Bishop Hill Roger throws down the gauntlet
Nov 20, 2014 BBC Climate: Parliament This morning Roger Harrabin has written something about the Green Climate Fund, the latest wheeze for moving money from the pockets of poor people in rich countries to those of rich people in poor countries, while allowing environmentalists to take their cut. No surprise there.
What was interesting was the way he describes the GWPF:
Benny Peiser from the fossil fuel lobby group GWPF said international climate finance for low carbon development was "a detrimental use of aid money".
A couple of days ago I wrote to Roger about his coverage of the ODI report into fossil fuel subsidies, pointing out that it was essentially a work of fiction. He was apparently too busy to look into the problems with it.
Go figure.
Bishop Hill
GWPF are being fairly blunt
@RHarrabin 'Char comm ruled it wasn't a think tank' - yet another Harrabin lie.
As is Ben Pile:
@RHarrabin Withdraw the lie, and give a fair, truthful description of the GWPF. IT is not an insult to point out that you have lied.
Bishop Hill
The article has now been stealth edited:
Benny Peiser from GWPF said international climate finance for low carbon development was "a detrimental use of aid money".
Reader Comments (114)
JunkkMale,
Vanishing, trickery and discombobulation............. of, you saw it and read it, but now it's gone! They'll be rewriting history next............oh WAIT!
Puts me in mind of the Environment Advocacy and the MO, the ministers of Meteorological Obfuscation.
Whack a Mole / ET
keep going boys ... I'm really looking forward to your explanations of green funding.
...... does tumbleweed make any noise?
Here it is tomo. Not sure why you think we were looking into green funding. GWPF is the subject matter here.
From the link it appears that Mr Hintze runs the CQS hedge fund. One of its strategies did fund oil rig financing.
“CQS RIG Finance Fund LTD is a closed-ended investment company incorporated in Guernsey. The Company invests in a portfolio of secured debt instruments issued to finance the construction, modification and/or refurbishment of rigs and other infrastructure and/or equipment used for the offshore exploration and production of oil and natural gas.”
This fund faced liquidation half way through this year.
I've yet to find how much he donated to GWPF. His admission only seemed to come out when he admitted a relation with GWPF. He is certainly generous with his monies though - the Tory party received about 100k.
Bit close to the bone methinks - not very convenient is it. Maybe best to keep quiet about this.
tomo - you think Roger H knows any of this? It was in the Guardian so not exactly obscure. He is a journo after all might be more strident if he did.
Hell - has anyone seen this?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/10
2014 heading for temp record....
Interesting as it may be I can't believe we're wasting our time here with some minor journo...
Tomo
I am not a green so I have no insight into their funding.
As a games theory strategy. it does make a certain sense for the fossil fuel lobby to finance Greenpeace and the GWPF. They can therefore control both sides of the debate.
While this artificial debate continues they can keep pumping oil, digging coal and dodging awkward questions about the value of their reserves.
noisy tumbleweed.....
The Harridan well knows which side his bread is (liberally) buttered - he does not do strident (usually) as his MO is sly dishonest stuff - in fact so oleaginous that it's positively creepy. There is an element of disdainful haughtiness to his mic delivery that only adds to my irritation at his antics.
The amounts received by GWPF are so positively piffling compared to the taxpayer funding alone of the assorted green alarmist advocacy goons that braying about it is exactly the sort of distraction antic that is expected from the blobbies.
Let's try The Pew (and other) Trusts, Rockerfellers , Grantham and so on eh? The diverse ecosystem of eco-groups and their funding especially in North America is a toxic sump of patronage and mendacious obfuscation that's actually an iceberg when you look closer and deeper.
Are you sure you want to play this game?
As to the oil majors - they have more in common with banks than anything else.
ENRON.......
terrible weather
Entropic Man
I think you are close to the truth. I have always wondered about Shell.What I have wondered is that the oil reserves which are easy to obtain in politically stable countries are running low. New oil reserves are offshore or in unstable countries. Gas and oil from shale, methane hydrates and coal bed methane are all likely to compete with oil reserves in stable countries.
Coal has massive potential to generate electricity of new efficient high temperature and pressure fluid reactors become common. If the Western World becomes dependent on wind and solar and blackouts occur, then the oil companies reserves will increase in value. To a large degree, green groups destroying coal and shalegas/oil companies are removing competition to the oil companies.
In the large oil companies how many directors are engineers? If directors come from an arts background and moved into business , then they may actually believe in the green propaganda. The green agenda is largely supported by middle and upper middle class people from a non engineering background. It may be that guilt about their comfort makes then susceptible to green propaganda.
EM agreed
Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
But who is it that sponsors the Guardian?s Environment pages and eco conferences? Why, only that famous non-fossil-fuel company Shell. (Though I notice their logo no longer appears on top of the Guardian?s eco pages: has the Guardian decided the relationship was just too embarrassing to be, er, sustainable?)
And which company has one of the largest carbon trading desks in London, cashing in on industry currently worth around $120 billion ? an industry which could not possibly exist without pan-global governmental CO2 emissions laws ? BP (which stands for British Petroleum)
And how much has Indian steel king Lakshmi Mittal made from carbon credits thanks to Europe?s Emissions Trading Scheme? £1 billion.
And which companies were the CRU scientists revealed cosying up to as early as 2000 in the Climategate emails? There?s a clue in this line here: ?Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday.?
And how much was Phil Jones, director of the discredited CRU, found to have collected in grants since 1990? £13.7 million ($22.7 million)
And why does this Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild?s bank sound so enthusiastic in this (frankly terrifying) letter about the prospects of the ?new world order? (his phrase not mine) which result from globally regulated carbon trading?
Or why not try this blog, in which a German Green party MP is revealed being given hefty donations by a solar power company?
Or how about this tiny $7o million donation to the climate change industry from the Rockefeller Foundation?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019523/climategate-george-monbiot-is-in-the-pay-of-big-oil/
International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)
The biggest lobbying group (486) at the Copenhagen global climate conference was the International Emissions Trading Association created to promote cap and trade in 1999.
Its members include :-
BP, Conoco Philips, Shell, E.ON , EDF, Gazprom , Goldman Sachs, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley..
http://www.ieta.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=19%3Adefault&id=168%3Aour-members&Itemid=82
Whackamole,
Your gullibility and near perfect echo effect is greatly appreciated by Gruber's pals pushing the climate crisis. Please keep demosntrating that the loss of critical thinking really does impact one's intelligence.
Thanks in advance,
A while back, after persuading David Shukman - BBC that an article he had written needed corrections. Which he did(Richard Betts and Paul Hudson had also raised concerns)
David told me that he had corrected it
I then had to remind him about BCC policy that corrections should be noted on the article, and he had failed to do so..
Perhaps Roger needs to do not the same... I may remind him later
The ABC does this too. It "corrects" articles often weeks later, after complaints have been received, without showing the changes. Then it says that this demonstrates its commitment to truth in reporting.
Next week is "Whack a Mole No Recycling Week" for me, as I need to get back some of the time I wasted reading his/her intentionally malicious posts.
- I will though make a special effort to tell 1 or 2 more people that accepting wind/solar subsidies is basically stealing from the pockets of the average poor consumer.
Catastrophilia gets tens, if not HUNDREDS of billions of dollars in funding yet people like whack a mole wants us to bebelieve that the reason their religion is one the rack is because of groups like GPWF get mysterious levels of funding from oil 😂
Mailman