Vilifying realist science – and scientists

Ultra-rich Green groups attack climate scientists who question “manmade climate chaos” claims

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Things are not going well for Climate Chaos, Inc. The Environmental Protection Agency is implementing its carbon dioxide regulations, and President Obama wants to make more Alaska oil and gas prospects off limits. But elsewhere the climate alarm industry is under siege – and rightfully so.

Shortly after Mr. Obama warned him of imminent climate doom, Prime Minister Modi announced that India would double coal production, to bring electricity to 300 million more people. Hydraulic fracturing has launched a new era of petroleum abundance, making it harder to justify renewable energy subsidies.

Global warming predictions have become increasingly amusing, bizarre and disconnected from real-world climate and weather. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has confessed that its true goal is transforming the world’s economy and redistributing its wealth. More people are realizing that the actual problem is not climate change, which has been ongoing throughout history; it is costly policies imposed in the name of preventing change: policies that too often destroy jobs, perpetuate poverty and kill people.

Those perceptions are reinforced by recent studies that found climate researchers have systematically revised actual measured temperatures upward to fit a global warming narrative for Australia, Paraguay, the Arctic and elsewhere. Another study, “Why models run hot: Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be “no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections” – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.

Written by Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates and William Briggs, the study was published in the January 2015 Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Incredibly, it has already received over 10,000 views – thousands more than most scientific papers ever receive.

Instead of critiquing the paper, climate alarmists attacked its authors. Climate Investigations Center executive director (and former top Greenpeace official) Kert Davies told the Boston Globe it “simply cannot be true” that the authors have no conflict of interest over their study, considering their alleged industry funding sources and outside consulting fees. Davies singled out Dr. Willie Soon, saying the Harvard researcher received more than $1 million from companies that support studies critical of manmade climate change claims. An allied group launched a petition drive to have Dr. Soon fired.

Davies’ libelous assertions have no basis in fact. Not one of these four authors received a dime in grants or other payments for researching and writing their climate models paper. Every one of them did the work on his own time. The only money contributed to the Science Bulletin effort went to paying the “public access” fees, so that people could read their study for free.

I know these men and their work. Their integrity and devotion to the scientific method are beyond reproach. They go where their research takes them and refuse to bend their science or conclusions to secure grants, toe a particular line on global warming, or fit industry, government or other viewpoints.

Regarding Dr. Soon’s supposed “track record of accepting energy-industry grants,” the $1 million over a period of years went to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which took around 40% of the total off the top, for “overhead.” The details are all open public records. Not a dime went to this paper.

But since Davies raised the issues of money, conflicts of interest, failures to disclose financing, and how money supposedly influences science – let us explore those topics from the other side of the fence.

Climate Crisis, Inc. has a huge vested interest in climate alarmism – not merely part of $1 million over a ten-year span, but hundreds of billions of dollars in government, industry, foundation and other money during the past couple decades. Some of it is open and transparent, but much is hidden and suspect.

Between 2003 and 2010, the US government alone spent over $105 billion in taxpayer funds on climate and renewable energy projects. The European Union and other entities spent billions more. Most of the money went to modelers, scientists, other researchers and their agencies and universities; to renewable energy companies for subsidies and loan guarantees on projects that receive exemptions from endangered species and human health laws and penalties that apply to fossil fuel companies; and even to environmental pressure groups that applaud these actions, demand more and drive public policies.

Billions more went to government regulators, who coordinate many of these activities and develop regulations that are often based on secretive, deceptive pre-ordained “science,” sue-and-settle lawsuits devised by con artist John Beale, and other tactics. Politicians receive millions in campaign cash and in-kind help from these organizations and their unions, to keep them in office and the gravy train on track.

The American Lung Association supports EPA climate policies – but never mentions its $25 million in EPA grants over the past 15 years. Overall, during this time, the ALA received 591 federal grants totaling $43 million, Big Green foundations bankrolled it with an additional $76 million, and EPA paid $181 million to 15 of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members who regularly vote with it.

Far-left donors like the David and Lucille Packard Foundation (computers), Schmidt Family Foundation (Google), Rockefeller Brothers Fund (oil), Marisla Foundation (oil) and Wallace Global Fund II (farming) support Greenpeace and other groups that use climate change to justify anti-energy, anti-people policies. A gas company CEO and New York mayor gave Sierra Club $76 million for its anti-coal campaign.

For years, Greenpeace has used Desmogblog, ExxonSecrets, Polluterwatch and other front-group websites to attack scientists and others who challenge its tactics and policies. Greenpeace USA alone had income totaling $32,791,149 in 2012, Ron Arnold and I note in Cracking Big Green.

Other U.S. environmental pressure groups driving anti-job, anti-people climate policies also had fat-cat 2012 incomes: Environmental Defense Fund ($111,915,138); Natural Resources Defense Council ($98,701,707); Sierra Club ($97,757,678); National Audubon Society ($96,206,883); Wilderness Society ($24,862,909); and Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection ($19,150,215). All told, more than 16,000 American environmental groups collect total annual revenues of over $13.4 billion (2009 figures). Only a small part of that comes from membership dues and individual contributions.

As Richard Rahn and Ron Arnold point out, another major source of their cash is Vladimir Putin’s Russia. A well-documented new Environmental Policy Alliance report shows how tens of millions of dollars from Russian interests apparently flowed from Bermuda-based Wakefield Quinn through environmental bundlers, including the Sea Change Foundation, into major eco-pressure groups like the Sierra Club, NRDC and League of Conservation Voters. Former White House counsel John Podesta’s Center for American Progress also took millions from Sea Change.

It gets even more outrageous. One of the websites attacking Dr. Soon is funded by George Soros; it works hard to gag meteorologists who disagree with climate alarmists. And to top it off, Davies filed a FOIA request against Dr. Soon and six other climate scientists, demanding that they release all their emails and financial records. But meanwhile he keeps his Climate Investigations Center funding top secret (the website is registered to Greenpeace and the Center is known to be a Rainbow Warriors front group) – and the scientists getting all our taxpayer money claim their raw data, computer codes and CO2-driven algorithms are private property, and exempt from FOIA and even U.S. Congress requests.

By all means, let’s have honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability – in our climate science and government regulatory processes. Let’s end the conflicts of interest, have robust debates, and ensure that sound science (rather than government, foundation or Russian cash) drives our public laws and policies.

And let’s begin where the real money and power are found.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill H
February 11, 2015 9:31 pm

Placing the evidence in the light of truth… OUCH!
Thank You Mr Driessen

Reply to  Bill H
February 12, 2015 12:26 am

Here is more truth: fossil fuel funded climate change and green bodies [25].

July 9, 2013
200 Climate Campaign Groups All Funded by a Single Source
Source: The Rockefeller Brothers
…………Friends of the Earth…..Greenpeace Fund…Grist Magazine Inc……Sierra Club…..Union of Concerned Scientists…

The hypocrisy is worse than we thought!

