Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > COP22 Attendees

I've been rather busy of late, so my intention to post something topical about COP22 has been delayed. I don't suppose it's now topical, but the point remains the same. The list of attendees (which was much discussed on sceptic sites while the Marrackech jamboree was ongoing) is here:

Apart from the truly horrifying number of organisations and people who attended (and it's difficult to see why even a fraction of them needed to be there, even if they really were "saving the planet") and the hypocrisy of so many flying in to a desert location with air conditioning blasting away, 24/7 shuttle service from the airport etc etc, the other thing that jumped out at me is the funding and inter-connectedness of so many of the organisations. Follow the money!

Pretty much all of the organisations have fancy websites trumpeting what they do and asking for money, but some are coy about letting us know where their money comes from. Scrolling down randomly, one of the first I came to which admitted to its sources of funding was C40 Cities - another organisation which likes to jet its high-profile members to conferences all over the globe. It lists numerous funders, but its 3 prime ones are said to be Bloomberg Philanthropies, Children's Investment Fund Foundation, and Realdania.

I decided to have a look at the Children's Investment Fund Foundation website. It appears to have a huge endowment, but doesn't say much about where the money comes from. It is a UK registered charity, so is effectively subsidised by the UK taxpayer. It has numerous executive directors of this and that, but the relevant one for me is Sonia Medina, Executive Director, Climate Change. Perhaps it's unfair to single her out, but she seems to me to be typical of the thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? of people who have their snouts in the climate trough while feeling good about themselves. Here she is:

Among other things, surprise surprise, "Sonia sits on the Board of C40, a network of megacities committed to tackling climate change and on the Advisory Committee of Circularity Capital, a UK-based specialist fund manager with a mission to support SMEs growth and innovation in the circular economy." I bet her "carbon footprint" is 100 times bigger than mine!

If I had the time I would follow all the links between these organisations, but there are so many of them, and the links are so numerous, it would be a full-time job. Please feel free to chip in if you can be bothered to look for other examples, though. I might mention others as and when time allows.

Dec 7, 2016 at 9:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Myron Ebell

Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy, CEI

Chairman, Cooler Heads Coalition.Former National Policy Director, Frontiers of Freedom. Former Staff, American Land Rights Association.

Ebell was previously the National Policy Director at Frontiers of Freedom, where he worked on a variety of environment-related issues. Prior to his work at FoF he was senior legislative assistant to Rep. John Shadegg and also worked for the American Land Rights Association, and active "wise use" organization based in Washington State.

Under the auspices of the Competiitve Enterprise Institute, Ebell spoke at the 2001 Alliance for American "Fly In for Freedom," an annual rally of "wise use" leadership.


Competitive Enterprise Institute,Heartland Institute,Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation,Cooler Heads Coalition,
American Conservative Union Foundation,Cascade Policy Institute

See Ebells's connections and the interconnected web of snouts in the Exxon trough here.

Foxes and henhouses come to mind when considering Ebell as head of an Environment Prtoection Agency. Interesting times.

Dec 7, 2016 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Other snouts' troughs.

Dec 7, 2016 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

You are on to something there, Mark Hodgson, but I agree that there would be lot of work needed to follow it though, and I suspect it would be very dispiriting. Here's a comment I made on a CliScep post from Geoff Chambers last month on this topic:

I’ve just scrolled down that list of COP participants given here earlier by Vinny Burgoo ( ).

I felt a sadness from this glimpse at the ginormity of the CO2 Bandwagon. I recalled occasions when I have had this feeling before. Have you ever watched a really dire film (movie) right to the end, and watched slack-jawed as screen after screen of credits rolled up before your jaded eyes? So many people’s time had been taken up with something so tawdry/rubbishy/insulting-to-the-spirit/intelligence/senses? What a waste. How come we have so much spare cash swilling around that they can all find a chunk of it? How hard would it be to find something more useful to do?

I don’t feel quite ready yet to speak for the planet, but on behalf of me and my vegetable patch, I would like to emit a considerable wail.

The last couple of sentences were in response this pompous guff produced by some COP22 participants: 'We, as a planet, now have to choose between the path of self-destruction by overconsumption or a more equitable and sustainable future.'

This preview of COP22 might also be of interest, including the comments:

Dec 7, 2016 at 11:40 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Phil Clarke, Myron Ebell is the correct person for the job. Climate Science has failed completely, and has not benefitted anyone apart from those advancing the cause of self betterment.

A handgrenade in a snake pit would be a more appropriate analogy. Less risk to humanity too.

Dec 7, 2016 at 5:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mark Hodgson, after all the millions spent on Marrakech, will any person have derived any benefit? No.

If we assume a cost of only £1,000 per delegate including air fares and hotels, how many better causes could have benefitted?

Dec 7, 2016 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil C - we do indeed live in interesting times. It's fair enough for you to highlight Myron Ebell's various interests, but could you not bring yourself to criticise the hypocrisy of the climate jamboree that was COP22 (and the 21 COPs before it)? Are you not even slightly perturbed by the interconnecting webs of mutual back-scratching in the world of climate "charities"? It seems to me that it should be possible to believe in AGW - even in CAGW - and to be unhappy at the things being done in its name, and the massive CO2 emissions from those with snouts in the climate trough. More than that, true believers in CAGW should be appalled by what is being done in the name of climate activism and the massive levels of hypocrisy swilling around. Why are "Ebells's connections and the interconnected web of snouts in the Exxon trough" apparently unacceptable (I infer, since you raise the issue) while you have no problems (I infer, since you appear on a thread criticising them without joining the criticism) with a web of snouts and troughs in the world of climate alarmism?

John Shade - thanks for the comment and link. I spotted it at the time, but didn't have time to comment when the article was put up on that website - hence the delayed thread here now.

Golf charlie at 5.53 pm - quite! The money sloshing around here on junkets is terrifying. Imagine what could be done with it for really good purposes? Alternatively, we could just save the taxpayers some money and reduce the deficit a bit. By the way, the Scottish Government is excellent at giving money away to this sort of nonsense. This despite having the worst per capita budget deficit in the EU, by my calculation a deficit of 9.7% of GDP or somewhere between £2,500 and £3,000 per person p.a.

By the way, I should make it clear that I have nothing against Sonia Medina, who might well be a wonderful person working hard and doing an excellent job. She just had the misfortune to serve to illustrate my point.

Dec 7, 2016 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

It's going to be a long haul if I look at every person and organisation attending COP22. I just started looking at the UN Secretariat attendees and spotted Ms. Celine Clarke, Director of Administration and Communications, Mary Robinson Foundation - Climate Justice, so I thought I'd look at the website for Mary Robinson Foundation - Climate Justice. Its 2015 Annual Report reveals that Children's Investment Fund Foundation donates to this Foundation as well. I wonder how many climate-related organisations benefit from its (and therefore via its charitable status, the UK taxpayer's) largesse?

I see the Mary Robinson Foundation - Climate Justice also receives funding from Irish Aid - the Government of Ireland’s programme of assistance to developing countries. So the Irish taxpayers can feel good about climate justice too! No surprise that Al Gore is on its International Advisory Council. In 2015 the Foundation spent 335,578 euros on payroll costs and 75,031 euros on travel & subsistence.

Maybe tomorrow I'll look at another one. At the rate of one a day, I could be at this for several decades!

Dec 7, 2016 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

I decided to have a look at the Children's Investment Fund Foundation website. It appears to have a huge endowment, but doesn't say much about where the money comes from

For the first time since its foundation, Britain’s biggest philanthropist Chris Hohn has decided not to donate his annual profits to the children’s charity run by his former wife. As Britain’s biggest philanthropist, he has donated more than a billion pounds to charity and helped countless disadvantaged children. But for the first time since its foundation, Chris Hohn has decided not to donate his annual profits to the children’s charity run by his former wife.
The founder of The Children’s Investment Fund (TCI), one of the most successful hedge funds in the world, has cut his charitable donations after getting divorced from his wife Jamie Cooper Hohn last year.
Instead of donating profits to the foundation, his company paid out more than £26 million in a bumper pay deal for around 20 members of staff, with Mr Hohn understood to have taken the lion’s share.

The CIFF has a multi-year grant programme of just under $800m devoted to improving childrens' nutrition, education and health, they spend £4m on governance annually, compared £161m on charitable activity, and according the Charity Commssioners their charitable spending ratio is 119%. The organisation sees climate change as a major threat to childrens' welfare and has programmes dedicated to 'working towards transformational change in energy systems, cities and land use, as well as the phasing out of man-made super-polluting greenhouse gases.'

Given her portfolio, it would be odd if Ms Medina had not attended COP22.

From <>

Dec 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke 9:41, so having identified one person funded by private donations, do you think that exonerates the rest? Your ability to cherry pick evidence is a tribute to climate science.

Dec 7, 2016 at 10:39 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mark identified her, not I. I just added a little colour and texture.

Dec 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

 I just added a little colour and texture.

Dec 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM | Phil Clarke

Yes, in the shape of a cherry.

Dec 7, 2016 at 11:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil C

I'm still awaiting a straight answer to my question asked of you at 7.32pm. What's the difficulty in answering it?

I'll keep looking at the attendees in the meantime.

By the way, I don't deny that private philanthropists provide much of the funding of these people; what I observe is that this money is regularly topped up (probably unknowingly) by the taxpayer; and that it's a glorious jamboree of hypocrisy (all those CO2-emitting visits to international conferences and meetings) and a hugely tangled web. I would expect you to have a problem with all that waste and hypocrisy, as I do.

As golf charlie says: "how many better causes could have benefitted?"

Dec 8, 2016 at 8:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

One of the UN spin-offs which sent people to COP 22 is Sustainable Solutions Development Network. As part of the UN, I suppose we can assume that taxpayers world-wide are funding it, but as well as donations from some individuals it also specifically receives money from the German, Swiss, French & Norwegian governments (not from the UK government, thank goodness, so far as I can see). It has 6 Council Co-chairs and 90 Council members, plus 20 Emeritus members (all the usual suspects):

"The secretariat of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network is located in Paris, France, and New York, USA." It has 23 members. I'd be surprised if they don't have lots of meetings, involving lots of international travel.

The SDSN was set up by Ban Ki-moon in 2012. I don't suppose there was a lot of resistance to another load of snouts in another load of troughs from within the UN at the time.

Dec 8, 2016 at 8:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent'

I'm just not sufficently interested to do the research to give an informed answer. Hypocrisy would include doing something whilst insisting others act differently. COP22 took place in a carbon neutral eco village, and I would not be surprised if most or all of the attendees offset their emissions. But I CBA to find out if that was the case, perhaps you could add it to your research?

Dec 8, 2016 at 8:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Having said that a little lunchtime Googling turned up this:-

When it comes to the carbon footprint of UN climate conferences, here are some numbers:
COP13 in Bali:
• All emissions (travel of registered participants, conference facilities and local activities) offset by the UNFCCC    
• Offsetting was done through the purchase and cancellation of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) through the Adaptation Fund
COP15 in Copenhagen:
• 33,536 participants
• Total emissions of 26,276.41 tCO2e
• All emissions (travel of registered participants, conference facilities and local activities) were offset by the host government
• Offsetting was done through projects selected by the host government
COP17 in Durban:
• 14,123 participants
• Total emissions of 25,048.15 tCO2e
• Emissions that were generated by travel of all registered participants were offset by the host government, representing 75% of the COP’s emissions
• Offsetting was done through projects selected by the host government
COP18 in Doha:
• 10,529 participants
• Total emissions of 11,538.30 tCO2e
• Emissions that were generated by travel of all registered participants were offset by the host government, representing 75% of the COP’s emissions
• Offsetting was done through the purchase and cancellation of Adaptation Fund CERs
COP20 in Lima:
• 13,067 participants
• All emissions (travel of registered participants, conference facilities and local activities) were offset by the host government
• Offsetting was done through projects selected by the host government

This shows that over recent years, we have assisted and worked with many host governments to offset the emissions of all other official delegates and any remaining emissions from a UN climate conference after the host government has put in their measures such as recycling, using renewable energy and installing energy saving measures.

From <>

Dec 8, 2016 at 2:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Offsetting emissions is just the same as buying Indulgences. Money just going round in circles until it gets to the ones in power.

Those eager to gain plenary indulgences, but unable to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, wondered whether they might perform an alternative good work or make an equivalent offering to a charitable enterprise—for example, the building of a leprosarium or a cathedral. Churchmen allowed such commutation, and the popes even encouraged it, especially Innocent III (reigned 1198–1216) in his various Crusading projects. From the 12th century onward the process of salvation was therefore increasingly bound up with money. Reformers of the 14th and 15th centuries frequently complained about the “sale” of indulgences by pardoners. And as the papacy weakened in this period, secular governments increasingly allowed the granting of indulgences only in return for a substantial share of the yield, often as much as two-thirds. The princes got most of the money, and the popes got most of the blame.

Dec 8, 2016 at 2:52 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

Dec 8, 2016 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Offsetting is part of the scam.

I wish I could be paid for NOT doing something useful, like Climate Science Advocates are.

Dec 8, 2016 at 3:45 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I had thought you were paid.

You mean you spend all those hours writing bullshit for free?

Dec 8, 2016 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


Thanks for the link. From the same place,see below. Hilarious!

"Will the emissions of COP21 be offset?

The French government is working hard to reduce the emissions from COP21.

An exhaustive Sustainability Strategy Plan has been put in place by the French government with a goal to make the COP ISO 20121 compliant.

Various actions have been taken to reduce COP 21’s emissions from the source. These include:

hybrid shuttles between the RER station at Le Bourget or line 7 (Fort Aubervilliers) and the conference site;
distribution of 20 000 Navigo passes to registered participants;
a gas fired boiler instead of an heating oil boiler (-20% in terms of CO2);
short distribution channels and local sourcing for catering;
zero waste and 100% reuse;
welcome bags made with recycled clothing;
recycled paper and vegetable-based inks
Greenhouse gas emissions produced on the conference site that cannot be reduced from the source will be evaluated. A consulting firm, ECOACT, has been selected in January 2015 after a call for tender.

The amount of emissions produced at the Bourget conference site has been provisionally evaluated to be 21,000 tons of CO2 equivalent in September 2015. This estimation covers the 3 phases (assembly starting on 5 October, running the conference and dismantling), the two zones (conference centre and Espaces Générations Climat) and local transport of 40,000 people who are expected to come.

It should also be noted that the UNFCCC secretariat will offset all emissions from staff travel. Some delegations also have a policy to offset their climate footprint. For everybody else, it is voluntary.

As a result, the French government intends to increase efforts to actively encourage all participants not covered by offsets by the government or UNFCCC secretariat to offset their own emissions."

Dec 8, 2016 at 7:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

The climate extremist confabs have significant opportunity costs since none of them have produced anything of any value whatsoever. The bleating about carbon offsets is virtue posing that does nothing except for lining the pockets of climate rent seekers. The real cost is that every resource poured into "fighting climate change" could have been spent on solving actual problems, like clean water, clean coal, inadequate infrastructure, food security, etc. Instead our climate derangement sufferers manipulate their way to removing money from where it might actually do something good to where it most certainly won't do any good at all, if reality is a guide.

Dec 8, 2016 at 9:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter, exactly!

Entropic Man, who are you accusing? Perhaps you could list what Climate Science has achieved to improve humanity? Or the planet? Or other life forms? Where have all these "Carbon Taxes" actually ended up?

With your arrogant hypocrisy, you have demonstrated what Climate Science has always been about. Selfish greed.

Dec 8, 2016 at 10:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

Thank you for answering my post without payment.

I assume the gratuitous insult was also freely donated.

Do you have answers for those rhetorical questions or are they just part of your usual blather?

Dec 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, no one has benefitted from the lies of Climate Science, apart from those paid to lie. Nobody has paid me, what about you? Meanwhile, the poor are poorer, the thirsty thirstier, and those requiring Medical Aid are still dying.

You and all of Climate Science have maintained the fabricated Hockey Stick and 97% Consensus. Your reward is Trump.

Clearly you are in no frame of mind to suggest which bits of Climate Science are worth saving. Lather your own blather as long as you like, but you will have to do it unpaid, as will the rest of Climate Science.

Dec 8, 2016 at 11:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie