Bonn or bust – The UN’s last, desperate bid for unelected world government
From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Bonn
There are not many empty seats in the dismal, echoing conference chamber in the ghastly concrete box that is the Hotel Maritim here in Bonn, where the UN’s latest attempt to maneuver the 194 States Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change gets underway today.
The “international community”, as it is now called, is here in full force, in the shape of expensively-suited, shiny-shod bureaucrats with an urbane manner and absolutely no knowledge of climate science whatsoever.
However, one empty chair is a pointer of things to come. The Holy See – a tiny nation in its own right, with a billion citizens around the world – has left its chair empty. And that is significant. If “global warming” still mattered, the Vatican would make sure that its representatives were present throughout this gloomy gathering of world-government wannabes.
This emergency conference, called by the UN’s bureaucrats because they were terrified that Cancun this December might fail as spectacularly as Copenhagen did last year, is a much quieter affair than Copenhagen. Not only has the air of triumphalism gone, after the scandals of Climategate, Himalayagate, Amazongate and so forth, but the belief that “global warming” is a global crisis has largely gone too.
There are a few true-believers left among the national delegates, but more of them than before are open to discussion of the previously-forbidden question – what if the climate extremists have made the whole thing up?
The Chinese Xinhua News Agency, for instance, came up to the table manned by the environmental campaigners of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which takes a hard-boiled, cynical view of the notion that a tiny increase in the atmospheric concentration of a trace gas is likely to cause a thousand international disasters.
The reporters were genuinely interested to hear that there is another side to the story. Huan Gongdi, the Agency’s senior correspondent in Germany, asked me what I thought of the Copenhagen accord (a waste of time), what was happening in Bonn (a desperate attempt to ram through a binding Treaty that can be put in front of the US Senate before the mid-term elections make Senate acceptance of any such treaty unthinkable), and whether or not there was a climate crisis anyway (there isn’t).
I explained to Mr. Huan that even if the UN had not exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 many times over there was still nothing we could do about the supposed “crisis”, because we were emitting so little of the stuff in the first place.
For the record, I did the sum in front of him. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 today is about 388 parts per million by volume. However, we are adding just 2 ppmv a year to the air. So the warming we cause each year, even if one believes the UN’s wild exaggerations of CO2’s warming effect, is just 4.7 times the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration from 388 to 390 ppmv.
Thus, 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.043 Fahrenheit degrees – less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree of “global warming” every year. That is all. Putting it another way, it would take almost a quarter of a century with no carbon-emitting activity at all – not a single train, plane, automobile, or fossil-fueled power station – to forestall just 1 Fahrenheit degree of “global warming”.
That is why no Treaty based on controlling the amount of carbon dioxide the world emits can possibly work. And that is why there is no hurry anyway. The only reason for the UN’s sense of urgency – a panic no longer felt by the majority of the delegates here – is that the bureaucrats know the game is up. Opinion polls throughout the free world show that no one now believes a word of the climate extremists’ nonsense any more. If they can’t get a binding treaty this year, they won’t get one at all, and they know it.
Earth is never in equilibrium
By Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at MIT.
To a significant extent, the issue of climate change revolves around the elevation of the commonplace to the ancient level of ominous omen. In a world where climate change has always been the norm, climate change is now taken as punishment for sinful levels of consumption. In a world where we experience temperature changes of tens of degrees in a single day, we treat changes of a few tenths of a degree in some statistical residue, known as the global mean temperature anomaly (GATA), as portents of disaster.
Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacials that appear to have been warmer than the present despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th century, these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat, and, indeed, some alpine glaciers are advancing again.
For small changes in GATA, there is no need for any external cause. Earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Examples include El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, etc. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all change in the globally averaged temperature anomaly since the 19th century. To be sure, man’s emissions of carbon dioxide must have some impact. The question of importance, however, is how much.
A generally accepted answer is that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it turns out that one gets the same value for a doubling regardless of what value one starts from) would perturb the energy balance of Earth about 2 percent, and this would produce about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming in the absence of feedbacks. The observed warming over the past century, even if it were all due to increases in carbon dioxide, would not imply any greater warming.
However, current climate models do predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide might produce more warming: from 3.6 degrees F to 9 degrees F or more. They do so because within these models the far more important radiative substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever an increase in carbon dioxide might do. This is known as positive feedback. Thus, if adding carbon dioxide reduces the ability of the earth system to cool by emitting thermal radiation to space, the positive feedbacks will further reduce this ability.
It is again acknowledged that such processes are poorly handled in current models, and there is substantial evidence that the feedbacks may actually be negative rather than positive. Citing but one example, 2.5 billion years ago the sun’s brightness was 20 percent to 30 percent less than it is today (compared to the 2 percent change in energy balance associated with a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels) yet the oceans were unfrozen and the temperatures appear to have been similar to today’s.
This was referred to by Carl Sagan as the Early Faint Sun Paradox. For 30 years, there has been an unsuccessful search for a greenhouse gas resolution of the paradox, but it turns out that a modest negative feedback from clouds is entirely adequate. With the positive feedback in current models, the resolution would be essentially impossible.
Interestingly, according to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from manmade gases is already about 86 percent of what one expects from a doubling of carbon dioxide (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons, and ozone). Thus, these models should show much more warming than has been observed. The reason they don’t is that they have arbitrarily removed the difference and attributed this to essentially unknown aerosols.
The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany.
However, the modelers chose not to stress this. Rather they suggested that the models could be further corrected, and that warming would resume by 2009, 2013, or even 2030.
Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.
Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, so too is the basis for alarm. However, the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc., all depend not on GATA but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind and the state of the ocean.
The fact that some models suggest changes in alarming phenomena will accompany global warming does not logically imply that changes in these phenomena imply global warming. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred, and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.
One may ask why there has been the astounding upsurge in alarmism in the past four years. When an issue like global warming is around for more than 20 years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear. So, too, are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of carbon dioxide is a dream come true. After all, carbon dioxide is a product of breathing itself.
Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted to save Earth. Nations see how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. So do private firms. The case of Enron (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, Enron was one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon-emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to trillions of dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.
It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense.
Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.
Clearly, the possibility that warming may have ceased could provoke a sense of urgency. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, the need to courageously resist hysteria is equally clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence.
Greenie coal-hatred defeated
One of the world’s biggest coal-fired power stations is to be built in South Africa after Britain declined to vote against a $3 billion (£1.96 billion) World Bank loan for the project.
The Medupi plant will be bigger than Drax, Britain’s largest power station, and will pump out 25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere. But it will provide reliable electricity for millions of people and thousands of businesses plagued by regular power cuts.
Britain effectively had the casting vote on the loan because the US, the other main donor to the World Bank, had said it would abstain before last night’s vote in Washington.
Green groups had lobbied the Government heavily to vote against the loan, arguing that South Africa should invest instead in renewable energy from wind turbines and solar panels.
The Government had considered blocking the loan to South African state utility Eskom and officials said last week that they had grave doubts abvout the scheme. But Britain chose last night to join the US and the Netherlands in abstaining.
Ruth Davis, the chief policy adviser for Greenpeace, said: “Britain could have stopped the loan if it had wanted to but it took the easy way out. Abstaining at this late stage is effectively allowing it to go ahead. The plant will be a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, paid for partly with aid money intended for the world’s poor.
“Hopefully Britain’s abstention means this will be the last plant of this kind subsidised by the UK taxpayer.”
A spokesman for the Department for International Development said: "The project raises several sensitive and potentially controversial issues which it has not been possible to resolve before this period began." Obiageli K. Ezekwesili, World Bank Vice President for the Africa Region, said: “Without an increased energy supply, South Africans will face hardship for the poor and limited economic growth.
“Access to energy is essential for fighting poverty and catalyzing growth, both in South Africa and the wider sub-region. Our support to Eskom combines much-needed investments to boost generation capacity for growing small and large businesses, creating jobs, and helping lay the foundations for a clean energy future through investments in solar and wind power.”
The loan includes $3.05 billion for the 4800 megawatt coal plant, $260 million for wind and solar projects with 200 megawatts potential capacity and $485 million for energy efficiency measures, including a new rail line to transport coal rather than using lorries.
Pravin Gordhan, the South African Finance Minister, last week accused green groups which opposed the loan of trying to impose their environmental priorities on a country lacking the secure electricity that is taken for granted in the developed world.
EPA’s ginormous power grab
“It’s a sure sign that a government agency has become overmighty when it vastly increases its budget, grabs power unconstitutionally and treats Congress with contempt. All of this applies to the Environmental Protection Agency. Unless Congress acts quickly to curb the EPA's power, it will become a huge drag on the economy. Few bodies are more deserving of cutbacks now. This year, EPA's budget (which had hovered at $7 billion to $8 billion since 1997) increased by 34 percent, to more than $10 billion for the first time ever. The budget increase does not translate into an upsurge in staffing level - which remains lower than its apex of more than 18,000 workers in 1999 - but instead represents much more patronage in the form of grants to states.
This increased patronage comes at a time when the EPA is accruing much more power. Its finding under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare goes way beyond the powers of the act. The agency has decided it has the power to:
c License California and other states to adopt nonfederal fuel-economy standards within their borders.
c Act as co-equal (or even senior partner) with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in setting fuel-economy standards for the auto industry.
c Establish climate and energy policy for the nation.
c "Tailor," that is, amend, the Clean Air Act to avoid an administrative debacle of its own making.
As my colleague Marlo Lewis has pointed out, in each of these cases, the EPA is ignoring the plain language of the statutes and, in some cases, the constitutional requirements of the Supremacy Clause and separation of powers.
The details of each of these actions are complicated, but the basic thrust of this four-step power grab is as follows.
By granting California the power to ignore federal fuel-economy standards, the EPA created a regulatory patchwork that imposes significant burdens on the auto industry.
This led to the White House brokering a deal whereby the EPA muscles in on the NHTSA's statutory authority to regulate fuel-economy standards, something for which the EPA has no statutory authority.
The EPA claims this then compels it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, thereby making it the effective arbiter of national climate policy - even as Congress debates what to do about the issue.
Even the EPA seems to recognize the absurdity of the resulting regulations under the language of the Clean Air Act - which would lead to the EPA having to issue permits for fast-food franchises and large apartment buildings to emit greenhouse gases - so the agency took upon itself the power to tailor statutory language, thereby playing lawmaker, to avoid the regulatory debacle which it itself had put in motion.
Fortunately, some lawmakers have caught on to what the EPA is up to. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, was so concerned that she wrote to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, asking 13 simple questions about the proposed course of action. The reply she received was so evasive that it answered only two of the questions - and partially at that.
Congress may soon get its first real opportunity to rein in this rogue agency. Sometime between now and May 25, the Senate is expected to vote on Mrs. Murkowski's Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval. This measure would veto the legal force and effect of EPA's endangerment finding. The EPA's nongovernmental allies are so worried about this resolution that they have engaged in a smear campaign, accusing Mrs. Murkowski and others of seeking to impose a "Dirty Air Act." She has not been intimidated, though, and her proposal is likely to come to a vote.
A rogue regulatory agency is like an oil tanker with sails. Once in motion, it takes a lot to stop it. Congress can take the wind out of the EPA's sails through the Murkowski resolution of disapproval and a significant reduction in the agency's budget.
On the other hand, if the EPA gets away with this power grab, we can expect further abuses of its authority in relation to the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. If it gets its way, the agency's $10 billion budget will look like chicken feed.
Ocean Conveyor Belt Confounds Climate Science
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also known as the “Ocean Conveyor Belt,” has been the subject of much study since its discovery. The AMOC is primarily responsible for Europe's temperate climate and some scientists have warned that global warming could cause the ocean's flow to slow down or even stop. This rather counter intuitive result of a warming climate would result in a much colder Europe—perhaps even a new mini-ice age. A new analysis of data from satellites and drifting sensors finds no evidence that the conveyor belt is slowing. In fact, a NASA backed study indicates that the conveyor is far less susceptible to throttling by climate change than some climate change alarmists feared.
The heat transported by the AMOC makes a substantial contribution to the moderate climate of maritime and continental Europe. Scientists have long feared that any significant slowdown in the overturning circulation would have profound implications for climate change. In a 2005 Nature paper, “Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25°N,” Harry L. Bryden, Hannah R. Longworth and Stuart A. Cunningham analyzed temperature and salinity measurements made during five brief ship surveys between 1957 and 2004. These data seemed to indicate that the northward flow of the Atlantic conveyor suffered a 30% decline in volume around the turn of the century. These findings led to warnings that a scenario similar to the disaster film The Day After Tomorrow could be just around the corner.
“'Mini Ice Age' May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns,” was the headline on the National Geographic News site. “Chilling new evidence from the Atlantic Ocean is raising fears that western Europe could soon be gripped by a mini ice age,” reported their 2005 news article. “The study supports computer model predictions suggesting that global warming will switch off the North Atlantic current in the next 50 to 100 years.” But even in 2005, it was noted that the magnitude of these findings did not seem to match up with observed climate variation.
The changes reported were so big that they should have already cut oceanic heating of Europe by about one-fifth—enough to cool the British Isles by 1°C and Scandinavia by 2°C. Richard Wood, chief oceanographer at the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, said at the time that Bryden et al.'s findings left a lot unexplained. More recently, continuous data measurements from cable-moored instrument arrays identified large yearly fluctuations in conveyor flow even larger than those found by the old ship surveys.
The AMOC, bringing warmth to Europe and Scandinavia since the start of the Holocene.
Now, a new study by physical oceanographer Joshua Willis, working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, has further reduced the likelihood of a faltering conveyor belt. Centimeter-accuracy satellite measurements combined with observations from free-floating subsurface Argo drifters indicate that the flow has not diminished in the past seven years. If anything, the satellite data indicate an increase in flow. Here is how Dr. Willis described the work in the abstract from “Can in situ floats and satellite altimeters detect long-term changes in Atlantic Ocean overturning?”:
Global warming has been predicted to slow the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), resulting in significant regional climate impacts across the North Atlantic and beyond. Here, satellite observations of sea surface height (SSH) along with temperature, salinity and velocity from profiling floats are used to estimate changes in the northward-flowing, upper limb of the AMOC at latitudes around 41°N. The 2004 through 2006 mean overturning is found to be 15.5 ± 2.4 Sv (106 m3/s) with somewhat smaller seasonal and interannual variability than at lower latitudes. There is no significant trend in overturning strength between 2002 and 2009. Altimeter data, however, suggest an increase of 2.6 Sv since 1993, consistent with North Atlantic warming during this same period. Despite significant seasonal to interannual fluctuations, these observations demonstrate that substantial slowing of the AMOC did not occur during the past 7 years and is unlikely to have occurred in the past 2 decades.
For the non-oceanographer the increase of 2.6 Sv may not seem that significant but is is, in fact, a lot of water flow. The “Sv” stands for “Sverdrup,” the largest quantity commonly used to express the volume of flowing water. It is named in honor of Norwegian oceanographer Harald Sverdrup who defined it: 1 Sv represents 106 cubic meters per second (~264 million US gallons per second). This is a flow equivalent to of all the rivers in the world that empty into the ocean. So, not only is the increase of 2.6 Sv over the past decade sizable, the seasonal and year to year variation of ±2.4 Sv is also impressively large. Simply put, the conveyor belt is not behaving the way scientists thought it did.
The globe spanning ocean conveyor belt, also known as the thermohaline circulation (THC), is a large-scale ocean circulation that is driven by differences in water density that occur in different parts of the ocean. Thermohaline is a combination of thermo, referring to temperature, and haline referring to salt content, both factors that help determine the density of sea water. Density differences are created by surface heat and freshwater flowing from rivers and melting ice.
Distinct boundaries exist between masses of water which form at the surface, and subsequently maintain their own identity within the ocean. These masses of water can be arranged one on top of the other, according to density. When driven by gravity, wind and Earth's rotation they form a complicated system that circulates water around the world's oceans in a complicated pattern. The term MOC, short for meridional overturning circulation, is often used for the overall circulation system since the currents are not driven by just water density. The AMOC is the Atlantic portion of the larger worldwide MOC system.
The conveyor belt on a continuous ocean map. Image by Avsa.
Scientists earliest vision of the MOC was of a large, orderly circulation that moved heat energy around the globe. The major currents were thought to be fairly steady, but could increase or decrease with changes in global temperature. Only a weakened MOC would flow during an ice age, and anything that could interrupt its smooth functioning could cause abrupt climate change (e.g. the Bølling-Allerød Warming (BA) and the subsequent Little Dryas cooling). Disruption of the conveyor belt's flow is often cited as a mechanism for climate change “tipping points.”
Now, as it turns out, the flow is neither steady nor does it respond to the projected effects of climate change as scientists supposed. A number of climate scientists have hypothesized that global warming would weaken the MOC. This prediction eventually made its way into the IPCC's 2007 AR4 Working Group I report (see “10.3.4 Changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation”). Here is part of what the the IPCC said about global warming and the MOC:
The reduction in MOC strength associated with increasing greenhouse gases represents a negative feedback for the warming in and around the North Atlantic. That is, through reducing the transport of heat from low to high latitudes, SSTs are cooler than they would otherwise be if the MOC was unchanged. As such, warming is reduced over and downstream of the North Atlantic. It is important to note that in models where the MOC weakens, warming still occurs downstream over Europe due to the overall dominant role of the radiative forcing associated with increasing greenhouse gases.
The IPCC based its predictions on simulations from 19 coupled models integrated from 1850 to 2100 under SRES A1B atmospheric CO2 and aerosol scenarios up to year 2100. Some of the models continue the integration to year 2200 with the forcing held constant at the values of year 2100. The results from these simulations are shown in figure 10.15 from the report, reproduced below. Estimates of late-20th century MOC based on direct observation are shown as vertical bars on the left.
Three of the simulations show a steady or rapid slow down of the MOC that is unrelated to global warming. A few others have late-20th century simulated values that are inconsistent with observational estimates. Of the model simulations consistent late-20th century observations, no simulation predicted an increase in the MOC during the 21st century. The predicted flow reductions range from “indistinguishable within the simulated natural variability to over 50% relative to the 1960 to 1990 mean.” None of the models projects an abrupt transition to an off state of the MOC. In other words, no tipping points are predicted.
That seems all well and good, except the MOC is not following the IPCC script. As the paper by Dr. Willis shows, there has been no slowdown over the past 7 years and probably none over the past 20 years, years during which global temperatures are purported to have risen significantly. This is not the first time that the MOC has thrown scientists a curve. As was reported in “Conveyor Belt Model Broken,” when floating measurement buoys became available scientists discovered that the conveyor belt did not flow in large, smoothly predicable masses. In correspondence with Dr. Susan Lozier, lead author of the paper that article was based on, she claimed that their findings did not change the theoretical behavior of the MOC.
“The North Atlantic waters are indeed overturning, flowing equatorward at depth and returning poleward at the surface, but we are now suggesting that the flow at depth is not confined to a narrow boundary current, or 'conveyor belt',” she stated. “The climate models care first and foremost about the return of the surface waters and our research has no bearing in the slightest on those waters.” That this finding does not potentially impact the climate system as a whole is simply false modesty—any change in the behavior of ocean currents affects how they interact. The conveyor belt doesn't work as scientists thought and that has implications for global heat transfer, and hence climate, over time. Now it would appear that discrepancy was only the beginning and climate science has once again gotten the conveyor belt currents wrong.
Climate models are called GCM, general circulation models, because the two most important parts of the models are atmospheric and ocean circulation simulations. Of the two, the ocean holds the most heat energy and has the strongest impact on climate change. It is clear that climate science does not understand precisely how ocean circulation works, and that implies that all of their model simulations do not reflect reality. The upshot of this new information is that Europe's threatened ice age no longer seems imminent, at least not from a conveyor belt slowdown caused by global warming.
This shows the weakness of the science behind climate change. The predictions of future climate change are based on current understanding of how climate works—the theory. And the theory is based on observations of climate behavior in the past—the data. Except that the data regarding fluctuations in the MOC were spotty and incomplete. Now, with better data it looks like the theory is wrong. This in turn, means that all existing models are based on incorrect assumptions and may also have been calibrated using erroneous historical data. Yet predictions of future disaster generated by these models form the heart of the climate change alarmists' case for radical socioeconomic change. And those of us skeptical of climate science's prognostications are considered the foolish ones.
Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.
Greenpeace Funded by the Political Class
Far-left advocacy group Greenpeace receives large donations from rich and powerful people, enough to drown the entire notion of political independence and non-partisanship. The mechanism of receiving funding – through foundations – is the same as the opposition “right wing” organizations that it criticizes for funding bias.
Greenpeace is an international conglomerate, composed of corporations in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. Included among Greenpeace’s largest corporate donors are the Rockefeller brothers, Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, and the Macarthurs; as well as a long list of foundations with left-leaning gifting bias.
Since people on the left are generally unfamiliar with religious thought, my guess is that the Greenpeace propagandists are unfamiliar with the rules on casting the first stone. The group’s recent libelous attack against the Koch brothers appears to have had a dual purpose; both obviously connected to the exposure of the global warming scam.
Democrats, including Barack Obama, and politicians world-wide have invested a great deal of political capital in the scheme; pushing hard to put “global governance” in gear. Public awareness that the vast political changes along with exponentially increasing taxes have been proposed on the basis of fraud is harming their political power base.
Greenpeace also profits from smaller donors and operates “efficiently” by not paying volunteer workers. Claims of “saving the Earth” from global warming has been one of their greatest marketing tools for both fund raising and recruiting.
Their website still proclaims as a purpose of their existence: “Catalysing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change,” and has a variety of pages dedicated to global warming propaganda; including “Stop climate change,” “Climate change video FAQs,” “Take Action: Write to the oil companies,” “Cool IT Challenge,” “Take Action: Call Koch,” and “Climate blog.”
There is of course, no list of useful Greenpeace inventions or products that would be effective in achieving their stated goals; just calls for action, donations, and volunteers. Being entirely non-productive is one of the key characteristics Greenpeace uses to “grow the brand.”
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here