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.
Just keep telling yourself: “The check’s in the mail. The check’s in the mail.”
==================================================================
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.
Ryan Gainey says:
April 9, 2013 at 8:18 am
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.
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.
Done. Jo does a superb job – glad to be able to help out a little.
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”
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.
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.
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?
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.
JC,
You are a true parody of alarmist nonsense. You can’t see that.
But we can.
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
As Gunga mentioned, what about the sale of Al Gore’s CurrentTV to Al Jazeera—which is backed by the royal family of Qatar?
An ABCCBSNBC and MSNBC viewer?
Who says there are no ‘viewers’ of the dinosaur networks, complete with their Geritol and Cialis commercials all?
.
NOAA should fund Surface Stations. ….Lady in Red
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.
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
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.
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.
JC says: April 9, 2013 at 9:19 pm
———————-
You embarrass yourself already … too much time at the SS site or the RC site ?
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”.
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.
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
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.
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?