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.
“Big Oil” has always LOVED the idea of Cap ‘n’ Trade. In fact, the original model is called OPEC.
G’day Jimbo,
Surprise, surprise – East Anglia are temporarily unavailable.
No worry SPPI have a good listing of the reference numbers of the documents.
Joshua
Read all of my comments, and references, then jump off the sinking ship which used to be called CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING – now called
Climate ChangeGlobal Climate Disruption – in other words the weather.The clue about the scam is in the name change. ;O)
Joshua says:
June 29, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Anthony has added editorial notes to some of my guest posts, but he always make it clear what he is adding and what is mine. He does have to remind me from time to time to add a “Guest post by Ric Werme” because a lot of people skip the dateline after the title.
If you don’t like Anthony’s blog, we have a lot of people who would be glad to show you the door. If you make comments that add to the discussion or add some of your own research, e.g. how Soon’s research funds were distributed, then you’re welcome to stay.
I’m going to bed now. But here is a bit of fun relating to the kind of people you are dealing with. They are known as ‘green’ hypocrites
Green (red) zealots
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2009/11/celebrity-climate-change-hypocrites.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/james-cameron-labelled-climate-change-hypocrite-2115151.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=arrZzzbIySgQ
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-with-five-private-jets-travolta-still-lectures-on-global-warming.do
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64907
General articles
http://www.greenmuze.com/climate/heat/861-are-you-an-eco-hypocrite.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478845/Whats-green-flies-An-eco-hypocrite-wont-stay-grounded-say-researchers.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/10/how-not-to-be-an-eco-hypocrite.html
George Monbiot on his own hypocrisy
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/06/30/save-us-from-ourselves/
All good and honest people must stand up against this brazen scam.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
How about that BIG GREEN getting an exclusive piece of the BIG OIL Green Pie?
Kudos to the Washington Examiner and Post for exposing the Jolly Green Giant.
Perhaps Shell’s sin was that it didn’t contribute enough to BIG GREEN: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/ ??
The EPA’s decision had to do with failure to consider icebreaker operation. Oh my, I thought that the Arctic was doomed to melt completely by 201x.
I find this extract from the article of special interest:
Anthony also ran an article on an interview of Bob Ward, a PR spin man from the Grantham Institute at the LSE
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/abc-interview-wrongly-torches-skeptic-position/
The original Oz ABC radio “Science Show” interview went viral around the world, attracting titles like: Was this the worst Interview ever? Nevertheless the Science Show and the ABC, still regard Bob Ward to be A Principal Relevant Perspective on climate change, not requiring any balancing material or apology.
That’s five posts, four after Anthony corrected you for mistaking him for the author of the post and still you have not been able to man-up and just state: ‘oops, my bad’.
In my experience, eyes-wide-closed arrogance is the mark of a juvenile, teenager most likely, or very immature adult.
Anyone else would make sure their very next comment leads off with such an admission of a mistake.
Your next post will clearly say a lot about you personally. But, No Pressure. 😉
“oeman50 says:
June 29, 2011 at 9:35 am
How intellectually bankbrupt for Greenpeace to presume Dr. Soon is a “pawn” of “Big Oil” when they are much more in that pocket than any one else. And do they say which one of his works are tainted, inaccurate, etc. by this? Nope!”
You’ll find ‘Chicken Littles’ like Greenpeace and their minions use similar tactics opposed to their view. Our own NZ Chicken Little blogsite Hot Topic use similar tactics. Often uses the term “Climate Crank’ against those not going long with the AGW/CC meme.
Here’s just some recent examples:
The Climate Show #15: Michael Ashley and the ineducable Carter
More lunacy from Lomborg
The (un)principled sceptic
The Climate Show #14: volcanoes, black carbon and crocks from Christy
http://hot-topic.co.nz/
The money is currently lined up to flow towards CAGW proponents since CAGW gives governments excuses to expand their power. As a business person that has spent much of his career dealing with high level business people, I know that such business people are very pragmatic, especially when it comes to dealing with government officials. Business people are much more concerned about getting on the “right side of the trade” rather than worry about which side is correct. Since the merits of the case remain very much debatable (and since the outcome will depend on the actual interaction between human activity and natural events) the CAGW proponents have been able to have their cake and eating it since they can bash the bad old oil companies while taking their money.
The day it becomes clear CAGW has been dramatically oversold is the day the tables will dramatically turn. You can bet your bottom dollar, euro, yen, pound or whatever that those business people and people in the MSM currently on that side of the trade will on that day turn ferociously on their suddenly former beneficiaries. Since the outcome remains very much to be determined, those making the case on the ACAGW side (anti-CAGW) should continue pressing on.
Blade @ur momisugly June 29, 2011 at 8:14 pm
You quoted:
My memory of the Biblical Old Testament is a bit rusty but I recollect that Joshua was a really gloomy guy, and he backed the Egyptians rather than the Babylonians whilst Judah was the meat in the sandwich. It turned out in the otherwise recorded history that he screwed-up because Jerusalem was ravaged twice by Babylon’s Nebuchadnezzar III, wherein he doubly took the Jewish elite to Babylon to fragment their leadership etc. (the exile that apparently they enjoyed in the fertile crescent, and subsequently did not enjoy the idea of returning to Jerusalem without “encouragement“). One of the more famous exiles was the aristocratic youth Daniel, (of the lion’s den fame etc) who mysteriously became wiser than all the wizards in Nebuchadnezzar’s court even before he had been educated in their language and culture as detailed in an earlier chapter!
