Friday
Jun142013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill GWPF and the Charities Commission
Jun 14, 2013 Climate: Ward GWPF The Grantham Institute for Climate Change continues to spend its time pursuing GWPF rather than doing anything constructive with the money it receives from Mr Grantham and the Global Green Growth Institute. Bob Ward has issued a complaint to the Charities Commissioners about something or other.
It feels a bit desperate to me.
As an aside, the GGGI looks interesting, apparently having morphed from a Korean non-profit organisation into a fully fledged transnational organisation. The relevant order for legal immunities is apparently being rubber-stamped in Westminster.
Reader Comments (43)
The GGI:
"This Order confers the legal capacities of a body corporate on the Global Green Growth Institute (‘GGGI’), an international organisation established with the aim of promoting sustainable development of developing and emerging countries ... A full regulatory impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen."
Personally - and admittedly speaking merely as an unimportant thicko taxpayer - I would quite like to hear from the Clerk of the Privy Council about the scale of any aniticipated impacts on the UK *public* sector.
None? Lots? Dunno? Who cares?
"...a Korean non-profit organisation."
Why not just call themselves "North Korea"?
What Ward seems to be confusing is 'policy advice/making' with 'informed opinion'. He also complains that the inaccuracies purveyed by GWPF relate to nothing more than them saying something will/will not happen, and then, according to Ward, being shown to be wrong in their prediction.
If you substituted Greenpeace for GWPF in the complaint you'd be able to make a better case of it.
Ward's complaints may be warranted if the GWPF had said those things. Nigel Lawson said them, however, presumably in his capacity as a member of the House of Lords.
I see The Independent is up (or down?) to its usual standard of reporting. Rather sad, really, recalling the high ideals with which that paper was founded.
I cannot be arsed to read about Bob Ward's latest desperate "tactics". Entirely to be expected when people like him fear they are losing the argument.
Was his complaint along the lines of : "All must kneel before Zog!" ?
I despise that man. I do not despise many men...but I really despise that man. Ugh!
Quote:
“The
foundationTeam arrogantly ignores any challenges to the accuracy of the information it spreads, and has not been held to account for misleading the public. As I have discovered on numerous occasions, when thefoundationTeam is notified of inaccuracies, it simply refuses to admit it is wrong or to apologise,” said Mr Ward, who is a reviewer for the forthcoming International Governmental Panel on Climate Change report that will shape the action the world agrees to combat global warming."Well the word charity has been stretched beyond all reasonable meaning in recent years. I would actually agree with Ward (first time for everything) and scrap any tax breaks for the GWPF...along with all those other pseudo charities peddling their dubious wares.
And whilst we're at it scrap all those NGOs that get government money to lobby them to do what they wanted to do in the first place. Wasn't there supposed to be a Bonfire of the Quangoes a while ago. Whatever happened to that?
Of course this will leave armies of the Great and Good (and Smug) to find employment more suitable to their talents be it entrepreneur or burger flipper.
It would nice to know where the £400,000 sitting in the GWPF coffers came from. The donations are recorded, but most are anonymous. Like the Register of Interests for MPs and their Lordships, transparancy of donations would help assess the GWPF's contribution to the debate.
Entropic, Your comment is really just another variant of an ad hominem accusation. Why not leave the funding source discussion for a moment, and concentrate on the integrity of the arguments advanced by the GWPF?
Tony.
Anthony Ratiffe
The GWPF webiste reads like any other special interest political lobby group. If they revealed their donors and showed that they were not being financed by sources with a sceptic financial interest I would take them more seriously.
Entropic Man, whoever you are, I am a donor to the GWPF. I do not want our civilisation destoyed by idiots.
Kind regards
Mike Post
EM, it would be nice to know where GWPF's opponents go their 4 Trillion Dollars.
Entropic, Perhaps you could borrow an elementary book on the traditional formal logic from your local library so that you could better understand what I have said.
Tony.
Hey EM - you hound of truth, what do you think of the budget that GGGI are running? Any thoughts on what they are trying to achieve? How do you feel about their funding of Grantham's boys and girls?
Lord Stern is an employee of Grantham and was when he wrote his famous report.
Jeremy Grantham wrote this in his recent newsletter
"Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving field rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it."
http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_SummerEssays_2Q10.pdf
"showed that they were not being financed by sources with a sceptic financial interest I would take them more seriously." Entropic Man
Every body has a sceptic financial interest if they've ever paid a bill or received cash from a company that uses fossil fuels. Should they be exempt from having an opinion?
Only 'green' companies and climate scientists benefit from CAGW being right. Are they just saying there's a crisis in order to make money? Should they be silenced?
Should the people who make money from both sides be silenced altogether or be the only ones allowed to express an opinion?
Why do warmists prate on about sceptics and conspiracy theories when they're the ones who see double dealing at every turn?
I certainly wouldn't want my identity to become public knowledge if I was a GWPF sponsor. You never know what crazy will come after you with a knife and meat cleaver?
On the other hand we are only talking about a few hundred k. You cannot tell me that a mass-media disinformation campaign that the catastrophiliacs fantasise about is funded by that kind of money...especially when hundreds of billions of dollars is being p1ssed away on Mann Made Global Warming (tm).
So either the evil deniers are getting massive funding somewhere and are keeping it quiet OR, more likely, that massive coordinated funding doesn't actually exist.
Ill leave it up to you to decide which it is.
Mailman
Jack Savage
ditto
Bob Ward is a small piece of irrelevance floating in a sea of ignorance and arrogance. We all look forward to the day he sinks beneath the waves and is never seen or heard again.
doubt Bob Ward would attack you with anything clever, Mailman.
Bob Ward's Grantham Institute has "persistently disseminated inaccurate and misleading information about climate change as part of its campaign for the implementation of ruinous climate policies in the UK and overseas"
This about sums up the truth of the matter.
Policy advice example 1:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/Policy/docs/PB-unburnable-carbon-2013-wasted-capital-stranded-assets.pdf
//
The London School of Economics and Political Science is a School of the University of London. It is a charity and is incorporated in England as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Acts (Reg no. 70527).
//
Policy advice example 2:
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/Public/pdfs/Briefing%20Papers/Reducing%20CO2%20emissions%20from%20heavy%20industry_Briefing%20Paper%207.pdf
//
Imperial College London is an exempt charity under the laws of England and Wales by virtue of the Exempt Charities Order 1962 and the Second Schedule to the Charities Act 1993.
Many Church of England parishes are registered as charities yet they keep pedalling the God myth. I do not think they should lose charitable status for that. So if GWPF have said anything erroneous they should similarly be able to keep their charitable status.
Fixed link for Imperial:
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/Public/pdfs/Briefing%20Papers/Reducing%20CO2%20emissions%20from%20heavy%20industry_Briefing%20Paper%207.pdf
Demanding information on the sources of funding is always the diversionary tactic of choice for those unable to dispute the statements coming from any organisation with which they disagree. It has been ubiquitous in the climate change field and has, frankly, become laughable, pointless, and boring.
If Ward were actually in a position to dispute anything of any import that the GWPF says then he would do so. The fact that he can't pisses him off and the fact that he is deprived of the alternative warmist bleat, namely that they are funded by the fossil fuel industry, pisses him off even more.
Worshippers at the Church of Climatology have always been identifiable by their uncharitable and blinkered approach to those who disagree with them but in recent years their tunnel vision has become so marked that it really is time they consulted an ophthalmologist.
To complain to the Charity Commission? Well, you have to be in real despair.
Have the Koreans succeeded in cloning Bob - or just given him a makeover and a personality transplant?
There's a great deal of focus on Ward here. One assumes that it's Nicholas Stern pulling his strings though.
It annoys me that Bob Ward is taken seriously when he is the only person, AFAIK, who is paid solely to represent warmist causes. He isn't a scientist, he isn't an enquiring layman, he takes money to spout his stuff. And if he then goes on about other groups' funding all the more reason to suspect everything he writes. How he gets published is beyond belief. Does the Guardian give space to paid apologists for evil corporations without pointing it out? I suggest we refer to him by the portmanteau term 'paid mouthpiece Bob Ward' every time we mention him.
Ntrop,
To be fair, I'm not worried about the comical Ali of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) either.
No, it's the other crazies who believe in the religion Mann Made Global Warming (tm) that would concern me about my personal safety.
Mailman
Jun 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM | not banned yet
You have a broken link.
Is this the paper that you wanted us to see?
"Reducing CO2 emissions from heavy industry:
a review of technologies and considerations for policy makers".
If so, here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/l6kcdox
“The foundation arrogantly ignores any challenges to the accuracy of the information it spreads, and has not been held to account for misleading the public. As I have discovered on numerous occasions, when the foundation is notified of inaccuracies, it simply refuses to admit it is wrong or to apologise,” said Mr Ward, who is a reviewer for the forthcoming International Governmental Panel on Climate Change report that will shape the action the world agrees to combat global warming."
"Stupid boy!"
Perhaps Ward wants the CC to look for the big oil money. It will probably be in the same place as the "missing heat."
rhoda what annoys me even more is when some hairy unwashed sandal-wearing democracy-hating hippy-throwback representing Greenpuke stands up and tells us he is a 'scientist' and then goes on to spout utter activist drivel. At least the paid mouthpiece Bob Ward does not try to give the impression he knows anything.
If vacuous wanted embodiment it would have no further to look.
If you choose to be, as rhoda describes him, a paid mouthpiece then you are the one that will take the sticks and stones. In fact I'm not sure that he is anything other than Grantham's foghorn. If he had the standard issue number of brain cells he would have realised by now that he talks rubbish and that the speed with he pops up vainly attempting to rebut the obvious only makes him more of a laughing stock with every day that passes.
Jun 14, 2013 at 7:19 PM | Mike Jackson
One might infer that spouting drivel on behalf of Grantham must be sufficiently lucrative to make being a laughing stock worthwhile.
Zaphod Beeblebrox- "Who in the Galaxy would want to bomb a publishing company?''
Marvin (the paranoid android)- "Another publishing company?"
Browned off - thanks for that fix, that is the paper I was referring to. :-)
As far as I know, the identities of the donors who comprise the WWF's '1001 Club' remain secret to this day. Perhaps Bob Ward could turn his attention to that matter:
Wikipedia entry here
What we do know is that Shell Oil was the WWF's first corporate sponsor:
The WWF's Vast Pool of Oil Money
Someone recently came up with the superb descriptive encapsulation of the classic Bob Ward bluster - retwardian (from his tweet handle).
I'm still enjoying this retwardian gem of his on UKIP energy policy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/mar/04/ukip-energy-climate-policies
Surely if GWPF is hindered and exposed, then it is money well spent?
In any case isn't GWPF a waste of money?
It is currently being subisdised by tax payers.
Pomps - subsidised by taxpayers? really?
Do you mean that the donations come from taxpayers?
Or are you implying that if they are somehow not being taxed on these donations then that somehow amounts to a subsidy? Now had you claimed that windmills are being subsidised, I might have agreed.
Can you clarify what you mean and what you object to?
Pomps, would you please document precisely how the GWPF is being "subsidised" by taxpayers in ways that every other registered charity in the UK is not identically being "subsidised".
tony.
What a great discussion... I may follow the latest comment in my spare time after working as jasa seo consultant.