Reply to  Jimbo
February 12, 2015 6:52 am has received 6 grants from the RBF since 2009 totalling $875,000 (US).
Award Date: 11/07/2009 – $75,000
Award Date: 06/17/2010 – $100,000
Award Date: 06/19/2012 – $225,000
Award Date: 03/07/2013 – $225,000
Award Date: 04/29/2014 – $175,000
Award Date: 08/21/2014 – $75,000

Reply to  Bill H
February 12, 2015 2:54 pm

Fossil fuel funded climate change and green bodies [25].

July 9, 2013
200 Climate Campaign Groups All Funded by a Single Source
Source: The Rockefeller Brothers
…………Friends of the Earth…..Greenpeace Fund…Grist Magazine Inc……Sierra Club…..Union of Concerned Scientists…

The hypocricy is worse than we thought!

Reply to  Jimbo
February 12, 2015 2:56 pm

Oooops. Please delete the double post mods. I was replying to Larry Flashpants on another post.
[Don’t worry. When the SHF, stuff flies everywhere. “tis the nature of the beast. .mod]

February 11, 2015 9:38 pm

These are the Dark Ages for science and for people. Governments are killing 10 to 27% of their populations with cold. Hope you all live though it. But not the climate scientists or those asking for the government to fix climate change. They can die and they will.

Reply to  Eve
February 11, 2015 10:19 pm

And when they do die I hope it’s in federal prison for the genocide they are causing in undeveloped countries.

Reply to  Eve
February 11, 2015 10:42 pm

Eve February 11, 2015 at 9:38 pm
These are the Dark Ages for science and for people. Governments are killing 10 to 27% of their populations with cold.

They killed far more people than that with starvation over the last 7 years from the IPCC food to biofuel policy measure. That one started in 2007, and that one is WELL documented…

Reply to  SABicyclist
February 12, 2015 2:08 am

Can you direct me to the documentation, please? I’d love to have it at my finger tips.

Reply to  SABicyclist
February 12, 2015 9:27 am

RoHa February 12, 2015 at 2:08 am
Can you direct me to the documentation, please? I’d love to have it at my finger tips.

Go to this post, What are your fears about climate change?
And do an in page “find” for “SABicyclist” for my posts.
I posted links upon links upon links in there about this topic, including links referring to the IPCC AR5 document with their policy recommendation to turn food into fuel.

Reply to  SABicyclist
February 12, 2015 8:11 pm

Thanks for that, SABicyclist

Farmer Ted.
Reply to  SABicyclist
February 17, 2015 4:11 pm

How much food will be turned into fuel in the next year with low oil prices?
What will be the price of grain when biofuel usage drops because of the drop in the price of oil?
How much grain will be produced in the following year in response to these prices?
The world will be heavily dependent on this coming year’s surplus of grain to carry over into the third year, which will be the earliest opportunity for stability to return to the staple food trade.
There is a real danger that increased famine will result in 2017.

Reply to  Eve
February 13, 2015 12:49 am

Science is one thing – political agenda on what’s science ought to prove an other.
Dark Ages for science, yes.
Where have all the money gone which could have been used to solve the real problems of Earth: Clean water for everyone to drink and Clean Air to breath…

February 11, 2015 9:44 pm

Fabulous summary of one of the primary symptoms of the troubled state of our nation!
I will keep a link to this close at hand so that I can challenge ‘open minded’ folk to read and attempt to rebut.

February 11, 2015 9:50 pm

My impression is that many people are shrugging off alarmist stories. Completely unscientific but water cooler talk ignores the issue. Except maybe at the white house or UN offices.

Reply to  Dave
February 11, 2015 10:33 pm

Shrugging off the alarmist stories isn’t enough. The response must be proactive, get the truth known to the public. The MSM are culpable, too.

John F. Hultquist
February 11, 2015 9:54 pm

In the Great State of Washington the information is this essay is of no relevance. As far as the State’s leadership is concerned (Gov. Jay Inslee and fellow travelers) climate change is happening, CO2 is the cause, and humans are quilty. Pay up!
On the Gov’s site, under a photo of wind towers, one can find goals, including:
Transition to clean energy and increase energy efficiency. In April 2014, Gov. Inslee signed an Executive Order to keep the state on track to meet our statutory greenhouse gas limits and create the Carbon Emissions Reduction Taskforce.
Why the State of Washington, or any state, has statutory GHG limits is a mystery that can be explained only by the fact that they are arithmetically challenged. Whatever they do, the effect on climate will be zero. Zero, zip, zilch – the ancients had an issue with zero also:

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 11, 2015 10:05 pm

Our BC government has the same idea. It’s a tax grab that will have no effect on global climate.

Reply to  Dave
February 11, 2015 10:38 pm

The carbon tax in BC is revenue neutral, so not a tax grab.

Reply to  Dave
February 12, 2015 12:04 am

The Carbon Tax in Australia was supposed to be ‘revenue neutral’. But according to ‘Our ABC’ and ‘The Conversation’ it was not.
‘The carbon price will raise $24.5 billion over its first four years but will not be revenue neutral, putting the budget $4 billion in the red, the ABC reported.’

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Dave
February 12, 2015 2:01 am

No CO² tax is or can ever be revenue neutral. Think about it. When was the las time a new taw was introduced without additional admin !! It can only be revenue neutral if all the money goes back to the people who first gave it.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Dave
February 12, 2015 2:31 am

Just think about this whole thing in the simplest way – Governments are saying “Give us more money and we can change the weather”.

Reply to  Dave
February 12, 2015 9:31 am

Seems to be working, since the climate hasn’t changed in BC since implementing it.

Reply to  Dave
February 12, 2015 9:59 am

Gary – the carbon tax in BC is purported to be a wealth redistribution system – taxing all carbon (dioxide?) at source and then providing subsidies to lower income people. However, everyone has increased costs and the government can claim that they are not taking tax into general revenue. But all they are doing is replacing one form of tax with another and offsetting social services and progressive tax systems. I get the intent. Make it more palatable and to be seen to be doing something. And of course as some BC Carbon tax supporters have pointed out, it is all computerized so there isn’t a large administration cost. ;-P
Having worked with a lot of governments, I am a tad skeptical.

Sun Spot
Reply to  Dave
February 12, 2015 10:41 am

February 11, 2015 at 10:38 pm
The carbon tax in BC is most definitely NOT revenue neutral.
garmund, when you say revenue neutral, that’s revenue neutral for who and if it is by chance revenue neutral whats the point ???

Reply to  Dave
February 12, 2015 1:26 pm

Gary is correct that the intent of the carbon tax in BC was meant to be “revenue neutral”. However, I was once told by a contributor here (LG) that the tax was an “at source” tax. I have read the legislation and government information and it is definitely not an “at source tax” but a point of sale tax. It adds 7 or 8 cents per litre to gasoline sales, It is intended to tax “Fossil” fuels used in the province – EXCEPT for farm fuels, resource industries, mining and smelting, petrochemicals and a host of other exemptions. Exports are exempt so all coal, oil and gas exported or not used in the province is not taxed. Basically, it is a tax on natural gas heat, heating oils, and commercial and personal use vehicle fuels used in British Columbia. The increased income from the fuel tax (call it what it is, it is not a carbon tax but a fuel tax) is to be used to reduce taxes on lower income earners and small business. From that perspective, BC sees it as a success. It is a user tax that offsets income taxes.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 11, 2015 10:09 pm

I hate to sound unsympathetic, but I’m hoping your state’s tight limits on CO2 will drive some business eastward toward my home state. Maybe some of our extra CO2 output will find it’s way back to you, since it’s supposed to be well-mixed in the atmosphere. 🙂

Frank K.
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 12, 2015 5:51 am

Washington state also recently legalized pot. Perhaps there is connection with their climate insanity?

Reply to  Frank K.
February 12, 2015 10:18 am

Washington state gets what they elect. Seattle is so happy with their selves like most big cities. The Emerald city, how green is that?

Richard G
Reply to  Frank K.
February 13, 2015 10:59 pm

I think they’ve stopped to smoke the poppies once too often on the way to the Emerald City.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 16, 2015 12:03 pm

Climate is determined by the season of the year and seasons are totally determined by the rotation of the earth on its tilted axis as it makes its annual trip around the sun. Man cannot change these facts.

February 11, 2015 10:18 pm

Excellent summary of the true situation.
And whilst the truth is sometimes a bit slow – it is inexorable.
The smear campaigns of the zealots are now having a negative effect on those who spawn them and spread them.
In marked contrast – it is no accident that “Why models run hot” has had over 10,000 views and rising.

February 11, 2015 10:22 pm

Just a digression, but has anybody else noticed that Apple has announced that it’s facilities are now going to go totally solar?
This is a “high tech” company, supposedly staffed by the world’s brightest engineers and scientists.
Evidently, they don’t care much for the environment; let’s just pave it over with solar cells!

Tom Harley
Reply to  William
February 11, 2015 10:32 pm

Just wait til they get pooped on. Someone has to clean them!

Alberta Slim
Reply to  Tom Harley
February 12, 2015 5:16 am

There soon will not be any birds to poop. The wind farms will have killed them all. ;^D

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tom Harley
February 12, 2015 10:27 am

Hey, Green jobs!!

Reply to  William
February 11, 2015 10:59 pm

Apparently, a US$1billion plant in California and on the article I read there was a comment along the lines “Will Apple power off their datacentres at night?”. A similar costing (AU$1billion) plant has been approved for Queensland, Australia, the building of which to start in 2016. So while China will bring on it’s first test Thorium plant this year, the some countries are taking two steps backwards!

Reply to  Patrick
February 12, 2015 3:04 pm

The numbers we throw around,…… billions and such.
The United States has a debt of 16,000 billion, not including its unfunded liabilities.
That was not a typo, the U.S. owes 16,000 billion dollars (at the minimum).
You could read as only 16 trillion if it makes you feel better.
Wish I had a printing press, I’d never be in debt either.
Spending 1 million dollars a day since the birth of Christ doesn’t even get you to a trillion.

Reply to  William
February 11, 2015 11:02 pm

This is a digression and is largely irrelevant. If Apple choose to do this using money generated by their operations, the only people harmed by this are their shareholders. Apple is obliged to be transparent in what it is doing. If the shareholders agree with this there is no problem. Similarly, If Tesla or some other manufacturer can make viable electric cars on a commercial basis – no problem. These firms are creating money and economic benefits – good luck to them and anyone who can do a similar job within the rules. There will always be people who have extra disposable income and if they want to spend it on something they think is valuable good luck to them.
When government’s siphon off public money to subsidise these things, that is a different matter. When people hide what is happening and lie, that is a problem. When green schemes get exemptions from rules applying to others, that is a problem. The the poor are harmed by high minded schemes that only benefit the administrators of those schemes, that is almost criminal.

Reply to  ggf
February 12, 2015 2:42 am

Tesla is 100% fueled by government subsidy – the “commercial” look is just a shop-front. By fraudulently fiddling the criteria for renewable subsidy Tesla has been hugely successful at obtaining unlimited government funds and reporting them as commercial profit, which it is not. Folks who “buy” a Tesla are just receiving a form of tax rebate – for which of course they have to pay.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  ggf
February 12, 2015 5:02 am

How does that old saying go…… grant money corrupts, government grant money corrupts absolutely.

Reply to  ggf
February 12, 2015 10:05 am

Look on your iPhone/ iPad, Mac, etc and see what it says. My Macbook and my iPhone say: “Designed by Apple in California, assembled in China.”
China’s coal plants are providing the power to build Apple products, California sun is powering the design?

old construction worker
Reply to  ggf
February 12, 2015 3:30 pm

Folks who “buy” a Tesla are just receiving a form of tax rebate – for which of course they have to pay.
From what I understand Tesla had back order up the wadzue before any CO2 Cap and trade, or big state and federal money was involved. Free market was working. The wealthy, who could afford the car were buying the car. How the wealthyTesla buyers are subsidized by the us serfs. Thanks for nothing.

Reply to  ggf
February 12, 2015 5:55 pm

Sorry bud, but in the US, ALL solar energy implementations are at least in part funded by taxpayers. The subsidies flow through the entire chain from producers through end-users via tax breaks.

Reply to  William
February 12, 2015 3:55 am

Apple can afford 10x more expensive electricity.
In the cost structure it will be still negligible expense for them.
The suppliers of parts who need power to make them for course will not follow this nonsensical idea.

DD More
Reply to  William
February 12, 2015 7:33 am

Will, maybe they think they are smarter than the Google boys.
Two Google engineers who worked on the RE<C initiative have finally opened up about why the team halted their efforts. And it wasn't because they thought existing renewables were enough to decarbonize the global economy.
"Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach," wrote Google's Ross Koningstein and David Fork in a piece published yesterday in IEEE's Spectrum.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Jakarta
Reply to  DD More
February 13, 2015 4:59 am

DD More
Thanks for mentioning that. I was thinking the same thing. Apple is going to do what Google says is impossible. This should be interesting. They can pay for it with [the] taxes they don’t pay on the stash of cash in Ireland.

Reply to  William
February 13, 2015 12:37 pm

Many large companies are in bed with the warmists. My hypotheses: they’re hedging their bets and they belong to the same bien pensant social class. Plus activists are very articulate – they’re good with factoids, they’re earnest, and they’re determined as hell. And as the posting indicates, they command enormous resources – which makes people listen.

February 11, 2015 10:52 pm

Excellent . . . . absolutely spot on. Thank you Paul Driessen. Instead of clicking on the ‘hidden’ link (included in the above post) directing us to your Pdf summary, I’ve copied it below . . . . because, it is simply one of the most concise and factual denunciations of climate alarmism I have ever read. In a word, brilliant.

