By William Kay
Table of Contents
(About this List)
The starting place for compiling this list were the “blogrolls” or “links” sections of the better known climate-sceptical and/or enviro-critical websites. Many of the websites listed there have blogrolls of their own, which were also surveyed. Overall, about 100 such lists were perused. Only websites appearing on these lists were selected for the list below.
About 20 blogrolls contain over 100 entries each but there is a lot overlapping content. Moreover, the lists tend to be poorly maintained and thus include many broken links and dud sites. They also include websites with little enviro-content.
The Lord Monckton Foundation website has an impressive 300 hyperlinks, but over half of these link not to websites but to individual articles, papers, and data-sets, or to pro-global warming sites including one that calls Lord Moncton a “purple crested crackpot.” In fairness to Lord Monckton, he is not advertising his list as being exclusively a roll call of enviro-critical/climate-sceptical sites. Only about 70 of his entries fit this definition, which still makes it one of the longest such lists on the Internet.
U Climate is a noble effort to produce a universal climate website collection. The site claims to draw postings from 150 climate sites but actually seems to draw from about 100. Of its 52 skeptical sites, 2 are not sceptical. Nevertheless, U Climate is a great idea and a site worth visiting.
None of the lists perused contain over 90 currently-active, enviro-critical/climate-sceptical websites. The list below is four times longer than any other. This reflects a community that really does not know itself.
True, the list below could be pared back. It includes multiple projects that trace to common sources. For instance, four websites are produced by the Center for Organizational Research and Education; however, in this and other instances, each website is a stand-alone, semi-independent project and thus appears as a separate entry. In other cases where multiple websites replicate a single source, only the presumed master site is listed.
A greater quandary is the dormant website. The exemplar of this phenomenon is World Climate Report. This seminal website is the most common resident on sceptics’ lists despite being dormant since 2012. Regarding the list below, if a website has not had a fresh posting since 2013, it was usually struck. Applying this rule excluded several dozen websites that appear regularly on sceptics’ lists.
A still greater quandary relates to websites whose enviro-critical information constitutes only a small portion of the website’s overall content. While no strict cut-off line was drawn, this concern excluded scores of websites.
On the other hand, the ultimate list of climate-sceptical/enviro-critical websites is probably over ten times longer than the one offered below. The reasons for this are:
About 150 of the entries below are for simple blogs, meaning “web-logs” of individuals unconnected to any larger, funding agencies. Some blogs have blossomed into substantial enterprises. Jo Nova was selected top Australian blog in 2014 after receiving 600,000 hits. This website launched The Sceptic’s Handbook (Volumes 1 and 2), 200,000 copies of which have been distributed. Watts Up With That is the clear champion in this regard. Its 263 million cumulative hits have earned it numerous Internet awards.
Jeff Id relays how in the heyday of the Climate Gate scandal his blog (The Air Vent) peaked at 15,000 hits a day but has since quieted down, in part due to his own divided efforts. Real Science’s producer openly bemoans his inability to attract funders for his site. The Climate Scepticism initiative was launched because its producer felt the climate blogosphere was getting so crowded individual bloggers could no longer maintain visibility. So far this coalition project has attracted seven “sceptics” – two of whom are too sketchy to make it onto the list below.
Dozens of the website producers have hard copy books on the market and several websites are entirely devoted to advertising recently published books. Presumably all bloggers would welcome greater success in the conventional publishing and media realms, but obscure sites such as Green Corruption Files and No Tricks Zone often make for the most interesting reading.
(About this List)
This second list is culled from the first list. It contains the websites of the larger funded organizations devoting significant resources to criticizing the environmental movement.
Before plunging into this list, it is important to remind that between these large funded organizations and the solo-operator blogs, the main list above also contains another 100 entries defying easy classification.
Scores of websites such as Popular Technology and International Climate Science Coalition are well-produced, seemingly professional, collective affairs yet do not appear to be from funded organizations – or at least not funded to the extent of a Fraser Institute or Heritage Foundation.
Another genre of enviro-critical/climate-sceptical website consists of alternative commercial media outlets who, without significant philanthropic or tax-deductible funding, have succeeded in attracting sufficient readership and advertising to employ full-time staff. Examples include: Spiked!, US Action News, American Spectator, American Thinker, Brietbart, Canada Free Press, Rebel Media, and Right Side News. While these are for-profit media businesses, there is no lumping them in with the mainstream media oligopoly. At the same time, they are clearly a class apart from the run-of-the-mill blogs.
Yet another difficult-to-define genre of website belongs to a gallery of academics, writers, and journalists who have acquired quasi-celebrity status, at least within the enviro-counter movement, and yet who remain for the most part independent. We have in mind here the likes of Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick, Nir Shaviv, Richard Tol, Steve Milloy, Jo Nova, Mark Steyn, Paul Driessen, James Delingpole, Marita Noon, Matt Ridley, Michelle Malkin, Marc Morano, Donna Laframboise, Bjorn Lomborg, etc.
(About this List)
A rare hat-tip must go out regarding the third list. The environmental movement devotes substantial resources to monitoring its adversaries. Source Watch maintains a data base of 4,000 Wikipedia-style articles on critics of the environmental movement. Greenpeace’s Anti-Environmental Archives warehouses 27,000 documents. Even more useful is the dogged investigative work done by Desmogblog and Conservative Transparency. The list below is drawn mainly from Desmogblog, Source Watch, and Conservative Transparency commentaries on the funding of the groups appearing on the list above.
Many of the groups listed below are run by very private people. If no website is listed alongside the foundation, it is because no website can be found. Those with websites often provide no contact information. Many are contactable only through the regular postal service, and some make it clear they do not read unsolicited requests for money.
Where available and useful, additional information appears alongside the name of the funding agency.
Note: Several donors are not original sources of funds but are intermediaries.
Also note: At least four of these groups (Fairbrook, Rotella, Walton, and Windway) also fund green NGOs.
One could spend a long time praising the above websites. Amongst their other accomplishments, the online enviro-critical community have demolished the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis and have broadcast this message to millions of people despite concerted opposition from the mainstream media and elite academia. The science is settled – CAGW is a joke.
This leads to one of two principal criticisms of the online enviro-critical community; namely, that too much attention is given to Climate relative to other aspects of environmentalism.
Granted the climate industrial complex is a $1.5 trillion a year monster profoundly warping energy policies around the world, but the global recycling industrial complex also garners at least $200 billion per year. Most recycling, like renewable energy, would not happen, and need not happen, but for the relentless lobbying and lying of the international environmental movement. The online enviro-critical community rarely broaches the topic of recycling, and no websites are exclusively devoted to this topic while scores of enviro-critical websites are dedicated to Climate.
Likewise, only one website listed above (GMO Pundit) focuses on environmentalism’s attack on genetically modified foods. Only one website (Population Research Institute) focuses on combatting environmentalism’s overpopulation campaign – a massive crusade engendering cultural changes few people dare fathom.
Moreover, land-use policy remains the primary interest of the environmental movement. The economic consequences of this endeavour exceed all other aspects of environmentalism combined. Land-use policy affects housing costs, food prices, resource development, construction activity, and commercial overhead. Environmentalism’s sequestration of land materially harms most of the world’s population.
While many of the above websites do take on the land issue, one has to hunt for such articles and essays; and land use is rarely a designated topic, or the sole concern, of a website. The only real example of the latter is the tepid: Park Privatization. The Cato Institute has a sub-section within their Energy and Environment section devoted to Urban Growth and Transportation, which carries articles on point. More germane information is found in the Adam Smith Institute’s The Green Noose (urban greenbelts) and in the Institute for Energy Research’s The Economic Effects of Unlocking Federal Lands.
Climate-dedicated outfits like Friends of Science and Global Warming Policy Forum are increasingly straying off the reservation to expose bogus pollution scares and academic perfidy. This is a good thing. The solution is not to let up on the Climate hoax but to expand the overall reach and scope of the online enviro-critical community.
The second criticism involves political terminology. The three primary political traditions are: Socialism, Conservativism, and Liberalism (or Left, Right, and Centre, respectively). If you find this an oversimplification, then you must surely reject the rigid Liberal-Conservative (or Left-Right) binary into which enviro-criticism is squished.
The above labels are historic terms relating mainly to economic policy. The essence of Socialism remains public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy – at least of the major financial and industrial sectors. Liberalism, or the policy of the Centre, advocates minimal government intrusion into the market and the leaving of economic activity, as much as possible, in private hands. The original Conservatives advocated keeping most property, certainly land, in private hands, but they also demanded strong governmental control of business activity.
During the first half of the 20th century, the most militant, and successful, faction of Europe’s Conservative movement became known as the “fascists.” This was not a fringe movement. Circa 1941 fascist regimes ruled every country in Europe save Russia and Britain. While many fascist parties and leaders perished in the Second World War, the political tradition and its base, Europe’s landed estate, rose from the ashes.
Through Orwellian linguistic manipulation the terms “Left” and “Liberal” were appropriated by what had hitherto been called the Conservative movement across much of the English-speaking world. Now we have “liberals” calling for ever more stringent state regulation. Now we have a “radical left” dominated by billionaires, aristocrats, and established churches.
Neo-fascism (i.e. environmentalism) is often described as “left-liberal” but leftism and liberalism is precisely what it opposes. This muddled discourse allows neo-fascists to masquerade as the freedom-loving friends of the common folk. This is a movement that restricts economic freedom in order to suppress what they perceive as unneeded and disruptive growth in full knowledge that such restrictions will immiserate broad swaths of the population.
The enviro-critical movement is almost unanimous in the view that environmentalism is some leftish liberal affair. Red-baiting abounds. Mark Musser and John Ray (Greenie Watch) deserve credit for correctly connecting modern environmentalism to classical fascism, but both insist on sledgehammering the triangular peg of proper political terminology into the binary slot of Cold War anti-communism.
Traditional leftists are found on the main list above (Michael James Barker, Climate Guy, Wrong Kind of Green, Climate Resistance et al.) and their sites make for interesting reading. Wrong Kind of Green, despite being militant environmentalist agitprop, and despite being run by yet another counterfeit Indian, is a treasure trove of dirt on Big Green.
Barker’s excellent “environment” section exposes another part of the problem. Here we have someone who is convinced environmentalism is dominated by reactionary plutocrats with fascist roots, and who is convinced that “overpopulation” is a myth central to their agenda, but who cannot take the next step and acknowledge that Peak Oil, Acid Rain, Global Warming, and the entire “ecological crisis” are also myths.
The enviro-critical movement is now almost unanimous in the opinion that environmentalism is a project of certain wealthy elites. This is no secret. The controlling minds of giant philanthropic trusts and major multinational corporations are required by law to make public their contributions to green NGOs, and they usually comply. One could compile a list of 500 extremely wealthy individuals, from Prince Albert to Tom Steyer, who have publically plunged into the green pond. This is not a milieu where one finds radical levellers. These people are obviously not “leftists.”
|Designed by W3Media. Hosted by W3Media|