Joe Romm’s Center for American Progress, Sierra Club, others received money from foreign dark money Sea Change Foundation
A major left-wing foundation has received tens of millions of dollars from a shadowy Bermudan company with ties to wealthy American hedge fund managers and distributed those funds to prominent liberal nonprofit groups.
A sizable portion of the Sea Change Foundation’s revenue since 2011 has come from a single company, incorporated in Bermuda, called Klein Ltd. The company’s only officers are employees of a Bermuda law firm, and neither provided information on what Klein actually does.
Documents filed with the Bermudan government suggest that the company exists only on paper.
The money Klein has donated to Sea Change has been passed on to some of the largest liberal and environmentalist groups in the United States, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress (CAP).
CAP, which attacked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2010 for supposedly using foreign money for political purposes, has also received funds from the Bermuda-based Atlantic Philanthropies, as has its 501(c)(4) arm, the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
A number of Big Green donors have chosen offshore foundations for government-guaranteed anonymity,” Arnold said in an email. “Several countries have become favorites in the no-disclosure-required industry, notably Bermuda, Panama, and Liechtenstein.”
Fairbanks 80 degree days- NWS Fairbanks
The temperature at the Fairbanks airport has climbed to 84 degrees through 4 pm. This marks the 31st day this summer the temperature has reached 80 degrees or higher at the airport. This is the most such days in Fairbanks since weather observations began in 1904, surpassing the previous record of 30 days. The average number of days Fairbanks reaches 80 degrees or warmer is 11 days. The high temperature on Friday is forecast to reach the lower 80s again and this will throw another 80 degree day in the tally for this summer.
Although the summer of 2013 has seen a record number of days with temperatures of 80 degrees or warmer, this has not been the warmest summer on record in Fairbanks. As of August 1st, the summer of 2013 falls into second place behind the summer of 2004. There is at least another month of summer remaining in Fairbanks and temperatures would have to remain far above normal in order to make 2013 the warmest summer on record.
Fisker’s Venture Capital Firm Still Hasn’t Learned Cronyism Doesn’t Pay
By Paul Chesser, National Legal & Policy Center, 8/1/2013
The sniping and backbiting behind the financial scenes are escalating as those involved with Fisker Automotive and other green tech flops seek to direct blame for their investment failures. U.S. taxpayers, as usual, have suffered bystander casualties.
The latest controversy surrounds Silicon Valley investment firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, which has suffered a series of setbacks over its strategy to place sizable wagers on so-called “clean energy” companies. Their tech bettors hit on several huge successes during the 1990s dot-com boom, which history shows was a huge bubble with a nasty burst. The same thing happened with the government-fueled housing expansion and now the renewable energy sector is ballooning for the same reason.
Read the rest here: http://bit.ly/16mQFG4
Why would anyone believe a single word coming out of their mouth?
Why is it that every one of the cockups and blunders we uncover in their papers always err towards a warmer global climate?
Why do they persistently withhold the data on which their conclusions are based?
Why do they, in their own words, hide behind Freedom of Information laws, as a reason to keep such data hidden?
Why do they, in their own words again, hide behind Non-disclosure Agreements, as a reason to keep the data hidden?
Why are they so vague about the exact methods used on the data to derive their results?
Why do all their computer climate models run hot?
Why have they consistently overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2?
Why don’t they ever design experiments attempting to disprove their theories?
Why do the Climategate emails reveal their deep private doubts about the science, which they’ve publically reassured everyone was settled?
More at Pointman’s
In today’s post, I want to discuss Lewandowsky’s backdating of the blogpost in which he purported to “out” four skeptics, a claim that he re-iterated and embellished in a subsequent academic article, Lewandowsky et al (Fury). In my opinion, there is overwhelming evidence that Lewandowsky’s blogpost, which presently bears the date and timestamp of September 10, 2012 12:50 pm (Australian), was not published until September 11, 2012 between 6:00 and 6:30 am (Australian). By this time, five skeptics had already been identified at both Climate Audit (here) and updates at Jo Nova (here), with these identifications even being reported by Barry Woods on a thread at Lewandowsky’s STW blog.
