How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA
A new report was released today by the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, and it is damning. All this time that climate skeptics are accused of being in the employ of “big oil” is nothing more than a projection of their own greed.
Some excerpts:
Over 7.9 BILLION in funding between these groups.
Bill McKibben caught in a lie, he might be “scruffy” be he isn’t nearly broke as he once claimed:
The “epicenter” of funding disclosed:
The NRDC “mafia”
Josh wasn’t far off the mark:
Read the entire report here, then demand action from your legislators.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8af3d005-1337-4bc3-bcd6-be947c523439
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Many comments here I would like to reply to, but time is limited. Just to say there is a difference between repubs and demos, but one must look at individual policies and legislation offered. Many repubs and demos are statists and that is the problem. One needs to look to the lonely ones on the edges, the ones without much power, that are fighting for constitutional reform and reigning in out of control big government bureaucracies. It’s not a simple problem, but a never ending long-term fight to restore this country. Every generation must do its part and the fight to keep our liberty never ends.
borehead says:
July 31, 2014 at 5:47 am
phlogiston says We will never win a war against environmentalism per se.
This issue is NOT about environmentalism. This IS about professional eco fraud.
This climate crap has been carbon copied from the anti fishing play book of the Pew Charitable Trust, started way before Al Gore decided to capitalize on the use of well prepared dogma created by Pews bought and paid for brigade of ecologists that have destroyed the lives and reputations of fishermen in the US, and around the world. The sensationalism continues today.
This is about money and power.
These people are not environmentalists.
They are slick army’s of lawyers, constantly suing the government we pay for.
They are the Enviro Capitalists, ruining lives.
I agree with all of what you say. These people are cynically engaged in a fraudulent abusive power-grab (or just lining their pockets at everyone’s expense). My point however was public opinion. The background mood music of environmental alarm is accepted by the public which gives the eco-abusers the political environment they need to play the system and get for themselves ruinous dictatorial powers (and big payouts).
To get these turds ejected from power requires first a sea-change in public opinion. Politicians have no choice but to play to the public gallery. The toleration by politicians of anti-democratic and dishonest shenanigans by green apparatchiks is due to the perception that they are doing what the public want, regardless in how sordid a manner. That is, while the system as a whole retains at least a semblance of democracy. A point can be reached – for example in North Korea or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq where dictatorial control is so total that public opinion no longer matters. Many in the green movement desire and work for such a scenario.
The CO2 lie must be destroyed in the arena of public opinion. It must be done in a way that labels opponents of CAGW as rational environmentalists, not as anti-environment. Then the politicians will follow.
Richard North has, from time to time, done some quite detailed analysis of this ‘web’. There are some posts that I remember but can’t find and some that were easy …
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84268
and …
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=71981
I have to say that this is one area where The EU is way ahead of The US. The ‘web’ is stealing billions from EU taxpayers and it comes from all levels of government not just our equivalent of The EPA.
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2012/03/27/the-origins-of-green-liberalism/
Are there any skeptical billionaires? Skeptics like us, long ago needed to form or join a third party and run a super intelligent Gail Combs type against Hillary.
See, politicians get owned by billionaires early. The Walton’s and Rockefeller’s contribute to up and coming politicians. It’s like becoming dependent on a drug dealer.
I used to sit and talk to Sam Walton when I was a green as pie twenty year old.
borehead said :
This is about money and power.
These people are not environmentalists.
They are the Enviro Capitalists, ruining lives.
Yes that’s right and it all started at the 1987 World Wilderness Conference
George Hunt speaks about this and 1992 UNCED Conference at Rio de Janeiro
That Edmund de Rothschild saying that we should take “dry ice”
(frozen CO2) to the Arctic to keep ice from thawing out, eh what ?
Oddly enough, Maurice Strong is Rothschild’s stooge.
These people are truly grossly ignorant of any science.
There is not one iota of any logical process in their brains.
They have a single minded esurient avarice for cash,
gold, diamonds, and land, oh yes lots of land, and preferably
without any tiresome, “useless eater” humans living on it,
“Environmentalism” is a cloak to deprive humans of their land.
Yet Baron Edmond de Rothschild built the first oil pipeline
from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean to bring BP Iranian
oil to Israel. He founded Israeli General Bank and Paz Oil.
What an utter hypocrite he really was. His successors are
no better and probably worse in actuality.
This whole chicanery hangs over genuine science and debate,
with the bile filled pusillanimous utterances, of the weasel words
brigades, gaining more credence among mainstream, banker
owned media conglomerates, than the honest truth of science.
But the science is settled, they say, and yet the politics must
change first, and then the “science” will follow, for there are
two “sciences”. 1. The Real Empirical Science, of Huxley & Davy.
and 2. The Hokum pseudo “science” of UNIPCC & NOAA.
Pseudo “science” changes whenever there is a new incumbent
in The White House, or The Number 10 Downing Street, or in the
Brussels EU Presidents (there are many serve at the same time),
or a new Administration in Canberra, Beijing, and other Countries.
We ought to work to getting more honest and genuine people into
these places of government, and then we shall see an end to the
lies. Well for the most part anyway, I sincerely believe.
Sorry it was such a long posting folks.
Thanks for your time if you read thus far.
😮
Please, there is nothing “democratic” about democrats. Democrat party, not democratic, actually they are specifically non democratic.
With all the climate control taxes and such going on in Europe right now,
a lot of businesses and corporations are getting into a lot of debt, and
who do you think makes money out of this ?
YOU CAN !
Organised by Edmond de Rothschild (French Rothschilds),
YOU can buy a share in Europe’s Corporate Debt !!!!!!
Search with Bing or Google for the Luxembourg Account Number
<b<LU0112675722
Choose your broker, and make pots of cash from the Climate Scams.
…… but the science is settled, and you are a denier, or something.
Still, just get the wallet out and buy some Eu-Debt-Bonds,
from ole Rothschild, but his family isn’t funding the green scams
though is it ? Oh yea that’s right they are, and oh yea the Rothschild
Family trust based in Luxembourg (what that place again?) has bought
a large stake in the Rockefeller Family Trust (oh and vice versa).
They are as thick as thieves. these two families, and they aren’t
working these schemes to help YOU and YOUR Family, are they ?
Aye Caramba !
Phlogiston says, “To get these turds ejected from power requires first a sea-change in public opinion. Politicians have no choice but to play to the public gallery.”
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/7h2m-noudeoqryyw7jv9mw.gif
Gallup polls show 95% (or more now) would vote for a woman President.
“Senate report exposes the climate-environmental movement as being a cash machine controlling the EPA”
And what are they going to do about it???
What can they do about about it????
Its not what they do, its what we do. If we let it die here, that’s the end of it. If we stick it up the rumps of the Enviro NGOs and ride this like we stole it, we can make a difference. I’ve been linking this continuously since I read it. I want EDF to feel like the dirty whore it is!
Found a few more …
(illustrates the whole industry set-up from top to bottom)…
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=71199
(Hundreds of millions buys one some useful allies in an unpopular war ) …
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85066
3×2 Thank you!
What still surprises me is just how easy the whole ‘process’ turns out to be …
@5mins for the impatient. Keep in mind that she is talking about the most expensive piece of legislation in British history …
Thank Richard – He’s the one who does all the work. I just like reading the results. The guy is a ‘Bull Terrier’, I wouldn’t want him running me down.
“Chanting “far left” over and over is amateur hour” – On the issue of CO2 emissions and global warming the “far left” has been trying to wrap itself in a cloak of scientific legitimacy for years, implying that anyone who disagrees is some kind of scientifically illiterate Flat Earth Society member. The “far left” should be called out as much as possible so people can see that global warming has always been a political cause of the “far left”.
They have been vicious. On every issue.
sinewave:
At July 31, 2014 at 1:21 pm your post says in total.
I am a socialist which – by American standards – makes me part of the “far left”. I have been promoting real science on “the issue of CO2 emissions and global warming” since 1980.
Right-wing Margaret Thatcher raised anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) from being an obscure scientific hypothesis to become an international scare campaign; see here.
Only in the US is the issue portrayed as being a left vs right issue. It certainly is not elsewhere; for example, the recent minority report by dissenters of the pertinent UK Select Committee is provided by a socialist and an ex-member of Thatcher’s Cabinet (see this WUWT thread).
However, warmunists often pretend the message of your post as a method to divide sceptics of AGW.
False flag trolling is distasteful.
Richard
The figure for Greenpeace – total assets $15m – looks wrong. If my memory serves me right they spend about $18m p.a. just on their climate campaign.
It is not a matter of being “portrayed” as being right vs left, it is demonstrably so in the U.S. according to polls.
For example Gallup polls in March 2012 showed 75% of Democrats felt most scientists believe global warming is occurring while only 56 % of independents and 43% of Republicans shared that view.
In the question regarding if Global warming was mainly caused by human activities the splits are:
65% Dem, 55% Independent and 36% Republican.
Why specifically have these groups split out that way is probably strongly related to other factors such as how strong proponents of such positions sell the idea in each party/ideology. It is the belief of many that the rank and file Democrat is far more susceptible to uncritically accepting the pronouncements of their party leaders and forming a lock step movement than are Republicans or independents. This is probably best displayed by the 100 year long split inside the Republican party between the big government flexible interpretation of the constitution Republicans and the small government strict constitutional Republicans. This has recently coalesced to some degree with the tea party movement. Mainstream Deomcratic leaders of the 1960’s like Jack Kennedy would be very comfortable in today’s main stream Republican structure.
The Democratic party took a hard turn to the left in the late 1960’s (McGovern Democrats and the anti war protest movement) and adopted environmentalism as one of their pet projects and as a way to differentiate themselves from the pro-military/industrial large government Republicans.
In other countries the dynamics would be different due to personalities of leaders and various local events which opened the political door for various factions to latch onto the meme. Many assert that the extreme left (communists) who lost their focus with the collapse of the wall and the Soviet Union moved into the environmental and AGW movements as a handy way to latch onto mass appeal and useful idiots to push other agendas disguised as initiatives for these causes.
Larry Ledwick:
Thankyou for your clear and cogent post at July 31, 2014 at 6:29 pm.
Taking as true that in the US the left vs right alignment on AGW does exist, then on a blog such as WUWT (which has many non-US readers and contributers) the attacks on “the Left” are misplaced and unhelpful: “the US Left” may perhaps be appropriate.
Richard
WUWT says,
“The “epicenter” of funding disclosed: Democracy Alliance: Promoting the Progressive Agenda by Promoting the Far-Left Environmental Agenda.
Read the entire report here, then demand action from your legislators.”
Thank you WUWT, this is very informative.
At this point, I would hope that we all could begin to contact the companies, stores, and restaraunts we have appreciated over the years, and ask them to remember that we are the customer, not the environmental activists and EPA. If the mandate mentality is not stopped, these exact progressive groups will simply pass legislation telling all of our stores what they can and can’t sell. Then they will say, “A market solution!” We hear the contradictory term, “environmental capitalism.” But it is never capitalism when purchases are not voluntary – such as being forced to purchase electricity from worthless wind turbines. And when the government tells companies what to create, people are not the customer, the government is. There is a term for that and it is also not capitalism.
I suggest responding to all “Big Oil” claims with “Big Green” counter claims.
Also, could not a RICO suit be brought? It’s a very broad law used for all kinds of collusion.
Speaking of which, are not collusion and influence pledaling already crimes?
One of the roots of such wasteful, foolish, thuggish, and tyrannous government is the ease with which it can create almost unlimited amounts of money out of thin air. Near-infinite money buys near-infinite government, and a bureaucracy that is generously funded can entertain an open-ended dream about how to expand its realm.
Every day more people here in the US are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.
The first order of business of an Article V Convention must be to limit government’s ability to create and spend near-infinite amounts of money.
Smart comment, richardscourtney. I agree completely. Further, I believe dividing people along political lines is similar to a catchment program, it tricks you into thinking that you can silo this info. I am in the middle of reading the 92-page report. They are stupid to use political divisions because it’s going to divide people. This is NOT about politics. It’s about money. And extraordinary power. The problem is most people in the US (and certainly many on this board) believe that money operates the way G. Edward Griffin (author of The Creature From Jekyll Island says it does. Griffin is an honorable and decent man, and a fabulous researcher. but there are important documents he has missed that give a lie to his whole theory.
You’re dead wrong, buckwheaton. You do not understand how federal accounting works. If you did, you would understand what this idiot president is not doing to repair this economy. Because. He. Does. Not. Undertand. How. Federal. Accounting. Works.
buckwheaton says:
August 1, 2014 at 12:23 pm
What is particularly insidious about using the Fed to invent fiat “money” is that it obviates the need for the House to initiate spending bills. This allows the Executive to run roughshod over the citizenry without any fiscal discipline or control by the people’s representatives.