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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Billionaires club fund Green Blob “Climate Works”

David Rose at the Daily Mail has been following a network of money. The big machine funding climate activism is Climate Works, which was kicked off with a half billion from a Hewlett Foundation in 2008 (as in Hewlett-Packard).  Other donations are in the order of $60 -  $100 million, any one of them vastly larger by orders of magnitude than budgets that skeptical groups operate on (if they have a budget at all).

It takes a lot of money to keep a false idea alive.  This is just another Wall of Money. Yet despite that, skeptics are winning battles, unwinding schemes, shrinking the Green gravy trains, and spreading the word.  It’s amazing what a small group of volunteers and barely funded skeptics can achieve with only their wits and truth on their side. (Thank you to the readers who help us, it makes a big difference.)

ClimateWorks feeds money to the whole gamut of groups like Greenpeace, WWF, and the usual suspects, and it partners with the European Climate Foundation, and in the US, the Energy Foundation. There are Chinese and Indian branches and an Australian Climate Works as well (but it’s not clear how or if the latter is connected.)

Ultimately, the Billionaires Clubs in the US were dodging tax using loopholes to gain more political influence for their buck, and quite a few boards are filled with positions of former politicians and bureaucrats (more jobs for the boys?). It’s a money-go-round.

Climate Change Scare Machine, Graphic, financial flows, Global Warming, Activists, Lobyists, non-governmental sector, taxpayers.

The Climate Change Scare Chart was created in 2011. It needs an update and more details. Layers and layers of details.

Daily Mail

Follow the money

The most significant source for the ECF’s millions is a body called Climate Works – a private foundation which channels colossal sums to climate campaigners worldwide.

The Climate Works manifesto was set out in 2007 in a document entitled ‘Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming’. It said that to be effective, a campaign to change government policies on energy and emissions would need at least $600 million from donors.

According to leading energy analyst Peter Atherton of Liberum Capital, current UK energy policies shaped by the Blob will cost between £360 billion and £400 billion to implement by 2030. He said this will see bills rise by at least a third in real terms – on top of the increases already seen over the past ten years.

It was driven by the belief that without radical action, ‘we could lose the fight against global warming over the next ten years’.

It advocated the giving of generous grants to local campaigners in countries such as Britain who had detailed knowledge of the way their political systems operated.

As well as better energy efficiency, carbon taxes and emissions caps, they must ‘promote renewables and low emission alternatives’. Utility companies must be given ‘financial incentives’ – in other words, enormous subsidies from tax and bill payers – to make this happen.

Climate Works soon achieved its ambitious fundraising target, with a grant in 2008 of $500 million from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which spends the fortune amassed by the co-founder of the Hewlett-Packard computer firm. This was followed by further grants of up to $100 million, and donations of $60 million from the sister Packard foundation. In July, a report by a US Senate committee named the Hewlett foundation as a key element in a ‘billionaires’ club’ which effectively controlled the environmental movement, pumping more than half a billion dollars a year into green groups around the world.

It claimed these ‘wealthy liberals fully exploit the benefits of a generous tax code meant to promote genuine philanthropy and charitable acts’, but instead were transferring money to ‘activists’ to ‘promote shared political goals’.

One of the US-based Climate Works’s first acts was to set up and fund ECF as its European regional office. All ECF’s main funders are represented on ECF’s board, including Charlotte Pera, who is also Climate Works’s CEO. Susan Bell, ECF’s vice-chairman, was formerly the Hewlett foundation’s vice-president.

Another director is Kate Hampton, an executive director at the Children’s Investment Fund, a UK charity with assets worth £324 million.Others come from finance and business. ECF’s chairman is Caio Koch-Weser, vice-chairman of Deutsche Bank, whose contacts in Brussels could not be better: from 2003–5, he chaired the EU’s Economic and Financial committee. Yet another director is Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland.

Former BBC correspondent Richard Black will head up a new “unit” to try to turn around the flailing campaign.

Meanwhile, it is clear that the sheer scale of this lavishly funded lobbying effort dwarfs that of its opponents.

The Global Warming Policy Forum in London, Europe’s only think-tank which is sceptical about climate science and energy policy, has an annual budget of £300,000 and employs just three people.

Its director, Dr Benny Peiser, said yesterday: ‘At the end of the day, someone will have to be held accountable for us committing economic suicide. We are the only organisation that does what we do – against hundreds on the other side, all saying the same thing.’

Read more: Dailymail
H/t to Barry Woods.
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (102 votes cast)
Billionaires club fund Green Blob "Climate Works", 9.1 out of 10 based on 102 ratings

117 comments to Billionaires club fund Green Blob “Climate Works”

  • #
    Carbon500

    Very interesting – and then there’s also this link between the UK’s Guardian newspaper and the BBC. Skeptical Science and the Guardian as we all know are of course old bedfellows, so expect plenty of coverage of the impending man-made climate catastrophe nonsense on a television screen near you very soon!

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/16/bbc-ian-katz-jamie-angus-newsnight-today

    210

  • #

    The green blob can count on support from many sources. For example, anyone who buys a UK domain name (and there a lot of you e.g. “dot co.uk“) puts money in the overflowing coffers of Nominet. Nominet is one of those “not for profits” that actually operates with huge “surpluses“. After large remunerations for those in charge, what to do with this embarassment of riches? Why set up a charity of course! And voila – we have “The Nominet Trust“. And what kind of things do they support? “Nominations are open globally, and can cover projects using technology in a wide array of social problems, from education, human rights abuses, and health to climate change“. Here. A novel form of taxation really, but “politically correct” and “beyond criticism“?

    Or maybe not!

    392

  • #
    Mark F

    Canadian Vivian Krause spent a great deal of her own money investigating, via Candian and USA tax returns of so-called “Charitable’ NGOs. These include the Hewlett, Packard, Moore, Tides and other foundations active in what I consider to be NON-charitable causes. While less active recently, her website (http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/) offers startling evidence of the long and powerful tentacles of these and other NGOs and their interference in political and other affairs in Canada.
    As an example, see her excellent summary of US-based organizations,
    http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/usa-foundations.html
    Scary. Very scary.

    250

  • #
    tom0mason

    .
    Even with all this money sloshing around, funding so much research, can anyone show any bad effects proven to be from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?

    Is there any real good anywhere from this massive amount of circulating funds?

    250

    • #
      Popeye26

      In short

      NO

      &

      NO

      Cheers,

      271

    • #
      Peter Miller

      “It takes a lot of money to keep a false idea alive.”

      Isn’t that the truth?

      Outfunded by around 1,000 to 1, the sceptics are still winning the argument – observations and facts always trump the ‘findings’ of dodgy computer models.

      Perhaps a 10,000 to 1 ratio of outspending sceptics might turn the argument in the alarmists’ favour.

      The scary thing is the alarmists might just manage to do that, but even so in their heart of hearts they will know they have lost the argument, but their win will make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.

      240

    • #
      Ross

      They can spend all the money they like but when the UK ( for example) has another bad winter and it’s energy policy is found wanting , which is not a matter if but only a matter of time before it happens , then average Joe will see it for what it is –a waste of money.
      As Lionell says below these guys are fighting reality , with their fantasies.

      80

  • #
    Pathway

    Ron Arnold’s Undue Influence is also a good resource. http://www.undueinfluence.com/

    130

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Big Green Money can accomplish big things. But the truth is the best in every situation and will prevail. But I am saddened by the ignorance and evil of the people in the global warming scam. Imagine the good that $500 million would have done 5 or 10 years ago if it went to research on a cure/vaccine for Ebola. Imagine half a $billion to develop plans for power plants and a grid in Africa and a prototype. I am sure this list could go for pages and equally sure that the “green $blob” money and effort could have saved millions of lives.

    210

    • #
      diogenese2

      Leonard; You touch on just a tip of the iceberg that Jo has posted on many times. The effect that expenditure on CAGW could have had on medical (particularly Cancer) and other research and development.
      The significant point of the Rose article is that it doesn’t mention “climate science” at all but focuses on the political dimension. It is a sign that, for the MSM, “catastrophe” is a dead theme and “corruption, deceit and exploitation” will sell more copy. This is the message the nomenclature have been trying to suppress for so long (the science is settled – deniers are corrupt, don’t listen to them), and the sceptic blogosphere has so valiantly fought.
      The consequences of this are now appearing. The third world, portrayed as the victims of “climate change” but actually the intended targets of at least some of the parties named in the article, have always been aware of this as evidenced by the outcomes of Rio 1992, Kyoto 1997 and Copenhagen 2009.
      Google “Like minded developing nations” (LMDN) to learn the real opponents to CAGW). If you want to play dirty (as indeed you might at one stage) you will notice it includes some enthusiasts for clitorectomy.
      At the recent UNFCCC meeting in Bonn, its sterile conclusion described by its press release as “an encouraging ending to recent talks as the world readies for Lima” ( this December), the LMDN laid out their demands;
      The “developed nations” would enhance their emissions reductions.(ie commit economic suicide).
      The LMDN would increase emissions ad hoc with a hint of a peak in 2010 – 2015.
      The “developed nations” (also known as marks) would pay $100b pa to the LMDN so they could pretend to build renewables and to enable them to “adapt” to “climate change” whether or not it occurs (and in any case would be caused by their emissions).
      That won’t be easy to sell to any electorate, (hence the ref to FGM and dirty tricks), and the signs are that no attempt will be made. The name of the game will be recriminations (aka pass the parcel).
      My guess is that that the theme would be to admit that “exaggeration” has occurred, blame the IPCC and “best scientific advice” and chop a few heads (though not in IS style – however deserving).
      Faced with the forces described by the Rose article it seems incredible that “we few, we happy few, this band of brothers”
      could provoke this. However revolutionary collapse can be very quick. I remember 1989, when, within a few months, marxist socialism collapsed in E.Europe (albeit after 45 years of tyranny). I will never forget the look on the face of Nicolae Ceaucescu when, on his last public speech, the peasants started to boo. In 4 days he was dead and gone. The USSR collapsed in 2 years, destroyed by the simple truth that even the “oppressed and exploited” peoples of the west lived like kings whilst the “workers paradise” was shite.
      My advice, use the phrase “green blob” as much as you can.
      It is much better than “deniers”

      110

      • #
        Peter C

        it seems incredible that “we few, we happy few, this band of brothers”
        could provoke this.

        Thanks diogenese2,
        you make me proud to be part of the band of brothers (and sisters).

        20

      • #
        the Griss

        I hereby request that all posters now use the acronym CAGNW.

        CAGNW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global NOT Warming. :-)

        10

  • #

    The “green $blob” is convinced that words create reality, a consensus makes a falsehood a truth, and brute force can make anything magically happen – including a contradiction. By using enough brute force they expect to rewrite reality so that it is more to their liking.

    Rather than understanding that money is merely a medium of exchange between productive individuals, they believe it is a specie of their much worshiped brute force. They expect it to create things out of nothing, truths out of falsehoods, and to force others willingly to accept their way of thinking and doing. It is but a thin line between that and the use of government force to get their way (guns, knives, whips, ropes, boots, jails, and endless rows of thugs using those tools against innocent bystanders). After all, the end justifies the means …. or so they want to believe.

    The bottom line is they are at war with reality. It is a war that cannot be won. Even apparently won battles are won at a huge cost to nearly everyone. As is the case with all such things, the war is lost when the supply of willing sacrificial victims runs out.

    Our first challenge is to figure out how not to be collateral damage from their war. This is mostly accomplished by figuring out how not to be at war with reality ourselves. To the degree we do that is the degree to which we will win in the long run. Our second challenge is to figure out how to say NO to them and survive the saying of it. Otherwise we can duck and cover. By doing so, we might accidentally survive the coming Apocalypse.

    251

  • #
    Robert O

    Wouldn’t the current political problem in reducing the Renewable Energy Target to zero, because of no effect on the climate, be attributed to the green influence funded by various lobbyists, NGO’s and other self interest groups?

    100

    • #
      tom0mason

      Robert O

      Here’a renewable that requires funding -
      http://www.marshallhydrothermal.com/complete.htm

      Tony may like to comment on the figures that big oil came up with.

      30

      • #

        Thanks tomomason,

        like a lot of new technologies, it’s a long way off, and this grossly overstates the case in favour. What they say here would be enormously expensive.

        If I could sidetrack a little here, this is a similar (note I only said similar here) situation to Geothermal power.

        That geothermal process is a variation of a typical steam generation method, where high temp, high pressure steam drives a turbine which then drives a generator.

        So, Nuclear power uses the reaction to boil water to steam. Coal fired uses powdered coal to fire the furnace to boil water to steam. CCGT uses the secondary process, the exhaust from the ‘jet’ turbine to boil water to steam. Geothermal uses hot rock to boil water to steam. CSP uses a molten compound to boil water to steam.

        Nuclear and coal fired – Huge Power generated.

        CCGT (secondary process) – medium to small power.

        Geothermal – small to tiny power, depending upon depth of hot rock.

        CSP – tiny to teensy weensy power.

        Now, you may think geothermal is just geothermal.

        The problem is how deep are those ‘hot rocks’.

        Water has to be pumped down to where those hot rocks are. The hot rocks boil the water to steam, which then has to be pumped back to the surface, and then pressurised enough to drive a turbine etc. The deeper the hot rock, the greater the cost, and the tinier the power, so Geothermal here in Oz is problematic because of the depth of the hot rock. while where it does work reasonably well, the power consumption is considerably less, hence no need for huge scale, (which they cannot do) and the hot rock is considerably closer to the surface, hence (slightly) larger power generation.

        It would be similar to this hot vent situation, again enormously expensive, provided they can make the technology work. However, large scale is probably out of the question, so, again, lots of small to tiny units in far away places, so the cost now ramps up astronomically as the power is sent to where it might actually be needed.

        Note at this site there is an image of the process near the bottom, the image directly above the blood red tube worms. Note how the generating plant is on the surface, on something akin to an offshore gas platform, with the, umm, electrical power just shown as an arrow pointing upwards. (Beam me up Scotty!)

        Tony.

        131

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Tony,

          You will probably like this article wish shows that there is something very fishy about the generation of wind power in the UK …

          20

        • #
          tom0mason

          Thanks Tony,

          And yes how do you safely get 10s or 100s of MWatts of power from the oceans to the land? Expensively is my guess.

          30

        • #
          diogenese2

          Tony, Iceland manages very well in harnessing geo-thermal power which can be done at a small scale local level. I have bathed in the waste water, outdoors in a driving blizzard. But, as you say, the heat is close to the surface They have an ambition to be an emission free nation – apart of course for the volcanos. Ah there is the rub! The downside can be well observed by a visit to Pompeii and Herculaneum. In 1783 Laki dumped 8m tons of hydrogen Fluoride, killed most of the livestock from fluorosis and about a quarter of the population from starvation (not for the first time).
          The Icelanders tend to have a pessimistic streak.
          The funny thing is they are worried about global warming.

          50

          • #

            Yeah, any Country which can boast a volcano called Eyjafjallajökull has hot rocks real close to the surface.

            Geothermal power in Iceland generates 42% of all their power consumption, 5TWH of 12TWH.

            Consider that for a minute.

            That’s 12TWH for a population of 325,000 People.

            That same 12TWH is the total generation of 31 Countries in Africa, with a total population of ….. 226 MILLION people.

            It’s real nice to have geothermal power in First World Iceland while developing Countries in Africa have so very little, in fact nearly all of those people, nothing.

            Now, if you ask me, that’s where all the money for the Big Green Blob should be going.

            That factoid is absolutely disgusting.

            Big Green has a lot to answer for if you want my opinion, not that it counts for the slightest blink of an eye.

            Tony.

            80

        • #
          MRW

          Tony, what do the acronyms mean?

          00

          • #

            MRW, sorry. Sometimes I think I expect too much.

            CCGT is Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, originally referred to as co-generation.

            A large turbine similar to an aircraft jet engine, only larger and more robust is fuelled by Natural Gas. It runs up to speed a lot more quickly than can other forms of turbines, naturally, and via a shaft, drives a generator.

            The exhaust from the jet engine is then used to boil water to steam to drive a smaller turbine/generator, which then adds to the total power from units like this.

            A third stage can also be added to utilise some of the waste steam in a heat exchange unit for heating, cooling, or for air conditioning and this is referred to as Tri-generation.

            Mostly it is just the dual system, and that is CCGT, as opposed to once through, which is Open Cycle Gas Turbine. (OCGT)

            CSP is Concentrating Solar Power, also referred to as Solar Thermal, where mirrors focus the Sunlight to a focal point and at that focal point is (usually) a compound which is heated to a molten State, and this molten compound then heats water to steam to drive a turbine/generator unit.

            TWH is TeraWattHours
            GWH is GigaWattHours
            MWH is MegaWattHours
            KWH is KiloWattHours, what you see on your power bills.

            Each is a factor of 1000 greater, working up from KWH.

            I keep forgetting new people come along, so I apologise for that.

            Tony.

            40

            • #
            • #
              cementafriend

              Tony, I respect your writing and knowledge but I experienced a different terminology.
              Co-generation always meant producing two forms of useable energy. Mostly, electricity and steam which nearly all Pulp & Paper plants did by producing high pressure steam to pass through a steam turbine for electricity and then using the lower pressure pass through steam for process purposes. Many Chemicals plants did the same.
              I visited a number of hospitals that did the same. In early days with coal fired boilers and more recent ones with gas turbines for electricity and a waste heat boiler for steam for autoclaves and heating purposes. Some hospitals use gas fueled diesel engines and recover hot water for heating (or flash steam with a vacuum)
              The term combined cycle in my experience was always used for power generation via a) gas turbine coupled to a generator and b) waste heat boiler for the turbine exhaust supplying steam for a steam turbine driving a second generator.
              Of course if you want to be sophisticated you can combine the combined cycle with co-generation to recover hot water from the exhaust of the steam turbine but I do not think the additional efficiency would offset the additional capital costs and process complexity. If you want steam for process use or heating than you want to make sure you meet the steam demand variations. If your aim is for electricity than your plant has to meet the variation in electricity demand.

              00

        • #
          Robert O

          Tony, I am sure that those with a little knowledge of science and engineering understand the capacities of the various ways of producing electricity: some hydro schemes would make the huge class. Also that wind power and solar panels don’t produce many kilowatts since they only operate about 30% of the time when the sun shines or wind blows and are in the small category as well.

          However, most people do not have this understanding and are told that renewables are the future by our politicians, most of whom are scientifically illiterate anyhow. The majority in the current parliament were either lawyers, ex unionists, or party hacks with an odd exception like Dr. Jensen. So they are reliant on advice from the public service who dreamed-up some of these magnificent schemes as the RET, funding wave machines etc., or on various lobbyists representing vested interests. Where did the 130 odd government employees that went to Copenhagen with Mr. Rudd? Surely they are still in Canberra somewhere advising or white-anting the government.

          Australia should be using its resource of Uranium, but politically cannot because of the power of the greens. Sure there have been a few problems, in Japan due to a tidal wave, and in the Ukraine due to mis-management, but other countries, e.g. France, has used nuclear power since the 70′s and is less dependent on Arab oil and coal, and has sold heaps of power to its green neighbours rather than slowing the reactions down with control rods during the night.

