I am very pleased to have a guest post up on the excellent Bishop Hill, Ideological money laundering.
As everybody now knows, the headlines from IPCC WGIII report on renewable energy appear to have been written by Greenpeace. When the Summary for Policy Makers was published last month, I was one of many who noted the role of Greenpeace, and the extent to which the SPM’s authors were involved in the renewable energy industry. Steve McIntyre’s discovery has caused further criticism of the IPCC’s letting such overt agendas near its evidence-making for policy-makers, even from the green camp, albeit only because it is such bad PR. But there is yet more to this story.
Call me naive, but I have constantly amazed by the sums available to the environmental agenda for little more than PR.
Speaking of money laundering, wanna know why German environmentalists are so hostile to nuclear energy? Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza discovered why — since I don’t know a word of Polish, I’ll give you a machine translation.
(In summary: WWF Deutschland, BUND (the German division of Friends of the Earth) and Naturschutzbund Deutschland have between them taken €10 million from the Conservation Foundation German Baltic, a front organization for Gazprom-controlled Nord Stream AG.)
All anti-nuclear politicians in the EU should be thoroughly investigated for links with Gazprom, and charged with TREASON if any such links are found.
It is a growing revelation that the entire idea of AGW is an unsupportable PR campaign. My special research concerns the media smear of skeptic scientists – when Donna LaFramboise at nofrakkingconsensus.com said Greenpeace people were found in the IPCC’s “Annex IV Reviewers of the IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report”, I checked it for any names in the United States section who relate to the smear. I found three, explanations about two of them are too long to detail, but this simple one is as direct as it comes to the enviro-advocacy group Ozone Action, which was merged into Greenpeace USA in 2000.
* Gallagher, Kelly Sims, Harvard University – formerly just Kelly Sims, Science Policy Director/International Policy Specialist at Ozone Action, a speaker on behalf of that group at the UNFCCC (Bonn) in August ’97, later described at a nautilus.org bio as participating “in more than a dozen rounds of international negotiations on global climate change and was an advisor to CNN in Kyoto and Buenos Aires. She was previously a Truman Scholar in the office of Vice President Gore…”
There more highly troubling problems with Ms Sims: At this 1997 press release http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jonathan/debate/ceda-l/archive/CEDA-L-July-1996/msg00173.html , we see her name immediately appearing after the accusation that skeptic scientists were out to “reposition global warming as theory, not fact” (note the other name there, Al Gore’s current spokesperson Kalee Kreider).
Gore has often repeated the “reposition global warming” phrase, most notably in his movie, but I found a BIG contradiction in his narrative about its source – please see: “Forget the Science; Is Al Gore’s Accusation of Skeptic Climate Scientists a Hoax?” http://www.redstate.com/russellc/2011/06/15/forget-the-science-is-al-gores-accusation-of-skeptic-climate-scientists-a-hoax/
Ben, I don’t know if you saw this Politico piece about green funding. The numbers being thrown around here are breathtaking:
Ben! A couple of cartoons inspired by your post and Mark’s latest article which I can see started here.
And you get a mention (high time too!)
Oops, forgot the other cartoon link
Josh, these are great pictures. Thanks.
I’d really like to see the animated movie version — ‘An Inconvenient Toon’.
Donna, thanks for the link. Breath-taking numbers indeed. I think we should start counting, and see how big the monster really is.
Hi there everyone, it’s my first vusit at this web page, and piece of writing is actually fruitful
in support of me, keep up posting such content.