Dear President-elect Trump: Don’t Listen to Ben Santer

On December 22, Ben Santer – one of the climate scientists most responsible for politicizing and then corrupting climate science — wrote an open letter to Donald Trump once again pretending to speak on behalf of “science.” We can expect many such cries of despair and shouts begging for attention (and continued funding) in the future. In the Trump administration — whether it lasts four years or eight — such histrionics will be a growth industry.

Santer’s entire screed on CNBC’s website — titled “Dear President-elect Trump—Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change” — is riddled with alarmism and factual errors. I’m not going to excerpt and rebut it all, but suffice to say: (1) there is no money in skepticism of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but there are endless government grants for alarmism; (2) climate-alarmist “scientists” who prey upon the uninformed have gotten the science wrong for decades; and (3) withdrawing from the non-binding and ineffectual Paris Climate Agreement will not make the US a “pariah,” but the leader that helped save billions of people in emerging economies from another generation of miserable poverty.

Happily, it is unlikely that Trump will listen to Santer’s ignorant voice, but just to be sure, I share below a rebuttal to one of Santer’s most notorious actions — distorting the Second Assessment Report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1995) to serve political, not scientific, ends. The following is an excerpt from page 119 of the 2008 book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery (emphasis mine):

Climate is so complex and variable that it’s difficult to distinguish the causes of its variations. The technique adopted by the IPCC for second assessment report, Climate Change 1995, was called “fingerprinting.” The IPCC compared the detailed geographic patterns of climate change with the calculations of the climate models. This comparison seemed to indicate a growing correspondence between real-world observation and modeled patterns.

On examination, however, this result proved to be false. The correspondence appeared only for the time interval 1943 to 1970. More recent decades show no such correspondence, nor does the complete record, which dated from 1905 to 1995. The IPCC claim is based on selective data. Under the rules of science, this cancels the IPCC’s claim of having found a human impact on climate.

The IPCC’s defenders claim that the crucial Chapter 8 of the panel’s Climate Change 1995 was based on 130 peer-reviewed science studies. Actually, the chapter was based mainly on two research papers by its lead author, Ben Santer, of the U.S. government’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Neither of the Santer papers had been published at the time the chapter was under review and they had not been subject to peer review. Scientific reviewers subsequently learned that both the Santer papers shared the same defect as the IPCC’s Chapter 8: Their “linear upward trend” occurs only from 1943 to 1970.

In fact, the IPPC report itself documented the reality that the man-made warming claim was false. The “fingerprint test,” as displayed in figure 8.I0b of` the 1995 report, shows the pattern correlation between observations and climate models decreasing during the major surge of surface temperature warming that occurred between 1916 and 1940.

The IPCC’s Climate Change 1995 was reviewed by its consulting scientists in late 1995. The “Summary for Policy Makers” was approved in December, and the full report, including Chapter 8, was accepted. However, after the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers discovered that major changes had been made “in the back room” after they had signed off on the science chapter’s contents. Santer, despite the shortcomings of the scientific evidence, had inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in Chapter 8 (of which he was the IPCC-appointed lead author):

There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. … These results point toward a human influence on global climate. [ch.8 p.412]

The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. [ch.8 p.439]

Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:

• “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

• “While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data – an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”

• “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

• “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

• “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know.”’

Santer single-handedly reversed the “climate science” of the whole IPCC report — and with it the global warming political process. The “discernible human influence” supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the “stopper” in millions of debates among nonscientists.

The journal Nature mildly chided the IPCC for redoing Chapter 8 to “ensure that it conformed” to the report’s politically correct Summary for Policymakers. In an editorial, Nature favored the Kyoto treaty.

The Wall Street Journal, which did not favor Kyoto, was outraged. Its condemning editorial, “Coverup in the Greenhouse,” appeared I 1 June 1996. The following day, Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, detailed the illegitimate rewrite in the Journal in a commentary titled “Major Deception on Global Warming.”

Oddly enough, a research paper, coauthored by Santer, was published at about the same time — and says something quite different than the IPCC report. It concludes that none of the three estimates of the natural variability of the climate spectrum agrees with the other, and that until this question is resolved, “it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”

Why did Santer, a relatively junior scientist, make the unsupported revisions’? We still don’t know who directed him to do so, and then approved the changes. But Sir John Houghton, chairman of the IPCC working group, had received a letter from the U.S. State Department dated November 15, 1995. It said:

It is essential that the chapters not be finalized prior to the completion of the discussions at the IPCC Working Group I plenary in Madrid, and that chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following the discussion in Madrid.

The letter was signed by a senior career Foreign Service officer, Day Olin Mount, who was then Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. The Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs at that time was former Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO). Wirth was not only an ardent advocate of man-made warming, but was a close political ally of then-President Bill Clinton and then-Vice President Al Gore. There seems little doubt that the letter was sent by Mount at the behest of Wirth.

Mount was later named Ambassador to Iceland. That’s a plum post in a pleasant, peaceful First World country. That ambassadorship has often gone to a political ally of the White House rather than to a career diplomat,

The Madrid Plenary, held in November 1995, was a political meeting. There were representatives of 96 nations and 14 nongovernment organizations (NGOs). They went over the text of the “accepted” report line by line. Chapter 8, which should have governed the entire IPCC report, was rewritten to accord with the global warming campaign being waged by the United Nations, the NGOs, and the Clinton administration.

The excerpt above is something you should preserve for history. It marks the beginning of the politicization of climate science to serve political ends — and Santer was there, doing all he could (his scientific peers be damned) to make it happen.  So … Dear President-elect Trump: Don’t Listen to Ben Santer.

Next Page »

Fidel Castro is Dead, Liberty for Cuba!

Fidel Castro is dead. We can only hope his murderous regime becomes less murderous with his death. Not likely, though. Upshot: That special Che T-shirt he has is probably not fire proof in Hell.

To all the freedom-loving Heartland fans in Southern Florida … celebrate! And then do what you can to liberate Cuba from decades of tyranny and economic ruin.

On this glorious day, it’s hard to not think about President Obama’s friendly policy toward Cuba — giving the Seal of the Leader of the Free World upon the most oppressive regime in the Western Hemisphere. Obama pledged on Day One of his presidency eight years ago to shut down Gitmo as a place America housed terrorists. located on a piece of Cuba. But while he saw evil there (and has yet to shut it down), he saw happiness in Cuba, famously taking in a baseball game with Fidel’s brother and tyrant-in-absentia, Raúl.


And even after that obsequious trip, Fidel attacked Obama.

The embargo on Cuba obviously did not work. It took a lot less than 40-plus years to realize that. But history will not look kindly on Obama’s affection to tyrants. The death of Castro just makes that judgment come quicker than Obama might have thought.

Next Page »

Are These Radicals Teaching Your Kids?

The following email from Turning Point USA hit the inbox of Their webiste is one to keep an eye on:

It’s no secret that some of America’s college professors are totally out of line.

Everyday I hear stories about professors who attack and target conservatives, promote liberal propaganda, and use their position of power to advance liberal agendas in their classroom.

Turning Point USA is saying enough is enough.  It’s time we expose these professors.

Today, Turning Point USA is proud to announce the launch of, a website dedicated to documenting and exposing professors who discriminate against conservative students and promote anti-American, left wing propaganda in the classroom.


Meet some of the professor’s we profiled….


Dr. Charles Angeletti

Dr. Charles Angeletti is a tenured professor at Metropolitan State University Denver. He required students to recite a pledge that describes a racist, sexist, homophobic America:

“I pledge allegiance to and wrap myself in the flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American and to the Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of illegal immigrants, and you if you don’t watch your step.” 




Dr. Mireille Miller-Young

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young is an Associate Professor of Feminist Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Miller was sentenced to three years’ probation after violently attacking a 16-year-old pro-life activist on campus. She was convicted of assault, theft, and destruction of property, but the University of Santa Barbara never fired her.




Dr. Brittney Cooper

Dr. Brittney Cooper is an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University. Cooper stated that white racism is to blame for Brexit. She tweeted “White nationalism gone be the death of all of us. #Brexit” and went on to say.

“The only thing I know that makes white folks vote against their own economic interest is racism. #Brexit.” In another interview to Salon she stated that white people need to start recognizing that they are “the face of the oppressor.” Cooper has also stated that Christian conservatives worship a “white supremacist Jesus.”




Dr. Julio C. Pino

Dr. Julio C. Pino is a tenured professor at Kent State University in Ohio. Dr. Pino is currently under investigation for having ties to the well known terrorist group ISIS, and allegedly recruiting students to join the Islamic State. The professor once shouted “”Death to Israel!”” at a public lecture by a former Israeli diplomat, and has been a featured columnist for several anti-Semitic and pro terrorism publications.


These people are teaching our students!!

Throughout the next 120 days, Turning Point USA will be running ads to make sure students, faculty, and administrators see that these professors made the Professor Watch List.

Please consider a tax-deductible donation to Turning Point USA to keep this website running!

We believe these people need to be exposed. With your help, students, parents, and society at large will begin to realize what is happening in our universities.


Charlie Kirk
Founder & Executive Director
Turning Point USA

Next Page »

‘Honest Information’ Then, ‘Tyranny Advocacy’ Now?

At, my main focus is to amass a collection of information which shows myriad problems with the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie and spread misinformation, and myriad problems with the people surrounding that accusation, including one of the main promulgators of alleged ‘core evidence’ proving it, global alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan.

Considering recent news about the Exxon corporation sending out document retention request lettersagainst those who accuse it of hoodwinking its shareholders about the certainty of catastrophic man-caused global warming, there is perhaps some chance that my work may be used as a guide on ‘who’ needs to preserve ‘what’ in such efforts. But it is worthwhile to also see what possibly motivated the wider efforts behind the smear of skeptic scientists – I’ve done so once before, and now there’s a new and more troubling revelation coming from Gelbspan.

The basic wipeout angle concerning Gelbspan’s motivation for advocating the redistribution of wealth – an otherwise noble but faulty concept – was that it is based on the false-premise need to solve a planetary man-caused climate problem. Compare this to advocating for new jobs in the ghost-busting industry, stemming from a perceived need to stop the spread of harmful ghosts. It’s hard to direct concern at Gelbspan over a what amounts to a spectacularly unsupportable line of reasoning.

However, Gelbspan’s 10/25/2016 Huffington Post “A New Mandate for the Climate Movement” is downright alarming:

Activists are confronting so much cowardice in so many people that they need as many partners as possible working in many different arenas around the world to break through.

If an army of activist groups around the world were to mount an organized effort to force governments to address the coming climate nightmare in a collaborative — rather than competitive — effort to manage the upheavals, it could provide a very different direction for our collective future.

A world-wide coalition of activist groups mobilized by the environmental movement could yield a very positive long-term outcome: an awareness of the increasing irrelevance of human-drawn borders, the fading out of nationalism as a defining element of one’s identity and ultimately an evolutionary step toward more connectedness among human beings.

For additional measure, a pair of podcasters, quoted these excerpts (btw, at the 1:11 point, one of them attempts to perpetuate the myth that Gelbspan won a Pulitzer. which he did not):

To remain relevant, climate advocates need to abandon their role as experts and learn to function as facilitators. They need to realize that merely warning about the catastrophic potential of runaway warming and extolling the virtues of clean energy is not enough.

It is time for climate activists around the world to embrace a new role as global catalysts by engaging people working on a range of other social, political and economic issues.

That last one translating to ‘get the public to believe they are victims of social injustice, which includes possible death or injury resulting from industry-led blockage of efforts to stop man-caused global warming.’

But what happens if someone dares to question the need to tie social justice to climate, or the necessity to force governments to do anything, or that there might be a major problem with open borders and ‘our collective future.’

“Thou Shalt not question Thy Collective Future, lest Thee be branded a Heretic.” That and more was implied from a violently graphic 2010 video which was titled in the form of an unmistakable hint, “No Pressure.”

But that wasn’t an isolated concept held by extremists. Many missed the following news item years back, and again when news of it came up more recently. Bill Ayers, a person who achieved fame at the start of President Obama’s presidency, was apparently a participant in a discussion many years earlier, as the leader of the revolutionary Weather Underground Organization, on what should be done with counter-revolutionists who didn’t want to go along with the Weather Underground’s ‘new collective future.’ The suggested solution is at the 1:23 point here, as told by FBI infiltrator Larry Grathwohl:

I asked, “Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t re-educate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they’d have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say “eliminate,” I mean kill 25 million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

But back to Ross Gelbspan. For years, he claimed he didn’t do what he was doing because he was a tree-hugger, but because he believed the public was entitled to honest information. Yet from 1997 onward all the way up to the above HuffPo article above two weeks ago, he’s made climate science pronouncements that he has no science expertise to make, while failing to inform his audiences about the depth of rebuttal from skeptic climate scientists, and while pushing an accusation against those skeptics which he has no evidence to support.

But now Gelbspan, in a single sentence, suggests ‘an army of activist groups needs to force governments to address global warming in a collaborative way.’ Army – force governments – collaborative.

Think about that for a while. If an issue based on sound science conclusions has irrefutable merit, it would not have the fatal appearance of being based on a false premise from its inception, a foregone conclusion of it as a settled science in need of action to solve it and adapt to it. Nor would it be necessary to concoct accusations against scientist critics as a first-resort defense of the issue, and there’d be no need to tie it into unrelated social injustice issues, or collaborate with governments via any army in order to ram it down everybody’s throats. Certainly, there’d be no need to bolster any claims within the issue via embellishments, false labels, and outright misinformation.

Entice the public about the benefits of ‘global warming redistributing wealth’ and you might be laughed at. Point a gun at the public and say ‘you will embrace our collective future or else‘, and an informed electorate may make sure nobody achieves power who advocates this.

[First published at Gelbspan Files.]

Next Page »

Any people we know in the #PodestaEmails?

John Podesta Wikileaks


For anyone unaware of it, the story of the WikiLeaks organization’s dumping of John Podesta’s emails is a trendy topic lately. Similar to how I searched the ClimateGate email dump for Ross Gelbspan’s name and others, I initially scanned through this dump, with no results. That is, until the LeftExposed site came out with a 10/26/16 report on how the name “Fenton Communications” is found in Podesta emails. Fenton is a name I’ve tagged for several posts here, but I hadn’t thought to drop it into a Podesta search.

However, it’s a name I associate not only with David Fenton, a Friend of Gelbspan’s for likely obvious reasons, but also with Kalee Kreider – hold that thought for a few moments. So when I simply dropped the one word “Kalee” into the search, it turned up a short email she sent directly to Podesta:

Date: 2014-07-23 13:42
Subject: UN Summit and POTUS

Dear John,

Confidentially, I just spent a half day at the UN has part of my work with the UN Foundation on the Climate Summit.
Some of the Secretary-General’s team are telling people that POTUS will attend the Summit.
It is beginning to build expectations.
I have not heard the same thing coming from your side. Just wanted to flag it for you as you are aware of all the moving pieces.
Hope that this is helpful,
All my best,

Aside: Kalee Kreider, for those newer readers now arriving at this blog, is one of the people at what I term the epicenter of the smear of skeptic climate scientists, she was the long-time spokesperson for Al Gore who worked at Fenton Communications not only before she worked for Gore, as she onlydiscloses here, (full LinkedIn resumé text here) but also after she worked for Gore, which we are told about here (full text here).

A search of her gmail address — which is now not a breach of any privacy on my part — seen in the July 2014 Podesta email turns up a phone number that she’s used from the time when she is seen in an online 2009 press release as the media contact for Gore, (full text here) and in an online December 2012 Rockefeller Foundation press release naming her as a media contact at Fenton Communications (bottom of the page, full text here) and also in a more recent September 2014 press announcement about the Clinton Global Initiative – in the version from the National Geographic, she is noted as the media contact, while the twin version at the Waitt Foundation just says “contact.”

What wider problem is possibly indicated from Kreider’s appearance in the Podesta emails? It is at the very least a bit troubling that her resumé shows no employment of any kind between her departure as Al Gore’s spokesperson in July 2012 to her own self-employment at Kreider Strategies, LLC starting in July 2013. But as clearly seen in the screencapture link two paragraphs above, she was hailed in her return to Fenton Communications in June 2012, and was also specifically noted to be in that position by the Rockefeller Foundation six months later. And Fenton is a direct topic in Podesta emails, albeit at this point, in February 2015 at the earliest. Given that Kreider has long associations with Fenton Communications, and is self described as “a consultant to several global non-governmental organizations“, one question to ask is whether she did any consulting on what the above LeftExposed topic was about, namely the “Campaign Against Rupert Murdoch’s Climate Denialism” which in Wikileaks’ DOC file closes out with the line “Submitted December 1, 2014 by David Fenton.”

Another question to ask is why her LinkedIn resumé mentions only an association dating no later than 2006 to the United Nations Foundation, as opposed to the “part of my work with the UN Foundation on the Climate Summit” she mentioned in the above 2014 Podesta email, or what are apparently more recent positions as “Special Adviser for Climate Science, United Nations Foundation”, and (as a person having no more than a BA History degree), “the Science and Policy Advisor at the United Nations Foundation.”

Kreider’s LinkedIn resumé likely doesn’t include her much more recent United Nations work as the result of neglect. In my first September 2013 post about her, I linked to a resumé version of hers that now no longer functions. The above screencapture links and the direct link to it is from a newer version.

But the potentially central problem within the Podesta email above concerns the level Kreider is at, when John Podesta was Counselor to President Obama, assisting him and the White House Chief of Staff with day-to-day management of White House staff operations …. along with duties that involved “overseeing climate change and energy policy“. Kreider was relaying concerns to Podesta from people at the United Nations who report straight to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

This is a problem because of what Kalee Kreider has to say on the topic of skeptic climate scientists. According Chicago Sun-Times October 5, 2007 article writer Steve Huntley, in reference to Kreider,

A spokeswoman for Gore told me by e-mail that Heartland is an oil-company-funded group that denies that global warming is real and caused by human activities. (sound familiar?)

That’s essentially the same thing Kreider said over 10 years earlier, not as Gore’s spokesperson, but as Communications Director at Ozone Action (full text here) – again, the place I call the epicenter of the ‘industry corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation.

Dr. Singer has opposed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus document as have coal and oil interests.  Dr. Singer is joined by: Dr. Robert Balling who has received over $300,000 from US fossil fuel interests, British and German coal companies and the Kuwaiti government; and Dr. Patrick Michaels who has received at least $167,000 from fossil fuel interests including the German Coal Mining Association.

Dr. Michaels and Balling were part of a public relations experiment in 1991 which purported to “reposition global warming as theory, not fact.”

That later phrase is the infamous leaked memo phrase which has every appearance of being the only so-called evidence to support the accusation that fossil fuel companies paid skeptics to turn the certainty of man-caused global warming back into a “false theory.” One thing about that 1996 Ozone Action press release: it contains zeroreference to Ross Gelbspan, the person that Kreider’s future boss said had discovered that phrase. Not to worry, Kreider solved the problem a year later when she was the Climate Campaign Director for Greenpeace (full text here – and, lest anyone forget, Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer):


… Gelbspan writes that a key component of this misinformation campaign has been the use of industry-funded scientists in the media, government  inquiries, and speaking tours. …

… The book reveals that in 1991 a group of power utilities and coal companies  hired a public relations firm, which then formed the “Information  Council on the Environment.” The ICE’s stated aim was to “reposition  global warming as theory rather than fact.” …

… FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Kalee Kreider, Greenpeace USA …  (the place I term “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action”)

And as I pointed out at the end of my last blog post, in a reply to a 2015 Tweet about a ‘skeptic climate researcher linked to industry money’, Kreider thanked one of the first reporters who broke the news of Ozone Action’s revelations of so-called ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists, and Gelbspan as well.

From those bits ranging from 1996 to 2015, would there be any reason for Kreider to fail to mention that sort of thing to anybody who will listen to it?

But the bigger question remains, how does a person with such a worthless one-trick pony accusation narrative like that achieve a position separated by only a degree or two from both the President of the United States and the UN Secretary-General?

[First published at GelbspanFiles.]

Next Page »

Wikileaks: Rockefeller Official Offered Clinton Campaign Manager ‘an intro’ to Publisher of InsideClimate News

John Podesta

David Sassoon, the notorious publisher of InsideClimate News (ICN), insists he and the work of his reporters are pure; they are isolated and insulated from their funders. Sassoon has insisted, furthermore, that ICN funders had nothing to do with the launch of the eco-left’s #ExxonKnew campaign. He lied.

The truth came out in one of the Wikileaks emails: Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta got an offer from Rockefeller Brothers Fund program director Michael Northrop, who had been directing money to ICN’s publisher since the #ExxonKnew campaign began: “Happy to make an intro to the publisher, David Sassoon.” That’s not a familiarity you’d expect between the isolated, insulated or pure.

We are indebted to Katie Brown of Energy in Depth for finding the story in the Wikileaks emails and connecting all the dots. She’s a PhD, a former U.S. Senate staffer with the Environment and Public Works Committee and now a superb researcher and writer covering the energy beat. Brown says she’s still probing the mass of hacked emails and will publish a follow-up if she finds something we need to know.

With her permission to re-post the whole thing, here’s Katie Brown’s report:

InsideClimate News (ICN) has insisted over and over that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) and the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF), which have been bankrolling the entire #ExxonKnew campaign, have absolutely no editorial authority over the stories they publish, including the series they released last year proclaiming that Exxon “knew” about climate change in the 1970s before climate scientists even understood the data. This is something the media has largely swallowed without scrutiny.

But newly released emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign raise serious questions about the veracity of these claims. In one telling email, Michael Northrop of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund sends Clinton campaign chair John Podesta an article by #ExxonKnew activist Naomi Oreskes with the subject line “For the Debate next week.” Here’s what Northrop said:

  • InsideClimate News is the source of these stories. Hope you’ve been seeing them. Happy to make an intro to the publisher, David Sassoon.

ICN publisher David Sassoon, who just happens to be a former Rockefeller Brothers Fund consultant, has repeatedly brushed off the accusation that the anti-fossil fuel billionaires funding #ExxonKnew have had any hand in what ICN is doing. As Politico reported,

  • “InsideClimate News, which was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist last month for its Exxon stories, says it has received $25,000 from the Rockefeller Family Fund, or about 2 percent of the company’s budget. The idea that the funding is influencing its news coverage is ‘an easy accusation, but it’s completely baseless,’ founder and publisher David Sassoon told POLITICO. ‘Our funders have no access to our editorial and they  never have.’” (emphasis added)

The Washington Times further reported,

  • “InsideClimate founder and publisher David Sassoon, a former Rockefeller consultant who has described himself as an advocate for the ‘clean energy economy,’ dismissed the newly launched site, calling the bias allegation ‘laughable nonsense.’” (emphasis added)

According to a report by Bloomberg BNA,

  • “Since 2013, the separate Rockefeller Brothers Fund has provided InsideClimate with $200,000 a year; that fund had no say over what the website published, according to David Sassoon, InsideClimate’s founder and publisher.” (emphasis added)

And, as ICN says on its “About” page:

The Rockefellers have made similar pronouncements, of course. Lee Wasserman, the long-time director of the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF), who actually spearheaded a January 2016 strategy meeting at the RFF headquarters to strategize ways to “delegitimize” Exxon, told the Huffington Post that RFF had no idea that ICN was going to produce its #ExxonKnew series:

  • “Wasserman said the grant to Inside Climate News was made without any knowledge that it would be used for the reporting project. The grant to Columbia Journalism School was directed at ‘public interest research into what the fossil fuel industry understood about the science of climate change and how they acted given that understanding both internally and regarding the public,’ but it did not target Exxon Mobil specifically, Wasserman said.”

InsideClimate News produced a similar report quoting Wasserman as saying,

  • “We first learned about it when everybody else read about it,” Wasserman said. “The information that was unearthed was stunning and struck us as beyond the pale of what a corporation interested in protecting the public interest would do. … As a matter of good governance, we felt it imperative to sever our tie with the corporation.”

So Sassoon and the Rockefellers have gone overboard to swear they are not working together, but now we have an email from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, one of ICN’s biggest funders, promising Hillary’s campaign direct access to Sassoon.

Not all outlets have taken ICN and the Rockefellers at their word, however. Remember, the National Reviewpointed out that this relationship is a glaring conflict of interest:

  • “But its critics claim that InsideClimate News is essentially a mouthpiece run by a public-relations consultancy that gets its funding almost exclusively from groups with an environmental agenda…The little that is known about InsideClimate News raises questions about conflicts of interest as well as about the publication’s ability, and proclivity, to report fairly and without bias.”

Turns out the National Review’s take was just the tip of the iceberg. This latest email shows, once again, that ICN is at the beck and call of the wealthy organizations that fund it, proving its claims of editorial independence are nothing but a bad joke.

Next Page »

Haiti Needs Electricity. Hillary Gives Them a Sweatshop, Foundation Gets a New Donor

clinton cash movie

By Marita Noon

Until Hurricane Matthew hit Haiti nearly a month ago, on October 4, the impoverished island country was out of the headlines—pushed aside by election news. But new emails which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Republican National Committee and then shared with ABC News, made public on October 11, make Haiti part of the U.S. election news, as they highlight the cozy connections between the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton’s cronies. The corruption that has been brought to light is nothing short of scandalous—though, since it’s merely one more such story, few are probably following it.

I’m aware of this new information due to my multi-year collaboration with Christine Lakatos and her Green Corruption Files. She alerted me to the “bombshell new evidence” and she now has a full 26-page report available.

Hurricane Matthew made clear that the billions of dollars that poured into Haiti after the 2010 earthquake did little to help the 1.5 million people who were displaced when the 7.0 magnitude earthquake destroyed their homes in 2010. According to the New York Times, 55,000 people were still living in shelters when Matthew hit. However, earlier this year, HBO’s VICE newsmagazine series did a segment titled: The Haitian Moneypit. In it, Vikram Gandhi takes viewers through the deplorable conditions found in the refugee camps that have no electricity, fresh water, or functioning toilets. He claims: “hundreds of thousands of survivors are still displaced.”

Gandhi says that despite the $10 billion in relief that came into Haiti after the earthquake, “many parts of Port-au-Prince still look like the earthquake struck just yesterday.” He addresses the Zoranje model home project—described as a $2.4 million dollar showroom and the first approved reconstruction project headed by Bill Clinton and the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. However, Gandhi reports, the homes were unsuited to Haiti. Once the expo was over, zero homes were built for Haitians. Today the model homes are occupied by squatters who live in the make-shift village without plumbing or electricity.

Perhaps the homes were never built because the companies didn’t donate, or didn’t donate enough, to the Clinton Foundation. In his film Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer relays a story about a Florida firm with extensive disaster relief experience. The company spent $100 million getting equipment into Haiti, but only made a small contribution to the Clinton Foundation. The company didn’t get any relief contracts. Many contracts went to relief organizations that were also involved in the Clinton Foundation—which brags about its role in Haiti.

Lakatos explains: “In digging through over 1000 emails from Hillary’s State Department related to Haiti, I discovered additional damning proof that the Haiti ‘reconstruction plan’ was a huge pay-to-play scheme for filling the coffers of the Clintons and their cronies.” She continues: “We now have an ocean of evidence confirming that our former president Bill Clinton and his wife, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, exploited the poor Haitian people in the wake of the 2010 earthquake.”

In 2015, in an article titled The King and Queen of Haiti, Politico summarizes: “The amounts of money over which the Clintons and their foundation had direct control paled beside the $16.3 billion that donors pledged in all.”

While Lakatos’ complete report provides details with links to the supporting documentation, due to space here, I am jumping to, what I believe is, the most dramatic example: The Caracol Industrial Park (CIP)—a $300 million project that was planned before the 2010 earthquake and was built in a part of Haiti that was not impacted by the earthquake (therefore not helping the victims). The CIP was originally lauded by Secretary Clinton as creating 100,000 new jobs in Haiti, but got revised down and down—with current jobs at a dim 8000-9000.

The comingling of players, companies and organizations is overwhelming—but one of Hillary Clinton’s closest confidants, Cheryl Mills, is at the center of it. Addressing the project and the Clinton’s “public-private web,” the New York Times (NYT) states: “Cheryl D. Mills worked ceaselessly to help a South Korean garment maker open a factory in Haiti, the centerpiece of United States government’s efforts to jump-start the island nation’s economy after the 2010 earthquake.”

In short, “Sea-A Trading secured millions of dollars in incentives to make its Haiti investment more attractive,” writes NYT. Sea-A Trading’s chairman Woong-ki Kim became a Clinton Foundation donor after his firm secured the lucrative contract in Haiti. NYT calls Kim: “the sort of enlightened global capitalist the Clintons favor.” Adding to the intrigue, when Mills left the state department, she started a company called BlackIvy Group—for which Kim is a financial backer. NYT describes the relationship this way: “The partnership with Mr. Kim sheds light on the business activities of Ms. Mills—a longtime Clinton loyalist who is likely to play a significant role in any future Clinton White House—as well as the interlocking public and private relationships that have long characterized the Clintons’ inner circle.”

The company makes clothes using Haiti’s cheap labor (roughly $6.85 a day—though reports claim the factory doesn’t pay that much and accuse the factory of sexual harassment, bullying and humiliation). Workers complain that after they pay for lunch and transportation, they don’t have enough money left to feed their families. Many feel that they were better off farming the land they were thrown off of to make room for CIP.

The primarily female workforce makes clothes for large American retailers, including Wal-Mart and Gap Inc., which get special tax breaks for importing the clothes made in Haiti.  Both companies are Clinton Foundation donors: Wal-Mart has given $1 million to $5 million and Gap has given between $250,000 and $500,000 to the foundation.

Part of the $124 million in “incentives” the U.S. government provided (an unwitting donation from taxpayers) for CIP was to build a power plant to run the factory. While I have been unable to ascertain what fuels the plant, videomakes it clear it is not wind or solar that Clinton touts. My research revealed: “Haiti is highly dependent on imported fossil fuels for electric generation.” It is most likely oil-fueled.

The electricity provided by the Caracol Electrification Project also powers some of the surrounding communities. The USAID site features stories of people living with electricity for the first time and elaborates on the dramatic improvement in health and quality of life since the area has reliable power. Many other similar reports exist.

A few months ago, Lakatos and I wrote about Hillary’s clean cookstove initiative: The developing world wants natural gas and electricity, Hillary Clinton sends cookstoves. This story is similar. Haiti needs electricity and Hillary gives them a sweatshop.

Considering the conditions in the Sea-A Trading factory and the hundreds of thousands of people throughout Haiti living in plastic tents and without electricity and the benefits it provides—one must wonder if the hundreds of millions of dollars that went to enriching Clinton Foundation donors, like Kim, wouldn’t have been better spent providing reliable fossil-fuel power to the people of Haiti. Doing so would have boosted the economy and helped families improve their lives. But that’s not how the Clintons operate and their fingerprints are all over the Haiti recovery efforts. Obviously, they have hurt the Haitian people, while helping themselves and their friends.

On November 8, America will decide if this is the kind of leadership we want.

[First published at Freedom Pub.]

Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE).

Next Page »

DiCaprio Climate Catastrophe Film Boosts Clinton Campaign

By Tom Harris

In an apparent attempt to bolster support for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Leonardo DiCaprio is releasing a new climate change movie just days before the election. To be broadcast in 45 languages in 171 countries, Before the Flood debuted at 9 pm EDT Oct. 30, 2016 on the National Geographic Channel. It will also be available for free on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Google Play, iTunes, Amazon, and Hulu.

Judging from the trailers and other pre-release promotions, the public needs to brace itself for an avalanche of global warming propaganda. Like DiCaprio’s short film Carbon, released in the weeks prior to the United Nations’ Climate Summit 2014, Before the Flood is based on the highly debatable hypothesis that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities are causing catastrophic climate change. Coal, oil, and natural gas, the world’s least expensive and most abundant energy sources, must therefore be turned off as soon as possible, DiCaprio says.

The actor seems unware that the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the climate scare. A quick look at the observational data reveals facts highly inconvenient to DiCaprio’s crusade. For example,

  • According to NASA satellites, global warming essentially ceased in the late 1990s. Yet CO2 levels have risen about 10% since 1997, a figure that represents an astonishing 30% of all human-related emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. This contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global warming concerns are founded.
  • The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits that the statistical average of surface temperatures across the Earth increased only one and a half degrees between 1880 to 2012. Such modest warming is not surprising given that the Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age since the late 19thcentury.
  • In 2012, the IPCC asserted that a relationship between global warming and wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events has not been demonstrated. The 2013 NIPCC report concluded the same.
  • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that the incidence of extreme weather state records has been decreasing in recent years. Not a single record was set in 2016 or 2015. In 2014, there was one. 2013, one. 2012, one. One has to go back to the 1930s to find a time when state-wide extreme weather records were being set at a high pace.

And so it goes with DiCaprio’s other climate concerns. In 2014 Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks explained that the climate campaign has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus. CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring, for ocean acidification that is not occurring, and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

Fulks was right. DiCaprio’s new film is just another vector for spreading the virus.

Moreover, the costs of the climate scare are staggering.

According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2001 and 2014 the US Government spent $131 billion on human-caused climate change projects. They also allowed tax breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives totalling $176 billion.

The San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative revealed that more than $1 billion is now spent every day across the world on climate finance. Sadly, only 6% of it is devoted to helping vulnerable societies adapt to climate change. The rest is spent trying to stop climatic events that might someday happen.

These extraordinary costs are set to increase still further. Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, wrote in The Wall Street Journalon October 13,At a cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually, the Paris climate agreement…is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty.”

DiCaprio is correct in one respect. The late Bob Carter, former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, explained,“Climate change is a moral issue, and there is nothing quite so immoral as the sight of well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global warming policies, using money that could instead be spent on improving the living standards in developing countries.”

Carter concluded, “Denying poor nations, many of whose citizens lack adequate sanitation, schooling, clean water, and health services, the finance to build inexpensive hydrocarbon-fired power stations, and who in consequence suffer millions of premature deaths every year, has been aptly described as technological genocide. And that is where the moral outrage should lie.”

DiCaprio should make a film about it.

Tom Harris is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition and a policy advisor for environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

[Originally Published at the Daily Caller]

Next Page »

Clinton Told Climate Activists ‘Get A Life’

By Tom Harris

Environmental activists and their supporters in the media are appalled that not a single question in the presidential debates focused on climate change.

Writing in the New York Times, David Leonhardt said, “the lack of a single question on the world’s biggest problem was a grievous error.”

May Boeve, executive director of climate group 350 Action, complained in the Guardian that, “This crisis threatens our communities, our economy, and the future for our children … yet climate change doesn’t get a single direct question in the debate.”

Baltimore Sun editorial staff concluded, “Shame on the various moderators for not insisting that (Donald) Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speak directly on such a critically important topic.”

Even if they weren’t asked about climate change by the moderators, Clinton or Trump could have easily bridged the questions posed to them to that issue, if they had wanted to do so.

Clearly, neither of them placed a high priority on the issue.

And that is exactly how it should have been.

Contrast climate change with many of the topics asked about in the debates: The Syrian civil war (asked about six times), terrorism (four times), Russia (three times), immigration (three), job creation (three), and the national debt (twice). These are real issues demanding our attention.

Consider the facts.

  • The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the statistical average of surface temperatures increased 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) between 1880 to 2012.
  • Humanity’s contribution to this relatively small temperature rise is not a problem of the same importance as terrorism.
  • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website shows that the incidence of extreme weather state records has been decreasing in recent years.
  • Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder, summarized the situation well in 2014: “When you read that the cost of disasters is increasing, it’s tempting to think that it must be because more storms are happening. … In reality, the numbers reflect more damage from catastrophes because the world is getting wealthier. We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose.”
  • The current rate of sea level rise is less than one tenth that of 8,000 years ago.
  • There are regions in the ocean where pH (a measure of acidity) varies more in a day than the most extreme forecasts for the 21st century, yet ocean life adapts.
  • Arctic summer sea ice area increased almost a million square kilometers between the low of 2012 and this year.

Yet Vox, a prominent American advocacy news website, argued, “Humanity is departing from the stable climatic conditions that allowed civilization to thrive, yet the most powerful nation on Earth can’t set aside five minutes to discuss.”

The best answer to environmental activists and their media supporters was unexpectedly provided last year by Clinton herself.

In the leaked emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, published by Wikileaks, it was revealed that in her September 9, 2015 meeting with the Building Trades Union, Clinton said, “They (climate activists) say, ‘Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won’t promise that. Get a life, you know.”

Tom Harris is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition and a policy advisor for environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

[Originally Published at Toronto Sun]

Next Page »

Elon Musk: The $5-Billion-Government-Money-Recipient ‘Genius’

Elon Musk

By Seton Motley

Conventional wisdom is that Elon Musk is a genius. That he’s an avant-garde innovator – taking entrepreneurial risks way out on the edge. Here is but a sample of the paean news coverage – media members genuflecting so much that their pants are now baggy.

Elon Musk’s Genius: Understanding The Cost Of A Screw And The Value Of A Photo: “Behind the desire to listen to great men like Musk speak about their perspectives is a hope to receive some insight, some pearl of wisdom.”

Elon Musk: A Genius’s Life Story, in His Own Words: “I had the pleasure of sitting down with Elon Musk for an in-depth exploration of his extraordinary life….”

8 Perfectly Genius Elon Musk Quotes: “The Tesla and SpaceX founder is single-handedly transforming industries through a mixture of genius ideas and new innovations….”

5 Bizarre Quotes That Prove Elon Musk Is Probably a Genius

Of course, Bobby Heenan said “If you’re poor and you do something stupid, you’re nuts. If you’re rich and do something stupid, you’re eccentric.” The fine line between stupid and genius – is often a fat bank account.

But what if the fat bank account – isn’t your coin? Or a dramatically huge amount of it isn’t your coin?

Elon Musk Defends $4.9 Billion in Government Money for His Companies

Musk’s net worth is $11.5 billion. Meaning almost half of his total tally – has been handed to him by government.

I’m fairly sure just about anyone on our little planet can look and sound like a genius – with $5 billion in government coin as a backstop. Your insanities effortlessly melting into eccentricities. People taking whatever fool thing you say seriously. Hailing any bizarre idea you sputter forth as genius-on-the-come.

Of course, all of this only happens if you’re a Leftist.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is routinely excoriated by our ridiculous media as a silver-spoon, unaccomplished businessman for having received a $1 million loan from his father – with which he launched his multi-billion-dollar global business.

This same ridiculous media incessantly hails five-billion-government-dollars Musk as an entrepreneurial genius.

Of course, Musk did have one huge, un-government-funded success. He was a co-founder of PayPal, the monster online payment company. A fellow co-founder is Peter Thiel – the now-Silicon Valley pariah because he has endorsed the aforementioned Trump.

Since they sold PayPal, Musk and Thiel have traveled different paths.

Thiel continued to gamble with his own money. He was the first outside investor in a little social media website known as Facebook. He started another, business-focused social site – LinkedIn. He has demonstrated a remarkable nose for what businesses will work in the private sector – and has bet a lot of his own money on said proboscis. And he’s done really amazingly well.

Elon Musk largely eschewed the private sector that so enriched him – and went the crony, government money route. He’s a big fan of launching “green energy” companies – two of which are Tesla Motors (electric cars) and Solar City (obviously, solar power).

But it can not be said enough: most “green energy” is neither green nor energy. Electric, wind, solar and biofuels are actually awful for the environment – not at all green. And they are so prohibitively expensive – they make zero sense as energy.

So, of course, all of these faux energy sources require scads and scads of government money. And they have for decades – because that’s how long our government has stupidly been trying to prop them up.

Musk taking his place at the government money trough, digging in his nose and extracting $5 billion – hardly counts as entrepreneurial and innovative. What it is – is classic huge government stupidity, paying off handsomely for yet another one of government’s cronies.

I guess this is what passes for “genius” these days.

But I’m not at all impressed. How about you?

[Originally Published at Red State]

Next Page »