Hacked Files Reveal Renewable Energy Funding Hypocrisy

American Thinker

It seems that while scientists who accept funding from oil companies are branded as bought-and-paid-for shills, those financed by renewable energy interests remain unchallenged authorities in their fields.  Words can’t adequately express my astonishment. 

Amid the thousands of files apparently misappropriated from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week sit two documents on the subject of the unit’s funding.  One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief PD Jones has received since 1990. 

It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S Department of Energy to NATO and worth a total of £13,718,547 or approximately 22.6 million USD.  I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit, particularly for an oft-quoted and highly exalted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief climatologist.  

But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale.  In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of “energy agencies” they might put the bite on.  Three — the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative and the Energy Saving Trust — are UK-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting “new energy” technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth — Renewables North West — is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

Needless to say, all four of these CRU “potential funding sources” have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on-demand.  And equally obvious is that Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict.

And yet, no such latitude has ever been extended to scientists in the skeptical camp.
For instance, when MIT’s Richard Lindzen delivers one of his trademark brilliant presentations leading to the conclusion that climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is about 0.5°C, not the 1.5°-5°C predicted by IPCC models, all we hear from alarmists and complicit media types is that the professor once charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services and is therefore an unreliable big-oil hack. 

Or when S. Fred Singer challenges the IPCC to explain whether water vapor and clouds represent positive or negative feedback or stands before a graph depicted temperatures decreasing over the past 10 years while CO2 climbed and declares that “the relationship is meaningless,” his words are similarly dismissed based solely on the fact that he has received funding from ExxonMobil.

Let’s set aside the fact that Lindzen had actually accepted a total of $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from such interests on the day he ceased such activities two decades ago.  And that Singer has received only $20,000 from ExxonMobil.  And that climate realists are out-funded by alarmists by several orders of magnitude, which leads to the artificial expansion of the number of scientists who appear to support alarmist views.  And even that monies paid to either side of the debate have zero impact on the science of whether or not 20th century warming was caused or exacerbated by manmade CO2 emissions.   And don’t get me started on carbon-millionaire Al Gore.

The issue is this – Just how is it that funding from renewable energy interests evades charges of bias yet subsidies from traditional power entities scream bloody-conflict when each is equally friendly to the recipient’s cause? 

As with all things AGW, the alarmist quick-draw-canard that the science is settled but for a few outlying scientists in the pockets of the fossil-fuel industry is quickly losing whatever civic support it may have had.  And the scientific subterfuge surfaced last week by the CRU emails and documents represents but the latest of many recent outrages sure to accelerate the ongoing public awakening to the hoax which has been perpetrated upon them. 

In the broader scheme, the credibility blow the IPCC will likely suffer because the majority of those data manipulation revealing emails flowed from the fingertips of its senior authors and editors will weaken and perhaps ultimately break the AGW orthodoxy spine its politically-charged assessments have erected.  And that can only serve to further declaw their fellow alarmists and media minions – which of course would be nothing short of stupendous.
For as Lord Christopher Monckton emphasized in his rousing speech to close the second International Conference on Climate Change in New York City last March:

“There is no climate crisis. There was no climate crisis. There will be no climate crisis.”

And it has become abundantly clear that it is not, nor was it ever, the AGW skeptics who have been the liars.  Or the cheaters.  

 Or the bought-and-paid-for hypocrites.

7 thoughts on “Hacked Files Reveal Renewable Energy Funding Hypocrisy

  1. The words “Renewable Energy” have become the “buzzwords” for corruption and greed in the past decade plus.

    If you want a sleezy, corrupt, and totally pathetic bunch of gormless money mongers to come crawling out from their rocks then just shout loudly any of the following words which at one time had an “honourable” meaning!

    “Green, Sustainable, Environmental, Clean Tech, Renewable, Global, Smart, Climate, Eco-Friendly”……….

    Anytime you read or hear one or all of these words look who is saying it or writing it and do a quick “Google Search” on that name and it will lead you up the criminal ladder right to the UN.

    The same names will keep coming up over and over again.

    Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Ed Begley Jr., Rockefeeler, DeRothschild, Ban Ki Moon, Gorbachov, Kohn Kerry, and on and on ad nauseum………..

  2. The premise behind Dalton McGuinty’s plan to close the coal plants was the reduction of carbon emissions. Despite the protests of many energy professionals who advised him of the futility of this course of action, he went ahead.

    When citizens complained of adverse health effects due to inadequate setbacks, they were disparagingly called NIMBYS. Mr. McGuinty would not allow a ‘handful’ of individuals to stand in the way of ‘clean, green’ energy.

    When people asked for a cost/benefit analysis of renewable energy, they were ignored. Public money from the Trillium Foundation found its way to groups that supported renewable energy.

    Rural citizens and municipal councils lost their democratic right to have input on renewable energy projects in their communities through the Green Energy Act. Local MPPs ignored the very real concerns of their constituents in order to tow the party line.

    Despite a foundering economy, Dalton McGuinty proposed a cap and trade system for Ontario. If the hacked Hadley CRU emails are authentic, then all this money and energy has been wasted. Before Dalton McGuinty gambled Ontario’s energy future on wind turbines and solar panels, one would think that the Ministry of Energy would have investigated the science behind climate change and whether or not it warranted the extreme policy changes to our energy plan.

    Billions of dollars, that could have been used to upgrade our nuclear fleet, have been spent or committed in contracts to projects that will supply intermittent, non-dispatchable energy.

    The McGuinty government was fully aware that their ‘green’ policy would raise the price of electricity and now it seems that we will all pay the price of their folly. As the Hadley CRU email story evolves, we shall discover whether or not Ontario’s energy future has been built on smoke and mirrors.

  3. Hello Mark
    I (and hubby) lived in the city for more than thirty years saving and working towards living in the country and then in our retirement knowing absolute peace..

    Now I see that peace may be taken away.. We do not use a lot of electricity.. and we heat our home with wood when it snows..

    Now the city and its greed for power is taking away our peace in our twilight years..
    If the Skypower project has its way a tower will be about two miles from us.. I hope..
    But they lie.. and can not be trusted..
    Thats the horrible part in this..

    I wrote to my mpp.. asking her why she did not vote on an issue of actually finding out as to whether a perons health is affected by these towers..
    She wrote back saying she was for this green energy law.. and that was the end of it..

    I have seen this before.. a political party pushing through what they want and to heck with the individuals.. the people that may suffer from what they want..

    I think we all need to work towards not dirtying up our planet.. but this is not right..

  4. IMO democracy is the biggest lie of all..

    I just read the book ‘The Road’.. written by Cormac McCarthy..
    The boy in the book kept asking his dad.. “Are we the good guys dad?”

    My mpp Leona Dombrowsky.. is in favor of a law that takes away my rights..
    I honestly do not think she is one of the good guys..

  5. As the days progress or should I say as the hour progresses revelations continue in this scandal. It is like lancing a boil–utterly sickening. We are getting windmills shoved down our throats and being forced to suffer because of a bunch of liars. This is well worth watching to see the depths of the corruption.

Comments are closed.