Climate change – follow the money

One of the greatest inanities that occurs in the climate wars is the claim that skeptics are lavishly funded by “big oil” or other political interests. t is a claim that is made multiple times daily and blogs and newspaper articles and magazine articles and yet where is the evidence that such a thing is a reality?

I’m often targeted as being in the pay of one of those interest and yet when you look at my reality I had to beg for help to get to Bristol, to visit the Mann and Cook lectures. I relied on the good graces of our daily readers for which I thank you.

So with this huge disparity it struck me as ironic that this ad appeared at the top of WUWT today. It likely appeared because I’m traveling and came from a new IP address. I had never seen it before but I’m not at all surprised that it would show up given the content and nature of this blog.

edf-ad-moneyA look at the EDF finances page is quite telling:

edf_years_fundsedf_pie_fundsAbove are screencaps of their finances, on the page are also a number of PDF’s reporting their income.

With the kind of money that EDF gets on an annual basis one wonders why they have to resort to begging for a dollar. One also wonders who would be stupid enough to send money to these people when clearly they have more than they need. Money sent to a private organization won’t make a dent in temperature, even if there was a temperature rise worth worrying about.

Back in 2009 Jo Nova did a report that tracked the amount of money in climate, and produced this graph

climate-funding-US-govt-spending-web[1]It would be interesting to see if “the pause” has had an effect on funding, or if the steep trend continues.

I believe that technology and prosperity building are the way forward, and with those, the worries over posited man-made climate change will solve themselves in the future.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eustace Cranch
November 10, 2014 8:35 am

If you follow it all the way, do you come out in another galaxy?

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
November 10, 2014 2:58 pm

Sorry, Eustace, not surely. You could come out of a wormhole in another universe, parallel, but different. You might come out inside a star. Problem solved 😉

November 10, 2014 8:40 am

See what happens when you attend a Mann/Lew lecture? They target you as one of their like minded! 😉

November 10, 2014 8:40 am

What is a “Foundation Grant” and what/where/who is the source of that funding?

Reply to  Dave
November 10, 2014 9:06 am

You can do a web search on “foundation grant for climate change”. The Rockefeller foundation, the Kresge foundation, etc appear.

John W. Garrett
Reply to  Dave
November 10, 2014 10:31 am

The usual suspects: Rockefeller, Ford, Pew, Grantham, Park, Packard, et al.
Many of these foundations have essentially been taken over by elitist, professional “world savers.” The activities and beneficiaries would horrify those who originally funded them.
The climate zany, Bill McKibben, has made a career out of milking money out of the hands of guilt-ridden heirs/heiresses such as the Rockefellers.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2014 10:43 am

The book “The New Leviathans” documents the takeover of these and other “charitable” foundations by the left. Scary. The book is a trifle political in it’s own right, but the data are accurate. /mark fraser

Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2014 11:15 am

I get it now. Anything the Koch Brothers might provide for climate research would also be considered a foundation grant. Thanks for the info. I now understand the envirowackos hatred for the Kochs and all their blood money.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 10, 2014 12:25 pm

That’s an awful lot of money.
Most of it’s spent begging for more money at ritzy gala events in fabulous locations.
That and paying politicians.

November 10, 2014 8:44 am

Good post.
Talking of Adds,
I Love the add on the bottom of this story, for Snowshoe Ski resort in WV.
El Nino
LA Nina
El Snow Gsrentee

November 10, 2014 8:45 am

I wouldn’t worry too much about EDF’s begging – like donations to FoE and others, its a tax on stupid.
Now if we could just reduce the amount of taxpayer’s money funding these charlatans…

Reply to  soarergtl
November 11, 2014 9:03 am

Where does the money come . . . . oil. The refinery that ‘makes’ (refines) the gas that powers your car makes .06 to ,08 (US) a gallon. The politicians (who do none of the work) makes .36 to .84 (depends on the state) a gallon. The government(s) make six to more than ten times as much as the working refinery makes. For government that is just one of many revenue streams. Why yes, governments spend much greater amounts on “global warming”. Its ’cause their hearts are ‘pure’ doncha know.

Alan the Brit
November 10, 2014 8:46 am

That’s an awful lot of money in the “climate business”!
On another topic, but related to climate & a curiosity, & it may be reposted where appropriate by those mods more competent in such practices. I am currently dealing with a rock instability issue on a site where I designed foundations for a house a few years back. After an initial site inspection between me & the geotechnical engineer, & a following site meeting with insurers/loss adjusters & the like several months later, I returned to the office & dug out my old college geology book, “A Geology for Engineers” by Blyth & deFraitas (6th Edition). Opening the pages led me to catch a glimpse of something that leapt out at me. It was the geology of the British Isles & post Ice-Age iso-static rebound of Scotland, & the subsequent sinking of southern England. According to the book, England is sinking at a rate of 2.3mm/year (230mm/century) as a result of this rebound mechanism. I was taken by this figure as it appears coincidentally, to be the exact same amount as SLR has been over the last century! The book was written in 1943, & re-printed several times over the ensuing years. My college copy was printed in 1981!

Dr Paul mackey
Reply to  Alan the Brit
November 11, 2014 12:54 am

. This is an argument I have used many times. We are so close to the last ice age that the elastic (little poetic license here ) response to the lifting off off the ice is still measurable, then little wonder the climate is still changing coming out of the ice age too.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Dr Paul mackey
November 11, 2014 7:19 am

I agree! I have to say I love meeting up with my Geotechnical engineer, my geology/geotechnics ain’t bad, but he’s a lovely guy of great experience. It’s an education every time I meet him! AND no he is not a believer in the faith but commercial realities prevail!

November 10, 2014 8:48 am

Isn’t it funny how skeptics are called ‘conspiracy theorists’ yet the alarmist nutters are claiming a conspiracy of fossil fuel companies intent on secretly undermining efforts to address climate change with tiny donations.
Conspiracy theory: a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups
Fossil fuel companies are very powerful groups.

Reply to  sabretruthtiger
November 10, 2014 1:02 pm

Actually, the full claim is that there is a WELL DOCUMENTED campaign to fund deniers. So, no conspiracy. The hard data exists… apparently.
One day we might even be allowed to see it.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Brute
November 10, 2014 2:47 pm

That’s always been my question of warmists Brute. If it’s all so well-documented, where is it?
I never get an answer. It’s like asking a warmist to name one scientist after he claims “all the scientists say so..”. All I get is a flustered look and silence.

