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]

Comments

  1. Old Ranga says:

    Check out the brilliant Michael Crichton thriller State of Fear (2004). He saw it all coming, and wrote a best-seller (fully referenced) to warn what was happening. Billionaire’s playthings is what Greenpeace and other global environmental players have allowed themselves to become.

    Was it Lenin or Stalin who referred to ‘useful idiots’ from the Western world who joined the Communist Party in the 1940s and 50s?

  2. Paul Bennett says:

    *ahem* club of Rome. Agenda 21 ICLEI.

  3. The loony left will ignore it, just as they turn a blind eye to how Al Gore maintains his fortune. Just like any extremists who have come to believe their own propaganda, they can’t back down now…

    It’s actually pretty shameful, because I still believe we need environmental groups to highlight where there are genuine environmental concerns (for instance, I very much fail to understand why old growth forest in Tasmania is still available for logging)…

    • Francois Stallbom says:

      Nick, there is only benefit in logging old growth forests, new life begins. Sleep one night in old growth forests and then in new or forests being burned off or forest fires, you will hear the life in the new!

      • Their rarity makes them living heritage sites. One feels a tremendous sense of awe amongst these green giants. It’s not like we need them for masts for sailing ships anymore…

        • While I too am filled with awe in an old growth forest, there is one thing we need to keep in mind: a climactic forest remains intact for a certain amount of time and then dies. There are amazingly long-lived forests, yes, such as the redwoods, but other forests don’t remain in a climactic state for as long. Old growth is only one kind of forest. Other kinds of forests have other necessary functions and shelter other kinds of flora and fauna. The idea that forests should not be touched by humans is mistaken and misguided. I don’t say this to offend, but because I am seeing so much damage to the woods from this mistaken philosophy.

          I’m not saying we should go around slaughtering the forest, only that the present philosophy is foolish and wrong.

  4. No wonder that Clive Palmer became good friends with Al Gore, all these scum see is a way to make a lot of money and they don’t care at all that they are not doing anything to save the planet, its all about making money and its a simple as thjat, N

    • Fireman Same says:

      Making money how? From what? It’s the polluters who are making money and pumping rubbish into the atmosphere and waterways. This a red herring to distract like all the other rubbish. Show me how the lefties are making money!

  5. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Slowly the truth seeps out and is available for public absorption, if they really care about the truth!

  6. Climate Change Alarmism is looking ever more sinister, more and more like 1930’s Nazism. This 2nd last paragraph in the article is consistent with a big idea told to me by a Scientific American journo in 1970, that US journalism is almost entirely about making money :
    ‘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.’

  7. The section on ‘grassroots’ movements is interesting, given how, for example, in Australia, all the ‘March in March’ proponents kept using the phrase “genuine grassroots movement” like they’d become experts in rote learning, yet totally failed to ask who (aside from the usual very grubby GetUp minions who were in the fine print) was paying for everything…

    I now see that they have become ‘march Australia’, seem to have dropped the ‘genuine grassroots’ claim, but still claim to be ‘devoted to total transparency’, although aside from their crowdfunding site (which does not force people to use real names), there’s not actually any detail about who hands them cash, or who really runs them.

    • Fireman Same says:

      The March in March campaigns were anti budget rallies against the government and whilst the green movement was present as the environmental groups and forrests are under threat it was not the mainstream of those rallies. I was their and I saw families, grandparents, workers, professionals. Probably the most diverse crowd of any demonstrations since the anti Vietnam war rallies in the 70’s. Also the largest number of people mobilised since those rallies as well.

      • Firstly, I made absolutely no mention of the motives/background/political affiliations of any of the general public who attended the various protests, I was talking about the organisers.

        Secondly, why do you automatically assume I am attacking the protestors? I am all for people protesting about whatever it is they feel the need to protest about, I just vehemently dislike heavily biased, manipulative, duplicitous, and secretive organisations like GetUp, and (what is now) March Australia, particularly as they claim to want a ‘better standard of government’, but, in reality they are purely anti-Abbott/anti-LNP, and will never ever concede that anyone but the Greens or Labor can do anything right. If any organisation was to set up protests with a similar hidden agenda, but directed towards the Labor party or Greens, I’d be just as disgusted and appalled.

        Unlike a lot of people, I don’t feel the need to align myself to any particular side, or party, rather I attempt to judge our elected leaders on their efforts/decisions, not on their party preference. I know I am also biased in some way, as everyone is, but at least I make an effort to think for myself without relying on parasitic lobby groups to do my thinking for me.

      • Which government are you talking about? The one that was elected last September (and would have only been in power a total of six and a half months during this so-called March in March) or the previous (Labor) government which put our country into a complete and total shambles of ridiculous legislation and enormous, gargantuan debt?

        Surely, these families, parents, grandparents etc know the difference? Funny how they didn’t protest when the shambolic Labor government was in power. Only now, when someone was elected to actually fix the mess (and actually doing something about it), do these darling families protest. Lord, give me strength!

  8. Alarmists will claim that it’s ok, because they’re spending billions on distorting the truth in order to “save the planet”; just ask Al Gore (I would have included Stephen Schneider, but we’d need a seance).

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: