Monthly Archives: March 2013

“Greedy Lying Bastards” Fails To Draw An Audience

“Greedy Lying Bastards” the film, was on the list of top box office attractions  for one weekend.  It grossed $45,000 the weekend of March 8-10 and its place was #45 out of 50. With that  kind of gross, it is no surprise that it did not make it back since then. The film is said to have cost $1,500,000 to produce.  For comparison, that weekend’s top grossing movie was “OZ the Great and Powerful”, which pulled in $79,100,000.

The critics at the movie review site, Rotten Tomatoes,  gave it 73 out of 100 which is a very favorable rating.   A typical review was that by John Hartl for the Seattle Times in which he said:

“ The title says it all in “Greedy Lying Bastards,” a blistering attack on politicians, propagandists, dissemblers and other climate-change deniers.No longer taking the relatively polite approach of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” the filmmakers set out to focus on the celebrities who have been most successful in using the media to encourage a sense of doubt in a skeptical public.”

The reviewers held nothing back as most of them always love the liberal theme.

I suppose their next production will be the “Those Dirty Rotten Bastards That Used The New Black Panthers To Prevent Entry To The Theater To See Our Epic Production Greedy Lying Bastards”.  They have to blame someone for their failure.


Mars Rover Curiosity Discovers “Paydirt”. Not Gold, But An Area Once Favorable To Organic Life

The Mars Rover Curiosity drilled in the John Klein area of Mars, (about 500 meters East of  where it landed) and the sedimentary rock samples were passed  to the on-board analyzers.  The objective was to determine if the minerals necessary to maintain life were in this sample.  Carbon, oxygen and sulfur in various forms were found.  The NASA team has concluded that the John Klein area was once a fresh water environment that would have been favorable to organic life.  Other Rovers samplings have  found areas that once contained water but the conditions were not considered suitable to support organic life.  On March 15 2013, the NASA team provided an informative video “Curiosity Rover Hits Paydirt”.  It can be seen by clicking on the link below:

Wealthy Green NGOs Versus The Heartland Institute

Willie Soon and David Legates made a presentation in Delaware explaining why they believed  man-made global warming is overblown and illustrated their position by showing the data that belies the alarmist computerized predictions of  CO2-caused  global catastrophe.  How did the major Delaware newspaper cover this? Poorly, because they are in the tank for man-made global warming.  How can you know that,  you are wondering.  The paper’s reporter felt it necessary to make anything that Soon and Legates said suspect by using  “Some environmental groups have pointed to Soon’s and Legates’ ties to organizations financed by fossil fuel and deeply con­servative interests, in­cluding the George C. Marshall and Heartland institutes.”   This is the usual innuendo that greens and their allies in the media use.    They have a dearth of factual data so they make personal attacks.

Actually this piece of untruth was pretty tame compared to that by Juliet  Eilperin of the Washington Post where she embellished the story by putting in the amounts of funding she believed had been given to Marshall and Heartland by Exxon and the Koch Brothers.  But more on this later.

I suppose that you know there are many issue oriented organizations –Non-Government Organizations (NGO)– out there trying to persuade people to their  point of view.  A very large number of them have the mission of persuading you that global warming is a crisis and that unless we stop using fossil fuels, we are dooming the future generations to terrible catastrophes.  Where do they get their money?  Before we try to shed some light on  that  question, lets look at the relative size of the green NGOs  and the George C Marshall and Heartland Institutes.

A partial list* of Green NGOs is tabled below.  The following data are from Charity Navigator  which rates a NGOs using the information supplied by that NGO. The data is for  2012 or the last fiscal year of these organizations. “Program expenses” result from the direct effort to accomplish their mission.  They also have administrative and fund raising expenses which I have not tabled.

Green NGOs                                 Program Exp $K    Assets$K       CEO pay$K

Nature Conservancy                       672,757                      5,180,559           493

World Wildlife Fund                       139,971                         271,695           496

Environmental Defense                   70,755                          137,034          426

Nat. Resc. Defen. Council               76,931                          197,413            381

Sierra Club Foundation                   46,672                            82,622          157

World Resource Inst.                       34,831                            59,902         376

Union of Concerned Scientists     18,029                            29,879           240

Strats for Global Envir                        5,641                               4,945         355

Ctr for American Progress             31,390                             36,626         250

Greenpeace US  **                                 9,601                               9,407         153

subtotal                                               1,106,390

* As a means of approximating the  numbers of the NGOs that are global warming advocates,  we note that more than 700 NGOs  registered to attended COP 17 held in Durban,  South Africa.  See here, here and here.  (h/t to Willis Eschenbach)  Those that attended are just a fraction of the total of all the green NGOs.

**Greenpeace International’s 2011 budget was € 241 million, their program expenditures were €160 million  and it leads 27 regional offices, one of which is Greenpeace US.

Now lets look at what the Charity Navigator has to say about  the  non-green NGOs, George C Marshall and Heartland Institutions and see how they match up with the green NGOs:

George C Marshall                                      342                                   154           24

Heartland                                                   4,008                                  -157         154

subtotal                                                       4,350

The difference is vast.  Can you imagine if you are a green being frightened of these “pipsqueaks” so much that you have to take every opportunity to tell lies about their funding.  That is $1,106,578,000 for programing  versus the $4,350,000 for those fearsome little giants or stated another way, the expenditures for the little giants are 0.4% of the green NGOs.  Note that Heartland is experiencing a deficit.

Earlier I said we would pick up on the  Juliet Eilperin story. She said in a posting that: “The Heartland Institute received more than $7.3 million from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2010, and nearly $14.4 million between 1986 and 2010 from foundations affiliated with Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch.”  She had issued a retraction after Joe Bast of Heartland provided the real numbers saying: “ExxonMobil over the course of a decade gave less than a tenth of the amount reported, never amounting to even 5 percent of our annual receipts. The reported level of support from the Kochs was even more egregiously wrong: Except for a gift of $25,000 last year for our work on health care reform, the Kochs hadn’t donated a dime since 1998.”  Also it should be noted that ExxonMobil have not made any contributions to Heartland for the last 7 years.  Why do reporters keep using this innuendo?  Could it be that it is too good to give up even if it is not true?  Or do they not do any research, but rather rely on Alarmist to tell them what to say.

By the way, the Washington Post have closed down their environment desk and have reassign Eilperin to other work.  Did you know that her husband (Andrew Light) is a senior fellow on climate/energy issues at the Center for American Progress (see NGO chart).  Did the Washington Post make this move concerned that there might just be a conflict on interest as she never made her husband’s employment known in her opinion pieces?

Lets get ExxonMobil out of the discussion.   From the ExxonMobil 2011 Corporate Citizenship Report we learn that they are no longer funding anyone that “questions the science of climate change” and that they provided funding to the following advocacy groups and research in 2011:

MIT, Stanford (this is a $100million grant over two years), Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Research Economics and Science, Battelle Pacific Northwestern Laboratory, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, The Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Resources for the Future, and Center for Strategic and International Studies.

I think that this decision by ExxonMobil was ill advised.  However, fair is fair, so I guess all you who have been saying that a skeptic that took ExxonMobil  money was bought and paid for,  will say that about any Green NGO that takes ExxonMobil  or other fuel supplier’s money.   Can I plan on that?

While taking about the sources of “tainted” money, why is it the Greens go after the Koch Brothers but don’t mention George Soros?    My guess is that because Soros is big source of funding and support for them,  he is off limits.

While the Kochs believe that CO2 is not a major factor causing global warming, it is probably their political positions that most irritate those that deride the Kochs.  The Kochs do support conservative candidates and conservative causes.  But Soros supports political parties too. In fact according to Wiki, Soros spent over thirty million dollars in a failed effort to stop George W Bush from getting a second term.   There is  irony  here in that he is said to have been a major force behind the McCain and Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Yet he now is heavily into 527 organizations which can and do spend large amounts of money in political campaigns.  He always supports Democrats.  He contributes heavily to liberal causes according to studies.  He puts money into the Tides Foundations which mainly supports liberal causes and the man-made global warming theory.

There are other things that are not so acceptable.  Soros said in 2006, according to Wiki,””the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States”.  In 2010 he said “Today China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States”. He seems to agree with the NY Time economist that a dictator would be a better form of government. Simply stated, I do not believe his political views are shared by the majority of the US population.  See here for additional citations of his philosophy.

This posting shows that the Heartland and Marshall innuendo is bogus.  To be fair,  when warmers speak the media should saying something like this— “The non-radical environmental groups have pointed to So and So ties to organizations financed by fossil fuel and deeply liberal interests, in­cluding the Worldwide Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace.”  My preference is that media people don’t use these ad hominum attacks because as I have shown, the attacks are neither fair nor truthful.  The use of these attacks only serve to show the media’s ignorance bias.

And we have not touched upon the Government funding which is even larger and perhaps even more imbalanced in the warmers favor.

And we have not  shown how the NGOs operate to influence legislation, and the popular opinion.

More to come.


Chinese Will Not Reduce CO2 Emissions

You have probably seen something in the newspapers to the effect that the Chinese are planing to put in place a carbon tax to manage their emissions.  If you really follows this issue, you  know that the Chinese have made other promises regarding carbon control but they haven’t followed through. Reuters says that the Chinese may get around to putting this program into action but it wont be until the next decade.  The program as described by the Chinese news agencies is laughable. The plan would start at the equivalent of $1.20 per ton and work up to $8 per ton of carbon. The Brookings Institution says this is “puny” and will fail to provide incentives for companies to reduce carbon. What the Chinese are serious about is creating jobs for their people. They have 1.3 billion people with a per capita GDP of $9,100 versus the US’s GDP of $49,800. They will continue to pretend they are serious about reducing CO2 emissions hoping that the US ruins its economy by enacting a “carbon tax” or “cap and trade”.  After 16 years of no global temperature increase, when are the greens going to admit that CO2 is not a major factor?

The UK Gets It, The US Doesn’t–Teaching AGW In Schools

In Great Britain, it is being recommended that the advocacy of man-made global warming be cut from the national curriculum for children 13 and under (see here).  In the US,  teaching of AGW has been recommended for all grades and in every science class. The following  is an overview of this plan and those that have developed it according to a posting on 4 March 2013:
 “The Next Generation Science Standards were developed by the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nonprofit Achieve and more than two dozen states. They recommend that educators teach the evidence for man-made climate change starting as early as elementary school and incorporate it into all science classes, ranging from earth science to chemistry. By eighth grade, students should understand that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming),” the standards say.”

Climategate III–220,247 New E-Mails Have Been Released.

Who ever it is that broke into the files at East Anglia University back in 2009, has just released, to selected bloggers, a password to access some 220,247 new e-mails. The person that got these files says it is time to release the remainder of the ClimateGate documents.  He says the task is too big  for him to handle.  He is not saying that these emails will have as big an impact as the first release back in 2009 did but he said there may be some big stories in this lot.

Not much is out in the public yet but you can bet that many folks will be working their way through these e-mails.  So, to keep up to speed on them you might want to go to WattsUpWithThat:   or

Tom Nelson

Climate Depot

Junk Science

The Reference Frame


Consumers Paying for New Ethanol Surcharge

A recent Climate Change Sanity post discussed the gasoline cost  “spread”.  The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)  adds another item to the spread.  The WSJ points out that this year the EPA’s requires more ethanol to be mixed with gasoline than the refiners can use and still not have greater than 10% ethanol in the final fuel. The refiners fear that more than 10% has the potential to damage engines.
From the WSJ posting:
 “This year refiners and importers are required to blend 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol into the nation’s gasoline, rising to 14.4 billion next year. The EPA allocates a share of this mandate to oil and gas companies, and to monitor compliance each gallon of ethanol is assigned a 38 digit Renewable Identification Number, or RIN.”
Now isn’t this a great example of over regulation.  Each gallon is identified by a 38 digit  number!!!  13.8 billion gallons, all with their own name (or number).