LEAKED: A look inside the ClimateWorks Foundation $66 million campaign to foist climate laws on local governments

This document, from 2016 is part of the cache of John Podesta emails (campaign manager for Hillary Clinton), is a meeting packet for an NGO called The ClimateWorks Foundation. They say this on their web page:

Climate change threatens ecosystems, societies, and economies. These challenges require innovative responses and insights. Using the power of collaboration, ClimateWorks Foundation mobilizes philanthropy to solve the climate crisis and ensure a prosperous future.

And on their BOD page, U.N. climate crusader Christiana Figueres, who was executive Secretary of the UNFCCC from 2010-2016 along with Hillary’s campaign manager, John Podesta among others; an unholy alliance in my opinion.

In this leaked document (via Wikileaks) we see a list of billionaire foundations driving this NGO, who seem to be acting as if they are oblivious to the rule of law or domestic governments, working to create a global cap and trade system and funding a flurry of other environmental NGOs to change local policy.

One item from the document shows a session titled:

Cities as a Lever for Change Post‐Paris

As reported on page 80, they were helped by McKinsey and Company, the most influential management consulting firm in the world, which got a $42.4 million contract to help make this happen.

According to the budget document on page 170, the total 2016 budget for ClimateWorks Foundations was a whopping $66.6 million dollars! And alarmists claim climate skeptics are well-moneyed, sheesh!

Looking through the document. this seems like a RICO type of scenario to me. They are highly organized, and well-funded, where they planned to use all that money to influence local and state governments to enact climate laws, carbon trading, and put their tendrils even deeper into the deep state.

For example, here on page 20, they plan to influence California’s electricity grid. Shades of ENRON and rolling blackouts where the grid was crippled so greedmongers could eke out more money in trading. Here, they want to control virtually all of the western states, in one giant green monopoly:

Mr. McElwee described the grant to the Energy Foundation to support the U.S. Western grid integration. The grant to the Energy Foundation would support analysis for a recommendation for integrating the California Independent System Operation (CAISO) with a six‐state utility, following opportunities opened up by recent California legislation, and potentially leading to increased balancing of renewables across the region. The board discussed the goals and tactics of the proposal.

Just think what we’d be seeing if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency.

Here is the entire 208 page document, feel free to browse and post items of interest in comments.


h/t to “JB”.



newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Too bad “influence peddling” isn’t still illegal. It sure doesn’t seem to be illegal anymore.


Nothing new here. This is the way big money interests influence politics, government, and society in general, and on many issues, not just climate.


As long as politicians control buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold will be politicians.
PJ O’Rourke

The only way to limit corruption in politics is to keep government powerless enough that politicians are no longer worth buying.

Stephen Reilly

Yes, this issue should have been taken care of a long time ago, when the US constitution was first drawn up. Except for enforcing court orders (private disputes), the government should be banned from any involvement in commercial activity. So when someone comes to DC intent on bribery he’ll find out there is nothing they can do for him.

Robert of Ottawa

Absolutely so; remove the cookie jar.


Given the best government money can buy, and certainly the Italians are a distant second in this race, why not be fair and share our good fortune with the rest of the world? 
  Out of the closet and openly marketable the politician would take her (or his) rightful place alongside pork bellies, soybeans and other commodities on the shelves of the Global Market Superstore.
In no time flat the Hedge Fund sharpies would have us buying and selling futures and voila! for the first time ever Joe Citizen would have a sporting chance of actually making a buck off a politician instead of just buying his promises and paying for his pension and healthcare. What a great idea! 


About 8 years ago now one of our local reporters looked into a city councilors finances. The guy filed for bankruptcy just before the election, 4 years later he was a multi millionaire. Worked as a low level government employee before running for city councilor and did not have another source of income. So how do you go from broke to multi millionaire in just a few years earning $150k/year? Yeah, bought and paid for by lobbyists along with using insider information.

Steven Zell

Sounds a lot like the Clintons. Remember how Hillary said she was “flat broke” in 2000? So they set up a “foundation” to supposedly help Haitians after an earthquake, and by the time Obama was elected she was filthy rich, and THEN she took a $140 million bribe from Russia to sell our uranium.

This is what makes the Russia-collusion investigation so ridiculous. If Putin knew that Hillary could be bought, and she was wrapped around his little finger, why would he ever help Trump get elected?


You expect politicians to outlaw their major source of income?

bit chilly

the article has this organisation written all over it. http://commonpurpose.org/united-states/ ,people need to be aware of this and where it is heading. insidious doesn’t even come close. a favourite mantra appears to be “leading beyond authority”. think about that for a minute.

“The big money does not come from Big Oil, but from Big Green.”

Jim Willis, Publisher of Marcellus Drilling News


“The big money does not come from Big Oil, but from Big Green.”
Jim Willis, Big Oil.


Care to refute the statement, or is rote memorization really the only skill you’ve mastered?


Described as ‘parroting’.
Only using a canary’s attention span and brain power; i.e. rarely getting echo chamber phrases anywhere near correct.


Koch brothers spend many millions each year.

Why do you trust someone writing for the Marcellus Drilling News?


So does Soros.

Since he’s right and I can independently verify that, yes I do.


I refuted your statement.


Why can’t you admit when you’re wrong?


Not even close young padawan.
You made a naked assertion, that is not proof.
Even worse for you, your naked assertion is wrong.
Compared to the amount of money the government spends on climate, what the Koch’s brothers spend doesn’t even show up as a rounding error.



From the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy:

“Grantmakers made at least $10 billion in grants to environmental causes from 2000 through 2009, funding primarily top-down strategies.”
– Source: https://www.ncrp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cultivating_the_grassroots_final_lowres.pdf

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing


A person with strong links to Big Oil is more likely to be technically skilled and speak more honestly than someone with similar ties to Big Green. Big Oil has to make a living in the real world from real customers. Big Green is, economically, a defacto parastatal corporation that owes nothing to the public it exploits, as evidenced by how they treat you and me.