However, because of the backdating of Lewandowsky’s blogpost, Lewandowsky appears to have the priority that he claimed both in the blogpost and the academic article. In today’s post, I’ll summarize the evidence for backdating, new information on which has arisen both through recent FOI and analysis by Simon Turnill.
The Thorium Energy Conference – ThEC13 in Geneva
…will be held in the Globe of Science and Innovation at CERN from October 27 to 31, 2013, in cooperation with a local Thorium Energy organization, which is under the patronage of Prof. Dr. Carlo Rubbia (Nobel Prize Laureate and former CERN Director).
There will be 280 participants, world famous contributors, a visit to the unique detectors at CERN and a banquette at the famous Hotel President Wilson in Geneva. Thorium Energy has just reached the point of true take-off momentum with an ever growing number of national programs and start-ups around the world. The series of ThEC-conferences will continue to grow even further!
by Dr. Craig Idso of CO2Science
Cold Weather vs. Warm Weather: Which Kills More People? (2 Jul 2013)
In Portugal, as in many other countries where, in the words of Vasconceloset al., low winter temperatures “are generally under-rated compared to high temperatures during summer periods,” cold weather is demonstrated to be “an important environmental hazard” that is much more deadly than the heat of summer… Read More
Hot-Water Climate-Change Refugia for Corals? (2 Jul 2013)
The Near-Death Experience of South Andaman Island Corals (2 Jul 2013)
They apparently have what it takes to survive a horrible case of bleaching… Read More
PMIP2 Characterizations of the Mid-Holocene African Monsoon (3 Jul 2013)
Quite clearly, there is still a lot of work to be done by the climate modeling community before their models can perform acceptably, especially in the case of the West African Monsoon… Read More
Dr. John Neilsen-Gammon Being Noncommittal About Sea Level Rise
A recent study by Levermann et al. (PNAS 2013) simulates the response of glaciers and ice sheets to rising global temperatures. Unlike studies that try to infer near-term sea-level rise, they look at the long-term response of the ice. They focus on two time thresholds: the equilibrium response, after everything has adjusted to the new temperatures, and the response after 2000 years, which is only partway to equilibrium.
I don’t have any complaints with the simulations, but the paper emphasizes an unfortunate choice of words. The title of the paper is “The Multimillennial Sea-Level Commitment of Global Warming”. The term “commitment” has been used in the context of global warming itself in the sense of how much additional warming will take place even if CO2 levels hold steady. For example, we’re “committed” to an additional 0.5-1.0 C of warming over the next several decades even if we drastically reduce emissions now.
This scenario is not one that’s likely to happen, but it’s useful because it tells us how much adaptation is necessary even under the most optimistic emission reduction scenario.
My bottom line is that for all practical purposes, sea level rise 2000 years from now is simply not worth planning for.
More at Climate Abyss
Warmists in the Arctic update: “The planned crossings have not been possible because of the ice coverage…we dragged the boat along the shore for nearly 100k”
The planned crossings have not been possible because of the ice coverage and the danger of ending up in a soup of massive icebergs. To avoid this we have had to stay much closer to the shore and skirt around the bays like one would in a smaller craft. The difficulty with this is that the ocean rowing boat is much more susceptible to wind. So the danger is that we are blown away form the shore out to the ice that lurks off shore. This is absolutely not an option as the boat would be destroyed and we would be in serious danger. The only available option is to do as we have been doing and to travel when we can. You cannot imagine how frustrating this is, we make light of it but it eats at you every minute you are not moving forward. That is why we dragged the boat along the shore for nearly 100k, and is possibly why we have been flying closer to the wind then we ever intended.
Norsex Arctic Ice Area Up Up and Away
Normally I graph Arctic and Antarctic Ice Extent from NSIDC data. But I do keep an eye on Norsex and Jaxa and DMI.
Norsex Arctic Ice Area looks amazingly upwards!
(For the record, while interesting, I don’t think this uptick is significant, it just another weather induced short term variation – Anthony)
More at the WUWT Sea ice page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/