Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Archive for the ‘Follow the Money’ Category

Money, Funding, Greenpeace, and Being Green Pays Rather Well..

Posted by greg2213 on June 29, 2011

Update 11/11/13: 

$165 Billion spent by the US gov’t and zero effect, other that creating a lot of jobs in research and the hype and alarm industries.No wonder they don’t want the gravy train to end, that’s me a lot of people to hire on to McDonalds or something. The climate didn’t notice or care. Go here.

Update 11/3/13: 

So now Wall Street is going to dump zillions into the Global Warming story, with the help of the President of the US. From the Daily Bell:

The party is on.

And you read it here first.

As we observe this phenomenon, we realize that global warming is going to play a big role in Wall Street’s upcoming and ongoing promotion. But let’s take it from the top.

Two significant things just happened that confirm a furtherance of this trend.

  • Yesterday, November 1st, President Barack Obama signed an executive order instructing states to ready themselves for the “environmental impact” of climate change.
  • At the same time, one of Hollywood’s most successful and power directors, James Cameron, announced he is creating a global warming drama coming to Showtime cable in April and called “Years of Living Dangerously.”

April is obviously when this investment party really gets going full-steam. It’s blazing hot already. Thanks to the JOBS Act, we’re aware that thousands of glossy promotional pitches are being sent via snail mail seeking accredited investors.

We track this stuff. It’s truly remarkable. These brochures cost millions and millions to produce. Where’s the money coming from? This is a huge promotion. All the big boys are in on it. One last Wall Street blow-off.

That’s how they operate. It boggles the mind. People can’t conceive of the vastness of these modern promotions. The entire industrial and promotional might of the Western world is seized and put into service – including the President of the United States.

Read more here.

Update 8/17/13:

In a post by the Wa. Examiner:

“In the past decade or so, there were 345,052 foundation grants for the environment, totaling $20,826,664,000 (that’s twenty billion dollars and change), according to an authoritative database.”

“However, I tracked foundation grants to see who was really the power and direction behind the campaigns and protests and lawyers and lobbyists. Today, foundations are the backbone of Big Green.

My survey found the Pew Charitable Trusts at Number 10, the bottom of the big-grant heap with $40 million to Oceana, a Washington-based ocean-only group formed in 2001 by — who else? — the Pew Charitable Trusts, Oak Foundation, Marisla Foundation, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund — foundations creating Big Green activists to satisfy foundation agendas.”

Here’s the rest: http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/top-10-jumbo-foundation-grants-fund-big-green/article/2534312

Update 5/15:13:

Update 5/4/13:

Update 4/27/13:

Now why would Shell Oil bother to fund skeptics when gov’t is going to hand them a ton of money from the CO2 hysteria?

CALGARY – Royal Dutch Shell and its partners aim to be the first to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from the oilsands — a project that relies heavily on government funding and that the companies aren’t counting on to generate financial returns.

Shell estimates the project, called Quest, will cut direct emissions from the upgrader by 35 per cent — the equivalent of taking 175,000 cars off the road.

But the overall CO2 reduction is expected to be about 15 per cent, taking into account the mining of the ore, its transportation to Scotford and its upgrading into a type of crude refineries can handle.

The Alberta and federal governments are kicking in a collective $865 million toward Quest, which is expected to start up in 2015. The cost of constructing the project and operating it for 10 years is expected to be $1.35 billion.

From HuffPo

Update 3/28/13:

BRUSSELS, Belgium, February 8, 2013 (ENS) – European heads of state and government have agreed to commit at least 20 percent of the entire European Union budget over the next seven years to climate-related spending.

The seven-year budget was agreed at 960 billion euros ($1.28 trillion). By comparison, the budget for the years 2007-2013 was 975.777 billion euros.

$256 billion…. ens-newswire.com

Update 3/8/13:

From WUWT: Over the past three years, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center alone poured $335 million into environmentalist climate campaigns, and $1 billion into green lobbies at large, notes Undue Influence author Ron Arnold. Major US donors gave $199 million to Canadian environmental groups just for anti-oil sands and Keystone pipeline battles during the last twelve years, analysts Vivian Krause and Brian Seasholes estimate; the Tides Foundation poured $10 million into these battles during 2009-2012.

All told, US foundations alone have “invested” over $797 million in environmentalist climate campaigns since 2000! And over $19.3 billion in “environmental” efforts since 1995, Arnold calculates! Add to that the tens of billions that environmental activist groups, universities and other organizations have received from individual donors, corporations and government agencies to promote “manmade climate disaster” theories – and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

Moreover, that’s just US cash. It doesn’t include EU, UN and other climate cataclysm contributions. Nor does it include US or global spending on wind, solar, biofuel and other “renewable” energy schemes. That this money has caused widespread pernicious and corrupting effects should surprise no one.

Update 2/6/13: EU pays Greenpeace and WWF to… lobby the EU.

Update 7/27/12: More about the money:

Original Post:

One of the (many) delusions that the Alarmist/Green side has is that Big Oil lavishly funds those skeptical of the “science” of CAGW. As with pretty much all of the rest of their catastrophist thinking, there is very little reality behind the claim. Here’s a clip:

A report in the Washington Examiner, entitled “Working for Big Green can be a very enriching experience” by Mark Tapscott, showed that the leaders of 15 top Big Green environmental groups are paid more than $300,000 in annual compensation, with a half million dollar plus figure for the top “earner”.

He mentions that Environmental Defense Fund President Frederic Krupp, receives total compensation of $496,174, including $446,072 in salary and $50,102 in other compensation.

Close behind Krupp among Big Green environmental movement executives is World Wildlife Fund- US President Carter Roberts, who was paid $486,394, including a salary of $439,327 and other compensation of $47,067.

Krupp and Roberts are particularly interesting because EDF and WWF-US both receive funding from the Grantham Foundation and both are on the joint management board of Jeremy Grantham’s climate institutes at the London School of Economics, (LSE), and Imperial College, London.

Jeremy Grantham is the chairman and co-founder of GMO, a $140 billion global investment management company based in Boston with offices in London, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich.

His first excursion into climate funding in the UK was “The Grantham Institute for Climate Change” set up with £12 million, (~$19million) at Imperial College, London in 2007. The chairman of the LSE Grantham Institute, Lord Stern of the infamous Stern Review, is heavily involved in carbon trading via carbon ratings agency, Idea Carbon. He joined IdeaGlobal, the parent company in 2007, as Vice Chairman. He also advises HSBC on carbon trading.

Environmental Defense boast on their website of their influence on policy in Washington and how they get around the law on lobbying caps: http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=8943

“EDF has long been a powerful voice in Washington, and when the need began to exceed the $1 million annual cap on our lobbying established by tax law, we created a sister group, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, which is free of spending limits. This has enabled us to ratchet up our legislative efforts, particularly on climate, and to advocate strong environmental laws even as the stakes increase.”

here’s the rest of this juicy article: The Log in the Eye of Greenpeace

From JoNova: When ExxonMobil pays just $23 million to skeptics the headlines run wild. But when $79 billion is poured into one theory, it doesn’t rate a mention. (my remark: So if $23 mil discredits the skeptics then it stands to reason that the Alarmists are 3,400 times less credible. ) She, quite reasonably, asks: “Why are the crucial checks of the science that underlie changes to entire economies left to unpaid bloggers and retired scientists?”

More from JoNova: Climate funding exposed and the SPPI article on Climate Money

And more: Climate money: Big government (vastly) outspends big oil

Big Oil spends 23 mill over 10 years, Al Gore spends $300 mil in a lot less time.

By the way, all of the above are US numbers. Bring in Euro funding, Eco group funding (Greenpeace, WWF, other foundations, Soros, etc.) and the numbers are much larger.

Interesting comment: The oil industry has a vested interest in the partial success of the environmental movement. If the oil companies conspired together to force prices up by limiting production, they would quickly find themselves in court on antitrust charges. So instead, they happily give a few hundred million dollars to the environmentalists, the greens lobby the government to limit production and force prices up, and everybody gets what they want. The greens can feel good for “saving the planet”, the politicians get more power, and the oil companies rake in their billions. Only the consumer is left out.

Heh. Green ponzi scheme crashes.

Speaking of paying well, the guy who holds the patent on the carbon-trading idea stands to make out rather well if our government entities go through with that idea.

From JoNova 7/15: (Regarding a new climate rap video) The warmers have been pretending for so long that they are the little guys fighting Big Oil, Big Industry, and Bad Government. The ruse worked so well, that the bubble is ripe for busting. They can’t “fight” the establishment — they are the Establishment.  They have a $144 billion carbon trading scheme, a $243 billion  renewables investment annually, not to mention a UN agency, and whole Western Government Departments spinning their dogma.  What self respecting youth wants to be a useful idiot fighting for their profits?

More links to Green Funding

Posted in Big Green, Big Oil, Follow the Money | Leave a Comment »

What’s the Motive?

Posted by greg2213 on January 23, 2010

Here’s a nice comment from WUWT. I like his philosophy, though I will keep my thoughts on the standards used in climate science. Basically: If your science has to put a probe next to one of  Saturn’s moons or design a airplane then it has to be right. If all it has to do is persuade a policy maker the standard for getting it right is far lower. Unfortunately, that, and the issues mentioned below, can make for some sloppy science (EG: Hockey sticks.)

Some editing done for emphasis and spelling, nothing else was changed.

I don’t think any motive is needed here nor does it help to attribute it. It just creates an us versus them and gets every one angry. A combination of “Where is the grant money?” and Confirmation Bias can fully explain the results.

“Where’s the money?” is fully human and we are all subject to that. It’s not evil, it’s reality. And I doubt that many would intentionally falsify data for that (rose colored glasses perhaps). But if you incentivise research into AGW you will get lots of people hunting for it. And that will increase the chances of finding it. And of course those that don’t find it won’t get any press or publication.

Then (I believe the real villian here) confirmation bias. If a climate scientist wants to improve his/her results and they make a modification in the program/adjustment etc.. and the calculated warming goes down then they obviously goofed and back to the drawing board. If it goes up then they were probably right in making the correction. It stays. Not because the scientist want’s the warming to go up, but because they don’t want to make a mistake and since they are sure that AGW exists then that is a convenient error check.

Likewise when you are chosing stations or data you will look for the “that’s weird” stuff to correct or eliminate (whether manually or by program). If you are totally convinced in AGW the data that gets looked at twice will be data that doesn’t show warming. Data that does will be accepted as it doesn’t ring any bells. When the data goes through many hands who all have the same basic beliefs (even if many try to fight the tendency) then there will be progressively more and more bias built in.

So we don’t need to postulate evil intent here. Just scientists with strong beliefs who are doing the best they can. And who sometimes forget that a scientist’s duty, according to Richard Feynman, is to try to disprove their own hypothesis.

Now if we assume no malevolent motives and just go by standards, money, and confirmation bias…

A hypothetical case: Software is to be written to look for certain things in a set of data (land based temp stations, for example.) The whole station selection process is to be automated.

An honest enough effort is made to write it up and then the system reads the available data and clips out stations that “don’t fit” the software’s parameters. Perhaps due to any of the above biases (plus pressure on the developer, budgetary concerns, programming skill, etc.) it so happens that the “wrong” set of stations (or too many) are dropped from the station list. But since the aggregate signal of the remaining stations is “correct” it meets the standards.

Not that it couldn’t be done manually, but the idea of the software is to make things easier on the crew and remove user bias.

Back to reality: Given the statements made by various people on the “reality” of climate change, and their intended “solutions,” I’d add a large helping of political pressure bias to any group that otherwise might be attempting to produce an honest result.

A group of scientists that comes up with a result that negates the needs for the draconian measures suggested by some (at the Copenhagen conference, for example) will lose their funding and perceived relevance. They are out of work and the work that they did is is ignored in favor of the next group, which might produce “better” results. And they know that is what will happen.

So maybe, just maybe, there is some slight incentive to fudge results, just a bit, to provide an end product which shows just a bit more warming than it would otherwise.

Posted in Follow the Money | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

So Who Profits by Climate Change?

Posted by greg2213 on January 18, 2010

Lots of Dollars2 Euro coinEU Referendum has been doing a lot of work on uncovering the money trails leading to and from the IPCC and various entities involved in Climate Change. Some of these money trails are very interesting.

For all that Dr R K Pachauri has his hands deeply embedded in the till, he is actually a small-time chancer, made good. The really big money lies elsewhere, and he is just on the edge of it, picking up the crumbs. This comes home when we return to look at the mysterious European Climate Foundation (ECF) and follow through some of the sponsors – or “funding partners” as they prefer to call them.

One of those was the Ecofin Research Foundation, which we looked yesterday, finding that it had donated just a few pounds short of £1 million to get the ECF off the ground. But this is small beer compared with what other “funding partners” have given.

Read the rest, here: The Big Money

Posted in Follow the Money | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Mann’s Projects are Well Financed

Posted by greg2213 on January 16, 2010

Seems that Dr. Mann, he of the Hockey Stick fame, has been well endowed with grant money from the Obama porkulus package.

BigGovernment says:

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (the Stimulus Bill) has been such an epic failure, that even the mainstream media has started to notice. The White House has tacitly acknowledged this and recently announced that it would no longer ‘count’ jobs ‘created or saved’ by the Stimulus. The basic problem is that the bulk of the spending went to programs or projects that have nothing to do with economic growth.

Here’s the rest: Mann gets the dough

The Air Vent also has some commentary on this.

The Mann, currently under investigation for his role in climategate, having calls for investigation of his blatantly, flatly false research, was chosen for stimulus money. Absolutely crazy, it’s friggin’ nuts people. How many people had 40 percent of their annual salary STOLEN by the government to PAY FOR MORE LIES!

Jeff’s blood pressure is skyrocketing. Soothing comments might be in order here. Mann Receives Over a Half Million of Stimulus Money

Posted in Follow the Money | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »