Climate Crisis Inc. gets billions to promote imaginary manmade cataclysm – but attacks realists
Paul Driessen
The climate crisis industry incessantly claims that fossil fuel emissions are causing unprecedented temperature, climate and weather changes that pose existential threats to human civilization and our planet. The only solution, Climate Crisis, Inc. insists, is to eliminate the oil, coal and natural gas that provide 80% of the energy that makes US and global economies, health and living standards possible.
Failing that, CCI demands steadily increasing taxes on carbon-based fuels and carbon dioxide emissions.
However, as France’s Yellow Vest protests and the latest climate confab in Poland demonstrated, the world is not prepared to go down that dark path. Countries worldwide are expanding their reliable fossil fuel use, and families do not want to reduce their living standards or their aspirations for better lives.
Moreover, climate computer model forecasts are completely out of touch with real-world observations. There is no evidence to support claims that the slight temperature, climate and weather changes we’ve experienced are dangerous, unprecedented or caused by humans, instead of by the powerful solar, oceanic and other natural forces that have driven similar or far more serious changes throughout history.
More importantly, the CCI “solutions” would cause unprecedented disruption of modern industrialized societies; permanent poverty and disease in poor countries; and serious ecological damage worldwide.
Nothing that is required to harness breezes and sunshine to power civilization is clean, green, renewable, climate-friendly or sustainable. Tens of billions of tons of rock would have to be removed, to extract billions of tons of ores, to create millions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials, to manufacture millions of wind turbines and solar panels, and install them on millions of acres of wildlife habitats – to generate expensive, intermittent energy that would be grossly insufficient for humanity’s needs. Every step in this process requires fossil fuels – and some of the mining involves child labor.
How do CCI alarmists respond to these points? They don’t. They refuse to engage in or even permit civil discussion. They rant that anyone “who denies climate change science” is on the fossil fuel industry payroll, thus has a blatant conflict of interest and no credibility, and therefore should be ignored.
“Rebuttals” to my recent “We are still IN” article cited Greenpeace and DeSmogBlog as their “reliable sources” and claimed: I’m “associated with” several “right-wing think tanks that are skeptical of man-made climate change.” One of them “received $582,000 from ExxonMobil” over a 14-year period, another got “$5,716,325 from Koch foundations” over 18 years, and the Koch Brothers gave “at least $100,343,292 to 84 groups denying climate change science” in 20 years, my detractors claimed.
These multi-year contributions work out to $41,571 annually; $317,574 per year; and $59,728 per organization per year, respectively – to pay salaries and overhead at think tanks that are engaged in multiple social, tax, education, medical and other issues … not just energy and climate change.
But let’s assume for a moment that money – especially funding from any organization that has any kind of financial, regulatory or other “special interest” in the outcome of this ongoing energy and economic battle – renders a researcher incapable of analyzing facts fairly and honestly.
Then apply those zero-tolerance, zero-credibility Greenpeace-DeSmogBlog-CCI standards to those very same climate alarmists and their allies – who are determined to shut down debate and impose their wind, solar and biofuel policies on the world. Where do they get their money, and how much do they get?
Billionaire and potential presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg gave the Sierra Club $110 million in a six-year period to fund its campaign against coal-generated electricity. Chesapeake Energy gave the Club $26 million in three years to promote natural gas and attack coal. Ten wealthy liberal foundations gave another $51 million over eight years to the Club and other environmentalist groups to battle coal.
Over a 12-year period, the Environmental Protection Agency gave its 15 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members $181 million in grants – and in exchange received quick rubberstamp approvals of various air quality rules. It paid the American Lung Association $20 million to support its regulations.
During the Obama years, the EPA, Interior Department and other federal agencies paid environmental pressure groups tens of millions in collusive, secretive sue-and-settle lawsuit payoffs on dozens of issues.
Then we get to the really big money: taxpayer funds that government agencies hand out to scientists, computer modelers and pressure groups – to promote global warming and climate change alarmism.
As Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore noted recently, citing government and other reports:
* Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
* The Feds spent an estimated $150 billion on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
* That didn’t include the 30% tax credits/subsidies for wind and solar power: $8 billion to $10 billion a year – plus billions more from state programs that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
* Worldwide, according to the “progressive” Climate Policy Initiative, climate change “investment” in 2013 totaled $359 billion – but this “falls far short” of the $5 trillion per year that’s actually needed.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change echoes those greedy demands. It says the world must spend $2.4 trillion per year for the next 17 years to subsidize the transition to renewable energy.
