The Command & Control Center of Climate Alarmism

Guest essay by Leo Goldstein

The existence of a foreign command & control center within climate alarmism has long been ignored, despite palpable evidence. The obvious deterrent to recognizing it was ridicule, as the Left label anybody making such claims as a believer in a “conspiracy theory.” It is time to stop listening to fools and scoundrels. Yes, climate alarmism has a single command and control center, comprising leaders of the WWF (*), other huge environmentalist groups, and United Nations politicians. I will call this center the Climate Alarmism Governance (CAG). The best evidence comes from authors sympathetic to climate alarmism. The emphasis in all the quotes is mine.

First, from Jennifer Hadden, Networks in Contention: The Divisive Politics of Climate Change (2015):

“As one interviewee explained to me regarding the strategy of the international climate coalition: “We work together quite a lot. But we know that we all represent different brands, so we have to be careful to give the appearance of not working together all the time” (Interview, WWF European Policy Office 2008).”

As one environmental activist explained it to me, “climate change isn’t just an issue anymore, it’s the issue, a meta-issue for everything we work on” (Interview, Danish 92 Group, 2009).

Starting in 1989, these organizations came together to form a coalition: the Climate Action Network (CAN). CAN was founded as a vehicle for transnational coordination among sixty-three organizations. … Much of CAN’s efforts promoted the work of the IPCC and helped establish its centrality in the international climate regime. … In fact, CAN consolidated its coalition structure during this period [1990’s] by creating a high-level political group to facilitate policy and strategic coordination among member groups.

Central to CAN’s advocacy has been the idea that member organizations must “speak with one voice” to influence the international negotiations.

CAN has a large influence on the kinds of strategies which organizations choose to use: “It seems like in CAN, a lot of the large groups set the tune, and we all tend to follow that. But when we work at home, we can’t always sell that, so we might do different things” (Interview, Greenpeace Germany 2010).

the major international NGOs in CAN – WWF, FOE (pre-2008), Oxfam, and Greenpeace – are extensively consulted before proposals are drafted. Most members acknowledge that the big groups have a de facto veto over CAN positions. If these groups approve of a position, the proposal is then circulated to the entire membership …

CAN(*) boasts 1,100+ member organizations. According to Hadden, CAN is guided by a high-level political group, which is headed by the Four Horsemen: WWF, Greenpeace (*), FOE (*) (possibly pre-2008), and Oxfam (possibly excluding its US branch). They give orders, and all the members tend to follow those orders, while “be[ing] careful to give the appearance of not working together.” For decades, their aim has been to establish an international climate regime, to which America would be subordinated. The member organizations (or units) “might do different things” – in other words, they are encouraged to take initiative in carrying out the commander’s intent. This is a feature of a good army, not of a movement or network. They also boast immense financial power: WWF alone has annual income approaching $1B (one billion dollars), which it can use as it pleases.

Likewise, the members are organized in a top-down fashion, like military units, not volunteer organizations. Consider this excerpt from Thomas Lyon, Good Cop/Bad Cop: Environmental NGOs and Their Strategies toward Business (2012):

Newer national groups rooted in the environmental movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund, tend to have self-perpetuating boards of directors. … a tendency for group decisionmaking authority to be concentrated and organizational democracy to be lacking. Most notably, viable electoral mechanisms are rare.  … Alas, scholars that have spent time examining the role of elections and democratic processes in NGOs have typically come away disappointed. What they discover is a lack of classic democratic processes in operation. … although many NGOs have democratic procedures on the books, these groups are almost always oligarchic in practice.

… the U.S. political system, given its separation of powers and weak political parties (note the absence of a viable Green Party) relative to much of the rest of the developed world, appears ready-made for [transnational enviro-] group influence over government decisionmaking.

America is specifically targeted, and the new enemy perceives our Constitutional political system with its “separation of powers and weak political parties” as a weakness to be exploited, apparently repeating mistakes of America’s past enemies.

More quotes from these and other authors are in the post Climate Alarmism Command on my website.

I. “Speaking with one voice”

Based on this evidence, climate alarmism is the product of a very large, well-coordinated, and centrally controlled entity. That explains its ability to forcibly spread a perfectly synchronized message, despite its internal inconsistencies, disagreements with high school science, and frequent flip-flops in response to shifting international alliances and focus group research results.

One example is the unprecedented saturation of the mass media with certain patently false statements, such as “97% of scientists agree.” Ideally, the media would report the truth all the time. In the past (which now seems like the legendary past), the mainstream media reported facts mostly truthfully, even if it interpreted them with a liberal bias. Occasionally, it made errors or even made up falsehoods. Journalists tend to copy each other, so the same fake news might have appeared all over the newspapers and TV channels, but only for a very short time. The “97%” falsehood has been running constantly since its introduction by Naomi Oreskes in 2004! This number has been explicitly debunked many times, and is obviously absurd: it looks more like an election result in a Communist country than a survey of scientists’ opinions! Supposedly it was “confirmed” by multiple studies, something having a lower probability than winning the Powerball jackpot for two years in a row. Nevertheless, it has survived for twelve years.

Climate alarmism has other magic numbers that make no sense, like 350 ppm or 2 degrees (later supplemented by 1.5 degrees), but that have enormous staying power. In addition to the unnaturally synchronized messaging, there is a highly abnormal absence of dissent in the ranks of climate alarmists. This is especially striking given the U-turns that the CAG made on many political issues, such as emissions by China and the use of natural gas. Even the Communist Party of the USA, a Soviet marionette from 1933, balked when it received the order to switch from an anti-Nazi to a pro-Nazi stance following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. Nothing similar happened in the domestic climate alarmism groups when CAG switched its demand from global decrease in CO2 emissions to unilateral decrease by the West, letting China, Japan, Russia, and the rest increase their emissions as they pleased. These facts prove beyond a doubt that there is central control of climate alarmism.

