Following on from #Frackinggate – the allegations by NATO that green groups are funded by Russian oil, Andrew Montford has another post at  Bishop hill which caught my attention:

There is, however, an even more sinister element. As we see the march of globalisation progress, the Green 10 (all of them funded by the EU, except Greenpeace – the WWF between 2007-2012 having grabbed a massive €53,813,343 for its services to itself and the EU empire), are supporting their paymaster, “promoting EU environmental leadership in the global political arena”, helping it act at a global level.

This is from EUReferendum. Unfortunately, it isn’t clear who is and who is not being funded by the EU. So I did a search and found this:

Had Mr Farage been better briefed, he could have pointed out that the WWF has been paid nearly €54 million from EU funds in the six year period from 2007 to 2012, the RSPB were paid more €14 million, and that Friends of the Earth Europe are primarily funded from public funds. Its work programme in 2013 cost €1,368,059.00, of which the EU contributed €751,064.00 (54.89 percent). Likewise, the EEB gets most of its funding from the taxpayer.
The best bet, though, would have been to add up the Green 10 subventions for the period 2007-2012. We start with WWF grabbing €53,813,343, Birdlife is lead recipient for funds worth €25,680,683, Naturfreund gets €2,862,371, Bankwatch takes €8,178,095, the EEB is lead recipient for €13,186,263, Climate Action Network gets €2,240,616, HEAL (as EPHA) takes €4,622,921, Transport & Environment, takes €2,172,353 and Friends of the Earth was lead recipient for grants worth €13,674,033.
Putting these nine together, with Greenpeace the notable exception, the Green 10 minus one are primary or lead recipients of funds to the tune of €126,610,677 disbursed by the Commission between 2007-2012
(Link)

This is a very different story from that on Bishop Hill where it is suggested the 53 million is split between 10 NGOS. Instead EUReferendum suggest the WWF alone are getting the €53,813,343. Friends of the Earth are getting another 13million, the Climate Action Network 2million and no doubt many of the other have a radical environmental agenda.

I usually only read the toad’s articles as a headline on uClimate, but I couldn’t help looking at this one (sorry).
From what I can see, he’s given up on the “doomsday” man-made warming and is now arguing that there still might be a problem from very low levels of man-made warming. So if we are not heading toward a catastrophe as the Toad now seems to be arguing what are we heading toward?

Catastrophe: “an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event.“

In climate terms, does this mean Toad is now predicting less than 2C warming, the level Stern says is unacceptable? The level at which the huge benefits from warming are thought to be overtaken by harm (if one assumes the “scientific” aka “the worst possible imaginable – or worse” scenarios. )
To avoid anyone else having to go to Toad’s blog, I’ve reproduced the article below (And if Toad wants to complain, may I remind him that he refused to help me get a totally scurrilous and false article removed which not only breached my copyright but intentionally libelled me and many other people.)
Anthropogenomorphic: In my view, people invent big words to pretend that simple ideas are complex and falsely give the impression those using them have “special” knowledge. But, in my experience if someone uses these “big” made up words when there is are perfectly good shorter word, it often means they are trying to hide the fact they haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

Continue reading →