Follow the money. The morality of green funding
Jonathan Bracey-Gibbon undertakes a comprehensive takedown of warmists, alarmists and the false flag paper trails they cite. But where does the money really go?
Only last month Bob Ward reached a new level of preposterousness in a rant at the Leveson Enquiry. Amazingly he is demanding that this enquiry - ostensibly set up to look into phone hacking, police corruption and numerous other ills relating to legality - should also target all sceptical reporting or broadcasting on climate change. No, really.
In his tirade, Ward documents his lamentable failures to persuade Ofcom and the PCC of the merits of any number of complaints that he has made on behalf of his foundation over the years. Chief among his targets was Martin Durkin's companion piece to The Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle. Ward whines that, "it had over 250 complaints to Ofcom, one of them from me."
Given the usual volume of cries of 'foul' from the green movement when the science is questioned, 250 complaints against a film that seeks to demolish many anthropogenic global warming arguments, is a bit 'meh'.
To put this in perspective, Jeremy Clarkson received 763 complaints following his One Show suggestion that striking public sector workers should be shot. Most of those from mobilised Unite members.
Well, five years on, except for a questionable graph and one scientist complaining of being interviewed out of context, The Great Global Warming Swindle has held up pretty well, while much of Gore's thesis has failed to sustain rigorous analysis from both sides of the debate and even been found seriously wanting by a British court in an action brought by parents concerned that the then Environment Secretary, David Miliband, wanted Gore's dodgy polemic force-fed to school children.
In the week after the EU had its nose bloodied by the European Court of Justice over exceeding its powers in imposing emissions targets, it is clear that Durkin's film is the one that should been shown to pupils. Possibly with Bjorn Lomborg's conciliatory, yet sceptical documentary, Cool It. One gets the impression if Grantham had his way, both would be banned.
Grantham's investor letters are a great read and the source of much wisdom and although a revered reader of market trends, and of commodity indices in particular, his long term view is as gloomy as it gets and revolves around the thesis that the planet can't support us and we need to change our behaviour fast to survive. But Grantham, like the EU, wants us to swallow cyanide when our cancer may not be terminal.
The sceptical view is that climate science is horribly woolly, beset with second raters and data fudgers. It should be the domain of physicists but instead is populated by wingnuts with computer models that have been proven not to work. In fact that's not just the view of sceptics, but one not a million miles from that of Prof James Lovelock, who actively values the sceptical contribution to science in general and what he calls the 'global heating' debate in particular. For if the head of the IPCC gets glacial thawing wrong by a factor of 10, surely scepticism, at the very least, is exactly what's called for.
The Grantham Foundation's websites are formal but cheesy. There is a picture of Grantham hiking in the wilderness here, a leafy motif there, that sort of thing. The foundation was founded in 1997 with his wife, Hannelore (quiet at the back) and indeed the Foundation supports his close family in variety of roles, but all very much of the science-is-settled, Malthusian school. Through the patronage of Imperial and the LSE the foundation spits out copious reports and policy documents presumably to affect warmist energy policy agendas throughout western governments.
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.