Hey Governor, the UN IPCC Report on Extreme Weather is a Fraud

Russ Steele

The Governor of California is giving a new meaning to Kakistocracty:  Government under the control of it worst or least-qualified citizens.

“It’s time for courage, it’s time for creativity and it’s time for boldness to tackle climate change.”
– Governor Brown, Sept 13, 2011

According to the Governors web site, my emphasis added:

Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. and environmental, business and public health and safety leaders will come together on December 15 in San Francisco at The Governor’s Conference on Extreme Climate Risks and California’s Future.

The Governor’s Conference will focus on the threats of unpredictable and extreme weather events on the state’s economy, business sectors, public health and natural resources. Attendees will discuss the best ways to prepare and protect our state and adapt to these growing risks.

The Governor’s conference builds on the findings of a United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report outlining the link between global warming, extreme weather events and their economic impact.

According one of our local bloggers and and a promoter of Kakistocracty the speakers will include:

•Governor Brown
•Former Governor Schwarzenegger
•Nancy Sutely — Director, White House Council on Environmental Quality
•Sir Richard Branson — Virgin Group
•Dr. Rajendra Pachauri — Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
•John Laird — Secretary, California Resources Agency
•Traci Stevens — Acting Secretary, California Department of Business, Transportation and Housing
•Major General David Baldwin — California National Guard
•Sierra Business Council President Steve Frisch

Yes, Nevada County’s own forecaster of environmental doom will be speaking at this gathering of  misinformed band of climate change warmers. What warming you say?  This warming:

And this warming:

Did you see all the warming that is going to create huge risks to the citizens of California? I will be examining each of those risks at they are tossed on the table and reported in the lames stream media.

Kakistocracy: I have been wanting to use this word ever since George Rebane used in HERE. In reading the commentary on the UN IPCC COP-17 meeting in Durban, South Africa,  kakistocracy has been used by several observers. I expect we will have future opportunities to use it again, as I examine the results produced by the Governors band of useful idiots,  as they weave their tales of misery and woe from the climate change that is not happening.

About these ads

About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

33 Responses to Hey Governor, the UN IPCC Report on Extreme Weather is a Fraud

  1. Russ says:

    Governor, empirical data shows that deaths and death rates from extreme weather and climatic extremes have declined over the past few decades. Check out this post by Indure M. Goklany: The Odd Omission in IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers for SREX on Extreme Weather and Climatic Events

  2. Russ says:

    One of the big issues in San Franciso is sea level rise. However, sea level are currently not rising. Sea Level Falling 1.7 mm/year Since The End Of 2007 details HERE

  3. D. King says:

    “Gosh. Who knew that a massive tax could solve all imagined climate problems?”

    http://tinyurl.com/733nukq

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/10/latest-extortion-attempt-from-durban-1-6-trillion

  4. Bob W says:

    Is there any way of determining whether or not Steve will be compensated for his costs of speaking at this event, who might be paying and how much that would be for each particular “cost”.

  5. stevefrisch says:

    Well Bob, since you know I read and post here, you can just ask me. The answer is that I am not being paid a speakers fee or honoraria for speaking at the Governor’s conference. The cost of participation, specifically my salary and travel costs, will be born by the organization I work for, and shows up in our budget as part of our communications line item. This activity is defined by the IRS as an exempt purpose, specifically the “advancement of education or science”; just as the advancement of “education or science” is part of the exempt purpose of the non-profit organization that Russ and George Rebane sit on the board of, the Sierra Environmental Science Foundation.

  6. Bob W says:

    Ah, Great example of how this all works. Sierra Business Council gets funding for their so called projects or services and then that money is channeled to you and others who have made a living by finding ways to spend that money on your behalf in the form of “salary”, I am sure at inflated attorney rates, and “expenses”, such as expensive automobiles, hotel rooms, first class air fare, fine dining, etc.

    And of course we can all see that you have been generously willing to admit this while, in your mind, covering your culpability, by claiming that George and Russ are no different than you in that respect.

    This begs the questions: What percentage of the Sierra Business Council’s and the Sierra Environmental Science Foundation’s funding comes from tax payer dollars respectfully? What portion of your income consists of funds paid out by SBC and what portion of George and Russ’s income consists of funds paid out by SESF?

    Meanwhile, I think we can all guess how these totals compare.

    And yes, you and everyone else, knows exactly what I am getting at.

  7. stevefrisch says:

    Bob, are you suggesting that all non-profits should be eliminated? If not, then the difference between them is merely one of scale and effectiveness, and whether you personally agree with their mission or not. The truth is that your crew here supports non=profits they agree with and excoriate those they don’t agree with, which is pure hypocrisy. In America we don’t have a separate set of rules for those we don’t agree with. That’s what makes this country great.

    This Jihad you guys have against non-profits is transparently biased. I suggest you take the same critique to your church, the NRA, the Boys and Girls Clubs, the Chamber of Commerce, and all of the other social sector organizations that make up about 8% of the economy of our country, and who provide many of the services that you say you don’t want government to provide, at about 1/3 the cost.

    But, yes, I do know exactly what you are getting at: you are saying that you want the benefit of unequal protection under the law. I’m trying really hard not to call that fascism, but not sure how I can.

  8. Bob W says:

    Steve, I am not reluctant to confirm my attempt at addressing your predatory lifestyle in my comment. I did anticipate an adverse reaction. But your response has overwhelmed me at how sensitive you are about your deceit.

    In your response you mention non-profits three times. Nowhere in my comment did I ever make an issue of ether SBC or SESF being classified as a non-profit. In fact I never made reference to the subject of profit.

    Steve, you have exposed your culpability for all to see. Your reaction to my comment by reiterating “non-profit” as well as sitting “fascism” and “Jihad” is glaring confession of your panicked quilt about what I will now christen as “soft embezzlement”.

    For the rest of you: Don’t fall victim to Steve’s attempt at diverting my drill. My comment addressed, not just Steve’s, but many liberal’s methods of concealing their life-long practice of “soft embezzlement” of your tax dollar. Steve’s reaction here is confirmation of my premise.

  9. stevefrisch says:

    Bob, I think your deception is clear, why would you have any objection to me or anyone else benefiting financially from speaking? Are you saying an individual should not be able to charge for their work? I think not.

    It was clear attack on the nature and the mission of the work itself.

    Hypocrisy is rampant here, but then that’s not news, its the standard your compatriots have set.

  10. Bob W says:

    Steve, One would expect that after your last attempt at diverting attention from your reliance on others that you might refrain from further disparagement. But then you must be brazen to ignore your conscience in the first place so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Just a reminder to all. We aren’t speaking here of “benefiting financially from speaking” or “the nature and mission of the work itself”, as Steve would have you concentrate on, but rather who is paying for it and whether or not they are aware they are, which is what Steve would rather you overlook. You might take this opportunity to contemplate the mind-set that continues to attempt to mask the point as it relates to the issue itself.

    Oh, and just to be sure. I am not in any way suggesting that what I refer to as “soft embezzlement” has any illegal connotation associated with it. It only pertains to character.

  11. stevefrisch says:

    Nonsense Bob, if we are not talking about “benefiting financially from speaking” why did you ask the question?

    The work I do, and our communications and outreach, are quite public. We have a web site, we promote our work through various social media, we update our membership and network about our work on a monthly basis (goes out to more than 8000 people) and we hold and host events throughout the region.

    There is absolutely no attempt on my part to hide anything…it is all there publicly for anyone who wants to see it, and made available to people who follow our communications. The point that I will even talk about it here, with ill informed critics, is proof that we have nothing to hide.

    I am masking nothing. I have even pointed people here to the source documentation.

    I will even answer your question directly–in 2010 a total of $318,720 of SBC’s $2,066,040 in revenue came from grants from governmental entities. The remainder was a combination of donations, membership fees, interest income, sales of publications, and direct fee for service contracts or earned income. In short, 15% of our revenue came from government grants, notwithstanding the wildly inaccurate protestations of the financially illiterate Todd Juvinall, who libelously posts to the contrary. I will pit that record up against any non-profit in the field.

    In addition the work I do is engaged in by many here on behalf of other organizations.

    I might note by the way that the Sierra Environmental Science Foundation (on the board of which Mikey, Russ, George and Barry serve) does not have any record of filing financial paperwork with the required agencies in California. I’m wondering if they are aware of the fact that the new threshold for doing so is $25,000 in revenue (including in-kind). I’m sure the value of service must be approaching that over an average of the last 3 years (which triggers the requirement to file). Since renowned non-profit attorney Barry Pruett is on their board, and a scrupulous follower of IRS non-profit rules, I am sure they will be doing their duty.

    You are advancing a false picture, and doing so intentionally in order to discredit the messenger, the very sort of behavior that Russ has claimed to deplore; but he overlooks it from the likes of you, because HE AGREES WITH YOU.

    I answered your question 100% honestly, and you proved conclusively that you are incapable of “character” as you put it.

    It is your character, the character of a man who would ask a leading question impugning another’s motives, and the character of others here, who lie about others or countenance that lie by allowing it to stand, while they are engaged in exactly the same behavior, that is seriously in question.

  12. Russ says:

    Bob,

    In reference to SESF. It is an all volunteer organizations, no paid staff. All funding comes from the private sector and all is spent on our scholarship programs, including TechTest and TechTest Jr. We are noting like SBC.

  13. Bob W says:

    Yes Steve, I am sure it is all legal and open to the public. I thank you for printing the information you chose to share in your reply. I would point out though my original question was not focused on your organization as much as it was focused on you and The Governor’s Conference on Extreme Climate Risks and California’s Future. I think we can all deduce that you have been attempting to divert the conversation away from that particular question all along.

    I do still question your reasoning behind the stipulation of “government grants” as opposed to any government funds, such as those that might be classified as “fees for contracts or earned income”. The difference being outright gifts to your organization of tax payer money as opposed to those that you have been capable of categorizing as “fees for contracts or earned income”.

    Everyone should realize that Steve’s comment does in no way stipulate that the total amount that SBC was paid in 2010 by government agencies is $318,720.

    Steve is a professional at this and seems as though he may be fairly good at it. But perhaps not as good as others!

    Again Steve, within his rights, has taken the opportunity to attempt deflection towards others. The only benefit to this tactic would be to lessen the attention on himself. Character is something that is quantified by the observer. I invite you all to observe!

  14. stevefrisch says:

    Russ, I applaud the effort (well, at least the Tech Test part). I think it is a good program.

    However, I am asking a serious question.

    Is the donative value of the services to SESF greater than $25K and has it been on average over the last 3 years? Do people who donate services claim tax deductions for their donations?

    Since no 990 is on file, I can only concluded that one of two things is true; either, a) the total value of the donated goods and services, including time, promotion, materials, location for conducting the testing, milk and cookies for the youngsters, etc., and total scholarships for students (linked here http://sesfoundation.org/tech_test.htm) is less than $25 K, or b) you are not in compliance with the law.

    If its A, then you are good. If its B, you are a hypocrite.

    I’m just saying that I think that those that critique others business practices, or host a forum allowing those practices to be libeled, should live by the same rules.

    I think you are right, SESF is nothing like SBC. We have independently audited financial statements, conflict of interest statements for every board member, federal 990 income tax forms on file for the last 17 years, articles of incorporation filed with the California Secretary of State, and follow a voluntary set of best management practices for non-profits.

    By the way Russ, do you in your official capacity as Executive Director of SESF, issue letters confirming donations to SESF so donors can claim their charity on their income tax? Do you deduct any donations you make to SESF from your income taxes? Just curious? If we don’t have rules how do we know that SESF is not just a vehicle for avoiding taxes designed for its donors?

    I don’t really believe that anything is wrong here, I am just asking ‘innocent’ questions, entirely without implying any lack of moral character of wrongdoing.

    Now do you see why what you host is hypocritical?

    • Russ says:

      Steve,

      SESF is a 501(c)(3), we have not yet broken the 25K ceiling, though we would like to. We have a broad range of donors, including member trusts and local business. Our only expenses are the TechTest Scholarships and the TechTest Survivors Breakfast. The high schools gives the tests and score them. No milk and cookies.

      Some of our local busy bodies have called and written the IRS several times, and we have pass all audits with flying colors.

      Any more “innocent” questions I can answer.

  15. stevefrisch says:

    Bob, if your question is “Is the Governor’s office paying any of the speakers”, then I suggest you ask the Governor’s office. That was not your question.

    Your question was:

    “Is there any way of determining whether or not Steve will be compensated for his costs of speaking at this event, who might be paying and how much that would be for each particular “cost””

    My answer was “The answer is that I am not being paid a speakers fee or honoraria for speaking at the Governor’s conference. The cost of participation, specifically my salary and travel costs, will be born by the organization I work for, and shows up in our budget as part of our communications line item.”

    How in the world could you construe that as either avoiding or not answering your question?

    So perhaps you might want to restate your question. Precisely what do you want to know? I will try to answer it.

    ________________

    To all:

    What I find a particularly galling is that self styled conservatives are constantly harping about wanting to privatize government services, railing against government as inefficient, and generally grousing about lack of competitive processes for government services. Along comes a organization that can compete for providing what would otherwise be government services, and do it more efficiently and at a lower cost to the taxpayers, and the same self styled conservatives are objecting (and throwing around wild, inaccurate and libelous statements).

    Your objections (this is collective to Russ and others) is not about SBC being a non-profit. If it was you would have been opposing the faith based initiative process (which I support) for providing social services. It is about the fact that you guys don’t want those services provided, so you are going to attack ANY mechanism that is put in place
    to provide them. That is your strategy.

    Your objection is that you don’t get to decide what gets done by government. You just can’t stand the point that something you don’t support gets done. You don’t seem to know how to live in a republic, where these decisions get made by elected bodies representing a diverse population. You don’t seem to be able to reconcile your ideology and self proclaimed patriotism with the point that we live in a society where decisions are made collectively. If this were a classroom you would get an F in “gets along well with others”.

    This is what I mean by the baby state…..you are the definition of “I don’t like the outcome so I am going to stomp my feet like a 3 year old until I get my way”.

    So why don’t you just be honest about that, and attack the efficacy of the services, rather than the service providers?

    Its really simple, its because you can’t and still claim to support American principles. If you were honest your inherent lack of those principles would be obvious, the great lie would be exposed, and it would be obvious that you are attacking democracy itself.

    My mamma taught me that

  16. BobW, when the pig starts squealing you know he knows you know. LOL!

  17. BOBW, here is the link to my post on the SBC 99% government funded “non-profit” that pays Mr. F $100,000 claimed dollars per year. What a deal eh?

    http://sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com/2011/11/sbc-990s-2002-2009-you-decide-if-they.html

  18. Bob W says:

    Hit a nerve did I?

    “libelous”? Is that intended to intimidate. I might be the least productive person you could select for that intention.

    I don’t believe I left the impression that my question was “Is the Governor’s office paying any of the speakers”.

    I regret that you claim to have interpreted my responses as an accusation that you “avoided or didn’t answer my question”. I think everyone can see your answers. It’s just that your answers continued to raise more question. You can only thank yourself for that.

    As to my reference to “character” in relation to clarification of my use of the phrase “Soft Embezzlement”: I will match your “Jihad” and “fascism” to my “deceit” and “soft embezzlement”. And raise you one!

    No need to restate anything. Your answers have proven more informative and revealing than I anticipated when I made my first comment on this topic. Thank You!

    In response to “To all”:

    You’ve got! No particular objection to non-profits.

    Please state what is “wild” and “inaccurate” not to mention “libelous”.

    I think you also object when you don’t “get to decide what gets done by government”.

    “Reconcile ideology with self proclaimed patriotism”? Maybe you should go back and review that. You must be getting your talking points all jumbled up.

    I admit that I was “stomping my feet” while responding to you but it was because I was having so much fun at it!

    OK Steve, you are “democracy itself”.

    I said that to be polite. My mamma taught me that.

  19. stevefrisch says:

    Todd, that is a bold-faced libelous lie. SBC is not ‘99% government funded’. In 2010 we are 15% government funded. My 2010 990’s are in print and available for review.

    Todd is basing his statement on his ill educated and inaccurate interpretation of the record. He is looking at LIne 14, Section VI of Schedule A of SBC’s 990 that identifies ‘publicly supported’ funding. The terminology used by the IRS is ‘publicly supported’, not ‘government funded’. In IRS language ‘publicly supported’ means all revenue that comes from members of the public AND private sector, including donations and earned income, not government revenue; thus Todd is an outright liar. If he had bothered to read the IRS definitions he could have saved himself the embarrassment of proving how financially inept he really is.

    What I really object to is how you flaunt the law. You think that you can break the law with no consequences.

    I remind you Russ that by publishing this blog you have a responsibility for the accuracy of what gets said here.

  20. Bob W says:

    Steve, You don’t do yourself any favors by making threats.

    If you don’t agree with something written here you should just contradict it.

    If you think that your reputation may be damaged by misrepresentation of fact you should state what fact has been misrepresented and demand a retraction or clarification.

    If you can’t psychologically cope with what is stated here, guess what, get help or go away!

  21. 99% publicly funded means your SBC is 1% privately funded SteveF. Methinks you are fibbing. Besides, truth is the ultimate defense and i am teling the truth based on your 990’s. If you say your 990’s are not telling the truth then perhaps the AG needs to investigate. Also, can you tell us all who paid for your trip to Communist China? Would that have been the taxpayers?

  22. BobW here is a link to my post which I copy/pasted SBC’s 2009 page 14 of 24. Line 14 kinda proves I am right.

    http://sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com/2011/12/sbcs-2009-990-filed-with-ags-office.html

  23. stevefrisch says:

    I am not making threats, I am stating a fact. Todd is engaged in libel. And I am not saying that the 990’s are wrong, I am saying that Todd is too stupid to read them. Todd said “99% government funded”. That is a lie. Todd does not have to ‘think’ anything, the proof is in the filings and Todd is wrong.

  24. Bob W says:

    Steve, aside from my repulsion of your ideology I was starting to appreciate you. Don’t go ruining it with your apprehension. You are only making it worse and encouraging Todd. Todd has posted what he referred to with respect to your objection. Everyone can make their own deduction.

    You have made your point as have everyone else. Now act intelligently and quit digging.

  25. Since it appears SteveF is repudiating line 14 on page 14 of his tax return, perhaps the AG will get a letter asking for an investigation? Sorry SteveF, you need to be a better liar.

  26. Steve Frisch, did the government pay for your trip to communist China? How much was it?

  27. stevefrisch says:

    Bring it on Toddy. I’m not repudiating line 14, I am saying you are too stupid to understand what the definition of ‘publicly funded’ is. It does not mean the funding come form public sources, it means it is for a public purpose. The AG will laugh you out of the office for being so dim.

    You can find out about my trip to China when I file my 2011 990’s. I owe you nothing.

  28. Dixon Cruickshank says:

    Todd maybe he held some local car washes and split with the girl scouts or something

  29. Dixon Cruickshank says:

    In any case back to the topic –

    all this stuff is just so so yesterday ya know

  30. It is true Dixon. The leeches of our tax money think they are smarter than everyone else. It will be fun. Thanks for the challenge Stevie, I’ll take it up. Oh, and there is no definition on the IRS link you gave to corroborate your fibbing.

  31. Bob W says:

    The initial intent of my maneuver to entice Steve into this discussion was to take advantage of the opportunity to expose the disingenuous nature of some organizations or groups of beneficiaries that use the label of non-profit as well as unveil the deception employed by these beneficiaries while identifying the depository of some of your tax dollars. At the same time I was reflexively aware of bringing to your attention the differences between an organization which purpose is specifically to channel unmerited funds from unwitting people into the hands of its principals as opposed to an organization which the purpose of is to provide a product or service directly to those who’s funds are intended for the principals, associates and employees with the funder’s full knowledge, willingness and approval, as what they consider a fair exchange.

    My intended focus was proportioned predominately towards organizations of this nature in general, secondarily at SBC itself, and then lastly and in least proportion towards Steve himself.

    Overnight I have had the opportunity to reflect on the possibility that potential consequences of my efforts may have the effect of producing results in excess of those I initially intended.

    Accepting that Steve wears the title of President of SBC, I assume there are others that collaboratively make executive decisions regarding the actions, goals, plans, staffing and positions within SBC. I will refer to this group as the Board of Directors whether that is actually the case or not so you will know what body I am referring to without my have to get into minutia about the inner workings of SBC itself. This BOD probably consist of those that are the primary beneficiaries of the funds that SBC collects and I expect that Steve may be part of this BOD. I would also imagine that these individuals are the people that are responsible for the pursuit and acquisition of the funding, sometimes referred to as rainmakers.

    What has come to my consciousness overnight is the thought that the individuals on this BOD may not believe or agree that Steve’s participation in my exchange facilities their interests. In fact they may have the notion that Steve’s conduct with regard to our exchange, or for that matter any exchange involving blogs open to the public, could be counterproductive to the purpose and intent of the organization. That being to acquire funds indirectly from people unaware of the specific destination of those funds with the ultimate result being a disproportionate amount of those funds ending up in their possession. Steve’s participation in our exchange, and other blog exchanges, potentially having a compromising effect on the aspect of the organization effectiveness as related to indistinct disbursement of funds.

    With this revelation I am forced to contemplate what reasons this BOD might customarily use to review assignment of positions or associates conduct and how often position assignments or associates conduct might be reviewed.

    I do not know if these thoughts have any validity but I feel compelled to preemptively apologize to Steve if my initiation of this exchange results in any unfavorable consequences for Steve with regard to his position or ability to participate in this or other blogs. But then I must admit that I would understand any exception that other principals of SBC might take to Steve’s participation in this exchange or in other blog exchanges Steve seems to appreciate.

    Time will tell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: