It is difficult to get away from the Hewlett Foundation in matters of climate propaganda, it really is. More research pours out everyday that solidifies the position and status of the non-existent theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ( I would say h/t: Michael Tobis, but I don’t wear a hat).
By the way, did you know why climate bloggers go skiing naked with just their hats on? Because 75% of the body’s heat is given off by ‘radiative physics’ to outer space from the head alone, that is why. (H/t: Jerry Seinfeld).
The story, jokes apart, is about a PNAS study – “Expert credibility in climate change“. One of the authors of this paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is Jacob Harold – a ‘Program Officer of Philanthropy’ with the Hewlett Foundation. The paper demonstrates, using nothing less than a Mann-Whitney U test that skeptics are not really scientists worth bothering about (p<0.000001).
The study we hear, has been funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Now, how can a funding officer of a philanthropic organization be part of a project which is funded by his own organization? I am genuinely curious to know as I am totally ignorant in these matters.
Lest we forget, the business of philanthropy is big business. The Hewlett Foundation’s assets stood at $6.7 billion dollars in 2009. Obviously a substantial fund as this, will simply not throw money around just to get rid of its cash – there will be a goal, an aim, a direction for its spending. This is serious money we are talking about.
Mr Harold himself, is very helpful in this regard. Shall we hear him speak, in his own words:
Does the Hewlett Foundation have a philosophy of philanthropy?
[Jacob Harold:] Some people think of philanthropy in two categories. There’s what’s known as “responsive philanthropy,” when a foundation waits for nonprofits to come to it with their own ideas and then tries to give money to the best organizations. A foundation that practices “strategic philanthropy” will itself have a strategy and goals and then, in partnership with nonprofit organizations, do everything it can to see those goals are met. It requires much more engagement with grantees. Not every grant we make is completely in a strategic framework, and sometimes it makes a lot of sense to be responsive to support new ideas. But I’d say we subscribe much more to the strategic philosophy than some foundations (italics mine).
Since we know that the Hewlett Foundation grants ridiculously huge sums of money to support climate change activities, and it operates, not blindly as a charity does, but as a strategic organization that does ‘everything it can to see that its goals are met’, working ‘closely with grantees’, … could it be that papers such as these are part of some grand ‘strategy’ to see that its climate ‘goals’ are met?
Of course not.
The PNAS effort is designed only to inform its scientific audience and the print and TV media that they need not bother seeking skeptics’ opinions on climate matters because they are bibliometrically challenged.
I hope the printed magazine comes with two anti-depressants stapled to the back-cover – the skeptic scientists are going to need it to get through their day after seeing this paper.