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 Change” set up with £12 million, (~$19million) at Imperial College, London in 2007. The chairman of the LSE Grantham Institute, Lord Stern of the infamous Stern Review, is heavily involved in carbon trading via carbon ratings agency, Idea Carbon. He joined IdeaGlobal, the parent company in 2007, as Vice Chairman. He also advises HSBC on carbon trading.
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 BP – aka 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.
..
>> Independent bloggers vs corporate environmentalists
>> Shielding climate orthodoxy from free speech
Related articles
- Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout (rkadlec.wordpress.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It actually has to do with the “shoot the messenger” syndrome. When dictators get bad news that they are powerless to do anything about, they tend to shoot the messenger (try to discredit the person instead of the facts). It really has nothing to do with the truth, but they think they can deny the truth if it does not come from someone they approve of – which is only people that would never speak the truth.
Big Oil, as I posted elsewhere, knows it can’t lose. Renewables, despite the hokey distorted figures tossed about and legislated by proponents and promoters, haven’t a snowball’s of meeting demand. Even nuclear has huge lead times and a narrow bandwidth compared to fossil fuels. So when the sh**mobile hits the wall, fossil fuels will be used, or the world will starve. Big Oil is betting the world will eventually acknowledge it prefers Option A.
Meanwhile, the protection money it pays the Greenistas gives it implicit cover, and also a humongous hammer. Imagine the consequences if all that funding ended tomorrow.
Distraction, its right up there along with Character Assasination as part of the Greenpeace persausion portfolio.
They might win battles for hearts in the short term but they’re never going to impress anyone with half a brain with Distraction and Ad Hom
In the spirit of fair play – why not open the books on Heartland?
By my logic, Anthony, often when you post something written by others, you editorialize to make your perspective clear. Sometimes when you don’t agree with the content of something you post written by someone else, you use a title (usually sarcastically) to make your perspective clear. Infrequently, I suppose, you post a “pro-AGW” article without editorial comment – but no one doubts where you stand vis-a-vis the perspective of the article, and the majority of comments in the thread show that non one questions where you stand.
If you want to slink away and claim that you weren’t giving your tacit stamp of approval to the perspective of this post – go ahead and do so. It’s your blog and no one will prevent you from posting a comment where you spell out your disagreement – with the article itself and/or the majority of the comments in reaction.
Or, you could just keep insulting me. That is a very instructive response to my discussion of your juvenile approach to debate. Maybe you can follow it up with some comments about my “lack of courage” because I don’t post under my full name?
REPLY: Oh puhleeze…maybe you can just admit you are wrong and move on? That would be the right thing to do, but I doubt you will. – Either way it doesn’t matter because your opinion is of no consequence – Anthony
There’s another strange thing about Willie Soon:
In May 26, 2011 Sonn writes an op-ed in The Wall Street Jounal titled “The Myth of Killer Mercury”. He claims that mercury emissions of coal plants are not harmful. So he is not only a contrarian of the AGW consensus, but also of the world health organisation (WHO).
Did the article above mention Soon being funded of coal industry, too?
It’s correct, the crucial point isn’t funding, but the quality of Soon’s papers.
Soon, Balieras 2003 was proven wrong at a time, nobody knew about his fundings. But maybe the paper wasn’t aimed to win a nobel prize, who knows. Did he publish a peer-reviewed paper since then?
I think the US should seriously consider following New Zealand’s policy regarding Greenpeace. They have revoked Greenpeace’s charitable status which I assume means Greenpeace will now have to pay taxes and donations are no longer tax deductible.
source:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/09/greenpeace-loses-charity-status-in-new-zealand/
Also, the EPA should not be using tax dollars for WRI propaganda. Congress needs to investigate departments that are making contributions to NGOs and put a stop to it.
“Finally you got round to covering this”
It’s not really good for part of his audience, and he is more science that politics, but I too would like to see more. But a lot of posters are rightists of the corporate fetish sorts. The kinds to which “cap and trade” must be dumbed down to “cap and tax” in order to elicit critical thinking. The sorts who are Republicans who when they see all the banks’ money going to Democrats do not think “these banks are corrupting the system” but rather mumble in stunned disbelief “how come these guys are not giving all their money to Republicans?” They are political squares. Look how many talk about the actual content of the article on this thread. At least prissy “Joshua” and “FairPlay” are hip enough to try to mess up the argument with tu quoque spam. But look how many don’t get it.
I’ve seen it many times, a lot of the rightists just get glassy eyed when they confront the fact that sainted businesses are not on their side! Maybe they read the Ayn Rand novels, and believed them. I hope Anthony has more articles on the money of AGW. I also would like to see stories on Government (and other) money going to journalists and bloggers to “promote” carbon trading. I think the money to EDF mentioned here might be illegal, used in a non-education purpose. I believe most environmental securitization schemes promoted in the government (fishing rights, etc.) have an EDF alumnus behind them. Europe Greenpeace and WWF are practically arms of the UKGov. Corporate leftists some call them.
@Joshua:
June 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm
On the other hand, if Joshua is concerned about the potential conflict of interest of Soon by dint of his funding sources, then he should apply the same concerns to the funding of Greenpeace and its funding sources.
That is not going to happen. Not until before hell freezes over anyway. Or until Joshua reads the full post at the top of this page. I wont hold my breath either way.
If using the FOI on Climate Scientist is like a death threat does this mean the AAAS will condem Greenpeace?
Also I wonder if the Smithsonian put up much of a fight WRT Soon’s records?
Joshua
May I say – my criteria and I suspect virtually everyone here regardless of where individuals get their bucks “check the work” then double check it again and again. This then is why Anthony places the info here on his website knowing full well we have the freedom to rip it apart of confirm the article. On the other hand, it is quite interesting you seem to give Greenpeace and other assorted eco-groups a complete free pass. For instance, if oil companies give money to this side you grip about their interests and question their scientific results. Where may I ask, prior to today, have you dismissed all of the environmental handiwork due to oil company participation and their scientific competence?
Moreover, I ask if you would be so kind as to point out the differences between democratic and republican government monies assisting universities and or government departments? Which is the majority of all western nations (minus Canada and Germany who is NOT in debt) who have to borrow said monies and in this particular case America which is a basic 50/50 nation while the America and other western nations are flirting on bankruptcy? Is Hansen an honest broker? GISS? IPCC? Greenpeace? The Brit Met Office? East Anglia? And other assorted eco groups – if so which ones?
BTW, blaming Anthony is immature – he is merely passing along the piece. And might I add the freedom to post your displeasure – and THAT, sir, is more than what any of us get when WE try and argue on AGW believer website. We’re always barred from those sites if WE question the religion.
Good heavens, who knew there were so many.
A partial list of NGOs the US government should (IMO) not be funding with tax dollars:
10:10
350.org
Climate Action Network-International
Climate Action Network-US
Friends of The Earth
Greenpiece
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
The Nature Conservancy
World Resources Institute
World Wildlife Fund
Actually, to make it easier, they should not fund any 501c3 organizations with tax dollars. The tax codes are already set-up in favor of 501c3 organizations.
Please note that later this month, Greenpeace will be launching their lovely new sailing yacht, Rainbow Warrior 3, paid for with lots and lots of other peoples money
The launch is timed to coincide with the sinking of the original Rainbow Warrior
Please googe for details
It will only use engine power 10% of the time. As Greenpeace are not reknowned for reliability around energy consumption, please be sure to remind them if you see them motoring everywhere.
They also seem a bit touchy about it being called a yacht
Please forgive a possible double-post – I thought I posted this already but when I come back to this thread, I’m not seeing a message indicating that my previous post is in moderation. Let me try posting again (because I know you all are waiting breathlessly to read my next post).
Not at all. While I think that on both sides funding sources suggest the potential for a conflict of interest in the results of analyses, an argument based only on assumptions about the corrupting influence of funding sources is weak. The fact that such arguments have been used extensively by the “pro-AGW” side is to that side’s discredit, IMO. Funding sources can be instructive, but not sufficient to support conclusions. I just happen to think that the same logic applies to the other side as well.
It’s all about the money. As the sun sets on the global warming movement many careers will see impoverishment.
CRU seeks BIG OIL and BIG BUSINESS cash
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1041&filename=1254832684.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=204&filename=973374325.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=159&filename=951431850.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=362&filename=1065125462.txt
Brilliant article! A very through case of ” follow the money”.
On a related note, does anybody know what the salary of Greenpeace’s head makes? I’ve tried to look it up myself but no luck. I’ve angered many a Greenpeace vendor on the street when I’ve asked them that. Who would of thought they don’t like to look in a mirror?
Enron and the Politics of Influence
25 January 2002
Rent-seeking in Washington is a highly developed art-form and when really humungous amounts of money are involved, it is always the case that a Baptist-bootlegger coalition has been put together to get the necessary legislation through Congress.
snip
The Baptists provided the political cover and the bootleggers pocketed the proceeds.
snip
Enron was at the centre of an awesome Baptist-bootlegger coalition, but there is no shortage of evidence of the connections which the company and its CEO, Kenneth Lay, had with their Baptist allies
snip
The organisation which has done more to build and sustain the Baptist-bootlegger coalition which continues to push for US ratification of Kyoto, or an equivalent de-carbonisation programme for the US, is the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, headed by Eileen Clausen,
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/politics/evans2002-2.php
How did Pachauri, with his links to BIG OIL, ever get along with Greenpeace? How did Al Gore, with his former links to BIG OIL, ever get along with Greenpeace? What made them all get along?
2011 USA government funding of climate science – $2.48 billion
http://climatequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/cc2011.png
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2011/
Joseph Goebbels I believe “If you tell a lie often enough; people will believe it”
All the rebutals, all the explanations will not change it. They have taken a leaf out of the playbook eloning to the best propagandists of the last couple of hundred years. Science will out, how long it takes and how much damage they do before hand?
Has climate funding reached its peak yet? Let’s hope so before it all get out of hand.
Follow the green backs. >>>>>>>>
CRU are grateful after receiving funding from the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Sceptics are on the payroll of big oil, nuclear and the dirty fossil fuel industries. / sarc
British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre (Food to Ethanol)
Central Electricity Generating Board
Eastern Electricity
KFA Germany (Nuclear)
Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
National Power
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
Shell (Oil, LNG)
Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
Tate and Lyle. (Food to Ethanol)
UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
There are probably more new names. ;>)
More fossil fool involvement in the great carbon scandal.
From Capo on June 29, 2011 at 2:11 pm:
The op-ed:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329420414284558.html
Excerpt:
Interesting reading. So even though mercury isn’t a problem in the US, the EPA wants even tougher standards than the WHO. It’s the EPA that’s being a contrarian to the WHO.
Perhaps you need to actually read the material you are critiquing rather than relying on blog blurbs.
Another excerpt:
Maybe the EPA should visit Yellowstone National Park and look into regulating Old Faithful to protect tourists and park staff from excessive mercury exposures. Do it for the children!
What has the IPCC and Greenpeace got in common?
“Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace”
Can the IPCC produce its reports without GRAY literature? NO.
Here is what IPCC insiders think about Pachauri.
This is why YOU must reduce your ‘carbon footprint’. It’s so others can increase theirs. It’s as simple as that. Hypocrisy , indulgencies, greed, easy profit and the Messiah Complex.
Gore’s second OCEAN VIEW villa with SIX fireplaces and many ‘necessary’ fountains.
We have a “planetary emergency” according to the single Al Gore with 2 very large houses. How much more of this crap are honest people willing to swallow?
IT’S A SCAM!