23 thoughts on “How Greenpeace and the Guardian Believe the IEA Runs the World”

  1. Posted 19/07/2018 at 20:29 | Permalink

    Yeah but who fnuds you?

  2. Posted 19/07/2018 at 21:16 | Permalink

    Great little write-up, thanks. Along with many, I suspect, I didn’t know about the range of educational work that the IEA undertook.

  3. Posted 19/07/2018 at 23:19 | Permalink

    Mark, is the IEA a wholly neoliberal organisation? Are you, at all interested in narrowing the (ever-widening)
    gap in wealth distribution?

  4. Posted 20/07/2018 at 00:47 | Permalink

    I’m sure they will be screaming ‘Who funds you’, from the Cayman Islands of course.

  5. Posted 21/07/2018 at 16:14 | Permalink

    Long article worthy of Donald Trump. You block people on Twitter for merely asking who funds you. You claim to have ‘ experts ‘ working for you , yet non of them are of world renown. What has happened is you have been dragged into the spotlight and are now under scrutiny . You don’t like that. Until such time as you become transparent , do not expect to be taken seriously Paid shills never are

  6. Posted 21/07/2018 at 18:30 | Permalink

    I suggest you make a deal with Greenpeace – you will give up trying to influence politicians and decision-makers if they do.

    Sadly I find nothing in this sorry tale of deception extraordinary or surprising. The sheer and total inability of Progressives to see that there are two sides to most arguments is a feature of our world now. That Greenpeace can think its own lobbying is perfectly acceptable but yours is somehow wrong and evil is par for the course. They of course are right and virtuous and you are not, so they can do what they want but you cannot.

    No matter, keep up the good work!

  7. Posted 22/07/2018 at 17:39 | Permalink

    Who funds the IEA?

  8. Posted 29/07/2018 at 21:14 | Permalink

    You’ve been caught, just like Alexander Nix. You can not deny what you confessed without realising you were being recorded. I hope you hate every second that you are in prison. You will end up there, you won’t evade justice.

  9. Posted 29/07/2018 at 21:39 | Permalink

    So who funds the IEA?

  10. Posted 29/07/2018 at 21:41 | Permalink

    “He was recently ranked number 45 on the right-wing power list.”

    This reference to the Daily Telegraph’s list of “Top 100 most influential Right-wingers” surely requires at the very least a serious qualification to the effect that the IEA, and Mark Littlewood in particular, do not consider themselves “right-wing”! In fact, I suggest that it would be best to omit this particular “accolade” entirely. It might be rather different if Mark were also included in a list of the “Top 100 most influential Left-wingers,” but that’s not going to happen anytime soon given how these terms are used today.

  11. Posted 30/07/2018 at 06:08 | Permalink

    Who funds the IEA?

  12. Posted 30/07/2018 at 12:49 | Permalink

    Unfortunately, this patient, logical explanation of what a think tank does is likely to be entirely lost on the leftist headbangers who would rather imagine a vast conspiracy that just admit there’s another viewpoint than their own.

  13. Posted 30/07/2018 at 12:49 | Permalink

    Unfortunately, this patient, logical explanation of what a think tank does is likely to be entirely lost on the leftist headbangers who would rather imagine a vast conspiracy that just admit there’s another viewpoint than their own.

  14. Posted 30/07/2018 at 19:58 | Permalink

    In answer to Sally’s comment I will happily donate £100 towards their excellent work
    Chris Neal
    a.k.a. Spartacus 🙂

  15. Posted 30/07/2018 at 23:21 | Permalink

    Who funds the IEA is of course a very good question, a question that will not be answered of course. The IEA will tell you that it is up to the donors if they wish to remain anonymous, the truth is it’s funded by business donors who want to influence government policy.

    The IEA unlike Greenpeace is not a charity it’s a lobbying organisation hiding behind the cloak of a charity. It’s time the charity commission removed their charitable status.

  16. Posted 31/07/2018 at 07:55 | Permalink

    I’ll be donating today. It won’t be much, but the number of reports and papers that you’ve produced over the years that I’ve read for free and found thought provoking more than justifies it.

    So the next time someone breathlessly demands to know who funds the IEA, I can say “I do”.

  17. Posted 31/07/2018 at 08:18 | Permalink

    Well, Tim Hammond, I guess the difference is that the lobbying of Greenpeace won’t have the inevitable consequence (according to the scientific community) of incinerating the planet. But I guess your financial interests take precedence over that. Overall, a remarkably lame response from Mr Littlewood, but it’s nice to see the honesty of the statement that “the IEA’s principles coincide with the interests of our donors”. Which means that the IEA gives priority to the profits of fossil fuel companies etc. Case closed, I would have thought.

  18. Posted 31/07/2018 at 09:29 | Permalink

    “Who funds the IEA”? Says it all really. If that is all you can post why bother Sally.

  19. Posted 31/07/2018 at 15:24 | Permalink

    If you look at any research paper in the natural sciences which might have business or other commercial implications (for example, pretty much anything in medicine), you will see a statement of funding and either a declaration of competing interests or an explicit statement of their absence.

    The conclusion to draw for think tanks in the social sciences is this. If you want your work to be taken seriously as research, you must make full disclosure of funding and of any competing interests. Arguments like “We respect the privacy of donors” or “We ensure that the research director is not influenced by knowledge of funding” (an argument that the IEA has used in the past and maybe still does) just do not stand up. If on the other hand you want your work to be taken as advocacy, and not as research, you are doing fine.

  20. Posted 01/08/2018 at 07:32 | Permalink

    A comment worthy of Zoolander, Sally.

  21. Posted 05/08/2018 at 09:12 | Permalink

    Greenpeace are buffoons and I am very pleased that you have stood up to them.

  22. Posted 05/08/2018 at 09:26 | Permalink

    Talk about fake news! Very Good rebuttal!

  23. Posted 09/08/2018 at 17:42 | Permalink

    “we take no corporate stance on any specific policy issue”

    Yet the IEA seems to push for the legalisation of Cannabis, it has done for years, is that just Christopher Snowden freelancing or does it have conscious support from the organisation? The cry is on your website.

    The current information posted in the BMJ this week seems to indicate that Cannabis is Teratogenic.

    The last time a Teratogen was widely promoted in the UK as a medication it was Thalidomide.

    We all know how that turned out.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.