fun.
Rainer, go ahead, give it your best shot.
I notice that Fox harbors the AGW movies in its libraries, including Klein’s load of codswallop, why not “Climate Hustle” as well ?
Do you actually think that climate hustle won’t be widely distributed at some point? Come on, that makes no sense!
I’m quite sure that it will be, particularly as Fox has harbored AGW propaganda, films for profit.
Explains the lock-step mentality among the media.
Big Green is a typical mass movement, with a certain number of zealots who actually believe in what they are pushing, and a much larger group of opportunists, rent-seekers, and politicians who find the zealots useful. One can get into an endless argument over whether Al Gore is a zealot or an opportunist, but ultimately it makes little difference.
I know enough of the history of fascism and communism to state that cutting off the political support is the only real counter to zealotry. I just hope it does not take several wars, several hundred million dead, and over seventy years to deal with this group of zealots.
The entire point is to tax us all for exhaling. The biggest boon on earth for rulers.
Tom our next war will be in a different direction, the climate is about to cool, perhaps into a LIA, that will put to rest those AGW zealots. Sadly it is the religion of peace that will cause our next major war, this time our enemies of the past will be our greatest allies.
From the article: “They make it look like widespread public concern and spontaneous grassroots action – when in reality it is loud but small Astroturf activism, orchestrated by the ICN brigade and the foundations behind it.”
This is the basic strategy of the Left and the Liberal News Media on *any* issue. They want to present Loony Left ideas as being mainstream thought. A small group of people, making a lot of noise.
But alas, they are rather successful with this strategy, because green- and left-leaning MSM will only hire conformed journalists, and most MSM are today – for some social, economical and psychological reasons – on the left side. The trouble with this state is the fact that the great social power of the MSM is not legitimized by democratic decisions at all but only by financial influence.
Yet – on the hopeful side – a growing amount of people is realizing now that something is very fishy with this leftwing conformity of the MSM today. And the rich green zealots can’t control the internet (at least not yet) which is their main problem and nightmare. Without the internet (and such valuable sides as wuwt) we would live in a totalitarian eco-dictatorship already…
These days most people get their “news” from the internet and not from the MSM. For example, if you want to know what is happening in the area of climate, you don’t read any snoose-paper instead you come to WUWT to see what’s happening.
And cutting-edge new never seen before eye opener stuff from agwisreal3k.
https://story.californiasunday.com/crowds-on-demand?
Crowd Source
Inside the company that provides fake paparazzi, pretend campaign supporters, and counterfeit protesters
“Adam believed a niche service providing crowds might appeal to campaign directors. But once he launched the service, he found that he was asked to wield his crowds in a way he hadn’t anticipated — not only to support a candidate but to protest a candidate. A candidate might muster 500 supporters to a speech on a college campus, but if Adam sent just five recruits to demonstrate outside the auditorium, he discovered that the media would give equal coverage to both the rally and the demonstration.“
https://youtu.be/Gj2GESRYBAI
From the article: “The success of this campaign thus far, says ICN, has persuaded the activists to “step up efforts to pressure more attorneys general to investigate [more climate crisis skeptics] and sway public opinion, using op-eds, social media and rope-line questioning of [Republican] presidential candidates at campaign stops.”
What success? Filing unjustified complaints is proof of nothing. Any partisan fool AG can do that. Come back and see us when you get a conviction.
If you are grading your sucess on how many skeptics your bogus lawsuits have intimidated, you are batting zero, right now.
These AGs must be deprived of office.
The process is the punishment.
Even without taking the case to trial, these AGs can force the targeted companies to spend millions of dollars on discovery and legal preceedings.
If they take the case to court and lose, they can just charge again on a slightly different subject.
Continue ad infinitum until the companies capitulate or go bankrupt.
Companies without the deep pockets of the oil companies will often settle first knowing that they may not be able to survive long enough to make it to court for even the first round.
…how pathetic….to be convinced to be afraid of the weather
We really have gotten that soft
Seriously?
Now we are at the fifth grade level of conflating weather with climate? So you completely fail to understand that more snow in your backyard doesn’t mean crap about climate change? You think it’s colder in your city, the world is getting colder? Wow.
Show us your science degree and you will be deemed worthy of further commentary.
Oh of course, warming makes climate and cooling makes weather. Yeah, we’ve been told.
Agisreal,what is YOUR science degree that you hide behind with your smarmy comments?
Oh it will be in something like politics/ sociology/ psychology etc, nothing real or relevant
Let’s take Hurricane Katrina as an example.
During the period following Katrina, many prominent alarmists and alarmist promoting media channels – claimed that frequent hurricane of such strength were increased in number by “climate change” – and that such events were the “new normal”.
What then happened was that we have experienced the longest period in the record in which NO cat3+ hurricanes have struck the U.S.
So, apart from the fact that the alarmists were completely wrong – what we see here is that the alarmist are blaming Hurricane frequency on climate – and WE are the ones pointing out that they are JUST WEATHER.
Then, a few years later the same people were trying to pull the same bullshit with Storm Sandy – which wasn’t even a hurricane.
We were saying – NO, THIS IS JUST WEATHER.
I’m sorry to have to tell you this – but it is the govt. funded pal-review alarmist study generating community that is conflating climate with weather.
We are continually pointing out that storms and droughts and floods and frosts etc etc are just weather.
It is extremely arrogant of you to turn up here, having clearly read almost none of the articles posted in the long history of this site and to accuse US of doing the things that we continually criticize.
There goes the troll, whining about degrees.
Show us Al Gore’s science degree.
Show us DiCaprio’s science degree.
Heck, show us Bill Nye’s science degree.
Ron Manley, we’re not the one insisting on qualifications, although there are plenty here with them. Here the evidence matters. We examine the reasoning, logic and science of the message, not the qualifications of the messenger. The tit-for-tat response to the demand for qualifications is reasonable in the circumstances. You are trying to tit-for-tat the tit-for-tat response.
[Note: The commenter ‘Manley’ is an impostor/ID thief who is commenting under Mr. Manley’s name. therefore, all the impostor’s comments were a waste of time: Deleted. -mod]
agwisreal3000 May 1, 2016 at 7:38 pm
Seriously? So you completely fail to understand that more snow in your backyard doesn’t mean crap about climate change?
My, my you were the one who brought it up. Oh and by the way it is not just the “back yard” Try snow storms and blizzards in both hemispheres . Btw, It looks like France’s vineyards have been damaged by repeated freezes in late April.
As for your “Show us your science degree and you will be deemed worthy of further commentary.” Go pound sand. My, my, it must really gnaw at you that any common layman can see the folly of you great CAGW climate scientists. Getting a bit antsy? Feeling the first cold chill of the autumn of CAGW. Getting a little frustrated with fact that you are merely playing with dead leaves? Are the mists beginning to clear before your eyes and revealing that your beliefs and philosophies are poised above the trash heap of history?
Oh and don’t forget to correct your handle to agwisnotreal3000
michael
agwisreal3000 May 1, 2016 at 7:38 pm says,
========================
“Seriously? So you completely fail to understand that more snow in your backyard doesn’t mean crap about climate change?”
========================
Of course not, but no change in snow fall in ether hemisphere over 40 years is indicative that the scientist and journalist yahoos that told us “children won’t know shat snow is” were and are speaking nonsense.
It is NOT CAGW skeptics that run around the world to somewhere where the weather is normal and publish news paper articles about how normal everything is here and there and how crop yields did well here and there.
However, it IS CAGW alarmist (University grantoligists with “environmental studies as their major) that run around the globe looking for every “extreme event” and get paid to predict global disaster in the future base on events that have always happened in the past, and are not increasing now; based on the FAILED model mean of the IPCC.
So agwisreal3000 how come you lack the courage to put the real name of your theory to your handle? Should it not be Cagwisreal3000? Also what is the 3000 for? 3000 peer reviewed alarmist grants? 3000 years until you get one disaster prediction increase correct? 3,000 newspaper hyped stories about normal flux in weather?
Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become “common knowledge,”
Inbreeding an incurable condition that nets the same mindset time after time through the ages!
This collusion has always been the case. The David Suzuki Foundation employed a well known firm from New York to promote the scam. The firm had a known methodology to make a debatable claim, then hire some disaffected scientists to lend credibility. They claimed some Apple Blight problem in USA, that runed out not to exist but ruined apple growers.
In this warmist case though, they went much further. They employed people to scour news services, journals and any other source of information. Then they excoriated anyone opposing their view, regardless of validity of the point being made. This exercise was so successful that any dissenting voice was replaced on journals and news services and science societies. Once in place the warmists then started talking on behalf of the societies as if they had full support.
One of the notable cases that eluded their determined attack was on a New Zealand scientist who questioned the temperature records of New Zealand. They tried to sack him and he fought them in court. When called on by the court to produce their falsified record, the warmists folded.
So soon after they revived their fake island refugee story and finally found and funded someone to prove they were a climate refugee. It also failed in court. AL Gore’s swamped island story failed.
Here is a link to Donna Laframboise. She has more on using publicity firms to promote this warmist spin.
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/04/10/public-relations-firms-climate-change/
The apple incident was related to Alar :
Alar – a chemical sprayed on fruit trees to regulate their growth so the entire crop can be harvested at one time.
It also increases bloom, uniformity of size and color, shape, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
The same chemical is marketed under other brand names and is still in widespread usage.
In the tropical foliage plant industry, it is called B-Nine. It makes plants grow more compact and have better color and more flowers, makes the foliage thicker and waxier, and in general makes for a more attractive and marketable plant.
Some common plants are nearly impossible to get to a marketable condition without such growth regulators, lake gardenias, for instance.
The thing is, it is sprayed on the crop before flowering even commences, and has effects that last for months to as long as a year.
None of the original chemical is even in an apple…the spray is a low concentration foliar application before the flowers even appear in the spring.
A total BS myth that it could ever hurt anyone.
I remember hearing about a distraught mother who called 911 to have the police chase down her child’s school bus to take an alar contaminated apple out of his lunch. Now with the school lunch programs, the children get contaminated food directly from the government.
I remember a story about another woman who called the poison control hot line to find out if it was safe to pour apple juice down the drain.
It’s always projection with these folks. Next time you hear one accusing an opponent of a practice, know that is ongoing in his own shop.
Any leftist cause functions in the same manner. You can watch the dozen or so liberal morning news shows, and they almost always focus on the same topic. If fact, it goes beyond that. Not only do they focus on the same topic, but they also have the same descriptive and persuasive language as to why you should feel differently than they subjects of the story they are covering. Many years ago one could believe that the coincidences of the agenda were just that — a coincidence. Because the major media outlets are now owned by a handful of companies, the news cycle isn’t news any longer, but propaganda and subliminal behavior control.
“You can watch the dozen or so liberal morning news shows, and they almost always focus on the same topic. If fact, it goes beyond that. Not only do they focus on the same topic, but they also have the same descriptive and persuasive language”
Indeed, that’s very true – and not only for the USA. I listen a lot of internet radio news from quite different parts of the world, and it is really striking how similar timing and wording of typical leftwing propaganda claims are, especially for topics which are not forced by a current event of the day…
Birds of a feather, flock together. And think alike.
Goebbels’ idea was to accuse your enemy of what you are doing. This is EXACTLY what those in the right-wing do to try to smear science-based research as “leftist” research.
FYI, science is not based on party lines. Science is based on reality.
The right-wing doesn’t support science, it supports outlier data and cherry-picked evidence that does not follow trends. Every one of your hallowed myths is debunked Skepticalscience.com.
Look up the Scientific Method and see if any scientists you trust actually follow this method. Revered “skeptic” Christopher Monckton is no trained climate scientist. Yet he receives respect among so-called skeptics far more than someone like Michael Mann who has training to do actual science. Do you see something wrong with this picture?
Would you trust Fran Tarkenton to throw the best pictures of Nolan Ryan? Would you trust Prince to play in a jazz band instead of Miles Davis?
Then WHY trust Monckton over Mann?
Answer: Someone you trust more told you not to. What you are suffering from is right-wing authoritarian syndrome. You don’t believe in the real Authority, climate scientists who do climate science, you believe in the pretend Authority that you want to be the authority.
Correction:
Would you trust Fran Tarkenton to throw the best pitches in baseball as opposed to Nolan Ryan?
(Frustrating that this website does not allow editing of comments posted. Rather tech-backwards.)
agwisreal3000 wrote: “Goebbels’ idea was to accuse your enemy of what you are doing. This is EXACTLY what those in the right-wing do to try to smear science-based research as “leftist” research.”
Aren’t you doing what you are accusing right-wingers of doing? Aren’t *you* projecting?
All right-wingers want is the facts. We don’t do data massage.
@agwisreal3000
Hello, always nice to meet orthodox and 150% CAGW believers here in wuwt… 😉
And with this very fact you can see the first and most telling difference between leftist and pro-alarmist propaganda outlets and a skeptical site like wuwt: Your opinion will not be deleted or suppressed here, as a skeptical opinion will immediately in a alarmist blog or media site. So we can discus freely here – Isn’t that a clear sign against your “Goebbels” accusations?
And let me guess: You have no advanced education or training in natural science and research. That’s very likely the reason of your uncritical belief in mainstream science. But I and many other skeptical discussants here in wuwt HAVE actually degrees in natural sciences. So we know how science works, and that scientists are quite normal humans as well and therefore very prone to zeitgeist fashions and the often biased way in which research money is distributed…
By the way – believe it or not – but there are also REAL climate scientists on the skeptical side as e.g. Judith Curry, Roy Spencer or John Christy. Thus, Mr. Mann and other alarmists are not only criticized by laypersons like Lord Monckton.
CAGWisreal3000, your wrong assertions are nothing more then that, and clearly you are ignorant of thousands of peer reviewed reports skeptical of CAGW. Since you are unaware of them would you like information on these reports? (If not why not?)
Would you like to know the names of Nobel prize winning physicists skeptical of CAGW?
Would you like to know about the tens of thousands of PHD scientists skeptical of CAGW?
“Then WHY trust Monckton over Mann?”
It’s very simple, really. Mann’s work doesn’t make any sense.
“Then WHY trust Monckton over Mann?”
Hide the decline mean anything to you?
CAGW/AGW is not science. Any predictions/projections you can point to have been falsified by actual observations. The rest is based on models that have been falsified.
Your are advocating for a pseudo science on par with astrology.
I love it when leftist trolls go off the deep end.
Anyone else notice that agwisreal3000 hasn’t even attempted to defend AGW. All he has done is scream that you have a degree that is acceptable to him, you shouldn’t be permitted to comment on this subject.
Oh yea, and whine that right wingers are being mean to his heros.
agwisreal,
Your focus on “authority” in the last paragraph gave you away. Authority has no place in science; comparing “real Authority” to “pretend Authority” is jibberish.
You are apparently a new reader of this site if you think Skeptical Science is a credible reference. I’ll put Chris Moncton up any day against John Cook. And to use your silly tit for tat; Dr. Richard Lindzen has a hell of a lot more credibility than Al Gore.
MarkW – yes, I noticed that agwisreal3000 has rushed in and dumped a heap of comments, but has not actually engaged with anyone yet. He comes across as panicking a bit. Perhaps he had not seen WUWT before. The site views number count or the huge number of articles and comments must have sent him off the deep end. Quite unlike anything the Doomsters have.
One only needs to read Allan Drury’s novels and one can easily see what’s been going on for a long, long time. My epiphany occurred in April of 1992 when Time Magazine editorialized that the candidates personal life should be off limits for the media. At the time I thought, ” They’re supporting someone whose private life is a mess!” In walks Gov. Clinton. Need I say more.
wsbriggs May 1, 2016 at 3:53 pm
“One only needs to read Allan Drury’s novels”
The hill of summer and The Roads of Earth were always my favorites. 🙂
michael
If you have watched the green media for a period of time, this becomes self evident. Since I have been watching for a while I knew this was the case. It is so frustrating seeing people that are not following the news closely to fall for the alarmism, though completely understandable.
A saw another one of those climate is getting worse stories in my Sunday paper this morning! It has an AP credit on it. Now I know.
dagnabbit! “I” no “A”.
A know what you meant.
As soon as I seen this article, before reading, I thought Rockefeller Foundation, and was I disappointed?
No.
“…I seen…” – you must have gone to school in Philadelphia. (sorry).
Rockefeller Gates Turner and others have their shared vision for our future.
The Super friends will save the world from humanity
They always use the old advertising trick of triggering campaigns and press releases in any given region when the temperature goes up. It was originally developed to sell Ice cream, sun-glasses etc
Here in Australia we’ve had a beautiful long summer and the usual culprits have been prattling on endlessly on the subject.
It’s not about today’s temperature, it’s about long-term temperature trends based on climate changes. Here again, those who fail to understand global warming conflate weather with climate. Look up the difference.
You have is ass backwards not real3000. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/01/inside-climate-propaganda/comment-page-1/#comment-2204744
That’s exactly what Charles Nelson is saying:
“Here in Australia we’ve had a beautiful long summer” (the weather) “and the usual culprits” (warmists) “have been prattling on endlessly on the subject.” (the climate/CAGW).
Why would you think we don’t know that weather is not climate? We are the ones who put that message out there, because it was the globull warming propagandists that were doing all the conflating.
It’s not about today’s temperature, it’s about something we can endlessly push into the future so it can never be proven wrong.
It is true that climate science education and media campaigns by real scientists are needed in order to combat the ignorance foisted upon the public by climate science skeptics, those self-deluded arrogant folks who do not trust actual science. The same thing is going on with climate Skeptics as is going on with anti-vaxxers. Spreading ignorance like a virus while damaging the entire human race and the planet. Thinking they are doing good!
Why don’t you check out the Union of Concerned Scientists website. I’m sure their average scientist members are far more intelligent than the average intelligence and IQ of the readers of this website.
Of course, no one likes to feel “small” by comparison, so you probably won’t want to go on their website! You’d rather have the validation of people who are just as unintelligent as you. It feels better!
If you really want information on the Union of Concerned Scientists and their activities, this can be provided here?
“Why don’t you check out the Union of Concerned Scientists website. I’m sure their average scientist members are far more intelligent than the average intelligence and IQ of the readers of this website.”
I know at least one from here is a member (Woof!).
You haven’t been around here much, have you, agwisreal3000? You’ll learn a lot if willing to engage and discuss, there are more scientists here than you can poke a stick at. I’d tone down the attempts to insult readers here, though, there’s no need for it.
Why don’t you check out the Union of Concerned Scientists website.
I’ve debated multiple UCS “scientists” in multiple forums. The most curious thing about them is that they are ill informed regarding their own side of the debate. So before I can debate them, I have to correct their erroneous beliefs about their own theory.
’nuff said.
Here’s something you should know about the Union of Concerned Scientists:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/26/kenji-sniffs-out-stupid-claims-by-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
OK, now I know you’re just kidding us. The Union of Concerned Scientists! I’m surprised they haven’t made Bill Nye their president. His credentials are almost as good as many of theirs.
“It is true that climate science education and media campaigns by real scientists are needed in order to combat the ignorance foisted upon the public by climate science skeptics, those self-deluded arrogant folks who do not trust actual science.”
FYI actual science is where you posit a hypothesis, construct a model that explains how X will react to Y IF the hypothesis is correct. The next, and most important step is to compare the model to real world empirical data to see how well they match. If the correlation is poor then the hypothesis is wrong.It is on this final test that CAGW fails miserably, no increase in extreme weather events, no mid tropospheric hot spot, no acceleration in sea level rise, no long term temperature variations that exceed previous warm periods (Roman, Medieval etc).
BTW what is your definition of a real scientist? Wait, let me guess, it’s someone who agrees with your view! Yes? Can you not accept that someone who studies science is by definition a scientist?
As for arrogance, you’re joking right? You dare to come on here making assumptions about IQ levels and you think we’re arrogant! You’ve no idea have you, how about you come back once you’ve acquired some humility.
CAGW/AGW is not science. Any predictions/projections you can point to have been falsified by actual observations. The rest is based on models that have been falsified.
Your are advocating for a pseudo science on par with astrology.
You have resorted to ad-hominen attack against individuals about which you have no personal knowledge. A common tactic for warmists who have lost an argument. You also use appeal to authority which is useless. You have not cited a single fact in support of AGW. It appears you are cultist in that you accept AGW on faith absent the facts to support your belief.
The Nation, May 2, 2013
‘Why Aren’t Environmental Groups Divesting from Fossil Fuels? by Naomi Klein
Scroll down to: Union of Concerned Scientists
Has $30 million “Board Reserve”
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-arent-environmental-groups-divesting-fossil-fuels
——————————————————————————————–
Union of Concerned Scientists
IRS Schedule J (Form 990), Part ll/Page 2
Compensation:
President, Total, $209,909
Executive Director, Total, $275,544
Dir. of Climate & Energy Programs, Total, $182,202
And other officers and directors are listed.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2016/04/UCS%20990%202014-2015.PDF
From the Union of Concerned Scientists citizen letter to Exxon Mobil which claims it recognizes the reality of global warming and our part in it (as does Shell):
The UCS is “calling on ExxonMobil to stop funding the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
“Your company now claims that, “We do not fund or support those who deny the reality of climate change.”
“But ExxonMobil sponsored ALEC’s most recent annual meeting, where a leading ALEC member misled policy makers when he claimed that, “The biggest scam of the last 100 years is global warming.”
“This is just the latest example of ALEC’s long record of deception on climate change. ExxonMobil still holds a seat on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Board.
“In response to pressure from the public and shareholders, BP and Shell announced they would stop funding ALEC last year. Shell explained that ALEC’s “…stance on climate change is clearly inconsistent with our own.”
agwisreal3000 May 1, 2016 at 8:06 pm
“This is just the latest example of ALEC’s long record of deception on climate change. ExxonMobil still holds a seat on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Board.”
“deception” It is okay to have a opinion agwisnotreal but that is all it is. not science. Has it not occurred to you that the statements by ALEC are not deceptions?
I’ll let you in on a secret, many of the people here at one time believed in AGW to some extent. Me too. All of us who at onetime attached some degree of truth to the AGW theory had a “Ah Ha” moment, yelled Eureka! All of us have “Crossed the Rubicon”. Do you understand? At one time many of us were on the side you were on, but we found it wanting. It did not hold up to scientific scrutiny. The theory was flawed and all the methods used to sustain it were based on exaggerations and yes your word “deception”.
You are not going to have any luck trying to peddle your “Chicken shadow soup” here.
michael
“I could never have known so well how paltry men are, and how little they care for really high aims, if I had not tested them by my scientific researches. Thus I saw that most men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.”
–Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Ultimately all this left-wing money comes from government printing (“quantitative easing”), launched in Obama’s first year, and thus a tax on our devalued money. It’s often said that nobody knows where that printed money went, or that it all went to the banks, etc. Indeed, there is no audit trail. And now the left is bursting with money for all their political projects. Who doubts that this is one thing that our community-organizer President would be good at? These left-wing so-called “funders” are just spigots for printed moneys which have been channeled through them. I have no special knowledge of this, but on the one hand we have vast amounts of money that we don’t know where it went, and on the other hand we have vast amounts of money that we don’t know where it comes from, and I for one know how to put 2 and 2 (or $2 trillion and $2 trillion) together.
I’ve known about this, and how it works for years.
That’s what drives me crazy about the people that come here and read, and comment.
Sometimes the snob affect is frustrating as Hell.
I usually bring fishery issues, that are a perfect parallel to the climate crap, and except for a very few, most ignore what I bring to the table!
I have been fighting the very Foundation funded prostitutes that use climate and fish to accomplish the same goal. Its not just climate, and its rooted by the same thing. Agenda driven science by the same agency supplying the science. NOAA.
A wonderful writer, Nils Stope wrote a piece called, “In the Belly of the Big Green Beast”.
When I was invited to be a participant in a panel discussion on fisheries at the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) annual meeting in Miami Beach in October, I had serious misgivings. Those misgivings mostly focused on what the likely reception of a representative of commercial fishing and fishermen would be by a roomful of granola munching, Birkenstock wearing, tie-died zealots who either never got their heads out of the 60s or were frustrated because they missed them completely. Up front I have to admit how off-target I was. There was very little tie-die in evidence.
Still operating under the naive belief that the people who arranged conferences for professions like journalism were as much committed to objectivity as I used to assume scientists were, I certainly wasn’t concerned about being a participant in a hatchet job, particularly with being on the wrong side of the hatchet.
I thought “the organizers are professional journalists and therefore committed to balance,” so I accepted.
So what had I bought into? As an augury, I had been listed in the program posted on the SEJ website as a commercial fisherman. I was asked to provide a short biography, which I did. Needless to say, I did not claim in it that I was or had ever been a commercial fishermen, primarily because I’m not and have never been one. The biog was linked to my name on the website, but apparently no one responsible for organizing the SEJ conference or the session in it that I was to participate in thought it was particularly important to check on the accuracy or the consistency of their information. So I remained a commercial fisherman on the program page and what I really was on the page linked to it.
Jeff Burnside from NBC Miami was the co-chairman of the conference. Mr. Burnside has taught Aldo Leopold Leadership Program fellows (see the following paragraph) for 10 years. This is a program started by my copanelist Jane Lubchenco that is designed to provide “academic researchers with the skills and connections needed to be effective leaders and communicators.” Mr. Burnside has also served on the Advisory Council for the Pew Institute for Ocean Science.
When I checked in with the moderator of the panel I was on, environmental reporter Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post,, (I’m sure most of you recognize that name, bh)
Please read the rest here: http://www.fishnet-usa.com/In_Belly_Of_Beast.pdf
I forgot to click the notify button, So,,,
borehead,
WOW…just wow I am AGHAST at the assertions made by what you termed “arm chair scientists” who dream of an ideological world that fits into their narrative (i.e. declaring California a no fishing zone to “feed” the other areas). I’m not surprised but I am still aghast they had the balls to sit on a panel and compare the intricacies of commercial fishing to “pretty” vs “ugly” fish and slurpee brain freezes.
Thank you Jenn, for reading that. Jane Lubchenco, the MacArthur Genius, came up with the Slurpee analogy. Her Pew/EDF pedigree runs deep! As NOAA administrator, she filled key positions inside NOAA.
Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (link).
•Pew Marine Conservation Fellow – $150,000 award (link).
•Founding principal of the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea – $710,000 from Moore (link).
•Seaweb Board member (link).
•Pew Oceans Commission member – $5.5 million from Pew (link).
•Joint Ocean Commission Initiative member (link).
•Professor at Oregon State University: $ 2.6 million from David & Lucile Packard Foundation $ 0.3 million from Pew Trusts $13.5 from Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
•Vice chair of Board Environmental Defense: $10.4 million from David & Lucile Packard Foundation $ 3.8 million from Pew Trusts $13.7 million from Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation $ 0.2 million from Surdna Foundation.
•Co-founder Leopold Leadership Program: In 2007 Packard awarded $32.5 million from toStanford University for “the Leopold Leadership Program, the Environment and Energy building, and the Center for Ocean Solutions” (search “sustainability” in 2007 here)
•Board member – Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute: $217 million from David & Lucile Packard Foundation.
•Her NOAA staff: Chief of Staff Margaret Spring (ex Director, Nature Conservancy), Dep. Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere Monica Medina (ex Senior Officer, Pew Environment Group), Director of Communications Justin Kenney (ex Senior Public Affairs Officer at Pew Trusts and Director of Communications for the Pew Commission), General Counsel Lois Schiffer (ex Senior Vice President for Public Policy at the National Audubon Society).
You might find this page interesting! http://www.fishtruth.net/Connections.htm
Any science coming out of NOAA is Pew science.
There is another interesting article written by Stolpe that is interesting, and revealing.
NOAA Inaction in the Gulf of Mexico
Lubchenco’s/NOAA’s role in the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015
In her September 21, 2009 twenty-six page response to Lisa Birnbaum, Director of the Mineral Management Service on the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015. Ms. Lubchenco precedes her comments with a rundown of the federal laws that give her and NOAA specific responsibility in the areas covered by the draft proposal. These are “the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National Maine Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and the Coral Reef Conservation Act as well as NOAA’s statutory roles under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act, and the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act.”
Ms. Lubchenco then brings up a series of issues that were not adequately or accurately addressed in the proposal. Clearly she and NOAA had the ability, the foreknowledge and the duty to intercede in those issues. But did they? Anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil still spewing into the Gulf of Mexico -we still don’t know how much – every day attest to how effective that intercession was.
And then there are the subsurface oil plumes!
http://www.fishnet-usa.com/NOAA_Inaction.htm
This is where it all began!
Pew’s Conquest Of The Ocean By David Lincoln
This is the story of how a handful of scientists set out from Oregon with an unshakable belief that they knew what was best for the rest of us. They ended up conquering the world (or at least the watery portions of it) and got rich along the way, while the fishermen and their families only worked harder and got poorer. When their scientific dogma connected with nearly unlimited resources, the earth quaked and the resulting tidal wave swept aside all the usual checks and balances. It carried along the media, the politicians, the government agencies and the non-governmental organizations with such force that seemingly no one could stand against the tide.
http://fisherynation.com/pews-conquest-ocean-david-lincoln
For example:
World Resources Institute Board includes:
James Gustave Speth, Founder & Board member.
Short biography accompanies each director.
Co-founder of Natural Resources Defense Council and on the U.S. Advisory Council of 350.org.
Speth is Honorary Board member of NRDC and Laurance Rockefeller is on the NRDC Board.
Then follow Speth into Vermont.
http://www.wri.org/about/board
Speth also involved in the Greenpeace “Fix Democracy” Pledge, 2016, along with McKibben and 350.org.
350.org has received Rockefeller funding.
UNEP Finance Initiative
Regional Activities – North america
“The Task Force is working to incorporate the principles of sustainable development as normal business practice throughout the North American Economy.”
Has a list of the Canadian and U.S. financial institutions that are members.
http://www.unepfi.org/regional-activities/north-america
—————————————————————————————-
Carbon Asset Risks
Discussion Framework, c.2012, 60 + page Report
WRI and UNEP-FI Portfolio Carbon Initiative
WRI/World Resources Institute was founded by James Gustave Speth and he has also been associated with the U.N.
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/carbon_asset_risk.pdf
DEMOCRACY COLLABORATIVE – Building community wealth
Our team includes: Gus Speth
This leads into Ohio
http://www.democracycollaborative.org/staff
Can also do an internet search: Naomi Klein + Gus Speth
NRDC was responsible for the apple alar scare that drove some apple growers out of business.
https://www.biggreenradicals.com/group/natural-resources-defense-council/
Some government agencies are committing science malpractice in changing measured data to corroborate an agenda. It is unfortunate that so many are being deceived.
Mother Nature does not do politics and will eventually prevail. The ongoing average global temperature trend is down.
How will the MSM respond as the declining average global temperature trend becomes more widely recognized?
Why don’t “skeptics” accept reality? The fact is, the overwhelming scientific evidence makes it easy to use simple “catch phrases” about standard facts. You don’t seem to have any skepticism about the Earth being 3.5 billion years old because it’s repeated by every geologist who has studied the subject. That’s because it’s a FACT. That doesn’t automatically make such a claim suspect or specious. So why, out of all the sciences, do factual claims by climate scientists come under such direct attack by conservatives almost exclusively?? (And, not coincidentally, why is the United States conservative party the the ONLY conservative party in the world that denies climate science?)
Yet the apparent religion of climate science skepticism here prevents some from accepting established scientific fact.
Perhaps some have “right-wing authoritarian syndrome” as an ongoing mental issue. Look it up; it’s a real problem, but only among right-wingers.
Fact: Climate science “skepticism” is a nice way of describing an apparent religion, a belief in something that is patently not true, composed of outrageous claims, is supported primarily by hearsay or specious, cherry-picked evidence, essentially having zero credible evidence to support it.
Climate science skepticism is based not on the immeasurable and overwhelming evidence that supports climate science and nearly every other established science, but on wishful (and desperate, fear-driven) near-worship of hallowed but unproven and discredited nay-sayers (inevitably funded by conservative foundations who, following the money trail, rely on oil company $$$ for their existence) who consistently rely on outlier and cherry-picked data, and who revere disproven pseudoscience theories.
Every myth that keeps going around, including the big lie that there is a “pause” in global warming, has been disproven. Pretty much every one is listed on skepticalscience.com.
Yet instead of examining and picking apart the data on Skepticalscience, when it is mentioned, up pop the uneducated, repeating scornful comments about “drinking the Kool-Aid” and other such nonsense and nonscientific tripe. The refutations are NEVER science-based arguments published in peer-reviewed journals.
In other words, instead of trying to quote science, readers on this website rely on 3rd grade schoolyard bullying techniques. Intelligence and discourse is not respected much. What does that tell you about the mentality of the readership here??
What NEVER happens among skeptics is going to college, getting a doctorate degree in climate science and following up on the science to understand it. NEVER are heard or reported any actual science that contradicts in any major way the overwhelming evidence found and reported by the IPCC, NOAA, Realclimate.org, et al.
Climate scientists, not fakers and frauds like Christopher Monckton, have massive education and training behind what they do. They aren’t funded by oil or coal companies or shady PACs or groups with an oil-industry-supporting agenda.
The goal of real climate scientists, which doesn’t seem to be quite understood here, is to do pure science. And they do it. And when the science is upended or mistakes are found by other scientists, which occasionally happens, the science is improved. That’s the way science works.
Since many don’t seem to have heard of it, it is a process that has about a hundred and fifty years of evidence and proof that it works: the Scientific Method.
Here’s a link, to improve your education. Pass it on to your children and grandchildren:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The naysayers are going to have to get degrees in climate science from accredited universities in order to have any sort of credibility. Report here after you graduate in about six years and maybe after five or ten years of diligent study! Pet theories, armchair discussions and other exhibits of pure laziness do not contribute to science and the scientific method.
FYI: This website is NOT a peer-reviewed science journal. It has NO legitimacy in the world of actual climate science. Your hopes for legitimacy are bound to be dashed unless your simplistic stabs at climate science are reviewed by multiple scientists who actually DO the science.
Climate science and every other kind of science is NOT a popularity contest. It doesn’t matter that this website is “the most viewed” or the “most popular” on climate science. So the very claim this website makes about its popularity underscores its lack of legitimacy in the scientific world. Because it is an attempt to distract from the fact that it has no such legitimacy. However, those who believe in popularity over science and enjoy a popular it is and how many views their comments get! YAYYYY, peer validation!
Similarly, Beyonce may have the most popular music this week. It doesn’t mean it is the best. It’s merely what appeals to certain mass audiences–not vast pools of genius-level members of the public– at the time.
I’m sorry, but to those who like to call themselves climate science skeptics, your efforts and your postings here are almost completely wasted. Unless of course your only goal is to seek validation from quacks and crackers and those who believe in outlier, cherry-picked data that doesn’t hold up to the overwhelming evidence already found.
To put the icing on the cake, let’s examine a fake, B-movie plot idea that encapsulates the issue, and exposes the total ridiculousness anti-science climate skepticism:
Author Scott Westerfeld:
“Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.”
Now, FINALLY, don’t y’all feel SILLY? You bought the “plucky band of billionaires and oil companies'” B.S.–hook, line and sinker!
SERIOUSLY, people– you still think “ClimateGate” is a real thing, a scandal or fraud perpetrated upon the public by evil, corrupt, crooked scientists? That perhaps the millions or even billions in total climate science and university and government salaries and research grants compares somehow to the TRILLIONS made every YEAR by the oil and coal industry?? I mean, have you ever looked up Exxon Mobil quarterly profits? 1 quarter I think it was 2007, was $44 billion. Only ONE company! That’s not the entire cost of doing business, that’s ONLY PROFITS!
If Al Gore wanted to make millions and millions in profits, all he would have to do is invest in the oil industry! That’s the EASIEST thing to do. It’s not easy to look up and understand climate science research, create a massive presentation and travel the world and find places willing to host it and drum up audiences–people like you and I who could simply make MUCH MORE money by investing in oil companies and maintain the status quo, doing business as usual.
Seriously people, get a brain! Sheesh~conspiracy theorists!
agwisreal3000
So, if $25,000.00 donated one time to one conservative think tank is “shady money” that corrupts forver the donors AND the receiver of the rant, how many government-paid shills (er, self-called scientists) can you buy for 92 billion dollars in government money to create government-needed propaganda that justifies government-funded takeovers of wealth, power, energy, and the economy? How many self-called scientists can 1.3 trillion in new tax revenues buy? How many grants, scholarships, and universities – like Penn State – get corrupted by CAGW money – like the millions in mosquito research provided soon after Mann was whitewashed by a non-inquiry when he corrupted his research to justify government CO2 programs and budgets with the Hockey Stick frauds?
The goal of climate scientists to fund future climate scientist budgets for the climate scientists writing the research papers that generate funding for government bureaucrats funding climate science that justify the government policies and taxes that justify the climate scientist’s budgets. And the 31 trillion in carbon trading that fund the governments and banks.
Feeding trolls? Tut tut.
Our side is incorruptible. Your side is corrupted to begin with.
Left wing logic.
Brett – when I first came to this site many years ago, I learned much from the responses given to trolls. It’s this sort of conversation that captured my interest and why I am in here every day. Besides, agwisreal3000 has earned every word he receives. 🙂
Dear agwisreal3000,
AGW is real alright it’s just, on balance, not dangerous.
If I. like you seem to, believed that fossil fuel use was likely to bring serious or catastrophic consequences outweighing any benefits I would stop using them.
If you genuinely do believe that you should immediately stop using them, otherwise people won’t believe you.
Well done on getting Exxon’s profits wrong. I would expect nothing less from a follower of the Church of CAGW.
Earlier our new poster, “3000liesaboutCAGW” said he wished WUWT had an edit button Wow, best if he just started over. So it is a fact that the earth is 3.5 billion years old because EVERY geologist tells you so. Wow, 3000liesaboutCAGW, you fail basic geology as well. ( for some time geologists estimate the earth at about 4.5 billion years, and they do not call it a FACT) But then again, at 3.5 billion you are only off by a billion years. or about 25% Considering that the IPCC atmospheric models over predict warming observations by about 300 percent, you are doing pretty good for an alarmist.
Since that was the sad start of your latest baseless assertions, and I and others already debunked every one of your 3000 baseless assertions above, it would be best for you to read for about three thousands hours before you post anymore.
agwisreal3000 May 1, 2016 at 7:32 pm
Why don’t “skeptics” accept reality? We do.
The Article you are posting on is “Inside climate propaganda”. You seem to be getting desperate is the programming breaking down? Lets see you ended accusing us of being “Sheesh~conspiracy theorists!”
Really, Oh dear. Hmm you say, “you still think “ClimateGate” is a real thing, a scandal or fraud perpetrated upon the public by evil, corrupt, crooked scientists?” But of course. Have you on your own without anyone doing “interpretations” for you read the “ClimateGate” E-mails? Next you will be telling us there were never any Nixon Tapes. Don’t you just hate whistle blowers.
And last “The naysayers are going to have to get degrees in climate science from accredited universities in order to have any sort of credibility. Report here after you graduate in about six years and maybe after five or ten years of diligent study!” Do you know the origin of the “Yankee Doodle” song Climate science is just like that. There are a few real Climate scientists here but none on Skepticalscience.
As for your ‘Report here after you graduate in about six years and maybe after five or ten years of diligent study!” who do you think you are? Were do you think you can telling anyone what they can say or when they can say it.”
Again, go pound sand.
Oh by the way earlier I referred to France’s wine crop, if you want to carry on at being so scientific why did you not respond. Oh it also looks like Switzerland is going to lose a chunk of theirs. Late April snows and frosts. Reality trumps theory. bummer huh.
michaels
[Reply: technically, there were many thousands of hours of Nixon’s tapes that WERE made public…. He only erased 18 minute of the total tapes. The CAGW’s Hillary illegally erased 31,000 of her illegally=stored emails, and delayed the paper release of her other 33,000 pages for as long as possible.. .mod]
I am watching an episode of Land & Sea on a CBC network titled “Wild Weather” – Many wonder if weather patterns are growing more severe and destructive because of devastating storms in the Maritimes. The conclusion at the end of the show was, No.
The age of this planet is reportedly closer to 4,500 million years. Your cited value of 3.5 billion years is off by about 1,000 million years or 25%. Shall we believe your value? Assigning mental defects to those that do not mindlessly toe an official government policy line is the stuff of tyrants, as you must be aware given the extent of your analysis. Exxonmobil and subsidiaries as a group is just an association of people that have accumulated their savings in order to create capital and deliver high value products to us at low prices, without force. Why do you try to focus hatred on this enterprise? Because others told you that you should?
2007? Ever heard of a crackup boom? Got anything more recent and therefore useful to your claims? Just to note, that’s almost 10 years ago and pre the GFC. It’s also an extremely challenging business that Exxon’s in.
agw is a lie 3000
There is so much error in that one comment of yours. All I can do is implore you to educate yourself a little. Since you obviously know nothing about the IPCC, may I suggest you start with a wrecking ball of investigative journalism by reading Donna’s Delinquent Teenager.
And if I ever receive any oil money, I promise to share it with you after I hacksaw it in half.
As always, not a single fact or scientific argument.
Just whining that unapproved people are permitted to not only have contrary opinions, but to voice them.
If this site has no legitimacy in the world of actual climate science, what are you panicking for? Ruffled much?
Wow!
Project much?
BTW, EVERY ONE of your paragraphs is an assertion that is easily refutable.
Just a few:
– “Skepicism is a religion”? – (see ‘projection’ above.) It’s your side that depends on “authority” and “beliefs”.
– you refer us to Skeptical Science and then claim this site is not a peer reviewed journal?
– the “pause” has been disproven? (Are you really Tom Karl?)
– skepicism not based on data? projection again; skepticism is based on observations, alarmism on failed models.
– Education – so Drs Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Christie, Happer et al have no education? How did they ever get to leadership positions in major universities and publish so extensively?
– Al Gore did better than invest in the oil industry, he SOLD OUT to an oil producer and made many more millions (on top of his carbon trading scams) (By the way, what was Al’s education in Climate Science?)
– I’ve yet to receive my first check from the oil billionaires; yet Dr Shukla seems to have made out pretty well.
– ask any statistican about either the Doran and Zimmerman 97% “study”, or your Mentor John Cooks “study”; both pure statistical hogwash (Wait, are YOU John Cook?)
– Scott Westerfield – “a writer of young adult fiction” – now THERE’s a solid resource for CAGW opinion.
– Climate gate e-mails ARE a real thing. East Anglica Univ (and Phil Jones) SAID THEY WERE!! So now go read them (don’t take John Cooks word for it; do some thinking for yourself for a change.
And you tell US to get a Brain?!?
agwisreal3000,
OK then,quantify AGW out of all global warming, with a verifiable, testable measurement.
You can’t because there aren’t any measurements of AGW. It’s all based on opinions.
And regarding Climategate, here’s thier programmer, Harry, explaining how he obtains his data:
CRU NEEDS A DATA MANAGER.
Not only do both databases have unnecessary duplicates, introduced for external mapping purposes by the look of it, but the ‘main’ stations (2 and 4) have different station name & country. In fact one of the country names is illegal! Dealing with things like this cannot be automated as they’re the results of non-automatic decisions.
What a bloody mess.
Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993! Looking at the data – the COBAR station 1962-2004 seems to be an exact copy of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station 1962-2004. And wouldn’t you know it, the data for this station has missing data between 12/92 and 12/99 inclusive. So I reckon it’s the old FORREST AERO station (WMO 9464600, .au ID 11004), with the new Australian bulletin updates tacked on (hence starting in 2000) So.. do I split off the 2000-present data to a new station with the new number, or accept that whoever joined them (Dave?) looked into it and decided it would be OK? The BOM website says they’re 800m apart.
Hope that’s right..
All 115 refs now matched in the TMin database. Confidence in the fidelity of the Australian station in the database drastically reduced. Likelihood of invalid merging of Australian stations high. Let’s go..
getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.
I honestly have no idea what to do here. and there are countless others of equal bafflingness.
I suspected a couple of stations were being counted twice, so using ‘comm’ I looked for identical headers. Unfortunately there weren’t any!! So I have invented two stations, hmm.
I have to admit, I still don’t understand secondary parameter generation. I’ve read the papers, and the miniscule amount of ‘Read Me’ documentation, and it just doesn’t make sense.
As I was examining the vap database, I noticed there was a ‘wet’ database. Could I not use that to assist with rd0 generation? well.. it’s not documented, but then, none of the process is so I might as well bluff my way into it!
Units seem to vary: <DO YOU SEE? THERE’S THAT OH-SO FAMILIAR BLOCK OF MISSING CODES IN THE LATE 80S, THEN THE DATA PICKS UP AGAIN. BUT LOOK AT THE CORRELATIONS ON THE RIGHT, ALL GOOD AFTER THE BREAK, DECIDEDLY DODGY BEFORE IT. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STATIONS, AREN’T THEY? AAAARRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
Quite honestly I don’t have time – but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally.
But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases.
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have 🙂
You see? The CRU “Climatologists” you’re so impressed with used FABRICATED ‘data’!
They admit it. But you still believe there is any honesty in the climate alarmist world? Then you win the über-Credulous Award for suckers. Really, could you be any more gullible?
The “Climate Hustle” one-day showing is preaching to the choir. I got plenty of emails asking me to come. I’m not; I know the CAGW hoax is a scam. The people who need to see this aren’t going to, unless some way is found to get it into the same mainstream conduits that Algore’s scare-mongering film got into. I don’t know how to do this, but I sure hope CFACT does.
/Mr Lynn
The conduits would be school classrooms using state and state-approved curricula and solar and wind farms’ education centers for use during field trips by schools, which show fire-and-brimstone materials to hapless local kids. Unlikely those will be useable.
I would question taking any children near industrial size wind turbines!
Learnining center annex near the administration and operations buildings if any, not too close. Anyway they are just windmills – turbines have features not present – usually of high materials quality and integrity. That’s why they are so expensive and because, jobs! What’s so risky to kids other than the terrifying Sunday school type indoctrination?
The distribution of Al Gore’s scare-mongering film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was funded by Eric Schmidt’s (chairman of Google) 11th Hour Project. They targeted mainly churches. It’s no coincidence that today, The Unitarian Universalist church is essentially a conveyor belt for all things climate change propaganda.
It is also no coincidence that, in 2007, 1 year after the release of Gore’s flick- he was hired on as partner of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers… Eric Schmidt’s Google benefactors.
Today, I discovered this troubling prediction made in 1969.
“Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content will rise 25 per cent by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York”
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/releases/jul10/56.pdf
Now, we clearly must not be skeptical about the claims in that letter. Since skepticism regarding the hypothesis of CO2 induced warming is anti-science. (sarc)
So, what we learn from that letter is that sea level “could” rise at New York by 3 metres in 2000.
The time and the place and the amount of SLR are quite specific.
Unfortunately, for the letter writer — it is now 2016 and the sea level at New York has been accurately recorded throughout the entirety of the last century.
And the deviation from the pre-1969 trend has been zero. The rise in the 30 years before the letter was about 10cm, and the rise in the 30 years afterwards – was about 10cm.
And yet, after all these years we are still being fed the same recycled bullcrap. (And from many of the same people).
Surely there must be some point at which people will look at this graph (link below) and notice that nothing has changed in 150 years of industrialization. Nothing. No change to the rate of SLR
Then, where is the accelerating rise that we were promised and are continually promised, again and again and again? And why do people keep falling for the same old alarmist predictions when clear evidence refutes them with the passing of decades?
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=169814&page=3
Apologies, the last link should have directed to the specific graph. (The familiar N.Y. Battery SLR).
I should have tested the url. My mistake. I only meant to link to this one graph.
It’s called “copy n’paste journalism” – something that grew as a direct result of the massive loss of earnings to the internet. So, basically almost no journalists these days do any real investigative journalism – instead they just grab a press release from any organisation that they think doesn’t need checking and print it almost verbatim.
Knowing journalists trying to make it in the world–the non-investigation is pushed by their bosses more often than not. If they don’t have something on the page when it breaks–regardless of whether or not it is accurate they get reprimanded or fired. Investigative journalism has taken to blog writing because of the push for views that has overtaken many a previous news source. It has more to do with the business model than anything else and it is sad because there are marketing strategies that work online–unfortunately it is the opinion of most journalists I know that the news organizations of the past are still clinging to the paper business model.
My problem is the editing and proofreading (my comments are excluded from this…LOL). More and more I come across an article that makes absolutely no sense. Or I come across articles that have c/p’d tweets instead of actually writing the piece. The editors and proofreaders (especially proofreaders) have gone the way of the dodo I am afraid and not only are there misplaced and often completely wrong words used but the over/under use of the Oxford comma drives me nuts.
You’re right: too much propaganda and too many extremes used when talking about climate. Unfortunately, politicians and media create a different image about climate and climate change, and the voice of scientists is not always heard. More than that, there are so much money wasted on propaganda (even on the one referring to the greenhouse effect), instead on spending them on real studies about climate and about the oceans, in order to understand the facts that lead to climate change…
How organizations such as ICN, WWF, Greenpeace, whatever can be classed as Not for Profit absolutely inverts Income Taxation laws and regulations.
They are selling a service.
Not for profit is a tax status—not a business model. There is a vast difference. 🙂
See, I knew I wasn’t crazy.
Anyway, what I intended to say before being sidetracked by agwisreal is that that I greatly appreciate this post. It adds another important piece to the puzzle.
Citation of “investigation” sources for…
#ExxonPapers – Columbia University and The Open Society Foundations.
#PanamaPapers – Columbia University and The Open Society Foundations.
One cannot discuss the genesis of Open Society Foundations without discussing Morton Halperin (Columbia alumnus, Brookings fellow, Clinton Admin. advisor).
#PentagonPapers – Morton Halperin, Brookings Institution, Daniel Ellsberg, etc.
Even Daniel Ellsberg has a hand in the Exxon papers – http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15112015/daniel-ellsberg-exxonknew-best-thank-you-pentagon-papers
There’s a trend here.
I wish people would stop assuming that because AGW is a crock of nonsense, so is opposition to fracking, just because lefties support both premises.
Fracking is extremely dangerous both in causing a load of earth tremors and in poisoning water sources. It’s totally unsustainable. If you have friends – as I do – in the areas where fracking is widespread, eg Oklahoma and North Dakota, then you will have first hand reports of the damage being done to the environment.
Poisoning of water sources is no small thing: local communities depend on these sources for all their water needs. It’s not just a matter of a few careless incidents either: such contamination is endemic to the process
One example, which is badly affecting Native American friends in ND – and it’s not hard to find many more:
http://drcinfo.org/2016/04/27/widespread-contamination-nd-linked-fracking-spills/
You’re on the wrong thread AND need to do some research. Or is this meant as a distraction from this article?
I notice that agwisreal3000 is very vocal on this thread but no other. My take from this is that he has a direct connection with “Inside Climate”. He shows no interest in any other article or WUWT (apart from slamming it). There might also be more than one name used or more than one person from that site looking to disrupt this thread. I guess they don’t like exposure.
AP and Reuters are owned by the Rothschild family. IPCC founder Maurice Strong introduced Edmond de Rothschild as the “founder of the environmental movement” at the 1992 UNCED meeting. He sold shares in his formerly private Swiss bank to finance the Environmental Conservation Fund at the 4th World Wilderness Conference in 1987. (attendee George Hunt’s videos and transcripts)
The Rothschilds also own the Weather Channel and weather.com.
Lynne de Forest Rothschild owns a geoengineering company (forgot the name).
Biased climate reporting is good business.
RICO?
@dbstealey
I don’t need credentials because I don’t make claims here based on falsely pretending to be a scientist. I ONLY rely on data and evidence from credentialed, peer reviewed scientists, not hacks posting here, or scientist-posers taking money from obviously entrenched power brokers (Big Oil –via various convoluted “pipelines” like the Heritage Foundation).
Is every one of you so desperate to find a contrarian, anti-science audience of religious believers in the nonsense and nonscience of global warming “skepticism?” Which now even the venerable New York Times uses the D-word for, probably banned here out of sheer guilty embarrassment about the truth.
Science is real. Science DESCRIBES reality itself. Until it unequivocally disproves the settled science of AGW, it DOES fully support it.
“‘Nuf said” indeed. They did. On Realclimate.org. On Skepticalscience.com.
No amount of Palinesque foreign policy expertise (“I can see Russia from my porch!”), armchair analysis, talking down to me without knowing what I know or don’t, or (rampant here) arrogance born of wishful thinking or ignorance, can refute reality itself.
Earth is OBVIOUSLY a sinking, fragile, bending, heaving, breaking ship, due almost SOLELY to human activities. Multiple scientific disciplines confirm it.
Ostrich-like head-burying gets you only kudos from the similarly deaf, dumb (unintelligent, in this sense) and wilfully blind.
Finally, testament to the power of the points I made, NONE have been refuted by actual peer reviewed science. Get it? NO REAL SCIENCE posted in response here.
Says a lot about the abilities of those posting.
The lip service–umpteen rhetorical devices slung by as many desperately defensive, nonanalytical, anti-science authors, evading the obvious conclusions made by EXPERTS ONLY– is a mighty poor substitute for reality.
WOW. What a waste of brainpower this site is. Mine and yours.
Again–WHICH of you exactly, is investing in a climate science degree to PROVE your armchair anti-AGW nonsense? The science stands firm, and its massive body of evidence is growing. Ripe for refutation, if possible, by QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS. Science is immune to geezers drinking in every Fox News lie or arrogant, unqualified nonexperts who THINK they’re experts.
Virtually all of you are in effect saying “Gee listen to ME, ma–I got me an enn-guh-eer degree”–so I know more than a REAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST!
Yup. Your mama’s proud. Alrighty then. Break out the cornbread, Elmer, and SELLYBRATE!
But no, ignorance and arrogance does NOT outweigh the mountains of data stacked against your “my hero walks on water–because a respected book AND my priest said so”-style beliefs.
It’s both humorous and pathetic that you and so many like-minded believe it does.
agwisreal3000
Gee.
How many self-selected, government-paid so-called “climate scientists” can you buy for 92 billion dollars in government bribes (er, grants and vacations and research labs and billion-dollar supercomputer campuses in Colorado and Virginia and NY and California and staffs and trips and conferences and permanent tenure positions) … if 25,000.00 in a one-time grant from one conservative think tank is enough to qualify for condemnation and corruption as a “Big Oil” pipeline.
No. There is NO EVIDENCE for man’s influence on global warming trends that began 250 years before the Industrial Revolution was able to save lives and improve people worldwide, and the global warming that continues today at the same rates with effects in the same places. Your usual litany of “evidence” is merely evidence of a naturally warmer world, a naturally healthier and more productive world, with more people living better lives through intelligence use of power and energy.
Your favored policies to restrict energy and limit beneficial CO2 release kill people, harm lives, hurt people. For no effect other than hurting people and harming lives. Well, other than 31 trillion to the bankers in Enron-invented carbon trading schemes. And 1.3 trillion in new taxes for your politician’s voters. And 92 billion to your favored self-called scientists.
CO2 was steady. Global average temperatures went up.
CO2 was steady. Global average temperatures were steady.
CO2 was steady. Global average temperatures went down.
CO2 increased. Global average temperatures went down.
CO2 increased. Global average temperatures were steady.
CO2 increased. Global average temperatures went up.
CO2 increased. Global average temperatures were steady.
CO2-induced CAGW hysteria increased. Global money spent on CO2 hysteria-supporters went up.
CO2-induced CAGW hysteria increased even more. Global money spent on CO2 hysteria-supporters went up even faster.
CO2-induced CAGW hysteria increased. Global control placed in the hands of CO2 hysteria-supporters went up.
CO2-induced CAGW hysteria increased even more. Global control placed in the hands of CO2 hysteria-supporters went up even faster.
Now, just what is the relationship between global CO2 hysteria and the power yielded to hysterical global CO2 activists and self-selected “scientists” and their politicians?
What a fatuous, and sad, response.
agwisreal3000
When your “venerable” Ny Times acknowledges its role in supporting Stalin’s murder of millions of Ukranian and Russian innocents by “denying” the Communist starvation tactics (but earning a Pulitzer Prize!) used in the 1930’s, when your venerable NY Times becomes anything more than a socialist propaganda tool for democrats and racists worldwide, then I will read any single comment written in the NY Times with some bit of belief. It, like you, have no credibility.
Oh, by the way, on your attempts to condemn Palin’s comment. You do know that your supposed “foreign policy” quote ridiculing her was made BY a comedian ON a comedy show written BY other comedians FOR just such well-informed scientific “NY Times-quoting-experts” as your self to quote in public. Your knowledge of CAGW policies and background knowledge appears as equally biased and incorrect as your knowledge of geology and geometry.
agwisreal3000,
I asked you: Your exact climate science education is…? From what accredited university? Your published, peer review papers are posted and published where exactly?
You dodged answering by saying you don’t need credentials.
Translation: You’ve got nothin’. Which figures, because your comments are nothing but the same anti-science pablum emitted by the alarmist crowd. You have no credible science, only your baseless assertions, plus the typical poisoning of the well with your mindless, juvenile insults.
You claim to only rely on data from credentialed, peer reviewed scientists, not “hacks posting here”.
FYI, my views, and most others here, are identical to those of MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen — the author of twenty dozen published, peer reviewed papers on atmospheric science. Therefore, either you’re blowing smoke, or you’re flat wrong. I think both. You have no credibility.
Next, whatever the NY Times writes is irrelevant to science. They are a pseudo-science propaganda source that also poisons the well. What, exactly, is a “denialist”? You have no clue, and neither does the NYT. Give us a definition, and I will easily rip it to shreds.
Next, you drift off into the typical head-nodding, mouth breathing, alarmist attack on Gov Palin. Eco-lemmings do that because they have no credible science to back their beliefs. Palin was never mentioned, except by you. That’s because, again, you’ve got nothin’.
Next, you baselessly assert:
Earth is OBVIOUSLY a sinking, fragile, bending, heaving, breaking ship, due almost SOLELY to human activities. Multiple scientific disciplines confirm it.
You’ve got nothin’. Otherwise, you would post links to papers using those terms. More poisoning of the well, plus appealing to corrupted ‘authorities’. You lose there, too, because that’s a logical fallacy. But it’s all you’ve got, so you think you have to use it. You certainly lack any credible science.
Next, you say:
Finally, testament to the power of the points I made…
Your “points” are baseless assertions. They mean nothing, therefore they’re powerless and impotent. You say, “NO REAL SCIENCE posted in response here.” Responding to your deluded fantasies is not what skeptics are required to do. But skeptics have absolutely demolished the CO2=cAGW nonsense. There isn’t a single measurement of AGW. If you think you can produce one, go ahead and try — you will be the first. So go ahead, I’ll wait here. But I won’t hold my breath.
Next, you say:
WOW. What a waste of brainpower this site is. Mine and yours.
Leave skeptics out of it. That comment applies exclusively to you. Your problem is that you have exhibited no brainpower.
Next:
WHICH of you exactly, is investing in a climate science degree…
Plenty of commenters here have advanced degrees in the hard sciences, and many climatologists have written articles and comments here — and they all disagree with you. Wake me when you get any kind of degree in the hard sciences. Your only degree is in mouth-breathing, and head-nodding along with NYT articles. Thus, you fail.
The rest of your immature, childish rant takes the place of any scientific knowledge, which you lack completely. You have not posted one verifiable scientific fact that supports your eco-religious belief system. So trot along now, back to John Cook’s eo-Nazi blog, or hotwhopper, or wherever you get your misinformation and talking points from. Here, you’re a total fraud.
Ah. That means there are two total frauds here: the impostor, and agwisreal3000.