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.
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.
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??”
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.
This just tallies up the tax-payer funding of “Big
GreenHeatClimate-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?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!
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.
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…
Clearly, Heartland is part of the Evil 1%.
(bottom 1%, but hey…don’t let details get in the way of a good protest!)
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.
What a waste of my tax dollars.
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. ;>)
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.
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.
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.)
Robert Brown says @ur momisugly 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!
I love it.
The only thing I’d change is making the Heartland circle a half circle.
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.
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?
It’s still David V Goliath.
$238 million the World Wildlife
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/06/04/bp-greenpeace-the-big-oil-jackpot/
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.
And that is just ONE government. Virtually every government is giving to the “cause”.
6.5 million on the side of private sector common sense is much more effective; NASA has some nice space pics though…
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
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”
Goes to show you, telling the truth doesn’t cost much.
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.