Follow the money – why Heartland is a big threat

I’ve had a change of heart. I’ve been sent some new data, after seeing it, I’ve decided that The Heartland Institute is actually a terrible threat to science in the USA. As “Deep Throat” famously said (in the movie), “follow the money”. Well here it is, all laid out. I hope the public relations experts at DeSmog run this.

Oh, wait.

And actually, if you look at Heartland’s Gleick-grabbed budget plan, the actual numbers spent on climate programs are a fraction of that 6.5 million total budget.

No wonder our friends are so scared of Heartland, they are effective for next to nothing by comparison to US government climate programs. Thanks to Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com for the artwork.

About these ads

144 thoughts on “Follow the money – why Heartland is a big threat

  1. Very funny, actually, in a sad sort of way.

    I’m still waiting, of course, for Big Oil to send me scads of money to tell lies and undercut the CAGW scenario. My Ford Excursion has a big, expensive tank to fill — heck, they can skip the money and just send my my own tanker full of gasoline to park in the backyard!

    However, all of that money (or gasoline!) fails to show up. I’m starting to think that is is really just a myth, that CAGW deniers are secretly funded by Big Oil.

    Hey, BP! Look, I’m your man! I’m easy, I can be bought! Please send me one of those preloaded BP credit cards with enough on it to keep my cars full for the next decade or so, and I’ll continue to attack bad CAGW science!

    Maybe I should try threats — if you don’t send me money, I might switch sides. From Anthony’s piles up above, it should be pretty easy to divert some of the many billions being spent into my own pockets.

    And all I have to do to get it is lie…

    rgb

  2. Mr. Green and his minions continue to spend gobs of taxpayer money as they wish. But the regulations spawned by this alarmist fallacy is even worse.

  3. The heartbreak is, that for that class of money you could have put clean water and decent drains into every cottage on the planet. Instead, it has gone into getting moonbeams from cucumbers.

  4. I remember when the DeSmogBlog started, I would look at the things they said in amazement at the stupidity. I thought to myself that the thing would either go under or they’d wizen up a bit, even it stayed misguided. They were so obviously PR guys on assignment who didn’t have a clue.

    Well, my bad. Skipped going over there for a few years until this Heartland scandal (as in, what was done to Heartland and the poor reporting of same). When I took a look recently, it hadn’t improved a bit.

    How is it even possible for adults to work on something for years and not pick up at least a little knowledge? Even by accident?

  5. That is truly one scary schematic – all that money going to money heaven and all for absolutely nothing – and even worse none of that wasted money sticks to me.

    But you are right, Heartland is clearly grossly overfunded. Otherwise organisations like it and WUWT would not be winning the argument on supposed global warming. Perhaps if the government doubled the climate research budget, that might help it compete with Heartland, WUWT etc – that’s it, we need to demand a level playing field, or those deniers will never be stopped.

  6. I might as well try to be the first to say “it’s worse than we thought.” Admittedly, that line is getting tired.

    Talk about a one-sided fight.

  7. Add in WWF, Green Peace and all the green whatevers, plus all the props money spent by the MSM and rags like Nature, SA, etc.
    This isn’t David and Goliath, it’s more like Goliath and the gnat.

  8. The ratio is some 100 even 1000 to 1. But ask a warmists what they think the ration is and they will tell you it is the other way around.

    In other words, the difference between the true funding ratio and the warmists belief is probably of the order of 10,000 even 1,000,000 to 1.

    How can people be so absolutely, completely utterly deluded as the warmists?

  9. So why don’t the watermelons throw a little chump change to Heartland to get them to lobby for the CAGW side.

    .03% oughta cover it.

    Problem solved.

  10. Amazing how those ignorant flat-earth deniers gave away secret details of their villainous donors, nefarious strategems and well-funded henchmen (like Watts) – then entrapped a Macarthur Genius and AGU ethics guru into identity theft, wire fraud and libel. Fortunately, when Dr. Gleick faces criminal and civil prosecutions for this, he can fall back on a classic defense: “the devil made me do it!”

  11. All of those “might, may, maybe, could, possibly, extrapolated, expected, projected and probables” cost money.

  12. It might make more sense to compare Heartland to other privately funded groups like Green Peace?

  13. The “follow the money” quote was only in the movie.
    It was not said by FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, who was Deep Throat.

  14. As for the BiG-OIL lie. Why would BIG-OIL fund us? They are all doing very well from this scam. Just five minutes on the internet and of the five companies usually meant by BIG-OIL I can easily find they all have interests in wind energy:-

    BP – link
    Chevron – link
    ExxonMobil – link
    Shell – link
    Total – link

  15. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

    ~ Upton Sinclair

  16. Of course the better comparison would be with a green NGO; the Sierra Club, FOTE or Greenpeace.

    But it’s still just a joke. A more interesting question is why anyone thinks the money is what brainwashes people?

    For sure, if the science was settled then there’ld no need to keep an open mind but why would anyone think those who do look into a subject are persuaded by presentation and not the nature of the physical data. Yamal, the missing heat, the mispalacenment of the MWP and the fact that CO2 concentration follow global temps by 800 years are all more persuasive than a right wing pressure group who alienate many of us who aren’t right wing.

    Can anyone tell me why Heartland’s funding is thought to be so effective?

  17. Ahhh…the Climate Ca$h writ large! Excellent graphic.

    I think Pink Floyd said it best…

    Money (aka Climate Ca$h)
    Get away
    You get a good job with good pay and you’re okay
    Money It’s a gas
    Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
    New car, caviar, four star daydream
    Think I’ll buy me a football team

    Money Well, get back
    I’m all right Jack
    Keep your hands off of my stack
    Money It’s a hit
    Don’t give me that do goody good [Climate Research]
    I’m in the high-fidelity first class travelling set
    I think I need a Lear jet

    Money It’s a crime
    Share it fairly
    But don’t take a slice of my pie
    Money So they say Is the root of all evil today
    But if you ask for a raise It’s no surprise that they’re giving none away

  18. This makes it absolutely clear, as Gleick puts it, that they are dealing with a well funded denialist machine accepting money from fossil fuel special interests. Healthcare = climate denial.

  19. Futurama variation: “So, what makes a man turn skeptic? Is it lust for gold, power, money, or were you just born with a heart full of skepticism??”

  20. That chart also explains the enthusiasm of various professional societies:

    AAAS, NAS, APS, AGU, etc., etc., etc.

    for promoting man made global warming a.k.a. climate change as dogma.

  21. This just tallies up the tax-payer funding of “Big Green Heat Climate-Government Complex,” and compares it to the private funding of Heartland. What about all the Big Oil money that goes to Green Peace, WWF, etc?

  22. So the somebody in the government needs to look at SACKING a lot of people, as they are clearly completely ineffective and very expensive.

    The truth will outshine propaganda, no matter how much is spent!

  23. What’s a billion dollars a year . . . well it is a lot if you are a local environmentalist trying to sort your plastics.

    http://tinyurl.com/89rq5da

    The Transglobal Environmental Industry is the problem, not the solution.

  24. There are other US federal government departments with global warming initiatives that are not shown on Josh’s graphic… these include the Departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Education, and Health & Human Services. I’m sure that further analysis would identitify other agencies as well…

  25. Clearly, Heartland is part of the Evil 1%.

    (bottom 1%, but hey…don’t let details get in the way of a good protest!)

  26. The big-money-funded interests supporting the AGWCF cause must think Heartland is using its mere pittance to buy ear plugs, blindfolds, and mouth tape to keep all us skeptics in the dark.

    They’re that clueless.

  27. We should have had another graph showing private funding for global warming alarmists. It’s worse than we thought!

    Here is the global warming alarmist, The Sierra Club, secretly taking $26 million from the natural gas interests.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html

    Here is the Climate Research Unit (CRU) acknowledging funding from oil, gas and nuclear power interests.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Here’s Stanford Global Climate and Energy Project and Exxon funding to the tune of $100 million.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html

    and so on………………..Follow the money folks – even dirty oil, nuclear and gas money. Heartland need not apply. ;>)

  28. The warmist solution to their public relations problem is contained right there in the chart. It is a well known fact that excess Government funding leads to waste, duplication of effort, and inefficiency. Over funding the people promoting Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has left them to being defeated by the abysmally funded Heartland Institute.

    To level the playing field, and assure victory for CAGW forces, the Government should immediately embark on a program to fund every possible aspect of skeptic ideas. If the skeptics receive an order of magnitude more funding than warmists receive, they will become lethargic and intoxicated to the point where CAGW triumph is assured. Conquest of the skeptics can only be achieved by over feeding them.

  29. John from CA says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:56 am

    That would only make sense if there were govt funded agencies that were opposing the CAGW nonsense.

    As such, it would make more sense to keep the govt funded agencies, and include with them the privatly funded agencies.

  30. Just proves one thing (and one thing only): The truth doesn’t need promotion.

    Cheers to Heartland.

    (Note: From my background in mining, “promotion” is about the dirtiest word imaginable as it always indicates misrepresentation and lack of merit.)

  31. Robert Brown says @ March 1, 2012 at 7:36 am

    UK pump prices in US terms:
    Unleaded gasoline: $7.98 per US gallon
    Diesel: $8.69 per US gallon

    I’m guessing you’re paying around $3.50 and $4.00 respectively? Take a look at this to see what stacked up green lies can really do. Note that 60% of the pump price is tax. The rate of taxation is therefore actually 150%. Not many Ford Excursions over here!

  32. I love it.

    The only thing I’d change is making the Heartland circle a half circle.

  33. Typhoon says:
    March 1, 2012 at 8:05 am

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

    ~ Upton Sinclair


    Which is funny, considering the fact that Sinclair was the Michael Mann of his day.

  34. As others have already touched upon, add the funding from the EU, the UN, stipends and grants from industry and organizations like GreenPeace and WWF and you have a multi-billion dollar annual cash pool that “ethical” scientists will lie, cheat and steal to gain and maintain access to.

    Meanwhile, the children starve and die.

  35. John from CA says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:56 am
    It might make more sense to compare Heartland to other privately funded groups like Green Peace?

    I found some numbers on-line, not all very current, but you’ll get the idea.

    From Wikipedia – Greenpeace worldwide 2008 – Income 196.6 million euros
    Sierra Club 2008 Annual Report – Expenses $44,680,778
    WWF Annual Report 2010 – Expenses $224,260,469

  36. Anthony:

    I think you could re-title your chart for use in economics. I suggest:

    “A Comparison of the Effectiveness of GOVERNMENT MONEY and PRIVATE MONEY”

  37. The National Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) first item on it’s priorities page states-

    http://www.nrdc.org/about/priorities.asp

    “Curbing Global Warming and Creating the Clean Energy Future
    Climate change is the single biggest environmental and humanitarian crisis of our time. The world must unite to combat this crisis, and our best weapon is clean energy. Renewable power, conservation, energy efficiency in buildings and elsewhere, more efficient vehicles and clean fuels-these are the solutions that will reduce the impacts on our climate, revive our economy, and create jobs. NRDC works to jumpstart the clean energy future not only here in America, but also in China, where we have worked on energy issues for more than a decade, and in India, where we have established a new program to promote clean energy policies.”

    From their : Consolidated Statement of Activities for the Year Ending June 30, 2010

    http://www.nrdc.org/about/annual/finances.pdf

    Expenses:

    Program services:

    Clean energy future 39,603,135

    Revive our oceans 5,227,114

    Protect our health 5,471,254

    Wild places and wildlife 18,700,417

    Safe & suffcient water 5,267,350

    Sustainable communities 3,993,228

    Membership services 4,072,596 –

    Total program services 82,335,094

    one can tell that they are putting a lot of money towards their priorities. I recently came across a Blog post from NRDC that caught my attention as it was entitled “California’s Energy Policy Continues to Provide Valuable Lessons Going Forward” – http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lettenson/californias_energy_policy_cont.html

    I hope to get some clarification from the author of the post on this statement from the post-

    “Californians pay 20% less on residential electricity bills than the average U.S. household.”

    To come up with a total for NRDC’s advocacy efforts on climate change I would add the 39.6 million (clean energy future) +3.99 million (sustainable communities) to = $43.59 million.

  38. I’ve had enough of this. When is Exxon and BP and Mobil and Gulfstream Jet Co. (Al Gore’s Favourite!?), Cadillac, and BlackWater, and the US Dept. of Defense and the DC Congressional limo pool, and Boeing, and the Hollywood Lighting Company, and everyone else who benefits from the inherent organic natural qualities of mother oil going to get in the game. So they fear it’ll be a Tobacco type war but I see that they are analagous. As long as this is kept in Science realm-arena (AGW departed some time ago I know but is being dragged back into the ring) and not the corrupt litigation realm (see OJ’s jury) then there is nothing….NOTHING to fear. They can say …” well you say that because of big oil!” meanwhile, they say what they do because of “big Govt. Funding” and dominate. To me, it’s analagous to WWII. The Brits won the Battle of Britain and (with thanks in part to the Russian second front) eventually, jointly with friends, won the war. Getting the war ended and done in a lot shorter time required the might of the US. WUWT and the other band of bros has done the impossible and kept the Science in the arena and delivered some blows. Now we need big everything to push over the Pisa like AGW tower of babel. We the need big ‘quality of life’ players to marshall a D-Day and get these………_________________……….buried!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    (BTW—All Tobacco litigation is filed, I believe, by plaintiffs, in a small county near Chicago. Anyone know why??)
    Science is the answer to all this; not litigation, but,when the Science is corrupt; we’re going to need some big power to straighten the corrupt Science, and, dismantle the down stream corrupt politic/industry!!!

    We can be right, but if we don’t have a relevant forum, and we don’t have power, and we don’t have influence, and they are not forced to listen; we’ll never get rid of this evil. –IMHO

  39. John from CA says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:56 am

    It might make more sense to compare Heartland to other privately funded groups like Green Peace?

    Here you go: http://tinyurl.com/87xg4ts

    By the way my $238 million for the World Wildlife should read $700m. Greenpeace budget for 2010 was $300m. However you look at it, it’s David V Goliath.

  40. Good grief. Next you’ll be telling us that WUWT isn’t being funded with billions by Big Oil.

    The fact is that taxpayers are forking out billions for a massive propaganda and misinformation campaign. And the consequential costs of this nonsense dwarf the direct expenditures. Where is the outrage?

  41. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:
    March 1, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Meanwhile, the children starve and die.
    ________________________________
    That is also part of the plan.
    Mankind must be reduced, don’t you see?

  42. MAN….we need to contract with HI to run the EPA PR and education programs. Look at that efficiency!!!. $$$ per effective output!!

  43. Luckily only feeble-minded morons would be myopic enough to promote the ludicrous CAGW cause.

    Joseph Bast is the greatest PR man in history and his small treasury goes so far because he’s on the side of truth and his opponents are corrupt to their core.

  44. Amy Ridenour:
    How is it even possible for adults to work on something for years and not pick up at least a little knowledge? Even by accident?

    As the saying goes: ‘You’re never too old to learn something stupid.’

  45. Worse yet is the fact that the govt money is OUR money, taken from us and transferred to those other entities. The Heartland Institute’s money is what we CHOOSE to spend, after we’ve already been robbed by the govt. Un-F-ING-believable! Oh well, we keep voting for these clowns, so we get what we pay for.

  46. MarkW says:
    March 1, 2012 at 8:39 am

    Typhoon says:
    March 1, 2012 at 8:05 am

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

    ~ Upton Sinclair


    Which is funny, considering the fact that Sinclair was the Michael Mann of his day.
    ###

    I usually think of him as being closer to the other Michael M, Michael Moore.

  47. @Frank K. says:
    March 1, 2012 at 8:09 am

    “Don’t give me that do goody good [Climate Research]”

    Excellent! Great song and nice use of ‘poetic license.’

    Allow me to drop my 2 cents into the Jukebox…after all somebody is paying for all this ‘research’ and since money does not grow on tree’s, even in the enriched CO2 environment of today…

    “Let me tell you how it will be
    There’s one for you, nineteen for me
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

    Should five per cent appear too small ( 5% is that what we get to keep?)
    Be thankful I don’t take it all
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman

    If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street, (or carbon emissions)
    If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
    If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
    If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

    Don’t ask me what I want it for
    If you don’t want to pay some more
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

    Now my advice for those who die
    Declare the pennies on your eyes
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
    And you’re working for no one but me.”

    Thanks George for the song!

  48. No mention of the Defense Department. IIRC there have been various announcements of their Green/sustainability programs. For example, the linked article reports that the DoD “investment” in clean fuel research was $1.2 billion in 2009, almost double the amount cited above for DoE.

  49. Looks like HI has no future. Is it really that bad? No one wants to support “skeptiker”?

  50. Yup. Pure and simply, it is ALL about the money. And lots of it. Lots and lots of lovely, lovely, beautiful filthy lucre and they all want to get their dirthy grubby little hands on it.

  51. The SADDEST aspect of all this is the “alternate reality” that relatively intelligent people live in.

    Alas, I’ve dealt with them. Lawyers, MD’s, professional orchestra musicians, high level people, alas with “power positions”….they actually BELIEVE that “big oil” and nasty “industry” sponsor us skeptics.

    My fondest wish is for such folks to have to “pay” for their stupidity and “brain in a bucket” approach…motivated by their POLITICS. Can we get them to play “clean up” after Mr. “I’manutjob” (IRAN) lays one in on NYC or D.C.? (Reality check…a REAL threat to humanity, not an imagined one.)

  52. Curious thought, are the commissioned research studies managed from a central database to ensure the same research isn’t being requested by multiple US agencies and or a duplication of past studies from one or more of the agencies?

  53. Robert Brown says: March 1, 2012 at 7:36 am
    [Hey, BP! Look, I’m your man!]

    Sorry British Petroleum already have a dance partner, The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Angela.

    The CRU also dances to the tune of other pipers: Royal Dutch Shell (Petroleum), UK Nirex Ltd (Nuclear Waste), Tate and Lyle (Food to Ethanol), Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre (Food to Ethanol), Greenpeace International (Political Action), World Wildlife Fund for Nature (Political Action), United States Department of Energy, Sultanate of Oman (Liquefied Methane), Norwich Union (Insurance), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates (Insurance) , KFA Germany (Nuclear Power), National Power (Rechargeable Exotic Batteries), etc.

    See for yourself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Sultanate of Oman ????
    Why is a Middle Eastern Monarch funding a British Climate Research Business?

  54. I would really like to see someone prominent challenge the “Big Oil-funded anti-science conspiracy” meme that is so popular with the Greenies.

    Let’s force them to prove it, or shut it.

    • @ More Soylent Green

      Someone should do a follow up the the story on how the GM killed off the electric car 15+ years ago by controlling the patents for big cheap batteries…then selling the patents to Big Oil…ultimately to Chevron…that used to be Standard Oil, that allegedly killed of the electric streetcar in LA…

      The patents just got sold to BASF, http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/us/en/news-and-media-relations/news-releases/news-releases-usa/P-12-037

      ISELIN, NJ, February 14, 2012 — BASF today announced that it has acquired Ovonic Battery Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Conversion Devices Inc. (NASDAQ: ENER).

      Based in Rochester Hills, Mich., Ovonic is the global leader in Nickel-Metalhydride (NiMH) battery technology, including the production of cathode active materials (CAMs) for this battery type. The company also has a battery materials research facility in Troy, Mich.

      “Follow the Money”….

      (I don’t recall if that quote was attributed to Mark Felt or Linda Lovelace…but if Anthony says it was in the movie…I trust him!)

  55. 1. I’ve had enough of this. When is Exxon and BP and Mobil and Gulfstream Jet Co. (Al Gore’s Favourite!?), Cadillac, and BlackWater, and the US Dept. of Defense and the DC Congressional limo pool, and Boeing, and the Hollywood Lighting Company, and everyone else who benefits from the inherent organic natural qualities of mother oil going to get in the game. So they fear it’ll be a Tobacco type war but I DO NOT see that they are analagous. As long as this is kept in the ‘Science’ realm-arena (AGW departed some time ago I know but is being dragged back into the ring) and not the corrupt litigation realm (see OJ’s jury) then there is nothing….NOTHING to fear. They can say …” you say that because of big oil!” meanwhile, they say what they do because of “big Govt. Funding” and dominate us. To me, it’s analagous to WWII. The Brits won the Battle of Britain and a long time later(with thanks in part to the Russian second front) eventually, jointly with friends, won the war. Getting the war ended and done in a lot shorter time required the might of the U.S. WUWT and the other band of bros has done the impossible and kept the Science in the arena and delivered some blows. Now we need big everything to push over the Pisa like AGW tower of babel. We need the big ‘quality of life’ players except you GE!!) to marshall a D-Day and get these………_________________……….buried!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (BTW—All Tobacco litigation is filed, I believe, by plaintiffs, in a small county near Chicago. Anyone know why??)

    Science is the answer to all this; not litigation, but,when the Science is corrupt; we’re going to need some big power to straighten the corrupt Science, and, dismantle the down stream corrupt politic industry axis!!!

    We can be right, but if we don’t have a relevant forum, and we don’t have power, and we don’t have influence, and they are not forced to listen; we’ll never get rid of this evil. –IMHO

  56. It is all about control. The “discussion on global warming” as being transformed in “Fakegate” and “Denialgate” is witness of the success that controlling parties (follow the money INDEED) have in manipulating opinions. Hegel: thesis, anti thesis and not yet synthesis. As discussed before, it is not about the science, modern politicians are not interested in science, but in sales: how to survive the next election. Therefore subsidize a “tame” scientist, and use his/her sub-prime findings and work on your poltical survival. As stated in different sicles earlier, when politics and science are in the same bed, science ends the loser. Whether we like it or not, “mother nature” will tell us the science!!

  57. There’s at least one group than will put even the DoE (shown on the chart) to shame.

    Since the ClimateWorks Foundation started in 2008, their three funders have “granted” them a total of $610,662,975.

    One group got that much, over a 4 year period from three original “founders”.

  58. A monkey is an individual who goes to the trouble of earning a Ph.D. only to graduate and happily work as a researcher where their interest in earning money far exceeds their interest in their research.

  59. The US government, using taxpayer money (what else could they use?), has become by far the largest money-laundering operation in global history. Al Capone and Baby-Face Nelson would be envious.

  60. Maurizio Morabito @ 7:44 am

    “Can we get a coffee mug “Climate Skeptics Do It Better”?”

    Using the graphic on this article plus that slogan – would be really good, I think.

  61. Dickens Goes Metro says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:44 am

    What about all of the private foundation money flowing into warmist coffers?

    Shhh! “Private” means… Oh. Nevermind.

  62. Speaking of the disparity in environmental funding. From Alternet:

    Environmental funders spent a whopping $10 billion between 2000 and 2009 but achieved relatively little because they failed to underwrite grassroots groups that are essential for any large-scale change, the report says. Released in late February by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Cultivating the Grassroots was written by Sarah Hansen, who served as executive director of the Environmental Grantmakers Association from 1998 to 2005.

    http://www.alternet.org/environment/154290/why_the_environmental_movement_is_not_winning

    $10 Billion is a staggering amount of money for this one cause…

  63. Why Heartland’s coin color is green? Shouldn’t it be, I don’t know, black (for oil), or light blue (for natural gas)?

  64. Look at ARGO costs

    “How much does Argo cost?
    The total annual cost of Argo is about $20 million, or roughly $25 thousand per float-lifetime, which means that each profile costs around $200.”
    How many floats does HI pay for?
    How many pyrgeometer does HI deploy?
    How many pyrheliometer does HI deploy?
    How many satellites do they launch?
    How much data do the collect which can then be debunked by scientists?
    Do you not think it important that we know if climate is changing?
    Should we not try to predict storms to warn residents?
    Should undergradustes be taught climate science?
    How much has HI spent on their form of education?

  65. All that spending and they still have no direct link to human causation…..guess they just need to spend a few more trillions….Duh!

  66. Sultanate of Oman ????
    Why is a Middle Eastern Monarch funding a British Climate Research Business?
    ———————————————
    Hands up who wern’t taken in way back by these AGW Scammers. CRU were supposed to represent ‘Science’ in all it’s splendour. World was getting warmer and climate was changing and when a Concensus of mandarins of the a arcane corn maze branch of Science says AGW is real, no one at that point knew enough to know it ain’t so.

  67. Is it possible that WUWT doesn’t spend enough time emphasizing the positives? Anthony made it very clear that he supports definitive solutions that improve the environment and improve the human condition.

    IMO, this debate isn’t about the unsettled science nor about the fact the current educated guesses aren’t completely accurate. The debate is about the Policy decisions and a rush to judgement without due diligence. The rush to judgement is the UN’s fault and isn’t about public opinion.

    Of course funding to understand the climate system is important
    Of course funding to deploy definitive solutions to resolve an energy policy and redefine the grid are important

    The issue, the loons aren’t capable of definitive solutions and are simply perpetuating the illusion a problem that supports wasted tax dollars and a complete rush to judgement.

    The IPCC reports go to great lengths to quantify degree of certainty but IMO are far to simplistic. The policy and work groups proposing solutions are the problem and thus far not the solution.

    The amount the US is spending to resolve real issues isn’t the point, the rush to judgement is the issue related to policy decisions that effect US tax payers.

  68. Speaking of funding, there was $10 Billion spent on the environment and climate from 2000 to 2009:

    The pace of social change is increasing rapidly in the United States and around the globe but unfortunately the environment and climate movement has failed thus far to keep up with movements for justice and equality. Existing environmental regulations have been diminished and new initiatives have been attacked and stymied. From 2000-2009, grantmakers provided $10 billion for environment and climate work, funding primarily top- down strategies; yet, we have not seen a significant policy win since the 1980s. Our funding strategy is misaligned with the great perils our planet and environment face.

    http://www.ncrp.org/files/publications/Cultivating_the_grassroots_final_lowres.pdf

  69. @JJThoms

    “Do you not think it important that we know if climate is changing?
    Should we not try to predict storms to warn residents?
    Should undergradustes be taught climate science?
    How much has HI spent on their form of education?”

    1.
    Climate is always changing, it’s nothing new. To understand how it works would be a noble cause, but such a cause needs rational people focused on reaching the goal rather than the money.

    2.
    At about the same time every year there’s about the same type of storm, all residents tend to know this.

    3.
    Undergraduets should be taught science.

    4.
    If they actually had a “form of education” then no more than 6.5 million dollars per year, obviously. :p

  70. How embarrassing. 7 federal agencies spending money on the same thing. I am a federal employee and can guarentee no one in those agencies is going to come to the conclusion that CO2 is not causeing a catastrophy, as they would argue to eliminate their budget (and jobs). I am embarassed to be a federal employee in this day and age.

  71. Sorry but this is starting to get really, really ridiculous.
    One thing is, Heartland Institute does not do just global warming.
    And another thing is, scientists paid by Heartland do use data acquired and released by government institutions such as NASA or NOAA. Large part of government funding does not go into looking for where it’s worse than we thought but simply into measuring what things are and making these measurements publicly available. And unless you succeed in separating what’s spent on data and what’s spent on propaganda, you can’t simply put them side by side.

  72. Maybe it’s time to finger big oil’s part in supporting the CAGW scheme.

    OK big oil, now it’s time to show us what you have to gain by supporting the cause. This could be interesting.

    The way I see it is that through high taxes and government grants I am supporting the cause. By high fuel prices I am supporting the cause. By high food prices I am supporting the cause via ethanol.

    Time to tear this web apart and starve the spiders.

  73. Those numbers look small compared to Australia’s new carbon tax. $14 billion of our taxes is about to be poured into climate nonsense, including our Climate Commissioner’s investments.

  74. Anthony, you may want to consider a Reference Page item on “Climate Spending.”
    Taking into account some of the fine ideas upthread, it would be a good ready reference for many of us wherever we are. Breakdowns by country (USA, Europe, Australia, etc); Type (government funded, private); Perspective (Pro-AGW, Pro-science) would be an eye opener for those on both sides of the debate I suspect. Keep up the good work!

  75. Nice graphic, I always wondered what “off on a tangent would look like” if it could be put into a picture. That’s probably not all research but also some “education and camaign efforts” as well? Where’s the edcucation department budget that goes for this cause?

    Do another two graphics. One for comparisonof domestic private budgets. Another combining all government and private climate to Heartland.

    One small problem: I tried printing it, but there’s too much government spending to go on one letter sized page.

  76. UK Govt. to spend 700 Billion pounds (multiply by 1.7 to get dollars) by 2050.
    Germany____
    France______
    EU______
    Italy_______
    Spain_________
    Greece (minus)_________

  77. Kasuha says:
    March 1, 2012 at 11:35 am

    Sorry but this is starting to get really, really ridiculous….

    This above post and some comments highlight the fact that there is NO well funded denialist machine. It also highlights poorly funded sceptical independents. However, if you can find me the plentiful oil money I will gladly take it and continue sceptical.

  78. John from CA says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:56 am

    It might make more sense to compare Heartland to other privately funded groups like Green Peace?
    Chris B says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:58 am

    What about Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club, et al?

    Chris B says:
    March 1, 2012 at 8:01 am
    What about the myriad NGO’s, University departments, MSM outlets, etc?
    And many others, the true comparison should be privately funded vs privately funded (though we know most of these environmental groups get government money as well).

  79. Totally unfair, the poor US Government is fighting the Heartland Institute practically by itself. You should have remembered to include Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and all of the other multi-million dollar NGO’s that help keep the fight alive. /sarc

    W^3

  80. Kasuha says:
    March 1, 2012 at 11:35 am

    “And unless you succeed in separating what’s spent on data and what’s spent on propaganda, you can’t simply put them side by side.”

    You did state that HI does not just do climate stuff, as well, so the comparison holds.

    Although, one could say that it doesn’t hold because gov agencies sees everything as climate stuff these days, even researching more climate friendly toilets, whereas HI actually do seperate their non-climate stuff.

    It’s the same in EU. Actuall it is worse, apparently, becuase in EU you don’t get any money unless it is for climate related research, so now everything is climate stuff, even LEGO–who’ll now sport subsidies for sporting their own non-lego based, but climate friendly, wind mills.

    So, essentially, every research between toys and data centers and coal-fired power plants and everything inbetween are now considered climate research, which would mean HI has the ginormous balls to keep things straight even though they’re fighting an uphill battle, where hill constitutes greens and their Big Gov Green money.

    :p

  81. But, using Mann’s Principal Component’s methodolgy, and sprinkle it with Trenbeth’s Feedbacks and voila Heartland actually spends 10 gadzillion dollars. Now that was easy.

  82. I would just like to point out that a significant amount of the anonymous flaming of our blogs that is going on is probably being funded by defense and intelligence agencies.

    Oh, there are also “multicultural” charities pouring money into “the cause” as well. I have some personal experience with these. (Not as a supporter, but just as a bystander.)

    Then there is a class of organizations that virtually dwarfs all of this, and that is the campaign committees and the PACs.

    We are being subjected to a pincer movement. The bulk of the resources being deployed are under our radar screen. Look alive.

    RTF

  83. @Steve from Rockwood

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    March 1, 2012 at 10:15 am
    “A monkey is an individual who goes to the trouble of earning a Ph.D. only to graduate and happily work as a researcher where their interest in earning money far exceeds their interest in their research.”

    I want to be careful how I phrase this because it is a sensitive subject…but here I go… How many Monkey’s earned their deferment…I mean the Ph.D.’s while others were choosing to serve, others had no choice, and others chose to deal with one of the most difficult decisions a 18 year old male is forced to make. My point, as a guy born on Veteran’s Day to a guy that was serving at the time, in the 60’s, I do not want to point fingers and any one individual. But academia is filled with Progressive thinking people…so make sure you Think Progress.

    Monkey See Monkey Do!

  84. The astonishing thing about this truly immense expenditure of public monies and resources in an effort to mitigate and prevent global warming and climate change is that “nobody” as in “nobody” seems to have been able to detect that it has made the slightest of differences to the global climate or changed the so called climate change trends in an even slightly detectable fashion.

    In fact if we are to believe the warmistas unending and tired old refrain, the situation is deteriorating at an increasing [ but so far undetectable! ] rate with the promises of major weather and climate upheavals and catastrophes still to come as they have been firmly promised for the last couple of decades past. This despite those immense public monies being expended as demanded by those same warmista zealots to prevent that still to be seen, climate “catastrophe”.

    Perhaps those same warmista zealots should explain to the tax paying public just what noticeable effect the massive expenditure of this public wealth has so far had on the global climate and just how much more will be required to first, have a detectable influence on the climate and secondly how much more public expenditure will be needed to start to really make a difference to the climate to prevent those future “climate catastrophes”.
    After all it is the public’s wealth that the warmistas are proposing to and are already expending so the public, in the interest of full transparency, surely has a right to know.

    I also expect to see some members of the porcine species passing me in my aircraft some time in the near future!

  85. the untold billions, much of it taxpayer money, that go into CAGW annually only makes sense if the interested parties manage to get the CO2 Derivatives game into play, big-time. that’s where the trillions EXIST. just one example that i haven’t seen on the TV news:

    28 Feb: Reuters: Carrick Mollenkamp: Exclusive: U.S. conducting criminal
    Libor probe
    The Justice Department is conducting a criminal probe into whether the
    world’s biggest banks manipulated a global benchmark rate that is at the
    heart of a wide range of loans and derivatives, from trillions of dollars of
    mortgages and bonds to interest rate swaps, a person familiar with the
    matter said.
    While the Justice Department’s inquiry into the setting of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, was known, the criminal aspect of the probe was not…
    Several major global banks, including Citigroup Inc, HSBC Holdings Plc,
    Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS AG, have disclosed that they have
    been approached by authorities investigating how Libor is set…
    The rate underpins $10 trillion in loans to consumers and companies and
    another $350 trillion in derivatives…
    The investigations are examining whether traders at the banks tried to
    influence whether the rate went up or down…
    Swiss bank UBS is playing a key role in the probes because it agreed to come
    forward and cooperate in the inquiries…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/28/us-libor-probe-idUSTRE81R1ZG20120228

  86. Amazing HI is such a threat. Is it because the govt is so fantasticslly inefficient that all those sums actually equal each other in what generates actual results, or the science actually stands on the side of HI and is obvious to the most casual observer, or a mixture of both?

  87. ROM, no, no, no, the heat is building up very deep in the oceans somewhere, and up there in the sky too. Check the models. And of course you can’t see any changes for the better yet, because the work and the, ehem, money are barely enough to get things going. Which is why it would be foolish to stop now and to let all that’s been accomplished go to waste. In fact, things would go so much faster and better if we could just bypass inefficient national governments with unreliable electorates and assign the UN-IPCC with more control over legislative and executive powers, education, national policies and, oh, revenues too, of course; nothing beats centralized planning by dedicated scientists, professionals and hardworking administrators.

  88. “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” – H. L. Mencken
    “Nobody ever made money relying on the intelligence of American public.” – 21st Century Corrolary

  89. Just a few days ago, Heartland did not have a PayPal donate button… now they do.
    Since I won’t use my Visa card for any online activity, PayPal is my choice for anything web based.
    Heartland just got another donation… good call, Heartland!

  90. “Partisanship isn’t grounds for this type of firing.
    Posted by: lance at March 1, 2012 2:39 PM ”
    Yup. Just like weasel lawyer words.Only diff is,these are politician/lawyers beliveing the cAGW weasel words,and we all know how much a politician charges for their “expertise”!!

  91. Darn…wrong c&p…should be……

    “Luther Wu says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:55
    All of those “might, may, maybe, could, possibly, extrapolated, expected, projected and probables” cost money.”

  92. Andrew said March 1, 2012 at 11:03 am:
    >@ More Soylent Green

    >Someone should do a follow up the the story on how the GM killed off the
    >electric car 15+ years ago by controlling the patents for big cheap batteries…
    >then selling the atents to Big Oil…ultimately to Chevron…that used to be
    >Standard Oil, that allegedly killed of the electric streetcar in LA…

    >The patents just got sold to BASF,

    Should this be true, chances are that at least most of these patents have
    expired. Patents have a time limit. All US patents with patent number less
    han 5,000,000 expired on or before August 31, 2010. All US patents issued
    on or before on or before June 6 1978 expired no later than 17 years after
    their issue dates.

    More recently. US patents have opportunity to be in force 20 years after
    filing, and in some range of years longer of 20 years after non-provisional
    filing and 17 years after issue, with some range years having rule of
    whichever is longer. (Provisional filings in USA are discarded unless followed
    by “full filings” no later than 1st anniversary thereof , or 1st business day after
    a 1st anniversary on a non-business day, IIRC.)

  93. This post somehow reminds me of the 50 million missing climate refugees. I don’t know why but it does.

  94. 1DandyTroll said in part, on March 1, 2012 at 11:21 am:

    > 2. At about the same time every year there’s about the same type of
    > storm, all residents tend to know this.

    I see need for government spending to monitor and predict destructive
    storms, because destruction and body count is mostly from localized or
    small-region weather that does *not* occur in the same place every year.

    For that matter, extreme storms do not occur every year. For example,
    the early April 1974 tornado outbreak hitting Indiana hard, and the April
    2011 tornado outbreak hitting Alabama hard.

    The “Tristate Tornado” of March 18, 1925 has at least 1 record still
    standing, and where it hit has seen nothing like it since. For that matter,
    F5/EF5 tornadoes tend to occur at a rate around or under 10 per decade
    worldwide, with over 96% of them in USA. At least 7 other of USA’s 50
    states have since experienced at least one F5/EF5 tornado.

    Hurricane Katrina is not something that occurs annually at some location.

    The “Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1938″ is still the worst in history where it
    hit hard in New England. In most years since, none of New England got so
    much as a gale force peak gust or 1 centimeter of rain from tropical
    cyclones of any intensity.

    Huricane Hazel hit Toronto in 1954, with “sustained hurricane force wind”,
    and problematic flooding. Toronto since had much lesser but significant
    impacts from two previously-hurricane storms – Hugo in 1989, and Isabel in
    2003.
    Detroit, Pittsburgh, NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Wash-DC, Richmond Va and
    their suburbs don’t have to face a hurricane or a dangerous tropical cyclone
    or remnant thereof every year – for that matter, not even MIami. These areas
    (except for Miami) have also been hit by blizzards – but most of these blizzard-
    blasted places, in most years, don’t get a blizzard, maybe none of them do for
    that for time requirement of blizzard (as opposed to “blizzard conditions at
    times).

    American weather (add to this nearby areas of Canada) is cranky. Lots of
    bleep happens, but less frequently than annually even in all of Texas.

  95. ROM said March 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm:

    >The astonishing thing about this truly immense expenditure of public monies
    > and resources in an effort to mitigate and prevent global warming and
    >climate change is that “nobody” as in “nobody” seems to have been able to
    > detect that it has made the slightest of differences to the global climate or
    > changed the so called climate change trends in an even slightly detectable
    > fashion.

    Something I see: Largely stalling the slightly significant contribution to AGW
    via GHGs other than CO2.

    And, largely-successful, and done to mitigate a problem other than CO2.

    Furthermore, much of that done in a way that I think is excessively
    burdensome – at least 99% of the good achieved so far was doable with about
    80% of the burden. For example, I see *essentially zero* need for medical
    “inhalers” to be required to avoid halogenated inhalers, and colored glass
    usage in making colored light bulbs to avoid using cadmium.

  96. Just for the record, I have never ever believed in Man Made Globull Warming. So the above mentioned sums go a long way to explain why so many do.But how is it spent. On fundamental research such as Argo, PR, Marketing, Politics, Advocacy, with the balance gifted to solar/wind frauds or carbon trading scams.

    Yet, despite these vast sums nobody can really define Eco Friendly or Sustainable or Balance. For example what really is the difference between a Rock and a Plastic bag in a landfill? Everything man has ever used is still here. It has not disappeared. There is maybe even more forest now than there was in 1900. The real problem is we need to do things better, produce less toxins and repair the damages that we do and that is easy enough.

    Is it really so difficult to turn the basic thinking around from “Dont do that”, ” Ban this”, Prohibit that” to lets just fix it, do this, build that. Looking at all that Money, none of it is available for solutions, fixes, improvements. None.

    Just a tiny fraction of those vast sums mentioned above would launch Thorium reactors, be a game changer. O.K. thats really cutting edge but really is it any more far out than Argo/

    The group I work with have secured a Government contract, to employ three proven organic technologies that will reduce “carbon” emissions, stop water table pollution, repair damaged land, increase yields and improve animal health all with “instant” cost benefits. The absolute results will be demonstrated in four to six weeks. However, instead of full speed ahead, lets do this. its painfully slow, step by step as nobody can provide funding and by funding i talk of dollars and cents. Loads of grants available but not for “doing” things only for research. I went to one of the big guys, mentioned here. They just gave 100 million to climate works, looked at their criteria. Doing things not mentioned or even encouraged

    This is the problem, its a mind set, a lock step. The billions spent and wasted on non existent problems. Look at the passion, sentient people pushed, “they made me do it”, to fraud, deception, self immolation. Why? For what?

    Look at Heartland, compare it, just the chart above, David and Goliath is really understating it. Its a tidal wave, a Tsunami and one that needs to be stopped in its tracks. Now.

    Please, stop, think and get to see the wood for the trees. The truth certainly helps but is it enough. What more, ethically and Honestly can be done. I really am speechless but not bowed.

    The efforts of sites like this are a great step forward but the successes it achieves are very small compared with the clearly vast scale of the problem that it seeks to address. More thinking outside the box i needed, more positive ideas, more affirmative action of the caring human kind is required.

  97. Recently i keep coming back to the farewell speech of one of America’s most respected President’s, Ike Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech and it’s now famous and much quoted Military / Industrial Complex quote.

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together”.

    But there was another quote that is very relevant to today in that speech, a quote that is usually overlooked by most but carries a warning of equally grave consequences for our democracy and society.;

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Eisenhower was far more prescient than even he ever imagined

  98. John from CA says: March 1, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Curious thought, are the commissioned research studies managed from a central database to ensure the same research isn’t being requested by multiple US agencies and or a duplication of past studies from one or more of the agencies?

    The simple answer is NO.

    As a longtime government employee having worked in various areas of research and development, I have seen almost exactly the same projects proposed and funded over and over. All you need to understand this situation is to look at the number of pilot projects that are installing PV systems. There are literally thousands. (Hundreds were in the last stimulus bill alone.)

    Now, how many times do you really need to install photo-voltaic panels to determine if they are a cost effective solution with a reasonable ROI time? How many wind turbines/farms need to be built in order to understand that they can only produce < 20% of their nameplate rated power over time? How many experimental bio-fuel plants need to be built in order to understand that algae, corn, wood, saw grass, or (insert your favorite plant) do not create economically usable fuels?

    The energy densities of these renewable energy sources are pathetically small when compared to coal, oil, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric. Until the energy density problem is addressed and resolved, there is no hope that these technologies can ever be economically viable. However, this is the large problem that no one is working to resolve.

    But governments want to be seen as working to solve the problem, so they fund lots of pilot projects that would never be funded by private industry/investors because there will never be an ROI (at least not without substantial government subsidies).

  99. Great chart anthony. These are very useful to the average Joe to get an immediate understanding of the numbers involved.

    I support the comments upthread that suggest adding in all the green propaganda organizations as well.

    You should make this an ongoing effort, updating the chart as more info becomes available. Periodic posting, perhaps monthly or bi-annually will keep it on the radar screen.

  100. “Richard M says:
    March 1, 2012 at 7:51 am
    And, if you look at the global values it gets much worse. Anyone have EU numbers?”

    Sadly not, not even the EU has EU numbers that any accountant will believe.

  101. I’m guessing funding is so important to the Peter Gleicks of this world, as they seem to believe that ‘science’ (not sure whether we should see this as knowledge or the specific methodological expression) is justified and made possible by funding – their offices, computers and jobs are funded, and this gives them their identity and authority (and the time to produce research).

    They do not seem to realise that research and science can be done from home or the public library, and therefore assume that any research or science (or ‘anti-science’) that is conducted must be funded. As Heartland is one of the few clear sources of such funding, they therefore assume it is important.

    The focus on funding is the same as the focus on the fact that only ‘scientists’ opinions count – a falsely-constructed elitism which fails to comprehend there is no difference between science wherever it is constructed. A self-defining elite are basically not only trying to close off avenues for their intellectual opponents to access funding, but are actually convincing themselves that there must be funding for those same opponents from elsewhere.

    In this respect, it is probably worth considering how many of the blogs that push the man-made climate change narrative are actually unfunded. Even the bloggers generally seem to require funding and support networks for their work – and as this is how the clique of climate scientists and their hangers-on who push this narrative will view bloggers (as these are the ones they meet, a perfectly normal point of view), then they will assume all blogs are managed this way. Which explains their strange refusal to accept Steve McIntyre is effectively a one-man band with the option of a few moderators for comments, but must be funded by fossil fuels. It is a disconnect from reality which does not realise that blogging or science can be cheap and easy – and since it believes everything is expensive, has to explain it all by funding.

    Just a guess, but worth considering – the fact that the clique are so well funded blinds them to what can be done without funding…

  102. I would love to see a chart showing government spending on climate science over the last few decades. Would it look like a hockey stick by any chance?
    Chris

  103. Good point Wermet, a way to save hundreds of millions, have a simple grant data base. Also what happens to all the pilot plant results???? They seem to disappear.

  104. Ian Plimers recent book lists just some of the cash used to spin the green lies in aus.
    from a fast add up of what he listed its a hell of a lot of the DEBT the useless LIAR and her gang have run Aus( that did have a postitive balance till labor) into to the tune of billions and millions new debt per day!

    book is: how to get Expelled from school…and its a ripper.

  105. In order to explain away their failure to convince everyone that we are doomed they blame HI which has almost no money, which makes their failure look even worse. What a clever argument! But it reveals a shocking lack of self-insight and a huge capacity for self-delusion if they truly believe this meme that sceptics are a huge oil-funded conspiracy.

  106. These sums of money are really huge, beyond comprehension and yet they are spent on what exactly. Hundreds of PV studies per year. PR, Politics whilst people freeze to death and starve.

    They talk about “Green” projects, well where are they. Do they mean Solyndra and various similar scams. Or is it spent on crooked carbon trades or paying Aborigines to do what they have always done, burn bush or to compensate those burned out because they cannot burn brush (Victoria deadly fires)

    Cut the root

Comments are closed.