Mannian money madness

Tom Nelson writes:

Bummer: If the Kochs are really spending $100 million annually on climate change denial (as Michael Mann claims), why is prominent skeptic JoNova forking over her own cash to replace her five-year-old computer?

Also, why did I just pay 100% of the costs to replace my own 6-year-old MacBook Pro?

Global gloom. Help. I need a new computer. « JoNova

Donations gratefully received. A newer monster with more memory has been ordered…

Right now these self funding academic researcher-analyst-commentators could do with support (and we could use more than just a ‘puter).

Flashback: Michael Mann: “Kochs spend 100M$/year on #climatechange denial”

Hey Michael: Who, specifically, gets that money each year? How, specifically, does that money get spent?

================================================================

I’ve met Jo and I’m privy to some of her personal details and many of the problems associated with keeping her website going, which is self-hosted. I just sent Jo a donation, and I urge others to do so too (see the tip jar at upper right here), if for no other reason than spite for Michael Mann’s lewdicrous conspiracy theory ideation.

For the record I don’t get any money from the Kochs either (either directly or indirectly) and I don’t know any climate skeptic who does.

 

Advertisements

115 thoughts on “Mannian money madness

  1. love your site but this is petty IMHO
    REPLY: Sorry you feel that way, but you should see all the stuff I DON’T react to. Sometimes, you just have to point out absurdity when you see it, especially when you are trying to help a fellow traveler. – Anthony

  2. I’m sure Jo Nova has good reason to self-host her blog, but in general it is somewhat risky compared to using a commercial hosting service. The time and effort required to keep the software up to date added to the continuous struggle against DDOS and other attacks from generic hacker miscreants, as well as recovering from the inevitable hardware crashes can be overwhelming at times.

    REPLY:
    I agree, and that’s the reason we took Climate Audit from self hosted to wordpress.com hosted (as is WUWT). Jo is fiercely independent and prefers to do it in her own style, which I can’t fault her for. – Anthony

  3. Michael Mann is clearly of the opinion that spouting the same tired slogans and attempting to stereotype his critics as “in the pay of Big Oil” is a formula that can be used repeatedly by his fellow travellers in the media trying to stifle debate on the climate.
    In my opinion Michael Mann suffers from a lack of parental love which has caused him to strike out at anyone who fails to give him the required level of love and respect.

  4. I’ve already chipped in a couple of groats and I urge others to do so. We really are all in this together, and it would be a great pity if a voice was silenced as the World is beginning to listen.

  5. It’s easy. Take all of the actual political spending by the Koch brothers (a few million, spread across a bunch of different campaigns and Political Action Committees), add in all of the money they “steer” through PACs, pretend it’s all direct Koch money, and then go realllllly out on a limb and pretend it’s all about climate change.
    Never mind that the “$100 million” figure was in 2012, and was almost all focused on defeating Obama in the Presidential election.

  6. I completely disagree about the petty comment. If a Mann will deliberately tell a bald lie about that, what won’t he lie about?

  7. I’ve said before that because leftists only exist high on the public hog they simply can’t understand how anyone opposes them doesn’t. They therefore have to create the massive international Guild of Evil Denier (invisible) cash fountain to explain us away.
    It simply cannot occur to them that we might just do this stuff because we believe they are wrong – and are also sick of them appropriating billions of public funding to tell us we are oil-funded deniers.

  8. The existence of climate sceptics who aren’t receiving money does not invalidate the claim that the money is being spent. Surely that is obvious to all parties?

  9. The 100 million has no basis. Don’t even try to find one. This is typical of green organizations and slugs like Mann who ride the coat tails of the green movement. Nearly 35 years in the nuclear industry has taught me two things:
    1. The majority of greens are either totally corrupt and care only about money and power and not at all about the enivironment (certainly not people other than themselves) or are too ignorant to actually think for themselves and are simply serving as useful idiots. They have infiltrated and infected some of the oldest and most venerable conservation institutions in the world with their deceit.
    2. After all legitimate concerns are answered, after every niggling point has been responded to and after they’ve lost the debate they simply start making things up.
    Show us the money is exactly the proper repsonse to Dr. Mann’s scatillogical claims. It’s time that Mann was called on to prove these allegations.

  10. This is Michael Mann’s trick hiding the climate science decline by splicing MUS (made up stuff) to the public record.

  11. Tried to donate…couldn’t get more than $1 to register. How do you donate a sensible amount?

  12. On the other hand under the table, sources say that Al Gore only pays for the first box of crayons of the Global Warming/Climate Change/CO2 Fraud belivers and PHD’s to create those pretty graphs and hockey sticks with.
    The EPA pays for the rest of the replacement crayons out of our tax money.
    Its just not fair.
    Drill you ruff necks, drill!

  13. JPS says:
    April 9, 2013 at 7:53 am
    love your site but this is petty IMHO
    ——–
    Well, how would you address a baseless accusation that somebody was funding you to ‘spread misinformation’? I don’t see why answering that by pointing out the contradictions is petty.

  14. We can’t forget that Mann doesn’t have to be right, he just has to get the disinformation out there. We all know that Marcott has been throughly debunked, but the millions that read the headlines a month ago, who don’t follow the topic closely, still believe.
    This is our challenge.

  15. I have just paid for a few pounds of chocolate for Jo’s computer*.
    What I don’t understand is your fixation on pointing out you are not receiving money from some sources or others. Most of the warmists are (or were) on the pay of the state, which forces all of us to pay for their stupidity whether we agree or not; private donations are better in that they are entirely voluntary. The correct answer to being accused to be in the pay of Exxon or the Koch brothers should be “so what?” By treating private donations as if they were shameful you are just playing their game.
    FD
    * Chocolate-powered computer: now there’s an idea! 😉

  16. it’s all just part of the conspiracy to hide the funding you folks are getting…
    /white smoke

  17. Michael Mann is not an honest person. Yes, you read that right, Mikey–you are not an honest person. Lying for the sake of any ideology isn’t justified, and it only demonstrates how vacuous your character has become.
    (I know Mikey visits this site and reads every word written about him, just like a bug can’t avoid an illuminated bug killer. But then, the truth won’t change his character because he’s beyond hope.)

  18. Jo should have asked me for money. I get around $10 million dollars for each of my climate articles. I dont know what to do with it all . I’m currently using $50 banknotes as insulation in my loft. (that’s when I’m not using them as kindling to light my fire)
    I understand Willis is so wealthy from the money he gets that he is using $100 banknotes as foundation material for sea walls round his pacific islands (most of which he now owns thanks to Big Oil and Koch largesse.
    tonyb

  19. I would like to see an answer to that accusation that is often directed towards the Koch’s. Do they REALLY spend millions on climate change realism and if so, to where and/or to whom? Perhaps Mr. Mann could back up his assertion? While we are on the topic, here is another odd hypocrite in the high stakes game of fingering ‘Big Oil’ for all kinds of evil – – and guess where he made his billion or so? That’s right. In Big Oil.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/meet-the-us-billionaire-who-wants-to-kill-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/article10825081/

  20. I wonder if there are any “progressives” out there who could identify a conservative organization that functions as the Tides Foundation does for the left-wing as massive funding clearinghouse. Then maybe, WUWT, CA, BH, JoNova, etc. could all get some grants from all those millions the “Kochs are funding”.
    Oh, yeah, I forgot. The Kochs have a pittance compared to George Soros, et al. <sigh/>

  21. I’d be happy to contribute – but the link takes me to a Paypal site that can’t conceive that people live outside of the good ole US of A. Methinks you’re missing out on (monetary) support from all us Johny foreigners.
    Regards
    Bob Scott
    PS You don’t need to publish this.

  22. Anthony: In your reply you use the phrase “fellow traveler”. I don’t think you want to use that term/phrase, since the far left has co-opted it.

  23. Activism doesn’t necessarily get in the way of truth #geek49203, that is a dangerously general statement you made. Activism often gets the truth out. Consider wikileaks. Or is that a bit too much activism for you 😉

  24. What’s important to note is that Michael Mann is under the delusion that the grant money (translation: forcibly extracted taxpayer money) he receives is ‘good’ money whereas the money (however piddling it may be) that differing scientific research receives is ‘bad’ money. So, to correct this imbalance, he applies a special differentiating, multivariate, compensational, statistical analysis; which has absolutely no correlation with the real world but, what the heck, the UN really likes it. This DMCS, which has the same analytical reality as Obama’s budgets, is then applied to the ‘bad’ money that skeptics receive and multiplies it by a factor which Mann has yet to reveal but is really really huge. So, this is how he comes up with these funding figures. It’s also how Santa Claus does it.

  25. I thought we were going to start lambasting warmists for being ACTUALLY funded by “fossil fuel interests”, etc. Like Al Gore going from oil to tobacco and back to oil via Al Jazeera. And Greenpeace and the WWF. Not to mention most of the anti coal rhetoric originally stems from natural gas companies.

  26. “The existence of climate sceptics who aren’t receiving money does not invalidate the claim that the money is being spent.”
    No? Perhaps if you could provide evidence for that claim and for where “the money is being spent”, Ryan?
    REPLY: actually, the onus is on you. You made the claim, back it up or shut up – Anthony

  27. Ryan Gainey says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:18 am
    The existence of climate sceptics who aren’t receiving money does not invalidate the claim that the money is being spent. Surely that is obvious to all parties?

    Did you forget your tag? Of course “money is being spent.” The question is by whom and for what. If you didn’t forget that tag, then perhaps you would care to actually explain what’s obvious and why. That it, do you have some facts that back up an association between “big money” and skepticism? There is plenty of documentation of government and oil money going to “AGW” coffers. Mann’s pay check to point to merely one little aspect, and his research are funded by public money.

  28. I’m poor as a church mouse myself. In order to do the temporary stateside media contact work I did last year for CFACT on their Rio+20 visit, they had to donate me money to buy a used 2007 iMac, since my 2000-era iMac was on its last legs. Seems the big Exxon check for all I’ve done in the last 3 years is still MIA…………..

  29. Wow! This Anthony guy is so far into denial he doesn’t even know he’s funded by the Koch Brothers…lol!
    It’s funny how every movement has to identify (or create) a boogeyman for the troops to rally against. Every time I see a poster use “Koch Brothers” I suspect I’m dealing with a person of low cognitive ability…

  30. @ Robert Scott says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:16 am
    Bob, I live in the UK – the Paypal site seems set up for $US, however decide the amount you wish to donate (in $US) and it will convert the amount from your account and Jo gets her funds – worked for me.

  31. I can’t imagine taking on the cost and hassles of self-hosting. Mostly the hassles because hardware is relatively cheap and Linux is free, but an internet connection with enough bandwidth to allow high-speed connections for multiple users isn’t cheap and represents an ongoing expense.
    Anyhoo, is there an online form to apply for the Koch money? (It’s probably located on the same site for the form to apply to not work at NASA – GISS.)

  32. JPS says:
    April 9, 2013 at 7:53 am
    > love your site but this is petty IMHO
    It adds up. I replaced my 5 year old computer over Christmas (it keeps busy with stuf for WUWT, my weather data, my baseball “runnings”, etc. not an easy job.
    Do you think it’s worthwhile to preserve http://john-daly.com/ ? I’m leading that effort. Will you call that petty if we look for donations to give people a chance to help?
    I have some idea of how much time Anthony and Joanne spend to try to help stop world governments from spending a trillion dollars on a problem that may not exist. I know I can’t do it, at least not without cutting back on work time.
    It’s nice that you think a new computer comes out of petty change. Perhaps you have a spare 1,000 hours per year to donate to let them get their careers back in order.

  33. RockyRoad says (April 9, 2013 at 9:07 am)
    I know Mikey visits this site and reads every word written about him,
    —–
    Surely he has taxpayer-financed flunkies to do that for him…

  34. Anthony, would you accept a nice big cheque from the Kochs if it was offered? Personally, I wouldn’t have any problem with that if you did.
    REPLY: Only if I had a specific project in mind that could benefit from funding. Muller had BEST funded by Koch for example. – Anthony

  35. Anthony, speaking of related sites having difficulties, is there any update as to the john-daly.com saga?
    It seems to be operational again, did you or the community lend a hand?
    I was going to suggest that you incorporate his site into yours if his survivors are in fact now also gone.
    Just wondering what happened.

  36. @Frederick Davies –
    Couldn’t agree more, and let me add this: if Big Oil were funding skeptics’ efforts to bring out the truth about climate change, they wouldn’t just be aiding their own business, they’d be doing an invaluable public service. If skeptics did get money from Big Oil, that’s nothing to be ashamed of. Big Oil couldn’t possibly be as corrupt and venal as the EPA and other agencies at home and abroad who are funding Mann and the other alarmies and stealing hard-earned taxpayer dollars to do it.

  37. Ryan Gainey says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:18 am
    “The existence of climate sceptics who aren’t receiving money does not invalidate the claim that the money is being spent. Surely that is obvious to all parties?”
    Surely it is obvious to all that if the world’s best science blog isn’t getting any cash, then no other sceptic is. If you read a few of the comments instead of demonstrating a glazed, impermeable intellect, you would know the Koch Bros were spending it on defeating Obama.
    So what is your own personal opinion on the climate change debate and why?

  38. Blade says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Anthony, speaking of related sites having difficulties, is there any update as to the john-daly.com saga?

    I found and contacted the content provider who reenabled the site for the time being. “Managerial review” hasn’t happened yet, at least I haven’t been contacted.
    I also found a link between the current maintainer and someone else, and talked to him on Sunday. He’s following up with his Email address and skills as a computer security investigator.
    My expectation is that I will take over the site (and may make a copy on a wordpress blog), but nothing is definite except that john-daly.com is too important to lose.

  39. To Jim Brock who says on April 9, 2013 at 8:29 am:
    “Tried to donate…couldn’t get more than $1 to register. How do you donate a sensible amount?”
    Solution: Donate to her computer needs through her “Emergency Chocolate Support” project.
    Sadly, the Australian government is showing more and more signs of morphing into an ugly anti-liberty plutocracy. It’s none of my business, but I hope you Aussies keep in mind that government doesn’t give you liberty. You have to take it.
    Jo explains it this way: “the Australian government says that I need permission from them to accept “donations”. (It might be your money, but you can only donate it to a Registered Charity.) So instead of accepting “donations” I’m selling units of $1 emergency chocolate support of which you may “purchase” as many as you want.”
    Again, just make your contribution like I did —$XX bucks worth of “Emergency Chocalate Support.”

  40. I hope that Jo gets enough support to get her new machine, but as for the rest of it, I can’t help feeling that somewhere in China and India, some people are monitoring all this and laughing their heads off. Then they say ‘quick, here comes a westerner, put your serious face on. And dont smirk when they mention Climate change, or its the gulag for you’

  41. “Tried to donate…couldn’t get more than $1 to register. How do you donate a sensible amount?”
    overwrite the $1 amount in the box and hit enter. It will then update.

  42. I *like* the idea about getting Koch Bros money — and an ad! — for all climate sites (and others…?)
    which support honest science. And, it would be most brilliant if each ad could be personalized with the amount of the Koch Bros’ contribution. …like $4,000 for a new computer.
    Amounts could increase over the course of a year and the ad might affirm that no other monies, direct or indirect, supported the site.
    AND, it could ask the question about the George Soros-funded sites, both direct and indirect. How much?
    This might help dispel the myth about Big Oil and Koch funding, at least a bit. Make Michael Mann look even shorter. ….Lady in Red

  43. Ed Forbes said
    “I sent in a donation. Where do I send the receipt to Koch to get reimbursed?”

    Better still, send the receipt to Michael Mann.
    Oh to be a fly on the wall when he reads the request for reimbursement since he has played a prime part in this farce.

  44. Ric
    It’s certainly worthwhile keeping the John daly site going. It strikes me that the Ernst beck site will presumably at some point need rescuing. Are you or anyone else aware of its current status?
    Tonyb

  45. I have all the checks from the Kochs ready to distribute. They are on my desk in our secret volcano base. You all have keys to the base, so feel free to drop by and take your check from my desk, but do not touch my computer – its recording Mann’s phone calls right now…. Bwaa haa haa….

  46. If the Kochs are really spending $100 million annually on climate change denial (as Michael Mann claims), why is prominent skeptic JoNova forking over her own cash to replace her five-year-old computer?
    If you want to keep the AGW faithful righteously attending the Church of Gaia…. and contributing substantially to the ‘offering plate’, you must have a few Devils for them to believe in as well!
    The forces of Evil are attacking the holy Church of Gaia, My Brethren! Contribute generously, that we may Save The Planet from the evil adherents of fact based, reproducibly tested science!” So sayeth the Prophet Mann. Hallelujah!!
    And so it goes….
    MtK

  47. Anthony, gosh, thank you. This is very very helpful. 🙂 Shucks!
    For the reader who asked why I self-host: I set up my site originally ten years ago for a totally different purpose, when I turned that static domain into a blog I didn’t know anything about blogs. I quite possibly should have chosen the same format as Anthony, but at the time the advice, the help and the simplest path was self hosted, all done at friends rates. Traffic was low. It was cheap then. After the traffic stats took off, having spent hours mastering a system, I did not want to change. To put it in perspective, the cost of self hosting, while it is significant, is a tiny fraction of the real cost, — the opportunity cost, the full time salary I don’t collect. (That my family bears. And it would probably be same for Anthony).
    That said, it is the most rewarding, stimulating pursuit. Mental tennis. If I won lotto I would still be in the fray. And climate skepticism is the best filter to find great people. It won’t be so good once everyone is onto it. 😉
    For the reader who asked about the paypal button. Sorry it’s not ideal, but paypal pretty well designed for overseas transactions. Nothing is designed to cope with our Nanny state though – which decreed that I am not allowed to collect “Donations” by that term, because I’m not a registered charity, and you are not freely allowed to choose who you donate your money to. Instead people buy me emergency chocolate supplies (could it get more silly?) and in answer to Jim above, If you put more units in the basket the tally rises above $1. I do love chocolate.
    Not to be too precious though, if I had $1 from all my readers I would be doing so well that there would be hordes of liberty bloggers and science writers clamouring to get their share too. It would be a hot-ticket career, and that ladies and gentlemen would be a great thing would it not? Wouldn’t it be something if there was a career path for independent thinkers? A permanent bevy serving the public through voluntary payments instead of coerced ones?
    Freedom does not come for free, unfortunately.

  48. Tom J says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:25 am
    “What’s important to note is that Michael Mann is under the delusion that the grant money (translation: forcibly extracted taxpayer money) he receives is ‘good’ money whereas the money (however piddling it may be) that differing scientific research receives is ‘bad’ money.”
    The purpose of CO2AGW research is to give statists even more money and control, so under the moral coordinate system of a Michael Mann, there is indeed good money from the state and bad money from the private sector.

  49. Ric Werme said:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:09 am
    Do you think it’s worthwhile to preserve http://john-daly.com/ ? I’m leading that effort.
    ————————————-
    I don’t see a tip-jar on that site; can one be added? If not, how else to contribute?
    Thank you for your efforts!

  50. Ryan Gainey says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:18 am
    The existence of climate sceptics who aren’t receiving money does not invalidate the claim that the money is being spent. Surely that is obvious to all parties?
    Huh? Who/what funds the IPCC? 350.org? NOAA? NASA? Muller? Gavin?
    I suppose SOME money is being spent on the skeptic side, but you can’t get grant money for non hockey stick work, and more than likely you will be dismissed from any current university “funded” research if you tried.
    Maybe Ryan can google the grant money flowing to Penn State on Mike Mann’s behalf?
    Or read about the $179 billion spent on pro AGW research in Jo Nova’s article?
    If there is money for hockey sticks, you make freaking hockey sticks, get it?

  51. Ryan Gainey says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:18 am

    The existence of climate sceptics who aren’t receiving money does not invalidate the claim that the money is being spent. Surely that is obvious to all parties?

    I’m having trouble discerning a point here which isn’t completely trivial. Of course “money is being spent”; as I commented at Jo Nova’s site when making a donation “speech is free but printing presses cost money”. Everyone on all sides of the climate debate is spending money to present their views, even if it is only coming out of their own pockets. Some people get material support from other pockets; most of the big names in the pro-global warming camp are funded by government jobs, or government or foundation grants. Sceptic blogs like WUWT and JoanneNova are not.
    If you take the position that a dollar of Koch brothers money taints anyone who accepts it, you then accept the burden of proving that dollars from Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and George Soros don’t have exactly the same effect. By that reasoning, whoever gets the most money is the most corrupted — you really want to run with that?
    An earlier incarnation of the “big oil funded climate denial groups” was tried years ago when Matt Drudge first got started. The established media kept sneering “who is funding him?” rather than admit they’d been scooped; they failed to grasp the shift to new media taking place. Drudge talked about this in a 1998 speech to the National Press Club. Old media just didn’t get it.
    Similarly those who think they control (or have privileged access to) scholarly journals and popular coverage of same just don’t accept that people with a very modest investment can reach the same audience.

  52. Addendum to previous: The “modest investment” I meant was monetary. The necessary investment of time and talent is anything but modest.

  53. Greg says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:16 am
    I completely disagree about the petty comment. If a Mann will deliberately tell a bald lie about that, what won’t he lie about?”
    I actually don’t think that Mann is lying because he really believes everyone is in the pay of Big Oil. He’s like Don Quixote and sees a dragon in every windmill

  54. “http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/meet-the-us-billionaire-who-wants-to-kill-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/article10825081/”
    Has any one considered the possibility that their are many large oil interest in the states who do want cheaper crude to compete with their production, thereby reducing their profits?

  55. Whenever you ask these people for evidence there is silence or a pointing to a grant or two made to a few sceptical scientists or a speaking dinner fee. That does not equate to $100 million from Koch as well as the other ‘millions’ from all the other oil, coal and gas companies.
    A pooling to get 1 billion would be chump change to these guys yet Anthony Watts has a donate button on the right side bar and appears to be an Amazon Associate and has some ads (some WordPress some your???). This is not the sign of a well funded denialist campaign.
    Anyone who thinks sceptics are well funded needs to read Notes From Skull Island and apply reason and logic and you will see that Mann’s claims are sh!te.
    Here is Michael Mann’s cash

  56. DirkH on April 9, 2013 at 11:47 am
    The purpose of CO2AGW research is to give statists even more money and control, so under the moral coordinate system of a Michael Mann, there is indeed good money from the state and bad money from the private sector.
    Quite correct. The problem for the statists is that, in the end, government is a dead load. Stability in a society allows individual, and individually organized group efforts, to flower. Through application of law, and the concept of its unbiased and equal application, government can foster that stability. And THAT is about as far as it should go. When it goes beyond that, the dead load of government, saps the very source (the “bread from the mouth of labor, that it has earned”*) of its own sustenance. That problem, by its intrinsic nature, cannot be reconciled. That’s when it gets nasty. The CAGW crowd refuses to see this.
    * That’s a quite tortured quote from Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural address.

  57. Joanne – please put some (or more ads) on your site. Advertisers want to pay you for some of your audience’s attention!

  58. —————————————————————
    Ryan Gainey says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:18 am
    The existence of climate sceptics who aren’t receiving money does not invalidate the claim that the money is being spent. Surely that is obvious to all parties?
    —————————————————————
    Of course it doesn’t invalidate the claim, just like the fact that you’ve never seen a Unicorn doesn’t invalidate their existence.
    Making a claim that something IS occurring (e.g. that a movement is receiving sizable funding) and then requiring them to prove the negative (that they are not) when there is no apparent evidence to support the claim is a denialism of its own kind.

  59. I have been giving money to my favorite conservative party but now I may have to switch some skeptical sites and I am not talking about skeptical science!

  60. thursa says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:24 am
    Wiki is not necessarily the truth. It merely releases information that the owner(s) would prefer wasn’t release into the public domaine.

  61. Ric Werme – john-daly.com is too important to lose. Definitely! I would be willing to make a modest contribution.

  62. It’s good to see Mann applying the same rigor to his analysis of political spending as he does to his climate reconstructions: no data, no methodology, just a BIG SCARY NUMBER!

  63. “For the record I don’t get any money from the Kochs either (either directly or indirectly) and I don’t know any climate skeptic who does.”
    It’s got to be Delingpole.

  64. What I find funny about Mann’s claims is that Al Gore got more money in one deal from “Big Oil” than all the skeptic blogs combined. Has Mann ever commented on Al’s of sale his TV thing? (I forget what his network was called. Not very memorable to me.)

  65. C. Shannon says:
    April 9, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    —————————————————————
    Ryan Gainey says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:18 am
    The existence of climate sceptics who aren’t receiving money does not invalidate the claim that the money is being spent. Surely that is obvious to all parties?
    —————————————————————
    Of course it doesn’t invalidate the claim, just like the fact that you’ve never seen a Unicorn doesn’t invalidate their existence.
    Making a claim that something IS occurring (e.g. that a movement is receiving sizable funding) and then requiring them to prove the negative (that they are not) when there is no apparent evidence to support the claim is a denialism of its own kind.

    ==================================================================
    Personally, I wish “Big Whatever” did spend big bucks refuting the nonsense. But they don’t. The Big Bucks are being spent by those in a position to make Bigger Bucks (or what those bucks can buy, power, authority, … fill in the blank …) at the expense of others and what they hold dear.
    I think most of us just want to be left alone. We’re willing to pay something for that.

  66. Ryan Gainey says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:18 am

    The existence of climate sceptics who aren’t receiving money does not invalidate the claim that the money is being spent. Surely that is obvious to all parties?

    True, but the lack of any details on how the money is claimed to be spent, plus all of the skeptical climate bloggers not getting a dime, plus the fact that the $100 million was mostly spent fighting Obama, plus Michael Mann’s well-known allergy to the truth … well, that should give you a clue.
    w.

  67. What if we pretended for a minute that “Big Oil” really was spending big bucks to scrutinize the hypothesis of CAGW/climate change? So what? Wouldn’t they have the right to do so? And if they found the claims to be bogus, wouldn’t they have the right — perhaps responsibility — to publicize the findings?
    The thing about science is that everybody has the freedom to participate, and hypotheses are to be judged on the logic leading to them and on the results of experimental confirmation. The identity of the person presenting the hypothesis (or analysis of someone else’s hypothesis) is totally irrelevant.

  68. The blog “gates of vienna” had political inspired technical problems with I think blogger and word press so went self hosted! I just donated, Im 6 foot 2 inches tall and drive a diesel car is she now sponsored by “big oil”

  69. Ric Werme says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:44 am
    Good work. John Daly.com should be preserved for future generations so that he can be recognized as the pioneer he was.

  70. Chad and Fredrick D. are right. I humbly suggest that Anthony-Jo Nova stop dancing when the socialists say dance. There is no merit in NOT getting funding, in fact, it’s harmful. We should be outraged that massive funding goes to mediocre research and propaganda.
    You deserve funding, period. Except for when you act like funding is a bad thing. Then you don’t deserve it.
    A suggested script with an attitude adjustment:
    “It’s time we finally get our share of the funding. We hereby request that grant writers and publicists contact and help us to apply for grants for WUWT, Jo Nova, and our many associates! We have a new policy and are now going to be directly contacting the big corporations and the Koch Bros, and all potential donors for that matter. With our new donations we will be able to fund many projects we have put off…..etc. etc….cheer, etc.! In fact, we deserve the lion’s share of the funding, because we do the better job on the science. We have seen the light and will now ask for the funding we deserve. We look forward to getting full funding for our research and information distribution sites!”
    Bottom line: Go for the funding, blow your horn, get grant writers and publicists to help, keep doing the good work, and never, ever again apologize for the fine work you do.

  71. Jo Nova gave up what could have been a comfortable and well paid career in academia to host her site. Anthony reduces his earning capacity by devoting time and attention to his site and related projects. I could go on with many similar examples, but you get the idea.
    The fact is, the people who do site hosting, research, commentary and so on in their own time are making significant personal contributions “in kind.” In Jo’s case, it is well over $100k per year excluding her out of pocket costs. What a contrast with people like Mann who draw hefty salaries and charge speaking fees and expenses, while being able to use their employers’ facilities to promote the cause.
    It may be that the sincerity and willingness to put their money where their mouths are is one of the key reasons that the ants are progressively overcoming the elephants.
    Ric, thanks for your efforts to save John Daly’s site. Once again, personal commitment trumps riding on the gravy train in terms of results! Daly’s site was a labour of love (he was pretty much broke most of the time) and personal commitment will ensure that it stays alive.
    How many riders on the CAGW gravy train would still be involved if the money supply was completely cut off?

  72. First, and fore-most, the Koch’s do spend millions in attempt to spread misinformation regarding climate change; It is spent indirectly through conservative “think tanks” (an obvious misnomer) that propagate dubious info. Why the Hell would they not? They sell carbon. Carbon emissions lead to climate change. They have billions to spend on whatever they want. If I were in their position, I would be considered insane if I were not spending money doing the same.
    There is a very clear reason why the Koch’s do not spend money supporting “skeptic” websites. Such websites are insignificant to their cause. Sites like WUWT pander to people who already believe what is advertised. The proof is in the responses to virtually every post on sites such as this: ALL of the responders are like-minded. The reason no money is given to such sites as this is that THEY ARE NOT CHANGING MINDS. Kind of like Fox News.

  73. It may be time for funding, private — and government? Is there any reason NSF should not fund interesting, creative proposals about climate science, from smart folk? They should be submitted.
    (If NSF is biased to funding, only, “climate science” proposals targeted to crisis confirmation and mitigation, it should be documented.) Proposals are proposals; appropriate proposal monitoring institutions can be found, if needed.
    At the same time, I am excited about a transparent accounting of all skeptic funding, from all sources, on websites, devoted to honest science: travel, equipment, etc. Chink, chink, chink…. It is chump change in the AGW machine, internationally; expose that.
    It would be Most Noble if those who have given so much for so long continued to do so, while covering costs — for a time.
    That will (begin to) expose the enormity of the federal funding to promote hysteria.
    I’d support honest salaries for the Honest Science Soldiers, also. But, take it slowly.
    Koch Bros. might start. And, yeh, take other private funding.
    But, slurp at the federal trough, if possible. Compete with Michael Mann. You are smarter. Prove it. Force the government to defend their idiocy. ….Lady in Red

  74. As Gunga mentioned, what about the sale of Al Gore’s CurrentTV to Al Jazeera—which is backed by the royal family of Qatar?

  75. JC says April 9, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    … THEY ARE NOT CHANGING MINDS. Kind of like Fox News.

    An ABCCBSNBC and MSNBC viewer?
    Who says there are no ‘viewers’ of the dinosaur networks, complete with their Geritol and Cialis commercials all?
    .

  76. Since JC cannot refute my statement above, I should point out that “carbon” is entirely beneficial. It is good for the biosphere. It causes absolutely no harm. The demonization of CO2 is done by un-thinking climate lemmings, who re-post their alarmist nonsense without the slightest understanding of how the physical world works.
    The fact is that CO2 has caused no global warming for at least sixteen years, despite its steady rise. The “carbon” conjecture has been falsified, and only nonsensical lemmings still believe that CO2 has any effect on global warming. The lemmings are in the same class as Jehovah’s Witnesses: believing only what they are told to believe, with no scientific evidence to support their repeatedly falsified belief system.
    Planet Earth is clearly deconstructing the alarmist belief that CO2 causes any measurable global warming. But blinkered alarmist lemmings still insist on trotting out their CO2=CAGW nonsense. Sucks to be them, doesn’t it? The Ultimate Authority — Planet Earth itself — is proving that they are totally wrong. So who should we listen to? The alarmist lemmings? Or to Planet Earth? It’s really a no-brainer for level-headed scientific skeptics.

  77. I rarely get to JoNova’s site, simply because I can’t keep up with the lengthy threads here, much less anywhere else, and my wife already accuses me of spending way too much time on “your blogs.” But I recognize its value, and will contribute.
    I am concerned about her account of what sounds like a single, wayward, over-full hard drive causing her problems. I hope she has good IT help. To host a busy site, you need server-level equipment (RAID 5, hot-swap drives, etc., and serious backup). Servers can be purchased for relatively short money used, I assume in Australia as well as in the USA. If even a used server and associated hardware are beyond Joanne’s means, then moving to a hosted service like WordPress would seem the optimal solution.
    Is Heartland open for grant applications?
    /Mr Lynn

  78. The truth is, we’re not winning, alarmists are losing.
    As Muller said:-
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/
    When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. You have to respect the public. You have to give them the honest truth and not the exaggerated truth. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.
    You can fool some of the people, all of the time. You can fool all of the people, some of the time. But you cannot fool all of the people, all of the time.

  79. db: refute what? I simply stated that the sky is blue; you wrote that I was wrong. By the way, my original response to your post was deleted; It is interesting that it was, considering there was no profanity whatsoever (Tony must be watching).
    You mention the common ill-conceived “16 year” hypothesis. Would you care to see either a graph of the last 150 years of atmospheric temperature change, or the last 30 years of ocean temperature change (the oceans, since they have a much higher ability to store heat, have a greater effect on climate; they are truer barometers for climate forecasts)?
    Climate change is not just about air temperatures; why would it be?
    Cherry-picking is also a common tactic of the deniers (you know that, though). Sixteen years? C’mon, you can do better than that. Don’t embarrass both of us by posting such drivel.

  80. JC says: April 9, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    ———————-
    You embarrass yourself already … too much time at the SS site or the RC site ?

  81. JC says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    Would you care to see either a graph of the last 150 years of atmospheric temperature change, or the last 30 years of ocean temperature change (the oceans, since they have a much higher ability to store heat, have a greater effect on climate; they are truer barometers for climate forecasts)?
    ____
    No, graphs are rubbish. I would love to see the last 150 years of unadjusted, good quality, temperature data. I would also like to see the adjustments that have been made to the raw (actual) data and an explanation as to why they were made. Can you provide that, JC?
    I would also like to know why tax-funded climate scientists conspire to dodge FOIA requests?
    Finally, I would love to see the “climate formula”, the one defines the relationship between CO2 and temperature — you know, the one that makes the science “settled”.

  82. Wow. Anthony, If you and Jo would sing a different tune, then you could be on George Soro’s payroll. But, then you would have to sell your soul.

  83. I have posted as JC on this blog before but I hope that no one thinks that this is me. As Anthony has said before you should not hide behind anonymity. While I have disagreed with things posted here before, I have nothing but the utmost respect for what Anthony and all the other bloggers do and take (even from me) to fight the good fight. Stand for what is right. To paraphrase, for evil to prosper it only takes good men to be silent.
    Jeff Clarke

  84. I’m wondering if Mann’s claim is based on the Greenpeace claim that the Koch brothers have “quietly funneled” $67 million to “climate-denial front groups” since 1997, rounded up to the nearest $100 million (according to IRS records). See http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2012/04/02/koch-brothers-exposed-fueling-climate-denial-and-privatizing-democracy/
    Now, Greenpeace broadly labels many, many conservative organizations as “climate-denial front groups”. For example, they say “The top recipients of Koch money in the Climate Denial Machine include Americans for Prosperity ($5.7 million since 1997), the Heritage Foundation ($2.7 million), the Cato Institute ($1.2 million), and the Manhattan Institute ($1.2 million).” IRS records do not say that the donations were to be used 100% for “climate denialism”, so I don’t know on what basis Greenpeace makes their claims.
    It seems Mann’s disingenuous assertion is an exaggeration of wildly speculative claims made by Greenpeace. But he’s preaching to the low-information masses, not to those who deal with facts.

  85. Let’s see, Big Oil enables me to get to work, and to not freeze to death in the winter, and provides the raw materials for all plastics and tires and medicines…and they are evil why?

  86. JC says April 9, 2013 at 10:24 pm
    I have posted as JC on this blog before but I hope that no one thinks that this is me. As Anthony has said before you should not hide behind anonymity. …

    It’s all “fun and games” Jeff, until they get ‘the address’ … until the mote gets ‘trenched’ around the castle and the ‘boiling oil’ is ready for the uninvited, invading horde, anonymity provides a bit of a ‘shield’ for many.
    .

  87. No one mentioned Delingpole, but based on how he dresses, I don’t think he is getting much oil money…just sayin’.

  88. Friends, especially JC:
    I will take every penny offered by the Kochs, Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Energy, or anybody else.
    There are people here – notably JC – claiming such money exists.
    I WANT SOME.
    But nobody has said how to get it.
    Clearly, those who know it is available know how it is obtained: how else could they know it is available?
    So, will those who know please tell me how I can get some of this money?
    Or are JC and others who claim to know about this money keeping it to themselves?
    Richard

  89. richardscourtney says:
    April 10, 2013 at 12:18 pm
    Friends, especially JC:
    I will take every penny offered by the Kochs, Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Energy, or anybody else.
    There are people here – notably JC – claiming such money exists.
    I WANT SOME.
    But nobody has said how to get it.
    Clearly, those who know it is available know how it is obtained: how else could they know it is available?
    So, will those who know please tell me how I can get some of this money?
    Or are JC and others who claim to know about this money keeping it to themselves?
    Richard

    =============================================================
    Richard, if JC ever lets you in on the “secret”, please let me know. While my contributions to supporting skepticism and “Big Evil Stuff” via my comments here may be small, perhaps they have been worth at least a couple of cents off the gallon when I gas up my car?

  90. I figure big oil is indifferent to the argument at best, funding the other way at worst. Falling between those scales, because you’re an oil company pulling down that great big 8% profit on all the oil you can get your hands on. What happens if the warmists win and the price of gasoline is increased to $10 a gallon? Does the oil company lose? Or do they get a bigger chunk with that same 8%?
    No big incentive for them, which makes Valero’s contribution to repeal California’s global warming act all the more heroic in my eyes.

  91. JC says:
    “You mention the common ill-conceived ’16 year’ hypothesis. Would you care to see either a graph of the last 150 years of atmospheric temperature change…”
    Here is a graph of the past century and a half, which refutes both your alarmist position, and your false claim of ‘cherry-picking’ [since 16 years and 150 years obviously covers the gamut].
    The fact is that Planet Earth is falsifying your belief system. CO2 has nothing measurable to do with temperature. You are simply off-base. Your conjecture is wrong. Can I make it any more clear than that?

  92. Happy to contribute, and I have fired off some “groats” courtesty of Paypal (which works fine for me in NZ). Jo deserves supporting.

  93. dbstealey:
    Your post at April 10, 2013 at 4:45 pm says in total

    JC says:

    “You mention the common ill-conceived ’16 year’ hypothesis. Would you care to see either a graph of the last 150 years of atmospheric temperature change…”

    Here is a graph of the past century and a half, which refutes both your alarmist position, and your false claim of ‘cherry-picking’ [since 16 years and 150 years obviously covers the gamut].
    The fact is that Planet Earth is falsifying your belief system. CO2 has nothing measurable to do with temperature. You are simply off-base. Your conjecture is wrong. Can I make it any more clear than that?

    Your post mentions two issues.
    Firstly, JC is plain wrong that there is a “16 year hypothesis”. Depending on the considered data set there has been no discernible global warming (at the 95% confidence used by ‘climate science’) for at least 16 years and possibly 23 years. This is empirical fact and not hypothesis.
    The matter is discussed in the still current WUWT thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/are-climate-models-realistic-now-includes-at-least-february-data/
    AGW is at best a hypothesis (more properly, a conjecture).
    Secondly the rise in global temperature over the last century was a trivial ~0.8 deg.C.
    During each year global temperature (yes, GLOBAL temperature) rises and falls by 3.8 deg.C.
    A recent explanation of this variation of global temperature during each year is at
    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/
    So, the global warming which so worries JC is a about a fifth of the global warming which occurs during 6 months of each year.
    Richard

  94. dbstealey:
    re your post at April 10, 2013 at 5:11 pm.
    The reasons for global temperature variation during each year are
    (a) The Earth’s orbit is an elipse – not a circle – so the Earth moves towards and away from the Sun throughout the year. The Earth is closest to the Sun (so gets most heating) in January/December and is furthest from the Sun in June/July
    and
    (b) The northern hemisphere (NH) is mostly covered in land but the southern hemisphere (SH) is mostly covered in water. Land has lower thermal capacity than water so the NH varies in temperature more than the SH: NH summer is hotter than SH summer and NH winter is colder than SH winter.
    Global temperature is the average of both NH and SH temperatures but the NH and SH have different seasonal variations . The different NH and SH seasonal variations combine with the variation in solar heating as the Earthy orbits the Sun to vary global temperature so it rises and falls by 3.8 deg.C during each year.
    As I have often said – including on WUWT – these cyclical variations in global temperature of 3.8 deg.C during each year could be expected to induce harmonic oscillations in the climate system. Hence, a variation of a mere 0.8 deg.C (as occurred during the twentieth century) may occur as a natural variation requiring no forcing: it could be harmonic oscillation.
    Richard

  95. I purchased 50 units for her emergency chocolate fund. We need her voice and research.
    Charles

  96. Um, where does one sign up for that Koch money? I don’t need much ( I live cheap) but I do need to find a job, and in this Obama economy there just isn’t much to find. I’d love to do climate research for a living, and I think I’d do well at it, but despite looking, I have been completely unable to find any job listings for climate skeptics. (There are just OOODLES of listings for jobs, and grants, and trips and all for Warmers. $Billions of “public money”. All you have to do is check your ethics and morality at the door and demonstrate competence at making the most amazing cruft sound plausible…. Oh, and show skill at creating hockey sticks out of white noise…)
    I’d love to put a /sarc; or /snark; or some kind of tag on that, but I can’t. Near as I can tell, it’s all true. ( I know the part about me are true).

  97. How does 100M$ even if it were true compare to the spending by NASA or the UK met office or even the BBC’s now revealed to be one sided indoctrination of the public in violation of all ethics as well as of its charter. Any ideas anyone?

  98. Climate alarmism is all fantasies anyway, “big money funds skeptics” is fantasizing. Irrationalists are often conspiracy theorists, the “big money funds skeptics” theory qualifies.

  99. Like perhaps some/many others, I can donate only via PayPal, but Jo’s site doesn’t handle it. Made a small contribution to your surface stations account just now. I misremembered an option to append a note to the transaction. None possible.
    If feasible and convenient, could you lump it together with any similar offerings and forward/transfer it to her? No biggie if you can’t; the fall-back use of it on your project is quite acceptable.

Comments are closed.