Reply to  GeeJam
February 12, 2015 1:59 am

I agree with GeeJam, this is a most excellent article. The numbers are astounding. With hundreds of $millions in propaganda and bribery funds available, no wonder the science-deficient public was bamboozled.
But as we see in the recent Telegraph article, the public is waking up. More than 122,000 votes in their poll, with a 12:1 margin supporting the skeptical view. That shows the true ‘consensus’.
All the money on earth is not enough to stop an idea whose time has come. The ‘carbon’ scare has jumped th shark; the bloom is off the rose. Once the public loses interest in a narrative, it’s toast. Nothing will resurrect it. The CAGW scare will be history — but not before many more $billions more are wasted on it.

Alberta Slim
Reply to  GeeJam
February 12, 2015 5:20 am

Thanks from me also.. I will be sending this to the Canadian and Alberta Governments who still seem to believe CAGW.

February 11, 2015 10:58 pm

Evidently, they don’t care much for the environment; let’s just pave it over with solar cells!.
Yep 2,900 acres, $850 million. Of course they neglect to mention the 30% tax credit they get for their investment, so really, of their $850 million, the tax payer is getting screwed for $255 million, and Apple is only paying $595 million. Note also that the 2,900 acres doesn’t get any mention as to the environmental impact o it. And of course the solar company they are contracting with ALSO no doubt gets major incentives and subsidies and tax breaks to generate electricity, so the amount of power being purchased by Apple is ALSO more than likely heavily subsidized by the tax payer.
Now this deal only really covers the needs of their California stores, offices and “a” data cente. I haven’t done the math, but I be shocked if this amounts to even a fraction of the energy used to produce and ship their phones, tablets and other products all over the world. Those are energy intensive activities, and being outsourced to other companies and countries, no one will notice that the actual power used in the Apple food chain comes from things like coal fired plants in China and consume many times what office workers in California do.
This is perception manegement from beginning to end.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
February 12, 2015 5:24 am

Always been the case with Apple. They are pandering to their base. Their base doesn’t care about facts and figures. Their base wants to “feel good”, in much the same way that Prius owners do. When you add up everything that goes into a Prius, it’s not environmentally friendly, and other than the tax breaks that people get when they buy one, it’s not a great economical investment either.
But 75% of the owners say that the first reason on their list of “Why”s is that they wanted their car to make a statement about them. Not save money…Not save the planet…but they wanted others to perceive them in that way.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
February 13, 2015 2:43 pm

I suspect Apple has committed to paying higher prices for this power than current market rates, justifying it by figuring that they’ve locked in their supply at a price that will be exceeded by market rates in the future. Even if that computation is true, which I doubt, it’s questionable whether their supplier will be able to deliver on his commitments 15 years from now. It may be forced to ask for a bailout.

David Ball
February 11, 2015 11:03 pm

Desmogblog ( I throw up a little each time I write this word ). I cannot say it out loud. Like dry heaving. It’s ugly. The website and the dry heaving,….

Reply to  David Ball
February 12, 2015 6:41 am


Berényi Péter
February 12, 2015 12:00 am

Eh, few people know that a billion is a thousand times more than a million and a trillion is a million times more. They all go under the heading of “much money”, which benefits big players tremendously.
Also, note the heavy presence of Big Oil (and natural gas) money in the anti-coal campaign. That’s the rational thing to do, of course, given CO₂ emission of coal is twice as much for the same energy output than that of hydrocarbons. Otherwise coal can be burnt cleanly with little overhead.
If you can regulate a competitor out of the market, subsequently you can raise prices much more freely.
It has already happened to nuclear energy decades ago, in which field development was stopped dead for fifty years. We are still stuck with dangerous Cold War Plutonium factories operating at high core pressure and utilizing some 0.5% of energy contents of their fuel.
We could have switched to safe and cheap, low pressure, high efficiency nuclear energy production a long time ago, with passive cooling on shutdown and a hundred times less waste, had Big Oil funded environmental industry not waged an indiscriminate war on “nuclear”, a highly successful one at that.
Keeping a large stockpile of nuclear warheads ready worldwide is a recipe for disaster indeed, as it is to keep operating low security manufacturing facilities nicknamed power plants to supply raw material for their construction.
But using public fear to delay development &. installation of a hundred times better technology with a minuscule environmental footprint compared to all alternatives (including so called renewables), sustainable for several billion years, is an undisputable crime against humanity.

Reply to  Berényi Péter
February 12, 2015 7:28 am

Another benefit to “Big Oil” is it becomes easier for them to divert operations from low profit commodity products like gasoline and diesel to high profit boutique petro-chemicals; I use a chemical at work that sells for $67,000.00 a gallon

Reply to  Paul Jackson
February 12, 2015 8:58 am

If my meth is right, amphetamines cost twice that!

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Paul Jackson
February 12, 2015 11:05 am

At that price, I’d bet it’s a catalyst which is almost entirely metal in content, probably platinum. There’s very little actual hydrocarbon there except as diluent.

old construction worker
Reply to  Paul Jackson
February 12, 2015 3:35 pm

In some countries, that’s almost the cost of a bottle of water. LOL

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Berényi Péter
February 12, 2015 2:53 pm

Around 1975 the British switched to the Amreican 1000 millon = 1 billion. [Before] that, they used the
French system 1 million, 1000 million, billion, 1000 billion, 1 trillion, etc. Now everybody uses the American system for uniformity, but the French system makes a lot more sense- million, billion (a million squared), trillion (million cubed), etc.

James Hein
Reply to  Berényi Péter
February 12, 2015 6:04 pm

In the US.
In other parts of the world a billion is a million million and a trillion is a million billion 🙂

February 12, 2015 12:10 am

Regarding the temperature data fraud that has been in progress for sometime, undertaken by government agencies… cooling the past and warming the present… is it not time for legal action?
Let us be serious here. There is a case to be heard. Just consider the New Zealand temperature data manipulation scandal – “Kiwigate”. The evidence of wrong doing is in abundance.
So… we need ideas… lots of ideas, and people committed to the cause:
1. How do we go about taking legal action?
2. In which jurisdiction(s) do we take legal action?
3. How do we organise a website for such a campaign?
4. How do we organise a massive legal fund to pay for such a legal action?
5. How do we organise a legal team or teams?
6. How do we go about organising a legal brief for such a case or multiple jurisdiction cases?
7. How do we gather the evidence to prosecute?
8. How do we organise the witnesses prepared to give evidence against government agencies?
So many questions. but we can make it happen. Where there is a will there is a way.
Such a task needs to start with a high profile distinguished person or organisation prepared to lead the charge… and if that can be resolved, no doubt, many thousands of us will be ready to support the project in every way.
Can we make it happen? The “Kiwigate” legal action almost succeeded but for a judge who should never been involved in that case due to his blatant conflict of interest?

M Courtney
Reply to  Mervyn
February 12, 2015 4:25 am

And that is the question you missed, “How do we win?”.
There is always a Judge on the make.

Reply to  M Courtney
February 13, 2015 12:51 pm

Davies singled out Dr. Willie Soon, saying the Harvard researcher received more than $1 million from companies that support studies critical of manmade climate change claims.

Does Davies name any companies? Does he say what studies they supported?

Greg Strebel
Reply to  M Courtney
February 13, 2015 1:46 pm

Was there not a judge in Great Britain who ruled that the propaganda fluff “An Inconvenient Truth” was full of holes and could not be presented in schools in the absence of a comprehensive list of the errors of fact?
That might be a good court to try such a case.

February 12, 2015 12:37 am

there’s always funding for nonsense like this. talk about jargon:
11 Feb: BreakingEnergy: Roman Kilisek: Global Supply Chains Face Serious Climate Change Risk
Global supply chains could be headed for big trouble.
“Marginal or no improvements”, tantamount to a lack of preparation, leave supply chains in the US, China, India and Brazil more exposed to climate risks than those in France, the UK and Japan finds a new global study from CDP – formerly known as ‘Carbon Disclosure Project’ – and Accenture. “Supply Chain Sustainability Revealed: A Country Comparison – CDP Supply Chain Report 2014–15” offers a comprehensive overview of climate risks and opportunities that exist for supply chains globally based on data collected from 3,396 companies worldwide on behalf of 66 multinational corporations – i.e. members of CDP’s supply chain program – that account for $1.3 trillion in procurement spend…
Another new study on the subject of ‘supply chains’ published by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with Accenture offers a framework to assess ”the value creation potential of supply chain practices” and makes suggestions that help prioritize sustainability investments. The World Economic Forum advocates in its “Beyond Supply Chains – Empowering Responsible Value Chains” report the adoption of a so-called “triple supply chain advantage – where companies achieve profitability while benefiting society and the environment.” The report identifies a set of 31 proven so-called “triple advantage improvement measures.” By implementing those practices as part of a more “holistic strategy” – as it pertains to sustainability efforts in a changing market environment – the report sees significant potential benefits in three areas…
why worry?
9 Feb: Reuters: Jonathan Saul: UPDATE 1-Baltic sea freight index at all-time low as weak cargo demand takes toll
The Baltic Exchange’s main sea freight index, tracking rates for ships carrying dry bulk commodities, slid to an all-time low on Monday as sluggish cargo demand especially from China battered sentiment.
The overall index, which gauges the cost of shipping resources including iron ore, cement, grain, coal and fertiliser, was down 5 points, or 0.89 percent, at 554 points, the lowest level for which Baltic data is available that dates back to January 1985…

Scottish Sceptic
February 12, 2015 12:38 am

The test of whether sceptics really support free and open debate, is not whether we support those disagreeing with those who we disagree with, but whether we support those sceptics who have different views.
So, I will be very interested to see what kind of reaction I get to my proposals on my blog that CO2 creates massive positive feedbacks during the ice-age cycle and that this volcanic derived CO2 is instrumental in driving the ice-age cycle.
However, I also say that it’s very unlikely we’ll get further warming – which will draw the fire of the alarmists.

Epiphron Elpis
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
February 12, 2015 1:52 am

[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]

Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 2:04 am

Why OHC? Is that because you know that there is a lag effect?
How about this: $500 that global warming, as measured by the average of satellite data, will not be higher than now by 2020, within the margin of error.
I’ll fade that bet.

Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 3:48 am

I’ll bet you that whatever the rise is, it is far lower than originally predicted in the global warming theory.
It will probably take you some time to figure out what that means so report back when understand what the parameters are.
And funding for pro-global warming science is 200,000 times bigger than any funding for skeptics so are you also saying that we should question the motives of the 200,000 climate scientists. You are actually insinuating that you know.
People need to make a living but one should understand that the when questioning 1 scientist because of some random “making a living” then that means every single scientist on the face of the planet should also be questioned. That is why science has always been about finding “truth” rather than anything else. If someone is not interested in that, then they have non-scientific interests.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 5:24 am

Elpis has left the building.

Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 7:30 am

Appell is perhaps the most despicable troll I’ve had the displeasure to experience. Truly evil, dressed in black and screaming obscenities.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 7:33 am

Alan Robertson
February 12, 2015 at 5:24 am
Elpis has left the building.

Chased out by kangaroos no doubt.

Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 7:30 pm

@ the mods, Is there a time when a troll’s comment (like elpis’s comment appears to be) should not be snipped? I have no clue what he said or has said in the past is there a”snipped” page I could find? I need to recognize his “language” for other sites as well.
[It is – as always – a judgement call. Many times, we (collectively) prefer to let such comments fester in plain site so the initial anger and vile residuals remain exposed to view because they are instructive to our many readers.
It is not a single-size fits all method though, and so we will not pretend to fall to the bureaucratic rule of numbers and letters and “absolutes”. Anthony has entrusted us with our judgement, and we follow his feedback and guidance. But equally, we are responsible for the words we choose to leave in place. .mod]

Village Idiot
February 12, 2015 12:41 am

“Written by Christopher Monckton […….] I know these men and their work. Their integrity and devotion to the scientific method are beyond reproach. They go where their research takes them and refuse to bend their science or conclusions to secure grants, toe a particular line on global warming, or fit industry, government or other viewpoints.”
That’s why Sir Christopher is our Village Champion. For example,his monthly performance to show the failure of the RSS dataset to detect that global temperatures are rising

Reply to  Village Idiot
February 12, 2015 2:05 am

What are you babbling about? You sound like the village idiot.

Reply to  Village Idiot
February 12, 2015 12:20 pm

Please don’t call him “Sir”. Appropriate titles for Monkton are “Mr”, “Viscount”, or “Lord”, though he personally prefers the latter. While he is a member of the British nobility, he is not a knight.

Village Idiot
Reply to  benofhouston
February 12, 2015 1:32 pm

I suggest you do your homework, Ben. A Knight (Honorary or otherwise) should be addressed as ‘Sir’?
Also he partaketh of jousts around the world on behalf of the Village peasants, surely some recognition is due?
By the way, spell his name right, The Mods censor my comments if I slip up
[Which comment(s) would that be, specifically? ~mod.]

Village Idiot
Reply to  benofhouston
February 12, 2015 11:50 pm

The ones where I mis-spell Munkton

Richard G
Reply to  benofhouston
February 13, 2015 11:35 pm

Well, every village needs an idiot. It amuses the peasants and detracts them from the issues.

February 12, 2015 12:49 am

I’m most grateful to Paul Driessen for coming to Willie Soon’s aid in such fine and characteristically well-researched style. The allegations against him have been circulated all over the Leftosphere, without the slightest regard for truth.
In a way, though, this is a good sign. It means the Forces of Darkness were unable to find anything significantly wrong with the paper scientifically, so they fell back on the usual Alinsky tactic and made Willie their victim.

Epiphron Elpis
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 12, 2015 1:49 am

[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]

Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 2:08 am

Whether it was paid work or not has nothing whatever to do with the veracity of the paper. That is just another version of the ad hominem fallacy.
If it were not for fallacies, the alarmist cult/Forces of Darkness wouldn’t have much to say.

M Courtney
Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 4:29 am

Epiphron Elpis, you have spent time commenting here.
Are you paid to do so? I assume not as no-one would be buying your services.
So why assume that Soon was bought?
Is it just because his work is so good that it must be very valuable?
[Reply: EE is persona non grata David Appell. –mod.]

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 5:25 am

Another Elpis impersonator…

Walt D.
Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 5:31 am

Who cares. You can download the data yourself and replicate everything that is in the paper, or at least the simple formula. The actual equation is written there. There are no parameters in the equation that are dependent on who funds Willie Soon.

George S.
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 12, 2015 7:08 am

Mr. Monckton, I enjoy your work. God bless you and your family.

February 12, 2015 1:02 am

“More people are realizing that the actual problem is not climate change, which has been ongoing throughout history; it is costly policies imposed in the name of preventing change: policies that too often destroy jobs, perpetuate poverty and kill people.”
This reminded me of a passage by Jared Diamond.
“…We tend to assume that useful technologies, once acquired, inevitably persist until superseded by better ones. In reality, technologies must be not only acquired but also maintained, and that too depends on many unpredictable factors.
Any society goes through social movements or fads, in which economically useless things become valued or useful things devalued temporarily. Nowadays, when almost all societies on Earth are connected to each other, we cannot imagine a fad’s going so far that an important technology would actually be discarded.
A society that temporarily turned against a powerful technology would continue to see it being used by neighboring societies and would have the opportunity to reacquire it by diffusion (or would be conquered by neighbors if it failed to do so)….” Guns, Germs and Steel, Vintage Books, London (page 257).

February 12, 2015 1:35 am

11 Feb: Reuters: Apple in big solar power deal, market cap closes over $700 billion
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Apple Inc will buy about $850 million of power from a new California solar farm to cut its energy bill, the iPhone maker said on Tuesday as its stock market value closed above $700 billion for the first time.
The First Solar Inc plant, with the capacity to power the equivalent of 60,000 homes, will be used to supply electricity for Apple’s new campus in Silicon Valley, and its other offices and 52 stores in the state, Chief Executive Tim Cook said at a Goldman Sachs technology conference in San Francisco…
Cook addressed investors as Apple’s stock market value closed at $710.74 billion for the first time, buoyed by record sales of big-screen iPhones and a December-quarter profit that was the largest in corporate history.
Apple was already the world’s largest publicly traded company by stock value…
The plant in Monterey County, California will also power an Apple data center in Newark, California that already relies on solar power…
***”We know in Apple that climate change is real. The time for talk is passed,” he added. “The time for action is now.”…
“Apple still has work to do to reduce its environmental footprint, but other Fortune 500 CEOs would be well served to make a study of Tim Cook,” Greenpeace said in a statement following Tuesday’s announcement…
this looks like a takeover of solar in the UK:
8 Feb: UK Telegraph: Marion Dakers: Hedge fund makes £100m bet on British solar power
One of the world’s largest activist hedge funds has made a bet worth nearly £100m on Britain’s solar power industry, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.
Elliott Capital Advisors, the UK arm of the American hedge fund, has put money into half a dozen unnamed projects capable of generating about 85 megawatts – making it one of the largest privately-held solar power operators in the country.
Elliott has hedged its bets by taking out short positions in five other renewable energy funds listed on the London stock market. It made its biggest bet against a firm last week, spending an estimated £9m to short 2.21pc of The Renewables Infrastructure Group (TRIG).
The hedges amount to a £17m position against the publicly-traded renewable firms…
Elliott is shorting Bluefield Solar Income Fund, which has 12 projects in England and Wales; John Laing Environmental Assets, which invests in seven renewable projects; and Nextenergy Solar Fund, with three projects underway; and Foresight Solar Fund, which owns Wymeswold, until recently the country’s largest solar farm. …

Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 1:47 am

[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]

Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 2:13 am

EE I think you may have missed his point entirely – Dr Soons funding, if any, is a drop in the ocean compared to inappropriate funding of AGW ‘science’. To accuse him of wrong doing is ridiculous and a deliberate Ad Hominem ploy to discredit the man rather than the substance – which is exactly what you are doing here. Have a go at discussing the science for once or at least show that you have read the article with an open mind and attack all the other organisations receiving ‘oil money’ etc or it may just be possible to accuse you of crass hypocrisy

Reply to  mwh
February 12, 2015 5:41 am

EE’s tactic is to deflect attention away from the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted in the name of diagnosing and “fixing” the non-crisis of anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming

Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 2:13 am

@Epiphron Elpis:
What a despicable comment.
When you can find something wrong with their paper, post it. The fact that you are unable to find anything in the paper to criticize shows that they are on target. So take your ad hominem insinuations elsewhere.

Walt D.
Reply to  dbstealey
February 12, 2015 5:44 am

The real fallacy is that Big Oil is somehow against alternative energy, when they are in fact actually lined up and feeding at the government trough.

Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 2:45 am

Mate; you sound desperate.

Frank K.
Reply to  johnrmcd
February 12, 2015 5:57 am

Sock puppets are typically unhappy, vengeful, desperate people…errr…puppets.

Reply to  Epiphron Elpis
February 12, 2015 2:55 am

Perhaps you should do some research before perpetuating the CAGW mud slinging brigade? When was this grant money awarded, what project was it awarded for and when was the paper/research in question carried out? I await your revelations with interest.

February 12, 2015 2:18 am

Good post. Factual, documented, to the point. Big green is a big scam. They spend nearly nothing on actually improving the environment and nearly all their resources into politics. Exposing them to more scrutiny is long overdue. However big media is so corrupt this report is highly unlikely to get any sort of meaningful attention.

February 12, 2015 2:58 am

Climate change has been going on throughout history… as well as prehistory, spanning well beyond the existence of modern human being (or homo erectus for that matter), and, in fact, goes all the way back the existence of the planet.
If there is one single thing that is absolutely and unquestionably certain about the climate, it is that it changes.

Bill Junga
February 12, 2015 3:09 am

Excellent article.
It should be remembered that LEFTIST GOVERNMENTS are the most proficient exterminators of human beings.

Reply to  Bill Junga
February 12, 2015 8:48 pm

True. But “rightist” government follow close behind and when we are talking about tens of millions of human beings… well, the record is dismaying.

February 12, 2015 3:46 am

Thank you for the informative article. Slowly you folks are opening eyes around the world. It will be hard for people to admit they were had. Blind faith in anything is self defeating. Your minds are not closed. Thank you for that.

Dave Ward
February 12, 2015 4:11 am

Regarding Dr. Soon’s supposed “track record of accepting energy-industry grants,”
Of course the warmists would never stoop so low, would they?

February 12, 2015 4:23 am

Dirty financing of political parties via subsidies to renewable energies
Thanks to Mark Duchamp
See also
The Religion of Wind
A satire of the energy transition
(mit das Englisher subtitlesgen)
(When the Germans start laughing at themselves, you know the jig is up for wind power subsidies.)

February 12, 2015 4:46 am

…while only have this planet… Attention is Urgent thought how to Brake with dignity the excessive World Natality/Overpopulation…hear in the news…”IN 2050 WILL BE 10,000 MILLION INHABITANTS”…”in 50 years there will be no fish in the sea”…”sea level is rising”…”a possible new ice age”…”unrelenting growth temperatures”…and stay so calm…never stop pouring million Tm/year contamination to the foul air, are almost suffocating in cities…and blame to the Anticyclone… The Evil Empire: religion, armies, monarchies and politicians…carry at Earth planet for the way of extinction

February 12, 2015 5:02 am

would post these on Tips & Notes, but trying to link a hundred times to get it to open is a continuing probem. no such problem occurs with the homepage or with threads:
12 Feb: SMH: Noel Towell: Summer of discontent at BOM
The Bureau of Meteorology is battling to do its job after years of government-imposed funding cuts according to insiders who warn that lives are at risk as Australia faces this year’s “extreme weather season.”…
Lives could be lost to summer cyclones or bushfires as the bureau’s dwindling resources are stretched beyond capacity and unable to cope with multiple dangers (sic) weather situations at the same time, The Canberra Times has been told…
BOM staffers, through their union, Professionals Australia, say that years of cuts have left bureau bosses reliant on a Dad’s Army of retired meteorologists to plug the growing gaps in the ranks of its weather specialists…
The growing unease at the bureau, which finished 2013-2014 nearly $74 million in the red, is being exacerbated by delays in offering a new wage deal to its 1700 public servants who have not had a pay rise since July 2013…
Staffer: “For instance, if there was a bushfire somewhere, at the same time as a cyclone.
“We all want more and more weather forecasts… but the poor old forecasters are carrying the load, plugging the gaps…and the public has no idea.”…
But the BOM’s spokeswoman rejected her colleagues’ claims that the organisation was stretched beyond capacity.
“This is not correct,” she said…
12 Feb: ABC Australia: Tasmanian fishing ship Antarctic Chieftain trapped in ice after breaking propeller
An international rescue effort is underway to free a damaged Tasmanian fishing ship trapped in Antarctic ice.
The 63-metre Antarctic Chieftain, which is operated by Australian Longline in Launceston, broke a propeller and became stuck about 1,450 kilometres north-east of the icy McMurdo Sound waters.
A New Zealand fishing vessel, The Janus, and an American icebreaker, The Polar Star, responded to calls for assistance from the stricken ship’s captain Rob Climpson…
The American icebreaker is expected to arrive on the scene late on Friday while the Janus is three or four days away…
from Sydney Morning Herald: According to Rescue Coordination Centre New Zealand, Antarctic Chieftain is in clear water amid large ice floes.
“A combination of an unexpected build-up of ice floes two metres to three metres thick and damage to the propeller means it cannot get back to the open sea without assistance,” RCCNZ manager Mike Hill said…
Mr Hill said once the icebreaker arrived at the scene, it may take some time to break through the ice to reach the Antarctic Chieftain…
US Coast Guard Vice Admiral Charles Ray, commander of the Pacific Area, said the incident was a “sobering reminder” of the importance of US icebreakers as human activity increased in the polar regions…

Reply to  pat
February 12, 2015 5:43 am

”It’s not us at the BOM that are fiddling the data – really, it’s those Dad’s Army of retired meteorologists we have to use because we’re really sooo underfunded. Just can’t get good help these days”

Reply to  pat
February 12, 2015 6:15 am

Ah the SMH and BoM up to their usual alarmist spin in the media.

Gary Pearse
February 12, 2015 6:28 am

“Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates and William Briggs, the study was published in the January 2015 Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Incredibly, it has already received over 10,000 views..”
I bring up my argument with joeldshore over journal ‘impact factor’ that he used to show that Nature climate change had more citings than Science Bulletin (he knowing that the incestuous team, crowd authoring bumpf, of course are busy citing each other like crazy and ruining such measures as they have peer review). Well, I’d like to hear from him now about impact factor for ‘Science Bulletin’. Let me also predict that when the damn finally breaks, these pimping US and UK journals will be washed away by such as Science Bulletin. China in a few short years will have become the centre for science where real scientists desire to be published.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 12, 2015 7:46 pm

In away I hope you are right and really, really hope those Chinese scientists do and not become a government tool for China (little hope there) as the US, UK and other so called green country’s policies (Germany, Australia etc) have been in the past. It would be a breath of fresh air and a powerful statement. But my opinion is that if the wests green policies fall flat on their faces and people realize this, the economic and political fall-out in the west will make 1929 look like a garden party.

Eugene WR Gallun
February 12, 2015 6:59 am

Gavin “Pinocchio” Schmidt of NASA GISS
(The first earth object to leave the solar system and
enter interstellar space was the tip of Gavin’s nose.)
A start for a poem????
Eugene WR Gallun

Gunga Din
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
February 12, 2015 7:44 am

‘The more he fiddled and he diddled the more his nose arose.”

Bohdan Burban
February 12, 2015 7:38 am

Time to burn some witches … it didn’t work in the past but hey, it might now.

February 12, 2015 8:55 am

They wouldn’t be attacking realists if realists did not have valid and convincing arguments.
There was no attack on intelligent design because no one cared, it was clearly creationism dressed up with science mumbo-jumbo. Intelligent design was only attacked when they tried forcibly teaching it in public school science classes. Then they were rightfully hammered. If realists were really a loony fringe with nothing to say they would be ignored.
Climate alarmist are afraid of people suddenly realizing the emperor has no cloths; that common sense will to their great detriment once again prevail. Climate skeptics are simply pointing out the gaps, flaws, and leaps of logic in the current science. The resulting irrational paranoia, hubris and dishonesty of climate alarmists proves the climate skeptics arguments are worth considering.
This is about politics and not science, and as everyone knows unsubstantiated personal attacks in politics win elections. Politically this is a snowball running downhill. At this point one can only hope it hits bottom soon and then starts to melt. This melting could be helped along by climate scientists reclaiming their morality and integrity, re-visiting their conscience and untangling fact from fiction.

Neil Jordan
February 12, 2015 9:22 am

Wall Street Journal (paper edition) Opinion section carries an article by Daniel Henninger “Vaccines and Politicized Science”:
The title doesn’t do justice to the subject introduced about two-thirds into the article by the content alert:
“Partisanship alert: If you believe with all your being in the indisputable truth of climate-change science, turn to the sports page now, because I’d hate to see anyone ripping up The Wall Street Journal in rage or smashing an LCD screen.”
Key quote:
“When an Al Gore, John Kerry or Europe’s Green parties become spokesmen for your ideas, and are willing to accuse fellow scientists of bad faith or willful ignorance, then science has made a Faustian bargain. The price paid, inevitably, will be the institutional credibility of all scientists.”

February 12, 2015 9:44 am

Argumentum ad hominem is so … yesterday.
The new improved approach is: argumentum multiplicet hominem.

February 12, 2015 10:07 am

Doesn’t bode well for Paris-
“Shortly after Mr. Obama warned him of imminent climate doom, Prime Minister Modi announced that India would double coal production, to bring electricity to 300 million more people”

February 12, 2015 10:16 am

Mr. Driessen,
Interesting, but please: break up your sentences! I found myself having to back up and re-read almost every other sentence on account of the proliferation of subordinate clauses. Tx!

February 12, 2015 12:02 pm

The smearing of Willie Soon by Davies is intellectual vapor.
The strategic issue at hand is showing what the IPCC did and is doing to subjectivize climate focused science.
Some suggestions:
– consolidate the many years of findings on integrity and pseudo-science issues in AR3, AR4 and AR5 and get commitment by June for an independent audit to start in November
– focus on what Obama’s science advisor John P. Holdren has long held about control of humanity and show it is similar to the basis of the IPCC idea on control of humanity
– make it irresistibly lucrative for the liberal media to become hypercritical of the IPCC (namely that they become like Donna Laframboise)
– set up campaign issues that lead to the next US president elected (2016) to defund IPCC
That was just a few focused on the IPCC.

Steve Case
February 12, 2015 12:14 pm

Funding for
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Total $41.931 Billion

Reply to  Steve Case
February 12, 2015 2:17 pm

But that list is dedicated research programs only. Other funding for “green energy” projects, GE’s wind farms, Siemens wind programs, Solyndra loans, and 10,000 other programs going to democrat donors to employee democrat-supporting unions in democrat states (1.2 billion to CA for their high-speed railroad for example), DOE programs, DOD programs, FDA and WFA, and EPA and NASA internal programs are not in “research” funding.

February 12, 2015 12:56 pm

(1)…interstellar travel (to the third world)… we come in our ship from faraway…are reaching finally, that star they call Sun…our destiny that third planet is distinguished from the others aridly and barrens with its luminescent blue against the dark background of the Universe…now we are under its spell…they call the Earth…we pick up its broadcastings TV…we are hearing the stories that they tell…they speak strangely but we understand… We se at its inhabitants, the human beings very similar to us, outside… We have been studying them in their lifestyles, some in developed places with high level, and others in those others places to that they call…the Third World…suffering, hunger, malnutrition, war, calamities and horrors against the feeble… Are we dreaming or is it all real?… is it true?… We see at they leaders to they call religious…(Torquemadas that were “executioners” against the Human Beings in the Middle Ages with their Inquisition on behalf of their sanguinary gods…and still have the arrogance to put their secrets and sectarian religious symbols (channel TV Discovery Max, “secrets societies”) in the popular bank note 1 dollar, if anyone doubt who governs in the shadow the world… well fattened in their golden palaces… while…children perish converted into skeletons with some skin and eyes full of flies, in the arms of their horrified mothers who do not have even a glass of clean water to drink them… religious and political leaders that is purposely keeping the horror because WITHOUT POORS AND WITHOUT IGNORANTS THERE IS NOT RELIGION, not any religion. Have to separate between the worthy concept, strictly personal, believing in a Goddes or a God (wheat) and Humankind´s anxiety of Eternity;… from the manipulation and interested ancient Lie that is religion (the weed)… religions only are a Malign Tale for social control to serve at pontifices, monarchies and politicians… IT´S TRUTH THAT RELIGION IT´S LIE…
[That’s an …. “interesting” …. expose. Of what, remains to be determined. .mod]

February 12, 2015 1:08 pm

Given that the word “denier” is one of the favourite vilifications for skeptics, WUWT readers should know of a historic use of the word.
Mao Zedong wanted China to surpass the United Kingdom and catch up with America in terms of steel production. In order to pay for imported technology, he envisioned a massive surge in grain production via a transformation of the countryside. To this end, family farms were abolished and large “people’s communes” created in their stead. The state appropriated all land and set impossible production quotas.
(See Yang Jisheng’s book Tombstone, 2008 (Mubei in Chinese), which chronicles the Great Famine of 1959-1962).
Jisheng was allowed unprecedented access to records because he was a prize-winning journalist with the official New China News Agency. What he found was that officials commandeered all the available grain in order to meet or supercede soaring quotas, when in fact the new system led to plummeting production.
The result was between 20 and 40 million deaths through starvation, while public granaries held 22 million tons of grain at the height of the famine.
When starving peasants ran out of tree bark, weeds, bird droppings or the flesh of dead family members, they moved to neighbouring areas in search of food. There they were in danger of being arrested and charged as “deniers of the truth that there is no famine”.
The word “denier” has a long and infamous history when propaganda has to be protected from the truth.

Reply to  Keith
February 12, 2015 5:30 pm

Echoes the communization of farms in the Ukraine which introduced ruinous cultivation techniques and led to famine, starvation, cannibalism, etc. under Stalin. The communists regime who were responsible blamed it on hoarding and confiscated all production to meet quotas (and save their hides from Stalin). The Ukraine commissar at that time was known later as the “wolf of the Kremlin.” I forget his name.

Reply to  Keith
February 12, 2015 5:32 pm

Paraphrasing George W. Shrub: I am the denierer.

Reply to  Keith
February 12, 2015 5:33 pm

Wolf of the Kremlin: Lazar Kaganovich

Reply to  mpainter
February 12, 2015 8:40 pm

The whole socialist system has proven (and is still proving) a total disaster, history repeating itself time and again. When are humans ever going to learn? It seems like a genetic disease, self destruction just as we get to a point we seem to achieve advancements everywhere in exploration like medical discoveries, astronomy, technical advances, communication etc, I, it boggles my mind is there anyone else that does not comprehend and see this? What is stopping us from the next step forward, this denial of cheap energy for everyone’s improvement. All the stats that show that people that get ahead self regulate and they and their children are better off. It just leaves me angry! (sorry for the rant).

February 12, 2015 10:38 pm

I have mixed feelings about the use of the term “realist science”. It’s either science or non-science. You can label non-science, i.e., junk science. But I don’t see the point of coming up with new labels for science itself. Science is just science. My preferred title for this topic would have been “Vilifying inconvenient science – and scientists.”

Reply to  Will Nitschke
February 13, 2015 12:54 am

Well Science calls for acceptance that any given thesis put forward CAN’T have tempered data.
Simple as that.
Those who don’t accept that are by no means scientists only pseudoscientists no matter which title someone given them.
Those who can’t understand that concensus is a political not a scientific term better start learning from scratch. Something been missed/forgotten or else they haven’t studied Theories of science at all…

February 13, 2015 1:47 pm

Excellent! I’ve never understood they hypocrisy that any studies funded by certain corporation are biased and not be trusted – but those funded by governments and other parties with an openly demonstrable view that opposes the truth – that is ‘science’ to be trusted???

February 18, 2015 3:41 am

The argument that the wealthy realists are in it for the filthy lucre and the poor unfunded alarmists are in it for the warm fuzzies has never rung true. I’m a two bit hack in the bottom end of the entertainment industry and the only regular well paid work I have ever had was (in the deep past) to assist in providing ‘envirotainment’ for local governments and assorted enviro-conferences/groups. My line of work cannot be further away from coal face, so to speak, of climate research – yet even there I could see the big bucks were in the green thing.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights