JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

When is your Green Charity too big? When it loses $5m currency trading

  • We need a Big News break for a day or so. Part V coming soon. Discussion is animated. — Jo

Financial speculation on currency sees Greenpeace lose €3.8m

[BlueandGreen] Campaign group Greenpeace lost €3.8m (£3m, or $5.5m AUD) after an employee took a gamble on the currency market in 2013, it has been revealed.

The employee responsible for losing the money took a gamble on the euro remaining weak against other currencies. However, the euro strengthened later in the year, resulting in the losses.

Greenpeace, save whales, trees, and help financial houses too. Who knew?

That $5m you were thinking of donating? Don’t bother, it wouldn’t have made any difference anyhow:

No Greenpeace campaign would suffer as a result of the loss, which would  be absorbed by reducing expenses such as infrastructure over the next two to three years.

I don’t think this is quite the message Greenpeace meant to send.

Big-Green has truly become the Big-Business they pretend to oppose. Greenpeace has a total annual budget of around €300 million. It’s so big, it has to trade currencies, make property investments, and deal with “infrastructure”.

h/t Tim Blair    See also the  Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (90 votes cast)
When is your Green Charity too big? When it loses $5m currency trading, 9.4 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lzchbap

117 comments to When is your Green Charity too big? When it loses $5m currency trading

  • #

    It’s not “government” money, however, so it doesn’t count.

    (/sarc)

    132

    • #
      Harry Passfield

      Just to be an annoying pedant, Sheri, the money whether Government or donor – comes from the same place.

      120

    • #
      Jaymez

      Not entirely true Sheri. Greenpeace is a not for profit registered charity, so donations are tax deductible. The tax payer is therefore subsidising Greenpeace to the tune of the foregone taxes which would have been collected had it not been for the tax deduction.

      The annual budget of Greenpeace is 300m Euros or about A$435m. If those donations had been made by people who were on average in a 30% marginal tax bracket, then Greenpeace have effectively received a $130.5m grant from Governments around the world. This is outrageous since they seem to spend most of the time obstructing Governments and damaging their economies.

      As pointed out saliently here, Greenpeace should have their tax deductible status removed, particularly as they claim:

      To guarantee that our independent voice for the environment is never compromised, we don’t accept money from governments or corporations.

      431

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Sorry Jaymez, no. The taxpayer is NOT subsidizing them. “Not TAKING” is not the same as giving. If it were, then any robber who left you a dollar would be seen as “giving” you money.

        13

        • #
          Jaymez

          Phil, your analogy just doesn’t fit in this case. In Australia, as is the case with most countries, tax payers pay the tax they are obligated to do so out of their salaries and other income usually as they go. At the end of the financial year they submit their tax return. If they have donated to Greenpeace their ‘taxable income’ is adjusted downward by the amount of the deduction and a new tax obligation is calculated on the reduced figure. If they have paid the correct amount of tax as they go, then the Government will have to send them a cheque, reducing the Governments coffers accordingly, and effectively reducing the cost of that donation to the tax payer. Thus, an amount of money has effectively been transferred from the Government to Greenpeace.

          If it happens that the tax payer hadn’t paid tax as they went throughout the year, then their end tax bill is reduced because of the donation to Greenpeace so the result is the same.

          By way of comparison, even though many readers here may consider the work Jo Nova does to be both noble and worthwhile, donations or gifts to Jo don’t attract the same Government support which Greenpeace receives. They are not tax deductible, so we don’t get to redirect Government spending in the way donors to Greenpeace effectively do. Every cent we donate to Jo Nova comes out of our pocket, none comes from the Government’s purse.

          00

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            The analogy fits. You just disagree with it. However, the point remains. You can get a “tax advantage”. And that can be an advantage over competitors. But it is not a subsidy.

            There is only one case where you can call it a subsidy. And that is if you start with the presumption that all money belongs to the government. if that is the case, then every cent you do not pay in taxes is a subsidy.

            The term “subsidy” is being bastardized. Greenpeace may get a tax advantage by not having to pay taxes, but unless money changes hands from the government to the organization, it is not getting a subsidy.

            00

    • #

      The sarc tag was not sufficient, I see. The sarc tag was for exactly the quote Jaymez posted. I fully agree that this is not accurate due to tax exemptions, etc. Thus, the sarcasm.

      150

    • #
      Mark

      First off, was shattered this morning. Anticipating to read part V and get this.

      sorry for thread drift…

      anyway, Greenpeace! Laughed so bloody hard on news of this yesterday. True colours showing, scratch the surface and this nice cuddly green organization is a hard nosed big business…hypocrisy is thy name!

      271

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      The house loves that attitude. ;-)

      20

  • #
    Greg

    Any loss on their part prevents them from doing that amount of additional harm to the environment. I assume they won’t dock the executives bonuses or anything, so it will come out of the rank and file activities, which are uniformly harmful to the environment.

    200

  • #

    We need a Big News break for a day or so. Part V coming soon. Discussion is animated. — Jo

    Dang.

    80

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Just another instance in today’s climate science of money going to money heaven.

    More important, can anyone think of any instance of money not going to money heaven in today’s world of climate science.

    Or to paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Never in the history of scientific affairs has so much been spent to achieve so little for so many.”

    270

  • #
    sophocles

    No Greenpeace campaign would suffer as a result of the loss, which would be absorbed by reducing expenses such as infrastructure

    Would it be too much to hope there would be a … small, or singular … downsizing as well

    130

    • #
      Harry Passfield

      And of course, Sophocles, if GP had been a capitalist employer (you mean it’s not???) saying the same thing, the left would be up in arms!

      100

      • #
        sophocles

        I could say something about the left but I won’t. I don’t think Jo would like me sullying the civil and cultivated atmosphere of her blog :-)

        70

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    With GreenPeace being only a little less than a criminal enterprise (keeping it polite) to many of us, would it surprise anyone if I say, “Tough luck,” to anyone who gives money to that organization?

    They have made more trouble than they’re worth and have been doing it for a long time. :-(

    And I’m keeping an open mind that maybe they’ve done some good somewhere. Otherwise my description above would be different.

    192

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    This just shows: 1) that Greenpeace is rolling in so much cash they can gamble with peoples donations and the money they gain from being tax exempt. And 2)They are very poor stewards of other peoples’ donations and the big breaks they get from tax exemption.

    Since they are a blatant and obvious leftist political organization lining their pockets and working for world governance by elites such as the consider themselves. This is just another example of corrupt government not regulating them as a business and a mega lobbyist organization for destruction of the environment and the poor as they fight to implement Marx, Lenin, and Malthus based-world governance through tyranny.

    230

  • #
    Peter

    It couldn’t have happened to nicer people!

    Unfortunately, Greenpeace is also engaging in some anti-science actions. The most important ones are the dissemination of propaganda against nuclear power based on recycled, thoroughly discredited studies,[12] and while campaigns for strengthening GM labelling laws may garner a “meh” reaction,[13] its nearly dogmatic opposition to all forms of genetically modified food is much more sinister.[14][15]
    The latter includes publicly funded or humanitarian uses, such as the Golden Rice Project, an attempt to cure chronic vitamin A deficiency in the developing countries using a genetically modified variety of rice that contains a high level of β-carotene.[16] The organization has sabotaged fields and deliveries of GM crops.[17][18] In at least one instance, Greenpeace was legally forced to retract an anti-nuclear advertisement that was found to contain misinformation.[19] In another incident, Greenpeace accidentally distributed unfinished leaflets that demonstrate their approach to informing the public:
    “”In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE][20]
    One of Greenpeace’s founders, Patrick Moore[wp][21] quit the organisation in the 1980s and became one of its more vocal critics. He has made appearances on Penn and Teller’s Bullshit! criticising how the group has turned more anti-government and less pro-environment since its founding; nonetheless he likes to take some bullshit positions as well.
    In general, Greenpeace’s modus operandi can be characterized as “act first, do the science later.” While their actions are well-intentioned, this is not always the best approach. It has caused the organization to remain committed to a few positions of very dubious scientific credibility.
    [edit]

    161

  • #
    Dark Distardly

    I would put money on this being an executive ‘skimming’ operation that blew up in their face.

    X amount of ‘currency A’ leaving the ledger, 5 – 10 days of FX transactions clocking up profits later, Xx amount of ‘currency B’ at a suitable looking exchange rate arriving back on the ledger at the destination Country, with profits made in the meantime getting comfy in a tax haven somewhere.

    These are the sort of games all too many ‘charities’ and ‘NGO’s’ are up to their necks in, producing nice quantities of dark money to buy politicians and the like with.

    [fairly strong claim - can you offer any precedents? The employee responsible for taking the gamble has been sacked. - Mod]

    40

    • #
      James Bradley

      Or maybe it’s the old story – criminal organisation makes big bucks, attempts to go legit by putting money into legal ventures, gets ripped off by bigger criminal organisation, the stock market.

      Golden rule for working with any big/semi/non government organisation that relies on tax payer/tax free income:

      “Think incompetence before conspiracy.”

      101

    • #
      sophocles

      Ah, so there has been a small, singular downsizing.

      The individual responsible was only doing what most, if not all, the world’s banks routinely do. This `trading’ is one of the major causes of the regular savage dislocations called `crashes’ which cause `recessions.’ The banks have sufficiently large pools of money to smooth out the losses … for a while. (Next ‘market failure’ will be third quarter
      2017, late September/October. Just a small, relatively speaking, `realignment.’)

      40

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Remember, if the choice is between criminal and stupid, stupid is usually the reason.

      20

    • #
      Dark Distardly

      “[fairly strong claim - can you offer any precedents? The employee responsible for taking the gamble has been sacked. - Mod]”

      Uncle, a Tropical Diseases Dr and researcher, came across it time and time again all over the World.

      Hence his advice about charities and aid organisations – “Don’t give them any money”.

      Google >charity money launderingcharity involved in financial fraudcharity involved in gun running<

      and anything else that strikes you as potentially interesting?

      Don't forget, charities provide superb camouflage for some of the biggest scumbags it can be your misfortune to ever meet.

      10

  • #
    john robertson

    Extortion pays
    Greenpeace set the standard by which all these’Concerned independent environmentalists” operate.
    Pay us to audit your environmental programme or we will target your industry.Lawsuits, injunctions, pickets and protests.
    Green slime will of course have a mysterious loss of all these funds, once the lawsuits begin.

    Good thing you are taking a break from the Notch theory, I won’t be able to read in detail before this weekend.

    161

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I would have called you out, for using the word, “Extortion”, had I not recently been the target of a “gang” of Greenpeace collectors. I eventually signed their petition, or whatever it was, in the name of Washington Irvine, in the sure knowledge that they would not have read “Catch 22″. I was going to use the name Irvine Washington on my way back, but they had gone elsewhere.

      I also gave them the street address of Premier House, in Wellington. If they feel the need to speak to me again, they can spend time talking to the nice Policemen at the gate.

      180

  • #
    rogueelement451

    Why am I thinking of a song?
    Whats the colour of money
    Whats the colour of money
    Some people say its green
    Me I think its red.

    70

  • #
    Manfred

    When is your Green Charity too big? When it loses $5m currency trading

    Well, according to the SMH he lost €3.8 million euros ($5.5 million). He also lost his job, poor chap. Wonder what he’s doing now after being fired? Possibly serving time being rehabilitated in some Arctic protest?

    So this is the hapless crowd striving to become the World’s conscience? Gaia help-us.
    It’s slightly refreshing isn’t it, to see them not beyond snuffling at the same trough as the rest? Reminds one how the potentially less savory forms of human behaviour are also likely to be the least sustainable.

    And as for the Big Green justification, white washed sepulchres spring to mind.

    It is common practice for organisations like ours, with a worldwide presence,” Mr Townsley said. “We would be too exposed to currency fluctuations and risk to lose a lot of money.”

    131

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am thinking that he was fired, because the details ended up in the public domain. Being fired is better than wearing concrete boots at the bottom of a river, I suppose.

      120

      • #
        James Bradley

        Or lost at sea in during a ‘Stop the Whale Hunt’ exercise.

        81

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Hmm, Orca-bait. That has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
          [That is about as far off topic as this line of thinking should go - Fly]

          71

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Funny thing is Orcas and other Cetaceans have long thought to have the ability to shock or stun prey as a hunting method http://www.science20.com/squid_day/do_sperm_whales_use_sonar_stun_giant_squid this theory actually came to mind whilst trying to understand the function of “The Notch”

            Maybe a giant whale like creature cruises our atmosphere disrupting our electromagnetic noise?, actually such a creature could be Greenpeace as they have become bloated enough and love to prey on stunned mullets!

            40

          • #
            Popeye26

            I thought the whole train of comments was coming together quite nicely Fly.

            Rereke didn’t start it either – was that damn James Bradley who dunnit!! :-)

            And then Yonnie continues with the Orca theme – oh, how I love this blog.

            Cheers,

            71

          • #
            James Bradley

            What can I say, Rereke is easily led.

            50

            • #
              the Griss

              Anyway, they appear to be having a whale of a time :-)

              50

              • #
                the Griss

                But seriously guys………… This is serious.. so no jokes.. Ok !?

                50

              • #
                Yonniestone

                I was under the impression that no jokes when discussing “The Notch” but Greenpeace is fair game, so to speak. ;)

                30

            • #
              James Bradley

              … and Yonnie, and Popeye.

              Aw geez, wish it was school holidays.

              40

              • #
                James Bradley

                … and Griss.

                S##t teacher’s coming…..

                40

              • #
                the Griss

                Please James, put an exclamation mark after that first word !!

                I was not a S##T teacher, the kids out in the Western Suburbs are just “misunderstood”. :-)

                I actually got on very well with most of them.

                I think I may even have actually taught some of them something. !

                31

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Is it safe to stop hiding now?

                40

              • #
                James Bradley

                You know what they say, you can take the teacher out of the Western Suburbs…

                20

              • #
                Popeye26

                Reminds me of an old teachers joke from way back.

                Teacher and her 3 boy students:

                Teacher: “Why did you laugh?”
                Boy 1: “I saw a strap of your bra.”
                Teacher: “You are punished to stay out of school for one week.”

                Boy 2 laughed…
                Teacher: “Why did you laugh?”
                Boy 2: “I saw your bra straps.”
                Teacher: “You are punished to stay out of school for one month.”

                Teacher bent down to pickup a chalk. Boy 3 started walking out of the class…
                Teacher: “Why are you leaving?”
                Boy 3: “I think my school days are over.”

                Cheers,

                40

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    Possibly OT, and certainly nothing to do with the CAGW debate. But I cant help wondering how often a rogue GP employee has made an unauthorised gamble that has paid off handsomely, and the rascal was never sacked ?

    These organisations are not, and have not been for generations, your friend.

    91

  • #

    It is okay! I am sure the money was out of the $25,000,000 they took from the natural gas industry!

    72

  • #

    Simon’s Law:
    It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.

    120

  • #
    IainC

    Ha! Greenpeace Inc. To paraphrase Ghandi, first you oppose them, then you understand them, then you join them.

    30

  • #

    Meh, corrupt debased capitalist organisations. Pretty soon, they’ll be whingeing away for a government bailout. Isn’t it strange. Not many charities use their donations punting on foreign exchange markets.

    It’s almost as if they weren’t actually a charity, know wot I mean?

    Pointman

    200

    • #
      Mark D.

      Wait! Pointman, you are serious

      What I think this means is that Greenpeace WAS something. Now the financial markets are moving on. Greenpeace has surpassed it’s “use by date”.

      Happy that!

      50

  • #
    Anthony

    Well I’m glad I didn’t invest donate to that corporation charity.

    60

  • #
    Streetcred

    Don’t know why Greenpus attempted to change its fundraising model, corporate extortion is so less risky than working the markets.

    Hi there Coca Cola, how’re the polar bears ?

    101

    • #
      Manfred

      Not apparently if you’re engaged in so called “ethical investing,” which obviously includes gambling on currencies.

      20

    • #
      Rogueelement451

      Coca cola are putting out a new water product ,spotting that the market for water is worth billions .
      I think they should call it Coca Wata ,what do you reckon?
      Made from pristine ice from Antarctica.
      Please note , not a single penguin died or had its habitat disrupted in the making of this WOTA.

      Come on Jo !! wheres part 5? This is like waiting for the next episode of Game of Thrones !

      20

  • #
    handjive

    UN-IPCC Wealth Re-Distribution.

    Many folk now know “it is not about the environment”.

    Over @theconversation, where any dissenting conversation is deleted, a Doomsday Global Warming advocate highlights(?) the progress of fighting off the climate doomsday, but, like always, offers NO evidence of defeated warming, other than more reams of wasted money with promises of NO success in sight.

    There is so much wrong with this.

    90

    • #
      bobl

      It’s not about wealth redistribution, it’s about power. If it were about equity(wealth redistribution) then the UN would be building power plants everywhere it could fit one, we’d be digging wells, (both water and oil) and fracking away. The battle is for power, power over energy being transferred from national sovereign governments to the unelected UN. It’s effectively a way for the UN to levy a tax by treaty and has the side effect of allowing the UN to manupulate economies. It should be resisted at all costs.

      Best advice, buy land now, become energy independent

      120

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Bob I agree but the concept of owning land could be a shaky idea given the over balanced power of government to compulsory acquire land from the apparent owners, increasing erosion of private property ownership has been a great concern to me and does not sit well.

        80

        • #
          sophocles

          Nobody owns land. Never have, don’t now and never will. What is actually owned is a legal fiction known as a `Title’ which describes the relevant plot and gives the possessor the backing of the law and the support of the authorities (judicial etc) to exclude other people from that plot. That’s all. The possessor of said `Title’ is also pretty limited in what they can do with the land described therein.

          Titles may be Freehold or Leasehold. Leasehold is not so nice: they usually have nasty hooks in them causing all your hard work and the results of your expenditure to revert to the lessor after your lease has expired/terminated/finished/whatever.

          Creating these `Titles’ is really easy. The difficulty is getting everyone else to accept them. Anybody got a spare Army or two lying around?

          30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Sorry, I would love to help, but all my armies are busy right now.

            20

            • #
              scaper...

              My army is searching for the Holy Grail.

              It’s a rent seeker thang. Got my eye on a piece of vacant Crown land. For research, mind you.

              20

          • #
            Popeye26

            Buggar the Army – who wnts to sit in a tank and get phosphorised – that’s why I joined the Navy (Senior Service) :-)

            Cheers,

            10

  • #
    bobl

    What gets me is their 1/2 Billion dollar P/A income, that’s far too much, beyond a charity. The government, our government needs to look at Greenpeaces activities and tax status urgently. Especially given the parlous state of the budget, come on Mr, Hockey, you know you want to. I also advocate new rules for charities, if they operate commercially, like currency trading or product endorsement, oops I mean protection rackets, or they are a lobby group, then tax free status is off the table. I dont like the3 government payong lobby groups to lobby the government, too much corruption potential. It’s like, here’s a couple of million, go out there and spend it lobbying us to introduce this 11 Bn carbon tax, so that we can justify it to the public. Biggest endorsement racket yet! All tax-free charities to be hauled under FOI legislation as they, like the government, are publicly funded.

    One other point though, we need to make a reasonable attempt to reveal Greenpeace’s funding sources, they don’t get this rich by passing the plate around at meetings of the faithful. Using Greenpeaces own MO some of those sources could be cut off. For example I never buy products endorsed by Oxfam, Greenpeace or WWF because of those organisations political nature, and because so little goes the the real cause. Perhaps the protection rackets product endorsement rackets they run can be broken. Let’s these companies know you are turned off their produxts by the fake endorsements. I wrote to coca-cola amatil on the polar bear thing.

    121

    • #
      PeterK

      Greenpeace no longer has charity status here in Canada since 1995.

      http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/10/taxman-audits-enviro-groups-panic

      20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Do you think that people have not tried to follow the money trails? The organisation seems to be specifically designed to be opaque to external analysis. Not that people have not tried.

      It would be useful for organisations with charitable status, to be required to publish their organisation structure, the people within that structure, the roles they perform, and their budgetary authority. But with pan-national organisations like Greenpeace, it is not going to happen.

      20

    • #
      Peter C

      Is Green peace one of the 60,000 registered charities in Australia? I would like to reduce that figure by a lot.

      10

  • #
    mikemUK

    As a confirmed cynic, I can’t help wondering if that ‘currency exchange loss’ was in reality euros into roubles, to quietly redeem the ‘Arctic Sunrise’ boat (or whatever it’s called) from the Russian coastguards who, quite justifiably, had confiscated it from the Greenpeace pirates.

    151

  • #
    pat

    “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” – Rahm Emanuel. Wall St. Journal 2008:

    17 June: Guardian: John Vidal: Greenpeace’s £3m gamble could yet reap dividends in the fight against climate change
    Yes, Greenpeace got it wrong – but if it only costs £3m to prove that speculation on risky markets is madness, it may be money well spent
    PHOTO CAPTION? ‘Greenpeace may like to be seen as the brave underdog, but it employs 2,200 people, turns over about £200m a year worldwide and is just as much as multinational as the oil and chemical companies that it challenges in court or at sea.’ Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian

    Its political enemies smirk, thousands of small donors question the Amsterdam-based organisation’s financial competence, and the folk who make a business of pointing out other people’s faults are humbled and have to apologise.
    On the surface this seems like many other finance scandals, with a single person, a rogue trader, blamed for what is probably an institutional failure…
    The £3m loss also hides the fact that even without its rogue trader the group lost money last year. The recession has been particularly hard for international charities, who are increasingly constricted by governments and have had to cut staff, reduce salaries and retract, thanks largely to the greed of bankers and financial institutions who plunged whole economies into crisis with their risk-taking…
    It hurts when Greenpeace loses the widows’ mite, but it will be nowhere near as painful as when countries such as Bangladesh or the Maldives are told there is no money in the Green Climate Fund, the IMF or the World Bank to build defences against rising sea levels or storm surges because anonymous rogue traders and trusted financiers in New York or London have misjudged the market and lost billions…
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/17/greenpeace-3m-gamble-dividends-climate-change

    30

  • #
    pat

    18 June: Bloomberg: Greenpeace Currency Loss the Latest Sour Deal to Prompt Reforms
    By Lukanyo Mnyanda
    As far back as 2008 the Amsterdam-based nonprofit organization said it was reviewing treasury procedures to reduce“exposure against such foreign-exchange fluctuations.” The latest loss has prompted another review, with new rules approved on authorizing transactions and ensuring similar financial instruments cannot be used without the board agreeing, according to Mike Townsley, communications director at Greenpeace International.
    “We’ve completely rewritten our authorization policy to make it absolutely explicit who can authorize which transaction and who can sign off invoices,” Townsley said in a telephone interview from Mexico City today. “There have been two failures. One, an individual acting outside their authority, and the second is that the existing systems were not adequate.” …
    …Greenpeace was hurt by the euro’s 8.2 percent gain last year versus nine major peers. It said an employee in its finance unit bet the euro wouldn’t strengthen and that the person had since been relieved of their position…
    Townsley declined to name the employee involved or the institution that arranged the transaction, which he described as a futures contract linked to the euro. The fault was at Greenpeace rather than with the company that arranged the transaction, he said…
    Greenpeace hasn’t always been on the wrong side of bets in the $5.3 trillion-a-day global foreign-exchange market. It made profits on currency transactions in each of the three years through 2011, according to published annual reports.
    Last year’s loss contributed to a 2013 deficit of 6.8 million euros, Greenpeace said in a statement posted on its website on June 15. The organization, which operates in more than 40 countries, said it had income of 72.9 million euros in 2013 out of a global budget of about 300 million euros.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-17/greenpeace-currency-loss-the-latest-sour-deal-to-prompt-reforms.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    17 June: Hindustan Times: Greenpeace case: Essar to cite IB report
    The Essar Group, which has filed a Rs. 500-crore defamation suit against Greenpeace, a leading international ecological activist group, is expected to cite a recent Intelligence Bureau report, which called several NGOs, including Greenpeace, “a threat to national economic security”.
    On January 22 this year, a group of Greenpeace activists masquerading as cleaning staff entered the Essar Group’s head office in Mumbai’s Mahalaxmi Race Course area and unfurled a 72-feet long banner saying: “We kill forests: Essar”.
    They were protesting against the allocation of a coal mine in Mahan in Madhya Pradesh…
    Activists fear that the Essar suit and the IB report may lead to a rash of similar cases against Greenpeace and other NGOs.
    Two days later, on January 24, the Bombay HC passed an interim order restraining Greenpeace and its representatives from entering the Essar head office and from holding any demonstrations within 100 metres from it…
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/greenpeace-case-essar-to-cite-ib-report/article1-1230564.aspx

    17 June: FinancialExpress: Essar seeks to join IB in suit against Greenpeace
    A week after the Intelligence Bureau (IB) submitted a report to the Prime Minister’s Office calling foreign-funded NGO Greenpeace “a threat to national economic security”, the Essar Group on Monday sought to include the IB report as supporting evidence in the defamation suit filed against the NGO in the Bombay High Court…
    Besides Greenpeace, the other defendants in the suit include NGOs Clear Sweep and Mahan Sangharsh Samiti…
    Earlier, the court had come down heavily on the NGO and asked them to remove defamatory content against the Essar Group including that from their website, posters and leaflets…
    The report also stated that Greenpeace, “actively aided and led by foreign activists visiting India”, of violating the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act of 2010 (FCRA), and financing “sympathetic studies” at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) and at IIT-Delhi.
    http://www.financialexpress.com/news/essar-seeks-to-join-ib-in-suit-against-greenpeace/1261397

    30

  • #
    Bulldust

    The ferals in the Upper House handed Abbott a pointless double dissolution trigger:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/senate-defeats-clean-energy-bill-sets-up-double-dissolution-trigger/story-e6frg6xf-1226958601249

    Not like it will get used, so the entire exercise is a delaying stunt.

    70

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      When you consider the implications of the Fascists Greens strategy, it becomes obvious just how dense politically the old cow really is.

      30

    • #
      King Geo

      The New Senate post July 1 will see a landmark “changing of the guard” – the Greens will lose their balance of power in the Upper House. It has been a “House of Horrors” (for the Oz Economy) during the past 6 years – but not anymore.

      33 Coalition + 3 PUP + 3 of the 5 Minor Party Senators = the magical number of 39 – you have all heard of that great Hitchcock movie “The 39 Steps” – well post July 1 we will have “The 39 Votes” that will destroy the Carbon Tax (CT)& Mining Tax (MT) in one fell swoop – Game, Set & Match – and that’s the Ball Game won in Oz folks. Borrowing Mel Blank’s famous headstone one liner “That’s All Folks – RIP the CT & MT”.

      51

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Closer to home I’d be more interested in the dirt on the Wilderness Society. On the one hand they do an okay job of exposing the B.S. excuses that the government gives for some of its decisions. eg the decision to delist 72000km^2 of Tasmanian wilderness from World Heritage on the basis it had been logged before and should not have been listed in the first place. Turned out only 7000sq.km had been logged before. It’s not that forestry can’t be done sustainably, but why would the Libs have to lie about it?

    Then on the other hand they tell porkies about the dangers of coal seam gas. They seized on news of a leak at drilling water recycling tank as evidence that CSG drilling is dangerous – as though that leak has anything to do with the drilling.

    They recently got funding for their Qld wild rivers campaign from the Pew Foundation, which makes you wonder why a charity founded by a mining baron wants to stop development in Western Qld, or maybe that’s my imagination.

    Is there in fact something inherently anti-human about being environmentally conservative, or is there some happy balance?

    71

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      To give some perspective to the economic mayhem that the Greens Fascists have wreaked on poor old Tasmania, take a look at the comparison maps here. Tasmania is an island the same size as Ireland. Explain to me why ALL of this natural resource must be taken out of production for the self-centred enjoyment of a handful of narcissists in downtown Melbourne and Sydney.

      40

  • #
    handjive

    Settled Science Update:

    Jun 06, 2012
    (Phys.org) — The dramatic melt-off of Arctic sea ice due to climate change is hitting closer to home than millions of Americans might think. That’s because melting Arctic sea ice can trigger a domino effect leading to increased odds of severe winter weather outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere’s middle latitudes — think the “Snowmageddon” storm that hamstrung Washington, D.C., during February 2010.

    Jun 15, 2014
    (Phys.org) — Climate change is unlikely to lead to more days of extreme cold, similar to those that gripped the USA in a deep freeze last winter, new research has shown.
    . . .
    fwiw, the 2012 link was at the foot of the 2014 link.

    50

  • #
    pat

    MSM give so much space to NGOs, that is one of the problems. two anti-coal activists get to insult the Govt….again:

    17 June: SBS: Comment: Time for a reality check on climate change collaboration
    Just as the rest of the world is getting into gear, Australia and its attempted coalition of the unwilling is standing as a barrier to genuine cooperation on climate change.
    By Victoria McKenzie-McHarg
    When he (the PM) met with President Obama last week, it was not exactly a meeting of the minds…
    Victoria McKenzie-McHarg is program manager of the Australian Conservation Foundation’s climate change campaign.
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/17/comment-time-reality-check-climate-change-collaboration

    17 June: SMH: Bill McKibben: Tony Abbott’s climate change policy makes me cringe
    Americans who travelled abroad during the George W. Bush years have some sympathy for Australians and Canadians right now – it’s not easy being citizens of countries run by international laughing stocks. People laugh at you, then get angry: just remember Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or referring to Australia as Austria.
    Americans have a slightly easier time of it at the moment. Barack Obama is no Winston Churchill, and there’s still plenty of reason for the rest of the world to look askance (drone attacks, the NSA collecting your Gmail). But at least he’s a serious human being with a wide-ranging intellect…
    Author and journalist Bill McKibben is co-founder of climate change movement, 350.org.
    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbotts-climate-change-policy-makes-me-cringe-20140617-zsa7t.html

    40

  • #
    Skiphil

    “No Greenpeace campaign would suffer as a result of the loss, which would be absorbed by reducing expenses such as infrastructure over the next two to three years.”

    a huge ROFL here….. losing $5 million dollars doesn’t affect operations???? This is surely one definition of bureaucratic bloat: oh, we can cut $5 million dollars and it won’t affect our operations one little bit”

    What a bunch of clowns.

    61

  • #
    pat

    17 June: Washington Times: Kristen East: Climate change scientists stand by 97 percent figure
    Half of Americans “don’t know there is a consensus”
    “Do we still need to do this in 2014? Sometimes things, they need to be said more than once, [but] it’s really horrible that we even have to be having this conversation,” said Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor of history in science, who co-authored a study that posited the 97 percent claim more than 10 years ago.
    Ms. Oreskes and Peter Jacobs, a researcher in environmental science at George Mason University, said that while Republicans and Democrats hold staunchly opposing views on climate change, the 97 percent statistic remains a subject up for debate only because Americans aren’t aware of the extent of the consensus within the science community.
    “There’s an enormous disconnect between lines of what scientists think and what Americans think the scientists believe,” Mr. Jacobs said. “More than half of Americans don’t know that there is a consensus.”…
    Mr. Jacobs acknowledged that while scientists have been wrong before — citing the lack of consensus over the theory of plate tectonics as an example — he said, “uncertainty has two faces.
    “Just because [the climate change consensus] may not turn out to be exactly correct, that doesn’t mean that things are going to be great,” he said. “Things could turn out to be much worse. We could just as well end up on the bottom as on the top.”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/17/climate-change-scientists-stand-by-97-percent-figu/

    10

  • #
    DT

    Greenpeace is a socialist not for profit organisation, clearly.

    61

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, I will ignore their tax exempt status and allow myself a little warm glow.

    30

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    India has had enough of Greenpeace. If only Australia had as much sense.

    41

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Did you think the AWU scandal was shocking? Take a look at this!

    50

  • #
    Tim

    “We’ve had a little blip with one of our investments, guys…could one of you get the petty cash tin out of that drawer for me.”

    30

  • #
    Andrew

    I do think this one is a beat up though, IF accurately reported – they receive EUR and spend USD; some hedging is hardly ususual. Their statement even implied it’s normal practice, and they would do it again.

    So why the firing? Why the big loss if they routinely hedge to USD? Have they previously overstated profits by taking EUR hedging gains instead of hedge accounting them? Why the alarming wording?

    My theories:
    - fraud
    - the Russian situation identified earlier
    - or they simply blew their wad by EUR 6m and invented the “hedging” thing as a lie. Some people (eg Guardian) might even sympathise with them being “done over” by a broker. Might even make a donation to help them out. But the other 3 would sound really bad and do more harm.

    21

  • #
    Peter C

    Might even make a donation to help them out.

    Andrew I hope that you do not do that!

    00

    • #
      Andrew

      My previous sentence said I expect some people to feel sorry for them – such people might donate out of a misguided sympathy. I am not one of them.

      00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Damn! Got me hooked! I ran over here as soon as I had finished the morning status report looking for #5.

    As for gambling, I spent 15 years working for a casino Company. I learned a lot about how the games are played. The most important thing I learned however, is the odds are always on the house side.

    The greens should know that the likes of Soros are stacking the deck in currency trading – they are the house. And no one beats the house over the long run.

    40

  • #
    Anton Garrett

    Ha ha ha ha ha!

    10

  • #
    Carbon500

    The Guardian states that the offending Greenpeace employee has ‘been released from his contract.’
    I prefer the more traditional and direct ‘fired’ or ‘dismissed’.
    Mustn’t use nasty words like ‘getting the sack’, must we?

    10

  • #
    David Smith

    A lackey from Greenp*ss came on to The Gruaniad’s site and posted the following rather useless attempt at face-saving:

    Hi, Marie from Greenpeace UK here.
    This is a really horrible situation. If it helps, to be really clear about what happened, the staff member who lost their job didn’t gamble on stock markets or speculate on currency.
    We have to exchange currencies because we work in more than 40 countries. What went wrong was that someone without proper authority signed contracts to exchange currency. And that ended up losing money because the value of the Euro fell.
    It’s like choosing a fixed rate mortgage rather than a variable rate mortgage to avoid risky fluctuations – but this time we would have been better off with a variable rate. The staff member didn’t have the authority to make such a big decision.
    Of course the responsibility isn’t just with this one person – managers are taking full responsibility and we’ve strengthened our financial procedures so it can’t happen again.
    We’re not going to take any money away from our frontline campaigns to save the Arctic and protect rainforests and oceans. Instead we’ll delay spending on some IT and infrastructure projects and other things that are important too, but can take a bit longer to be delivered.
    Sorry if anyone feels disappointed, we’re all feeling pretty disappointed today too.

    10

    • #
      Manfred

      How transparent is the quest for Greenista world dominance, world taxation, energy control……control the energy and you control EVERYTHING……?
      Read the following from CNS news. Apparently, all a good terrorist needs is a better energy policy.

      Cruz said neither President Obama — nor former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her recent television interviews — is willing to “utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorists.’ They do not understand the radical religious extremism of individuals committed to jihad who had pledged to murder Americans.

      “And that leads them to keep making the mistakes over and over and over again, whether it is releasing five senior Taliban terrorists without understanding that these individuals will likely return to active warfare against the United States; whether it is in the case of Iraq, not understanding the threat posed by ISIS.”

      As if to prove Cruz’s point, Secretary of State John Kerry told a conference in Washington earlier on Tuesday that poverty is the problem and “energy policy” is the solution:

      “The world is waiting for people to be put to work,” Kerry told a conference on oceans at the State Department: “We have extreme poverty; we have terrorism that comes out of it. We have any number of problems that could be cured by energy policy that makes sense…”

      Gaia help us…though I guess Greenista may find it tricky to convert ISIS to their secular credo.

      20

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Is Congress and the Obama administration really the government of the USA?

        “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” – Edward Bernays – Propaganda – 1928

        20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I think Marie from Greenpeace should have previewed her post.
      Firstly, the excuse given originally was that the value of the Euro had risen, not fallen.
      Secondly, the amount risked had to be around 50 million euros to get that sort of loss. If some lowly employee is betting amounts like that without the managers, and indeed the Board (given the share of their turnover), knowing of it then it isn’t the employee who should have been sacked for incompetence.

      00

  • #
    David Smith

    our frontline campaigns to save the Arctic…

    Chortle :)

    41

  • #
    pat

    u can save the planet from CAGW by building affordable housing:

    16 June: Reuters Point Carbon: California okays use of carbon market funds to boost mass transit
    SAN FRANCISCO, June 16 (Reuters) – The California state legislature has approved a plan that will build affordable housing near transportation hubs like bus and railroad stations using revenue raised from its carbon market.
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.5579517?&ref=searchlist

    or by letting “a hundred flowers bloom” in China!

    18 June: Reuters: RPT-PREVIEW-China to launch final CO2 exchange, national scheme uncertain
    By David Stanway and Kathy Chen
    China launches its seventh and final pilot carbon market in the sprawling city of Chongqing on Thursday, but plans to set up a national trading scheme within three years remain shrouded in uncertainty in the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases…
    The ultimate aim of the seven pilot projects, experts had said, was to “let a hundred flowers bloom” in order to find the trading system that suits China the most, which would then form the basis of a national scheme…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/18/china-carbon-idUKL4N0OZ1UF20140618

    00

  • #
    pat

    MSM has no interest in the truth or otherwise of CAGW claims:

    19 June: Australian: AFP: Republican ex-EPA chiefs voice support for new carbon rules
    Four former heads of the US Environmental Protection Agency who served under Republican presidents have urged politicians to stop bickering over whether climate change is real, and start finding solutions…
    The four former EPA administrators who testified at the hearing served under presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush.
    As a group, the quartet penned an op-ed in The New York Times last year that said there was no longer any credible debate over whether humans were causing climate change…
    “The two parties were able to rally around a common purpose in the early days of environmental policy making,” said Christine Todd Whitman, a former New Jersey governor who served as EPA chief under George W. Bush from 2001 to 2003.
    “It is urgent that they do so again.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/republican-ex-epa-chiefs-voice-support-for-new-carbon-rules/story-e6frg90f-1226959699024

    in the MSM, u can make any CAGW claims u like, provided they support the scam, & they will be published:

    19 June: SMH: AAP: Carbon policy pits Australia against US, Ross Garnaut says
    PHOTO CAPTION: Bushfire seasons are predicted to worsen with climate change
    The former government adviser says China, Europe and the US are gearing up for another big effort to address climate change and by scrapping its detailed and sophisticated carbon laws, Australia is going against this…
    “We will be a drag on the international system.”
    He said the move was particularly puzzling when the world’s two big emitters, China and the US, whose inaction had previously been a problem, were committing themselves to very strong action.
    “We have set ourselves against our ally the United States on a major question of policy in a way that we haven’t done since the Ottawa conference in 1931,” Prof Garnaut said, referring to a meeting of dominion leaders in the wake of Britain’s decision to ditch free trade during the Great Depression…
    The comments came at the release of a report by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) into the economic trouble Australia could face without an appropriate response to climate change.
    The report says Australia faces the risk of growing repair bills from extreme weather and barriers to major project investment.
    CEDA chief executive Stephen Martin said policy makers need to recognise climate change is an economic issue, not just an environmental issue.
    “Statistics show that the number of catastrophic weather events is increasing and the economic losses associated with these events are also trending up,” Prof Martin said…
    He said Cyclone Yasi, Black Saturday, the Queensland floods and other weather events have had a direct impact on industry and on most Australians’ hip pocket…
    “Australia is reliant on foreign capital to fund major projects and new developments in international climate change policy are likely to impact international capital flow and investment decision making,” Prof Martin said.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-policy-pits-australia-against-us-ross-garnaut-says-20140619-zse2l.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    ***garnaut tells one truth – “It would help the Treasurer [Joe Hockey] meet his budget objectives”:

    19 June: AFR: Nassim Khadem: Labor ‘not strong’ on climate change
    Professor Ross Garnaut, a prominent economist whose climate change policy for the former Labor government led to the ­carbon tax, does not expect Labor to have a strong policy for the 2016 ­election, despite a promise by ­Opposition Leader Bill Shorten Labor was bound to an emissions trading scheme…
    “It’s very likely the next election will be fought on whatever the polls of the day say,” Professor Garnaut told a ­Committee for Economic Development of Australia lunch in Melbourne on Wednesday. “The Opposition will seek to find the particular points of weakness in the polls and go for that. We have a ­problem in our political culture. We will not succeed in addressing the great problems of Australia. Climate change is one, but it’s not the only one.”
    Asked what alternative policies on climate change political parties should now focus on, he said there were none that were as efficient as the carbon tax.
    “It [the carbon tax] is working, it’s highly efficient, and not damaging the economy,” he said.
    ***“It would help the Treasurer [Joe Hockey] meet his budget objectives. It would keep us in good standing with the President of the United States. It would send signals to our business that we’ve wasted tens of billions on old economic investments since China changed its model of ­economic growth.”…
    He said the Coalition in opposition agreed to targets to cut emissions and had abandoned that. “The government hopes we forget about it. Maybe the Australian people will forget about it, but President Obama won’t, [UK] Prime Minister [David] Cameron won’t, ­[German] Chancellor [Angela] Merkel won’t,” he said…
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/labor_not_strong_on_climate_change_05W2EFcAKwMjsEiauQjXrJ

    18 June: Businessweek: AP: Hope Yen: Big coal company sues over carbon emissions rules
    The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by Murray Energy, based in St. Clairsville, Ohio.
    Murray Energy says it’s the nation’s largest privately owned coal company. It employs 7,200 people in West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Utah. It calls the EPA regulations illegal and argues they’ll destroy jobs…
    An EPA spokeswoman won’t comment on the lawsuit. But she says the EPA “writes solid rules and they stand up in court.”
    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-06-18/murray-energy-sues-over-carbon-emissions-rules

    00

  • #
    pat

    ABC, WaPo, then Bloomberg, now WSJ & NBC – all declaring cash-strapped americans thrilled to pay up to defeat CAGW, tho not happy about almost everything else in the WSJ/NBC poll! & if u believee any of these polls, u must be a slave to the MSM:

    sample size equivalent of 71 australians:

    18 June: WSJ: Amy Harder: Obama Carbon Rule Backed by Most Americans — WSJ/NBC Poll
    More than two-thirds of Americans support President Barack Obama’s new climate rule and more than half say the U.S. should address global warming even if it means higher electricity bills, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
    Widespread support for the carbon rule, unveiled by the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month, is a rare bright spot for Mr. Obama, who otherwise received mostly low marks by poll respondents on topics ranging from his overall competence to his administration’s decision to trade five imprisoned Taliban officials in exchange for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
    The poll finds that 67% of respondents either strongly or somewhat support EPA’s new rule, while only 29% oppose it. Americans are also increasingly willing to stomach higher electricity costs in order to cut carbon emissions. More than half of poll respondents—57%—said they would support a proposal requiring companies to cut greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming even if it means higher utility bills. That figure is up 9 percentage points since October 2009…
    The poll, conducted June 11 through 15, surveyed 1,000 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/18/obama-carbon-rule-backed-by-most-americans-wsjnbc-poll/

    just 5 months ago! sample size of 57 australians:

    28 Jan: Climate Depot: New WSJ/NBC Poll: ‘Addressing climate change’ is the dead-last, lowest priority issue for Americans
    The 800 respondents to the survey rank job-creation and deficit-reduction as high priorities, while assigning the lowest priority among 13 foreign and domestic issues to “addressing climate change.” …
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/28/new-wsjnbc-poll-addressing-climate-change-is-the-dead-last-lowest-priority-issue-for-americans/

    it looks like u have to be a SUBSCRIBER to get the questions & full details of the poll!
    http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-wall-street-journalnbc-news-poll-1378786510?tesla=y

    00

  • #
    pat

    just heard max keiser/stacy herbert having a bit of a laugh over the greenpeace story. max said greenpeace should go after the financial fraud first before they go after anyone else.

    because abc did a single low-key piece on the story, i’m posting this, just for fun. gone are the days when a single complaint to a media company could bring about changes:

    19 June: Herald Sun: Aunty programs draw the most complaints from TV viewers
    The Drum, Dumb, Drunk and Racist, Catalyst, Lateline, Gruen Transfer, Four Corners and Q & A were among the ABC programs investigated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
    There were also complaints alleging biased political interviews with Environment Minister Greg Hunt on ABC News Breakfast and then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on the 7.30 Report.
    ACMA has launched 29 formal investigations this year after receiving viewer complaints, including 12 programs aired on the ABC.
    Eleven of the complaints accused the national broadcaster of “bias and inaccuracies” while one concerned an alleged left-wing bias on Q & A…
    None of the 12 complaints against the ABC was upheld by ACMA…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/arts/aunty-programs-draw-the-most-complaints-from-tv-viewers/story-fni0fcgk-1226959204755

    00

  • #
    pat

    abc has already repeated this overnite. it inevitably turns to CAGW, & Chubb quotes Unilever’s Paul Polman:

    19 June: ABC Big Ideas: Invest in science
    Australia’s chief scientist says that our social and economic prosperity depends on an investment in science research and education. Failure to invest now will impoverish Australian society in the future.
    Guest:
    Professor Ian Chubb AC
    Australia’s Chief Scientist
    For further info: The Cranlana Programme
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/invest-in-science/5533524

    sharing the program was Dame Julia Cleverdon DCVO CBE, Chief Executive Business in the Community UK, (who served for 16 years as Chief Executive of Business in the Community, one of the Prince’s Charities of Charles, Prince of Wales). her topic is
    “Corporate social responsibility”. it inevitably turns to CAGW, & Cleverdon quotes Paul Polman of Unilever.

    both have references to The Cranlana Programme for further info.

    more to come.

    00

  • #
    pat

    the abc’s big ideas speeches were recorded outside, as Chubb & Cleverdon travelled around the country, it seems. i forget which event they recorded:

    18 May: American Thinker: Sierra Rayne: Any Way You Want It: Australian Climate Modeling
    This brings us to a recent troubling two-part speech given to the Carbon Market Institute Conference in Melbourne by Ian Chubb, the chief scientist of Australia, and subsequently published in the Business Spectator. The greatest concern is that we even have “chief scientists.” What exactly are they supposed to be? No single individual can be taken to reliably represent, and certainly not lead, the broad, diverse – and often conflicting – realm of science. Science is, and works best as, a collection of independent individuals each speaking their own minds…
    Chubb’s speech was apparently entitled “a science lesson for Maurice Newman and Senator Brandis.” His statements are a litany of contradictions…
    “Ask for ‘proof’, even though such a demand shows little understanding of how science works. For a start, what would be the controlled experiment? It would need our world plus a parallel planet the same as ours with all the variables except human beings?”
    For a chief scientist of a major industrialized nation to state that asking for proof illustrates a very poor understanding of how science works demonstrates clearly how truly off-course most of the scientific establishment now is….

    ***And why is Chubb quoting with approval the CEO of Unilever in his speech? According to Wikipedia, Paul Polman has a BBA/BA, an MBA, and an MA in economics. Is he a natural scientist? Doesn’t appear so. Unilever is a private enterprise, and one whose sole goal is to maximize profits for its owners. Multinational corporations have little, if any, real interest in getting the climate science right. Quite frankly, their business opinion is entirely irrelevant when it comes to the valid scientific debates over climate projections.
    Since when did science become dependent on this type of name-dropping, anyway?…
    http://www.americanthinker.com/assets/3rd_party/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/any_way_you_want_it_australian_climate_modeling.html

    9 May: BusinessSpectator: Ian Chubb: A science lesson for Maurice Newman and Senator Brandis: Part II
    This is the second half of a speech Australia’s chief scientist delivered to the Carbon Market Institute Conference in Melbourne this week. The first is available here…
    In a recent speech, Paul Polman, CEO of multinational Unilever, said…
    (FROM THE FEW COMMENTS: ‘DENIERS’ ‘FLAT-EARTHERS’ ETC)
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/9/science-environment/science-lesson-maurice-newman-and-senator-brandis-part-ii

    Australian Government: Chief Scientist: 30-MINUTE PUBLIC LECTURE PLUS 30-MINUTE Q&A
    THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE TO AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE
    Business is also taking action. Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, said recently: Left unchecked, climate change has the potential to become a significant barrier to our growth strategy, and that of just about every other company…
    There is the Medical Research Future Fund; good in principle, but until we know the rules, we won’t have any idea how will it affect the rest of the research system on which medical research depends.
    Margaret Shiel, provost of the University of Melbourne where presumably a fair bit of Medical Research Future Fund money will be spent was quoted as saying: there are so many issues around research in the budget, it’s hard to be celebrating this one bit
    http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/140522_AdelaidePublicLecture_FINALWEB.pdf

    i’m not even a fan of the Medical Research Future Fund because i believe it’s going to give funding to the same academic institutions getting all the CAGW funding, & that the Govt is probably trying to keep them on side as they try to dismantle the CAGW scam. nonetheless, it’s no surprise to see Chubb – “our chief scientist” – rubbishing the Govt on more than one policy.

    00

  • #
    pat

    a few examples of Cleverdon & Unilever appearing in the same links:

    Common Purpose: PART1 What is leading beyond authority?
    Step by step or leaps and bounds?
    Do you need to progress circle by circle? In some ways, that helps, sothat you take sensible steps outwards. Don’t do it in one big bound. Julia Cleverdon, Chief Executive of Business in the Community, says: “Do it in small incremental steps.” Circle by circle…
    Richard Greenhalgh is Chair of First Milk Limited and Templeton College, Oxford, and former Chair of Unilever in the UK…
    I came to the outer circles quite late in my career – and, at first, verymuch as an ambassador for the company…
    http://www.commonpurpose.org/media/25603/lba_chapter1.pdf

    the following rambles, but makes for fascinating reading:

    April 2010: Slideshare: Directions 2007 – Cutting through the noise of climate change
    Document Transcript
    26 Fighting climate change – as well as other challenges to sustainable business Julia Cleverdon, Chief Executive of Business in the Community…
    Unilever has a working group which is trying to tackle the whole range of emissions from product to consumer use. So they give a real Emissions status impression of strategically getting to grips with all levels of their impacts (though they are yet to communicate on how to adapt to CO2 from energy use going down changes caused by the climate). Unilever is also the leader in its sector in the Carbon Disclosure Project…
    http://www.slideshare.net/salterbaxter/directions-2007-cutting-through-the-noise-of-climate-change

    Porritt has a huge “Green”/CAGW history – see wikipedia”

    JonathonPorritt.com: JP Priorities
    A summary of those aspects of the Forum’s work that I’m most closely involved in…
    Unilever
    I’ve worked with Unilever over a longer period of time and on a wider range of issues than with any other company! I’ve been a member of the Unilever Sustainable Development Group (formally the Unilever Environment Group) since 1996, and the Forum has had a formal partnership with Unilever since 1998.
    For the last couple of years, I’ve been acting as a Special Advisor on the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, which was launched in Nov 2010. I meet regularly with Unilever’s Chief Executive Officer, Paul Polman, and other members of the Unilever Executive Team. My key contacts are Gail Klintworth (Chief Sustainability Officer) and Karen Hamilton (Vice President Sustainability). My work with Unilever takes me to India, China, Indonesia, Brazil and the USA.
    I bang on about the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan in almost every presentation I give…
    Carillion Plc
    Carillion set up a Board-level Sustainability Committee many years ago. I’ve been involved from the start, first under Neville Simms and now under CEO Richard Howson.
    ***(The other external Advisor is Julia Cleverdon, former CEO of Business in the Community)…
    Three years ago, they agreed on a new Strategy, which has brought some much-needed focus to what had become a somewhat baggy and process-driven old Strategy, with much more demanding targets and performance measures.
    At more or less the same time, Carillion acquired Eaga, to create a new unit inside Carillion (Carillion Energy Services). This is a big deal for the company, with an eye on the huge retrofit market here in the UK as and when ‘the Green Deal’ eventually lands…
    http://www.jonathonporritt.com/Forum%20for%20the%20Future/jp-priorities

    also found on a cached page of a G4S conference, Cleverdon quoting:

    “Trust departs on a fast horse galloping and returns slowly, if ever, on foot,” Niall Fitzgerald, former Chief Executive, Unilever UK.

    one final comment to come.

    00

  • #
    pat

    no matter how influential the CAGW players are; no matter how amenable the MSM are to their Agenda…

    19 June: CNS News: Michael W. Chapman: Gallup: Public Confidence in TV News at All-Time Low
    Only 18 percent of the Americans surveyed expressed either a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in that news medium.
    Gallup has been asking the following question annually since 1993…
    In the latest survey, conducted June 5-8, only 10 percent said they had “a great deal” of confidence in T.V. news, and 8 percent said they had “quite a lot” of confidence…
    The previous low was in 2012, when a combined 21 percent said they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in television news. In 2013, it was 23 percent.
    In 1993, the first year Gallup asked Americans about their confidence in T.V. news, 46 percent said they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in it. It’s never been that high again…
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/gallup-public-confidence-tv-news-all-time-low

    00