Silencing skeptics – financing alarmists

Will Congress, media examine government, environmentalist and university alarmist funding?

money-speaks-truth-silentGuest opinion by Paul Driessen

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), other senators and Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) recently sent letters to institutions that employ or support climate change researchers whose work questions claims that Earth and humanity face unprecedented manmade climate change catastrophes.

The letters allege that the targeted researchers may have “conflicts of interest” or may not have fully disclosed corporate funding sources. They say such researchers may have testified before congressional committees, written articles or spoken at conferences, emphasizing the role of natural forces in climate change, or questioning evidence and computer models that emphasize predominantly human causes.

Mr. Grijalva asserts that disclosure of certain information will “establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations” published in the institutions’ names and help Congress make better laws. “Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science.” These conflicts need to be made clear, because members of Congress cannot perform their duties if research or testimony is “influenced by undisclosed financial relationships,” it says.

The targeted institutions are asked to reveal their policies on financial disclosure; drafts of testimony before Congress or agencies; communications regarding testimony preparation; and sources of “external funding,” including consulting and speaking fees, research grants, honoraria, travel expenses and other monies – for any work that questions the manmade climate cataclysm catechism.

Conflicts of interest can indeed pose problems. However, it is clearly not only fossil fuel companies that have major financial or other interests in climate and air quality standards – nor only manmade climate change skeptics who can have conflicts and personal, financial or institutional interests in these issues.

Renewable energy companies want to perpetuate the mandates, subsidies and climate disruption claims that keep them solvent. Insurance companies want to justify higher rates, to cover costs from allegedly rising seas and more frequent or intense storms. Government agencies seek bigger budgets, more personnel, more power and control, more money for grants to researchers and activist groups that promote their agendas and regulations, and limited oversight, transparency and accountability for their actions. Researchers and organizations funded by these entities naturally want the financing to continue.

You would therefore expect that these members of Congress would send similar letters to researchers and institutions on the other side of this contentious climate controversy. But they did not, even though climate alarmism is embroiled in serious financial, scientific, ethical and conflict of interest disputes.

As Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric sciences professor emeritus and one of Grijalva’s targets, has pointed out: “Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy” – and replacing it with expensive, inefficient, insufficient, job-killing, environmentally harmful wind, solar and biofuel sources.

Their 1090 forms reveal that, during the 2010-2012 period, six environmentalist groups received a whopping $332 million from six federal agencies! That is 270 times what Dr. Willie Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics received from fossil fuel companies in a decade – the funding that supposedly triggered the lawmakers’ letters, mere days after Greenpeace launched its attack on Dr. Soon.

The EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA, USAID, Army and State Department transferred this taxpayer money to Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resource Defense Council, National Wildlife Fund and Clean Air Council, for research, reports, press releases and other activities that support and promote federal programs and agendas on air quality, climate change, climate impacts on wildlife, and many similar topics related to the Obama war on fossil fuels. The activists also testified before Congress and lobbied intensively behind the scenes on these issues.

Between 2000 and 2013, EPA also paid the American Lung Association well over $20 million, and lavished over $180 million on its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members, to support agency positions. Chesapeake energy gave the Sierra Club $26 million to advance its Beyond Coal campaign. Russia gave generously to anti-fracking, climate change and related “green” efforts.

Government agencies and laboratories, universities and other organizations have received billions of taxpayer dollars, to develop computer models, data and reports confirming alarmist claims. Abundant corporate money has also flowed to researchers who promote climate alarms and keep any doubts to themselves. Hundreds of billions went to renewable energy companies, many of which went bankrupt. Wind and solar companies have been exempted from endangered species laws, to protect them against legal actions for destroying wildlife habitats, birds and bats. Full disclosure? Rarely, if ever.

In gratitude and to keep the money train on track, many of these recipients contribute hefty sums to congressional candidates. During his recent primary and general campaign, for example, Senator Markey received $3.8 million from Harvard and MIT professors, government unions, Tom Steyer and a dozen environmentalist groups (including recipients of some of that $332 million in taxpayer funds), in direct support and via advertisements opposing candidates running against the champion of disclosure.

As to the ethics of climate disaster researchers, and the credibility of their models, data and reports, ClimateGate emails reveal that researchers used various “tricks” to mix datasets and “hide the decline” in average global temperatures since 1998; colluded to keep skeptical scientific papers out of peer-reviewed journals; deleted potentially damaging or incriminating emails; and engaged in other practices designed to advance manmade climate change alarms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based many of its most notorious disappearing ice cap, glacier and rainforest claims on student papers, magazine articles, emails and other materials that received no peer review. The IPCC routinely tells its scientists to revise their original studies to reflect Summaries for Policymakers written by politicians and bureaucrats.

Yet, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy relies almost entirely on this junk science to justify her agency’s policies – and repeats EPA models and hype on extreme weather, refusing to acknowledge that not one Category 3-5 hurricane has made U.S. landfall for a record 9.3 years. Her former EPA air quality and climate czar John Beale is in prison for fraud, and the agency has conducted numerous illegal air pollution experiments on adults and even children – and then ignored their results in promulgating regulations.

Long-time IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has resigned in disgrace, after saying manmade climate change is “my religion, my dharma” (principle of the cosmic order), rather than a matter for honest, quality science and open, robust debate. The scandals go on and on: see here, here, here, here and here.

It’s no wonder support for job and economy-killing carbon taxes and regulations is at rock bottom. And not one bit surprising that alarmists refuse to debate realist scientists: the “skeptics” would eviscerate their computer models, ridiculous climate disaster claims, and “adjusted” or fabricated evidence.

Instead, alarmists defame scientists who question their mantra of “dangerous manmade climate change.” The Markey and Grijalva letters “convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease, lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense – and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress,” Professor Lindzen writes. They are “a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming,” says Dr. Soon. Be silent, or perish.

Now the White House is going after Members of Congress! Its new Climate-Change-Deniers website wants citizens to contact and harass senators and congressmen who dare to question its climate diktats.

Somehow, though, Markey, Grijalva, et al. have not evinced any interest in investigating any of this. The tactics are as despicable and destructive as the junk science and anti-energy policies of climate alarmism. It is time to reform the IPCC and EPA, and curtail this climate crisis insanity.

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: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 7, 2015 3:46 pm

Markey and Grijalva can kiss my ass.

george e. smith
Reply to  kamikazedave
March 7, 2015 5:03 pm

What a crock that Grijalva is.
He needs this disclosure so that jerks like him can pass better laws.
Say dude; how on earth can you comic actors pass better laws, when you don’t even read them any more.
So how many pages of the Obamacare bill did your read for proper disclosure, before you gave us the benefit of your worthless opinion, and vote on it ??

Reply to  george e. smith
March 8, 2015 8:44 am

From Wikipedia and KeyWiki: Raul M.Grijalva is a Communist Party USA affiliated Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing the 3rd district of Arizona. He attended the University of Arizona and earned a bachelor’s degree in Sociology. While at the University, he was a member of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA) which, at that time, was a radical group identified with the separatist“Aztlán ” ideology. Grijalva also served as a leader of the Chicano Liberation Committee and other Chicano groups. Prior to entering politics, his work could best be described as “community organizer”.

Reply to  george e. smith
March 8, 2015 10:15 am

We don’t udnerstand how Grijalva got elected–he is a disgrace to us here in AZ.

Reply to  george e. smith
March 8, 2015 6:45 pm

Does anyone know how to contact these individuals by email? It appears that only people living in their districts have access to them. I was told you could write a USPS letter, but that was about it. They probably don’t even open those for fear, that there might be something bad in them even after being irradiated. Dan Sage

Reply to  george e. smith
March 8, 2015 8:29 pm

@Dan Sage:
A proper letter — a thin one — even from an non-constituent, is more likely to be read by someone in the congressman’s office than an e-mail. Do not stuff the envelope with documentation or the like — fat letters arouse suspicion — strive to say what you have to say on one sheet of paper.
Grijalva, Raul D.
Washington Phone & Fax:
ph (202) 225-2435
fax (202) 225-1541
Envelope, official:
The Honorable Raul D. Grijalva
United States House of Representatives
1511 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Letter salutation:
Dear Mr.
For possible e-mail forwarding:
Contact a Member of Congress Who Does Not Represent You
If you want to send a message to an official who does not represent you, you can:
Send a message to the Representative or Senator that represents you, and ask his or her office to forward it for you.
Go to the website for the member of Congress you wish to contact to find a postal address and mail a letter.
Call the United States Capitol switchboard at 1-202-224-3121. The switchboard operator will connect you with the office you request.

March 7, 2015 3:52 pm

When you are on a mission to save the world, all other ethical considerations are swept aside. What personal ethical considerations can possible compare to preventing the death of all humans?
Climate catastrophism is a moral slippery slope – believers think they are doing good, even when they are crushing freedom and ruining lives.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 7, 2015 11:16 pm

When you are on a mission to save control the world, all other considerations are swept aside.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
March 8, 2015 7:31 am

Speaking of “control the world”, here is some BREAKING NEWS from Switzerland which shows how sensible politics can be, if the common people have the last word about climate and energy:
!!!!!!!! 92 % of Swiss voters rejected today an initiative of the Swiss Green Liberal Party to tax fossil fuels instead of VAT !!!!!!!!!
For more details see here:
This is the highest percentage against a political initiative in a National Referendum in Switzerland since 1929 and the second highest of the whole record since 1848 !!!
One main argument for this green initiative was the widespread CAGW scare mongering, and today the Swiss people have shown what they really think about these climate-hysteria fairy tales… 😉

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
March 9, 2015 7:29 am

Who knew “saving” the world could be so profitable.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 8, 2015 6:16 am

Eric, we were warned and it’s happening before our very eyes. The only difference is that the technological elite in universities, climate research units, activists, and government have held each other captive. In the long run warmists will have to realise that it’s science that loses, trust will be eroded (if sceptics are right on AGW ie future ‘warming’ and ‘acid’ oceans are exaggerated.)

17 January, 1961
Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation
…….Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite……..

So much money has been poured into this exercise that even if it became crystal clear CAGW is garbage, they would simply pretend it’s just a hiccup and carry on. Sad.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 8, 2015 8:34 am

Science is about cause and effect.
Political science is about effect and cause — the end justifies the means (teleology).

March 7, 2015 3:52 pm

The warmists are trying hard to hush everyone – implementing Orwell’s “newspeak” – making it more difficult in so many ways for people think and speak the offensive thought, the truth, that there is no global warming emergency.

March 7, 2015 3:55 pm

Speaking of ‘financing alarmists’, listen to Senator Sessions rip the Obama’s EPA chief to shreds:

Reply to  dbstealey
March 7, 2015 6:13 pm

Paul Driessen already linked to this killer video with “refusing to acknowledge” above. The most damning admission is late in the video.
The EPA head, who is imposing 100s of billions in new regulatory costs (shutting down the coal industry), admits she is unfamiliar with the fact that the models have diverged sharply from the observational record over the past 18 years.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 7, 2015 6:53 pm

Personally I found that although he had the info to hand, Sen. Sessions unfortunately did a very poor job of following up on McCarthy’s fudging responses to his questions, and sounded as though he was not very familiar with the subject matter himself. A sharper wit could have skewered her.

Reply to  Lindos
March 7, 2015 7:29 pm

He skewers her good at the end.

Reply to  Lindos
March 7, 2015 7:49 pm

I thought he did a good job. He is reasonably informed for a Senator or Congressperson. He still makes her look bad with her inability to answer questions on a subject in which she should be well read.

Reply to  Lindos
March 8, 2015 3:03 pm

He ripped her a new one. I wish Monckton was doing the questioning . What I am afraid will happen is she will get told off for not knowing the facts and the AGW narrative will be ignored and continue. She lied , she knew , but the facts re the models is so embarrassing she could not possibly tell the truth.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 8, 2015 9:35 am

That was funny and disturbing at the sametime what the hell is wrong with you people south of me ????????

empire sentry
Reply to  dbstealey
March 9, 2015 7:30 am

Thankfully, and about time, there are enough people on youtube commenting about this and scoffing at EPA.
Its refreshing and needs to be kept up full speed.

March 7, 2015 3:56 pm

Confused and rambling article.
For example, Pachauri did not resign because his belief in AGW was religious rather than scientific
Look I don’t disagree with the conclusions of this article but I do disagree with the justifications.
The reason for attacking use of fossil fuels is that the external costs of fossil fuels are “judged” to be not factored in to the price of the energy.
The Pause shows that is incorrect – the uncertainty was well judged. But if the Pause hadn’t happened then we would have had fewer reasons to hope that fossil fuels weren’t the dominant factor in our climate.
Yet the article doesn’t consider why people might believe the idea that the warming effect of CO2 may be dominant.
In my opinion, the problem is rooted in academia. Academics should ask for proof for the theory that is sufficient to overwhelm the disproof of the Pause.
But they don’t.
They just go with the flow – like children.
And this article rebuts them at the same level.

Reply to  MCourtney
March 7, 2015 4:36 pm

Not really. The article describes with some detail what is happening, why it is wrong, and why suggesting that scientists who take government should be just as open to “conflict of interest” potential as someone who is funded by fossil fuel interests.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 7, 2015 7:23 pm

Yes, Eric. The focus seems to be on the fossil fuel industry and other institutions in the private sector. But it seems to me that the deepest pockets of all belong to Uncle Sugar who contributes very large amounts to climate research. If a scientist’s research is funded by a government agency and his/her findings are contrary to current CAGW expectations (agenda?) is he/she likely to get another grant from any government agency? It certainly seems that Rep.Grijalva’s logic would apply equally to federal research grants.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 8, 2015 5:59 am

Good ol Uncle Sam. The figures below are now even higher. It’s a hockey stchtick style I tells ya.comment image

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 8, 2015 1:27 pm

@jimbo yes, satellites are expensive. Denial conferences are not.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 8, 2015 1:29 pm

@jimbo yes, satellites are expensive. It costs a little bit of money to measure a planet, not so much to hold denial conferences.

John Catley
Reply to  MCourtney
March 7, 2015 4:40 pm

Did you read the article?
It did not state that Pachauri resigned because his belief in AGW was religious, but that he said that before he resigned.
The article is about how sceptics are increasingly being targeted in order to keep them quiet and how using funding sources as the ammunition for these attacks is unsupported.
Your comments bear no relation to the article.

Reply to  MCourtney
March 7, 2015 5:15 pm

Appeal to any authority ?

Reply to  MCourtney
March 7, 2015 7:33 pm

…external costs of fossil fuels…
Are there any non-crazy evaluations of what these actually might be?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  PiperPaul
March 8, 2015 12:30 am

Is there any evaluation with a number above zero that you’d consider non-crazy?
I’m thinking she’d think you’re crazy for even asking.

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 8, 2015 12:56 am

That picture proves a few things we’ve been saying:
1. The U.S. has cured its pollution problem. Not ‘mitigated’ it, but fixed it completely. We are so far into diminishing returns now that it would take $BILLIONS to make any measureable difference — and that difference would be no more noticeable to the average person than if CO2 went from 350 ppm, to 400 ppm.
2. China is still very poor. The only realistic way to reduce pollution is to make her wealthy. Alarmists just cannot understand that concept. They never could.
3. Capitalism works so much better than Communism that there is no comparison. It produces far more wealth, and that wealth provides money to spend on clean air. It is Capitalism that cleans the air — not government. The whole concept of MMGW/AGW is to give Big Government more money, more power, and more regulatory authority; three things we should not give them.
I suspect that Gates had that picture, and was just looking for somewhere to post it. He could have waited longer, because it doesn’t help his case. It shows he is on the wrong track.
Really, nothing helps his case, whatever that might be [who really knows?] He’s got a fixation on normal, rational folks, and a misplaced ego problem. We don’t need either one here.

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 8, 2015 1:01 am

Brandon Gates, is there any number below zero you would consider not crazy?
Considering the social benefits of the societies built on fossil fuels it is clear that the positive externalities are huge.
We can agree that steam engines are more humane than slavery, right?
And look at your own photo – that woman is masking the dust from the Takla Makan desert with fabrics that are mass produced using fossil fuels. She would have found it far harder to avoid that dust if she had to hand weave all fabric. But the fabric wasn’t made originally to be a face mask.
Abundant cheap energy is a net benefit both directly and indirectly.

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 8, 2015 7:00 am

March 7, 2015 at 7:33 pm

…external costs of fossil fuels…

Are there any non-crazy evaluations of what these actually might be?

One of the external benefits is our greening biosphere over the last few decades. Co2 did not appear to have harmed the global record cereal output of 2014. Life expectancy up, standards of living up too.
Brandon Gates dislikes fossil fuels so much that he is going to emigrate to North Korea. This nighttime image shows yet another benefit of fossil fuels – electricity.
NORTH KOREA V SOUTH KOREA.,_satellite_image-SPL.jpg

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 8, 2015 7:15 am

Brandon Gates, that image has a url with the word China in it, so I will assume it’s China.
China has lifted over 500 million people out of poverty since 1978 with the great help of fossil fuels. In 2014 China lifted 10 million people out of poverty.
Brandon will be pleased to know that in December 2014 China launched its nuclear power expansion scheme.
Below is another picture from China. This is Baotou, Mongolia and a picture of a toxic lake. This is the pollution caused by the mining of rare Earth metals used in the production of wind turbines, electric cars and other products. Children’s health has been damaged, farms polluted etc.

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 8, 2015 7:19 am

Brandon has missed that old lesson. As China lifts it’s people out of poverty and becomes richer THEN they can more readily afford environmentalism.

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 8, 2015 7:28 am

Finally Brandon, this is what happens when you act. It is not an easy choice – just ask the poorest in China. From yesterday we have this:

The Economist – Feb 7th 2015
Measures to combat air pollution are biting hard in industrial areas already hit by an economic slowdown
…..Smog remains a grave danger in most Chinese cities, but environmental measures are beginning to show teeth. Regulators in the most polluted provinces are ordering mass closures of offending enterprises. In some areas officials are being punished for failing to control pollution. Policymakers are placing less emphasis on GDP growth—long an obsession of officials at all levels of government—and talking up greenness.
The transformation will be painful. China’s new toughness on polluting quarries, mills and factories coincides with an economic slowdown that will make it harder to create new jobs for those laid off. Slower growth is in line with the government’s efforts to curb wasteful investment, and with it a dangerous build-up of debt. The slowdown also happens to be helpful in curtailing pollution: China’s consumption of coal, a huge contributor to smog as well as to climate-change emissions, fell slightly in 2014 after 14 years of growth………..

Michael Wassil
Reply to  PiperPaul
March 8, 2015 9:08 pm

That photo posted by Brandon Gates:
Curious file name that!
1. a thing that is not what it is purported to be.
1. bogus; false.
1. falsely present something as the truth.
One might get the impression Brandon is trying to sham us.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  PiperPaul
March 8, 2015 9:11 pm

Woops! I didn’t mean to repost the photo, just the file name:
China – Pollution _ sham . jpg

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 9, 2015 8:08 am

What, Mr. Gates doesn’t want to grace us with anymore of that intelligence? Is assuming the opinion of a Chinese woman on whether she prefers her modern life versus one of 100 years ago where she’d be considered old age the only lesson we are going to get today? Have you already gone back to your troll hole? Too bad, I need help reading this graph and deciphering what longevity would actually be like without fossil fuels:

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 9, 2015 1:12 pm

Brandon Gates pic is typical of “Appealing to emotion” a common tactic of liberals , progressives and lefties.

March 7, 2015 3:59 pm

Here are some more links to climate money:
Gore backed company looks to profit from requiring companies to get permits for emissions
Gore’s venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins needs government mandates to make money got millions in grants
WWF hopes get $60 billion in carbon credits.
Lord Nicholas Stern, (of UK’s Stern report on climate change), profits from carbon trading
Scientific organizations want $9 BILLION government money
Hockeystick creator raked in $6 million
Michael Mann Charges $10,000 Speaker Fee
Dr. Jim Hansen received $250,000 Heinz Award with John Kerry connection
Hansen gets $50,000 dollars
Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago,….the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues.
Carbon trades eventually will total $10 trillion a year
Citigroup, Lehman Brothers Holdings and Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas, Barclays Capital and Deutsche Bank, Climate Change Capital and Credit Suisse to profit from carbon trading
Bankers lobby for carbon controls “The lobby — which includes Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, Barclays Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and 168 other firms…. The organization and its members haven’t disclosed how much they earned from trading carbon permits.
Alarm industry rakes in Billions While Complaining About a Few Million From the Other Side
$35 BILLION funding for climate change activities ($8.8 billion + $26.1 billion)
George Soros will invest $1 billion in clean technology.
GE makes $21 billion a year on “clean energy”
Billionaire Trying to Force Costly Green biofuel Mandate on New York as he finishes construction on Brooklyn biofuel plant
Excellent Paper on The Billions the Alarmists Are Raking In While Complaining About a Few Million From the Other Side

Reply to  jim karlock
March 7, 2015 8:43 pm

jim karlock
Submitted on 2015/03/07 at 3:59 pm

Here are some more links to climate money:

Thank you!

Reply to  jim karlock
March 8, 2015 5:05 am

I’m going to borrow that !

Reply to  jim karlock
March 8, 2015 5:58 am

GE Dumps Offshore Wind-Power Plans AFTER Collecting $125 Million In Stimulus From Taxpayers For Wind Projects

Rik Myslewski
Reply to  jim karlock
March 8, 2015 9:17 pm

Just out of curiosity, Karlock, who do you work for?

March 7, 2015 4:02 pm

“. It is time to reform the IPCC and EPA, and curtail this climate crisis insanity.”
Agreed – any plan of attack in mind?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  thallstd
March 7, 2015 5:11 pm

Quite simple. Vote to defund. No gravy, no gravy train. Then we would discover how many climate can survive in the new ‘big data’ corporate world desparate to hire expert modellers… How many climate professors can go back to teaching atmospheric physics 101 using Judith Curry’s revised textbook… And so on. Of course, Greenpeace would be getting less green. Might result in more peace. Probably not.

george e. smith
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 7, 2015 5:24 pm

Why does WWF need ANY funding ?? It costs nothing to just leave the animals alone.
And Vince McMahon makes plenty on his own with his WWF outfit so he doesn’t need any grants.
These are all supposed to be charity organisations which should never receive taxpayer funding. That’s why they call it charity and give it a tax exemption.
If Social Security recipients get taxed on their receipts of payouts from a fund (lockbox) that they paid into, then Greenpeace, and WWF should pay taxes on their taxpayer funded receipts. Well they shouldn’t have any such receipts. They should get private donors to fund their charity.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 8, 2015 6:12 am

Well, George e. smith, except that Vince McMahon’s outfit is now the “WWE”.
It seems that even he didn’t want to be associated with “WWF”.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
March 7, 2015 4:04 pm

The elitists need Lebensraum. Skeptic scientists get in the way of accomplishing that.

March 7, 2015 4:09 pm

Guest author Paul Driessen wrote,
The Markey and Grijalva letters “convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease, lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense – and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress,” Professor Lindzen writes. They are “a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming,” says Dr. Soon. Be silent, or perish.
Now the White House is going after Members of Congress! Its new Climate-Change-Deniers website wants citizens to contact and harass senators and congressmen who dare to question its climate diktats.

Sens. Ed Markey, Barbara Boxer, and Sheldon Whitehouse, and President Obama’s staff minions are saying they possess true knowledge and their critics should be silenced for their own good.
NO! They must openly debate with their critics on the subject of climate and then we will sift everything out but the actual substance concerning claims about climate and global warming.

Reply to  John Whitman
March 7, 2015 8:11 pm

I take it that some of the Alarmist, maybe all?, forgotten UN:s declaration that All man are equal?
The CO2-believers forgotten a lot but one thing they tend to say no matter what: All man are equal but some are more equal…..
When will they ever learn? Consensus is a political term with no connection what so ever to Theories of Science.Facts not Fiction
Empiri rules.

Bill Illis
March 7, 2015 4:19 pm

It is time to cut-off the funding which is targeted to those that exaggerate. Full stop. That includes every scientific field but the worst offenders by a mile are the climate science exaggerators.
It is simple. If the funding agencies would stop funding exaggeration, all of the sciences would be 100 times better. This has to start with Congress. The members of Congress have to force a change that results in better science.
In total, the world is spending over $350 billion per year, 0.5% of world GDP, on research and green power that is fundamentally based on exaggeration. 0.5% is the difference between increasing standard of living or stagnant standard of living and rising unemployment. It is not small matter.

March 7, 2015 4:29 pm

Reblogged this on "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising… and commented:
Organized crime….Hiding the Truth, & Promoting Their Lies!

March 7, 2015 4:29 pm

Just so I get this correct.
Russia supports anti fracking interests in the US (no surprise there) who then in turn support politicians who support their view.
There is only one way to read this: Russia is sponsoring US politicians.
I thought it was illegal in the US for foreign entities to financially support politicians with more then $1000 (might be even less, not sure).
Not that I am surprised by any of this but it does once again show how corrupt the whole thing is.
Of course it does not matter on what side of the political divide one is on, it happens to both D and R politicians, just different groups giving money from different foreign donors. Same thing elsewhere.

March 7, 2015 4:38 pm

We’re preventing this fake crisis from achieving its full potential – and the true believers hate us for it. Just look what previous pseudoscientific crisis have achieved?

March 7, 2015 5:23 pm

When government strives to constrain businesses, it is natural for those businesses to react. Libtards want to kill coal. I would expect coal to fight back. One way would be for them to finance studies to refute government claims. Markey et al wouldn’t like that; they want coal to take any abuse the government has to offer.
I’m saying that even IF researchers were getting money from some unapproved, unclean sources, so what? Claiming your opposition gets money from the unclean is nothing more than ad hominem, a way to avoid responding to your critics. Markey isn’t entitled to not have critics. Big Oil has the right to respond to government claims. I think Markey is violating the First Amendment, and maybe the Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth, too.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Gamecock
March 8, 2015 12:31 pm

No, I would suggest that the best way for coal to fight back is to shut down, tomorrow. Better still, oil should shut down at the same time. All people, including the idiotic (sorry) politicians would immediately realise just how rediculous the AGW scares really are.
p.s. for those who claim that the coal and oil companies are restrained by contracts, it is my understanding that contracts that require illegal or immoral activities are unenforcible. What could be more immoral than destroying the Earth with your products?

Pamela Gray
March 7, 2015 5:32 pm

Um, after reading this letter from malarkey et al, does anyone else have visions of a squeaky, oinky, now smaller herd of pigs making a bit too much noise in territory now populated by a much larger herd of lions and lionesses?

