Thank you for your financial and moral support.
In the National Post today I argue that the extreme anti-coal stance of UN officials and green activists harms both people and the environment.
Greenpeace makes a show of rejecting government and corporate money. But it’s close pals with the WWF – which gets enormous funding from exactly those sources.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds sacrifices today’s birds in the name of fighting tomorrow’s climate change. Not only does it provide cover for the wind industry, it cashes its cheques.
Climate skeptics don’t hire advertising agencies to help them manage their brand. Green groups do. So tell me again which side is lavishly funded?
Canadian greens say lake-destroying research is all about science – but how do we know for sure?
An academic paper funded by two National Science Foundation grants bears no relation to the intended purpose of that money.
The world’s largest environmental organization celebrates 4-year-olds as a fundraising mechanism.
According to 1960s radicals, the environmental movement has been funded and orchestrated by fossil fuel interests.
In Pakistan, the WWF is enlisting university students to develop an “environmental conscience” among the poorest of the poor.
Junkets abroad, handsomely-paid positions at home – no wonder government employees love the environment.
Why don’t polar bear activists recognize a success story when they see one?
If the IPCC had done the sensible thing and banned activist publications, would the institute run by its chairman still be receiving activist cash?
Last week, a sustainability summit organized by the chairman of the IPCC was held in India. The World Wildlife Fund provided funding.
In a speech to students, David Suzuki condemned society’s fixation with money. So why did he charge their school more for a day’s work than many Canadians earn in a year?
Persecuted for decades? Poor? Green groups will still kick you when you’re down.
The Sierra Club took fossil fuel money. Lots of it. How dare it falsely accuse other people of doing this.
Please consider buying me a holiday cocktail if you think my IPCC-related journalism is important. A donation button is available for two weeks only.
This blog will return in mid-September. In the meantime, here’s a video of a presentation I gave in Australia last month – and some thoughts on the bankruptcy of contemporary green analysis.
A group that’s supposed to be saving animals thinks the global economy must be transformed.
A new report funded by big oil and big tobacco has the chutzpah to complain about corporate influence on the climate debate.
A splendid and disturbing investigative feature in Der Spiegel explains why the WWF doesn’t deserve your charitable donations.
The World Wildlife Fund’s first corporate sponsor was Shell oil – which continued to fund it for the next four decades.
The Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference. So why is the Heartland Institute being torn to pieces for the same behaviour?
Why are the editors of leading medical journals trying to suppress climate free speech? Since this isn’t their area of expertise how dare they harass those with a different point-of-view?
Between 2004 and 2008 the World Wildlife Fund recruited 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” to help it heighten the public’s sense of urgency.
A now-bankrupt solar energy company flushed half a billion dollars of taxpayer money down the toilet – after President Obama said it was a poster child of the new green economy.
Al Gore says climate change is a planetary emergency. But he’ll only tell a campus audience about it if the cheque is big enough.
The list of people who’ve accepted $150,000 from an advocacy organization is a long one. There are lots of PhDs here, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with full-blown political activists.
Who knew that green groups – and those with business interests in renewable energy – have access to such obscene amounts of money?
One of the most senior authors for the upcoming climate bible has spent the past 17 years cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
When environmentalists organize themselves, fund-raise, and try to spread their message this is considered legitimate democratic activity. Yet the minute climate skeptics do the same we’re accused of being doubt-mongers who manufacture uncertainty in order to mislead the public.
If much of the world were to snap out of it and realize that global warming has been over-hyped, large companies would lose hundreds of billions.
Greenpeace spends its time trashing corporations. Yet it solicits donations in the form of corporate stocks. Any kind of corporate stocks, apparently.
The UK’s Royal Society awarded an Esso Energy medal annually for 25 years. A short time later, when opinions on climate change diverged, the society began painting Esso’s parent company, ExxonMobil, as demon spawn.
It is frequently alleged that climate skeptics are being funded by big oil – and that their views should therefore not be trusted. In fact, green groups have received far more funding from oil interests. Really.
Skeptical climate scientists are often accused of being motivated by financial gain. So why does Al Gore charge $175,000 to deliver a speech? If global warming is really a planetary emergency, why won’t he deliver the same talk for $50,000?