US: “Billionaires’ club” controls environmental movement and EPA


All the money goes to the alarmists

All the money goes to the alarmists

But, but, but… it’s the sceptics that are bankrolled by the rich, right? That’s the only way they could possibly outwit the billions spent by governments on propping up the consensus.

Well, er, no.

It appears that the environmental movement is the one benefiting from the wealthy’s largesse, with a report by the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee shedding light on the shady goings-on:

This report examines in detail the mechanisms and methods of a far-left environmental machine that has been erected around a small group of powerful and active millionaires and billionaires who exert tremendous sway over a colossal effort. Although startling in its findings, the report covers only a small fraction of the amount of money that is being secreted and moved around. It would be virtually impossible to examine this system completely given the enormity of this carefully coordinated effort and the lack of transparency surrounding it.

The failure to openly acknowledge this force and the silence of the media with whom they coordinate further emphasize the fact that until today, the Billionaire’s Club operated in relative obscurity hidden under the guise of “philanthropy.” The scheme to keep their efforts hidden and far removed from the political stage is deliberate, meticulous, and intended to mislead the public. While it is uncertain why they operate in the shadows and what they are hiding, what is clear is that these individuals and foundations go to tremendous lengths to avoid public association with the far-left environmental movement they so generously fund.

Some of the most valued services activists provide the Billionaire’s Club includes promulgation of propaganda, which creates an artificial echo chamber; appearance of a faux grassroots movement; access to nimble and transient groups under fiscal sponsorship arrangements; distance/anonymity between donations made by well-known donors and activities of risky activist groups; and above all – the ability to leverage tens of millions of dollars in questionable foreign funding.

Foundations finance research to justify desired predetermined policy outcome. The research is then reported on by a news outlet, oftentimes one that is also supported by the same foundation, in an effort to increase visibility. In one example, a story reporting on a Park Foundation-supported anti-fracking study was reproduced by a Park-funded news organization through a Park-funded media collaboration where it was then further disseminated on Twitter by the maker of Park-backed anti-fracking movies.

Another service provided to the Billionaire’s Club is the manufacturing of an artificial grassroots movement where it is not the citizen’s interest that drives the movement; rather, it is part of a well-funded national strategy … (link – PDF)

I’m sure we can all look forward to the imminent outrage from ‘the Cause’ about this highly distorting and politicised funding of alarmism and environmental extremism, can’t we? Er…

[Tumbleweed]

Czech president: Political Correctness = Political Cowardice


Milos Zeman

Milos Zeman

UPDATE: Watch Brigitte Gabriel comprehensively eviscerate political correctness here.

The Czechs have produced some amazing statesmen.

Former president Vaclav Klaus courageously spoke out against the climate change hysteria, knowing full well the smears and attacks that would come his way as a result. And now current president Miloš Zeman speaks out about the real cause of Islamic aggression around the world.

The libtard media are forever pussyfooting around the issue, cowed by threats of being labelled ‘Islamophobic’, endlessly repeating the myth that continual terrorist attacks in the name of Islam have ‘nothing to do with Islam’ and that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’. Anyone with half a brain knows that is complete bullshit, but the media does such a good job of shifting the blame on to the West that most people are completely in the dark. Islam is a violent, supremacist political ideology masquerading as a religion, which is wholly incompatible with Western democracy and freedoms.

Robert Spencer over at JihadWatch (an excellent site by the way), skewers the issue brilliantly. After whatever latest atrocity carried out in the name of Islam, he will say ‘How can the Imams and Islamic ‘scholars’ in the Middle East be getting Islam so wrong? Don’t they know that it’s a religion of peace? Anyone would think they were just greasy Islamophobes!’ and urges the West’s apologists to go and educate them about the real nature of their religion. Very powerful stuff.

Political correctness is the reluctance to speak the truth for fear of causing offence, in other words it is, as Zeman says, a euphemism for cowardice, and it is slowly destroying our society from within. In the climate arena, it is the fear of being labelled a ‘denier’ and to be judged morally bankrupt (‘think of the children and grandchildren’) if one dares to question the alarmist narrative, which is causing harm and poverty to millions. In relation to Islam, it is fear of being labelled ‘Islamophobic’, ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’, or some other equally offensive term, in the face of a significant threat to our Western freedoms – freedoms which in the past we fought hard to preserve, and which now, apparently, we are happy to give up, a little at a time, without a struggle.

But that’s typical of the Left. Rather than deal with the issue head on, the libtard’s easy option is to apply a label, thereby securing an imagined moral superiority which obviates the need for further debate.

Unless people have the courage to speak the truth about those things that are a threat to our society, climate hysteria and Islamic supremacism being just two, we are finished.

(h/t AB)

Sanity check: Chief Scientist’s prophecy worthy of Tim Flannery


And that’s not a compliment, by the way.

The IPA newsletter this afternoon dredged up this story which was reported early in ACM’s life:

sackett

Crystal ball cracked?

Well we are only five and a bit months away from December 2014 by which time it would be ‘too late’, but what has happened to global temperatures in the last five years? Pretty much nothing. Despite CO2 levels increasing significantly. Even if we had reduced our emissions to zero on 4 December 2009, the difference it would have made to global temperatures would have been too small to measure – by several orders of magnitude.

That she could have been Australia’s Chief Scientist is mind-blowing. Further from the cool level-headed academic dispassionately reviewing data she could hardly be.

There will be plenty more of these duff predictions proven woefully inaccurate, each one a nail in the coffin of climate change alarmism.

Catalyst’s catastrophism


In cinemas now!

In cinemas now!

Catalyst is supposed to be a science programme, but ends up looking more like a low-budget disaster movie.

Last night’s episode was a case in point:

NARRATION
… But fire is changing. Over the past decade, every forested continent has seen an alarming surge in large, uncontrollable fires. [pause for dramatic effect] Mega-fires.

Prof David Bowman
The sort of metaphoric equivalent of an atomic bomb, that’s what a mega fire is, it’s muscular, it’s mean, it’s big, it’s aggressive.

Prof Tom Swetnam
Really fast burning fires. And their local intensity is just amazing.… these are extraordinary fire events.

NARRATION
So extraordinary, they demolish the very ecosystems that have thrived with fire for millennia.

[Read more...]

‘Angry Summer’ gives way to ‘Abnormal Autumn’


Chief Alarmist

Chief Alarmist

I wonder if the propagandists, sorry, er ‘scientists’, at the Climate Council sit around all day thinking of these cheesy monikers?

According to head agitprop generator Will Steffen, the climate is in a foul mood. No, really:

The climate system is in a foul mood. From “angry summer” to “abnormal autumn” – we’re running out of words to describe the relentless extreme weather that Australia is experiencing as global temperatures continue to increase because of climate change. Now the exceptional heat has carried on into the autumn of 2014 in Australia.

What we are witnessing here is the final crazy rantings of a scare that is in its death throes. Nobody is listening any more and we have to scream, shout and throw tantrums to get any attention.

Yes, we have had a warm start to Autumn, but other parts of the globe are colder than average, meaning, surprisingly, that global temperatures have still barely changed since 2001. As for the climate being in a ‘foul mood’, the weather outside today is a beautiful Autumn day, thanks very much. The only ones in a foul mood are the hysterical alarmists who aren’t getting their way any more.

That won’t stop them, however. We will no doubt have Wild Winter, Stormy Spring, Sweltering Summer… all thanks to our crazy catastrophist climatologists.

Lindzen, Christy and Curry appointed to APS climate statement review panel


Realistic at last?

Realistic at last?

That faint noise you can hear in the distance is the sound of John Cook’s and Dana Nuccitelli’s heads popping.

The American Physical Society, which previously issued a highly alarmist statement regarding climate change, is to review it, and has appointed three climate realists to the panel of six. The news release states:

Preparations are under way by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) to review and possibly update the society’s statement on climate change. In the coming months, the APS membership will have a chance to weigh in on any proposed revisions before the society adopts a final draft.

“We intend to keep the membership informed at every stage in this process,” said Robert Jaffe a physicist at MIT and Chair of POPA. “We’re quite eager to make sure that the revision of the climate change statement is done in the most open and orderly way.”

The subcommittee of POPA that is conducting the review posted its background and research materials to the APS website, along with its charge. The research materials include the transcripts of the subcommittee’s January workshop, biographical information on outside climate experts who participated in the workshop, and their slide presentations. These materials are now available online.

The APS recognises that Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Judith Curry have a great deal to contribute to the climate debate. How long will the headbangers at Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science continue to refer to them as ‘climate misinformers’ (i.e. people we disagree with)? Or perhaps they will simply add the APS to the list instead…! Nothing would surprise me.

Tony Thomas at Quadrant Online has much more here.

Climate apathy ‘a cause for celebration’


Climate sense

Climate sense

Brendan O’Neill, writing in the UK Telegraph makes the valid point that environmentalism is diametrically opposed to the ordinary human desires for wealth, health and happiness, and the rejection by the public at large of climate hysteria and alarmism is worthy of celebration:

But has the public really tuned out from eco matters because it doesn’t understand them, because it is perplexed by “expert discourse”? I don’t think so. I think the reason people are switching off from the enviro-agenda is because they disagree with it. They just don’t buy the idea that capping carbon emissions is the most important thing in the world, more important than growing the economy, increasing wealth, and being free to choose to live in a big house with the heaters permanently switched on and Tesco just a short 4×4 drive away. They see the mean-minded, sacrifice-demanding politics of being green as a challenge to the thing that has motored human communities for millennia – the desire to create a world of plenty, an overflowing “land of milk and honey”, a utopia filled with stuff and comfort – and they don’t like it.

Environmentalism is, by its own admission, a campaign against the public and our historic desire for more things and freedom. George Monbiot has stated this baldly. Environmentalism is “a campaign not for abundance but for austerity”, he says. “It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less… it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” And that is precisely how most people experience environmentalism – as an extraordinarily elitist drive to reprimand and possibly even punish the people for daring to want more; as a top-down, hectoring effort to make us acclimatise to austerity and give up on that age-old dream of a “great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume” (Sylvia Pankhurst). If environmentalism is a “campaign against people”, then it makes perfect sense that the people bristle at it, even hate it and deny its “truths”. (source)

And just to be clear, this does not mean ‘denying’ the existence of climate change, or the contribution that man has made to it. It is about denying the environmentalists the free rein they desire to dictate the response.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,708 other followers

%d bloggers like this: