A Killing Frost for Green Bosses

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


pqDoes a record-setting cold wave have anything to do with massive upheaval among the fear-mongering elite of professional left-wing environmentalism?

As the endlessly referenced Polar Vortex of Doom keeps the fruited plain in a deep freeze, it turns out several major environmentalist lobbies are shedding their current leadership.

This is happening despite the media’s nonstop, years-long, global warming propaganda assault, the presence of a radical, lawless left-winger in the White House and a Democratic stranglehold over the Senate. The voters can’t be bothered to care about this silly global warming issue.

In an amazing non-coincidence, Maggie Fox, CEO for Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, is leaving her organization in the spring. Formerly known as the Alliance for Climate Protection, the group changed its name after a hard-fought push to enact cap-and-trade legislation fizzled.

National Wildlife Federation CEO Larry Schweiger, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) President Frances Beinecke, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) President Eileen Claussen, and Greenpeace USA’s youthful Executive Director Phil Radford are also decamping from their respective posts this year. (The Pew Center on Climate Change was relaunched as the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions in 2011.)

Could it be that the career eco-extremists, con artists, and meteorological Machiavellians selling global warming doom and gloom are finally beginning to realize that their current approach isn’t working?

Evidence abounds that whatever the environmentalists are doing to try to scare the bejeezus out of the citizenry, it is failing to hit the mark. Environmentalism remains a low priority for voters.

Although many Americans are convinced that global warming is real, they don’t believe it is enough of a problem to justify spending cold, hard cash on a supposed solution, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. “The American public routinely ranks dealing with global warming low on its list of priorities for the president and Congress.” In 2013 “it ranked at the bottom of the 21 [issues] tested.”

Global warming skepticism abounds — and not just in America. Last year a poll by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) suggested “the proportion of people in the UK who don’t think the world’s climate is changing has more than quadrupled since 2005.”

The problem can’t be a lack of money on the enviro Left.

As David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin reported in their recent book, The New Leviathan, in the world of environmental activism, there are 32 major conservative groups that “promote market-friendly solutions” and 552 progressive groups that “promote radical views that are anti-business.”

Collectively, the conservative groups have net assets of $38.24 million, a figure that seems insignificant compared to the $9.31 billion figure representing the progressive groups’ combined net assets. The progressive environmental groups enjoy a 37 to 1 advantage over conservative environmental groups in revenues ($3.56 billion compared to $96.17 million).

While many global warmists sincerely believe that science supports their theory of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, they are lying when they claim to be outgunned by eeevil corporations in the fight over this issue.

These green groups allege that “vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund[s] global warming skeptics and give[s] skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate,” writes James Taylor at Forbes.

But the “undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money – including far more untraceable special interest ‘dark money’ – than global warming skeptics.”

Big businesses that stand to benefit from carbon controls or other greenhouse gas mitigation strategies are among the green movement’s biggest funders.

The Environment Defense Fund, for example, goes out of its way to work with mega-corporations.

EDF, by the way, has the blood of millions of dead malaria victims on its hands. EDF boasts that it was instrumental in banning the highly effective insecticide DDT in 1972, an act that has since led to the deaths of as many as 60 million people — largely children in poor tropical countries. EDT and others, egged on by works of paranoid fiction like Rachel Carson‘s 1962 book, Silent Spring, grossly exaggerated the dangers of DDT and helped to create the mass hysteria that was necessary to achieve an international DDT ban.

Environmentalists groups are drowning in oceans of money. As Forbes reports,

“Two environmental activist groups – Greenpeace and The Nature Conservancy – raise more than $1 billion cumulatively per year. These two groups raise more money than the combined funding of … 91 conservative think tanks … Just as importantly, these two groups raise money solely for environmental causes and frequently advocate for global warming restrictions. Their $1 billion is not diluted addressing issues such as economic policy, health care policy, foreign policy, etc.

Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions.”

As scientific evidence continues to mount that global warming is a colossus-sized nothing burger for the ages, those bad people who want to use the weather and climate to attack capitalism and the American way of life, and those pathetic people who are in it only for the corporate and government money, aren’t giving up.

In recent years alarmists of both species have been trying to move the goalposts in what reasonable people can only pray is a doomed, eleventh-hour effort to remain relevant. Now many of these tireless, annoying do-gooders speak of climate change and its hazards instead of merely squawking about the more specific phenomenon global warming.

It’s a slippery move because the climate is by its nature always changing. The definition of climate is hugely important. Climate is different than weather. Weather refers merely to the short-term conditions of variables in a specific area.

Nature is constantly adjusting weather patterns and its future actions are often difficult to predict. Water levels rise and fall. Deserts come and go. The wind blows and then it doesn’t. Sometimes there is much precipitation; other times, hardly any. The ways in which the various elements interact with each other is always changing, sometimes by a lot, sometimes by only a little.

Climate is “weather writ large,” according to the most useful definition of the term this writer could find online. “Climate is determined by a complex combination of geographic conditions and latitude. It is weather writ large, which is to say, weather patterns considered over a long time — years, decades, even centuries.”

How can one argue against a truism called climate change? Climate change is a fact. That and two and a half bucks will get you a ride on New York City’s subway.

Weather is always changing, has always been changing, and will always be changing. By the same token climate is always changing, has always been changing, and will always be changing. Change is perhaps the only constant in the study of climate and changes in climate are not always bad.

Moving from the specific to the general by making a political issue out of climate change, instead of global warming, affords alarmists infinite flexibility to keep spinning, misdirecting, and changing the parameters of the debate.

It is an irrevocable license for bloviators, demagogues, science-hating misanthropes, and enemies of freedom.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • CowboyUp

    One thing the timing of so many different outfits seems to highlight, is that these groups are pretty tightly coordinating their efforts and messaging.

  • Hass

    Two months into summer and we’re still waiting for it to begin.

  • cacslewisfan

    “It is an irrevocable license for bloviators, demagogues, science-hating misanthropes, and enemies of freedom.”

    Misanthropes is right. They really hate people and want far fewer of them on the planet. I remember when the big cry was against “Overpopulation.” And when they said “overpopulation” they meant you, not them.

    • Jakareh

      “And when they said ‘overpopulation’ they meant you, not them.”

      Of course. They are the bringers of progress and much too valuable. We, to use what is probably their favorite word, are “ignorant” and entirely expendable.

      • A Z

        As more than one pundit has pointed out ‘they believe they are the ranchers and we are the sheep (or sheeple)’.

    • Bingeman

      Yup…because the rest of us are seen as a threat to their own desire to consume.

    • MarilynA

      Yeah. The Kennedy’s were a perfect example of how they practiced what they preached. They even supported Legalized abortion as a means of population control and it was institutionalized under the Kennedy Johnson regimes yet the Kennedy’s were famous for their huge families. Rose had how many. Ethel produced 11 children. Or was that 12 or 13? The only reason Jackie didn’t have more was because she miscarried most of hers. The thought crossed my mind that what the Kennedys really wanted was a world populated only by Kennedys.

      • cacslewisfan

        LOL! A world populated only by Kennedy’s? God help us!

  • A Z

    “The progressive environmental groups enjoy a 37 to 1 advantage …”

    Has there been a military force that overcomed such odds?

    The closest one which I know is Rourke’s Drift.

    At Rourke’s drift 150 stood against 4,000, which is almost 27 to 1 odds. It was a supply depot and filed hospital. They were not expecting a fight until routed soldiers came streaming past their post.

    Outnumbered (Incredible Stories of History’s Most Surprising Battlefield Upsets)
    Cormac O’Brien

    • Bob Almighty

      But what if the 37 are all firing blanks?

      • A Z

        The have almost 2 billion dollars a year. They should be able to cream us as if we had nothing but rifles and they had tanks and were so mighty they could bulldoze over us like a speed bump overrun us in an “overrun” attack.

        But we have reality with us, the lay of the land.

        To an extent all we have to do is hold until dawn comes. Too many years go by, too many predictions are shown to be junk and they lose.

        The y need to be lampooned in sitcoms and movies with references to past predictions that bombed out one after another. Conservatives do no have a lot of control in Hollywood but we do have some.

  • Donald J DaCosta

    There remain billions of dollars and the desperate protection of scientific reputations developed over years or even decades invested in the pursuit of agenda driven science, at stake. These zealots have no intention of going quietly into the night and the natural susceptibility of human nature reflected in a morbid fascination with the gloom and doom, global disaster scenario, gives them a fertile platform to conduct their self interested mischief. And the media, always on an unending search for attention grabbing sensationalism, of any kind, are their natural ally. “The sky is falling, the end is near” if the world turns a deaf ear to their frightening prognostications and fails to implement their proposed solutions that will, only incidentally, fill their coffers with well deserved billions. After all, how much is saving the planet worth nowadays?

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    EDF’s actions on DDT and malaria cut the malaria death toll from 4 million each year to 600,000/year, a reduction of more than 75%.

    Why would you tell whopping lies like your claim to the opposite?

    Why are you promoting dead Africans, instead of EDF’s plans to save them?

    Facts here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/world-malaria-report-2012-malaria-still-declining-but-more-resources-needed-fast/

    • Drakken

      Well why don’t you go over to Africa and save them, I want to sit and watch what happens next. Do gooders and good intentions, the death of us all.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        EDF has been fighting malaria in Africa for 40 years. I’ve aided that fight.

        Do-badders don’t help at all. Every minute or so an Africa child dies of malaria. Get off your burro and do something, will you Drakken? Snark without heart or action, the death of 500,000 African kids.

        Why won’t you help?

        • Drakken

          How can I put this as politically correct as I can, I do my part in contributing to population control efforts in Africa, the middle and far east thank you very much. What you did by so called saving those 500,000 African kids is make the problem grow to 3-6 million in 10 years where us westerners will have to feed them, so other than assuage your guilt, what exactly have you done but make the problem that much worse?

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            You can’t put repugnant thoughts like that in any politically correct way.

            Generally it’s the self-claimed conservatives who falsely accuse environmentalists of wanting Africa kids to die to control population. Your bold confession is sort of a first — but still wrong, and repugnant.

            Saving kids from malaria allows greater growth of the local economy. Moreover, perhaps paradoxically, saving kids from death by disease reduces population growth, since parents don’t try to have huge families just to insure one or two will survive.

            What else have I done besides save lives, which you claim would assuage some guilt you think I should have?

            You’ve smoked yourself out as an unthinking, heartless person with no father on record.

            Scrooge repented in the story. You can, too.

          • MarilynA

            Increasing the local populations might help local economies, but only if those added people are all producers and not just consumers. The cause of today’s overwhelming world poverty is the increasing numbers of parasites who are willing to sit on their arses and let someone else feed and take care of them. Anyone with any smarts at all knows that the reason people work because they have to to survive. Take away that incentive and they just multiply.

          • Hass

            And the best example of this parasitic behaviour is none other than the most unproductive people on earth, the Criminal Paliswines.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    P.S. — I dare you to quote any piece of research in Rachel Carson’s book that she got wrong. Quote it, don’t smear it.

    Bet you can’t. I dare you.

    • truebearing

      “Quote it, don’t smear it?”

      As opposed to what you smear merchants on the Left do, constantly? What’s wrong? Are you afraid the Left’s monopoly on lying, smearing, and decieving is being challenged? Don’t worry. Vadum isn’t a Muslim.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        As opposed to snarkily claiming “I’m right,” without reference to reality.

        You can’t meet my dare, can you. QED. Rachel Carson was right, the author was wrong. Facts talk, snark walks.

    • spyeatte

      It was nothing but a political rant.

    • mkat68

      Page 17: Carson says arsenic is a carcinogen (identified from chimney soot) and mentions a great many horrible ways in which it is violently poisonous to vertebrates. She then says (page 18): “Modern insecticides are still more deadly,” and she makes a special mention of DDT as an example.

      This implication that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false. Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse affects. Millions of people have lived with DDT intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a result. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that “in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable.” The World Health Organization stated that DDT had “killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.” A leading British scientist pointed out that “If the pressure groups had succeeded, if there had been a world ban on DDT, then Rachel Carson and Silent Spring would now be killing more people in a single year than Hitler killed in his whole holocaust.” In 1978, after a two-year study, the National Cancer Institute concluded that, indeed, DDT is not carcinogenic. Even more recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 1997 found nothing to indicate that the risk of breast cancer is increased by exposure to DDT or DDE, a byproduct of DDT.

      Page 109: Carson alleges that because of the spray programs, “Heavy mortality has occurred among about 90 species of birds, including those most familiar to suburbanites and amateur naturalists. …
      All the various types of birds are affected—ground feeders, treetop
      feeders, bark feeders, predators.”

      Carson provides no references to confirm that allegation. The Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, in fact, continued to reveal that more birds were counted, per observer, during the greatest “DDT years,” including those types that Carson had declared to be declining in numbers. When marshes were sprayed with DDT to control the mosquitoes, a common result was a population explosion of
      birds inhabiting the marshes. The increases evidently occurred because of a reduction in bird diseases that were formerly transmitted by local blood-sucking insects, greater abundance of available food (less plant destruction by insects), and increased quantities of hepatic enzymes produced by the birds as a result of ingesting DDT (these enzymes destroy cancer-causing aflatoxins in birds and other vertebrates). After years of study, researchers at Cornell University “found no tremors, no mortality, no thinning of eggshells and no interference with reproduction caused by levels of DDT which were as high as those reported to be present in most of the wild birds where ‘catastrophic’ decreases in shell quality and reproduction have been claimed”. Carson also neglected to mention that the spraying of Huckin’s bird sanctuary was accompanied by fuel oil, which would have harmed the birds in and of itself.

      Page 118: Carson writes: “Like the robin, another American bird seems to be on the verge of extinction. This is the national symbol, the eagle.”

      In that very same year, 1962, the leading ornithologist in North
      America also mentioned the status of the robin. That authority was Roger Tory Peterson, who asked in his Life magazine Nature library book, The Birds, “What is North America’s number one bird?” He then pointed out that it was the robin! The Audubon Christmas Bird Count in 1941 (before DDT) was 19,616 robins (only 8.41 seen per observer).
      Compare that with the 1960 count of 928,639 robins (or 104.01 per
      observer). The total was 12 times more robins seen per observer after
      all those years of DDT and other “modern pesticide” usage. Carson had to avoid all references to such surveys, or her thesis would have been disproved by the evidence.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        Great, honest attempt. It will take some time to compose an appropriate response.

        I applaud your referencing the book (assuming your references to be accurate).

        Back in a while.

    • gnubi
      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        Gnubi, hate to tell you, but that article is pure, unadulterated wankerism.

        If you’re old enough to remember 1962, you’re old enough to figure out some of the many historical errors.

        I believe Dr. Edwards was sent around the bend by DDT poisoning (he used to drink the stuff). None of his allegations in that speech/article are accurate. No respectable publication would publish his claims, because they are so wildly off the mark.

        But it fits with the political agenda of Lyndon Larouche, whose group published that magazine (and may still for all I know).

        And that tells you all you should really need to know about the political bias of the publisher and likely lack of accuracy in the article.

        Repeated rebuttals to this piece, in several articles here.

        Facts about DDT here — follow the links in any of the articles.

        Especially, go see Bug Girl’s blog. She’s a professional entomologist, and she knows DDT and mosquitoes: http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/ddt-and-attacks-on-rachel-carson-the-cliffsnote-version/

  • truebearing

    Great article.

    The Environmental Priesthood is being replaced because the congregation has steadily dwindled and the Church of Malthus is being threatened.

    If we distill the environmental movement down to just one word, it is: misanthropic. They hate mankind, but not themselves, of course — which may be why they prefer to call themselves trolls, fairies, pixies, and elves.

    Environmental priests have set the ideal human population, worldwide, at between 100 and 300 million. That means over 5.5 billion humans need to disappear, and soon, based on the urgency apparent in their relentless scare tactics.
    The environmental religion is a death cult, just like Marxism and Islam. That it was taken over, or should I say possessed, by the Left is no surprise or secret. It gives the Left a tool of terror and forced compliance, but it isn’t working as planned, so heads have to roll.

    Given the “ideal” population goals of the environmental religion, and the things they oppose — fossil fuels, logging, fishing, hunting, modern agriculture, etc.–combined with the horrible health care of socialized medicine, replete with death panels, it isn’t hard to see what their end goal is for humanity. They live, we die, and global warming is the set-up that establishes a morality justifying mass extermination.

  • spyeatte

    The left suffers from a strong case of intractable contradiction. They are anti-business, and when their policies are implemented result in a bad economy where people are wondering where the money will come from the buy food, pay heating bills and other requirements for daily living. This situation pushes AGW into the cellar, especially when there has been a long term absence of global warming when the opposite was loudly predicted. People logically realize that “if you can’t explain the pause, you can’t explain the cause”. People who are hungry and desperate don’t care about pollution, they only care about eating. The cleanest places on Earth are the most prosperous places. Given this, the far left positions eternally suck.

  • spyeatte

    Environmentalism remains a low priority for voters because of the poor economy. The left pushes an anti-business agenda, the economy crashes, people are out of work, and they wonder why people are more concerned about economic survival? Welcome to the world of the clueless – the far left eco-freaks. Do these dimwits realize that the cleanest places on Earth are the ones with the most prosperity and the dirtiest are the ones with the most poverty?

  • herb benty

    …..and a handy tool to destroy the West.

  • MarilynA

    Guess who is funding most of these global warming activists. It’s you. the American taxpayer. Did you know that when Bill Clinton took office most of these wacko organizations (who’s main goal is to achieve “economic and social justice, otherwise known as socialism or Communism) were so underfunded that they were reduced to one hole in the wall office in Wash. DC? Then Clinton arranged for their perpetual funding to be built into federal agency budgets. Take it from one who knows first hand about this situation. I served on the board of Directors of one of these national pseudo advocate organizations when they became awash in federal money in the 1990s. Agency budgets are so large that nobody reads them before they vote for funding them.

  • Phil

    Today it’s sunny and yesterday it rained.
    I agree. there is climate change. Maybe they could explain how carbon emissions caused the ice age.