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 7, 2015 5:44 pm

Nope, mine has crocodiles.

March 7, 2015 6:10 pm

This essay must be made mandatory reading for every public office holding politician immediately. Thank you Paul Driessen for this well versed article. The smoke and mirrors must stop. Excellent post.

March 7, 2015 6:19 pm

You do get the feeling that the great experiment of foisting extreme socialism on the world under the guise of environmentalism is in its death throes. Certainly, the latest tactic of retro neo-McCarthyism is failing miserably since to does nothing more than create heroes.

March 7, 2015 6:25 pm

“…six environmentalist groups received a whopping $332 million from six federal agencies!”
That’s over $55 million each! I had no idea my government was in the business of funding environmental religion and extremism. It appears that the left will even violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution if it suits their purposes. They seem to have no qualms about giving away taxpayer money to unions, environment groups, green-energy companies, and other crony capitalists, as long as they get a portion of it back in campaign donations.

March 7, 2015 6:34 pm

Anyone really surprised by this administration’s censorship and double standards?

Reply to  logos_wrench
March 8, 2015 6:15 am

If you are surprised, raise your hand.
*sees no hands raised*
Why, it appears we have a consensus!

March 7, 2015 6:39 pm

Talking about silencing people, I see Google are thinking of listing search results according to factual accuracy.

Reply to  Simon
March 7, 2015 9:59 pm

… what ‘they’ believe to be “factual accuracy” … LOL !

Reply to  Simon
March 8, 2015 12:50 am

They…… hold all the cards……

Reply to  Simon
March 8, 2015 6:16 am

Oh, great: then when we do a Google search we won’t get any results!
(Hey, someone had to say it.)

Reply to  JohnWho
March 8, 2015 9:05 am

Not quite. You will get the results they want you to get. Since most people check google for simple things (things that we were taught in school, but no longer) they will just accept what google says as the truth. Nobody reads a history book anymore.
Between this and the new net neutrality, our history is being rewritten right before our eyes.

Reply to  JohnWho
March 8, 2015 1:31 pm

You will get results, but they will be mainstream science results at the top. Executive chairman of Google Eric Schmidt pulls no punches about how he feels about climate skeptics…
“And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Simon
March 8, 2015 7:10 am

If Google messes with stuff like that, then we may be going back to snail mail and the pony express. Bing sucks anus. To get any kind of research, I have to use Google Scholar. Which itself is a walk through garbage research to get to good research. However, regarding Google Scholar I WANT it that way. Get that research out in the open. And then we must force ourselves to think, intelligently and informed, for ourselves. If that means learning about statistics and research methods, so be it. It seems to me that a course in research critique with these underpinning skills should be a required multi-year course beginning in middle school. And it should be taught by highly qualified statistical math teachers, not science teachers. Why? Because today’s middle and high school science teachers have not impressed me much at all.

David Ball
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 8, 2015 8:31 am

Is it possible you are beginning to see what I have been talking about? I understand how you would be inclined to react negatively to someone criticizing your current occupation, and I am sorry about that, but it seems you may be identifying chinks in the armour of academic institutions. Keep being objective.

March 7, 2015 6:42 pm

the left side of politics is very predictable. whatever they blame others for, you can be sure that they are guilty of, and at the same time playing the victim for show for their parents.. er um voters. do they really believe the funding gravy train is on the side of sceptics? no. it is just part of politicking to them.
it is time for the right side of politics to understand that this is the way it is. the left play this game to win power, it is as simple as that. they have their useful idiots such as large sections of the media that repeat their crap and seem genuine about what they are saying, but when you consider all of the problems with CAGW they must ignore to carry on believing, then it is just implausible that they truly believe in CAGW as it stands. when it comes down to it, they will all end up in the ‘well what if the sceptics are wrong’ ie. they dont care about the substance only the surrounding ideology. they already chose sides based not on the science but who told them.
are there more left leaning people than right in this day and age? yes i believe so, but this is a self regulating mechanism. people vote right when the money runs out.

Reply to  mobihci
March 7, 2015 7:16 pm

Cash and prizes for those who don’t pull their own weight

March 7, 2015 7:29 pm

Thanks, Paul Driessen. This is an excellent article.
You expose how a leftist tyranny is attempting to overtake the republic.

March 7, 2015 7:38 pm

As ‘for “Hide the decline” since 1998’ – what decline? Even though 1998 had a century-class spike caused by a century-class El Nino, only one of the five major datasets of global temperature anomaly (RSS) shows a declining linear trend from 1998 to now. Not even the obsoleted slower-warming HadCRUT3 (now not one of the “Big 5”) shows a declining linear trend from any month of 1998 to any month of its last year of being calculated (sometime in 1994), despite its hottest individual year being 1998. Even the other dataset based on satellite measurements of the lower troposphere (UAH) shows a slightly upward linear trend, starting with any month in the spike of the 1998 El Nino, ending with any month in 2014 or so far in 2015.
Best example I can find for UAH using WoofForTrees: From November 1997 to November 2014 (latest endpoint available), inclusive, using latest version of UAH that WoodForTrees uses. Even the average of that one and RSS for this time period has a very slight upward linear trend. Count the steps in the trend lines in this:

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
March 7, 2015 8:20 pm

Have you taken into account the driver of Climate Change- the increase in CO2 since 1998? Or are you just looking at temperatures or temperature anomalies?

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
March 7, 2015 10:30 pm

Donald L Klipstein. You have identified an error in the article. The Climategate “hide the decline” did not refer to measured temperatures post 1998, it referred to proxy temperatures (mostly from tree-rings) post ~1960 which declined very noticeably over those decades in which the measured temperature was increasing. The problem for those climate scientists, Michael Mann in particular but there were more, was that the proxy temperatures diverged so much from the measured temperatures that it would have been obvious to everyone that the proxies were completely useless. They therefore devised and implemented a strategy for concealing the decline in proxy temperatures (“hide the decline”). The Climategate emails show that this was done. Steve McIntyre in his brilliant blog Climate Audit (WUWT gives the link) did a very detailed analysis which explained and demonstrated in meticulous detail just how they did it.
There has indeed been a decline in temperature since 1998, partly as you say because there was a large El Nino then. The mainstream scientists would I am sure love to hide this decline too, but have been unable to. They have succeeded in labelling it a “pause”, thus insinuating that the warming will soon continue. They have also been successful at hiding the 1930’s/40 temperature spike, the Little Ice Age, the Medeival Warm Period, and the earlier warm periods. They need to hide these, because they need to promote the myth that climate was stable before man-made CO2. They have also been very successful at downplaying the lack of warming in the Tropical Troposphere, the record high Antarctic sea ice, and just about everything else which would show how wrong they and their models are.
We live in a very warped world.

March 7, 2015 8:35 pm

Did any of you see this cartoon, comparing climate change skeptics to ISIS?—-climate-change-deniers–are-compared-to-isis

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
March 7, 2015 10:45 pm

Markey and Grijalva are far from “innocent”.
In particular Grijalva should come clean on his Mexican bank accounts and the pesos deposited there and then converted into US Union dollars to finance his campaigns. There looks to be a connection to DOJ Johnson’s failed “Fast n Furious” campaign with Grijalva double dealing and coming out on top money wise. DOJ should just send a Managua hit squad to dirty up Grijalva’s living room rug and walk away after pissing on the bloodied rug.
Markey has been “in bed” with the east coast Mafia for decades. Talk about “sleeping with the Enemy”. Hoy hoy. Markey is known as the “East Coast Bitch Tonight”. As in, “OK white nigger. Tonight … you my bitch … bend over.”
Ha ha

Jeff Alberts
March 7, 2015 11:03 pm

ClimateGate emails reveal that researchers used various “tricks” to mix datasets and “hide the decline” in average global temperatures since 1998

Wow, this isn’t even close to what “hide the decline” was about. Very sloppy.

Steve ta
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 8, 2015 3:07 am

I stopped reading at that point. Either ignorance or deliberate misinformation – either way no point reading any further.

Reply to  Steve ta
March 8, 2015 6:00 am

Steve ta
You say the error concerning ‘hide the decline’ in the article meant there was “no point reading any further”.
Rubbish! Your pretence that the minor error invalidates the thesis of the article demonstrates either stupidity or deliberate misinformation.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 8, 2015 6:14 pm

It also means the author may be getting other things totally wrong or stretching the truth in others.

John Of Cloverdale WA, Australia
March 7, 2015 11:15 pm

When money speaks, the truth is KEPT silent.

March 7, 2015 11:25 pm

1690’s and the European and Salem witch hunts all over again.
Charles Mackay’s book ( Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds) should be brought up to date with a new section; Twentieth and Twenty-First Century Climate Delusions and their Witch Hunts.

March 7, 2015 11:44 pm

don’t forget the CAGW-invested European Climate Foundation:
European Climate Foundation
The ECF supports organisations that undertake activities in line with our mission of supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy in Europe. The majority of our funds are re-granted to NGOs and think tanks engaged in bringing about meaningful policy change. Our programme staff collaborate with grantees and experts from the field and funders to design and fund strategies based on a thorough understanding of decision-makers, decision-making processes, and political context…
We do not accept unsolicited grant proposals. Instead, we work closely with our partners to identify funding opportunities that will create the greatest impact…
What We Do Not Fund
We do not consider applications for activities outside the scope of EU climate strategy and, more specifically, our own areas of activity…
See a sampling of our grantees here. (LINK)
***includes, The Carbon Brief, Carbon Disclosure Project, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe, E3G, Green Alliance, WWF, The Prince of Wales Corporate Leadership Group (which includes EDF, Shell, United Technologies, Sky Broadcasting, Unilever, Lloyds Banking Group, Philips) etc etc
***also includes:
The Climate Bonds Initiatives
The Climate Bonds Initiative is an international, investor-focused not-for-profit. It’s the only organisation in the world focusing on mobilizing the $100 trillion bond market for climate change solutions.

Peter Miller
March 8, 2015 12:45 am

At the end of the day, so much of supposed man made climate change is the result of ‘Save the World Syndrome’.
Politicians are obviously very prone to this, as their smug egos want the lumpen proletariat to be grateful to them for apparently saving the world by imposing a regime of unreliable and expensive energy poverty.
‘Climate scientists’ have become grant junkeys and also widely infected by ‘Save the World Syndrome, where objectivity is shunned and the manipulation of data on behalf of the Cause has become routine.
And now the West faces the prospect of volunteering for economic suicide in Paris at the end of this year, and sadly most western countries will openly embrace paying the bribes demanded by the Third World and throttling their economies through the ever increasing use of unreliable and expensive wind and solar power.

March 8, 2015 1:56 am

Someone should explain to the author what the ‘hide the decline’ controversy was about, because his misunderstanding is embarrassing.

March 8, 2015 3:19 am

Unfortunately, there is no Russian proverb shown beside the title of this article.
At least, I’ve never heard or seen this proverb in Russian in my 50+ years.

March 8, 2015 3:21 am

I find this a most important quote from Jo Nova’s analysis:
“Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon (carbon dioxide) emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence).”
I find that the above article by Paul Driessen combined with links to climate money by jim karlock March 7, 2015 at 3:59 pm, (in the thread below the article) should be enough to convince fair minded people of the climate funding situation. All politicians on both (all) sides should be made to read this article (but you can’t MAKE a politician do much of anything).
Excellent article!

March 8, 2015 3:26 am

I don’t think you can forget that one of the main areas to benefit from the whole global warming scare is climate ‘science’ itself , It gone form being a poorly funding and little know or cared about area of the physical sciences to major league with almost more funding that it know what to do with, and powerful political connects and number of media editors on speed dial .
Its ‘prophets’ have indeed seen personal profit and professional advancement that thy could have dreamed about . While the number of students , and therefore the people needed to teach them , has grown massively. And like any industry , and that is what it is , it will do what it takes to keep itself going.
In short climate ‘science’ has managed to to only be the the turkey that got to ban thanksgiving but the turkey that got to decide that turkeys should get has much food has they want . When you understand that you will understand why poor behaviour, both scientific and personal , is such a feature of the area and it not just a question of ideology and lot of career now depend on AGW being an real issue .

March 8, 2015 4:31 am

Reblogged this on Maley's Energy Blog and commented:
I daresay that most fossil fuel money was long ago driven from the debate or switched sides out of self-interest/self-preservation. It’s high time we question the motives of the Big Money on the alarmist side.

March 8, 2015 5:56 am

The EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA, USAID, Army and State Department transferred this taxpayer money to Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resource Defense Council, National Wildlife Fund and Clean Air Council, for research, reports,…..

OK, now what’s this I see? Four of the above have taken oil money.

Nature Conservancy
Washington Post – 24 May 2010
…What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash….
Washington Free Beacon – 27 January 2015
Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company
Executives at a Bermudan firm funneling money to U.S. environmentalists run investment funds with Russian tycoons
A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle……The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011….“None of this foreign corporation’s funding is disclosed in any way,” the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote of the company in a report last year…..
200 Climate Campaign Groups All Funded by a Single Source: The Rockefeller Brothers
The Rockefeller Brothers
Organizations that received < $500,000:
……Friends of the Earth……..Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc……..

Coach Springer
March 8, 2015 6:10 am

The influence of government is never fully accounted for. Government pushes money from private hands to environmental projects as well. See Citibank and settlement of a government case against it where it commits funds to government favored renewable energy. Every government agency has been instructed to promote what the government is calling social and environmental justice. A hard job to do, but independent think tanks need to be tracking all of it.

March 8, 2015 6:49 am
Bruce Cobb
March 8, 2015 6:57 am

Warmism = Lysenkoism writ large.

March 8, 2015 7:04 am

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
— P.J. O’Rourke

So who’s bought Grijalva, Markey, et “Liberal” fascist cetera in this little matter?

March 8, 2015 8:27 am

“Russia gave generously to anti-fracking, climate change and related “green” efforts.”
Oh Puhleaze, The most rabid antifracking crowd was the EU and other green Brits in power, Royal Society types and other Reuters grey eminences… no need to demonize anyone else.

Reply to  TomRude
March 8, 2015 9:12 am

Except that the comment is correct. However, there may be a question of whether the recipients of such funding knew who was paying them. The Russians are good at covering their tracks and enviro groups aren’t likely to do a background check on donors.

March 8, 2015 9:11 am

Weather Cooking:
This brings to mind Dr Baliunas on Weather Cooking-Analogous to the Programs Against Climate Skeptics:

“Published on Aug 28, 2013
The modern day witch hunt against those who would dare stand up against the United Nations, it’s climate propaganda arm the IPCC and the junk science it propagates is very real. Careers have been destroyed, jobs lost, funding withdrawn for many who have dared speak the truth about climate. It’s far more than just a scientific debate-it is an attempt by a globalizing organization to subdue the world’s population through climate panic, and to muzzle any voice that dares stand up to it. The current fifteen year flat lining of global temperatures is shrugged off as a pause.”

March 8, 2015 10:44 am

This seems apropos:

john robertson
March 8, 2015 10:48 am

There may be a simpler explanation, parasites of the world unite, protect your leechery.
This whole scheme is fools and bandits in positions of authority enriching their own.
Bureaucratic machinations are the problem.
Simple solution a flat tax of 10%.
Paid on a voluntary basis if government passes a voter referendum.
The annual should we pay them vote.
Second no vote by persons paid from the public purse.
Those who feed at taxpayer expense are conflicted.
Third teach maths and history in school.
Only people ignorant of human history can buy into the concept of “unprecedented” weather.
Fourth make it a sport to take the wealth of the dangerously gullible.
Fools stripped of their leisure and assets have less time to “help” the rest of us
Finally what is government good for?
Like fire it is a useful tool kept small, total destruction when let run wild.
The faceless force is useful to protect from bandits within and without.
But the current concept that a bureau can run our lives better than we, is at best insane.
We can stop the financial bleeding by immediate closure of every social programme,
as in cost effective compassion?
From a bureaucracy???

Matthew R Marler
March 8, 2015 1:48 pm

As to the ethics of climate disaster researchers, and the credibility of their models, data and reports, ClimateGate emails reveal that researchers used various “tricks” to mix datasets and “hide the decline” in average global temperatures since 1998;
That’s not what the trick to hide the decline was about. You should strike it.

Reply to  Matthew R Marler
March 8, 2015 7:06 pm

So what was the “trick” about ?
You’ve got my radar up.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
March 9, 2015 7:46 am

It was about hiding the decline in tree-ring-based temperature proxy records that was seen over the late twentieth century. And the reason it needed to be hidden was that, at that same time, ACTUAL temperatures were RISING. If the proxy temperature was doing the opposite of what the actual temperature was doing, then it might lead people to believe (gasp!) that the proxy temperatures were a very bad indicator of actual temperatures (which, in the case of tree rings, everyone with a brain already knew), and it would have discredited every tree-ring-based temperature reconstruction ever created, and thus invalidated Mann’s “Hockey Stick”, as well as numerous other studies that “proved” global warming.

March 8, 2015 6:35 pm

Think Kristallnacht (The Night of Broken Glass)….or Sturmabteilung (Night of the Long Knifes)

Alan Sloan
March 9, 2015 6:08 am

You are joking of course.
Fossil fuels dont have an active interest in promoting disinformation but solar power does?

Reply to  Alan Sloan
March 9, 2015 10:54 am

An excellent example of ‘climate change is real because shut up!’
Fossil fuels (sic) is not allowed to speak up when attacked. Anything they say is “promoting disinformation.” Thus they must accept whatever the Greentards and the government tell them and do to them, and shut up. They gave up their First Amendment rights when they got into the business. Only Dems and Greens are allowed to speak.

Alan Sloan
Reply to  Gamecock
March 10, 2015 1:21 am

The BBC was giving equal time to anti-GW lobbyists as qualified climatologists! They did this for years, creating much doubt where there should be little.
They are always wheeling out some mouthpiece like Nigel Lawson (who to give him credit has managed to lose some weight) to give the “other side” to the intricate but empirically based guesswork if the pro GW lobby. This use of amateurs in itself has been the subject of some critical debate.
But the link you provide is an even better example. Criticising a broadcaster not on the basis of her qualifications but the colour of her hair? Haha I nearly rolled on tbe floor laughing. Clearly I am not intelligent enoug to see the serious point in this piece, so it must be funny.
The problem is really that like EVERYONE else wealthy enough to use the internet I have a massive vested interest in ignoring and even ridiculing AGW. Cheap food and fossil fuels make my life a LOT mire comfortable, and I dont want to know that it is not a good longterm strategy.

March 9, 2015 6:14 am

Even without the trillions of dollars of funding coming from governments and environmentalist groups, climate “scientists” on the alarmist side have a clear conflict of interest. Think about it. Prior to this global warming hoax, back when climate scientists were scientists, climatology, as a field, got little recognition because the research in that field had little impact on current events. “So the Younger Drias killed off all the megafauna 10,000 years ago? Interesting. Not!” Their research didn’t get much funding, and none of the hot co-eds signed up for their climatology courses. How heart-breaking it must be to devote your life to a subject that noone cares about, and that will never get you laid. “It’s not fair! Professors of Economics, Law, Engineering, Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, even Agriculture have hoards of young hotties surrounding them. Even the entomology (insects) professors get laid more than us with their scare stories of ‘killer bees’ …” and that’s when the light bulb came on. “If we can just come up with some immmenent threat to the world, centered on climatology, we will be popular. We’ll get invited to those faculty mixers, and maybe asked to be faculty advisors (wink wink) for undergraduate clubs. And lots and lots of fresh(wo)men will want to get degrees in climatology, and some of them will be cute. And they will be in OUR classes, not the Entomology classes. And some of them will do ANYTHING for a B.” And thus “global warming” was invented, not to save the planet, but to get thousands of dorky, boring climate science professors into the pants of young, hot co-eds.

March 9, 2015 3:41 pm

I applaud the position of Markey and other senators against anti-AGW funding, because:
1) Politicians are not scientists and cannot independently judge the validity or seriousness of AGW.
2) They must rely upon the conclusions of Scientific Institutions and Researchers, which are as follows:
3) ALL 200 of the world’s science academies and Scientific professional associations, all major universities, NASA and NOAA conclude Man’s burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet and the results are likely to be strongly negative.
4) 99% of peer-reviewed papers conclude the same.
5) ~ None of the anti-AGW crowd publish in peer-reviewed journals, and therefore have no influence in the world’s scientific institutions. Instead, they confine their work to blogs, websites, and grumbling.
I suggest if they want to influence action on Capitol Hill, they should start publishing legitimate scientific work.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 10, 2015 8:30 am

ALL 200 of the world’s science academies and Scientific professional associations, all major universities, NASA and NOAA are bought and paid for by those who take wealth by force from those who create it and give it to those, including pseudoscience propagandists for a global welfare state, who will try to keep them in their positions of power. Quid pro quo.
Did you ever wonder why dissenters don’t get published in clique-review journals? That’s like asking why the Federal Reserve has never been audited by outside accountants. Answer: there is no percentage in it for the owners.
You are confused about the real-world source of power on Capitol hill. I suggest that if these so-called scientists and intellectuals wish to influence those of us who actually foot the bill, they should start publishing legitimate scientific work.

Reply to  RalphB
March 10, 2015 4:53 pm

A worldwide conspiracy to take your money? Hundreds of scientists around the world producing fraudulent work? All scientific journals joining in the conspiracy? Every government in the world full of corrupt leaders proposing action just to hurt its own citizens?
Do you realize how preposterous your ideas are? There are words for the psychology that produces such garbage claims, but not for use on this forum.

Reply to  RalphB
March 11, 2015 1:16 am

@warrenlb: You really knocked the stuffing of that straw man, didn’t you? There is no conspiracy to take my money as an individual. There is no conspiracy to promote CAGW. None is needed. The issue is public and the contenders are well known. There is only the climate — the climate of incentives. No need to conspire — all you need to do is what keeps you in your privileged status as a consumer of public largess. You need not have any dark motives. The vast majority — over 97% in my estimation — of your so-called scientists and intellectuals believe they are doing the socially beneficial thing. This is especially easy to believe when actual governments are giving you money, because, as they all know, government money is clean money, money donated voluntarily by those who love all mankind but are too busy to spend it on worthwhile projects of their own choosing, so they elect others to spend this wealth on whatever is best for everyone, or at least that’s the pleasant way to look at it.
There is no conscious fraud. All of their fraudulent findings are arrived at honestly in their own hearts. If the tree rings don’t tell the correct story, the honest thing, to their way of thinking, is to leave out the incorrect story — you wouldn’t want to confuse people and make it less likely you will save the world, now would you? Yes, at least 97% of these so-called scientists and and their intellectual supporters defend that kind of socially responsible simplification. After all, think of the children. Hundreds of scientists around the world believe they are doing honest work, and do not believe their work is touched by any confirmation bias whatsoever. They would even be happy to work on models that contradict the consensus of their peers if they thought that was the socially responsible thing to do, but after all, this is a crisis we’re facing and contradictory findings only make it less likely that we will save the children. Also, they wouldn’t get published. What would you do? You would have to be some kind of drooling beast to work against all that is good and true.
Also, I am deeply troubled by your insinuation that I believe every government in the world is full of corrupt leaders proposing action just to hurt its own citizens, because I believe nothing of the kind. Yes, of course it is true that every government in the world is full (about 97%) of corrupt leaders — I mean, hello? — but certainly very few are proposing action just to hurt their own citizens. Leaving out the many obvious despots, what they are trying to do — corrupt as they may be in the little things like money grubbing and power lust — is to benefit those constituents who need their help most, in particular those constituents who cried out for their help by electing them and contributing to their political campaigns and ideological goals. These leaders would never deliberately hurt their constituents — that would be like the parasite killing the host! After all, somebody has to produce the wealth that keeps them in power doing good for all mankind (with a little on the side for myself), right?
Many ideas look preposterous until you discover that they are true. There is a phrase for the cult psychology that motivates a passionate devotion to leaders who confirm our own dependent world view and are willing to accept responsibility for us, a phrase suitable for use in this forum: obedience to authority. Others prefer to think for themselves.
By the way I am not a cynic about human beings, just a realist about how the climate of incentives tends to influence their behavior. I do not believe that such influences can overwhelm human free will, but I do believe that it takes extraordinary virtue to resist such incentives. You can learn about such persons of extraordinary virtue on this website — and wherever courage is honored.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 10, 2015 6:39 pm

warrenlb says:
I applaud the position of Markey and other senators against anti-AGW funding…<
Do you approve of $29 BILLION being wasted every year on ‘climate studies’?
Why? Have they ever discovered anything worth all that money?
They certainly haven’t found a single measurement quantifying AGW. A more cynical observer would conclude that they’re self-sevf9ng opportunists, riding the grant gravy train. Why would you think otherwise?

March 9, 2015 9:32 pm

A paper from Georgia Tech which cites Oreskes, and explicitly rejects Popper, arguing for skepticism about scientific skepticism:

Reply to  pdxrod
March 10, 2015 4:35 am

Thanks for the link. A worthy read for anyone assuming the mantle of skepticism.

Reply to  pdxrod
March 10, 2015 6:54 pm

That link is a steaming pile of carp. They are saying Popper should be disregarded — and wouldn’t you know it, there’s Michael Mann.
If we listened to fools like that, witch doctors would still be in charge of Policy.

Alan Sloan
March 10, 2015 1:30 am

Oh yes, oh yes! Job and economy killing policies come from Green Imperialist policy?
More please, so interesting! I’m so pleased you are selflessly taking tbe trouble to point out this vast conspiracy to deprive me if my car and refrigerator!

March 10, 2015 6:47 pm

warrenlb says:
Politicians are not scientists and cannot independently judge the validity or seriousness of AGW.
They can’t even say whether AGW exists! Neither can you, or anybody else. Why? Because there are no measurements of AGW, even after a century of searching.
ALL 200 of the world’s science academies and Scientific professional associations, all major universities, NASA and NOAA conclude Man’s burning of fossil fuels…blah, blah, &etc.
That is #8,997 in warrenlb’s endless Appeal to Authority fallacies. Disregard.
99% of peer-reviewed papers…blah, blah, &etc. Disregard.
None of the anti-AGW crowd publish in peer-reviewed journals, and therefore… blah, blah, &etc.
Jewish rabbis don’t publish in ISIS pamphlets, eiither. So what?
warrenlb, you are a one-trick pony with nothing new to add. Instead of threadjacking with your endless Appeal to Authority fallacies, either explain why no one can find a single measurement of AGW, or go away. Children should be seen and not heard.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights