The Log in the Eye of Greenpeace

Source: SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also SPPI paper by Joanne Nova: Climate Money

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

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

BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

..

>> Slurs, smears & money

>> Independent bloggers vs corporate environmentalists

>> Money to burn

>> Shielding climate orthodoxy from free speech

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ryan

Whenever I travel to Brussels, capital of the EU, by train or airplane, I am impressed by the number of posters put up by the likes of Exxon, BP and Shell, telling the Eurocrats what a good job they are doing on GREEN ENERGY and how more EU taxpayer money shoud be directed to them so they can carry on the fight for a greener future.
Big business in the EU LOVES green. Green equals more taxes, and more taxes means more money spent on EU big business that they don’t have to fight the Chinese for, so that means big profits.

What say we get an opinion poll going: “How fast do you think sea level is rising?”
I just got three answers ranging from .5cm to 1 ft per year. Then send the results to the press and see what happens (almost nothing?). Or has this been done? –AGF

Maybe Greenpeace should use some of that $642m to update their firewall and security procedures?

Wayne Delbeke

Not to mention the money that the Suzuki Foundation receives from other Foundations and Trusts, mostly out of the US. I am sure an interesting tree of connections could be made if the donors to the various trusts and foundations were identified. It gets murkier and murkier and very political.
Here is an article from the Toronto Sun. It may be off base and totally wrong, but boy it makes you think a little and wonder what is sitting below the surface. Where is the rest of the iceberg.
http://m.torontosun.com/2011/06/17/saudis-have-west-over-a-barrel
PS Not aimed at Saudis in particular, but just to say the Environmental movement funding is complex.

pat

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

Joshua

In other words, once again Anthony’s line of argumentation amounts to “But, mommy, mommy, they did it fiiiiiirrrrrsssttt.”
How does Greenpeace’s funding alter where Soon get’s his funds? Tribalism begets tribalism, Anthony.
=========================================================================
REPLY: My goodness how juvenile. Do all people from UPenn act this way?
Point of order: before launching juvenile attacks, at least learn to read the header and launch the attack against the correct person.
In saying “once again Anthony’s line of argumentation amounts to …” he fails to notice the most basic and important point:

by Dennis Ambler

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

oeman50

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

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

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

Gotta admit, though, that Soon did get a lot of money over recent years.
‘Boo-hoo the enviros get money too’ is a rather weak argument to counter a concealed conflict of interest of that magnitude.

Tamara

Logs aren’t sustainable. Perhaps it is a large piece of bamboo?

Wil

Excellent article. Information I will store and use for years to come. Here in Canada we’re also familiar with the Pembina Institute funded by Suncor Oil Sands.
The green movement wants to move North America’s economy away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy production and consumption, a model that coincides with what “president-elect [Barack] Obama has put forward.”
The Rockefeller Fund said it gave Corporate Ethics International a US$200,000 grant in July.
In a statement, Corporate Ethics said the money would be used “to stem demand for tar sands-derived fuels in the United States by building awareness of the growing amount of dirty tar sands fuels entering the United States from Alberta, Canada, and encouraging consumers, including companies and cities, to commit to avoiding use of these fuels.”
Rockefeller Fund manages about US$1-billion for descendants of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil Co., predecessor of U. S. oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips, all of which are oil-sands developers.
Other major endowments supporting anti-oil sands causes include the US$6-billion Pew Charitable Trusts, a legacy of J. Howard Pew, founder of a company that eventually became oil-sands pioneer Suncor Energy Inc., and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a legacy of the co-founder of computer giant Hewlett Packard with assets of more than US$7-billion.
And that is only the tip of the iceberg of the Green groups interrelated throughout the western world. Nevertheless, it seems to me President Obama and his administration is the ring leader of this group of hypocrites and fools.

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

CodeTech

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

RHS

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

derise

“one group has pulled off a bank heist while the other has been panhandling in front of the liquor store”
More like one used “normally accepted accounting practices” wink wink, and the other was caught DWNG (driving while not green) in an exclusivly progressive neighborhood (deserving of a hardcore beat down while “resisting authority” at a minimum).

Finally!!!!! Someone else has finally noticed!!!
Let’s not forget, Shell still remains as a member of http://www.us-cap.org/ Check out the other environmental organizations in bed with the corporations of the worlds. Huge mining outfits, energy companies, oil companies and more. The myth that big oil is funding skepticism is simply more of the same projection alarmists use. Big oil funds the warmistas, along with other major corporations of the world.
Berkeley and Chu lapping up the $500 mil like a dog would from a grateful master.

Mark Nutley

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

Henry chance

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

ferdberple

Contrary to what most people thing, Big Oil is pushing CO2 taxes and cap and trade for 2 reasons:
1. To price coal out of the market. Currently coal is the lowest cost fuel source, with the highest amount of CO2. By adding CO2 taxes to fuel, oil beocomes cheaper than coal, and major oil companies become big winners.
2, To pay oil companies to pump CO2 into the ground. Oil companies use CO2 to extract oil from older oil fields. They pump CO2 into the ground which costs them money. By forcing power companies to install carbon capture technology, oil compnies can then get paid to pump this CO2 into the ground increasing profitability.
This has nothing to do with the environment from the point of view of oil companies. There are simply using environmental regulations to eliminate competition and pass along costs to the consumer. Like a wolf in sheeps clothing, they are dressing themselves in “environmentally friendly” disguise to hide their true intentions. To lead the sheep (consumers) to the slaughter.

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

R. Shearer

There should be a dollar sign before the “green.”

agim

Big Green may also be getting money from the Saudis who do not want the West to develop their own oil / natural gas resources. Ezra Levant writing in the Toronto Sun on June 19, 2011 believes they may be contributors. You can do a lot with a trillion dollars. Column is here:
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/17/saudis-have-west-over-a-barrel
Cheers –

Henry chance

Prize winning physicist, Energy Czar Chu says BP will help save the world.
Of course they donated money to the University.

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

JBrase

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

Athelstan.

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

DirkH

“In the same document in which Greenpeace talks about the ExxonMobil money it chillingly asserts that climate “deniers” aren’t entitled to free speech. Why? Because “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.””
Well, i guess we all know that they follow the old adage of accusing the enemy of your own biggest crime here. The first time i noticed they’re liars was when they exaggerated the tonnage of oil in the Brent Spar by a factor of 100. So they’ve been lying for decades now.
The call for a boycot of Shell stations in Germany led one Greenpeace follower to attack a gas station with a gun; shots were fired. So they have some mentally unstable whackjobs amongst their followers; i became pretty suspicious of all peace loving hippie mass movements at that time. Still don’t trust them.

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

Capo

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

Theo Goodwin

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

APACHEWHOKNOWS

Long ago, when the true deep “red” of Greenpeace’s new Democrat Underground leadership became clear, this Apache was asked to leave Greenpeace notwithstanding my life membership.
They made it real clear in the parking lot after some of U.S. spoke up.
It is a large mote with a mean dangerous red streek down its back.

ShrNfr

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

Bruce

Greenpeace actually sells energy.
“We are second largest green energy supplier in Germany”
http://eurocoop.coop/events/en/conferenceclimatechange/CorinnaHölzelgreenpeace.pdf
If they are against nuclear or natural gas or oil or coal, it is only because they are competitors.

pochas

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

gcb

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

Hmm, funny, my read on the article was that if you’re going to criticize your opponent’s funding sources, you should make sure you’re not taking the same kind of “dirty” money or you’re just making yourself look bad.
Further, as pointed out in the article, two of the biggest enviro-groups receive money with links to carbon trading, which obviously benefits from the CAGW theory. The implications of a conflict of interest are fairly blatant there, but of course we’re supposed to believe that these organizations couldn’t possibly be in it for the money (despite the mid-six-figure salaries of the presidents of these groups) because they’re “charities”.
So, to sum up, if you’re an “evil denier”, you need to make sure your money is clean as a whistle, but if you’re a “charity”, it’s okay that your money quite possibly comes with strings a mile long attached. Glad we cleared that up!

P Walker

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

Thanks, by the way, for the link to Afterall.net. New to me, at least.
OK S.

Capo says:
June 29, 2011 at 11:05 am
Let me try to summarize:
Illegal CRU-Hack was a good thing, because everyone should know I often read here.
It seems to be important to know who funded environmental movements.
But it seems not to be ok to know, who funded Willie Soon, although the fundings were revealed by a legal FOIA request.
As a interested reader I always appreciate to know all facts. And it’s a fact, that Willie Soon got about 1.2m $ from fossil fuel industry in a decade. I think all readers are able to draw conclusions by their own, there’s no need to protect us from some facts.
===============================================================
lol, almost sis.
I don’t care who funded Soon I don’t deem funding sources proxies for validity. Irrational whack jobs do, but that’s only because they lack the ability to discern for themselves whether the science is valid or not.
If oil industry funding of Soon taints his work, what does it mean about the oil funded green work?
Seeing that you errantly summarized the post, let me help you with this. The funding meme is over. The post is about the consistent unrepentant blatant hypocrisy constantly displayed by the warmistas. (I thought most would recognize that by the scripture invoked,…. but morality is sooo passe for some these days.)
BTW, you have absolutely no proof there was an illegal hack done at the CRU. But, thanks for displaying the type of behavior which has become so typical of alarmists, but we have enough poster-girls and poster-boys for the amoral watermelons.
Thanks again,
James

Vince Causey

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

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

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

Henry chance says:
June 29, 2011 at 10:51 am
If you give people money, they will say good things about you. (that is scientifically proven principle in psychology)

If there is one thing I have learned since getting involved in the Climate Change “discussion”, it is never to make an assertion without being able to back it up with solid evidence. So, what is your evidence for the above assertion (that it is scientifically proven that giving people money means they will say good things about you.) References to the appropriatre peer reviewed science will be sufficient.
Oh, and by the way, it doesn’t appear to work with Greenpeace, who have been given shed-loads of money by Big Oil but they keep on badmouthing them.

Jim G

Capo says:
June 29, 2011 at 11:05 am
“Let me try to summarize:
Illegal CRU-Hack was a good thing, because everyone should know I often read here.
It seems to be important to know who funded environmental movements.
But it seems not to be ok to know, who funded Willie Soon, although the fundings were revealed by a legal FOIA request.
As a interested reader I always appreciate to know all facts. And it’s a fact, that Willie Soon got about 1.2m $ from fossil fuel industry in a decade. I think all readers are able to draw conclusions by their own, there’s no need to protect us from some facts.”
But, Mommy, he does it too!!

CodeTech

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

1DandyTroll

“If Greenpeace would like to have a serious conversation about who, exactly, is spreading misinformation I’m up for that – since it’s overwhelming obvious that the big oil jackpot was awarded to those on the Greenpeace side of the debate.”
And that’s the conundrum of all “climate” NGOs.
It used to be that hippies had to work long hours, put in their own cash by the numbers, to get to a position of leadership. But it all changed in the 90’s. Don’t know which organization was first but I know NGOs in my country points WWF. Instead they took on hard core financial geniuses, not proper capitalists mind you, but from the plain greedy ranks, who, of course, started to lead with a top down hierarchy thereby scrapping the grassroots democracy.
They literally took on the same people they were fighting, or their friends and what not, so of course they today, even in official capacity, claim it is better to work with the “bad guys” rather than fighting them.
But who is more greedy? The greedy bastards, and their friends, who now effectively rule the NGOs from the inside (although, like I said the NGO zealots claim it’s the other way around) or the dumb grassroots hippies who brought them in just to up the money flow in the first place.
Even a few years ago it took one million people donating $6 per person to cover the salary and expenses for the head of WWF international and that was about one million dollars more than what WWF international “donated” to the poor polar bears (which major cost, apparently, was helicopter fuel and rent.)
People think UN is a black money hole, but it is nothing compared to the “major” NGOs money sinks.
People who for what ever reason feel bad, can be made to feel worse, and therefor want to donate to feel a little better, which is why they don’t question where their money goes (because they do not want to feel bad again.) It’s really become that simple and sad and evil.

djl

coeruleus says:
June 29, 2011 at 9:38 am
Gotta admit, though, that GREENPEACE did get a lot of money over recent years.
‘Boo-hoo SOON gOt money too’ is a rather weak argument to counter a concealed conflict of interest of that magnitude.
FIFY

coeruleus says:
June 29, 2011 at 9:38 am
Gotta admit, though, that Soon did get a lot of money over recent years.
‘Boo-hoo the enviros get money too’ is a rather weak argument to counter a concealed conflict of interest of that magnitude.
==========================================================
lol, is a goose and gander discussion.
Why do you people believe the funding is a proxy for valid vs invalid? Either the science is correct or not. It has nothing to do with funding. What kind of nut job thinks that only oil money causes a bias? Here’s a revelation for everyone that doesn’t understand this, Wealth, or the prospect of wealth, is a temptation towards corruption regardless of the source.
It really isn’t that hard to understand. Now, run along and go find me some science done without funding. Then you’ll see unbiased work. It won’t necessarily be correct, but it won’t be tainted by money.

Well done, Anthony! Darn well written.

KnR

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

Joshua

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

Well. There’s an interesting turn of logic. You’d suggest characterizing some tens of thousand of people based on the email address of one commenter? Is this is the kind of logic the grounds the WUWT tribe? Hopefully not. I’d prefer to believe that you’re the exception.
Allow me to explain in somewhat more detail. When I was a child, my parents explained to me that crying “but….but…. they did it first (or they did it too),” was no excuse for my own poor behavior.
Anthony reads of a potential conflict of interest in Soon’s science, and his response is too instead suggest that the work of others is tainted by dint of where they get their funding? That was the kind of behavior my parents taught me to stop engaging in.
If Anthony’s outrage is based on the opinion that the origin of a scientist’s funding is not sufficient to cast doubts on his/her work – then I would agree with him. But if he felt that way, then one would think he’d address the tens of posts in virtually every thread in the history of WUWT that cast aspersions on the work of thousands of climate scientists by dint of their funding source (that evil of all evils known as “the government”).
On the other hand, if Anthony’s concerned about the potential conflict of interest among “consensus scientists” by dint of their funding sources, then he should apply the same concerns to Soon’s work, and only after his work receives the highest of scrutiny, should he deem it above criticism based on his funding sources.
No matter how you slice it – Anthony’s post is based on a juvenile, and tribal, approach – and unfortunately, such an attitude predominates on both side in the climate debate. That isn’t a generalization based on a limited sample. It’s a description of what happens.
A pox on both your houses.
REPLY: And once again, Joshua can’t read the author line. Bizarre. – Anthony

Jeremy

Finally you got round to covering this. With normal posts and hat tips I must have raised this issue at least a dozen times only to be ignored.
I am a nobody so go ahead and ignore me but here is a blog that nobody who frequents this site should ignore
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/
It points to NOT ONLY funding of Green activist organizations but it describes how money is laundered through third party “shell” companies. It also suggest that elections in Canada are possibly being manipulated by American Corporate Wealth funds in order to limit competition from Canadin

Joshua

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

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