Rethink Campaigns

Where did Alexandra Morton's NonProfit get $822,210 (2000-2010)?

Almost single-handedly, or so it seems, Alexandra Morton has brought the salmon farming industry to its knees in British Columbia.

In just one example of the influence that she has had, Morton brought legal action against the federal and the B.C. government.  The end result is that British Columbia lost jurisdiction over aquaculture - not only for finfish but for shellfish too.  Indeed, Alexandra Morton has had a hefty influence on public opinion and public policy, and even on Canadian law.  As such, its fair to inquire about Alexandra Morton's sources of funding and her actual research findings.

Tax returns show that between 2000 and 2010, Morton's non-profit (Raincoast Research Society) had total revenues of $913,796. Of that, less than 10 percent was from tax-receipted donations, according to my calculations based on Canadian tax returns.  A total of $822,210 (90 percent) was from grants from other charities, gifts and other revenues. The question is, where did those funds originate? And most importantly, did any of those funds originate from the American foundations of which the editors of the journal SCIENCE, where Morton's sea lice research has been published, were trustees? This is a fair question because it is important to know whether the editors of the journal SCIENCE may have had conflicting or competing interests at the time that Morton's sea lice research was published in the prestigious journal SCIENCE.

To continue reading, click here.

For my e-mail to Alexandra Morton, Sept. 6, 2011, click here.

Note: This is an up-date to an earlier post from  January 7, 2010.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Letters to Alexandra Morton, David Suzuki & U of Alberta Sea Lice Scientists

The letters below were sent to David Suzuki, Alexandra Morton and the University of Alberta sea lice scientists in the spring and early summer of 2009. In these letters, I outlined why I believe that, some of the claims that have been made about sea lice research findings, are false. I appealed to these scientists and to Alexandra Morton to please clarify the actual sea lice research findings and funding sources.

For the letters that I've sent to David Suzuki since 2007, please click here.

Here are the letters:

• June 11, 2009: Sea Lice Research Findings

• June 18, 2009: Sea Lice Research Funding

• Sept. 22, 2009: Sea Lice Research Findings and Funding

• Nov. 4, 2009: Letter to the President of the University of Alberta  

Replies:

• June 15, 2009: Reply from the David Suzuki Foundation

• June 11 - 17, 2009: Reply from Alexandra Morton

• January 12, 2010: Up-date from the University of Alberta

• Received 18 February 2010: Response from the University of Alberta

TV Interview About When David Suzuki Told Me To F**K OFF

 

"The price of greatness is responsibility."

Here's today's interview on Ezra Levant's show, The Source, where I'm asked about the occasion, in June of 2010, when David Suzuki told me to "F**k off."

This unexpected incident took place at Café Crepe on the night of the graduation ceremonies of a Vancouver high school where both my daughter and one of Dr. Suzuki's grand daughters were classmates. For the post that I originally wrote about this incident, please click here. For the article, Temper, Temper, that was written about this incident at CityCaucus, please click here. 

For the recent article titled, "David Suzuki Insults But Won't Debate in The Financial Post to which I referred during today's interview with Ezra Levant, please click here.

PLEASE NOTE:  This video clip was originally up-loaded to YouTube by someone who goes by the name BlazingCatFur.  In posting this to YouTube, the title, "Vivian Krause on David Suzuki The Great Satan" was given to this video clip by BlazingCatFur. I object to this title and have sent a message to BlazingCatFur to request that the words "The Great Satan" are removed.  Not once have I ever - nor would I ever refer to David Suzuki in this way.  On the contrary, I note in my interview that David Suzuki is an important and influential voice in our country and that in many ways, he was way ahead of his time in terms of drawing public attention to environmental issues - long before anyone else ever did. Please note also that during the interview, Ezra Levant referred to David Suzuki as The Great Saint, not The Great Satan.  At first, BlazingCatFur declined my request so I sent him a second message, asking him/her to please reconsider.

Related Posts:

• My surprise meeting with David Suzuki, June 2010. (When he told me to f**k off).

• Campbell River radio interview about my unexpected encounter with David Suzuki

• Open letters to David Suzuki since 2007

• 23 press releases & web-pages QUIETLY REMOVED by the David Suzuki Foundation

• 16 Press Releases & Web-pages Last Seen Feb. 3 & 4, 2010.

• $10 Million from American foundations, paid to the David Suzuki Foundaion 

• Who funded David Suzuki's brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon?"

• Did David Suzuki prevaricate about PCBs in farmed salmon? And if so, why? 

• A look back at meeting Peter Robinson, CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Front Page News: Why are American Special Interest Groups Stopping the Flow of Canadian Oil?

 

As I mention, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund paid Tides Canada for a web-site that makes a mockery of Alberta tourism because of a beef against the oil companies - most of which are American.  The stated goal of this is to put pressure on the Alberta government. For information about that, click here.

Greenpeace USA is paid $300,000 per year by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to run a "retailer campaign."  The excerpt for this grant in the on-line database of the Packard foundation,  is shown below.

Coming soon:  Information about the purchase of 140 acres of land on Cortes Island, right next door to property owned by Mayor Gregor Robertson, the mayor of Vancouver.  Of all places in the world, why would the U.S. Tides Foundation buy land - to the tune of nearly $2 million - on Cortes Island, in British Columbia?  Stay tuned!

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

"Demarketing" Canada's Friendly Oil, Funded by American Foundations

"The success of our work is measured by a single question:

Are people better off now than when we started?” 

- President Bill Clinton  

 

 

For the materials that I used to give a presentation to a group of journalists, here in New York, earlier this week, please click here: The "Demarketing Canada's Friendly Oil by American Foundations. NOTE: This file is 20 MB so it may take a while to download.

Here's a brief summary of the key points  that I've been trying to make, this week in New York:

Half of all oil consumed in the United States. is from foreign imports. Canada supplies 25% of oil imports and, as such, is an important partner in the energy security and the economy of America. And yet, American charitable foundations have spent at least $18 million (2000 – 2009) specifically on projects that thwart the oil and gas industry in Canada, U.S. tax returns show. These foundations spend nearly $50 million per year to fund environmental groups (ENGOs) that, among other things, are “demarketing” Canadian oil.

Most Canadians have no idea about the extent to which Canada's premier environmental organizations are funded by U.S. foundations.  The David Suzuki Foundation, for example, has been paid more than $10 million by U.S. foundations.  Ducks Unlimited Canada derives about one third of its total revenue from foreign sources, according to Canadian tax returns.

Demarketing is reducing or shifting demand away. The demarketing of Canadian oil appears to be funded as a small part of a large, well-financed marketing campaign to sway market share and investment capital towards so-called “clean energy.”

Indeed, it wouldn’t be easy to create demand for “clean energy” while singing the praises of oil and coal. It would be much easier to create demand for “clean energy” with a negative foil of bad press about “dirty oil,” and “tar sands” - which is precisely what environmental organizations are providing.

American charity would be better directed towards reducing poverty and advancing education, rather than forcing America to rely on oil imports from countries that are far less friendly to the U.S., than Canada.

At the present rate, American foundations are on track to spend half a billion dollars (roughly $50 million per year) funding the environmental movement in Canada, over the next ten years. This money could be better spent in other places that are far more needy than Canada.

Special thanks to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation for covering my airfare and providing an honorarium of $2,500 which covered my expenses in New York. In particular, special thanks to Deroy Murdoch who looked me up out of the blue and took the initiative to invite me to New York. To Deroy and Stephanie, thank you both for all your hard work and your wonderful hospitality while I was here in New York!

U.S. Funding Behind the Campaign Against Canada's Friendly Oil - Today's Interview on The Peter Schiff Show

Please read: Copyright & Disclaimer

For today's interview on The Peter Schiff Show, click here:

Peter Schiff 11July2011

 Note:  In one spot towards the end of the interview, I got my millions, billions and trillions badly mixed up!  What I should have said is that the Hewlett foundation and the Packard foundation have granted $520 million to the Climateworks Foundation. That's more than half a billion, not more than half a trillion, as I mistakenly said. (Yikes!) The information about these grants is shown below.

Peter and I discuss the funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund for a web-site against Alberta tourism.  For more about this, click here.

Tomorrow, I'll post more info.

Senate of Canada Discusses the Constant Oilsands Vilification

In the Senate of Canada, Tarred by Science was brought forward for discussion by Senator Nicole Easton, on June 23, 2011.

The Financial Post reports Senator Eaton's remarks:

"Honourable senators, I rise today to shine some attention on a recent series in the Financial Post, titled the 13th annual Junk Science Week. This series of articles highlights and exposes the numerous "scientists, NGOs, activists, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks" who bend facts, exacerbate risks, and by and large warp science with the goal of advancing an agenda....

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to cover some of the interesting pieces on the dangers of lipstick, rubber ducks and apples that, one way or another, may be killing us. However, one of the themes that stood out in a few of the pieces was the constant vilification of our oil sands.

Honourable senators, I believe there is much more at play here than simple scientific fact.

In a well-laid out article, Vivian Krause examined the fallout resulting from a report on pollutants near oil sands projects. As Krause pointed out, this was a case of "how bad media happened to good science."...

Perhaps the most interesting tidbit ignored was how the study was funded. Most of the $500,000 price tag was covered by Tides Canada and the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, both vehement critics of the oil sands. In fact, the Tides foundation finances at least 30 groups that target the oil sands. Furthermore, many organizations that channel funds to the Tides Foundation do so with the explicit goal of slowing the expansion and demand for Canadian oil."

To continue reading, click here.

For the Hansard's of the Senate of Canada for June 23, 2011, click here.

"I will be very hard to satisfy on oilsands," admits David Schindler

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece titled "Tarred by Science," for the Financial Post.  The question asked in that article is whether all the bad press about the impact of oil sands operations on the Athabasca River, was actually warranted by the research on which the claims were said to be based. In other words, did the research actually show what the scientists and the media said that it did?

The research in question was done by Dr. David Schindler and his graduate students at the University of Alberta. Yesterday, The Financial Post published a letter of response from Dr. Schindler. 

In his comments to the Financial Post, Schindler says, "If they (industry) had funded us and we had written the same report, our findings would probably have been savaged by green groups as being industry biased, because we found only low concentrations of toxic chemicals."  

In admitting that the levels of 'toxic chemicals' that his research team found were low, Schindler proves my main point: the alarming headlines that followed his study were not warranted by the research itself.

Schindler admits that his research "was designed to expose the flaws in the year-round monitoring that had been taking place, and the fact that the governments propaganda has not been based on solid science." No wonder the industry says that Schindler's approach is fault-finding, not fact-finding. How can anyone conduct impartial science when the stated objective from the get-go is to expose flaws?

Schindler admits, "I will be very hard to satisfy on oil sands."  With that out in the open, no one should be surprised if Schindler doesn't approve of government monitoring - no matter how expensive it is. 

Schindler says that I ignored some basic facts about the funding of his study.  Not so.

Schindler says, "In an interview with Ms. Krause, I told her that scientists had tried to get similar research funded by the oil sands industry. However, industry told us that it would cost too much." That's not at all what I have in my notes which, incidentally, I sent by e-mail to Dr. Schindler in order to verify that I was quoting him correctly.  Schindler wrote back saying that he had said or meant to say, "The source of our money would not have affected our results. I was sure this would make the oil sands look bad, based on many past studies of airborne emissions and stripped watersheds."

For a CBC video clip with Schindler's comments about his research funding, click here (34 seconds).

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

20,000 First Time Visitors - Thank you!

Since mid October of 2010, this blog has had about 25,000 "unique" visits of which 20,000 were first-time visits. About 5,770 visitors have come back more than once.  These statistics are from StatCounter.

According to the log of visitors provided by Statcounter, visitors have included, among others, the Canadian House of Commons, the U.S. Congress, Public Works & Government Services, the RCMP, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

Statcounter shows that this blog has also had visits from a number of the U.S. foundations and Canadian organizations that are mentioned here, including Tides Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation. Since January alone, the David Suzuki Foundation has visited 67 times (250 entries).

To all those who have taken time to browse or read, and especially to those who have provided feedback and input, thank you very much!

Note: The data below is only for the first half of June.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

1rst Radio Interview About My Appeal to David Suzuki

Why am I writing letters to David Suzuki since 2007? Who's funding me? And what is the fish farm fuss really all about?  These are some of the questions that I'm asked by Dave Reynolds, the host of 99.7 The River, in my first radio interview about the science and the money behind the campaign against salmon farming.

Click here: Campbell River Radio Interview

 

Below, here's an excerpt of the letter from David Suzuki that I talk about in the interview. For the whole letter in which David Suzuki falsely says that he uncovered the "fact" that B.C. farmed salmon is heavily contaminated with PCBs and other toxins, click here.

Related Posts:

• Open Letters to David Suzuki since 2007

• 23 press releases & web-pages quietly removed by the David Suzuki Foundation

• 16 Press Releases & Web-pages Last Seen Feb. 3 & 4, 2010.

• $10 Million from USA foundations, paid to the David Suzuki Foundaion 

• Who funded David Suzuki's brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon?"

• Did David Suzuki prevaricate about PCBs in farmed salmon? And if so, why? 

• A look back at meeting Peter Robinson, CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation

• My surprise meeting with David Suzuki, June 2010. (When he told me to f**k off).

• QUIETLY RE-WRITTEN: How the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation RE-WROTE four grants for $3.6 million for campaigns against farmed salmon 

• $US 64 Million from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, Granted to B.C. Environmental Groups (2003-2010)

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer