Forum Topic

Mr Hawkes. Given you've very clearly documented the sources of the money; for example, Steven Ballmer, it doesn't appear that "dark" or shady to me! On the big tech angle, you missed that Bill Gates accepts global warming as well; I think his preferred solution is carbon capture - another investment opportunity for US big tech? (I seem to recall some small scale tech spin-offs from Imperial College a couple of years or so ago.)I don’t think the idea of an international ‘fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty’ is unreasonable. The ozone hole issue was resolved by international cooperation, so it's almost certain an existential threat such as climate change can only be solved by international cooperation. It's interesting attending the Shell AGM (courtesy of my British Gas privatisation shares), There's the Christian women's groups asking questions about Gulf Stream tipping points because they're concerned about their grandkids' futures to representatives from financial services associations quizzing the board about their poor record diversifying into renewables because they're worried about the longer term returns on their investment funds. The Shell response is usually along the lines they're giving the customers what they want at the moment - I guess a bit like how the tobacco industry once responded? (No 'Just Stop Oil' floor show this year, to be honest it was a bit distracting even if amusing the first time ...)Anyway, there's a broad church of those concerned about climate change and it would be naive to think some don't have ulterior motives. And, obviously, there needs to be a debate about how and the rate of weaning the world off hydrocarbons to minimise the disruption - but I guess if we don’t the problem might be catastrophic disruption for future generations - I suppose that's not our problem?

Michael Ixer ● 16d

Mr IxerDon't be too smug about your apparent objective and disinterested support for those campaigning about 'global warming' and 'climate change'.Just as you claim there is a conspiracy to hide the facts of the matter funded by 'big oil' and other nefarious US corporations, there is apparently a secretly funded collection of think tanks and other pressure groups putting forward your side of the argument.https://spectator.com/article/revealed-the-shady-funding-of-net-zero/?The article reads - "Yet no similar scrutiny is applied to a far bigger lobbying effort – the concerted campaign to push a ruinous net-zero agenda. This is the story of the Dark Green lobby: a network of foundations, research groups and policy shops, often funded through foreign channels. It has been astonishingly successful in shaping policy, controlling debate and overruling elected governments in the courts. It has prevented the exploration of oil and gas in the North Sea, kept energy prices high and made us ever more dependent on Chinese technology.The politician at the heart of this ecosystem is the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband. While his policies have been challenged, the network behind him has remained in the shadows.This is a network of foundations, research groups and policy shops, often funded through foreign channelsThe first objective is to shape policy. The Dark Green charitable foundation which has the most influence is the European Climate Foundation (ECF). Founded in 2008, the ECF describes itself as ‘a grant-making foundation supporting climate action across Europe and beyond’. It supports ‘700+ partner organisations’ to ‘broaden political and public support for net zero’.The ECF hopes to ‘embed climate action in robust, future-proof frameworks that withstand political change’. In other words, sod the voters. The foundation, which is based in the Netherlands, last year spent a staggering €171 million via a huge variety of organisations across Europe, including many in Britain.Much of this money funds research for perennially cash-starved British thinktanks. The ECF donated £338,000 to the left–leaning Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) last year, having previously funded a programme of work which produced a report arguing for the closure of the North Sea basin. The IPPR told The Spectator ‘all of our research and published outputs are editorially independent’ and pointed out that it has an A rating from Who Funds You?, the thinktank transparency campaign.The foundation also gave £114,000 to the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the radical left-wing thinktank where Zack Polanski launched his economic vision earlier this year. The NEF was previously headed by Miatta Fahnbulleh – formerly Miliband’s junior minister – who is rumoured to be leading Andy Burnham’s putative policy unit. It has campaigned for fossil fuel divestment and has argued that oil and gas extraction will be a ‘financial burden’.The ECF also funds the Labour Climate and Environment Forum (LCEF), which hosted Miliband at last year’s Labour party conference. Launched in 2022, the LCEF aims to strengthen the ties between politicians, trade unions, industry leaders and policy thinkers to make ‘tackling the climate emergency’ a ‘core Labour value’. It has called the argument that extracting oil and gas from the North Sea strengthens our national security a ‘myth’.The ECF is canny enough not to limit itself to seeking to influence the political left. It has also donated to centre-right thinktanks such as Onward, the Centre for Policy Studies, Policy Exchange and the Conservative Environment Network. The latter has produced papers suggesting, among other things, that we must have an international ‘fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty’ and that Britain should institute a carbon border tax.One experienced think tanker told The Spectator that ECF money was influential because there was ‘no comparable funding’ from those sceptical of the fundamentalist net-zero case, and so ‘SW1 thinktanks’ are attractive targets.Where does all this money come from? One major donor is the California-based Sequoia Climate Foundation, which grants between $300 million a year to climate–related causes. Another is Bloom-berg Philanthropies ($300 million a year). A third was the Ballmer Group, an American investment group founded by former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer (more than $1 billion since 2022).The second objective of Dark Green money is to distort the energy debate by de-legitimising opponents. To that end, the ECF contributes financially to tackling what it calls ‘climate disinformation’ – or what anyone else might think of as informed free speech. It funds Carbon Brief, an outlet focused on attacking ‘net-zero misinformation’ – in other words, science. Carbon Brief’s director, Leo Hickman, has suggested that the Telegraph’s questioning of Miliband’s desire to block oil and gas exploration is ‘hysterically and ludicrously obsessed’.The most prominent of the various net-zero bodies which tackle ‘misinformation’ is DeSmog UK, which accuses opponents of North Sea closures of being funded by fossil fuel interests. DeSmog receives money from the European Media and Information Fund, which was founded by the Gulbenkian Foundation; its endowment is worth around €4 billion. It has denounced both Badenoch and Farage for the crime of wanting the UK to use our own oil and gas rather than Norway’s or Russia’s".So your views are funded by American dark money from tech billionaires and others such,

John Hawkes ● 16d

Mr Hawkes. You're doing your usual thing of trying falsely to put words in people's mouths. I didn't say anything of the sort; I just highlighted the stupid comments of a President Trump supporter . Some of the best managers and technologists I've worked for and with have been Americans. Perhaps you should read my posts properly, then you'd realise the respect I have for US science and technology, in particular NASA, NOAA, etc. (I'm always impressed by the remote fixes that NASA software engineers devise and apply to the Voyager satellites https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-missions/how-fixed-voyager-1) :-) And even the Trump Administration realises its scientists know best: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/18/ocean-monitoring-system-reversal-trump-administrationAnyway, the good news is that thanks to President Trump we may be seeing some of the best US brains migrating to the UK and EU ...https://www.npr.org/2026/06/30/nx-s1-5875206/trumps-cuts-science-researchers-move-abroadObviously, have no power to change the world's apparent desire to boil itself, but as it'sa free country I can join others to counter misinformation and disinformation. As you've noted before, the UK contributes slightly less that 1% to the global emissions, but then we have a population of approximately 0.87% of the world's population, so a sort of average amount of emissions per capita? Of course reduction in emissions will probably have benefits in environmental and health improvements as well as also likely giving a lead in the technologies for reducing climate change, although Musk’s Tesla, other US companies and many Chinese companies are seeing the opportunities, so investment is necessary to exploit that ... still, perhaps all the investment in AI will save us all, or, alternatively, help the human race race towards its extinction:-)

Michael Ixer ● 17d

Mr Hawkes. Veganism is really a lifestyle so it excludes the consumption or use of any animal products. So no leather belts or shoes and, yes, no cheese or eggs as well as no honey or waxed citrus fruits - only organic ones. Obviously,  in the modern world some pragmatism is necessary; for example, one might have to consider the benefits of a flu or other vaccine using egg whites as a medium.I can see veggies might have some stroke or cardiovascular issues from eating too many dairy products. I had an interesting discussion with a US immigration official on a business trip a decade or so ago about the fact Bill Clinton was on a plant based diet after his quadruple by-pass operation. (I explained to him that I'd had a vegan meal on the plane but was a veggie just fed up with given cheese all the time; it was interesting to me that he had access to the full BA booking data, not just my travel arrangements.)I understand US cardiologist often recommend plant based diets to those who have cardiovascular problems and many have moved to a mainly plant based diet themselves. Also, don't forget, many are also vegan as they are lactose intolerant, as is my wife. It's ironic that many of French heritage where they have a great cheese tradition are lactose intolerant!It's possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet, and excessive alcohol can have an adverse affect on health. Apparently, red wine in moderation isn't necessarily healthy and, even if it were, sadly the benefits aren't proportional to the quantity consumed.I guess genetic and epigenetics/lifestyle also play a part. Still something's going to get one in the end; it would be annoying to forgo that extra glass of Merlot only to be taken out by a Deliveroo  rider on an e-bike delivering someone's McDonald's hamburger!

Michael Ixer ● 19d

Mr Hawkes. I seem to recall answering your question about what changes I'd made to mitigate my carbon footprint sometime ago (I seem to recall it may have led to a discussion about vegan shoes?)I've been vegan for c8 years, veggie for nearly 20 years before that.I use public transport when possible.  I haven't owned a car for over 15 years.  I did use Zipcar but obviously they've closed, I hadn't had to drive for 2 or 3 years before they closed. Recently we needed to use Uber several times because of unreliable buses in Putney and the heat - but many of their cars are EVs and one can specify an EV, although not always if time is of the essence. I haven't flown a short haul or internal flight for around a decade. I did fly to the US in August 2024 following the death of a friend there; no other way to get there, the time before was 2022 and I'm glad we went then.If I come across as patronising it's probably from exasperation as you seem to be skeptical or ignore papers/articles I've spent time selecting in response to previous posts that seemed to question climate change. I don't recall ever using AI on this topic: Google did summarise the ones about war but I think I posted the two underlying articles not the AI summary.The only reason I post on this topic is the disinformation on it - people saying it's a hoax, etcYes, people do want cheap energy, but perhaps they were being sold a lie when Exxon scientists knew about global warming back around 1980,  and those in the oil and gas industry chose to bury the facts? Unfortunately, leaving the transition to renewable so late when we could have started c1990 is going to be very costly. And, yes, many of us were guilty because we were hoping the deniers might have a scientific case but it became apparent the evidence was against them. Still, if we can find some billions for defence perhaps we can find some more to subsidise heat pumps, and the necessary insulation, etc in Victorian houses?

Michael Ixer ● 21d

Michael, I've been through this loop several times with Mr Hawkes and posted a numbers of other papers, articles, etc regarding this. He either can't understand them or deliberately chooses to ignore them. The obvious solution is to drastically reduce the use of hydrocarbon fuels; however, given the political, financial, business and economic structure of our global societies that's difficult to do - there's obviously too many powerful vested interests blocking any fast changes. It's possible carbon capture might assist but it's looking unlikely at present. We obviously have heatwaves from time to time over the years but it's the rising average temperatures over time and the increasing maximum temperatures during heatwaves that are the important (and worrying) metrics regarding global warming - which isn't new, it's been occurring since the start of the (first) industrial revolution. Modelling is being done into the effect of global warming on weather temperatures occurring during heatwaves ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cg5pjlyjrq8oIn fact, if we go back to the 1970s heatwave, which I think Mr Hawkes was referring to, about the same time Exxon scientists' modelling predicted global warming - as found by Harvard researchers.https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/I've no further comment to make, I'm not a climate scientist but what I've read seems to make sense in terms of the basic physics I studied at A level and OU first year degree level planetary science and astrophysics - and the basic maths doesn't contradict anything that I studied in my maths degree. Anyway, it'll be the grandchildren of people ignoring climate change that will have to come up with the solutions ...

Michael Ixer ● 22d