Prof. Brulle (Drexel Uni, Phil) claims IRS helped track secret donations
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Prof. Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist of Drexel University, Phil., has published a study allegedly accusing “deniers” of being sock puppets in the pay of “dark money” from big oil.
According to the story, Prof. Brulle enlisted IRS help tracking a correlation between big oil bogeymen such as the Koch Brothers withdrawing funding from climate studies, and significant increases in funding from other organizations such as the Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund.
Quite apart from the outrageous invasion of privacy, if the IRS did actually lend special assistance to the study, the mundane explanation, that lead authors of studies simply turned to other sources when some donors withdrew their support, was not good enough for Prof. Brulle.
Instead, Brulle allegedly asserts the existence of a “dark money” conspiracy – a deliberate attempt to conceal the true sources of funding, by using a network of shadowy donor groups.
“The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight — often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians — but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations.
All I can say Anthony, is where is my dark money cheque? I’ve been sending you these scripts for ages, so far not a dime :-).
==============================================================
Some other viewpoints on this claim.
Dr. Lubos Motl: We received 1 billion dollars
‘Congratulations to all of us. A possible problem – one pointed out to me by the Galileo Movement via Twitter – is that I may find out that we just “may have received” the billion instead of the phrase “did receive” it.’ — ‘The funding of climate skepticism work is at most something of order $10 million a year and much if not most of the most influential work is being done on a budget that is smaller than that by additional orders of magnitude…This figure should be compared to $80 billion that have been paid to promote the climate hysteria pseudoscience, mostly in the recent decade or two…If Suzanne Goldenberg believes that the purpose of this funding is to change people’s minds, well, then I must say that the climate skeptics are more efficient by almost 4 orders of magnitude.’
Marc Morano:
This new study and the media reports surrounding it are pure bunk! The study counts all money raised by all conservative groups as somehow being for global warming issues! But the study itself admits this is not true.
Tom Nelson:
After UK Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg makes a large, fraudulent claim about climate change spending, it gets very quietly ‘fixed’ with the addition of weasel words ‘may’ and ‘up to’
Conservative groups have spent $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change
Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change
…This headline on this article was amended on 21 December 2013 to reflect that not all the $1bn referred to will have funded climate change work.
Twitter / kaleekreider: @DanJWeiss @pourmecoffee Bob …
@DanJWeiss @pourmecoffee Bob Bruelle says headline misleading. $1billion is total avail not total spent on climate. I will forward email.
Update: Robert Brulle pushes back on Suzanne’s fraud here.
Robert Brulle tweets:
Robert Brulle has thus attained first hand knowledge of a known phenomenon: Media outlets routinely publish blatant lies to promote the interests of ‘global warming’. As he now knows from his own experience, this includes lying about the content of research papers.
Having been confronted with this fact, will “environmental sociologist” Robert Brulle dedicate his next research to determining why Big Media tell these lies and the extent to which their lies affect public opinion? Will he enlist the help of the IRS to putting a dollar amount to the free propaganda that is being provided to the ‘global warming’ movement by Big Media?
Not gonna hold my breath waiting for that. Brulle wouldn’t do it, and the people who fund Brulle would not stand for it.
Speaking of which, my own research indicates that Drexel University has a total endowment in excess of $540 million. Now, they are a multiple focus institution, so not ALL of that is spent providing a home for ‘global warming’ propagandists like Brulle, but it is fair to say they have that much at their disposal…
” I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle”
Well, the Government Scientist is still using the assistance of Obama’s neofascist State to destroy and discredit the opposition.
Here is more from the Government Scientist; he’s trying to discredit Obama’s opposition for a while now, here on the State Broadcaster NPR:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/robert-brulle-inside-the-climate-change-countermovement/
What the hell is a “environmental sociologist”? and what have they done for scociety?
Why is tax data being used to begin with and how did he get access to it?
Tax forms should be used to determine tax liability only are to remain confidential while they are held during the statue of limitations period.
Sounds more like big government going after those who object to big government.
Nixon is looking so 3rd rate these days.
Goldberg has the same ethical commitment as Peter Gleick. The ends justifies the means: we’re out to save the planet.
“Environmental Sociologist”? WTF? Someone who is free to “Make stuff up”?
What the hell is a “environmental sociologist”?
An activist soggy pseudo-scientist, as opposed to an activist hard pseudo-scientist.
For twenty-some reasons why contrarians are not well organized and well funded, see my year-old WUWT guest-thread, Notes from Skull Island, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/ )
Conspiracy theories. Where is Lewandowsky & Co when there are real conspirancy theories being pushed down? Oh yes, looking the other side.
Nothing to see here, move along?
The warmist are losing the argument. They know it. As they have heavy PR in the work it must be that this PR campaign met another stronger “skeptic” PR campaign to lose the argument. It is all about PR in their mind, nothing about data, logic and reproducibility.
There must be an explanation why they lost the arguments as they have “the science” on their side.
Their arguments are appeal to authority, consensus science and adjusted data to fit the theory.
The idea that skeptics want to see scientific evidence, raw data with verifiable adjustments and methodology and no amount of PR would move them from this position is too much for some alarmist to accept.
It must be a conspiracy, it must be dirty money at work, they must be the braves Davids fighting for “the truth”, “the science” to prevail against evil billions of dirty money.
This “skeptic money” fits with their way of seeing & perverting reality, the fossil fuel subsidies story:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/12/7/men-of-no-meaning.html
the renewable being cheap reliable and creating jobs and no, not increasing the cost of electricity:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/12/18/why-energy-prices-are-rising.html
It is a paradigm of warmist to fit data to their theory, so no surprise to see this billion dollar story.
The important work of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_sociology
“Suzanne, if you are reading this think again about your headline. It’s still misleading, they don’t spend up to. Sheesh! ”
Hey, it’s supposed to be misleading. As everything she reports on climate is supposed to be misleading. The editor made a concession by adding some weasel words so that it was not an outright the lie originally written by Goldberg.
Box of Rocks says:
December 24, 2013 at 6:13 am
“Nixon is looking so 3rd rate these days.”
Nixon didn’t even start a war.
Somebody ought to let Lewandowsky know.
Does Brulle believe the moon landings were a hoax?
Box of Rocks says:
December 24, 2013 at 6:13 am
Why is tax data being used to begin with and how did he get access to it?
_______________________________
There was quite a stink recently about how this (Obama) administration had been caught using the IRS as a political weapon, but the smell was soon lost in the malodorous smorgasbord of Benghazi, Obamacare and so on.
The IRS would not do that. (They only serve themselves and government directly.) These amounts of money do not and cannot exist. So, they tenure fraud at Drexel? Redundant question I guess. He’s an environmental sociologist. Cough.
My pile of “dark money” appears to be a little, uh, light.
🙁
I read the paper. Here’s a summary:
Find all organisations that have ever donated a cent to the side of this argument that you don’t like, then assume they are “bankrolling” a “movement” in the face of clear evidence that the major individuals who are achieving something important (e.g. Anthony Watts) are simply promoting their sincerely held beliefs, and also put down their entire budget as part of the “bankroll” even if they only once ever gave a penny. Then, don’t give any actual evidence, don’t “show your working”, just tell us ABOUT what you did (We used this method and that theory etc.) Show a hazy connection diagram. Then write a damning conclusion.
In short, it’s rubbish and merely adds to the proof that peer review has become worthless in modern science.
Over the years I’ve received hundreds of envelopes in the mail announcing I “could have won 10 million dollars”. According to the logic of this university paper, I’m now a billionaire many times over.
Pretty damning evidence of the true value of an environmental sociology degree.
What a laugh. Warmers lounging in swimming-pools of taxpayer-cash accusing others of “dark” money.
Apparenty this idiot Phildelphia professor (are there any other kind in that city?) selected his “dark” agents as “big oil” , despite the fact that big oil is really not concerned in the politics of global warming, which involves, by and large, power production, not fuel for transportation, which is what big oil supplies, plus oil for plastics, medicine, etc.
I’m almost surprised that he didn’t say that “Deniers” drink the blood of the warmist’s children as part of our dark Eucharist. (some get pretty close to that)
This study should have been called “The Protocols of the Elders of Climate Denial”.
and that’s partly meant as a joke, and partly an observation that this kind of unsubstantiated dark rumor mongering has a very long and sordid history.
Rick says:
December 24, 2013 at 6:20 am
The important work of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_sociology
_______________________________
Wow. Be sure to wipe your cyber feet off after visiting that site!
Not only are Warmists VERY well funded they also have the backing of the vast majority of the ‘pressititutes’ and politicians. The public, being the deniers they are, aren’t so much.
The one thing Warmists scientists fear the most is a public debate on TV with each side debating the topics and lasting say 2 hours. They would be pulverized by doubt and uncertainties and the public will see the light. Climategate had that kind of effect and lost them a lot of ground.
Of course by way of contrast, there are the activities and identities of internat’l NGOs, and all that transluscent, bright cash, and sincere, unscripted scientists, hard at work saving the planet, as pure as the driven snow, while simultaneously (and of course democratically) representing “women” and “indigenous groups,” everywhere, without really having to have any contact or support from them at all.
“I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle”
================
Hang on. So you have no idea how much if any went to climate change activities.
US government spending in 2013 is $ 6 trillion. So, it could be argued that climate alarmist groups in the US spent up to $6 trillion dollars in the US alone on climate change activities.