Bear in mind that $1.5 trillion per year was already being spent in 2014 on Climate Crisis, Inc. research, consulting, carbon trading and renewable projects, according to the Climate Change Business Journal. With 6-8% annual growth, we’re easily looking at a $2-trillion-per-year climate industry by now.
The US Government Accountability Office puts United States taxpayer funding alone at $2.1 billion per year for climate change “science” … $9.0 billion a year for technology R&D … and $1.8 billion a year for international assistance. Total US Government spending on climate change totaled $179 billion (!) from 1993 through 2017, according to the GAO. That’s $20 million per day!
At the September 2018Global Climate Action Summit, 29 leftist foundations pledged to give $4 billion over five years to their new Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming campaign. Sea Change Foundation co-founder Nat Simons made it clear that this “is only a down payment”!
And I get pilloried for working with organizations that received $41,571 to $59,728 per year from fossil fuel interests … questioning claims that fossil fuels are causing climate chaos … and raising inconvenient facts and questions about wind, solar and biofuel replacements for coal, oil and natural gas.
Just as outrageous, tens of millions of dollars are squandered every year to finance “studies” that supposedly show “surging greenhouse gases” and “manmade climate change” are creating dangerous hybrid puffer fish, causing salmon to lose their ability to detect danger, making sharks right-handed and unable to hunt, increasing the number of animal bites, and causing US cities to be overrun by rats.
Let’s apply the Greenpeace-DeSmogBlog-Climate Crisis, Inc. standard all these organizations and researchers. Their massive multi-billion-dollar conflicts of interest clearly make them incapable of analyzing climate and energy matters fairly and honestly – and disqualify them from participating in any further discussions about America’s and the world’s energy and economic future.
At the very least, they and the institutions that have been getting rich and powerful off the catastrophic manmade global warming and climate hustle should be cut off from any future federal funding.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT.org). He has written numerous studies and articles on energy, climate change, human rights and other topics.
Somewhat off topic, but since we are (at least indirectly) discussing the IPCC, I noticed that the AR3 report is again available on the IPCC web site, but it appears that they did a stealth edit to the quote “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” changing it to “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future EXACT climate states is not possible.” When I do a GOOGLE search on this quote it always comes back without the work “exact” in it. Does anyone have an old copy of the AR3 (also knows as TAR) report and can confirm what the original quote was?
Laughably, despite all that money spent, the alarmists are panicking.
The IPCC has gradually reduced it’s catastrophic predictions of earth’s temperature Armageddon from 3°C, to 2.5°, to 2.0°C, and now to 1.5°C within the next 12 years.
Why?
Well it seems they are taking note of the observed temperatures Vs their alarmist predictions which have gone horribly wrong, but they’re not telling anyone they are taking note:
and even:
It therefore seems they are now at the point of no return, the “tipping point” in their terms. If the planet does exceed 1.5°C warmer than 150 years ago and nothing happens, the public will be asking questions. Well, the French are asking them already, but I mean more of the public. In which case all the money and all the effort to mitigate a harmless amount of warming will have been wasted. The only thing left for them to do is say “well it’ll happen at 2°C” at which point there will be a collective global splutter as their utter incompetence is revealed, again, but on a much grander scale.
On the other hand, if warming doesn’t reach 1.5°C in 12 years time, they might claim the minuscule amount of renewable energy has been a great success and we should all plough on with it regardless of the consequences.
In which case some more astute members of the public may note that:
1. Atmospheric CO2 is still rising so shouldn’t that mean temperatures should be as well? In which case, is the CO2 warming theory wrong? and;
2. If they are right and that inconsequential amount of renewable energy has stopped AGW in it’s tracks, wouldn’t that mean that adding more renewables might make the world colder?
Now forgive me for having some faith in the public’s collective intelligence, but I don’t think they are dumb enough to swallow a 1.5°C warming under these circumstances as credible.
So it seems the IPCC and it’s ilk are painting themselves into a corner here. They have promised global catastrophe beginning in 12 years time (well, the public probably see it as a global tsunami on the stroke of midnight 2030, something like the millennium bug) and nothing will have changed. Not a single sodding thing other than the world will have greened a bit more and there might be fewer extreme weather events.
Now, with a bit of luck and a following wind, Donald Trump may well be voted in for a second term and as his tenure as POTUS ends in, what, five and a half years time, he’ll be able to say to the American public “time is running out for the alarmists. With only 6 years to go until their “tipping point” nothing negative has happened to the natural world.”
Indeed, by that time, the Pause, may well be well and truly back and the world may be showing signs of cooling.
So yes, I think it will be a gunfight at the OK corral, and there will be many more members of the MSM beginning to ask some very awkward questions like, where’s the manifestation of these claims and, where the hell did all that money go?
I can’t help but wonder if we really are on the home run of climate change, and the alarmists have incompetently managed that situation quite by themselves.
” The only solution, Climate Crisis, Inc. insists, is to eliminate the oil, coal and natural gas that provide 80% of the energy that makes US and global economies, health and living standards possible.”
Who are these people, “Climate Crisis, Inc.”? After a quick search, I could only find the appellation associated with Paul Driessen. So, assuming they are a fantasy created by him, they seem to have attributes that are a part of his fantasy.
I’m sure there are those who foolishly believe that it’s wise to eliminate oil, coal, and natural gas, but I’d like to see who they are in reality before believing Driessen’s claims about them, since seems to imply that we should all think such people are a significant voice in society. Either that, or (what I think is more likely) he wants people to believe this is so in order to lump all those together who think something should be done about climate change making it easier to vilify and ridicule them. When this happens on one side of the ideological battle, the natural response for the other side is to make similar exaggerated, dishonest, foolish claims about skeptics. What purpose does this serve but to spread ignorance and animosity? It’s all meant to enlist emotions in the controversy, rather than reason.
The same is true when talking about money. The GAO report discussed in the text is a good illustration. I noted in a comment on the post that first brought it up on WUWT that much of this funding is going towards technology like improvements to nuclear power and energy efficiency, hydrogen research and energy storage. Several of the science programs are useful not just to climate change study, but to weather forecasting and prediction of disastrous weather events. In other words, almost any program that could broadly be construed as addressing climate change was included in the totals, many of which did “double duty.” But that is not mentioned by those who wish to excite the ire of readers.
As for the contributions to green groups…so what? Does anyone expect Greenpeace to sit idly by while millions are spent lobbying Congress to distrust the thousands of researchers who believe anthropogenic climate change is real? Some people believe it’s a legitimate concern, and they are acting on that belief. Knowing how much propaganda is spread to convince the public that it’s BS, of course they are going to spread their own BS propaganda – that’s the way of politics these days. In public discussion of climate change, reason, science, and rational discussion take a back seat to propaganda and political partisanship. Truth and integrity are swamped by bias and enmity.
Perhaps the most telling evidence of this is the way in which many people accept scientific research not on the basis of its merit, but on whether or not it supports their ideology. Not only does it lead to unquestioning acceptance of IPCC claims, but also to those like, “There is no evidence to support claims that the slight temperature, climate and weather changes we’ve experienced are dangerous, unprecedented or caused by humans, instead of by the powerful solar, oceanic and other natural forces that have driven similar or far more serious changes throughout history.” All extreme views like these warrant skepticism.
“I noted in a comment on the post that first brought it up on WUWT that much of this funding is going towards technology like improvements to nuclear power and energy efficiency, hydrogen research and energy storage. Several of the science programs are useful not just to climate change study, but to weather forecasting and prediction of disastrous weather events. In other words, almost any program that could broadly be construed as addressing climate change was included in the totals, many of which did “double duty.” But that is not mentioned by those who wish to excite the ire of readers.”
This is a vital lesson controversialists should learn: Don’t exaggerate. Opponents will refute them, and then make out that they’ve refuted the whole argument, non-exaggerated parts as well. IOW, think ahead and don’t lay yourself open to an opponent’s counterpunch.
“I’m sure there are those who foolishly believe that it’s wise to eliminate oil, coal, and natural gas, but I’d like to see who they are in reality before believing Driessen’s claims about them…..”
Nicola Sturgeon and the rest of the insane Scottish Nationalist Party who want to have Scotland 100% renewable (despite that being impossible) and are already 50% of the way there (according to their fantastic claims which are nothing more than political propaganda).
HotScot,
Maybe you can find a better reference, but the Guardian says that Sturgeon want 50% renewables by 2030, and energy independence of Scotland. That is from a Sept. 9, 2018 article. Has she since then adjusted her claims and goals?
Even if what you say is true, that’s only Scotland, not the world.
Very true
Very dumb.
You just said that being skeptical of the former claims is equivalent to the foolishness of the former claims, which have not presented anything more than “after the fact therefore because of the claim” … “evidence” …
when most, if not all, of what in the past had been claimed Man’s CO2 should have caused by
now has NOT happened.
PS Vague claims of “there’s going to be storms” don’t count.
Gunga Din,
“You just said that being skeptical of the former claims is equivalent to the foolishness of the former claims,” No, I didn’t.
I don’t know what you are referring to that “in the past had been claimed…” That could mean anything, including Al Gore’s ridiculous assertions.
Vague claims of the obvious don’t “count,” I would agree. But claims such as, “there will be a greater frequency of intense precipitation events” would count. Any change that is not explainable only by natural variation in climate forcings (solar, volcanic eruptions, cyclical ocean currents, etc.), but that is explainable if one also takes into account the increased CO2 emissions due to human activity would constitute evidence of AGW. Judging by available data, this would include at least part of the increase in temperature since mid-20th C – and if that is true, then Driessen’s claims is wrong. Even if the evidence is not conclusive, it’s still evidence – and even in that case, Driessen’s claim is wrong, since he says there is NO evidence. So it’s not “very dumb” to say what I did. What is dumb is to reject all evidence, whether conclusive or not. It’s also dumb to treat any prediction made by anybody at any time in the past as having equal weight (not that you do so, but some do) – and that includes the predictions/projections of the IPCC, since they are not given equal likelihood. It’s also not too bright to stick to one dataset, such as that of UAH, and reject all others when assessing whether there is evidence – they, too, have made errors and adjustments, and there is debate whether their current dataset is accurate.
In short, if one is going to claim skepticism, one should be equally skeptical of all claims, whether they fit one’s narrative or not. One would think this is obvious, but it’s not obviously carried out.
In the interests of balance, we need to find out where all the climate money comes from.
where does the GWPF get its money from?
who funds Heartland (and why?)
Griff, why would you be bothered about a couple of organisations of a few dozen people getting a few thousands of dollars when it has been pointed out that we are talking BILLIONS & TRILLIONS of dollars going to thousands of people wasted on CAGW.
As for Heartland, they are a leading libertarian think tank that is mostly funded by small contributions from individuals interested in principle centered governance and limited government, basically the classical liberal philosophy.
The environmental portion is a quarter of their total output as they also advocate for free market solutions to education and health care.
Just for perspective, the tax subsidies Elon Musk alone received could fund the entire Heartland budget for 1,000 years or their budget for global warming issues for about 5,000 years.
Already been and is being done right now. Democrats in both Houses of Congress set this in motion in 2010 and it is ongoing. Nice try, griffie.
griff
Usual stupid remark from you.
The tragedy is that both sides of the debate aren’t funded equally.
Furthermore, where does government money come from, or Bloombergs money? Predominantly from the taxes or profits from people earning money thanks to fossil fuels.
Assuming you work for a living, I’ll wager every penny you make is thanks to fossil fuel.
Bloomberg has substantial holdings in natural gas, according to Naomi Klein – managed by fund managers. His net worth has increased by about $20b to total $50b. His donations to the Sierra Club have been a good investment.
Skeptic Movie Review
Curiosity walked me into a theater showing “Vice” starring Christian Bale. AKA things to do on a gloomy Sunday afternoon sandwiched between work days. Getting a hair cut is okay, enjoying Kirin beer and a bowl of Gumbo is very good, paying $40 to see a movie about Dick Cheney while munching a bag of popcorn is unfortunately two steps forward one Maoist great leap back.
“Vice” is a sorta maybe biopic of former US VP Dick Cheney. This film is so well made and entertaining that it has garnered 9 Golden Globe mentions and considerable Oscar buzz. Imagine that. These storytellers are so good at their craft that they can make an entertaining movie out of a government officials life. Apparently the version shown to Golden Globe voters had all of those wonderful attributes. The version I saw was a long political screed blaming Cheney for changing Global Warming into Climate Change after focus grouping it, wild fires in California, refugees washing up on Europe’s coastline, being the PR man for ISIS, and harvesting a heart from an imaginary Iraq veteran.
Really the worst thing you can say about this movie is that it delivers exactly what you might think before seeing it. An unpretentious piece of agitprop. Straight tofu for the Leftist ethos shoved through a commercial sales channel. There was more talent involved in making the popcorn than the film. On the bright side the average age of the small sample size audience looked like an outing from the local pensioners home. Maybe it was a mixer for the last members of the CPUSA Browder faction.
Final thought: A pile of stuff is still a pile of stuff even if you polish it with a faux golden statute.
Lately I have been bothered by the Green/Alarmists/CAGW Clowns use of the word, “Existential” and finally took the time to look up the actual meaning. To me, it mostly refers to Existentialism, that peculiar philosophy of the 20th C. Below is what Miriam-Webster has to say:
Question
The meaning of “existential”
Answer
Question
Please explain the usage of the word existential. I hear it frequently on the news and on talk shows. Dictionaries use “existence” in their definitions of this word. This does not help my usage. Help!
– Phil from the United States
Answer
The adjective existential is often defined as, “of, or relating to, existence.” However, as you point out, that doesn’t really explain the meaning of existential in most contexts.
Let’s try another approach, looking at how the word is most often used. Using a language corpus, I found that existential most often occurs in one of these phrases:
existential threat
existential questions
existential crisis
The first phrase, existential threat, is used in texts or discussions about politics, usually politics in the Middle East. In this context, existential is being used literally. An existential threat is a threat to a people’s existence or survival.
The second phrase, existential questions, references Existentialism, a 20th century philosophy concerned with questions about how and whether life has meaning, and why we exist. (For more information, look up Existentialism or the philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre.)
The third phrase, existential crisis, is also a reference to Existentialism, but it is often used in a humorous or sarcastic way, to suggest that the person or people being described spend too much thinking about themselves and the meaning of their lives.
In sum, existential can be a reference to survival, or to the meaning of our lives, or used to poke fun at others who might take themselves a bit too seriously.
This was an interesting question, and I hope this answer helps a bit.
I think using it when talking about Climate Change is pretentious and adds nothing to the discussion.
“Follow the money” Globally governments have funded the scientific community for over a century, that discoveries led up to what’s become the biggest Scam ever created. As you’ve pointed out Trillions of dollars (globally the USD is still what’s revered to) have funded the research that leans towards the evils of Fossil Fuels and subsequently the Carbon Dioxide it produces. This research gave governments the license to impose taxes in the narrative that the population will use less by the higher cost of energy. Then they created a series of Scare Tactics to impose more taxes on Fossil Fuels. By creating regulations to reduce emissions they increased the cost of Fossil Fuels without increasing the taxes, but now that increased the cost of energy more and the price distortions for products made or grown increased, that are taxed by percentage of a dollar and governments gets even more taxes.
Therefore, by funding the research with a few trillion dollars that demonized Fossil Fuels. The government’s have created the Biggest Scam ever. Because they get multiple trillions of dollars in revenue by the taxes they imposed on top of the price distortions they created. The added trillions of more dollars by creating the Renewable Green Energy Industries that requires more Fossil Fuels to create, erect and maintain them. With millions of New job’s created by these researchers and all the equipment that’s been developed and more equipment needed to do their research. Millions of more dollars are used and taxed by governments.
The Government’s created the issue’s and the Government’s are whom benefit the greatest from this Scam. “Following the Money.”
Actually, that’s a really good point, John.
It hadn’t really occurred to me that it (Finking Feddie and his little cousins profiting handsomely from this scheme) has been going on that long.
But thinking back on it, they really have.
Mind if I steal that language, or at least some of it?
If I were a CAGW alarmist, likely my first retaliation would be “Prove it!”
For this article to have real value, there needs to be a link/reference for each figure given. Otherwise, it’s not much better than the wild numbers thrown around by the alarmists.
Looking up the information yourself is not a reasonable option.
Every step in this process requires fossil fuels – and some of the mining involves child labor.
Child labor is a pending demand in economic critical times :
https://www.google.com/search?q=child+labor+Hallstatt+salt+mines&oq=child+labor+Hallstatt+salt+mines&aqs=chrome.
These multi-year contributions work out to $41,571 annually; $317,574 per year; and $59,728 per organization per year, respectively –>
These multi-year contributions work out to $41,571 daily ; $317,574 per year; and $59,728 per organization per year, respectively
How could one forget the money that is intended to flow from rich Western countries to nations who are too corrupt to have functioning economies of their own? I have become convinced that wealth transfers were the original reason for this whole concoction. Didn’t the original seed money for climate studies came from UN coffers at a time when they were seeking a way to justify wealth transfers?
I believe I can make a strong argument that the $2.4T boondoggle is just a bogey meant to make hundreds of billions in wealth transfers sound like a bargain, and that windmills and solar panels are just window dressing for the whole project. Tax increases, infrastructure spending, are regulatory expansion are proposed because that gets governments on board, and willing to sell the wealth transfers to their constituencies.