Theo Goodwin: You could try these for starters
31 October 2010 – A Nest Of Carbon Vipers
http://sppiblog.org/news/a-nest-of-carbon-vipers
17 February 2011 – High Level Climate Finance
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/high_level_climate_finance.html
17 February 20-11 – United Socialist Nations
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.html
UEA CRU was founded by BP and Shell in 1969.
Rajendra Pachauri has spent most of his professional career in the oil industry and founded GloriOil an oil exploration company.
“Climate Science” is merely an oil/gas industry attempt to shut down competing but much cheaper coal power stations.
A BBC investigation in 2007 by reporter Simon Cox : I would point out that the original work on this came from Richard North at EU Referendum, which the BBC used for their report,
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/07/eu-pays-to-be-lobbied-on-global-warming.html
It was already mentioned, but all BIGS (Big Oil, Big Government, Big NGO, Big Industry, Big Academia, Big Banks…) have been on the CAGW bandwagon BIG time. Big Climate is a huge cash cow.
Bananabender: ““Climate Science” is merely an oil/gas industry attempt to shut down competing but much cheaper coal power stations.”
Wow, that’s an interesting thought. I have been puzzling over Big Oil’s motives for paying these green extremists. Somebody above used the expression ‘protection money’, but Bananabender’s different take on the subject may be right on target. What an unholy alliance THAT would be!
P.S., “Big Oil” is not an insult. Energy is arguably the single biggest foundation of human prosperity.
Looks like slashdot has picked this up too. If anyone fancies a debate, head on over :p.
Like water to wine, Mercury becomes quite benign when it is inected into CFLs, according to the EPA anyway. /sarc
there are big oil. and there is big oil & coal…. exxon is one of the largest Coal Companies in the world. But all big Oil/Coal love the enviro creeps. give them some money. make it expensive for the customers. buy less oil from the arabs. still make good profit. everything is hunky dorey. as for getting rid of coal fired plants ( power, steel, cement etc. )… do these people even understand the size of the economies. you cannot replace all the coal fired plants in a few generations. let alone in a 10-20 yr period. and can’t afford those trillions of dollars for that . And to boot, Steel needs Carbon for the chemistry, not just for energy
It’s long been known that Big Energy plays both sides of the board. Their C-suites may be filled by scheming, manipulative people, but those people aren’t stupid. Why, if I owned a mega petroleum company, I might even be tempted to do the same. That is, try to extend the run of fossil fuels as long as possible by obfuscating the facts even while I spent millions seeking a competitive edge in clean energy for the time when the scientific truth about climate change can no longer be hidden, as they know very well it’s going to be. In other words, funding green energy research doesn’t in any way mean a corporation or an industry isn’t simultaneously deeply involved with the Professional Denial Industry. It’s like a gambler putting money on both teams, you know?
Besides, even if Greenpeace turned out to be the dirtiest, slimiest, nastiest, most evil, and most corrupt organization in the history of the planet, that wouldn’t mean a thing so far as the climate is concerned: the environment is warming rapidly, and all the denialist blather in the world won’t change that one iota.
Joshua,
Sorry, but in Bob_FJ says June 30, 2011 at 12:51 am
In my Old Testament recollection, I mixed the metaphors, and confused you with Jeremiah. (I think)
Yes, I agree, it’s rather nasty and dirty to launch a smear-attack by means of FOIA requests.
Greenpeace did it and some climate scientists are being rather flooded with similiar FOIA requests from skeptics. e.g. Cuccinelli vs. Mann/UVa.
Think about it next time before celebrating the next smeary FOIA request.
And think about the CRU-Hack supplying skeptics with thousands of mails written by climate scientists. Oh, remember the hype, everyone here looking forward to finding a scandal or a reason for further smeary attacks. Everyone would have been pleased, if someone had found there a similar scandal. Greenpeace launched only one nasty, but leagal FOIA-attack. Boom!
And think about, that not only skeptics have a right to be nasty, Greenpeace is nasty, too.
BTW: What about an idea of mine to confine FOIA requests only to scientific data, methods etc.
Pull My Finger – I think the point on the mercury exposure is that there is a net-reduction overall. The overall reduction in mercury exposure via lower power generation is greater than the risk of exposure due to bulb breakage,
Nice to see a pragmatist speak the truth, except for the parting shot. The only problerm with your last statement are the facts. You know, those dirty little things that get in the way of a good homily.
Bystander said on June 30, 2011 at 4:38 pm:
From the EPA:
If overall reduction in mercury exposure is desired, clearly the maximum result comes from the banning of fish and shellfish from the human diet, at least those known for historically high mercury levels. There should be at least batch monitoring, the testing of samples to determine if an individual “catch” is acceptable. Given the prevalence of natural mercury sources, including many undersea sources, this should be done to screen for localized elevated levels.
But what about the power plants?
If the EPA’s goal is to protect US citizens (and other residents) from dangerous mercury exposure, then clearly they need to do something about exposure to fish and shellfish sources as that is the most common way of exposure. Next on the list is exposure from broken mercury-containing items. The government could mandate a rubberized coating on CFL tubes to contain the mercury in case of breakage, such coatings are already used on “rough service” incandescent bulbs to prevent breakage and the dispersal of glass shards.
Instead they’re attacking the very tiny mercury emissions from US power plants. The only goal that is serving is the backdoor-banning of coal-fired plants by making them uneconomical by ever-escalating requirements that yield no discernible improvement for the population the EPA is supposed to be serving.