II. Front Groups

The presence of front groups, which often pop up from nowhere and catapult to the focus of media attention, is another telltale sign. For example, InsideClimate News led a plankton existence as a project inside the bowels of an obscure leftist incubator Public Interest Projects (now NEO Philanthropy) since 2007. In 2011, it had a staff of six. Suddenly, it was showered with acclaim, including the once prestigious Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013. Soon it collected dozens of journalistic awards, including another Pulitzer, and its fake news became “evidence” in the notorious attempt of the “Attorneys General United for Clean Power” to silence speech by proxy. Exxon, the main protagonist of the conspiracy theory that climate realists were funded by “fossil fuels,” was appointed the proxy. InsideClimate News was funded by the Ford Foundation (*), RBF (*)/RFF (Rockefeller Brothers Fund / Rockefeller Family Fund), the Park Foundation, the Marisla Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, and other usual suspects. Almost all the funders are open members of the EGA(*) (Environmental Grantmakers Association), which was founded by RBF/RFF and shares a floor with them. (By the way, the RBF/RFF is separate from the larger Rockefeller Foundation.) is another example of a high-flying front group.

III. Evolution of the CAG

CAN was founded in 1989, but it took about a decade and a half for climate alarmism to become the main ideological glue for multiple transnational and international groups. Accordingly, the consolidation of power into the hands of a few has been happening gradually. Thus, Climate Alarmism Governance has evolved, rather than being created by one person or a small group. ENGOs and ambitious UN politicians have been working hand in hand with each other to increase their power since the 1970s. The introduction of this technique is frequently attributed to Maurice Strong. UN agencies and politicians cannot openly and directly interfere in the internal affairs of most countries, so they use NGOs for this purpose. CAN and its members WWF, Greenpeace, Oxfam, EDF, and NRDC have official status as IPCC observers and act unofficially as its de-facto speakers, further corrupting IPCC research and embellishing (“dramatizing,” in the words of a former Greenpeace leader) its already distorted reports. CAN members lobby country delegates in the UNFCCC Conferences of Parties and other international gatherings, manipulate IPCC scientific work from the inside, and make financial deals with its officials. The Climate Action Network cooperates, but avoids association, with groups that have supported violence, display hatred of America and Europe, and desire to take revenge (“justice”) for real or imaginary past offences. The leaders of several transnational NGOs (not only members of CAN) regularly meet in person to develop common goals and strategies, and stay in contact by electronic means between such meetings.

Another pillar of the CAG is the UN organization, where the USA has just one vote out of more than 190 (but contributes a lion’s share of the funding). Conveniently, some of the environmentalist “brands” are UN-accredited, and officially attend meetings of many UN agencies. Unofficially, they bribe and otherwise manipulate foreign government and UN officials as they wish (see Climate Alarmism Governance in the Words of its Supporters, para 3.2, 3.8.) The most relevant group for the climate alarmism UN unit is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created by the UNEP and WMO. I did not investigate the precise composition and relationship at the top of the CAG or the role of the European Green parties.

IV. Financial relations between some climate alarmism units and the corruption of formerly mainstream institutions

Centralized financing of climate alarmism goes hand-in-hand with centralized command & control. Today, most climate alarmism money comes from the public sectors of the US and EU. In the past, the EGA was a large factor. Money from the primary sources is laundered and transferred between climate alarmism units in various ways. The following tables are from an official legal complaint in 5:16-cv-211-C, verified under penalty of perjury.


Table 1. Matrix of financial relations between some CAG entities

“R” means that the entity (“brand”) in the row received direct funding from the entity in the column. “D” means that the entity in the row gave direct funding to the entity in the column. Only money transfers reported on Forms 990 from 2003 to 2014-2015 are included. “In-kind” services, payments to related parties, money transfers through third parties, and off-book transfers are not included. All funding events are substantial (sometimes in millions of dollars, and certainly exceeding $10,000.)


Table 2. Financing of the Center for American Progress and some front groups by some CAG entities


Table 3. “Donations” to some formerly respectable organizations by some CAG entities

NAS is the National Academy of Sciences, which used to be the top scientific body in the nation. AAAS is the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the publisher of the journal Science. The New York Times Company (NYT) is a for-profit corporation, which makes “donating” to it even stranger. (**) (***)

(*) This organization is alleged to be associated with and participate in a criminal enterprise, as defined in The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1963. The author is a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against this organization (5:16-cv-211-C Goldstein v. Climate Action Network et al.)

(**) All said, the vast majority of individuals who unwittingly aided the CAG are innocent.

(***) I wrote under a pen name Ari Halperin in the past.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 23, 2016 10:37 am

Please all share with your Trump Transition Team contacts.

December 23, 2016 10:41 am

I would correct the opening line slightly: Based on this evidence, climate alarmism is the product of a very large, well-coordinated, and centrally controlled enemy.

Reply to  wws
December 23, 2016 11:25 am

Yes. A “single” Command and Control Centre comprising a multitude of groups of people and given a convenient unifying label reeks of good old-fashioned conspiracy theory.

Reply to  wws
December 23, 2016 6:25 pm

It doesn’t need to be called an enemy, “foreign power” will do.

Reply to  Sleepalot
December 24, 2016 11:11 am

just wait til the red states hear about that

Carbon BIgfoot
December 23, 2016 10:45 am

Anthony I’m still getting that Security Certificate Alert making access difficult— some organization could be messing with your website…the Russians?…..the EPA?….the OBUMMER GROUP?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
December 23, 2016 10:47 am

Likely an ad. They’ve tricked me before.

Curious George
Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 23, 2016 11:56 am

Some two months ago there was an obnoxious ad, which scrolled the page every minute to position itself in the middle of the screen, making WUWT unwatchable. The customer service at WordPress did not help. I had to install an adblocker.

