Although little corporate money goes to skeptics (especially as compared to the corporate money that goes to alarmists), the green-run Checks and Balances Projects apparently aims to resurrect that myth with two goals in mind: (1) continue to intimidate corporations from funding skeptics and (2) intimidate the media from running skeptic commentary. The Checks and Balances Project is ironically named since the Constitution’s system of checks-and-balances is the system the Founding Fathers devised to limit the growth of government. The Checks and Balances Project, in contrast, intends to silence skeptics so that government power can expand through climate-energy policy. [Checks and Balances Project]
Same here, I did a screencapture of mine: http://i47.tinypic.com/1znmkp0.jpg
I’ll give ’em a while to place it there, but otherwise I’ll have to throw it on the pile of my other comments deep-sixed by bloggers who seem to detest comments that don’t support their views: https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/256845011486920705
Love the Nesting Russian Dolls metaphor.
A question that will never be asked of the lefty organizations: “Do you get money, directly or indirectly, from interests that stand to benefit from what you are saying?”
I left a comment about 12 hours ago, at the checksandbalances website. See below:
“hpjunior says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 12, 2012 at 11:33 am
I share your enthusiasm for transparency regarding media mentions of environmental and climate-change issues. For instance, few people know that the EPA actually solicits suits against itself, from so-called green organizations. The EPA then nurtures the lawsuits to fruition, i.e., another bat-guano-crazy prosperity-destroying regulation (with the force of law) that never needed a vote by Congress. How cozy! There are countless examples of this perfidious agency acting against the taxpayers’ interests. There are other agencies, the heads of which pretend to be totally convinced of the so-called environmentalists’ purity of heart. The dollars influencing the media are heavily stacked to favor the wacko side, as opposed to the taxpayers’ interersts.”
I won’t bet on it, but I believe this comment will remain in moderation, unless and until the comment moderates, i.e., comes around to the hateful leftist point of view.
Oh, joy. Whenever I see these new things pop up, I look through the names to see if I recognize anyone. Who pops up as one of the two guys on the New Venture Fund “Senior Advisors” page? http://www.newventurefund.org/about-nvf/senior-advisors/
Matthew Anderson-Stembridge.
How appropriate for this time of year. I wrote a December article two years ago at American Thinker about Stembridge and Phil Radford, and their direct ties to the enviro-activist group Ozone Action, a place I term the ‘epicenter’ of the ’91-to-present smear of skeptic climate scientists. Please see “The Case of the Curious Climate Covenant” http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/the_case_of_the_curious_climat.html
No apology needed. Sometimes brevity is the enemy of clarity. Thanks for the clarity.
Curious about the funding, I did some light digging. At their website, C&B asserts that their funding comes from the New Venture Fund. The homepage rails about the nefarious influence of lobbyists and how C&B are going to hold “government officials, lobbyists, and corporate management accountable,” reading much the same as what one reads/hears from every community organizer and aspiring politician. The top-listed co-director is based in – surprise! – Washington, DC. One grows vegetables in his front yard to share with his neighbors. Both claim BAs in polysci. They even refer to themselves as “the Team.”
The New Venture Fund is also based in – surprise! – Washington, DC. On the homepage, NVF asserts that it is a 501c3 charity, but is not clear (on the site) about its sources of funding, but does appear to have a connection with the family of the late Chris Stevens (the US ambassador to Libya who was assassinated in Benghazi last September). A senior advisor is connected with Arabella Advisors, which is a firm that specializes in helping families, foundations, and corporations funnel money to worthy philanthropic opportunities.
The bios of the board and staff of NVF are sprinkled with “civil justice,” “sustainability,” “clean energy,” and environmental law, as well as touting experience in or connections with the UN, Bill Clinton, “entertainment icons,” and various environmental initiatives. Educational credentials are all liberal arts (plus some law degrees). Experience is heavily laden with non-profit’s.
The bios of the leadership of Arabella are very similar to those of NVF. Of 14 people, only one hard-science degree in evidence, and there is only one mention of employment in private industry (where things are made, built, or grown). Only NVF is cited as a funding recipient by name.
Oh, and Arabella is based in – surprise! – Washington, DC, at the same street address and suite number as NVF.
Like nesting Russian dolls. NGOs breed more NGOs, and money is the breast milk. One suspects that many of the donors would be appalled if they really understood what is being done with their money.
Apologies for the length.
Good, this report will help me know where to send Thank You letters.
Unfortunately, these folks are not going away anytime soon!
soros??
I wonder who funds them???
Checks and Balances Project is just another advocacy attack group that brings nothing new to the table. The public has grown tired of listening to such organizations as they come off as children in a finger pointing contest. They do more to turn off the public to their message than any skeptical organization could wish for.