We reported earlier in the year how claims that a ‘denial lobby’ had influenced public opinion on climate change were totally at odds with reality.
The UK’s Royal Society, for example wrote an open letter to Exxon in 2006, accusing it of funding these sceptics. The image of oil barons distorting the truth for pure profit was appealing to an environmental movement desperate to account for its own lack of popular appeal. Through their site ‘Exxon Secrets’, Greenpeace ‘exposed’ the millions of dollars that had allegedly been given to think tanks and other deniers to brainwash an unthinking, gullible public.
But as we pointed out, the $22 million that Exxon allegedly gave away between 1998 and 2008 is peanuts compared to Greenpeace’s $2.2 billion income over a similar period.
Following our post yesterday about the WWF’s use of a rather dodgy scientific measure to secure headlines and public attention, we thought we’d have a quick scan of their accounts, too.
|| Income ($US)
The accounts prior to 2003 aren’t available online. (If you have access to them, we would be grateful if you would let us have a look). But the point stands. The WWF has an enormous amount of money behind it – far more than any dirty ‘denialist’ organisation has been able to get its hands on.
Even more surprising is the source of their funding. One thing that might be said in Greenpeace’s defence is that it apparently doesn’t accept money from Governments. But a closer look at WWF’s regional sites shows that a significant amount of funding does come from the state. For example, WWF USA:
And in the UK:
It is curious that the WWF, who are so sharply critical of the US, UK and EU Government, should take such a large amount of money from them.
For example, a headline from the site on the 15th May tells us that “US government: climate change threatens polar bears” And today, the site urges that “The government must act to ensure that no new coal-fired power stations are built in the UK until carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has been proven to work on a large scale and can be installed from the outset”.
This is especially curious, because the environmental movement has been telling us for somewhile that, apart from ‘manipulating’ public opinion with distorted science, the establishment is reluctant to act on climate change. Yet here we can see that the government is handing over cash to that same movement.
And it’s not just the WWF, which is just one of nine environmental NGOs that constitute a “Green Ten” that are beneficiaries of EU funding.
We work with the EU law-making institutions – the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers – to ensure that the environment is placed at the heart of policymaking. This includes working with our member organisations in the Member States to facilitate their input into the EU decision-making process.
Membership contributions are an important part of the finances of Green 10 organisations. We also receive core funding from the European Commission, except for Greenpeace. Furthermore, some member organisations of the Green 10 receive funding on a case-by-case basis for specific projects from governments and foundations. Some organisations also receive specific donations from industry. Greenpeace does not request or accept financial support from governments, the EU or industry. All Green 10 organisations are externally audited every year.
The members are:
- BirdLife International (European Community Office)
- Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe)
- CEE Bankwatch Network
- European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
- European Federation of Transport and Environment (T&E)
- Health and Environment Alliance
- Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE)
- Greenpeace Europe
- International Friends of Nature (IFN)
- WWF European Policy Office
What is stranger than Green lobby groups being happy to take significant wads of dosh from the very governments that they accuse of being climate criminals is that those governments should want to fund the enemy within to the tune of tens/hundreds/thousands of millions of dollars annually.
Could you imagine the fuss, if the sceptics had had nearly 5 billion dollars, to do ‘scientific research’, and were contracted by the government to ‘inform the public’?
Time and again, year after year, and in spite of the billions of dollars available to the environmental movement, polls show that US and UK publics are not interested in being eco-hectored. (And here’s another example courtesy of Philip Stott).
Governments, on the other hand, seem to enjoy being told what to do. Or, more accurately, to enjoy paying people to tell them what to tell other people to do – it saves them the trouble of having to work out for themselves what to tell people to do. Environmentalists might like to think they are part of some sort of grass-roots, popular, and radical movement. But what kind of grass roots movement needs such huge handouts to spend on PR? Environmentalism is rife at all levels of society except one – the electorate. It is anything but a popular, mass movement. The Environmentalist’s superficial radicalism, and the bogus urgency of calls to ‘save the planet’ have been attractive to politicians only because their endless and desperate search for popular policy ideas has consistently failed to engage the voters. But they are mistaken. Environmentalism is very much part of the establishment.
# ‘denial lobby’ had influenced public opinion #
Can one deny what science is not able to define
as discussed on: http://www.whatisclimate.com . Concerning the failure of the “Framework Convention on Climate Change” , 1992 (FCCC), to offer any definition of “CLIMATE”, and the science community not to recognize this ever since, it might be worthwhile to listening what an eminent scientist, the late Kenneth Hare, had said in 1979: “This is obviously the decade in which climate is coming into its own. You hardly heard the word professionally in the 1940s. It was a layman’s word. Climatologists were the halt and the lame. And as for the climatologists in public service, in the British service you actually, had to be medically disabled in order to get into the climatological division ! Climatology was a menial occupation that came on the pecking scale somewhat below the advertising profession. It was clearly not the age of climate”. (Bulletin American Meteorological Society , Vol. 60, 1979, p. 1171 – 1124). Further information at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/ .
Concerning CO2, IPCC, and skeptics it might be reasonable to reproduce an excerpt form a text on: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/ , as follows:
QUOTE__ Under the editorial guidance of the eminent climatologist S. Fred Singer, a group of about 30 scientists published a paper: „Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (by THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, 2008). By all respect for the work, the paper title is grossly misleading, if not erroneous. They actually review the extreme narrow question of carbon dioxide (CO2), but do not hesitate to make the pompous announcement that „Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”.
Presumably science would serve the general public better when they would listen to Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) who said: “Water is the driver of nature”. Not nature rules climate, but water rules the nature on this earth, and the water on earth is so much synonym with the oceans and seas that it can be said: “Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means” __UNQUOTE
I’m sure those folks at http://www.desmogblog.com who are so keen on ‘clearing the air’ about PR spin and the funding behind Global Warming studies will certainly be all over this too, right Mr. Hoggan & Mr. Grandia and co? :)
What do you make of the fact that a recent report by WWF and the Allianz insurance company comparing the CO2 emissions of the G8 countries deliberately rejected nuclear power as a way of reducing CO2 emissions, and counted nuclear plants as though they were really powered by natural gas?
Why the the WWF anti-energy rather than anti-CO2?
Hat tip to Klaus Allmendinger…
Government everywhere is notorious for funding a wide range of charities which then lobby for increased regulation / subsidy on pet projects which the government can then use as ‘proof’ that they need to take action. And that action is always spend more money, never save or just stay still.