Bishop Hill Does not compute
May 8, 2014 Climate: Sceptics GWPF This is going to confuse our environmentalist friends. Readers will recall that the only one of GWPF's funders identified to date turned out to be, not a representative of big oil from Dallas or Houston, but an obscure hedge fund guy from Australia, Sir Michael Hintze. Across the world, big-oil-conspiracy theorists scratched their heads in confusion.
Hintze has now upped the ante by giving a £5m donation to the Natural History Museum.
[Hintze] said that museum director Dr Michael Dixon, who said some of the money would be spent on climate change research, was free to spend it as he wished.
Sir Michael, who was knighted by the Conservative Party last year, said that he liked to “challenge the orthodoxy” and denied that funding climate change sceptics and the Natural History Museum was a “weird fit”.
“I am not religious about it. If Michael’s guy says there’s climate change well fine. The fact that we have not had any temperature increase for the last 15-16 years is what makes me worry that we are spending all our money on CO2 rather than cleaning up the crap in the world [plastic islands in oceans for example].”
“If you want to have an argument about CO2, God bless, there’s a lot more to think about in terms of water policy, recycling policy, how we live our lives, whether we have sustainable urbanism, how we protect our species, make sure that we don’t just have dodoes in cages and they are still wandering about.”
Is that exploding heads I hear over at Friends of the Earth?
Reader Comments (31)
Sounds like a guy I could have a conversation with.
Why would a museum director be carrying out research into climate change? I thought the purpose of a museum was to exhibit items from the past, or have I missed something?
Re: Derek
Because there is more money available if you can weave climate change into your research
Derek wrote
Museum collections are used for research purposes. Most a museum's collection would not be shown in the public exhibits. They are held for purposes of research by both the museum's staff and external researchers. A natural history museum sponsoring research on climate change issues is not surprising.
They'll be scratching their heads because the notion of disinterested philanthropy is alien to them.
What does this guy funding the Natural History museum, or not being from Dallas have to do with anything? You are trying to create a laughable straw man, in order to create the impression that it doesn't matter that the most vocal organisations that deny climate change are funded by people with the means and the wish to distort science.
The GWPF did all it could to hide where it's money was coming from. Just google it. And surprise, it's from a business man that likely can line up his pockets if no sensible limits stand in his way of bloating businesses with destructive practices.
May 8, 2014 at 3:54 PM | Unregistered Commenter Fred Pearson
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Perhaps the donated cash could go towards public information on human evolution and climate--change.
The Smithsonian's interactive timeline is money well spent. It tells the U.S public that climate has been much warmer than it is today.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive
It also points out that fire was first used during climate cooling.
I expect the BBC are phoning him for an interview right now.
Info on the chap here:
http://michael-hintze.com/bio
"the most vocal organisations that deny climate change"
Which ones are those then?
One of the curious things about warmists is their inability to ascribe anything but nefarious intent on those who don't support panic over CAGW. While we mostly accept that warmists believe warmist arguments (however wacky), they want to dig deeper and find the 'real' reason why we think the science stinks. A number of us had an amusing exchange with one of the warmist head shrinks and despite most of the replies being consistent with each other, he refused to accept we understood ourselves. Eventually the debate faltered because we couldn't find a better way to describe what to us was obvious. He couldn't understand our opinions because he couldn't fit our answers into his preconceived ideas and so to him, we might have been typing in Martian.
Keep 'em coming, Fred Pearson, your contributions are hilarious.
A pragmatist. How welcome. The relentless idiocy of those who assume big oil is funding all of us is beyond infantile. It's bizarre, unbalanced and, as we used to say way back, freaky. I've had to end a long friendship with someone as it is impossible to discuss the climate with him without him resorting to the most entrenched dogma. He states clearly that he has - and this is a really intelligent guy - made no attempt to understand what is going on, but believes EVERYTHING he is told to believe. In no other field of life does he do this - but he's swallowed the CAGW pill whole, and gets furious with me when I suggest the pill might not work. Freaky, man.
In psychological terms I think AGW is like a religion, with Believers and Agnostics/Atheists, both sides simply can't understand the other.
Whilst sceptics get mainly amused and exasperated by the other side, True Believers often express visceral hatred of sceptics and think there must be money involved, if not some sub-human defect.
I'm looking forward to seeing a psychology paper with a title like "Study of Hatred amongst AGW Fundamentalists".
Are there any people who deny the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? There probably are some. Wasn't there a climatologist who said "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period"? Apart from a few people like him I don't think there is anyone who denies that the climate does change over longish periods.
On a recent visit to the School of Oriental and African Studies (an admirable institution in most ways) I saw a poster calling for a 'Fossil Free SOAS'. Will there be a campaign for a Fossil Free Natural History Museum?
We need some light relief around here, now that Zed isn't around.
What people like Fred Pearson consistently fail to realise is that whilst most of those sceptical of the Alarmist view are average people often without a lot of money behind them, (such that the equally consistent lie from the Alarmists that we are all funded by "Big Oil", generally gets the response "I bloody wish" or "If only!") - the Alarmist community have truly enormous financial resources via the scaremongering synonymous with the Alarmist gravy train.
I do believe that strong science, real science, is making a comeback.
Michael Hintze - as Dr Rodgers noted - seems like a person we can all have a conversation with.
In no other field of life does he do this - but he's swallowed the CAGW pill whole, and gets furious with me when I suggest the pill might not work. Freaky, man.
May 8, 2014 at 6:13 PM Jeremy Poynton
It's a religion.
The money would be better spent on trying to cut down the queues to get in there on school holidays.
It was appalling at Easter.
for Fred Pearson read BBD...the paranoia levels are just as acute
I do hope he doesn't give any money to the Science Museum.
Anyone else read this yet?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10815677/Clive-James-spare-me-TVs-climate-change-experts.html
Brilliant!
I have now Spillinger - many thanks for the link.
Clive James is spot on.
TinyCO2
Warmist are from Venus, Sceptics are from Mars could be the title of a book!!
Probably sums up the problem well though.
Thanks seconded, Spillinger. Clive James isn't losing his edge despite his advanced health battles - in fact he seems even more incisive. We're going to miss him.
Let’s give them a hand, because they might be a little slow to see what they’re desperately scratching around for.
(1) Big Oil cash funds all sides of the argument.
(3) Sir Michael Hintze gives money both to the sceptic GWPF and to climate change research at the Natural History Museum.
Hence, Sir Michael’s ‘disinterested humanitarianism’ is consistent with big oil funding.
Easy!
Oops!
For (3) read (2)!
Time for more coffee, I think ...
Thank you, Spillinger. A welcome read of true wit without the more modern recourse to rancour, a lesson that a lot of younger “comedians” should learn. Loved the “…nodded his moustache sagely…” bit!
Almost as entertaining are the comments.
Mark Well: your logic in the first comment is consistent with that of many AGWistas.