Janice The American Elder
Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 23, 2016 1:31 pm

I’ve been using Ghostery, which works pretty well on Mozilla

Leo Smith
Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
December 23, 2016 11:55 am

Anthony is running https, but without paying for third party authentication. S you will get ‘hey, this site may be a forgery’ type rubbish.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
December 23, 2016 12:32 pm

I am getting an obnoxious security certificate alert on WUWT pages too. The offending Security Certificates are registered to:
The problem has exploded over the past week. I made a similar post in Tips and Notes yesterday.
What ad blocker do you suggest for Windows IE?

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 23, 2016 12:40 pm

I put these 3 sites on the list of restricted sites in Internet Options > Security > Restricted Sites.
I still get the alerts. That surprises me. Must be some obscure setting letting them the site references attempt to work.

Curious George
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 23, 2016 1:00 pm

I am using “Adblock Plus” on Chrome on Windows 10.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 23, 2016 2:08 pm

“What ad blocker do you suggest for Windows IE?”
You should probably stop using Windows IE and use Firefox with the NoScript add-on which blocks all websites from putting their content on the page you are loading, unless you specifically allow it, and it also blocks scripts on the webpage from executing unless you allow it.
Internet Explorer has a lot of holes in it. You can probably secure it, but you will have to know a heck of a lot about its operation to get every thing set just right. It’s more trouble than it is worth to me.
Firefox works like a charm most of the time. I don’t trust anything Google, so I don’t use their browser or anything else they offer, if I can help it. I do use their search engine, but I go through a separate website (startpagecom) that serves as an intermediary between me and Google. 🙂

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 23, 2016 2:42 pm

“What ad blocker do you suggest for Windows IE?”
Firefox with AdBlock Plus.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 23, 2016 3:54 pm

Ad Blocker is available for iPad/iPhone Safari. Works well.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 23, 2016 5:30 pm

AdBlock Plus works fine for me on IE. It is regrettable to have to use it on WUWT site, but the ads were so intrusive as to hang pages loading on IE, and even freeze the browser. I’m sure this is not the fault of WUWT, but of who/what ever serves up the ads. The site became unusable for me using IE and enough was enough. And I was not prepared to change browsers just to block content I didn’t ask for.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 23, 2016 9:06 pm

TA, isn’t FireFox part of the MicroSoft family? I thought they were bought up some time ago.

Hugh Davis
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 24, 2016 8:31 am

“What ad blocker do you suggest for Windows IE?”
Adblocker Utimate (on Firefox) does what its name claims. It is currently blocking 10 ads for me on this page.

December 23, 2016 10:48 am

whether we like it or not
the climate is going to change in the future
mainly due to natural climate change
i.e. global cooling
looking at the sun, we are now ca. 1930
go south
young man
go south
[don’t wait a year longer after the drought has set in]

December 23, 2016 10:49 am

Like others here, I’ve always believed that control of Carbon is the umbrella cause that would facilitate implementation of all other social and environmental ‘justices’ these organizations would love to implement. Once CO2 (or ‘Carbon’ in their words) can be tightly controlled/taxed, armies, governments and populace would be at its discretion. It is the coup d’etat of democracy. I really have to give them credit for thinking up and implementing such a plan – next it will be water control.

Reply to  Duncan
December 23, 2016 11:06 am

I should clarify, when I say “plan” I don’t honestly believe the environmentalists movement invented this, they were just early adopters, identifying and championing this cause as burning of oil/gas provides mankind unfair advantage over this planet and certain countries (i.e. USA) over others. This enviro-guilt goes part and parcel with white-guilt and Anti-Colonialism and has replaced Christianity for some in many respects.

Reply to  Duncan
December 23, 2016 6:16 pm

This is all for nwo socialist propaganda and control.
Too many humans doin’ too much consumin’.
It’s hard to control 8B people without controlling everything including food, water and the air they breathe.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Duncan
December 23, 2016 12:26 pm

Duncan, there is a subliminal reason why they call it ‘carbon’. What is the colour of ‘evil’? (in their tiny, twisted, xenophobic minds).

Reply to  Duncan
December 23, 2016 12:46 pm

We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. — – Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993
(source: WUWT 2011.06.26)

tony mcleod
Reply to  Duncan
December 23, 2016 4:14 pm

You are talking about Big Carbon here aren’t you?

Another Scott
Reply to  Duncan
December 24, 2016 1:38 pm

“Once CO2 (or ‘Carbon’ in their words) can be tightly controlled/taxed” – CO2 taxed, finally a way to tax the air we breathe (but only if we exhale)

December 23, 2016 11:01 am

Black Lives, Dreamers, Occupy Wall Street, USP, United We Dream, Open Borders, Arab Spring, Anti-Trump protests, Syrian refugee crises, Ferguson riots, etc etc and on and on
..Not just climate alarmism
A Hungarian national, convicted felon….trying his best to disrupt and overthrow our country

Reply to  Latitude
December 23, 2016 11:52 am

You must be talking about George Soros

Soros’ funding has a tendency to benefit himself.
The Washington Free Beacon reports: While Soros has increased his multi-million dollar investments in both U.S. and foreign companies that extract shale oil and gas, the Obama administration has championed natural gas as a less carbon-intensive bridge fuel toward a “clean-energy future.” The administration’s proposal to offer incentives to companies that use trucks powered by natural gas would benefit Westport Innovations, a company that converts diesel engines for natural gas use and is partially owned by Soros’ hedge fund.
Soros’ political advocacy also tends to blend with his investments. He proposed in 2009 that developed countries create a “green fund” to combat climate change in developing countries by directing billions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) toward forestry, land-use, and agricultural projects. Soros’ fund controls more than a $200 million stake in Adecoagro, a Luxembourg-based company that owns hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in South America and would benefit from the IMF cash infusion.

The man’s fingers seem to reach into every nook and cranny. He funded Hillary, he has a relationship with Donald. He seems to play both sides against the middle.
I always wondered who benefited from CAGW alarmism. One answer seems to be George Soros.

Reply to  commieBob
December 23, 2016 3:05 pm

He is 86 years old.
He can’t live forever.

Reply to  commieBob
December 23, 2016 6:00 pm

May he rest in pieces.

Reply to  commieBob
December 23, 2016 9:12 pm

Felflames, he has a well trained son I believe called Alexander ( I could be wrong but doesn’t that name sound familiar?)

Reply to  commieBob
December 24, 2016 11:51 pm

“The man’s fingers seem to reach into every nook and cranny.” Soros funds Human Rights Watch and the White Helmets, a propaganda Al Qaeda associated group falsely claiming to rescue people in Syria. He owns the Ukraine and has cocaine snorting Hunter Biden (he was drummed out of the Navy for cocaine in his blood) running the fracking business there. Right on: “I always wondered who benefited from CAGW alarmism. One answer seems to be George Soros.” Soros mate Rupert Murdoch owns 20% Vice News, a means by which he indoctrinates hipsters, Soros is interviewed there, for propaganda purposes.

Reply to  commieBob
December 24, 2016 11:52 pm

Old man Rockefeller has had 9 heart transplants.

December 23, 2016 11:09 am

Is the Moore Foundation not swimming in the same pool?

Tom Halla
December 23, 2016 11:17 am

I don’t think the greens are a conspiracy, only a mass movement, which is arguably worse.
Karl Marx did not “invent” communism, he only appealed to an existing movement that had been around since at least the French Revolution, and probably longer. Similarly, the greens have been around since the 1960’s, and have pushed several themes of imminent doom, with “Silent Spring” an early effort. CAGW is just the current bugaboo.
As most of the climate change/green blob groups are appealing to the same major funders and recycling themes that worked in previous fund-raising efforts, it looks very much like there is a lot more coordination than there probably is.
I don’t think the Devil model is useful in the long run. While the green blob in the US demonizes Exxon-Mobil and the Koch brothers, and the right similarly trashes George Soros and Tom Steyer, none of them are actually running the operation, pro or con.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 23, 2016 9:33 pm

Tom Halla, it’s seems to be not only the Silent Spring scare but there seems to be a cyclical theme, from Silent spring we had the 70’s Ice age scare to the Ozone hole, the Acid rain, and then the AGW now called Climate Change, mix in nuclear disasters, peak oil, overpopulation and so on ( I probably missed a few) and you do start to wonder ( Oh I missed the asteroid impact thingy another one humans can do nothing about.) As far as any of these people not actually “running” the operation? They sure always seem to show up.

M Courtney
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 24, 2016 5:20 am

Quite agree. The point is that people do believe these things. They aren’t obeying a central power telling them what to believe.
The reason this kind of thing is ridiculed as a silly conspiracy theory is because it is a silly conspiracy theory.

Reply to  M Courtney
December 24, 2016 7:19 am

It is true, however, that after they convinced themselves that CAGW skepticism, which they ignorantly and arrogantly decided to label “climate change d-word”, was an actual conspiracy by big oil, they reacted. They decided they would form their own entities to fight the bugaboo they dreamed up. In the process, they are actually doing a lot of what they imagine the skeptics have done (all funded by fossil fuels of course). So, is what they are doing a grand conspiracy? Not in the sense that they want to take over the world, but they many of them truly believe all the scare stories and that big oil is fighting their pet ideas, so they are very determined to do whatever they need to do to fight big oil, whether it is trampling on 1st Amendment rights, or interfering with normal peer review and comment policies in journals and on web sites.

December 23, 2016 11:25 am

“Left label anybody making such claims as a believer in a ‘conspiracy theory.’ ”
While this certainly has the look and feel of a conspiracy, it seems more likely that it’s a case of scientific incompetence that scientifically ignorant globalists latched on to because it provides a justification for their agenda of global control. It couldn’t be more clear that the fear of CAGW is a means to an end and that those who push it consider any means to their ends are justified, truth be damned.
This global command and control center in the form of the IPCC/UN is pure evil wrapped in benevolence. They don’t recognize the evil because they are misled by the presumed benevolence and can’t accept that main stream climate scientists can be so incredibly wrong about something so important.
“That explains its ability to forcibly spread a perfectly synchronized message, despite its internal inconsistencies, disagreements with high school science …”
Skeptics are often criticized for not having a consistent, synchronized message. The reason for this is that there are so many internal inconsistencies, disagreements with high school science and outright fraud with consensus (IPCC driven) climate science that there are a lot of targets for skeptics to attack.
The root of this evil is the conflict of interest at the IPCC which requires substantial man made warming to justify its existence, yet when one refers to ‘consensus’ climate science, they’re referring to climate science as summarised in IPCC reports.

December 23, 2016 11:33 am

CAG serves the same political function as the Central Intelligence Agency: inventing imaginary threats which are said to require big government to address. The CIA was “surprised” when the Soviet Union collapsed weren’t they? That’s not massive systemic incompetence at analyzing military strength, that’s just a government agency to invent lies which support government. Likewise for other organized religions, which say you will be tortured for eternity if you don’t live according to their rules; they just make stuff up, too. All religions are basically the same except for strength, all politics is basically the same except for strength, and religion and politics are basically the the same. There is basically one type of mental attack using organized lies against the middle class, which exploits the human monkey-troop political instincts.

Bill Illis
December 23, 2016 11:43 am

Wikipedia says the Climate Action Network headquarters is in Beirut, Lebanon ?? [Rmayl, Nahr Street, Jaara Building, 4th floor, Beirut, Lebanon]. That is more than a little sketchy.