          What is needed in Australia is sensible debate about these issues by people that understand them rather than hyperbole by those who do not.

          10

  • #
    AndrewWA

    What a timely article. I’ve been doing a bit of investigation into our very own Climate Institute (“CI”) – our home-grown ‘Climate Change Scare Machine’ which has recently been gaining some traction with our local media which fawningly turns CI official press releases into “News Items”.

    The CI’s CEO (or Deputy CEO), Erwin Jackson, now seems preferred to Tim Flannery who appears to have run his race with the Australian Media (but don’t be alarmed as I predict that Tim will be back!). Erwin Jackson is presented as having “20 years of practical experience in Climate Change policy”. This is essentially time with Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation.

    The CI was formed in 2005 through ‘private philanthropy’ – seed funding from the Poola Charitable Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund). (Eve Kantor is Rupert Murdoch’s niece)

    The CI has now grown into a $3 million/year NGO/lobby group which produces very little except self-promotion. The CI works in three areas: international accountability, economic transformation and societal leadership. It’s all about “seeming” and putting pressure on groups for actually investing in “dirty” energy (AKA Coal). This outing of investors is very “Green peace-like” by shaming (sorry, “changing the behaviour”) of the world’s asset owners away from fossil fuels and into low carbon investment. This is being achieved via a sister organisation the Asset Owners Disclosure Project (AODP).

    The CI’s funding sources in 2012-2013 as follows:
    + Philanthropy – 63.1% (Who am I to tell rich people how to spend their money?)
    + Government – 24.2% (I have some real interest here!)
    + Business – 11.8% (Essentially vested interest groups who want to see growth in the Climate Industry)
    + Interest and Misc. – 0.9%.

    Individuals and groups are encouraged to become Climate Partners or donors.

    Lead Climate Partner
    Westpac Group (Carbon trading and alternate energy investments)
    Major Climate Partners
    KPMG (Climate Change and Sustainability Group)
    Ogilvy Earth (Communications Agency)
    Pacific Hydro (Global clean energy sulutions funded essentially by Super (including Union) Funds)
    MirVac (Property Investment)
    Climate Partners
    Australia Post (?? I have already written to Senator Cormann and Turbull MP expressing my disappointment/concerns)
    General Electric (Manufactures and purveyors of wind farm technology).

    Clearly the CI has its snout firmly planted in the Climate Change Industry’s funding trough.

    The 10-person Board of the CI consists of philanthropists, lawyers, high profile lobbyists, journalists/communicators, representatives of vested interest groups and even high-profile Climate Scientists.

    The 10-person full time employees include lawyer, marketing, journalism and communications specialists, a couple of environmental/climate scientists and even an ANU research fellow (investigating the Impact of Climate Change on Sport).

    I intend to turn my efforts towards uncovering the $0.75 million of funding per year which comes from “Government”. I don’t see how this support can be consistent with the policies of the current Federal, and most State, Governments.

    310

    • #
      TdeF

      Excellent work! Faux physical scientist Tim Flannery and his friends have lived high on government money. Do they even believe what they are saying? At what point are the high priests of any carpetbagging operation held accountable not only for the money they were paid but for the uncounted billions wasted on their caring advice. Carbon indulgences, sorry Credits, were a licence to print money for worthless paper. However the real activists who still want to ‘wreck the joint’ are the failed communist Greens, who know Green is also the colour of money.

      As Tim Hannan opined in his Melbourne talk, even when man made Global Warming is utterly discredited, it will still take twenty years to dismantle the bureaucracy. As a British member of the European Parliament, he knows first hand how these systems work. Then there is still the activist fifth column started world wide at council level by Agenda 21, subtly adding massive costs to everyday life as politically active town councils and individuals finally have a voice on the world stage after Rio, funded by direct taxes on households.

      160

    • #
    • #
      Bob Malloy

      AndrewWA

      Good work on the Climate Institute, some months ago an overnight radio host on a commercial network gave great expossure to this press release from them.

      Excerpt here,

      “Australia’s political leaders risk being stuck in the past as public attitudes on climate change and its solutions are on the rebound, according to the Climate of the Nation 2014 survey from The Climate Institute. 
      “More Australians think that climate change is occurring and are concerned about various physical impacts, present and future, with an overwhelming majority agree that tackling climate change can create opportunities for new jobs and investment,” said John Connor, CEO of The Climate Institute, launching the report this morning at Parliament House with member for Indi, Cathy McGowan AP MP. “

      On checking out the report I find the Communications Director that released it is a rusted on renewable energy advocate and co founder of a successful multimillion dollar consultancy, with continued advisory functions. She also advocates using our superanuation savings on renewables.

      PS. this is not the only time he has used them as a source to keep the scare alive, he also has them on his list of likes on his FB page

      40

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        He probably thinks they are a legit government agency or at the very least he believes their claim of being independent.

        20

      • #
        Lewis P Buckingham

        If this lady wants super funds to waste money on renewables, especially start ups, she needs to add a rider that the fund declare this to its members so they may bail out.
        The last thing we need in Australia is politicians’ tinkering with superannuation and at the same time advocating shaky investment decisions for the nations superannuates.
        The modern young married will not see super inside seventy years of age.
        The last thing that they and I want to see is their hard earned wages being blown on a non scientific idealism that damages the economy on which we all depend.

        20

    • #
      AndrewWA

      Apologies for previous reply – somewhat confusing.

      Meant to provide the following information:


      The Climate Institute


      Asset Owners Disclosure Project

      Baker & McKenzie Lawyers

      These combined explain Malcolm Turnbull’s position…….

      10

  • #
    PeterS

    I truly believe if the money that has been wasted so far on AGW research and propaganda was instead spent on cancer research, a cure would have been found by now. Of course we can’t have a cure as it would devastate the profits made by so many pharmaceutical companies. Profit before life is the motto for our modern society, although one could argue that’s always been the case.

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      If the current $1Bn a day was spent on .. energy storage, nuclear fusion, doubling heat output from brown coal (half water), developing alternative recyclable metal fuels (aluminium), many cures for many cancers, eliminating the trade in drugs and lives, improving life in third world countries which would reduce population growth, ageing, eradication of deadly diseases (rift valley fever, lassa fever, ebola, Japanese encephalitis, malaria (Thanks Bill)…). Just anything at all which actually made a difference to the quality of life on earth. No, it is all for nothing. We are building Windmill henges like the Stone Henges or the statues of Easter Island, huge memorials to a world which was scared of the future. Future generations will marvel at the effort and the pointlessness and the waste.

      80

    • #
      Retired now

      Sorry, PeterS. If the money was spent on cancer research we would have the same outcome as now. Same type of people with their snout in the research trough. it wouldn’t make much difference at all unless it was required that the researchers looked at non-profitable (from the pharmaceutical perspective) approaches. Even then its doubtful. I gave up being a medical/health researcher because of the horrendous corruption. It was personally devastating to realise that long time friends were totally corrupt professionally.

      21

      • #
        Peter C

        Retired now,

        I tend to agree. Not so much about total professional corruption. However I have only had only a brief exposure to the area so you might be right,

        But throwing more money at a problem does not get value. I think we are spending enough to keep good scientists on the job.

        11

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Wealth and power are strange catalysts in the world of humans as one is tangible and the other perceived but one cannot exist without the other.

    From the building of pyramids to the industrial machine there was the ever present desire for power accompanied by the competition it always attracts, the greediest have always known to obtain such power over so many control is paramount and from a Pharaoh to a Dictator the Modus Operandi has always been a form of Social Engineering.

    Saving the planet from the perils of the 6th element isn’t far removed from protecting people from a sun god’s wrath and sadly history is repeating proving that modern enlightened humans are just as gullible as a Babylonian basket weaver, this latest form of social engineering has the benefit of previously unseen technology behind it and is proving quite popular attracting the greediest for power.

    70

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Of course those who choose the oily slob of scientific rubbish will never admit, acknowledge nor reveal their funding. They call themselves “scientific sceptics” but like Patrick Moore are just spokespeople for the fossil fuel industry, who pervert the science for profit.

    238

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Can you provide a proven link for this claim like Jo has done with ‘Climate Works’ above?, I would be very interested in your findings SF.

      Someone was only mentioning social conditioning before and………

      171

    • #
      me@home

      Silly, so great to see you around again. What a pity you haven’t learned anything since I first encountered you years ago.

      150

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Well, well, well … Stupid Horse the neigh-sayer is back …

      130

    • #

      My funding is out of my salary. I occasionally support others, such as the GWPF, whose funding in total is around A$1m a year.
      To me it matters not one jot how much funding a loose collection of people receive (and climate skeptics are far from being a coalition, still less a consensus). What matters is the quality of their arguments. The climate consensus have nothing positive to say. They have absolutely no track record of getting short-term predictions right – even a healthy minority. They have no track record of improving the quality of their data, but there is plenty examples of ad hoc, unjustifiable, adjustments from Yamal to the Australian BOM.

      210

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Just to be realistic: you’ve never heard of the ‘Australian Climate Science Coalition’ nor the ‘International Climate Science Coalition’ if you haven’t go here Friendly face from the GWPF no doubt?

        028

        • #
          The Backslider

          In 2009, the US arm kicked in $60,699 in funds – virtually all the Australian organisation’s entire budget of $62,910 – the ASIC documents show.

          Oh wow! No wonder the warming skeptics are so strong with such unlimited funding!

          I could not support my family on that paltry amount.

          100

        • #
          The Backslider

          So Dumb Ass…. you have shown that a few skeptics have received enough funding for their stationery. So what?

          100

        • #

          Compare the numbers. The climate alarmists outspend the skeptics $100 to $1 in private funding. Climate alarmists have huge government funding as well. Despite that huge spending the climate consensus have no achievements to boast of, so they try to shut down those who have a better understanding.

          100

    • #
      the Griss

      The only oily blob around here is YOU !!

      Reveal YOUR funding !!

      Which trough do YOU swill from. !!!

      172

    • #
      Mark D.

      Silly, that is a fine conspiracy you’ve dreamed up. I’m sure that it is a source of comfort and inspiration as you run around puking your leftist agenda.

      120

    • #
      the Griss

      1000:1 funding ratio…

      and still the REALITY of there being NO ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING is coming to the fore.

      No wonder parasites like the SF are getting so upset.

      131

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      SF, you wouldn’t happen to be “Miriam O’Brien” from “HotWhopper” now would you? Thing about green blobbers is they like to use a different pseudonym for every blog they pollute..

      120

    • #
      Ceetee

      To sillyfilly @9.01, I take it from your self righteous rant that you would never sell you soul using the dirty internal combustion engine in your day to day life. Every time you open that door and place yourself in the well appointed driver seat (taxpayer funded leather?) and turn that key, repeat this mantra ” I am a hypocrite..I am a hypocrite”. Perhaps you should buy a horse. Every time it farts you could admonish it forcefully.

      81

      • #
        the Griss

        “Perhaps you should buy a horse. Every time it farts….. “

        That’s all the dopey donkey does.

        I have never seen a single one of its posts that is anything but a horse fart.

        21

        • #
          NielsZoo

          My horse and my mule take exception to that… their farts are naturally fueled, “green” and not to be confused with emissions from hypocritical equines like our friend filly.

          20

          • #
            Olaf Koenders

            Fossil fuels are all natural and made on this planet, therefore green and the elements they’re made of came from a supernova like every element on the planet.

            I think what you’re referring to is SF’s Unicorn farts.. ;)

            Greenies need to go back to lighting their homes with whale oil, which is not yet a “fossil fuel”, unlike paraffin from candles..

            20

  • #

    OT but … Heartland’s latest newsletter has this:
    “Eric Worrall of the UK’s Guardian has said of the agreement [boosting emission reduction target], “The European Union has just committed suicide.””
    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/10/27/2014-wont-be-warmest-year
    That’s either a mistake, or you have managed one hell of a breakthrough, Eric :-)

    110

  • #
    handjive

    * “My, my, my, said the spider to the fly …” *

    Government measures ‘may have slowed down global warming’: Energy minister claims policies are playing a role in curbing rising temperatures
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809995/Government-measures-slowed-global-warming-Energy-minister-claims-policies-playing-role-curbing-rising-temperature.html

    But, but … carbon(sic) is at record catastrophic levels says NASA!

    How can ‘warming’ be ‘slowed’?

    Where is ‘the science’?

    “My, my, my, don’t tell lies …”

    * (Many thanks to the Rolling Stones, in Australia atm.
    The greatest Rock & Roll Band in the World.) *

    90

  • #
    pat

    loved this bit about the new unit set up by ECF to ‘rebuild confidence in the low-carbon transition’:

    “Since the report was published, this unit has come into being, run by former BBC environment correspondent Richard Black.”

    reminder re Comic Relief who have raised over a billion pounds from the British public (this will expand over two comments):

    Oct 2013: UK Telegraph: BBC ‘shelves’ Panorama expose of Comic Relief
    The planned broadcast of a Panorama investigation into Comic Relief has reportedly been cancelled after a string of BBC executives ruled themselves out of making decisions about it.
    By the end of last year, the charity was allegedly sitting on £261million in a mixture of shares, bonds and cash.
    The six-month investigation also explores how staffing costs at Comic Relief have allegedly almost doubled from £7.1million a year in 2008 to £13.5 million by 2012.
    The programme was scheduled to air later this month but is reported to have been postponed…
    A BBC source told the Daily Mirror: “It has already been put back once and the worry is this investigation will never see the light of day.
    “This is causing huge problems within the Corporation, opening a can of worms some would rather stayed closed.
    “We’re struggling to find other execs to take the place of those who ruled themselves out due to a conflict of interest. This is the BBC in full-on post-Savile self-flagellation mode.”…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10393457/BBC-shelves-Panorama-expose-of-Comic-Relief.html

    eventually the program aired:

    Dec 2013: BBC Panorama: Declan Lawn: Comic Relief money invested in arms and tobacco shares
    Millions of pounds donated to Comic Relief have been invested in funds with shares in tobacco, alcohol and arms firms, BBC Panorama has learned…
    Panorama has also seen internal emails from the Save the Children’s Corporate Partnerships team, who were pitching to become EDF’s charity partner – a deal which could have earned Save the Children £600,000 over three years.
    The emails raised concerns about risking a potential partnership with EDF by running a fuel poverty campaign…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25273024

    50

  • #
    pat

    it’s not funny!

    .pdf 21 pages: Comic Relief: Taking the Climate Initiative
    (page 7)During this time Comic Relief also gave support in cash and in kind to the 10:10 Campaign…
    http://www.greenfunders.org/wp-content/uploads/Comic-Relief-climate-initiative.pdf

    Wikipedia: Richard Curtis
    Richard Whalley Anthony Curtis, CBE is an English screenwriter, producer and film director, who was born in New Zealand to Australian parents…
    He is also the founder of the British charity Comic Relief along with Lenny Henry…
    ControversyIn October 2010, a short film created by Curtis titled No Pressure was released by the 10:10 campaign in Britain to promote climate change politics. However, the video was swiftly removed from the organization’s website following a storm of protest over the alleged poor taste of its gory violence and sinister overtones…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Curtis

    50

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Jo, I think H/t owed to Another Ian: October 28th 6.38am

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/weekend-unthreaded-54/#comment-1601403

    10

  • #
    pat

    25 Oct: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: The greenies want it both ways about acidic oceans
    Radio 4′s Today swallows the bunkum spouted by ‘warmists’ such as Lord May
    The main qualifications for being paid £165,000-a-year to act as the government’s “chief scientific adviser” these days, it seems, are that (a) one should know nothing about climate science, and (b) that one should then appear regularly on the Today programme to terrify listeners that the threat posed by man-made global warming is “much worse than was previously thought”
    Following those “population biologists” Lord May and Sir John Beddington, and the “surface chemist” Sir David King, the latest to play this game is the immunologist Sir Mark Walport. On Friday he was invited by Jim Naughtie to pronounce gravely about yet another new study claiming that the oceans are “acidifying”, to a level not known for “65 million years”…READ ON
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11185956/The-greenies-want-it-both-ways-about-acidic-oceans.html

    40

    • #
      Carbon500

      I enjoyed the post Pat. Thank goodness for the likes of Booker and Rose ‘telling it like it is’.
      Here’s quote from the article:
      “But we can no more expect our immunologist to know this than we can expect Mr Naughtie to do anything but eagerly murmur assent to the great man’s every nonsensical word.”
      I can only add that I spent many years working in an immunolgy laboratory as a technician and worked in research for a few years, getting a Ph.D. for my efforts.
      Although a ‘low flyer’ in the world of immunology, I am amazed that anyone with a biological science background who looks at real figures showing the natural variation in ocean pH values can believe that we’re ‘acidifying’ the ocean!

      10

  • #
    pat

    speaking of “billionaires”!

    28 Oct: Courier Mail: AAP: Palmer still wants ETS
    CLIVE Palmer maintains his senators will only vote for the government’s Direct Action climate change plan if it commits to his idea for an emissions trading scheme.
    THE coalition’s $2.55 billion emissions reduction fund, designed to replace Labor’s axed carbon pricing scheme, is being held up in the Senate pending talks with the Palmer United Party…
    “An ETS is what’s required,” Mr Palmer told ABC radio on Tuesday.
    “We’re still waiting final confirmation from the government of what they will do. It rests with the government, not us.”…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/palmer-still-wants-ets/story-fnihsfrf-1227104627397

    40

  • #
    pat

    28 Oct: Australian: John Conroy: UNSW rejects divestment push
    The University of NSW has defied a push from staff and academics to divest from fossil fuel, announcing yesterday it would keep its roughly $50 million of shares with companies involved in fossil fuels, such as BHP Billiton…
    But yesterday outgoing UNSW vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer said the university’s council had “resolved overwhelmingly” to keep its indirect fossil-fuel shares – part of the institution’s $309m portfolio – citing divestment would pose a risk to academic independence…
    Prof Hilmer said the council recognised fossil fuels will be needed for “many years to come”, quoting Harvard University president Drew Faust saying divestment risked positioning the university as ” as a political actor rather than an academic institution”…
    Full UNSW statement from vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/unsw-rejects-divestment-push/story-e6frg90f-1227104426934?nk=0ef32ac80b38036b6a9dd21170d00316

    27 Oct: SMH: Peter Hannam: UNSW’s fossil fuel stance ‘a complete failure of leadership’
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/unsws-fossil-fuel-stance-a-complete-failure-of-leadership-20141027-11ci01.html

    60

    • #
      Matty

      . That’s the first academic institution I’ve noticed displaying the maturity to stand up to the trendy Leftist mob.
      And the UNSW too, with its centre for extreme over use of superlatives in Climate Sciences. Could this be just a hiatus in the herd rush for divestment or could it signal something bigger ?

      10

    • #
      the Griss

      beeeeee ute i ful !!!! :-)

      one of my old alma mater.

      well done guys !

      10

    • #
      the Griss

      Given UNSW’s intransigence on this matter..

      I hereby call on ALL alarmist climate scientists to immediately boycott all work at the uni and move to ANU.

      The ACCARNSI troop should resign ALL their positions in protest.

      00

  • #
    pat

    calling TonyfromOz:

    27 Oct: ABC Ockham’s Razor: Andrew Stock: Search for a source: Contemplating Australia’s energy future
    Australia needs to start planning for the retirement of its ageing coal fleet and factor in deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, writes Andrew Stock from the Climate Council. He explores how investing in renewable energy could help make power cheaper, cleaner and more efficient…
    The world’s scientists, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and energy experts like the International Energy Agency, agree that we cannot go on this way if we want to limit the worst impacts of global warming, and stop turning our oceans acidic.
    Deep cuts to emissions are needed soon…
    What about renewables, which are big business globally? Each year, renewable power capacity added far exceeds that of fossil fuels…
    Last year, nearly $200 billion was invested in renewable energy globally, providing employment to over two million people…
    Australia is endowed with world-class zero emission renewable resources…
    (Andrew Stock has spent his working life in the energy industry and is on the Climate Council)
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/5843978

    Climate Council: Andrew Stock
    Andrew Stock is a Non Executive Director of several ASX listed and unlisted companies in the energy sector, ranging from traditional energy suppliers to emerging energy technology companies. He is also a Director of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and a member of a number of engineering, resources and energy faculty Advisory Boards at the University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne.
    He was also the founding National President of the Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (now Clean Energy Council) and has served on CSIRO’s Energy & Transport Sector Advisory Committee as well as other research and energy government advisory committees in South Australia…
    https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/contributors/andrew-stock

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      Hydro Tasmania cancels King Island wind farm project (not cost effective):

      http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4115657.htm

      91

      • #
        janama

        Of course they cancelled it – it was a pipe dream. $2 billion for 600MW of power? The population of King Island is 1800 – so that’s $1 million per resident including children. A $50k solar system per household (of 3) would only cost $30 million.

        90

        • #
          Olaf Koenders

          It WAS a pipe dream Janama. Likely they were hoping to pipe some of the excess power to Tassie, which would cost heaps more. Also likely the residents of King Island would have paid a hefty price, not just in power bills but scenery and quiet enjoyment.

          Still, I imagine the subsidy would have been huge regardless.

          50

          • #
            janama

            Wind power gets 110c/kWhr as opposed to coal’s 20C so even with that extra subsidy they can’t make it pay – what a joke.

            50

            • #
              Peter C

              I talked to a person from the Loyyang mine at the Patrick Moore lunch on Monday.

              He told me that they are still mining Latrobe Valley Brown Coal (our greatest resource in Victoria) for the same price as they were 20 years ago.

              On that parameter (if we exploited our resource) we would have an electricity cost of 5c/kWhr (instead of 20-25c). And we would still have a manufacturing industry and an aluminium industry. All sacrificed on the Green altar of Climate Change.

              40

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    This is just another Wall of Money. Yet despite that, skeptics are winning battles, unwinding schemes, shrinking the Green gravy trains, and spreading the word.

    The pen (interwebs these days) are mightier than the sword.

    60

  • #
    handjive

    27 October 2014, BoM:
    “Australia’s first major heatwave of the warming season has broken temperature records across the nation, more than a month before the official start to summer.

    Global warming caused by an increase of greenhouse factors is increasing the likelihood that heat records will continue to tumble at a much faster rate than for cold weather, they (BoM Climate experts) say.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/first-big-heat-event-melts-australian-temperature-records-20141027-11cczf.html

    Ben Lomond Skiing Conditions
    Reported Monday 27th October 2014
    Snow Forecast
    Ben Lomond has 1cm new snow forecast in the next 48 hours.
    https://www.j2ski.com/snow_forecast/Australia/Ben_Lomond_snow_report.html
    . . .
    Where is the BoM spokesman squealing about doomsday here?
    Is snow not unusual during the hottest day ever?

    50

  • #
    Brett

    John Coleman, Weather Channel co-founder must have received his cheque from big oil.

    02

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    O/T Jo:

    I was waiting for this very kind of blatantly false prognostication (business plan) from them since 2009. If temps rise, the leftist greens tar and feather all of humanity except themselves. If temps fall, they try and take the credit for “saving the planet”.

    Meanwhile, NASA GISS, NOAA and NCDC continue to tamper and fudge temps skywards. When is somebody going to ask serious questions of these [snips]?

    Note that if Obama had the power, he’d have “Baroness” Sandip Verma deceased for attempting to reduce the Climate Change Panic ©®™ (green tax purse).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809995/Government-measures-slowed-global-warming-Energy-minister-claims-policies-playing-role-curbing-rising-temperature.html

    Thanks Olaf, I just posted on the daily mail article. – Jo

    10

  • #
  • #
    pat

    28 Oct: Australian: Sarah-Jane Tasker with AAP: Whitehaven Coal chief says coal will be crucial in fighting climate change
    Whitehaven Coal (WHC) chief executive Paul Flynn says as a low cost energy source, coal will continue to have a key role in the economic development of India and China.
    And he said improving efficiency, an increasing focus on higher quality coal, and use of clean coal technology, will cut emissions from coal-fired power generation considerably.
    As a result, he said coal “may well be the only energy source” that can address man-made climate change…
    Whitehaven chairman Mark Vaile also attacked anti-coal activists, contrasting their backing by major offshore groups to the company’s local connections.
    Mr Vaile told shareholders that Whitehaven was committed to the region of NSW in which its Maules Creek coal mine operated…
    “While the ‘fly in fly out’ protesters — funded by major offshore activists groups — have generated a fair amount of noise, Whitehaven has worked assiduously to involve the local townships of Narrabri, Gunnedah and Boggabri in this project,” Mr Vaile said.
    Mr Vaile said the “ideologically-driven” critics of coal ignored the fact that the commodity underpinned economic growth and had increased standards of living in many countries.
    “We in the developed world have relied on coal to produce the products we now take for granted every day. Cars, mobile phones, homes, power to heat our homes … It is not for us, the rich western world, to deny people in developing nations’ access to affordable energy sources, which is a key to eliminating poverty.”
    Outside the meeting, a group of protesters bearing black balloons campaigned against what they say is a culture of arrogance at Whitehaven…
    “Global demand for coal in absolute tonnage terms continues to rise steadily,” he said.
    “Australian exports are estimated to rise to 437 million tonnes by fiscal 2019, up from 336 million tonnes in fiscal 2013, and prices are forecast to have recovered significantly from present levels over this period.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/whitehaven-coal-chief-says-coal-will-be-crucial-in-fighting-climate-change/story-e6frg9df-1227104418803

    10

  • #
    pat

    26 Oct: NoTricksZone: P. Gosselin: The Unending Pause: IPCC Scientist Prof. Mojib Latif Now Sees Global Warming Pause Extending To 30 Years!
    From Sebastian Luning’s and Fritz Vahrenholt’s “Die kalte Sonne” site here (translated by P Gosselin)
    Not a week goes by without Mojib Latif appearing in the media. On September 29, 2014 the climate preacher appeared in α-Forum at Bavarian Radio. The pdf of the show is here. Interestingly in the interview Latif extends the warming pause to 2020 and even 2025. That’s another 11 years, which will easily take him well into retirement. Latif is a clever one. What follows is an excerpt from the interview:..
    BLAH BLAH BLAH…
    Latif claims that the pause “does not surprise” climate scientists like himself at all. Yet, 2025 would mean the pause lasting almost 30 years. It’s strange that not a single climate model predicted a 30-year pause. Latif is not surprised that 100% of the models will have been all wrong? http://notrickszone.com/2014/10/26/the-unending-pause-ipcc-scientist-prof-mojib-latif-now-sees-global-warming-pause-extending-to-30-years/

    10

  • #
    pat

    LOL:

    27 Oct: Science2.0: Don’t Believe In Global Warming? Women Won’t Vote For You
    But marketing scholars say global warming has replaced abortion as the litmus test for why women should be Democrats – if women care about long-term consequences of their actions, that is…
    Jeff Joireman, associate professor of marketing at Washington State University, says in the Journal of Environmental Psychology that “future-oriented” women – and who doesn’t want to be called that? – are the voting bloc most likely to be fine with higher taxes and more regulations…
    Previous surveys have found that women and those with liberal viewpoints are more likely to claim to want to protect the environment than men – and more than female conservatives…
    During hot weeks, people think more about climate change, so Democrats are hoping for a heat wave or a Super Storm, or something that will get future-oriented liberal women to the polls…
    More than 125,000 political spots cite energy, climate change and the environment – more than all other issues except health care and jobs – according to an analysis by Kantar Media/CMAG. But while voters may take the environment seriously, political candidates do not. In California’s 8th Congressional District, both the Democratic incumbent Ami Bera and his Republican challenger Doug Ose invoke science in their advertising, but neither will go on record outlining what their positions are…
    For their paper, the authors confirmed their belief in global warming psyche using a rather subjective personality trait called “consideration of future consequences.”…
    Source: Washington State University
    http://www.science20.com/news_articles/dont_believe_in_global_warming_women_wont_vote_for_you-147831

    00

    • #
      JLC

      I am a woman.
      My local representative (electorate: Tangney, Western Australia) is a physicist who does not believe in AGW (Dennis Jensen).
      I vote for him as emphatically as I can.

      20

  • #
  • #
    • #
      Mark D.

      Ian, that is a pretty dismal take by Chiefio. No doubt he’s on track and we’d all do well to spend more time watching and understanding economics. I think he’s right too, that even Keynes knew that his approach could not be applied indefinitely. I do not think Keynes (or anyone) knew how long government could apply Keynesian methods before it bites us back.

      Deflation is when people spend less and less. Couple with that the fact that millions more Baby Boomers are moving into retirement where they don’t want or cant spend like they did when employed and I think you have yet another unknown that won’t likely help.

      Woe unto us that will live to see what’s coming though.

      10

  • #
    Barry Woods

    I was credited in the hard copy, but not the online version.

    The ECF made over 40 grants to various lobby groups, WWF,Greenpeace,etc to lobby,protest about new coal in Europe, and succeeded. The politicians being bombarded from all sides and multiple groups caved in. No kingsnorth power station in the UK, killed off all new coal in the UK.

    That may be good or bad, but I object to this happening due to the whims of the ECF who funded all these groups to target goal. For their purpose of getting the EU to lead the world

    30

    • #
      Ceetee

      I take it that ECF being the European Climate Forum. No wonder the exponential growth of UKIP. Its insanity to demonise coal in that part of the world and when the urea hits the turbofan my bet is there will be nobody within cooee (sp?) of taking responsibility for dumb policy.

      20

  • #
  • #
    Pethefin

    Here’s an interesting take (from 2007) on the history of the CAGW and the corporate interests:

    http://activistteacher.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html

    Curiously, one side of the story has been promoted by the Big Oil/Koch Brothers meme, while the other side of story has been almost completely forgotten

    30

  • #
    Matty

    Michael Fish, perhaps The most famous BBC Weatherman for dismissing a member of the public with a barometr, that warned him about the 1987 Hurricane that was devastating much of Southern England, even as they broadcast this gaffee.
    Anyway they’re interviewing him about the new Met Office super computer on BBC Radio 2 just now – just to make it look competent I guess.

    10

  • #
    Matty

    The possibility of Blackouts this Winter making BBC Radio 2 News Headlines ( I don’t usually listen yo it, but it’s not my Cafe).

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Someone once said to me, “Nothing sticks around longer than a bad idea.” He was talking about a rather troublesome, poorly designed tape recorder that nevertheless was a very popular brand and model. But the statement is true across the whole spectrum of human activity.

    It’s true in climate change too. I wonder how it will finally end. Badly I think. :-(

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Lest anyone think it won’t end badly, starting in 2025 in California all new housing built must comply with renewable energy requirements, meaning solar panels on every roof for both power and water heating, enough insulation to choke an elephant and other requirements that I think are going to be quite a surprise to new home buyers.

      Eventually retrofitting, which is now optional but now being pushed by government will probably become mandatory. It’s nuts but it’s also a fact. Government knows exactly how to apply the necessary pressure to get it done.

      And renewable energy provably doesn’t have the capacity to do what’s going to be demanded of it.

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        By the way, being well insulated as I have been since the 1970s, is a double edged sword. In the summer the house doesn’t warm up very fast when it gets hot outside, which is good. But once it does warm up it doesn’t cool off very fast either and I end up running air conditioning all evening to get cool enough to sleep.

        In the winter there’s no problem with heating. Anything gained by the sun hitting the house is a benefit and the furnace runs less often. If it cools down a lot overnight the heat comes on in the morning but it doesn’t run very long to get warmed up again.

        What I would really like is adjustable insulation that I could turn on or off. But no such luck.

        10

  • #
    Matty

    They’re also headlong with RocknRoll lifestyle can lead to early death ‘ new study shows’ so it is rather reporting of the bleed in’ obvious

    10

  • #
    The Backslider

    OT – the eugenists are hard at work: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29788754

    10

  • #

    [...] har också skrivit om detta. Hon har gjort en bra bild av hur de gröna pengarna flödar (från [...]

    00