Polluting energy industries has been riding the gravy train for quite some time, spending lots of money and getting lots of subsidies to assure they remain the largest energy provider. The fact that they spend millions to cover up known climate science is all most people need to know that they are in it to make money. Environment is not important to them.


What pollution?
The only subsidy oil gets is that they don’t have to pay 100% of their profits to government. Something which drives you socialists nuts.

The claim that Big Oil spends anything to suppress climate science has been refuted over and over again. It’s a figment of your demented imagination.


“The claim that Big Oil spends anything to suppress climate science has been refuted over and over again. ”

Exxon research. Drives you fascists nuts.


Exxon research is focused on finding more oil.
Fascists are a breed of socialist.

Is there anything you know that is even close to being factual?

Industry in the US has limited pollution to almost non existent levels. This isn’t true in the developing world, but then again, this isn’t the focus of the climate alarmists who don’t seem to care about real pollution and only care about the imaginary pollution invented to support their physics defying narrative.


Alley you use the “subsidies” please define the word and give example of two.


Pro Tip: Captain Planet was a cartoon. Luten Plunder is not nor has ever been an accurate depiction of industry executives.

D Cage

So Alley why not convince more of the public about how brilliant climate science is by putting it through a life critical applications quality control assessment? From my limited resources I put climate data through the QA process for one of our bottom end commercial chains in the UK and found it failed dismally and could be trusted no better than a roulette wheel outside a three degree band using this criteria. Using life critical application standards many of the claims would result in long prison sentences if published in the public domain.
Some of our biggest environmental problems are caused by the dishonesty and ignorance of environmentalists generally and active ones in particular. The plastic waste problem is entirely the fault of the eco lobby as without their efforts it would be a valuable resource instead of an expensive disposal issue.

Kristi Silber

You mean there are organizations lobbying for mitigation of climate change??? What a surprise!!! Unconscionable! /sarc


Yes there are and three question marks isn’t going to change that.

They are not lobbying for funding? No /sarc


Kristi, why are they doing it?


Well, there was this bloke called Arrhenius…


Arrhenius was prone to wild arsed guessing. In polite academic circles we call it conjecture. Thirty years of observations has proven him to be completely wrong on this particular issue.

Now the greenies just do it to control your every thought and action.


“Well, there was this bloke called Arrhenius…”

More to the actual impetus, there was this medium of exchange called, “money”…

“About US$ 5 trillion in global infrastructure investment is required per year to 2030 in various sectors; this investment must be greened to secure future growth…”



Who showed that all other things being equal, in a laboratory doubling the concentration of CO2 would result in a barely measurable 0.7C increase.
Of course, out here in the real world, which has proven to be dominated by negative feedbacks, the amount of warming is way below even that amount.

Clyde Spencer

Did Arrhenius test what happened when IR was passed through water vapor and then test it again after adding a trace amount of CO2? If not, then his experiment proved nothing.

Adam Gallon
Gordon Jeffrey Giles

Arrhenius…He thought life might have been carried from planet to planet by the transport of spores, the theory now known as panspermia.

Yes he was quite the thinker.


Yes, there are politicians lobbying for more opportunities to enrich themselves.
What a surprise.

Why would anyone want to mitigate something that is so small it’s barely measurable?

Johann Wundersamer

Yes, there are politicians lobbying for more opportunities to enrich themselves.

MarkW, there are / climate worriers aka. eco terrorists / unable to make a dime.

And then there’s con man who don’t give a dam’ for “environment” but eager to make money on fake ‘bio labels’ and ‘sustainability trademarks’ they fester on –

– flogging the worriers on small returns.

/ worrying alone doesn’t make it ! , one needs ‘managers’ ! /


Power and control…

Joel Snider

Yes, Kristi – it really IS unconscionable – their methods, their scare tactics, their totalitarian approach, the scapegoating – oh, and don’t forget the ‘wealth redistribution’ to ‘climate victims.’ All based on the idea that you can micromanage the Earth’s climate by micromanaging one species’ contribution to a trace gas.

It frankly challenges reason that so many people can be so easily gulled by such a patently stupid concept.

The thing is, it’s gone too far now, and we can’t wait for people like you to get a clue.


Just think what we’d be seeing if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency.

I wake up every day Thanking God that Hillary was defeated. Trump wasn’t my first choice among Republicans, but he has surprised me with how thoroughly he has dispatched Obama’s Progressive Agenda to the shredder. With his Gorsuch Supreme Court nominee, Trump has at least temporarily halted the Left’s destruction of the US with their relative moralism and Living Constitutional interpretation.

On this issue of the Left putting its Renewable Energy vampire squids on the US’s electrical grids, I support Trump’s approach to use the DOE to pursue electricity reliability standards to ensure coal and nuclear remain a significant part of US electricity production.

There is an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal how Tom Steyer, the key US Billionaire in this unholy Trinity, ispushing this renewable energy agenda. He has gotten Michigan’s two electricity producers to adopt Renewable Electricity goals. Of course, he has deep investments through hedge funds and derivatives markets now in Renewable Energy.


Seems to me there should be an FBI RICO investigation into Michigan’s electricity and this renewable deal now. It would be nice to see Billionaire Steyer spend a decade or so incarcerated at Club Fed.

I agree with you Joel.

I regard these “green energy” scams to raise electricity prices and destabilize the electrical grid as criminal acts, because they will increase the risk of multi-week grid outages (such as occurred in South Australia), which could cause many avoidable deaths in a cold climate, and even if grid failures do not occur will increase Winter Mortality.

Excess Winter Deaths already total about 100,000 per year in the USA, whereas the United Kingdom this winter, with one one-fifth the population of the USA, suffered about half the Excess Winter Deaths of the USA. What is the major difference? Energy costs are much higher in the UK.

Even if criminal RICO charges are not laid, I have suggested since 2013 that civil RICO lawsuits should be lodged against these scammers.

Best, Allan


Unemployed WV coal miners are getting lung cancer at young ages. They are not happy campers.

Sam C Cogar

That’s what happens when you are “smoking” meth and anything else that you can “get your jollies from”.

The southern West Virginia coal fields are rampart with excessive drug usage.

Drug firms shipped 20.8M pain pills to WV town with 2,900 people

Over the past decade, out-of-state drug companies shipped 20.8 million prescription painkillers to two pharmacies four blocks apart in a Southern West Virginia town with 2,900 people, according to a congressional committee investigating the opioid crisis.


And you believe that this is due to what?
Assuming that for once, you’ve latched onto a true fact.


Believe? Coal mining. Man, that’s so easy. Haven’t you been reading any news for the past few decades?


That’s just it, I read past the headlines, then I investigate on my own.
PS: Just because a newspaper prints something, doesn’t prove that it is factual. Perhaps once you get out of high school you will learn a little bit more about how the world really works.


Pro Tip: We don’t do coal mining the same way we did in 1885.

John Cherry

Oh, and while you’re trying to find that reference, here’s your starter for ten: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/20034368.html Do read the conclusions, won’t you…..


I’ve read that smoking is more prevalent in W. Virginia than other places.
Perhaps that has something to do with the number of people suffering from lung cancer.

Once again Alley pulls his usual, if A is even weakly correlated to B, then I have proven that B caused A.

John Cherry

Ok, Alley, you are in my field (medicine) now, so let’s have some evidence. Can you please reference just one paper in a peer-reviewed journal supporting your claim, and also quote the discussion section as to the putative causes. At the same time, say what you mean by “young ages”. Look forward to your response.

Ben of Houston

I don’t see how RICO could be used. They are legally lobbying to have their product required. While disclosure is a requirement, and we can discuss the ethics of attempting to have your product mandated, forming a lobbying group isn’t against any law. The green lobby only strayed into RICO territory when they attempted to manipulate criminal law to their advantage. That’s not acceptable. However, lobbying and civil suits are very much fair game.

Hi Ben – recommend you read up on Civil RICO and TRIPLE DAMAGES.

I suggest the global warming and green energy scam fits Civil RICO quite well.

Posted in 2014, written in 2013:


On Accountability:

I wrote this to a friend in the USA one year ago:

I am an engineer, not a lawyer, but to be clear I was thinking of a class action (or similar) lawsuit, rather than an individual lawsuit from yourself or anyone else.

I suggest that there have been many parties that have been damaged by global warming alarmism. Perhaps the most notable are people who have been forced to pay excessive rates for electricity due to CO2-mandated wind and solar power schemes. Would the people of California qualify? Any other states? I suggest the people of Great Britain, Germany and possibly even Ontario would qualify, but the USA is where this lawsuit would do the most good.

There is an interesting field of US law that employs the RICO (anti-racketeering) statutes to provide treble (triple) damages in civil cases. That might be a suitable approach,


Despite congressional attempts to limit the scope of civil RICO, only one major area of law has been removed from the RICO Act. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77 et seq.) eliminated liability for RICO claims based on securities Fraud, unless the defendant has already been criminally convicted of securities fraud. The act thus removed the threat of treble (triple) damages in such cases. Congress concluded that federal securities laws generally provide adequate remedies for victims of securities fraud.

Therefore, it was unnecessary and unfair to expose defendants in securities cases to the threat of treble damages and other extraordinary remedies provided by the RICO Act.
Critics of the RICO Act applaud this congressional action but argue that the same reasoning can and should be applied to other areas of Civil Law. These critics maintain that the act’s broad scope has given plaintiffs an unfair advantage in civil litigation.

One criticism of civil RICO is that no criminal convictions are necessary to win a civil case under the act. The plaintiff need only show, by a Preponderance of Evidence, that it is more likely than not that the ongoing criminal enterprise occurred. As a result RICO has been used in all types of civil cases to allege wrongdoing. By contrast, a criminal RICO case must be proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

In addition, the judge and jury in a criminal RICO case are prohibited from drawing an adverse inference from a defendant’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination. No such ban exists, however, in a civil RICO case. Critics contend that it is unfair for a party in a civil RICO case who has concerns about potential criminal liability to be forced to waive his or her Fifth Amendment privilege in order to mount an effective defense in the civil action. Once testimony is given in the civil case, the party has effectively waived the privilege against Self-Incrimination, and the testimony may be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Critics contend that the RICO Act should be amended to stay (delay) a civil RICO proceeding until a criminal RICO proceeding has been concluded.

The critics of civil RICO also believe that its use has given plaintiffs an unfair tool that often serves to coerce a party to settle out of fear of a treble damages award. These critics believe that no civil RICO action should be allowed unless the party has been convicted under criminal RICO.

[end of excerpt]

I suggest the Climategate emails could provide the necessary evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public, through fraudulent misallocation of government-funded research monies, and wind and solar power schemes that were forced upon consumers and which were utterly incapable of providing significant or economic new energy to the electric power grid.

Regards, Allan

Rud Istvan

The damning evidence is now cascading out, at the same time the climate meme is failing. Hansen predictions busted. US only country to reduce emissions thanks to fracking not Paris. EU failing in emissions, and multiply otherwise. No green funds for Tuvalu.
My personal view is that these ‘positive’ trends will accelerate. Canada trade and oil, EU migration and trade. Iran close to collapse before renewed sanctions hit fully.


“Hansen predictions busted.”
After Nick Stokes demonstrate conclusively that is fake zombie news.

Your “personal view” is being left behind in the last century.

“Nick Stokes demonstrate conclusively that is fake zombie news.”

Nick Stokes is prone to demonstration. He happens to be correct that the surface temperature record shows more warming than the more comprehensive satellite observations, but this is only because the more fundamental greenhouse supposition that the net radiative altitude increases with increasing CO2 is incorrect.

The boundary layer is not the planet.


As always, your standard of proof is remarkably flexible.
Just screaming you’re wrong, counts as ironclad refutation in most troll circles.


“After Nick Stokes demonstrate conclusively that is fake zombie news.”

You haven’t been paying attention:

Go here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/22/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up/

Then search this: ricdre

And I hope (but doubt) you learn.

Clyde Spencer

Conclusively? Hansen assumed two significant volcanic eruptions. However, there was only one. Had he assumed that there was only one eruption, his estimate would have been higher and would not have tracked as well as it has. Were it not for two strong El Nino events in the last 20 years, it is unlikely that current temperatures would be anywhere near as high as predicted by Hansen in 1988. However, he did not consider the role of the El Nino in his computer model. Therefore, it is just luck that his predictions came close to reality. The greatest intellectual ‘sin’ for a scientist is to be right for the wrong reason.

Pat Frank

Nick Stokes has failed to demonstrate anything about AGW.

Some time ago, in a fit of carelessness, Nick admitted that climate models are engineering models. Not scientific models.

For those who don’t know, perhaps like you zazove, engineering models cannot predict anything outside their calibration bounds. For climate models, that means beyond the last year for which data was used to tune the model.

Nick, in other words, admitted that climate models have no predictive value. There goes every rationale for supposing CO2 emissions have, or will, influence the climate.

That’s something skeptics here have known for years. Nick is now on board with that, inadvertently to be sure.

Nick Stokes

“Some time ago, in a fit of carelessness, Nick admitted that climate models are engineering models. Not scientific models.”
As always, no quotes or specifics. I guess this is concocted from me saying that GCMs are basically CFD, and engineers use CFD a lot.

But the distinction is pointless anyway. GCMs are just models. They incorporate the physics of the Earth, and so respond to changes like growth of GHGs as the Earth would. As a model, they do not reproduce the same weather as the earth. My analogy is a model ship that you might use for design. It can tell you how the real ship will respond to winds, waves, engine steering and power changes etc. But it can’t tell you where the ship will go, or what accidents might befall it.



… just scale it up?

Your analogy sucks.

You need to realize that the ship that your are trying to model is so large & complicated that you can’t reasonably define the significant variables.

“If the problem is not understood well enough to make a good initial choice of variables, dimensional analysis will seldom provide clarification”

Leaving out significant variable(s) is an obvious fault. Including redundant variables, increasing their influence, is a not so obvious fault. Ignoring that there is a fault, when it is obvious means …?

Go back to basic principles and get some perspective.

Nick Stokes

“You need to realize that the ship that your are trying to model is so large & complicated”
Models are used in design – ships, cars. And at various scales. But here I just want to emphasise the difference between the properties that things share with their models and the trajectory that they follow, which is unique. For “model” you could consider a full prototype.

A typical example with GCMs is ENSO. GCMs undergo ENSO oscillations, and so does the Earth. But the model oscillations are not synchronised with Earth. There is no mechanism for making that happen. And that is why it is foolish to say that models are a failure if they didn’t predict the Pause, say. The Pause was basically a conjunction of La Nina’s; a model might get lucky and also go into La Nina at the same times, but that is luck, not reproducible, and not a signifier of merit.


I taught high school chemistry for 30 years with 33 years total teaching. Some of that time was teaching physics, introductory math, biology and general science. In all that time, I encountered only one other science teacher who would agree with me and discuss that this type of activity was occurring. And that manmade global climate change was a great big scam.

The rest of the science teachers either smiled contemptuously or were outright rude and would have stabbed me in the throat with a jagged, broken beaker, if they thought they had a chance of not getting caught.

Public education definitely is one of the cornerstones of perpetuating this AGW hogwash as well as many other pseudoscience related topics and scams. There is no end to the schemes that can be created and perpetuated using public education, social media, children’s animated TV programs and/or just plain fear mongering.

Phil Rae


Some great points & I fully agree with your observations. I sat next to a “science teacher” on a flight from Dallas to Corpus Christi a few years back. She was on her way to some conference for science teachers and we made polite conversation until we got onto the subject of energy supply & CAGW. Her attitude, bias and ignorance on so many topics were shocking to me as was her refusal to accept even basic facts on simple aspects of the energy industry. The idea that this woman and her peers are out there teaching children and indoctrinating them in fake consensus science has stuck with me since that day. There is no doubt that the tentacles of this indoctrination go deep into the education system in the west and we really need to address this since the upcoming generation has been heavily contaminated with this groupthink!

Sam C Cogar

Public education definitely is one of the cornerstones of perpetuating this AGW hogwash as well as many other pseudoscience related topics and scams.

“YUP”, the indoctrinating of public school students with the Political Correctness of “junk science” and marijuana smoking as the approved curriculum began in the late 1970’s, and then to the college curriculum in the early 1980’s.

Thus it is safe to say that 96+% of all currently employed Degreed School Teachers (head-start/pre-school thru college) are a “product” of the aforenoted …….. Political Correctness – “junk science” college curriculum.

Malcolm Carter

36 years of Chemistry and Biology. Following 1990 there was a policy of replacing subject specialists with ’empathetic’ science teachers. The result was a far more credulous and unquestioning department who were very sure of their knowledge and values as dispensed from their betters. Some refused to teach Nuclear physics because they thought it no longer had relevance, some downplayed evolution because it clashed with their beliefs. Thankfully I retired.
Now I have been tutoring and notice that the science 10 curriculum has units on acid rain and ocean acidification with the apparent intent of eco hysteria. There is a unit on nuclear however the teacher spent a total of 4 days on it highlighting Hiroshima and Chernobyl, seemingly unaware of any of the positives of nuclear power and nuclear medicine.
Once the teachers become ignorant, ignorance is self perpetuating.

old construction worker

“Public education definitely is one of the cornerstones of perpetuating this AGW hogwash” How true but I have faith in the younger generation will fine out that “science” teacher was feeding them BS.

Nick Stokes

“this seems like a RICO type of scenario to me”
RICO? How is this different from what PACs and thinktanks do? Try to lobby for a plan that they have?


The grant to the Energy Foundation would support analysis for a recommendation

A grant with a known outcome prior to the actual analysis. Opinion bought and paid for and thrust upon the public as even handed analysis. Whether it be climate science or any other issue it is immoral, unethical, and if not illegal, then it should be. If PACs and thinktanks do the same they should be excoriated in the same fashion. You Nick, should be on the side of fair and even handed analysis of the facts, not making excuses for someone caught red handed doing it by finger pointing and whining about what others do. Wrong is wrong Nick.

Nick Stokes

” If PACs and thinktanks do the same they should be excoriated in the same fashion. “
Of course they do. You don’t go to Heartland for even-handed scientific analysis. And ClimateWorks is not a scientific research organisation either. They advocate a point of view, and policies. The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t invoke RICO.


Heartland funding is peanuts compared to this level of graft. Buying “research” to support the CPP.

Millions of USD$ for “engaging in political outreach” in 3rd World Countries is a euphemism for…. whats the word? … prohibited under US FCPA…. starts with a B… ends in Y.
$1.5 Million to fund advocacy for pending regulations to reduce methane leakage from oil and gas development at the EPA. That’s a lot of advocacy when regulations are promulgated by salary staff bureaucrats.
$100,000 to promote support for a broad and strict divestment policy on coal for the Norwegian Government Pension Fund. And hundreds of other ” grants.”

Whose pockets did all that money go to?

Nick Stokes

Well, Heartland is a fairly minor part of the network, but still, their comparable budget for 2012 was $7.7 million. But at what level of funding does it become a RICO matter?


For RICO, please see Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth, Jones, et al.

They’ve gone Murder, Inc several orders of magnitude better.

Nick Stokes

What is the RICO connection there?


What network Nick? Could you please spell out who that is?

Brian R

You misspelled CPP. It should have read CCCP.


When you decide to stick your foot in it Nick, you go all the way to the knee.
Care to demonstrate that anything Heartland has published isn’t even handed? Or do you just assume all your fellow trolls to grun “oil evil” as they wave their solar powered wands in the air.

Nick Stokes

Well,the average Heartland conference isn’t even-handed. It is a gathering of the faithful. But I suppose you think they are a lot of lefties.


As compared with the consensus, manufactured by pal review.


The question was “Care to demonstrate that anything Heartland has published isn’t even handed?”. Nothing to do with who attends conferences (which likely will be the ‘faithful’).


Anyone who wants to can attend and present at a Heartland conference.
More than you can say for any of your climate alarmist fests.

PS: Nick, regarding your comments about political affiliation. I love it when you bring in red herrings, it’s proof that even you know you have lost the argument.


And ClimateWorks is not a scientific research organisation either. They advocate a point of view, and policies.

You right Nick. They’re not. So, per THEIR quote above, they PAY someone who IS a scientific organization to perform an analysis with the results pre-determined. Then THAT organization releases it as an independent analysis as if it is real science.

I don’t really follow Heartland that much so I cannot say for certain, but what little I have seen of them hardly rises to that level of deception.

You are defending the indefensible Nick. Where does YOUR funding come from? C’on Nick, spit it out. Either state clearly that you are NOT funded to participate in this forum, or, if you are, by who and for how much?

I suspect Mr. Stokes, you see no harm in someone being paid to represent a position for money because you are participating in exactly that behaviour. So tell us Mr. Stokes, is that the case? Or not?

Nick Stokes

” they PAY someone who IS a scientific organization to perform an analysis”
I’m still trying to find where RICO comes in. BUT OK, is the Energy Foundation a scientific organization? I don’t actually see any problem about paying for analyses. I don’t think there is anything wrong with power companies funding Willie Soon, either, as long as it is declared.

“Then THAT organization releases it as an independent analysis as if it is real science.”

And no, as I’ve said many times, I am not paid by anyone to comment. Are you?


I don’t actually see any problem about paying for analyses.

They didn’t pay for analysis. They PAID for a an analysis to support a predetermined recommendation. Do you fail to see the difference?

And no, as I’ve said many times, I am not paid by anyone to comment. Are you?

This from a man who purports to not understand the difference between being paid for an analysis and being paid for an analysis to support a predetermined recommendation. Am I to believe he is stupid? Or disingenuous?

No Nick, I’m not paid by anyone to comment.

Nick Stokes

“They PAID for a an analysis to support a predetermined recommendation. “
No, they said they were paying to support analysis, not analysis that supports.
“The grant to the Energy Foundation would support analysis for a recommendation”

But they probably guessed that the Energy Foundation analysis would support the recommendation. It is a rather similar body:

“Our mission is to promote the transition to a sustainable energy future by advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy”

Nothing very unusual about preferring to fund analysis that you think will help your argument. I’m still trying to see how this becomes a RICO matter.


No, they said they were paying to support analysis, not analysis that supports.

Word games. They paid for a pre-determined outcome, only a fool would interpret that differently. It is unethical when either side does it. You seem OK with it though which says a lot about you.


@Nick Stokes June 24, 2018 5:45 pm, nearly everything I have read from Heartland points out what we don’t know. You can’t get much more evenhanded than that.

Ben of Houston

Guys, you make a few accusations that aren’t proven. Nick might not be the most popular of people around here, but he’s right on this. There has to be an underlying crime in order for RICO to apply.

Lobbying is not a crime. It’s political speech by an industry trying to mandate their own product. It’s not ethical, but it’s not criminal.

If they are engaged in bribery, Joel, please provide evidence, not supposition. Saying something like that without evidence only weakens the case.

Now, the ExxonKnew campaign, trying to get criminal charges against oil companies. THAT can be prosecuted under RICO, since malicious prosecution is a criminal act, as is false testimony.

If they promote sabotage of power plants, that is a crime that RICO would apply to.

If they violate campaign finance laws, that would apply, but that’s a can of worms no one really wants to get into.

However, political speech is not and cannot be a crime in the free world.


“RICO? How is this different from what PACs and thinktanks do? Try to lobby for a plan that they have?”

I’m with you Nick…it’s really all about “Green”, i.e., money.

Old England

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument NS. The funding for green propaganda and legislation is coming from those who financially benefit from it.

Nick Stokes

In fact, public issue funding usually does. What motivates people to campaign for tax cuts, for example.

But in fact, in this case I doubt it. Big funders here seem to be Hewlett and Packard. How do they financially benefit?

Tom Halla

I am so relieved Hillary Clinton lost. The sort of promises she made, even just the ones publicly known, are quite bad. When one adds in this sort of planning, it is the biggest bit of fortune since Gore lost.


After Frau Clinton so ably lost the election, shouldn’t the Clinton Foundation have made refunds? As long as we’re talking about RICO. And Influence Peddling. Oh let’s be blunt, and call it Accepting Bribes. But first Demanding a Bribe. The private server, set up entirely so Frau Clinton got first crack at what emails were not the Public’s Business, was just the beginning. Why do you think she was so desperate to keep all her email on a privately owned server? How many known felonies can I mention before I get put in Timeout?


Aside from money, what do they gain from this? Yes, this is at least as bad as the mob-associated slime in the Teamsters’ Union and the other labor unions when that failed. I think their entire intention was to destroy American industry so that the country would fall apart. Didn’t work. Jimmy Hoffa is still missing.
I see no reason to avoid RICO charges, since that was what some on the left were trying to bring against people with dissenting opinions. Dug a hole for themselves on that.
This will eventually straighten itself out, but it takes time and has to be done right if it is to last.


“Aside from money, what do they gain from this?”

Aside from money, what else do they care to gain from this?

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

More than a decade back I presented at several forums and in articles/books that “the science of climate change is being used as global warming & carbon credits” has entered the streets of Copenhagen with the expose by a London media.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy


It is worth noting how much money (on page 80) is CWF’s global budget is 3X the $66.6 Million shown in the 2016 US CWF budget on page 170. The global CWF 2016 budget was actually around $200 million.

CWF High-Level Expenditures
“CWF’s budget rose along with its revenues from a US$80 million budget in 2008 to a US$172 million
budget in 2012.
The percentage of funds dedicated to programming ranged between 89 percent (2011) and
92 percent (2008 and 2012). Funds were distributed across the main target regions as well as Indonesia
(for forestry work) and globally for work on international (versus country-specific) policies. The US
received 33 percent of the funding followed by China (24 percent), global (19 percent), and Europe (12
percent). India and Latin America each received 5 percent of the funds.

According to CWF’s IRS 990 forms, CWF expenditures for key staff positions ranged from US$663,000 in
2008 to US$5.1 million in 2011. Of the US$57 million spent on consultants between 2008 and 2012, 87
percent were program related. McKinsey & Company received US$42.4 million, most of which was for
“work to develop a deep analysis of the carbon abatement opportunities of the largest economies in the
world as part of ClimateWorks’ global initiatives and research programs.”32?

These groups are massively funded, working behind the scenes to influence policy, now they are focusing on the local governments, buying influence. Buying ads and TV/radio air time to push their agenda. An agenda that will take money out of working people’s pockets and into their deep green investor’s pockets. They advocate Policy that mostly enriches those appropriately invested in renewable energy sectors.

I can imagine there was this huge Flushing Sound at the organizations when Donald Trump was elected. And then again when Scott Pruitt took over at EPA.

Does anyone wonder why Scott Pruitt needs a large personal protection force? The deep money interests are not happy to say the least to see at least a $billionUSD of a decade’s worth of work go to the shredder and get flushed with Trump’s election.

Which also highlights why the Democrat’s and their Deep State allies are desperate to try and remove Trump no matter what damage it does to the US constitutional processes.

Mary Wilbur

It appears CWF has distributed enormous sums to many countries and government entities all manned by people whose virtue is no more reliable than the average American Deep State bureaucrat. Does CWF have any idea how it’s money is spent after distribution? I suspect not. It’s my bet that very little of goes towards its great green master plan and most of it disappears into the vast ocean of human greed.


I am just astounded at how jam-packed this document is with climate propaganda stuff, intellectual babble and gobbledy-gook. Undoubtedly, this is where all those BA degrees in Gender Studies and Ethic Studies get employed. Stuff that is demonstrably false and/or non-nonsensical, but no one in those organizations can question it.

For example, in Case 6, on page 115:

“The very title ‘Design to Win’ embodies a metaphor that implies a game or a battleground. It carries this military metaphor throughout, with language such as, “Don’t lose—the battle could be lost in the next decade,”alongside the reassurance that what’s needed is tame/technical good management: “The good news is that we already have the technology and know-how to achieve those carbon reductions—and often at a cost savings.” These metaphors channel CWF’s climate change action into assumptions that it’s a war and anything short of a win is a defeat (typical of a crisis analysis); and/or that it will be easy to know when the problem is “solved” (typical of a tame problem).”

They really do believe that nonsense, and that they have “solutions” that provide cost savings.
They also talk a lot about their Sudoku metaphor. It is worth a study to see into their mindset.
comment image

Someone needs to tells these poor cretins at CWF that China has agreed to only start capping its emissions in 2030, at whatever level it is then. Their sad little Sudoku matrix just puts their thinking in a box that they can’t think outside of. That is real piece of junk intellectual dishonesty. This is all just mental heroin to keep their Progressive brain numb apparently, to accept the lies without question..

Gordon Dressler

It is so sad because science data from satellites is very indicative that a reduction of 30 gigatons of carbon (equivalent to about 110 gigatons of CO2) will mean a lower rate of growth of crops that feed the world, and an overall reduction in the rate of “greening” of the planet.

I need not get into whether or not atmospheric CO2 at 400 ppm has made any difference to the global climate that existed at 300 ppm CO2.


Wow. Just wow. Just follow the money.


My company at that time put me on a research team with McKinsey. They knew what the CEO wanted to hear but actually told him he was wrong and gave him the real results of our study. Times have changed over the past 40 some years.

Loren Wilson

The more unstable the California grid becomes due to the intermittent nature of “renewables”, the less the surrounding states will want to join them. This is just CA looking for a free way to stabilize their grid.


The real pain for middle California will come when Diablo Canyon nuke plant is shuttered. Twin reactor’s NRC licenses expire in November 2024 and August 2025.
Once that happens, “shit will get real” for California’s electricity users.

Unless of course if most of California’s businesses and industry flee the state before then.

The Last California person Out in 2026 won’t have to worry about turning off the light switch.

Wiliam Haas

The reality is that, based upon the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero, But even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue to happen because they are part of the current climate. So all the foundations work will have no effect on climate. There are a lot more worthy charities out there to donate money to. The ClimateWorks foundation is in a way stealing money that would have gone to more worthy charities and causes.


Interesting stuff starting on p200 describing the destination of $73 million in grants. For example:
$209,750 to GreenFaith “to link the Pope’s upcoming ecological encyclical with support for solving the climate crisis by diverse faith and secular communities”

Mary Wilbur


Gordon Dressler

They missed a great opportunity to use some of that money to encourage the Pope to start granting indulgences in return for Green deeds, such a driving an EV, installing solar panels on your roof, or attending a Bill McKibben “climate crisis” meeting.


Very revealing. It’s all about increasing the power of the unelected permanent State and its ability to regulate and interfere in the commerce of the private sector. The bureaucracy empowering itself to redistribute everyone else’s money.

Their unceasing quest to increase the Tax Pool to fund the lifestyles and political ambitions of a parasitical political class.

It has nothing to do with the environment, science or climate other than as using these topics as vehicles for political activism.

Socialism is the ideology of deceit.


So, it’s all science and no politics yet nary a thought to science throughout this entire “meeting agenda”.

David Chappell

66.6 million – 100,000 times the Number of the Beast

Bryan A

Revelation.13-18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e] That number is 666.

According to the budget document on page 170, the total 2016 budget for ClimateWorks Foundations was a whopping $66.6 million dollars! And alarmists claim climate skeptics are well-moneyed, sheesh!

Gordon Dressler

One rather simple way to put such activists on the defensive is to simply state: “Please define what you mean by your phrase ‘climate change’. ”

Is “climate change” what has occurred to Earth’s biosphere over the last 200 years, or the last 2 billion years, or what will happen in the future 1,000 years? Is climate change something only caused by humans, or is it due—in whole or in large part—to natural processes? Is climate change alarming at any level, say Earth’s average temperature increasing by 0.1 C per century, or is there a certain quantifiable rate in any parameter “x” whereby “change” starts happening (e.g., >3 C warming per century, or >100 ppm CO2 increase per century)? What are the full set of metrics that are to be monitored for defining “climate change”? And what is the ideal climate at which humans should be satisfied such that no further change, upward or downward, is acceptable: is that state in the past, now, or in the future? And is there a, ahem, consensus among Earth’s population—from Eskimos to Polynesians to Sahara desert nomads—that the “ideal-climate-that-should-nevermore-change” is agreed upon?

“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” — Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

So, if the alarmists cannot define “climate change”, any of their claims about “climate change deniers” is obviously meaningless.


Townsville Australia knows how to breed champion fighters:
Peter Ridd – 1960
Julian Assange (Hawkins) – 1971

Nick Stokes

Assange was not always a hero at WUWT

“Everyone here knows this is nonsense. This is a desperate man who finally stepped on the wrong toes. Two groupies and the USA.”

“Australians can be sure that the vast majority of Americans would never, ever support a group whose founder is dedicated to the harm and downfall of Australia. It would never enter our minds or hearts to do that.
Australian Julian Assange of Wikilieaks has declared himself the enemy of the US and seeks its harm and downfall.”

“This guy Assange will never receive the full measure of opprobrium that he deserves. “

“I don’t have much time for Mr Assange…. Can’t have any respect for a man that molests women.”

“WikiLeaks latest is a cloak for many things not the least of which could be rape.”


Agree re Climategate and he’s not perfect like so many ‘colourful’ characters in history; however, Wikileaks will publish what the left will not.


What a difference it would make if all that money was going towards actual innovation.


I’d like to know more about the wave of paid news placements all across the U.S. leading up to the Paris Agreement. It was obvious at the time and hit every news outlet down to the small town publishers.


The Koch Brothers: Over $100,000,000 directly to 84 groups denying climate change science since 1997.

That’s a lot of money to persuade people that basic science is not to be trusted.


Not sure if your numbers are correct, but even using your numbers


Hit return too soon. Using your numbers, that is less than 5 million a year
for 21 years. Split over 84 groups evenly (I’m sure it was not even), that works out to a little more than $50K per year per group. And the stolen memos by Peter Gleick showed that Koch gave Heartland about $50K one year but it was for a study on healthcare.

Joel Snider

‘Peter Gleick showed that Koch gave Heartland about $50K one year but it was for a study on healthcare.’

I think you’ve hit on Alley’s methodology with his blanket statement – probably the total is money generally aimed at general right-wing interests rather than specifically climate change. Typical misrepresentation.

And still a fraction of what Big Green is funded by.


When you decide to make things up, you go whole hog..

PS: I love the way you continue to cling to the belief that all the real scientists agree with you. It’s so darn cute.


Why are you stating that facts are made up? Weird. Is this part of the “up is down” muddying of waters in the pseudo-science groups?


Made up facts are made up facts. You made the claim, support it.
Since you refuse to it’s just more proof that you can’t.


PS, I love the way you continue to make stuff up, like that scientists agree with me (what?) and then run with your meme.

It’s so cute.

Why don’t you concentrate on the most basic facts, like 1) Earth is warming (we all know this) and 2) CO2 is the primary forcing (most of us know this.)?


That the earth is warming is probably true.
That CO2 is a primary forcing has been disproven time and again.
The mere fact that the earth has been much warmer than today multiple times in the last 10K years, and CO2 didn’t cause it is enough to disprove the claim that CO2 must be causing this warming.
The mere fact that CO2 levels have exceeded 6000ppm with little to no warming is enough to disprove the claim that CO2 is a major factor in climate.

Joel Snider

I don’t know how many billion spent to PROVE the Earth is warming, and they haven’t even done that. With 18 years of flat temperatures in spite of higher C02 levels, they’ve done everything from changing the unit of measure, out and out changing the data, and burying any counter messaging, AND of course parlaying a big El Nino as a product of AGW.

Then your blanket assertion – because you KNOW, right? Just like all the other monkey-see, monkey-do types – that C02 is the ‘primary forcing’, pretty much identifies you as a typical progressive parrot – you don’t even HAVE to make stuff up – you got all these money and political interests doing it FOR you.

And the amazing thing is that’s what you accuse US of.


Because 2 is false and 1 is likely to reverse within the next few years.


Earth is in a totally natural warming cycle, coming out of the LIA.

Please present evidence that CO2 is the primary “forcing” causing whatever warming has occurred since c. AD 1850. How do you “know” this?


Joel Snider

Ah yes, the Koch Brothers – a quasi fictional pair of brothers that progressive lefties assign as responsible for any information that leaks out contradicting any mass-progressive messaging.
As I understand it, the Koch brothers are in the mid-fifties in number of top political donors.
That’s a lot of money that’s NOT the Koch brothers spent to persuade people that extrapolation based on computer models and massaged data is ‘basic science’.
It certainly worked on you.


What we must keep in mind is not only are such “NGOs” trying to influence the political process at all levels relative to AGW but if you cross reference names and organizations you will find connections with radical socialist organizations. I use to do something similar once a year for one of my bosses for environmental organizations. If you naively look at the relationship there seems to be not much there. If you then review who sits on which boards, the resumes of prominent staff, but especially the various attorneys involved it is amazing how interconnected they are. Looking at the attorneys for example. An attorney might just be listed as that for one organization, sit on one or more boards other similar organizations. The organization might list a law firm as their legal advisors, then prominent partners might sit on boards of similar organizations using their own name. The Clinton Foundation and associated foundations may be the most corrupt “charitable” organizations in history.

“Just think what we’d be seeing if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency.”

She would be seeking exile by now …

Nik Lobachevski

I wonder how long it took Lois Lerner to approved the exempt status of this 501(c)(3)?

Seriously, the IRS Form 990 filing (for 2016) makes interesting reading. They pay themselves well. The top 10 employees have a total compensation of over $3M. Also, although donor amounts are listed in Schedule B, identities are not, and I could not find any other indication of who they are. However, the top 3 donors accounted for ~ 96% of the ~ $48M total, with one donor contributing almost $33M. That donor IDs are not provided is indication that this organization is NOT considered to be a political organization by the IRS – which is a laughable and disgusting judgement (Lois at work?).

The really disappointing aspect of the organization’s history is that it was started by a group of foundations headed by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. It saddens me when foundations that have been started and funded by iconic capitalists and entrepreneurs (apparently) get taking over by those whose political views are antithetical to those of the founders.

Joel Snider

Note the specific effort to FORCE policies on those that don’t want them. Apparently the Progressive eco-left is getting impatient with waiting for their near-constant propaganda to take hold, and they want to just skip right ahead to totalitarianism.

Of course, now I’m just waiting from another essay from our resident troll-flake about how the skeptic movement was so organized and well-funded, who’s paying us, and how we were given our conclusions due to our lack of critical thought.

And racism.


Just a comment about the comments. I got “snip” a day or so ago by a moderator, no worries I have been snipped in real life by very powerful people that didn’t like it when I basically said the “emperor had no new clothes”. What I said then was the commenter in question would never change their mind no matter how much hard evidence and data was presented to the contrary. I got the impression the moderator like to debate with the person in question. I then described as to why. I once tracked trolls on several blogs for a couple of years. Some are just nasty, never saying anything worth while generally using attacks ad hominem on the regular commenters. Others seem more considerate and do present their facts and arguments almost always from news media sources, while seldom resorting to direct attacks ad hominem, unless attacked, their purpose and focus is still the same. The third are even more considerate, they present their facts from what they claim to be “official sources.” They almost never, even when attacked personally resort to attack ad hominem. Then there are floating trolls a discussion for another day other than to say they are more lurkers, gathering data for someone. They often show and then are gone. Almost all the trolls are there for a purpose according to experts I consulted with. They first priority is to take up space. Their second is to force the subject to go tangential from the original primary focus. The more the primary focus is on subject and has validity the more they push the envelop AND often the more trolls that show up. Trolls communicate. Some will test the waters with comments to see what will drive the issue on a given day depending on what commenters are on line. Many trolls are paid. Some trolls are actually groups, not a single individual. It is why some forget what they said. Some are troll like They are just true believers in their chosen orthodoxy, fighting the good fight defending their religion; zealots, as have historically shown up in every religion throughout history. I find it sometimes fun to engage with trolls, making the mistake of leaving behind my old standard the experts told me to use, “don’t feed the trolls.”

Lewis P Buckingham

In 2008, the foundation awarded the Climate Works Foundation approximately $460,800,000.[11] Hewlett funded restoration of the Bay Area Salt Ponds[12] and conservation of the Great Bear Rainforest in Canada.[13]

Hewlett’s Environment Program makes grants to support conservation in the North American West, reduce global warming and conventional pollution resulting from the use of fossil fuels, and promote environmental protection efforts in California. The Hewlett Foundation opposes coal and natural gas development.[5]
Hewlett foundation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett_Foundation
Grants and Contracts
Mr. McElwee reviewed the proposed $3.6 million grant to the Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA),
noting that ClimateWorks had received incremental restricted funding from the Hewlett Foundation for
this grant, and that the board had just approved a recommendation that would eliminate the need for
approval of grants under these conditions starting in 2016. A motion was presented to approve the grant
to CLUA as described on page 106 of the packet; the motion was seconded and unanimously approved by
all directors present.


According to the budget document on page 170, the total 2016 budget for ClimateWorks Foundations was a whopping $66.6 million dollars! And alarmists claim climate skeptics are well-moneyed, sheesh!

From the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy:

“Grantmakers made at least $10 billion in grants to environmental causes from 2000 through 2009, funding primarily top-down strategies.”
– Source: https://www.ncrp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cultivating_the_grassroots_final_lowres.pdf


It was always about control.
(From March 9, 2009 interview here:

“Eventually, we can get to a system where an electric company will be able to hold back some of th epower so that maybe your air conditioner won’t operate at its peak, you’ll still be able to cool your house, but that’ll be a savings to the consumer. And so [we will be] giving people and companies a role in the management of how we use electricity.” – Carol Browner, Former Director of the now defunct White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy