The Sierra Club quit beating its wife. So they say. At this link we find that they took $25 million from various natural gas interests between the years 2005-2010. They allegedly stopped, in 2012 issuing the following press release:***
The Club continues to view natural gas as a flawed but necessary transition fuel to a clean energy future powered by wind, solar and other truly clean energy sources. That’s all the more reason that we must even more aggressively push for strong state and federal regulations. To succeed in those efforts, there can be no question of our independence. We can no longer accept donations from companies or individuals involved in the natural gas industry.
Sierra Club was not alone in taking money from fossil fuel companies. The Environmental Defense Fund is as guilty, if not more so, along with Natural Resource Defense Council and others, usually the big enviro groups. This article is from 2012 and outlines much of the corruption. There’s a common and never debunked belief fostered on the public by Climate Alarmists that the fossil fuel industry is funding Climate Skeptic groups, kind of a David/Goliath situation. This, like everything else said by alarmists, is just another big lie.
According to Michael Shellenberger in his book Apocalypse Never,
Climate activists massively outspend climate skeptics. The two largest U.S. environmental organizations, EDF and NRDC [Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resource Defense Council], have a combined annual budget of about $384 million compared to the mere $13 million of the two largest climate skeptic groups, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heartland Institution. That amount of money, $384 million, is significantly more than all of the money Exxon gave to climate-skeptical organizations for two decades. (p 206)
The reason I titled this post as I did, “blew by me”, is my basic misconception about Climate Alarmism. The way it is framed is this: These people and groups want to tear down the fossil fuel industry and replace it with solar panels and wind turbines. Since those two technologies are unreliable and harmful to the environment and wildlife, the people who support Climate Alarmism are either liars or stupid, or both. What they really want is to take us back to pre-modern times, when our lives will be harmed and shortened by absence of clean and cheap energy as provided by oil, natural gas, coal and … nuclear power.
I know, in order of cleanliness, the proper order, dirty to clean, is coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear. Of those three, coal on a world wide scale (including India and China) is thriving, and oil and natural gas industries are far more powerful than any environmental group. These groups, Sierra Club especially, have acted as beards for oil and natural gas to put an end to nuclear energy. That has been the game all along, to protect entrenched industry from a new upstart, one that could even replace them with clean and non-polluting power.
This then answers the question of why Climate Alarmists favor wind and solar, even tolerate hydroelectric, but oppose nuclear power. Just follow the money. Corruption is everywhere, in Climate Alarmism and in fossil fuel companies, and in the big environmental groups as well. (In real science, CO2 is a non-starter.)
One group I follow is the much maligned Heartland Institute, linked in our blogroll. I do not get a sense of lies and lying liars from them, in fact, just the opposite. They do not waste their time attacking critics and public actors, but rather just assemble facts and evidence to support their premise, that the planet needs some maintenance, addressing some problems, but is not in danger. But it is hard to be right when a massive propaganda campaign funded by governments and powerful and wealthy corporations backers is wrong.
Just doing a modicum of research for this piece, as I knew where I was taking it, I used the search engine DuckDuckGo, finding it to be a source for less censorship than is done by Google, Yahoo, and Bing. I wanted the details of the amount of money given to environmental groups by oil and natural gas companies. I found DDG answering the question not asked, how much money fossil fuel companies give the climate skeptic groups. I think I am again rudderless, having no search engine I can rely on to give honest returns. I am stuck with books and organizations and individuals I determine to be honest brokers.
Jordan Peterson is a veritable water spout of talks, interviews, books and panel discussions. I generally like Peterson, especially his confrontational nature. There are not that many who are outspoken and at the same time who don’t chant and hold signs. Below he is at his best, finding and using the exact right words to describe disruptive behavior by students who do not like what he says. It is brief.
I recently listened to a Peterson interview over two hours long with Joe Rogan, which can be found on Spotify, background as I went about my regular business. In it, at some point, Peterson diminishes the presence of psychopaths, at least in the business world. He says they are not that many, and not that effective anyway, as they leave a trail of destruction behind them.
This contradicts the work of Hare, Cleckly, Stout and others. Maybe Peterson is right that they do not have staying power, but given that they easily recognize one another, I would guess that there are business organizations that as a whole take on a psychopathic demeanor. I am almost wrapped up now on Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology, a tedious book wherein two of the editors, Alexandra Knight-Jadczyk and Henry See graciously provide definitions of the terms and concepts used by Lobaczewski, saving me trips to the dictionary (where I suspect I would not find the definitions anyway).
Lobaczewski’s essential work outlines the formation of groups, organizations, even whole countries around psychopaths. Hare, Stout and others conclude that such people are six percent or more of us, and that as such, they find their way into all organizations. If enough of them are present, as I see in Climate Alarmism and medical fascism now surrounding us, they are not only effective, but extremely dangerous and damaging.
So I take issue with Peterson on that one issue. If you have time, a trip to YouTube and Peterson is well worth it, in my view.
*** As of 2013, there was only one nuclear power plant left in California, Diablo Canyon. I suggest that this is why Sierra Club natural gas money dried up, and not due to any qualms of conscience. Their work was done.