Reply to  Bill Illis
December 23, 2016 6:39 pm

‘Small Window, Bright Light: A History of Climate Action Network’ by Kyle Gracey, 44 pages
Have to login to read this paper.

December 23, 2016 12:27 pm

It is not surprising that like minded organizations would coordinate actions and messaging. Nor is it surprising that monied foundations have supported them and thatbtheynhave supported each other– that is well covered by the media and in the annual tax exempt federal filings.
It is troubling that Goldstein thinks RICO therefore applies. The tobacco companies lost the 1999 DOJ RICO case because it was proven they had for decades conspired to cover up their own adverse smoking effects research, which was held to result in fraudulent marketing. RICO requires at least 2 predicate offenses in a 10 year period. Fraud is specifically one of the 35 offenses on the predicate list (along with murder, bribery, extortion, human trafficing, drug running, gambling, …) What are these organization’s predicate offenses? They don’t do climate research themselves so there is nothing internal to cover up. Believing the IPCC may be misguided, but it certainly isn’t fraud. Some of the climate studies constitute proven academic misconduct, but that is not the CAN organisations problem. Advocating renewables subsidies voted by Congress isn’t extortion. This sort of shrill, baseless RICO argument does not help the skeptical cause. Rather, it hurts just like denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas hurts it. Makes it easier for warmunists to be dismissive.
Skeptics should be trying to make dismissal harder by presenting simple unarguable sound bites. Among those that have been recently shown to have sting in the tail because of warmunist responses:
1.Except for a now rapidly cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip, no warming this century, which also saw ~35% of the CO2 increase since 1958 (Keeling curve). That proves overlooked natural variation.
2. Last few months shows the fastest cooling in record (David Rose articles kerfuffle).
3. No tropical troposphere hotspot as in models, so models wrong.
4. Observational ECS half of modeled, so models wrong.
5. No acceleration in SLR except by pulling a ‘Mike’s Nature trick’. Same rate since ~1900 in PSMSL diff GPS corrected tide gauges. A consequence of emerging from LIA.
6. Thriving polar bears, because they don’t depend on late summer ice.
7. Greening from CO2 fertilization.
8. No increases in weather extremes per SREX.
9. Past warmunist predictions wrong. (Insert 2-3 prominent favorites like Viner’s ‘children won’t know snow or Hansens West Side Parkway submerged or Kyoto protocol reductions). Why should we believe them right now?
10. Renewables are expensive (subsidies) and intermittent so unworkable on large scales. Germany’s Energiewende has resulted in more brown coal generation and increased CO2 emissions.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  ristvan
December 24, 2016 6:38 am

I found the article edifying. There is an octopus out there – who feeds it?

stephen duval
Reply to  Shawn Marshall
January 2, 2017 11:16 am

Who feeds it is the million dollar question.
One possible contender is OPEC. With $1 trillion in oil revenue at stake, funneling a few billion into Big Green seems prudent.
OPEC interests are perfectly in alignment with Green policies. Shut down the energy source of the future, nuclear. Shut down Western oil, gas, and fracking. Shut down US coal. Use natural gas to substitute for coal rather than oil in the OPEC transportation monopoly.
Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the second largest international organization after the UN. With 57 nation states, OIC is by far the largest voting block in the UN. I wonder what the role of the OIC is in the setup of the IPCC? How much power does Saudi Arabia wield in OIC? Saudi Arabia clearly has a great deal of power within OPEC.
Alternatively, these large foundations are independent political power bases captured by the Left. A small number of players control tens of billions with no accountability. Big Green has billions available every year to promote blogs, grass roots groups, PR campaigns, lawsuits, lobbying, and political campaigns. If Global Warming science was no so terrible, the deniers would not have stood a chance against this PR machine.

Reply to  ristvan
December 24, 2016 12:09 pm

While a great many of the public don’t know which laws could be applied in this situation if any, they can understand the money and the connections involved in this situation.
Leo has helped to make this public knowledge! Both the science and these connections go hand-in-hand now.

Reply to  Barbara
December 24, 2016 4:39 pm

Yes. Somstop with the money stuff and lose the delusional RICO stuff. Don Quixote was an allegorical tale.

December 23, 2016 12:31 pm

What I find incredulous is these so called enviromentalists are doing mote harm than good ie. Cutting down forests for biofuel
And useless windmills, solar power in the desert using milllions
Of gallons daily for a smidgen of power, killing eagles and other birds without any penalties ,wasting money hand over foot on conferances on and on it goes without a peep ftom msm save for
A few true journalists.

Reply to  John piccirilli
December 24, 2016 7:53 pm

i am incredulous.

December 23, 2016 12:33 pm

It’s a money making scheme. The more they can bang the drum of “danger to the world”, the more the contributions come in.
RICO should apply

Reply to  doug
December 23, 2016 2:49 pm

It doesn’t, and the assertion that it could should not have been made. When my legally precise post eventually escapes moderation, you will be able to read upthread why. Stooping to bogus Oreskes like tactics is IMO not an appropriate or winning skeptical position. There is a saying taught in law school: only a fool acts as his own lawyer. Even if Goldstein is a lawyer, this post shows the wisdom of the saying.

Reply to  ristvan
December 28, 2016 8:34 am

Rud, why exactly would a lawyer hire a lawyer to prosecute a case? Do the EPA lawyers hire outside lawyers to represent them? Is there any precedent for that sort of thing? I don’t understand the utility. Or are you just suggesting Goldstein is incompetent?
My experience with actions of this type is the charges are deliberately broad since it’s typically impossible to add charges to an action after filing, just as it’s difficult to add defendants (“and Does 1 through …”). If there might be RICO violations it seems prudent to express the charge, which will either be dropped later or dismissed by the court if necessary? Isn’t that a standard practice?

Robert from oz
December 23, 2016 12:34 pm

They may be well organised they may be well funded but in the end we the deplorables are becoming more aware of the lies and baseless predictions that fail to materialise .
Let them keep walking around with the billboard that says “the end of the world is nigh” , people are just tuning off to their message and starting to worry about the real issues affecting them such as how am I going to put food on the table ? How am I going to pay that bill , is my employer about to close etc .

December 23, 2016 12:40 pm


December 23, 2016 2:17 pm

CAN at work or too much bubbly at Long Paddock?
SOI (22 Dec 2016) -0.36
SOI (23 Dec 2016) -670.93

December 23, 2016 2:21 pm

“One example is the unprecedented saturation of the mass media with certain patently false statements, such as “97% of scientists agree.”
I think that might be a quick, direct comeback to someone using the “97 percent” argument.
Alarmist: “97 percent of scientists agree humans are causing the climate to change.”
Skeptic: “That’s patently false!”
Alarmist: “What do you mean “patently false”?!
Skeptic: “I mean, “prove it”.
Alarmist: But, but, but. . .

Mike McMillan
Reply to  TA
December 23, 2016 9:23 pm

Here’s a better reply:
21 Skeptical Scientists –
Fred Singer
John Christy
Ian Plimer
Richard Lindzen
Jennifer Marohasy
Ross McKitrick
Robert Carter
Anthony Watts
Judith Curry
Sallie Baliunas
Roy Spencer
Henrik Svensmark
Lennart Bengtsson
Piers Corbyn
Freeman Dyson
Ivar Giaever
Craig Loehle
Nils-Axel Mörner
Garth Paltridge
Harrison Schmitt
Fritz Vahrenholt
Now name 697 believing scientists.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Mike McMillan
December 23, 2016 9:24 pm

I exaggerated. Need name only 679 believers.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
December 24, 2016 7:24 am

Believing what is the real question. 97% do agree the world has warmed about 0.8 C since 1880 and that man has probably played a role due to GHG and other activities. Not as many agree that at least half is due to man. Not sure what the best number is for that percentage. Even fewer believe that extreme weather events are due to man or that the global warming will hit >3C or that it will have severe impacts on life on earth in 80 years.

Warren in New Zealand
Reply to  Mike McMillan
December 24, 2016 8:23 pm

You forgot Chris De Frietas, who was hounded out his position as editor, but still retains his position at Auckland University

Reply to  Mike McMillan
December 28, 2016 8:40 am

You missed out Richard Feynman. He’s sort of well known in the physics community.

Reply to  TA
December 24, 2016 3:56 pm

The 97% is what I would consider “fraud”.
It keeps getting repeated and repeated ad nauseam.

stephen duval
Reply to  TA
January 2, 2017 11:21 am

Here’s another reply.
97% of the climate models agree that the temperature data is wrong. Climate scientists are working overtime to correct the data.

December 23, 2016 2:26 pm

If anyone follows the “paper-trails” they will end up with the organizations you have named.
CAN is one of the major organizations being employed to implement the Kyoto Accord.
EarthJustice has an interlocking Board of Directors with EcoJustice Canada. Have that “paper-trail” too. And along with it the EcoJustice founding funding money.

Reply to  Barbara
December 23, 2016 4:33 pm

Ecojustice Canada, Vancouver, Oct.30, 2012
‘Catherine Donnelly Foundation awards a $1 million grant to Ecojustice’
$1 million over 5 years.
There is more information online on this topic.

Reply to  Barbara
December 23, 2016 9:43 pm

Citation All Academic
‘NGO Influence in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, Flexibility, Mechanisms , and Sinks’
20 pages including the role of CAN
Click on: View Document as HTML

December 23, 2016 2:39 pm

What you’ve stumbled upon is the continuation of the covert influence operation designed to destroy Normal-American culture and society, which began in 1918. It created what is best called Politically Correct Progressivism. It is now the belief system of the Democrat party.
The tactics, strategy, and belief system of today is identical to the original.
The genius who designed the operation was Willi Muenzenberg. Willi was close to Lenin. He ran the Comintern’s influence operations from its beginning till the late 1930s, when he was tracked down and hung like a dog by the KGB. Willi created the cool-sounding fronts, and the hip smugness of the in-crowd.
The focus on “global warming caused by CO2 emitted by man (white, capitalist man, of course)” is just one manifestation of the operation.
Whatever the issue they select, Willi’s methods are applied–Trayvon Martin, CO2, Trump’s election, Ferguson, etc. The goal is the same–destroy Normal-America.
Full details:

stephen duval
Reply to  kentclizbe
January 2, 2017 11:26 am

Most of what you said, I agree with. However Trump’s election was not the work of the left and has no place in your list of issues. Hillary’s election however would fit perfectly.
Make America Great Again.

December 23, 2016 3:54 pm

The Democrats are in denial about their failed 2016 election and they only spent a couple of years on it .
Their global warming cause fueled by the media ,the UN and rent seekers is more akin to a religion blindly followed .Like most religions it relies on steady growing cash flow to stay live .
In a no credit limit world distortions breed and the global warming industry is the poster child of
foolish wasted money based on unscienfific fraud .
Global warming is just another means of separating fools from their money .

Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
December 23, 2016 4:13 pm

This juggernaut went for the jugular with the elections of Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau. Watching them posture on climate “science” (by using cabinet surrogates like Catherine McKenna & Shannon Phillips) is clear evidence of delaying tactics. The delay is in place in an effort to tread water until the next edict filters down from the top. There is zero scepticism of the climate druid’s talking points….in fact, there is no knowledge of the talking points at all. You never hear anybody say anything beyond “the science is real and we are doing the right thing”….whatever that means.

John Boles
December 23, 2016 4:35 pm

Anyone else notice how fast the alarmists are loading up YOU TUBE with alarmist videos? Piling them on.

Svend Ferdinandsen
December 23, 2016 4:44 pm

This cartoon is appropiate:comment image?w=720

December 23, 2016 6:53 pm

I think the question raised by this this post to be very important, as I have often felt the same way about the climate propaganda campaigns in the mainstream media. Whether it’s polar bears, local weather records, personal attacks on the likes of Willie Soon, whatever — the same bovine manure on all channels, just slightly rewritten for each major outlet, but perfectly synchronized and without any recognizable original, let alone critical, input from the writers at the newspaper in question. It has all the trappings of a propaganda ministry of yore.

Patrick B
December 23, 2016 7:28 pm

Of even greater concern is how much public funding finds its way to these organizations? Are there any studies on how much in the way of DOE grants, Interior grants and other grants or “study” contracts find their way directly or indirectly into these organizations?

Reply to  Patrick B
December 24, 2016 8:33 am

Here’s an article in The Daily Telegraph:
It’s no wonder that these organisations were so keen for the UK to remain in the EU.

December 23, 2016 9:14 pm

“Yes, climate alarmism has a single command and control center, comprising leaders of the WWF (*), other huge environmentalist groups, and United Nations”
well said
i would like to add two points to the argument
1. the epa has become a captured tool of green activists.
the proof of this is that when Dr. Laurence Kulp, the lead author of the first NAPAP report on acid rain was fired because he his report was not what the greens wanted.
they forced the EPA to fire Kulp and to keep getting new NAPAP teams until the green agenda was supported. the EPA no longer serves the public interest. they serve the green activist interest.
2. the role of the UN, UNEP, Maurice Strong not only in the climate fake news but also in the ozone depletion fake news is well documented.
The UN does not serve the public interest.
They serve their own bureaucratic interest.
We’re screwed.

Reply to  chaamjamal
December 24, 2016 8:26 am

A quiz programme on British television recently asked a question about which gases where responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. The “correct” answer was CFCs.

December 23, 2016 9:15 pm
Clyde Spencer
December 23, 2016 9:41 pm

I’m usually skeptical of claims of conspiracy. However, after an experience today, I’m beginning to wonder. Over the last couple of days, I had a couple of comments removed from a post about Arctic warming on the Australian blog, The Conversation. They sent me a courtesy notice about one of them, the other just disappeared. Today, I responded with what I thought was a strong rebuttal, and then while in the middle of composing a second comment, a message came up that comments were closed. When I looked for the previous comment it was gone, and I have not been notified of any supposed violations that would have justified their removing it. Yesterday, I pointed out to the editor that they were not being even-handed since they had not censored other comments that were clearly over the line. The remaining comments tend to be supportive of CAGW. There are large charitable organizations providing financial support to The Conversation. They are probably also dictating policy because it is rare to see anything published that is even remotely conservative.

M Courtney
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 24, 2016 7:20 am

That happens to me at the Guardian a lot.
It’s corporate policy of these media organisations. They are selling the readership to advertisers. Thus they don’t want a diverse or well-informed readership.
They need to provide a simple message that appeals to a narrow group. They want a target audience to sell to advertisers.
That’s not malevolent or organised. It’s just how advertising works.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  M Courtney
December 24, 2016 7:52 am

However, I don’t see any advertising on The Conversation.

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
December 24, 2016 8:06 am

Their customers are the academics who use the Conversation to raise the profile of their projects and so gain funding. If their projects were unpopular with the readership of the Conversation they might even lose funding. So the Conversation still needs to enforce a narrow perspective. The Conversation is still selling is readership.
The Conversation says about itself,

Our team of professional editors work with university and research institute experts to unlock their knowledge for use by the wider public.

It’s about funding of universities.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  M Courtney
December 24, 2016 8:15 pm

That explains why they are so hostile to me pointing out that the king has not clothes. I’ve wondered why they let those supporting the position of the author get away with blatant violations of their ‘policy,’ while removing my comments for a “PERSONAL attack,” when I’m attacking the argument. Thank you for the insight. I thought it was political ideology. I see now that it is about money.

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
December 25, 2016 4:34 pm

Clyde Spencer, it is very rare that someone actually listens to words said online. Whether I am right or wrong your willingness to consider my position puts you in good stead to adapt to whatever happens to you.
Good work. (I still might be wrong).
My deep theory is that individuals may be committed to an ideal but a sustainable community (a research group) must be committed to a reliable – Pavlovian – stimulus e.g. a benefit.
That theory is disproven by religion. Religions claim idealistic purposes.
But most political movements are not promising meaning. Only a marginally better way forward.
The Conversation is not a proselytising website.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 28, 2016 7:52 am

I’ve had this happen very consistently on the Conde Naste group publications, including Ars Technica and Wired. After one or two comments either criticising an article or presenting contrary evidence I’m banned. I was once threatened with legal action (which is of course absurd). It’s fairly blatant.

December 23, 2016 9:43 pm

“The existence of a foreign command & control center within climate alarmism”
An awful lot of the climate alarmism seems to come from the USA. Is that the foreign country where this command & control center is based?

December 23, 2016 9:45 pm

Of course, the whole scare was pushed into international politics by Margaret Thatcher in the UK, so the start of the fuss was not very foreign at all.

Clive Bond
December 23, 2016 9:49 pm Lord Monckton has this conspiracy pretty well summed up.

Gerry, England
December 24, 2016 5:27 am

Oh look, the Guardian, Griff’s favourite ‘newspaper’, is included on the list.

December 24, 2016 8:23 am

“UN agencies and politicians cannot openly and directly interfere in the internal affairs of most countries,”
That might be true of issues relating to climate (though i doubt it) but it certainly isn’t true when it comes to issues relating to sex.

December 24, 2016 10:05 am

One of the co-founders of CAN was Michael Oppeheimer, at Princeton since 2002. Also was scientific advisor to Environmental Defense and still associated with them. He is an IPCC stalwart.
He was involved in the promotion of a climate target in 1987/8, 2 degrees being prominent.
Richard Lindzen had this to say about him in 2008:
“Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?”
“The making of academic appointments to global warming alarmists is hardly a unique occurrence. The case of Michael Oppenheimer is noteworthy in this regard. With few contributions to climate science (his postdoctoral research was in astro-chemistry), and none to the physics of climate, Oppenheimer became the Barbara Streisand Scientist at Environmental Defense.
He was subsequently appointed to a professorship at Princeton University, and is now, regularly, referred to as a prominent climate scientist by Oprah (a popular television hostess), NPR (National Public Radio), etc. To be sure, Oppenheimer did coauthor an early absurdly alarmist volume (Oppenheimer and Robert Boyle, 1990: Dead Heat, The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect), and he has served as a lead author with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
In 1989, following the public debut of the issue in the US in Tim Wirth’s and Al Gore’s famous Senate hearing featuring Jim Hansen associating the warm summer of 1988 with global warming, the Climate Action Network was created. This organization of over 280 ENGO’s has been at the center of the climate debates since then.
The Climate Action Network, is an umbrella NGO that coordinates the advocacy efforts of its members, particularly in relation to the UN negotiations. Organized around seven regional nodes in North and Latin America, Western and Eastern Europe, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa, CAN represents the majority of environmental groups advocating on climate change, and it has embodied the voice of the environmental community in the climate negotiations since it was established.
The founding of the Climate Action Network can be traced back to the early involvement of scientists from the research ENGO community. These individuals, including Michael Oppenheimer from Environmental Defense, Gordon Goodman of the Stockholm Environmental Institute (formerly the Beijer Institute), and George Woodwell of the Woods Hole Research Center were instrumental in organizing the scientific workshops in Villach and Bellagio on ‘Developing Policy Responses to Climate Change’ in 1987 as well as the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in June 1988.
It should be noted that the current director of the Woods Hole Research Center is John Holdren. In 1989, several months after the Toronto Conference, the emerging group of climate scientists and activists from the US, Europe, and developing countries were brought together at a meeting in Germany, with funding from Environmental Defense and the German Marshall Fund. The German Marshall Fund is still funding NGO activity in Europe: (Pulver, 2004).”

December 24, 2016 4:06 pm

They forgot to mention ICLEI: What does ICLEI (pronounced ICK-LY) stand for? International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Only as Rosa Koire says, they don’t want you to know it is international anymore, so now it’s just those letters ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. This group should be included:
And this UN Agenda 21 group should be eliminated.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
December 24, 2016 8:20 pm

Merry Christmas!

Timothy Spiegel
December 26, 2016 11:13 am

I wonder how much control they have over discussion boards? In my experience, there is severe control over what sacred cows you can question BG before you are banned. Science of doom is an example of this.

December 27, 2016 9:05 am

Starting in 1989, these organizations came together to form a coalition: the Climate Action Network (CAN). Just co-incidence that the Berlin wall came down the same year? Is this the root of the idea that the communist organizers went into the environmental movement?

Reply to  stevekeohane
December 27, 2016 2:10 pm

Possibly you’re right, stevekeohane, but 1989 was the year Margaret Thatcher used, spoke of, screamed, climate change as a wedge to destroy “the enemy within”, the National Union of Mineworkers, particularly in Yorkshire. She stopped coalmining in many areas, broke those communities, had a secret deal with GE for nuclear power, then it proved too expensive, so UK has been importing coal from Europe ever since.

December 28, 2016 1:44 am

The plaintiff is lucky to have the Honorable Sam Cummings presiding over this case. He will likely be courteous in dismissing it as frivolous. The WWF’s response to the Court notes that:
“Plaintiff’s RICO Complaint consists entirely of incoherent and generalized accusations
against numerous non-profit and charitable organizations, public officials, and foreign
governments. It depicts these unrelated entities as secret members of a global conspiracy
perpetuating the idea of climate change in an alleged criminal scheme that Plaintiff refers to as
the “Climate Alarmism Enterprise.” (Complaint para. 2). Outlandish theories and nonsensical
claims persist throughout the complaint ….”
That about sums it up. I wonder if Justice Cummings will sanction Mr. Goldstein or even possibly hold him in contempt. Had Mr. Goldstein had a lawyer represent him, this case likely never would have made it to the docket.

December 28, 2016 3:38 am

Leo: This is the sort of investigative journalism I came to expect from MSM outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post back in the 70’s and which is now conspicuously absent. Thanks for doing the work on it and publishing it in a medium accessible to so many people who’ve had to answer questions like “Do you really think all the world’s scientific institutions are lying, and the fossil fuel investors’ public relations men are telling the truth? Really?” or “So you think every scientist in the world is part of some vast international conspiracy to defraud the public?”
Of course, thanks to the research you’ve published here, the answer to those questions is a resounding and well supported “Yes”.

January 1, 2017 4:39 am

I write about the Rockefellers involvement in the climate agenda in my forthcoming book “Rockefeller – A Cimate Smart history”. This is indeed a coordinated agenda.
“This is the story of the Rockefeller family’s involvement in the science of climate change since the 1950s. In my book, I show how they have operated to mobilise support among academics, politicians, activists, clergy, and in the business world, for the theory that man is guilty of causing climate change. It might seem contradictory given their roots in the oil industry but it follows a thoroughly calculated plan. So why did the heirs to Standard Oil attack the industry upon which their fortune was build and why have the Rockefellers funded and influenced the direction of climate research since the 1950s?”
This is the first chapter:

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights