Delingpole: Exposed – the Liberal astroturfers behind the global warming scare

Posted: November 26, 2017 by oldbrew in climate, greenblob, opinion, Politics

A look behind the curtain shows climate-related campaigning is sometimes just a front for the machinations of American party politics, the goal being to undermine the Trump agenda.

In order to drain the swamp, President Trump must first destroy the global warming Green Blob, says James Delingpole at Breitbart News.

This is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from a series of data leaks and Freedom of Information (FOI) revelations exposing the relationship between left wing campaigners and the great climate change scam.

Global warming, it becomes clear, is primarily a left-wing political issue, not a scientific one. Green is the new red.

These leaks show how rich liberal backers—left-wing institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation, eco hedge-fund billionaires like Tom Steyer, and the various socialistic Geek Emperors of Silicon Valley—are funneling millions of dollars into sock-puppet environmental organizations both to undermine Trump’s economic agenda and to finance his political opponents both in the Democratic Party and the GOP.

U.S. Climate Alliance

This poses as “a bi-partisan coalition of states is committed to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” Or so the website says. But anyone can set up a website.

The truth, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has discovered through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)-requested email correspondence, is that U.S. Climate Alliance is just a front. Its real purpose is to enable the richly funded green lobby to buy up Democrat governors—and one, token, squishy Republican governor: Gov. Charlie Baker (MA)—by effectively bribing them with free office, research and staffing facilities which they can run off books.

There is nothing actually illegal in any of this. But to appreciate how ethically dubious it is, just consider how the liberal media would respond if the roles were reversed and it were conservative politicians being provided with all these off-books services by, say, the fossil fuel industry.

Continued here.

  1. Bryan says:

    Readers should note that in USA the two main parties Democrats and Republicans are to European eyes both right wing.
    There is very little difference between the billionaires that fund them on major policies like taxation.

    A European left wing party would advocate
    Nationalisation of main industries
    Free health care
    Free education to graduate level
    No enormous differences in income
    Taxation of excessive wealth
    And so on.

    In the USA the policies of both parties are pretty much the same.
    That’s why the major attacks between them are on personalities not policies.

    Trump probably was mainly a Democrat until recently.
    He is a ‘one off’ and that’s why the ‘deep state’ establishment will try to get rid of him.
    He is too unpredictable for them and cannot be relied on to follow the consensus and might rock the boat

  2. Bitter&twisted says:

    The green puppet masters are all in it for the money.
    Most of the activists are watermelons.
    Basically they are all terrorists who want 3rd world standards everywhere to reduce the Human population.
    Jail every last one of them.

  3. oldbrew says:

    In 10-20 years where will the power come from to dismantle and recycle all those dead ‘renewables’ i.e. solar panels and wind turbines that don’t work any more, or are too old and worn to be worth maintaining?

  4. p.g.sharrow says:

    oldbrew asks who will pay to clean up the mess?
    Why the rate payers of course! As always the promoters have collected and spent their money. The rich owners will abandon the bankrupted works and the only ones left holding the bag are the those that gained the “benefit” of cheap, dependable, renewable electrical generation. The retail customers will have to pony up more on their bills to clean up the mess. It is the only fair thing to do, as somebody has to come up with the money! Ether that or the tax payers will be forced to come up with the funds. ;-( …pg

  5. Jamie Spry says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Global warming, it becomes clear, is primarily a left-wing political issue, not a scientific one. Green is the new red.”


    CLIMATE alarmists don’t care about the environment or “the science” behind climate, at all. What drives the modern ‘environmentalist’ is power, virtue-signalling, self-loathing, anti-capitalism, Malthusianism, anarchy, control and obscene amounts of public money for those with skin in the game.

    ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy) has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population, IMO.

    A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.

  6. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Manufacturing the consensus

  7. nickreality65 says:

    In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
     Galileo Galilei

    The ONLY^3 reason RGHE theory even exists is to explain how the average surface (1.5 m above ground) temperature of 288 K/15 C (K-T balance 289 K/16 C) minus 255 K/-18C , the average surface (now ground) temperature w/o an atmosphere (Which is just completely BOGUS!) equals 33 C warmer w/ than w/o atmosphere.

    That Δ33 C notion is absolute rubbish and when it flies into the nearest dumpster it hauls RGHE “theory” in right behind it.

    The sooner that is realized and accepted the sooner all of us will have to find something better to do with our time and the taxpayers’ money. Maybe that’s what keeps RGHE staggering down the road.

    The genesis of RGHE theory is the incorrect notion that the atmosphere warms the surface (and that is NOT the ground). Explaining the mechanism behind this erroneous notion demands some truly contorted physics, thermo and heat transfer, i.e. energy out of nowhere, cold to hot w/o work, perpetual motion.

    Is space cold or hot? There are no molecules in space so our common definitions of hot/cold/heat/energy don’t apply.

    The temperatures of objects in space, e.g. the Earth, Moon, space station, Mars, Venus, etc. are determined by the radiation flowing past them. In the case of the Earth, the solar irradiance of 1,368 W/m^2 has a Stefan Boltzmann black body equilibrium temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That’s hot. Sort of.

    But an object’s albedo reflects away some of that energy and reduces that temperature.

    The Earth’s albedo reflects away about 30% of the Sun’s 1,368 W/m^2 energy leaving 70% or 958 W/m^2 to “warm” the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S-B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394-361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.

    The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.

    Bring science, I did. (6,300 views and zero rebuttals.)—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

  8. oldbrew says:

    Nik – re: ‘The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.’

    Venus has a much higher albedo (0.75) and a much thicker atmosphere but is much hotter at the surface than Earth, even allowing for its being nearer to the Sun.

    Temperature is closely related to atmospheric pressure. Observations confirm this.