Reply to  Brute
November 12, 2014 12:26 pm

So right, Olaf. Most people say Al Gore when they are asked to name a scientist and then default to “that other guy in the movie is a scientist” when reminded of Al’s occupation. Makes them even madder when you name competent scientists who are skeptic and suggest they lend and ear to them.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  sabretruthtiger
November 11, 2014 7:21 am

Conspiracies are usually done behind closed doors. This one is being conducted in full view of everyone, & under their noses, the zealots march onward!

November 10, 2014 8:50 am

What will have an effect on funding is this last election – and remember that, whenever someone says that “climate change” isn’t political. It is nothing BUT a political issue, and as a famous politician once said, “Elections have Consequences”!!!
Who was the Biggest Loser in this election season??? The analysts all agree – it was was Tom Steyer!
Pretty funny to see some outfits still trying to milk the public for donations – that game was up last Tuesday. I think it signifies that we have now entered the “Let’s milk the True Believers for all the Coin we can get before we’re run out of town!!!” stage of the Climate Change farce.

Reply to  wws
November 10, 2014 10:17 am

Is this the same Tom Steyer who got rich from fossil fuels?

November 10, 2014 8:50 am

How much do you think the known non-secret donations to US Green groups were 2000-2012?
C-Fact’s new book comes up with a number of $80.4 billion …”too huge to be true” ,surely ?
I’d like to see a debunk of it, Their first claim should be easy to check “IRS counts more than 26,500 green groups” anyone done any checking ?

Scottish Sceptic
November 10, 2014 8:55 am

The idea of sceptics being lavishly funded is just complete utter lies invented by the extremely well funded greenblob who get quite a lot of their money from oil companies
So, e.g. I’m looking for £1000 to stand at the next UK election – for the Greenblob, that’s petty cash, but that’s far more money than I’ve ever received as donations and I even approached the oil companies – (not one replied).

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 10, 2014 10:29 am

Whenever you ask Warmists for evidence of the well funded sceptic machine they always come up empty handed. OK, they will point to a few million here and a few million there, but with them we are talking BILLIONS a year.
Here is Suzanne Goldenberg who thought there must be something in all this lavish funding talk. Alas she came smacking face to face with reality. This is what allured Peter Gleick into so much trouble.

Suzanne Goldenberg – Guardian – 16 February 2012
Heartland Institute ‘fights back’ over publication of confidential documents
Thinktank behind efforts to discredit climate change launches fundraising drive on back of row over documents posted online
“…There is hardly any sign of support from big oil companies – which stand to lose heavily through action on climate change……ExxonMobil, which donated $675,000 to Heartland up to 2006 according to Greenpeace, cut its ties to the thinktank after pressure from environmental organisations.
Even the Koch family, the oil billionaires who have bankrolled the Tea Party backlash against Barack Obama, have been lukewarm on Heartland.
Entities connected to the Koch family have donated only $25,000 to Heartland since the mid-1990s….”

Don’t forget the list of oil funded green bodies

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 10:30 am

Heck, some green groups even invest in fossil fuel companies.
May 2013
The Guardian
The giants of the green world that profit from the planet’s destruction
The Nation
Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
The Nation
Why Aren’t Environmental Groups Divesting from Fossil Fuels?

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 3:32 pm

Anthony: I’ve been meaning to send you a small donation for the last week or so and this post reminded me to do it…just finished donating.
As far as ‘oil money’ goes, this donation is indirectly ‘oil money’. I worked for a major oil company for 39-years and have now been retired for just over 5-years. So, these funds that I donated today come from my ‘oil company’ pension fund.
If anyone else has been meaning to donate to Anthony’s site, I suggest that this is a perfect time to do so.
Thanks All!

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 10, 2014 12:40 pm

Scottish Sceptic:
What are your chances of winning? Be honest.
Give the odds: 50/50, 60/40, 10/90, etc.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 10, 2014 2:42 pm

Where will you stand? I’ll bung you £20 for your deposit if it’s close enough to Edinburgh for me to come and join in the fun. It’s good entertainment winding up the religio-greenies. They’re not very thick-skinned.

November 10, 2014 8:56 am

I am always fascinated by the officious sounding and ominous warnings that come out multiple times a day from various sources about the dire consequences of their projections and little evidence contained in DATA.
We will have no food. Entire land masses will become deserts and uninhabitable. At the same time, rising sea levels will drown us all.
I have NEVER been able to have any of these people explain to me: 1) What IS the perfect temperature? 2 degrees from now? 3 degrees ago? 2) What is the sea level “supposed” to be? There are coral reefs in deep water now, meaning that they were in shallow water at some time in the past. Yet, there are coral quarries in Florida and limestone deposits in Indiana.
Earthquakes and volcanoes cause far more IMMEDIATE damage than climate. Let’s do something about them.

Reply to  DennisK
November 10, 2014 10:39 am

DennisK, I often see words from warmists such as “but sea level is rising.” I suspect many are ignorant of the fact that sea lever has GENERALLY been rising since the end of the last glaciation.

November 10, 2014 9:00 am

One of the greatest inanities that occurs in the climate wars is the claim that skeptics are lavishly funded by “big oil” or other political interests.

The thing is that it’s so easy to disprove & equally easy to show the exact opposite. Just another example of double-speak coupled w/psychological projection.

Mark wagner
Reply to  beng
November 10, 2014 10:24 am

Absent the truth, people believe what they hear.

b. dubyaj. j.
Reply to  beng
November 10, 2014 11:56 am

DING, DING, DING, we have a winner!!! Psychological projection and deflection. Keep everyone focused on your enemy while you commit the act that you project on others.

Leon Brozyna
November 10, 2014 9:00 am

EDF sells fear … the planet is doomed, help us save it. With the internet, the message can be targeted, whether it’s about the California drought, a Midwest snowstorm, or a tropical rainstorm.
Why should televangelists have all the fund-raising fun? And, since storms always happen, the opportunity to save the planet will always exist.
Now all we need is for the televangelists to combine forces with environmentalists … send all your money … save the planet and your soul … all in one swell foop.

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
November 10, 2014 10:17 am

“Now all we need is for the televangelists to combine forces with environmentalists … “
Your soul will probably rot in some fetid purgatory for even suggesting that. Old Scratch is doing a face palm right now for not thinking of it first.
/too late, it’s out there now ;o)

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
November 10, 2014 11:04 am

“And, since storms always happen, the opportunity to save the planet will always exist.”
The Express just ran a story that the UK is heading for 30 days of very stormy weather.

November 10, 2014 9:12 am

The evidence that “sceptics” are funded by “big oil” is the same as the evidence that CO2 is causing CAGW – i.e., not a lot.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 10, 2014 9:36 am

And the funding – whatever size it may be – is irrelevant without evidence proving it came along with an explicit directive to lie and fabricate evidence. Our Greenpeace / Al Gore follower friends never get that second part.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 10, 2014 9:56 am

Great observation!

November 10, 2014 9:13 am

Swell foop – love it.

Joel O'Bryan
November 10, 2014 9:13 am

3% of $120.5Million from taxpayers. $3.6M. That must stop.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 10, 2014 9:34 am

My thought exactly.

November 10, 2014 9:17 am

They spam for money and events, too. I don’t recall ever signing up for emails from the edf, or “joining” the edf, but I recently found myself on their regular list. They mail me several times a week urging me to sign petitions, participate in walks for climate justice, and of course, send them money.
I suspect that this is a case of nonprofit abuse — at the very least they engage in questionable practices when they add people to a mailing list without permission. I’ve remained on it because I’m curious as to what their propaganda machine kicks out.
The problem with NGO and nonprofits is that anybody can found one (the rules are quite liberal) and make themselves an officer. There are then effectively no limits on what you can pay yourself as a salary or bonus in the nonprofit (at least none that I’ve ever seen). The “not for profit” practice management group that took over my wife’s practice, for example, pays its top officers multimillion dollar salaries and multimillion dollar bonuses. Instead of distributing double taxed income (C corp) or tightly held singly taxed income/increased value (S corp), by distributing NOTHING and “paying a salary and bonus as large as our income will stand” they get to make out like single-taxed bandits and at the same time pretend that they are doing good, after all, they are running a non-profit NGO.
One day, with luck, congress will cap this and decapitate the tax avoidance scam they created by not capping it in the first place. Top executive salaries of (say) a few hundred thousand, no bonus, or else you lose your tax-exempt non-profit status would do it nicely. In the meantime, it would be very interesting to see just what the EDF pays its top officers. Are they selfless volunteers? Or are they making (say) $5 million a year and another $5 million in bonuses? How much money actually is spent “fighting climate change” and just how is it spent?
The other money you should follow is the vast amount that goes from e.g. the DOE to energy companies for research into green energy, alternative energy and so on, as well as the subsidies for the implementation of same. Personally, I think that the single group that makes the most money from the supposed threat of AGW is “Energy Companies” of all sorts, including the very oil, coal and gas companies that are supposed to be the bad guys. They make a pile from the artificially inflated prices in an inelastic market, and they turn around and make more still by effectively backcharging the taxpayer for half the cost of implementing energy resources that are not optimally cost effective but “required” by increasing list of laws or public relations demands or are simply attractive with the subsidy even if they aren’t required at all.
Don’t throw me into ‘dat briar patch, Br’er Fox… oh no, please don’t.

Reply to  rgbatduke
November 10, 2014 11:49 am

One day, with luck, congress will cap this and decapitate the tax avoidance scam they created by not capping it in the first place. Top executive salaries of (say) a few hundred thousand, no bonus, or else you lose your tax-exempt non-profit status would do it nicely.

Another step would be to require all mailings from NGOs to contain a statement documenting the remuneration received by its officers, directors, advisory boards, consultants, etc., as well as the average salary of its other employees. That would achieve the same purpuse as a cap, without a cap’s sometimes-inappropriate inflexibility.
Such a statement would cost nothing to include in an electronic mailing or posting.

Reply to  rogerknights
November 10, 2014 1:26 pm

Bill McKibben once said he was an “unpaid political activist” and he never took money from “any other environmental group”. This was found out not to be true. Oh dear.

WUWT – by A.Wattts
I took him at his word then, and made a change to the post, but now, clearly, he has told me a lie.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund is in there somewhere too. Oh deary me.

Reply to  rogerknights
November 10, 2014 1:41 pm

Here is something on salaries found by Crosspatch last year. Very sneaky.

crosspatch – February 15, 2013 at 10:51 am
Another thing you have to be aware of is how they launder larger salaries by breaking it up and paying smaller amounts from several different organizations that are basically really all the same overall organization (in effect, if not in name). So Joe Blow might get a $25,000 salary from five different “grass roots” organizations that are really all managed by the same people and directed by the same PR agency and funded by the same sources. Notice the overlap you see in the names in directors from one organization to another. Imagine you worked for a large company but every single plant / office of that company operated under a different name. This is basically what goes on in that arena. It is sort of like the old “trusts” and how companies used to operate in the 19th century.

More from crosspatch covering multi play and pay.

Reply to  rgbatduke
November 10, 2014 3:51 pm

Okay, here’s my plan.
I’m going to create a charity. It will have all kinds of weasel words in the ads, and pretty pictures of “endangered” animals. I’ll see if my friends and I can find every possible hot button to push to convince the gulli… er, rubes…. er… concerned citizens to donate their life savings and their childrens’ legacy. I’ll pay myself a modest salary, say 1 million per year (I’m not greedy). The rest I will donate directly to WUWT.
This way, they will be funding their own enemy, much like the US government is now.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 10, 2014 4:08 pm

Just to make this clear, here’s an example of ads:
“With estimates as high as 6.8C warming in the next 100 years…
(pictures of deserts and desolation)
Now is the time to spend on Climate Education.
Donate now, you can help save the planet”
“Stop the multi-billion dollar disinformation campaigns!
Donate NOW to support Climate Reality”

November 10, 2014 9:17 am
November 10, 2014 9:27 am

Oh, and an interesting question is: Do you get paid by the EDF for clickthroughs?
Can you add “Supported by the EDF” to your top banner?
Just kidding….;-)

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  rgbatduke
November 10, 2014 10:26 am

If one is bored and wants to make web advertisers pay for useless clicks, simply go to Google search line, type in something like “structured settlements.” If you dislike those financials firms that partake in predatory lending, they have to pay Google for that top line ad placement when people click through it to several steps on the returned page. You can use “auto accident lawyer” if you want ambulance chasing lawyers to pay Google more, etc.
Click on the top one (must have “Ad” next to it) and go two or three clicks into the site. That supposedly costs the advertiser $10-$15, paid to Google. The advertisers pay more to be higher up on the list, so the highest one pays Google the most.
It helps if you own Google stock. 🙂

November 10, 2014 9:30 am

There was a PDF from the “White House” detailing 20 BILLION of Fed Money allegedly going to climate change research. One of the WUWT regulars posted it in the last year. Find and re-post.

Reply to  Max Hugoson
November 10, 2014 10:41 am

Sorry I did not see your post.
I posted this before and have re posted this below

November 10, 2014 9:32 am

Permit me a bit of self-promotion in pursuit of a larger goal: Do always remember that the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic scientist’ accusation is not an omnipresent untraceable one, it stems from a handful of well-connected enviro-activists and its roots are seen in Al Gore’s 1991-2 Senate office. “The Merchants of Smear”
How weak does a political agenda have to be when its first-resort defense tactic is character assassination, and how negligent is our mainstream media when they can’t bring themselves to question the entire funded by “big oil” accusation when the evidence proving how baseless it is can be found so easily?

Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
November 10, 2014 10:36 am

The MSM is not negligent. They are complicit.

Reply to  RobRoy
November 11, 2014 10:58 am

Quite likely. One could target a particular news outlet under a Senate investigation and see how that works out:

November 10, 2014 9:34 am

The “Koch brothers’ shill” thing is soooo tired. You see it as a reply to even really stupid arguments made by skeptics. It is even more tired than the “Karl Rove made this happen” crowd. Rove was evidently Superman, he could do ANYTHING. The Koch brothers, meanwhile, have spent the time necessary to hire 10,000,000 people who will each spend 20 minutes of their time posting things online. Man, those Koch brothers are thorough!!

Gary Pearse
November 10, 2014 9:37 am

Wow 100million+ a year. I can see why the racket is flourishing. P.T. Barnum style business plan. What do they use the money for? Do they employ an engineering team to rescue the planet? No they are a bunch of sociologists, liberal arts types who want to enjoy the good life. Oh the climate depression industry is going to be a peach. I hope taxpayers don’t have to pick up this tab, too

November 10, 2014 9:40 am

The quest to utilise the internet to provide a worthwhile income is of primary interest to many – so called”environmentalists” are no exception as they figure out ways to ensure a lucrative income…

Reply to  cnxtim
November 10, 2014 2:18 pm

And if I could figure a way to get USD $40-50 thousand a year from an Inter-web project, whilst keeping my marbles, I’d retire pretty blooming soon.
But – only vaguely techno-literate – I think I’m due to work until I’m approaching 67 [barring a Euro-millions bonus: I pay £2/week into the office pool, so – possible, certainly – but highly very (pretty blooming) unlikely.
Auto [remember , an old bum boatie]

November 10, 2014 9:40 am

Électricité de France (EFF) gets its main revenue from nuclear power. Thanks to EDF the Germans are building less brown coal plants. Not that I’d be against those either.
Thanks to EDF tens of millions of people have access to reliable and affordable electricity. Albeit based on my knowledge of French, perhaps not so in Germany. But even that’s far better than the chronically deficit-churning public subsidy-depending energy companies.
As far as I’m concerned EDF can go and milk all the willing donkeys on the way. Same applies to Alvar Gullichsen who turned it into an art

michael hart
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
November 10, 2014 10:15 am

That’s a fair point, and I’m a supporter of nuclear power.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
November 10, 2014 11:11 am

eDf – Électricité de France: state owned utility.
EDF – Environmental Defense Fund: private NGO that, apparently, defends the environment

Stephen Richards
Reply to  ripshin
November 10, 2014 11:49 am

EDF = Électricité de France: Part state owned utility

Stephen Richards
Reply to  ripshin
November 10, 2014 11:54 am

eDF is EDF’s Logo. The group name is EDF. See their website.
Read the headings.
and their share listing –
But in essence, I don’t really care.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
November 10, 2014 11:57 am

November 10, 2014 at 9:40 am
Sadly, the french socialist are going to cut 50% of french nuclear power by 2025 and run 7 million e-vehicle roadside power points with windmills and solar panels.

Murray Duffin
November 10, 2014 9:43 am

EDF does a lot of valuable environmental work that has nothing to do with climate change.

Reply to  Murray Duffin
November 10, 2014 11:48 am

Examples, please. Opposing KXL does not count.

November 10, 2014 9:46 am

Now that the GOP controls the House and Senate I would guess that the funding for climate related stuff will not go up. 😉

Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 9:49 am

“One of the greatest inanities that occurs in the climate wars is the claim that skeptics are lavishly funded by “big oil” or other political interests. t is a claim that is made multiple times daily and blogs and newspaper articles and magazine articles and yet where is the evidence that such a thing is a reality?”
Here you go.
Also, last year oil and gas interests spent >$144 million lobbying the US Congress.
While environmental groups spent about 1/10 of that.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 10:51 am

How does this show that “skeptics are lavishly funded by “big oil” or other political interests” ? You point out “last year oil and gas interests spent >$144 million lobbying the US Congress.” How is this lavish funding of sceptics?

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 11:02 am

Any idea how many self-declared skeptics there are in Congress, and to what degree are their campaigns are funded by fossil fuel companies? I do… there are 163, and they collect around $347k annually each, more than 3.5 times what everyone else gets from the same lobby. Hence skeptics – and powerful ones, with a huge platform for spreading misinformation – get a crapload of money from Big Oil.
Hope that clarifies things.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 11:15 am

If friendly politicians are being funded, that’s a different matter from the claim that non-politician “skeptics” are being funded–which claim is used to discredit contrarian scientists and bloggers.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 11:27 am

Sir Harry Flashman, YOU have declared the CONGRESS PERSONS sceptics. They are in congress and you know what they want. What I want are the well funded sceptical scientists, organisations and if you can bloggers? Congress people are not the first people to go to for the science. Even you should know that Sir.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 11:30 am

Sir Harry, which of these oil funded bodies do you object to?

Climate Institute – Found 1 October 2013
[Washington, DC]
American Gas Foundation, BP, PG&E Corporation [gas & electricity], Shell
Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions – Found 1 October 2013
[Arlington, VA]
Strategic Partners: Entergy, Shell
Major Contributors: Duke Energy, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Green Energy Futures – Found 1 October 2013
“Green Energy Futures is a project and a journey that seeks to share the stories of green energy pioneers who are doing incredible things just below the radar of the conventional media.” Gold Sponsors: TD, Shell
World Resouces Institutue – Found 1 October 2013
2012 DONOR LISTINGS (Sept.1, 2012–May 1, 2013)
America’s WETLAND Foundation – Found 1 October 2013
“The America’s WETLAND Foundation is supported by a variety of organizations, foundations and corporations that want to elevate issues facing the Gulf Coast…We would like to especially thank our lead “World Sponsor,” Shell, for their early and generous support of the Foundation….”
Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron – ConocoPhillips Company [crude oil & natural gas]
National Sponsors: American Petroleum Institutue
Purdue Solar – April 15, 2013
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
“Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)….”
Science Museum – Atmosphere – Found 1 October 2013
“We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world.
The following organisations and individuals have helped to fund the atmosphere …exploring climate science gallery and the Climate Changing… programme: Principal Sponsors” Shell….
EcoLiving – Found 1 October 2013
“Your sustainable lifestyle begins here!”
2012 Sponsors:….Shell FuellingChange….
Climate Research Unit (CRU)
“From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice….we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders….British Petroleum,…Shell,…Sultanate of Oman…”
Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program…”
Source: New York Times – 21 November 2002
Sierra Club
“TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”
Source: Time – 2 February 2012
Nature Conservancy
“…The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years. “Oh, wow,” De Leon said when told of the depth of the relationship between the nonprofit group she loves and the company she hates. “That’s kind of disturbing.”……Conservation International has accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years…”
Source: Washington Post – 25 May 2010
Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
In 2003 and 2004 Rajendra Pachauri’s annual Delhi Sustainable Development Summit was sponsored, among others, by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. In 2005 Shell gave money and in 2006 and 2007 BP gave money. The Rockefeller Foundation gave donations in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Source: [See their About Us – Archives]
UC Berkeley’s Climate Action Partnership
“The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley….”
UC Berkeley – 1 February 2007
BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois…”
Source: UK Berkely News

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Financial Support – Berkeley Earth is now an independent non profit. Berkeley Earth received a total of $623,087 in financial support for the first phase of work,…..First Phase
…….Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000) Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)……”

Al Gore – 30 January 2013
“Al Gore brushes off critics of his sale of Current TV to oil-backed Al Jazeera by saying he ‘understands the criticism but disagrees with it'”

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 11:53 am

Flash man,
You like to clarify things?
Please clarify for us how much $ was spent on the parade of “street” people in NYC , remember? When Obama went to make his alarmist speech at the UN?
I’m sure you remember. How much of that money came from Chesapeake Energy, via the Sierra Club? And how much oil money went into the campaign chests of Democratic candidates? Answer: a bunch, because these folks grease both skids, you see. They are businessmen. So why don’t you clarify all of that, because we would like to know. Also, clarify how much $ went to the Dems from Big Wind and Big Solar. Do that for us, if you don’t mind.
Or maybe you won’t clarify that for us because you are a propagandist who comes here to turn the crank on the mill.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 1:30 pm

I can’t remember the last time I read “Congressional sceptics are lavishly funded”. You are grasping at straws Flashman. These accusations over the years have been aimed at think tanks, sceptical scientists and bloggers. There is no lavish funding despite your heroic efforts.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 11, 2014 12:19 am

Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 at 11:02 am
Any idea how many self-declared skeptics there are in Congress, and to what degree are their campaigns are funded by fossil fuel companies? I do… there are 163, and they collect around $347k annually each, more than 3.5 times what everyone else gets from the same lobby. Hence skeptics – and powerful ones, with a huge platform for spreading misinformation – get a crapload of money from Big Oil.
Hope that clarifies things.

That does not clarify anything. You made claims with no references. Why should I take your word for it? Please provide a link or two so we can check your claim and gain some clarity on the issue. Thanks.
PS I need to remind you that fossil fuel companies have been lobbying since before 1988. Think about that important date.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 11:02 am

Sir Harry Flashman, the top link points to the Union of Concerned Scientists. They say:

AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [5], and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011. [6]

Oh the horror!

Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011. [12]

Oh the horror!

ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [18], and more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [19]

Oh the horror!

BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding [21], which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011. [22]

Oh the horror!

Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. [29]

and so on. Now check out the oil funded green bodies.
Here are the UCS in action.

8 June, 2012
Masters of Hypocrisy: the Union of Concerned Scientists
A new report funded by big oil and big tobacco has the chutzpah to complain about corporate influence on the climate debate.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 11:19 am

And of course only a tiny percentage of those recipients’ activities–maybe 10%–are climate-related. So the big-oil funding of skeptics is about 10% of what warmists claim.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 11:40 am

A good point Roger Knights, not all the funding goes towards climate related activities so warmists are even more off the mark.
Sir Harry Flashman, do you agree with what the Sierra Club did? The flagrant hypocrisy from the Warmist side is everywhere as I have amply shown. Look in the mirror.

Time – Feb. 02, 2012
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—and Why They Stopped [UPDATE]
…TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking
New York Times – February 13, 2012
Answering for Taking a Driller’s Cash
The recent disclosure of the Sierra Club’s secret acceptance of $26 million in donations from people associated with a natural gas company has revived an uncomfortable debate among environmental groups about corporate donations and transparency……
“Runners shouldn’t smoke, priests shouldn’t touch the kids, and environmentalists should never take money from polluters,” John Passacantando, a former director of Greenpeace who is now an environmental consultant, said in an interview. ….

Oh the horror!

Reply to  Jimbo
November 10, 2014 1:13 pm

Where are you Flashman?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 11:49 am

The presentation your links lands on is really nothing more than propaganda itself. It relies on implications and distortions to push the message that “big carbon” is paying think tanks and foundations to knowingly and willfully present false information about climate change. This implication of nefarious masterminds supplants any actual discussion on the merits of the studies themselves. The simple fact is, at the very least, it’s reasonable to doubt the conclusions of the mainstream climate community. Pillorying those who express doubt is a pretty sure signal that the doubt is well placed.
Furthermore, if you’re truly commenting here in good faith, you must confront the reality that there are huge sums of money at stake for those who push the global warming message. If you question the integrity of “big carbon” because of financial conflicts of interest, then you must also question those companies, research foundations, and etc who could ONLY exist in this climate of fear (pun intended).
Again, if you’re sincerely commenting here in good faith, then these discrepancies can’t be ignored.

Reply to  ripshin
November 10, 2014 11:50 am

To clarify, my reply above is directed at Sir Harry Flashman and his link to the UCS website.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 12:13 pm

Not for profits are prohibited from substantial lobbing Congress. Generally 10% of expenditures is the limit. Also the “Union of Concerned Leftist Scientists and a Dog” doesn’t have a history of truth in advertising or science for that matter.

mark wagner
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 12:33 pm

flashman, are you really going to attempt to argue that oil money corrupts, but government money does not?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 12:44 pm

Flashman, you are conflating oil companies with skeptics. That’s not very honest, is it?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 1:07 pm

Sir Harry Flashman, now it’s time to look at US Climate Change TM funding. (3 years ago).

Forbes – 8/23/2011
The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria
….According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period…..

This is why the science is settled. This is why global warming continues despite no global warming for over 18 years. Money corrupts, and lots of money corrupts absolutely.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 1:37 pm

Hey! “Sir Harry Flashman” from that 1970’s movie “Royal Flash”? Thanks for the smile.

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  PaulH
November 22, 2014 4:56 pm

Read the books – they’re much better :).

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 3:29 pm

Looked at your link ( It is not exactly an accurate accounting of the facts. They start by talking about how much subsidies the oil/gas receives from the Federal Government. The problem is that the Progressives and Pelosi consider reduced taxes given by Clinton to incentivize deep water drilling in the Gulf, when oil prices were much lower as a subsidy. It was a legal agreement which they don’t want to honor. To offer lower taxes for drilling incentives is not a subsidy but was good for the country to reduce imports. You should check how much the oil and gas industry contributes to the US treasury via income tax, royalties, and lease purchase payments. After income tax they are the largest contributor to the US treasury. On the other hand, GE the provider of wind turbines paid no income tax. How much tax did solar panels and wind turbines pay while they receive huge subsidies (the real kind)

Reply to  Catcracking
November 10, 2014 4:57 pm

To a real leftist, anything less than a 100% taxation rate is a subsidy from government.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 3:35 pm

Mr Flashman was making make a Volcanoe science project with baking soda and acidified ocean water. After failing to get his model volocano to erupt with baking soad and the acidified ocean water, he was last seen working on a computer model of volcanic eruption for his science project.

Richard M
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 10, 2014 6:37 pm

What does the total oil and gas lobbying numbers have to do with climate? These funds are for many purposes with the main one likely being keeping their current subsidies. Add to that the list of many other general business (eg. healthcare) factors and you’d probably do well to find even 1% of those funds related to climate.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
November 11, 2014 12:14 am

Sir Harry Flashman’s second link where he tries to link scepticism with lavish funding DOES NOT ONCE mention ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’. Fossil fuel companies have lobbied congress before the recent global warming scare ie before 1988. The link talks of “subsidies for the oil and gas industry range from enhanced capital cost recovery to fossil fuel extraction” and “tax write-offs” etc. So, Flashman has failed with everyone of his links and arguments.
I will ask once again: Please show me the fossil fuel well funded sceptical machine? I want scientists and organisations and if possible bloggers. One example will not do because it is then not a ‘machine’ or a concerted campaign.
Mr. Flashman should look. Look at WUWT right hand page. Look at other sceptical bloggers. Look for the ‘Donate’ button and ads and Amazon books etc. Bob Tisdale had to cut back on blogging because of lack of income. Why?

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  Jimbo
November 20, 2014 5:55 am

Firstly, let’s dispense with the term “skeptic” and go with the more accurate “denier”. A skeptic seeks truth even if it goes against conventional wisdom. This site and most of its commenters are simply looking for any excuse not to have to change our CO2 spewing ways, including contradictory claims like “It’s not happening” and “it’s happening but there’s nothing we can do about it” and “it’s happening, we could do something about it, but it’s a good thing so why would we?”. That’s not skepticism, that’s head in the sand stupidity.
You won’t find too many well-funded climate scientist deniers, because actual researchers in the field – in many fields – know that AGW is happening, and no amount of money can change that. Even the skeptical scientists who the Koch brothers paid to disprove AGW found that it was, in fact, both real and a huge threat. (
Having failed to buy science, what fossil fuel companies and their corporate allies have successfully bought is politicians (especially in the US) and media companies (think Faux News). That’s far more useful in spreading deadly lies than a few tin foil hat bloggers who are quite happy to rehash Inhofe and Fox News nonsense for free anyway.

Peter Miller
November 10, 2014 9:50 am

A glance through the EDF’s annual report will convince that climate alarmism is a religion.
There is so much misinformation and distortion in the report that it defies belief. I noted the statutory steam, recoloured black and dark grey, in a number of photographs

November 10, 2014 9:56 am

The Daily Mail has a substantive piece on the green funding machine:
But probably WUWT has this covered already?
H/T to Jo Nova.

Jim South london
November 10, 2014 9:57 am

Internet leading the Democratization of finance. From fan based Hollywood Blockbuster sequels to Arty exhibition tours to all political campaigning eventually all funding will come from “kickstarter””example frack nation” online crowd sourcing.
Free speech don’t come cheap but it can profitable.
Antony you already carry advertising why not make this public trust fund issue shares via encrypted email employ publicists lobbyists etc ,publish accounts with all the regular WUWT contributors as stakeholder / investors.Or even make this a limited paywall subscription site.just an idea

Janice Moore
November 10, 2014 9:59 am

Windmill and or Solar Promoters —-> EDF —-> U.S. Voter Propaganda —> Influence in U.S. Congress —-> $$MONEY$$ (out of Joe and Maria taxpayer’s already nearly empty pockets).
Look behind 99% of the human CO2 propaganda out there and you will ultimately find Big Wind and Big Solar.
May your travels be enjoyable and relaxing, An-th-ony, and your trail lead you safely home.

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 10, 2014 3:44 pm

You are so correct….please note Siemen’s US headquarters is based in Wash DC. The CEO surely spends cocktail hour with many politicians, discussing wind energy solutions for the USA…of course, he surely doesn’t discuss the current fiasco in the North Atlantic German Wind Turbine Array.

November 10, 2014 10:01 am

A few months ago, I wasted an hour or so reviewing EDF’s expert climate panel–there was ONE scientist out of over 50 listed experts. The scientist was a biologist, if I remember correctly, the rest of the expert team was composed of lawyers, economists, accountants, and numerous individuals that were experts at dealing with the “government.” Unfortunately, this is the state of affairs in our culture. The money this organization churns through, as well as other similar organizations, is mostly directed towards the “progressive” view of existence. In my neck of the woods, we call them “charlatans”….

Reply to  CW
November 10, 2014 3:36 pm

I call them crooks.

November 10, 2014 10:02 am

From Alan Caruba’s article:
” “Cracking Big Green” examined the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of non-profit organizations. Driessen and Arnold discovered that, among the 2012 incomes of better-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club took in $97,757,678 and its Foundation took in $47,163,599. The Environmental Defense Fund listed $111,915,138 in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,701,707 and the National Audubon Society took in $96,206,883. These four groups accounted for more than $353 million in one year.”
For more on this:

george e. smith
November 10, 2014 10:12 am

Well it is not quite a black hole, nor yet does there appear to be a light at the end of the tunnel.
So I would say it is a definite maybe.
So where does all the post doc fellowship money tap into that horn of plenty ??

November 10, 2014 10:27 am
November 10, 2014 10:28 am

In reference to the US expenditure chart you show, below is a White House report covering expenditures and budget for climate change over a few years. The Total has been 20 +/- billion for a few decades per the URL below. The plot you show with $ 7 Billion must be different report than this one:
Someone might be able to explain the difference between the numbers. I know that there are different years but I believe there are different accounting methods as to what is included in the total.
I am going with the $20 billion annual number for climate change.

November 10, 2014 10:41 am

Seems like the biggest investment increase by the US Government is in climate technology, with just a recent increase in funding from a stable $1bn a year for climate science.
Of course, some of that technology investment will fail, but if one assumes that the government has learned something over the past 20 years, you’d kind of assume that various renewable energy technologies will be getting better and cheaper over time.
The only problem occurs is if that technology is forced into the market too early, resulting in expensive and unreliable sources of energy with resultant risks to human health and life if the outages/deficits occur in freezing winters.
The real question to me is what the US government has spent its $80 – 100bn on cimate technology since around 1995.
Perhaps you would like to organise an article to illuminate us all on this??

November 10, 2014 10:57 am

Ya, follow the money as in the “rebuilt” wind machines used in a second time use to get the tax credits.
The Wind Farm in question Archer City Ind. School dist. in Texas.
In my humble opinion the investors and the IRS do not know it is the second time around for these wind mills of the fraud universe.
GE is in on it too be my bet.
They will sell the investors the deal on the wind mill farm not telling those investors that it is used re-fited equipment.
The bonds the school dist. will sell based on the property tax on the wind mills will have them on the tax rolls as new too.

November 10, 2014 11:41 am

At my request, Dr. Patrick Moore kindly emailed me yesterday the new link to his 1994 essay, of which “The Rise of Eco-Extremism” is a chapter.
Moore’s essay is “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement” at
Moore was remarkably prescient, imo, and is well worth the read for those who want to understand the basis for the long-running and fractious global warming debate.
This debate has always been political and is NOT about the science, which has always been rather clear and is becoming increasingly so – due to the now~18 year global temperature “standstill” – I suggest it is not a “pause” in global warming, since the planet will probably cool in the next decades.
Regards, Allan

Stephen Richards
November 10, 2014 11:44 am

EDF are bancruting us in France. Thanks to government promotions we are paying farmers and householders €millions a year through green power subsidies. The gov owns a sizeable portion of EDF and subsidises it’s green agenda from taxpayer’s money.
I garantee that within the next 5 years france will become a 3rd world country with an economy like greece. They are throwing € billions at green.

November 10, 2014 11:55 am

Follow the money huh? How about we follow the path of the relentless violation of rights- THE LAW….. all in the name of climate change/global warming.
That’s what this garbage is really about; its the transfer of wealth into fewer and fewer hands all-the-while pushing people off the land into cities (people farms) where they rely on these so-called green modes of public transportation that is paid for with money from the public coffers and managed/operated by a private corporation. Oh yeah because they love you and care about your well being.
freakin bull!!

Reply to  kenin
November 10, 2014 2:14 pm

Transfer of wealth into fewer and fewer hands… then you must be angry that the Koch Brothers’ net worth has increased to over $80 billion (that’s > $20 billion per hand).

Reply to  Barry
November 11, 2014 4:01 pm

Hey Barry—the Koch brothers employ around 80,000 people, you know, people with families and such. How many people do you employ, or provide a means for earning a “living” ???

November 10, 2014 12:07 pm

Well to speak at the Heartland’s Global Warming Conference, Skeptic Scientist got $1000 and a $129 stipend for food
Does anybody know what do the speakers at Bali, Copenhagen, etc conferences get to speak?
Considering they get to fly on private jets, and have limos and hookers imported from nearby countries I would guess a lot more

Reply to  qam1
November 10, 2014 3:38 pm

The hookers got paid more than Skeptic Scientist got.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  Alx
November 10, 2014 10:29 pm

Hahaha. The scared scientists mistook the same treatment for a marriage.

November 10, 2014 12:14 pm

I didn’t even know who the Koch brothers were, until they started to accuse my opinions of being financed by them. Now I am vaguely educated in this respect. Still waiting for a check to arrive from the Koch Foundation.

george e. smith
Reply to  Alexander Feht
November 10, 2014 2:10 pm

Dunno if it’s relevant or not, but all I know of any Kochs, is that there was one; I think a Bill Koch, who sponsored a defendant entrant in the 1995 (I think) Americas Cup challenge, which was the first year that NZ won the cup, in San Diego. Koch’s teams did not become the defendant, but he did sponsor two of the boats. And I see Bill Koch was in fact the successful 1992 defender . That was the regatta where NZ’s twin rudder “The Red Boat” narrowly lost the Louis Vuitton cup, to the “Italian” team, with its soldier of fortune American Skipper.
No Idea, if Bill Koch is one of the Koch Brothers.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
November 10, 2014 3:44 pm

After Harry Reid went stark raving mad, he would often be found on the floor of the Senate railing against the Koch brothers as if they were the villains in a James Bond movie plotting to take over the world. It was a political strategy hatched by idiots and lunatics guaranteeing Democrats would lose the Senate as they did.

November 10, 2014 2:13 pm

“Climate-related expenditure” is an awfully broad category. Does that include weather forecasting (NOAA), even though we all know that weather is not climate?

November 10, 2014 3:19 pm

Jimbo, I’m quite sure Mr Flash is busy regrouping for a devastating response…..
In the meantime I feel he has modeled himself on the character “Flashheart” from The Blackadder series in the UK.
Possibly have to be a Brit to get the humour though…Apologies.

Reply to  jones
November 11, 2014 8:41 am

There was a character who came over from Joanne Nova’s site (he is still there but I think he was bounced here) named Blackadderthe4th. Makes you wonder if he has just resurfaced.

November 10, 2014 4:42 pm

It will no doubt astound many readers to learn that there are more than 26,500 American environmental groups. They collected total revenues of more than $81 billion from 2000 to 2012, according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.
“Cracking Big Green” examined the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of non-profit organizations. Driessen and Arnold discovered that, among the 2012 incomes of better-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club took in $97,757,678 and its Foundation took in $47,163,599. The Environmental Defense Fund listed $111,915,138 in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,701,707 and the National Audubon Society took in $96,206,883. These four groups accounted for more than $353 million in one year.
That pays for a lot of lobbying at the state and federal level. It pays for a lot of propaganda that the Earth needs saving because of global warming or climate change. Now add in Greenpeace USA at $32,791,149, the Greenpeace Fund at $12,878,777; the National Wildlife Federation at $84,725,518; the National Parks Conservation Association at $25,782,975; and The Wilderness Society at $24,862,909. Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection took in $19,150,215. That’s a lot of money to protect something that cannot be “protected”, but small in comparison to other Green organizations.
If you wonder why you have been hearing and reading endless doomsday scenarios about the warming of the Earth, the rise of the seas, and the disappearance of species and forests, for decades, the reason is that a huge propaganda machine is financed at levels that are mind boggling.

David Ball
November 10, 2014 6:14 pm

Well, Mr. Lewandowski, isn’t “Koch-funded oil machine” conspiracy ideation? ( I don’t expect him to reply)

Reply to  cesium62
November 11, 2014 3:09 am

cesium62 , the report does not say how the donations were spent. Heartland and other think tanks don’t only deal with climate change. This was amply illustrated after the Peter Glieck affair. I need numbers spent on climate change den*al not amounts given to organizations with numerous goals.
The Scientific American article is not from the Scientific American. It is from

“The Daily Climate is published every morning (US East Coast time) by Environmental Health Sciences, a global nonprofit media company with headquarters in Charlottesville,….”

Reply to  cesium62
November 11, 2014 3:50 am

cesium62, The article you point to says:

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

That works as each organisation getting $697,500 per year (2003 to 2010). Now what amount of this is actually spent on climate change den*al? Does this look like well funded when you consider staff costs, energy, travel, spending on unrelated programs etc.?
In 2009 it was noted that the “US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” That’s not to mention money given to climate change advocacy groups. The amount you link to pales into comparison.
PS do you approve of green groups receiving money from fossil fuel companies? See my comments and references up thread. I accept climate and I accept climate change. Do you accept that the climate has always changed?

November 11, 2014 12:45 am

Harry Flashman
Fictional Character
Sir Harry Paget Flashman VC KCB KCIE is a fictional character created by George MacDonald Fraser, but based on the character “Flashman” in Tom Brown’s School Days, a semi-autobiographical work by Thomas Hughes.
The books make a damn good read BTW. The character Flashman is thoroughly disrepuatable.

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  Vincent
November 11, 2014 9:46 am

Lol that he is.

November 11, 2014 2:06 am

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Today November 11, 2014 the cards of IPCC finally is up on the table – and from Swedish Professors who continue to believe in AWG and Climate Change…..
The professors a sad case. That they manage to place the real reason why IPCC and others were fooled to believe in a CO2-threat that doesn’t exist , well that’s good.
B.t.w. why didn’t the funding companies and organization behind the false information give the true reason – or is it only a few who been told why that’s the real reason…..
IPCC förordar kärnkraft för att minska utsläppen, Prof. Ane Håkansson, Prof. Jan Ottosson, Fil. Dr Staffan Qvist, Fil.Dr Sophie Graphe, Tekn. Dr Carl Hellesen, Tekn. dr. Mattias Lantz, Prof Stephan Pomp; SvD Brännpunkt 11 november 2014 Btw. they are part in the case….
Most of them are working at Uppsala University Inst. Physics and Astronomy, tillämpad Fysik…..
and Prof Ane Håkansson has been working close to Nordic Academy for Nuclear Safety and Security (NANSS) NANSS Seminar June 10.11.2013
Now we know WHY but we still haven’t found the full answer to the big question: Where have all the money gone?

November 11, 2014 1:27 pm

November 10, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Just to make this clear, here’s an example of ads:
“With estimates as high as 6.8C warming in the next 100 years…
(pictures of deserts and desolation)
Now is the time to spend on Climate Education.
Donate now, you can help save the planet”
“Stop the multi-billion dollar disinformation campaigns!
Donate NOW to support Climate Reality”
…….. and don’t forget “It’s for the children”. sarc

Reply to  TomR,Worc,Ma,USA
November 12, 2014 4:45 am

and don’t forget “It’s for the children”.
Starve now, save later.

November 11, 2014 4:31 pm

It is all the fault of President Eisenhower — while he warned us about the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex — he failed to warn us about the far more insidious and far more devious and far more dangerous — Government – Academia – Media Complex
we just had in another domain a bit of light cast upon this — MIT Prof of Economics Dr. Jonathan Gruber [popularly considered as the ‘architect of ObamaCare’] — spilled the beans at a panel discussion about the Affordable Care Act — his words have recently gone viral [not ebola though]
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass. It’s a second-best argument. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
As Homes [Sherlock] says — follow the academic and his paws on our money

Mark from the Midwest
November 12, 2014 5:49 am

It gets even worse, now Gruber is trying to claim that “Republicans are trying to confuse people about Obamacare” see the story over at RealClearPolitics

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 12, 2014 12:16 pm

The “everyone does it” excuse. He has admitted lying so is trying to say everyone is doing it. Problem is, only fools are going to believe him now!

Michael J. Dunn
November 12, 2014 12:55 pm

WestHighlander: I don’t have the reference readily to hand, but my recollection is that Eisenhower DID make reference to a government-academia complex in the same context as the military-industrial complex.

November 23, 2014 5:01 pm

If you follow the CO2 AGW $, then it ALWAYS arrives at the dorrstep of the Nuclear Power Industry

%d bloggers like this: