Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Renewable friends - Josh 104 | Main | Really Useful Reporting - Josh 103 »

Ideological money laundering

This is a guest post by Ben Pile, of Climate Resistance fame.

As everybody now knows, the headlines from IPCC WGIII report on renewable energy appear to have been written by Greenpeace. When the Summary for Policy Makers was published last month, I was one of many who noted the role of Greenpeace, and the extent to which the SPM's authors were involved in the renewable energy industry. Steve McIntyre's discovery has caused further criticism  of the IPCC's letting such overt agendas near its evidence-making for policy-makers, even from the green camp, albeit only because it is such bad PR. But there is yet more to this story.

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), who co-authored the report with Greenpeace, claims to be an 'umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry, trade and research associations' of the renewable sectors. 'EREC represents an industry with an annual turnover of EUR 70 billion and providing over 550.000 jobs'. They consist of a number of partner organisations, each representing one technology sector within renewable energy, such as wind, geothermal and solar, and each of these has as many as hundreds of members. As Mark Lynas points out, then, it is no surprise that the EREC 'are of course enthusiasts for renewable energy’s prospects because they make money from selling wind turbines and solar panels, so hardly count as an unbiased source'.

Do the EREC only make money by selling renewable energy technology? Well, it's member organisations, and the hundreds of companies they each represent certainly do, especially given the subsidies available to renewable energy companies, thanks to EU policy. But Gawain Towler, press officer at UKIP, suggests on his blog that there may also be 'public money floating around this august organisation'. I decided to look more closely at EREC's funding. The EREC, and its eleven member organisations all share an address: Renewable Energy House, Rue d’Arlon, Brussels -- a moment's walk away from the European Parliament. But the EREC are much closer to the political institutions in Brussels than this.

The EU Financial Transparency system -- which only lists accounts between 2007-9 -- reveals that the EREC were the beneficiaries of €1.8million  ($2.5million) from the EU. Just under €1.5 million of this gift from the EU government to a trade association is accounted for as follows:

Commitment position key: SI2.528581.1 Year: 2009    Amount €: 1.479.833,00 Subject of grant or contract: RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY ACTION PAVING THE WAY TOWARDS 2020 Responsible Department: Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) Budget line name and number: Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme — "Intelligent Energy — Europe" programme (06.04.06) Country / Territory: Belgium            Expense Type: Operational Action Type: Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme Co-financing rate: Mixed financing Beneficiary Name: EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNCILASBL Address: 1040 BRUXELLES, RUE D ARLON 63-65

The project for which this money was given -- Renewable Energy Policy Action: Paving the Way Towards 2020 (REPAP2020) -- is in its own words intended 'to facilitate the process of implementation of the RES-Directive, on a national level.'

The main focus of the project is on the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) which Member States have to notify to the European Commission by 30th June 2010. One objective of the project is to have ambitious plans that ensure the EU to meet the 20-20-20 targets for 2020, as set out in the directive.

The RES-Directive is the EU's rule on renewable energy.

Each Member State has a target calculated according to the share of energy from renewable sources in its gross final consumption for 2020. This target is in line with the overall '20-20-20' goal for the Community.

The question now is, what exactly is the EREC? It appears to be a council of trades associations, each representing a technology sector within the renewable energy industry. But it also seems to have been given a para-governmental role by the EU, to 'map renewable energy pathways' for EU member nations. Meanwhile -- literally, at the same time -- it produces seemingly independent research with Greenpeace. This report is taken by one of its authors to IPCC WGIII, where he is also a lead author on the renewable energy report. That report in turn seems to be intended as advice to policy-makers, including those within the EU.

Many have questioned the IPCC's credibility for having allowed an NGO with such a naked political agenda as Greenpeace to influence its statements and advice. But the problem here is far deeper. Trade associations are not only lobbying for their members' interests, they are being paid to lobby the EU to lobby in favour of the policies the EU has already determined it wants. It pays them also to set the parameters of its policies, and to suggest means by which they can be delivered. At the same time, the EREC publishes research which benefits the EU's preferred policies at the global, intergovernmental level. And this research seemingly has the backing of a non-governmental organisation, Greenpeace, which prides itself on taking no money from business or government.

The next question to ask is this... Can an organisation that represents commercial enterprises really offer governmental organisations impartial policy advice? Imagine the furore that would ensue, were oil companies so instrumental in the design of EU policies and their implementation. Lobbying is one thing; such proximity to policy-making is quite another.

The organisations involved make no secret of the fact that they enjoy a privileged relationship with EU policy-makers. EREC member, the European Solar Thermal Industry Federation (ESTIF), for instance, proudly states that,

ESTIF has actively participated in the development of the Directive on the promotion of the use of Energy from Renewable Sources (RES) thus ensuring a favourable legal framework for the Solar Thermal sector.

Indeed. And the EU paid ESTIF €2,000,000 between 2007-9, so that it could better ensure favours for the sector it represents. The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), boasts 600 member organisations across the EU. Yet these members seem to be so hard-up (in spite of the massive subsidies they enjoy) that the EU gave the EWEA €1.8 million so that its 'lobbying activities' (their own words) would continue to 'help create a suitable legal framework within which members can successfully develop their businesses.' The EREC and its members enjoyed gifts of at least €8.2 million between 2007-9 so that they could lobby MEPs, and do research in favour of the policies the EU had already determined it wanted.

And it gets worse. Look into the partner organisations of REPAP2020, and the reports that have been published, and there is evidence of yet further funding from the EU. At the top of the 'Renewable Energy Roadmap' produced by the UK's Renewable Energy Association, for instance, are the words 'With the support of Intelligent Energy Europe' -- yet another mysterious EU organisation. An EU press release from earlier this year proudly announces that,

With € 730 million funds available between 2007 and 2013, the Intelligent Energy – Europe (IEE) programme reinforces EU’s efforts to meet its 2020 energy targets to ensure a secure and cost competitive supply of energy while fighting climate change.

€730 million is a great deal of money for research and lobbying. But it is nothing compared to the billions more that EU sustainable energy directives will cost the population of the EU. Renewable energy firms are being allowed to design and lobby for the policies which will put cash in their pockets, nodded (or is that nudged and winked?) through by democratic representatives and NGOs. And within each member of the EU, the story is the same. Organisations with unclear public functions, and opaque funding arrangements such as the UK's Carbon Trust, and the Energy Saving Trust are established between government, industry, and NGOs to further the sustainable energy agenda, all without accountability and scrutiny.

The lines between governments, companies, trades associations, 'non-governmental' organisations such as Greenpeace, and supranational organisations such as the IPCC under the FCCC are now fully blurred. A greedy ecosystem of organisations have been created across the EU, each with the appearance of independence, working in cahoots with radical environmental NGOs and governments. Yet few, if any, of these organisations offer accounts of their funding sources, let alone explain what kind of organisation they are: how accountable they are, how independent from government they are, and who they really represent. It is as if no membrane delimits their functions from the functioning of the state, except to conceal its operations.

So where does that leave the report from Greenpeace and the EREC? Greenpeace are proud of their independence from government and industry. Yet here we see them working with a trade association in the development of advice to policy-makers that will benefit that industry. The advice it produces will further the agendas of those policy-makers. The suggestion here is not that money has changed hands -- Greenpeace doesn't need the money; what  it gets for the favours it does the establishment is influence. The service it provides is to give government-funded, agenda-ridden 'research' the superficial appearance of independence and legitimacy: ideological money-laundering. It makes clean the millions of Euros of public money given to the renewable energy sector for its PR.

It is no surprise that the EU and governments, spurious quasi-autonomous organisations and NGOs are in cahoots. It has long been known that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and WWF are paid by the EU to lobby the EU in favour of the policies that the EU wants. And it is no surprise that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes research that benefits the agendas of governments. We all knew this much.

What is surprising is the sheer scale of this shameless enterprise. We all knew that 'grey literature' -- non-scientific and non-peer reviewed 'research' -- found its way into IPCC reports. What surprises is the extent to which 'grey organisations' -- para-govermental institutions with public functions, but little or no democratic accountability or transparency -- are involved in the production of policy and evidence-making, benefitting a narrow industrial sector and serving a particular political agenda.

But what really grates is that to ask questions about this process is to identify oneself as a 'denier', in hock to fossil energy interests and 'well-funded' PR organisations. Pointing out the implications for democracy and the economy when self-interested NGOs and industry-associations enjoy such privilege from government is characterised as 'denying scientific evidence'.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (9)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (111)

An extortion racket paying protection money: is that a first?

Jun 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Nothing if not brazen.

If you told some old codger, worried how he was going to afford his fuel bill this Winter, how these scam artists and thieves are working the system, he'd think you were a nut case.

These "renewable energy" snakeoil salesmen make Phil Jones look honest.

Will we hear a peep about this from the MSM or the Beeb?

Will Benjamin Netanyahu be the next Pope?

Jun 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby

I am not surprised no on has commented on this yet. Where on earth do you begin?

There is corruption within corruption like a series of Russian dolls - commercial corruption for corporate profit, corruption of science, corruption of process, corruption of politics, corruption even of Greenpeace which at one time whether you agreed with it or not had a set of standards and morality behind its posturing.

Jun 16, 2011 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid W

Will this go down as the biggest fraud in modern times?

Jun 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Greenpeace is as corrupt as the multi-nationals and governments that it accuses of corruption.

Jun 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Ben inadvertently sent the wrong version of his text. I've changed it for the correct version.

Jun 16, 2011 at 4:49 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Shameless is indeed the word. A vast, self-inflating network of fraudsters, cheating to make certain their fraud succeeds.

All this blatant, unchecked gaming of the system - and still they're losing!

Jun 16, 2011 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterfrank verismo


Now do you start to see what's going on? Why 30% gets alchemised into 80%?

Some people are just energy fantasists, plain and simple. Others are opportunists making a fat profit from the brainless scramble for renewables (the UK is full of them). And some are both.

Between you and me, I know you know nothing about the energy market, or the grid, or generation technologies. It's obvious from what you say here.

I hope you have learned something useful today, both about the relentless self-promotion of the renewables industry, and the IPCC's enthusiastic willingness to join in.

Finally Zed, let's just remember who actually pays for all this. The entire European renewables sector is totally dependent on subsidies - be they direct or indirect. It is so utterly uncompetitive it would literally collapse overnight if the river of public money were to stop.

Don't believe me? Well go and check on what has happened in Germany (yes, Germany) and Spain since 2008. Go on.

All the billions and billions of Euros and Sterling have come from 'the people'. Usually as what is effectively regressive taxation that hits the least well off the hardest.

That's right - the useless, hyper-expensive, dishonestly promoted renewables sector is a parasite that is most harmful to the weakest members of society.

And you pitch up in comments here plugging it on a routine basis. Well, I hope you feel good about yourself this afternoon.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

A greedy ecosystem of organisations ...

... designed to kill all rivals. This is brilliant work Ben, thank you.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

We all know the EU is corrupt; it's accounts haven't been audited for a dozen years. Any whistle-blower within the EU gets fired. The levels of corruption within the EU are mind-boggling. I'm sure Ben has only discovered a small fraction of the corruption that is going on.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

frank verismo:

All this blatant, unchecked gaming of the system - and still they're losing!

It's mighty urgent that the 'democratic deficit' in the EU is sorted, because it's in the court of public opinion that the insiders are losing. Roger Helmer was saying on Wednesday that the UK needs to come out. That would provide one kind of shock to the system. Then there's Greece, Portugal and possibly Ireland falling out of the Euro, which will be another great shock to the self-esteem of the Eurocrats. I honestly don't know the best path from where we are but the voice of the people needs to be heard. The eastern bloc revolutions started in churches, many say. It's going to take something left-field to induce the change needed.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake


Interesting article, as usual.

I wonder if you are aware of the oddly parallel situation in the US, where the apparently government-run National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is actually not so independent as you might think.

Click through its website and you find this:

Operations & Outreach

NREL's Mission: NREL develops renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and practices, advances related science and engineering, and transfers knowledge and innovations to address the nation's energy and environmental goals.

NREL's Strategy: NREL has forged a focused strategic direction to increase its impact on the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) and our nation's energy goals by accelerating the research path from scientific innovations to market-viable alternative energy solutions. Learn more about how NREL is translating strategy into action.

NREL began operating in 1977 as the Solar Energy Research Institute. It was designated a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in September 1991 and its name changed to NREL.

NREL is the principal research laboratory for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and also provides research expertise for Office of Science, and the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. NREL is managed for DOE by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Eh? What's the Alliance for Sustainable Energy LLC then? LLC stands for Limited Liability Company. Doesn't sound very public, does it?

That's because it isn't. It's a kind of front for Battelle and MRI Global.

Yup, say hello to the Military-Industrial Complex everyone.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Best post i've read all year.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterShevva

Bish, this is an outstanding piece of investigative work. First class. Bravo.

When I was poking around on the Greenpeace/EREC site I was sensing some of this, but you have done the digging and come to a well-stated and inarguable conclusion:

"A greedy ecosystem of organisations have been created across the EU, each with the appearance of independence, working in cahoots with radical environmental NGOs and governments. "

It worries me, because as you stated the whole greedy ecosystem is shameless, and I would add completely brazen and uncaring about their conflicts of interest. I should add that it happens here in the USA as well, witness the EPA and it "decarbonization" plans. But quite unlike the Brussels EU, the Washington bureaucrats are subject to political pressure and negative publicity, so it is a little harder to get away with this kind of corruption. But by no means impossible.

Still, you've done an excellent investigative reporting job of the kind that used to appear in the mainstream media.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterGarry

Whoops, I meant to address those comments to Ben.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterGarry

Does anybody know if we have enough pairs of handcuffs in the EU?

Maybe we'll have to cuff two of the racketeering scumbags together to save buying more?

Stop the looting, start the prosecuting.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobbie the Hood


Jun 16, 2011 at 5:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterPFM

BBD: "That's right - the useless, hyper-expensive, dishonestly promoted renewables sector is a parasite that is most harmful to the weakest members of society."

That bears repeating, and it needs to sink in widely.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobbie the Hood

If the combined figure massaging efforts of Greenpeace, the EREC and IPCC can only come up with 30% in 40 years' time, you have to ask what they propose for the rest of the power budget (declining to a mere 70%) in the meantime. Well, I do, anyway.

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

A very useful piece of work indeed.

We seem to need a 'deluge' of French Revolution proportions to clear our society of this pernicious and invidious abuse of tax money.

The curious phenomenon of governments paying to be lobbied for policies they want to pursue is extremely decadent. They use charities when they also want to 'astro-turf', to use that vivid phrase from the US. The website is collating lists of fake charities, using its own definition. Some of the climate related ones can be found here:

Jun 16, 2011 at 5:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Welcome to the world socialist goverment. As Mr Churchill once said "The trouble with socialist's is they always run out of other people's money" and boy are the UN and EU happy to spend other people's money without overview but at what point do they run out of money?

This is why the EU and Greenpeace get on so well because you cannot trust people to come to the right conclusion when you show them the evidence of AGW so you simply take them out of the equation by saying the science is settled, controlling the media and enforcing in law the conclusion about AGW that you have already decided for the people.

Or is my tin foil hat on at a funny angle?

Shame the internet was invented.

Jun 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterShevva


Jun 16, 2011 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

It really is a disgrace!

There is a clear need for a European version of the 'Fake Charities' site. Maybe this is something that UKIP could sponsor & so obtain some more exposure.

If you're not already familiar, see

Jun 16, 2011 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterRay

Richard Drake:

"it's in the court of public opinion that the insiders are losing"

Yes - that was phase I. Phase II commences when some of those responsible for this global-scale deceit begin to have visions of jailtime and ruination. The offer of clemency for those who come forward early can be very useful at such times. We haven't quite reached that point yet, but as we continue to force the corporate media to report on the scandals we edge ever closer to it.

"Then there's Greece, Portugal and possibly Ireland falling out of the Euro, which will be another great shock to the self-esteem of the Eurocrats."

Not just the Eurocrats: having had such success in the Third World, the idea was to start bringing the Western nations, through debt, under the control of the IMF and World Bank. But it's all got a bit out of control, hasn't it? The populations of these countries are now wise to the game and simply refuse to let their globalist-controlled 'representatives' sell their future to a system which is now all-too transparent.

The deceit of the 'Green' movement and the vast wealth transfer (i.e. theft) that was the banker bailouts have done wonders to restore peoples' critical thinking!

"It's going to take something left-field to induce the change needed."

We see the game being played and fully understand the rules. We let them know this and relentlessly call them out on it. The media, the whitewash committees, the Eurocrats, the judges, the MPs, our councils. . . . . .

The deceit needs us in order to exist. We stop playing and the vast, stinking edifice collapses.

Jun 16, 2011 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterfrank verismo

Defined at last - the color of FUBAR is green.

Jun 16, 2011 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Watts

Ecofys (Econcern) is well known for playing with figures.

Jun 16, 2011 at 6:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterLDLAS

This type arrangement is pretty standard for left-wing groups in the US. The govt hands out large sums of money to groups with feel good, civic sounding names run by lefties and the groups use the money to pay for public relations propaganda and lobbyists to generate support for more govt spending on favored lefty projects. See e.g. Acorn

Jun 16, 2011 at 6:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterstan


Jun 16, 2011 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterLDLAS

Just amazing, on many levels. Thanks to the author and to Mr. Montford for making this work available. My first question: Does the EU have laws that make some of these activities illegal? Are there prosecutors who might be tempted to jump in?

Why would the EU, crooks or not, engage in a conspiracy with the renewables industry? In other words, why would a government engage in conspiracy with a bunch of poor upstarts who have nothing of their own to offer? In the US, the renewables industry cannot offer large amounts of money or large numbers of votes. The collection of interests that constitute the Greens here in the US are rich and powerful but they do not heavily overlap with the renewables industry.

Jun 16, 2011 at 6:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Paging Paul Lynas.


Jun 16, 2011 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBDAABAT

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: If you can possible get your hands on "Cloak of Green", read it:

Cloak of Green, Elaine Dewar, James Lorimer and Company, Toronto, 1995

Summary: Dewar "follows the money" to understand and explain the tools and arrangements Maurice Strong deployed to use Canadian taxpayer money and his friendships (e.g. Stephan Schmidheiny) to ensure everyone who arrived at the 1992 Rio summit (everyone being 3rd world ENGOs, business organizations, etc) knew and followed the script.

Why is this relevant to this thread? Well, other than the fact it is a great read, it is a great historical foundation for the discussion. 1992! Over 20 years now of growing the capacity, to attend meetings and influence (manipulate?) the outcomes. And now we are where we are. As a friend said, on reading Dewar's work "no s***, Sherlock.

By the way, Dewar was, and still is, a defender of the environment and marginal peoples.

Jun 16, 2011 at 6:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce Friesen

Sadly, all our main political parties are singing the same tune; we have no alternative voice except the blogosphere.
Maybe Richard North's ' Referism' idea is the only way to change anything short of revolution and I'm a bit old for that!

Jun 16, 2011 at 7:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterG.Watkins

Excellent article.
It’s not just the lines between government, NGOs, and trade organisations which are blurred by EU practice. Green activists who lobbied their MPs at their surgeries in favour of the Climate Change Bill as part of a campaign organised by the EU-funded Friends of the Earth were congratulated by the European Environment Commissioner. An entire department of the European Commission exists solely to promote the aims of one minority political party.

Jun 16, 2011 at 7:23 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Dop! Sorry, paging MARK Lynas.


Jun 16, 2011 at 7:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterBDAABAT

Tremendous piece Ben, you are to be congratulated, there, the warm feeling departs.

This stark piece of investigative reporting, leaves a sour taste, it makes the pit of the stomach squirm, from the nauseous stench of institutionalised and massive corruption.
In it's flagrant advocating of a falsified postulation and in a crass bold and glaring way, induces market loading and industrial product manipulation.

Ben has provided evidence of how all this works, I want to highlight another facet of this global scam, I remember the way Viscount Monckton was shouted down at the Dopenhagen jamboree and it made me wonder.... .

Doubtless, the EREC [indirectly] funds, encourages and provides the propaganda literature for the useful idiots and naively brainwashed young loons, who roll up at UN conferences [worldwide] to lobby, demonstrate and generally kick up a kerfuffle and to portray themselves as the: "concerned world citizens" battling to save mother Gaia.
The pictures are picked up by the MSM and shown around the world, a blatant manipulation and rent-a-mob get to travel the world for free [well taxpayers in the EU pay for it all].

The whole bloody farrago, is a massive world circus, a Machiavellian and massive conspiracy of NGOs, shadowy EU organisations, corrupt UN officialdom [what's new?], corporate business and all designed to rob me and you.

Heavens above! how we have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker....."reel 'em in!"


Jun 16, 2011 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan

Thank you, Ben, for this stunning - nay, stomach-turning! - analysis, and thank you, Bish, for posting it.

Two comments from me:
1) omigawd!!!

2) 'I can't eat as much as I want to vomit' - said, allegedly, by a Berlin painter when the Weimar Republic was toppled by you-know-who in 1933.

Jun 16, 2011 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

Now the queston is:
Did Mr Cameron & Co know about this?
If yes then it seems that his green policies have been based on known to be manipulated data and there's some explaining to do.
If no, then (despite ignorance being no defence) what's his next move? It would seem like a golden opportunity to release himself (and more importantly us) from the self inflicted albatross of his decorbonisation programme.

Jun 16, 2011 at 7:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterdusty

From comments at WUWT, this all needs to go mainstream.

Jun 16, 2011 at 7:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

frank verismo: great response. I entirely agree.

Jun 16, 2011 at 8:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Excellent, incisive and thoroughly researched, Ben. You put professional journalists to shame. This really does deserve a much wider audience.

Jun 16, 2011 at 8:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

P.S. - Congratulations Ben on such a literate expose

P.P.S - Copy forwarded to my MP for comment

Jun 16, 2011 at 8:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterdusty

Excellent stuff Ben. Well done.

Jun 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid C

Jun 16, 2011 at 6:54 PM | Bruce Friesen:

"At the risk of sounding like a broken record: If you can possible get your hands on "Cloak of Green", read it:

Cloak of Green, Elaine Dewar, James Lorimer and Company, Toronto, 1995"

Second that. Excellent book. And it also reveals that Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada's Green Party, is a chosen protege of Maurice Strong.

The gang has been working on this project for a long time.

Jun 16, 2011 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterEdward Getty

@ Edward Getty:

"The gang has been working on this project for a long time."

Indeed - Maurice Strong was given his first position at the UN shortly after its inception: 1947. People have great difficulty getting their heads around such long-term schemes, but if we work backwards from now - Earth Summit, IPCC, UNEP, Stockholm - there he always is - steadily laying the Rockefellers' plans.

Elizabeth May's a comedy turn, isn't she? Literally hysterical.

Jun 16, 2011 at 9:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterfrank verismo

Thank you, thank you, for calling a spade a shovel.

I agree. The entire AGW story has been a scam from the very start.

It is an extension of the SSM scam (standard solar model), first exposed in a paper presented at the National AGU meeting Washington, DC in April 1976 and confirmed for example in papers published and presented at numerous international and national conferences since then.

The sordid details are shown in "Neutron repulsion" [The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011), 19 pages]:

Why was science used by government policymakers? I don't know the answer.

Events may have been guided by:

a.) Eisenhower's warning about the dangers of a federal "scientific-technological elite" seizing control of public policy in his farewell address to the nation in Jan 1961, and

b.) Kissinger's and Nixon's travels to China in 1972 to save the world from destruction in a worldwide nuclear exchange - "mutual destruction".

Again, I thank you for your role in exposing this scam.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Jun 16, 2011 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterOliver K. Manuel

Just appalling and deeply depressing. Mere individuals are totally powerless against this kind of institutional corruption. I hope one day the angry silent majority rise up. I will certainly join them.

Jun 16, 2011 at 9:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobB

Let me look at the reality you fellows are facing. The EU is still there. Brussels is still the Boss. The British government is still a member of the EU. Cameron is as green as a spinach. The IPCC is still there. The UN is still there. Public opinion is not relevant. The MSM is still on board.

The Bishop, Steve McIntyre, WUWT are bravely scribbling. With no effect.

You really must remember, the only power you have is your vote. Last time you wasted it. Next time you will waste it again. None of you knows how to do a good riot. But you like witty repartee.

Jun 16, 2011 at 9:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeorge Steiner

Very good research. It would be revealing to know how the UK government has spent on such propaganda.

In 2009 I came across an example of £6 million dispensed by DEFRA as grants to outfits such as COIN to "profoundly change the attitude of rank and file union members"; to Co-Operatives UK to "galvanise individual members and employees"; to the National Union of Students to "embed behavioural change programmes"; plus to the National Trust among others. The purpose of these grants was to subsidise the organisations noted so that they could fund green propaganda. This was just one grant from one department. I have no idea how much more was spent in this way.

I included this example in the first letter I wrote to my MP following the publication of the Climategate emails. He did not respond on this specific point. Unfortunately the original link I had to the Defra website no longer works as they have changed the website.

While doing some investigation on the Climate Change Act earlier today, I came across this information on Wikipedia concerning the origins of the Act:
"Previous Bill
The current Climate Change Bill was preceded by a Private Member's Bill of the same name[11] drafted by Friends of the Earth and brought before Parliament on 7 April 2005. Although it received widespread support[12] the Bill was unable to make progress as Parliament was dissolved ahead of the 2005 general election."
So Friends of the Earth can take the credit for the Climate Change Act.

Add to all of this the activities of GLOBE International, effectively funded by the taxpayer, and it provides a measure of the task faced in getting the Climate Change Act repealed. The 3rd reading of the Act was passed by 463 AYE votes to 3 NO votes (there were also 2 tellers on either side). By my calculation 300 of those MPs voting AYE were re-elected to the current Parliament. I suspect that most of them, plus some of the abstainers (who included Clegg and Huhne) would still support the Act today. It seems most unlikely that, at this time, there would be enough votes to repeal the Act.

Jun 16, 2011 at 9:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterOldtimer

"Let me look at the reality you fellows are facing. The EU is still there. Brussels is still the Boss. The British government is still a member of the EU. Cameron is as green as a spinach. The IPCC is still there. The UN is still there. Public opinion is not relevant. The MSM is still on board. "

There is rioting across western Europe. The Euro is in very real danger of collapse. The MSM is being forced to report on issues it has previously refused to report on. The carbon trading system is dead, along with the CCX. The population's understanding of the scams has increased enormously.

"You really must remember, the only power you have is your vote."

Wrong - the only power authority has is the power we give them. Let's give them nothing.

Jun 16, 2011 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterfrank verismo

Zebedee seems to have gone to ground in her Truro Troll Hole.

BBD asked her a question above, so come on out and for a change, why don't you directly answer a question?


P.S. I bet some abuse will follow, I've got broad shoulders.

Jun 16, 2011 at 9:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>