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.
A look at the EDF finances page is quite telling:
Above 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]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/climate-funding-us-govt-spending-web1.jpg?quality=83)
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you follow it all the way, do you come out in another galaxy?
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 😉
See what happens when you attend a Mann/Lew lecture? They target you as one of their like minded! 😉
What is a “Foundation Grant” and what/where/who is the source of that funding?
You can do a web search on “foundation grant for climate change”. The Rockefeller foundation, the Kresge foundation, etc appear.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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…
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.
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!
@Alan. 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conspiracies are usually done behind closed doors. This one is being conducted in full view of everyone, & under their noses, the zealots march onward!
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!
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/11/09/americas-biggest-loser/
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.
Is this the same Tom Steyer who got rich from fossil fuels?
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 ? http://www.cfact.org/2014/10/16/cbg/
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).
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.
Don’t forget the list of oil funded green bodies
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?“
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!
Scottish Sceptic:
What are your chances of winning? Be honest.
Give the odds: 50/50, 60/40, 10/90, etc.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig68.jpg
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/carousel/nclimate2159-f1.jpg
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/carousel/nclimate2159-f2.jpg
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.
Absent the truth, people believe what they hear.
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.
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.
“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)
“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.
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.
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.
Great observation!
Swell foop – love it.
3% of $120.5Million from taxpayers. $3.6M. That must stop.
My thought exactly.
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.
rgb
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.
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.
Rockefeller Brothers Fund is in there somewhere too. Oh deary me.
Here is something on salaries found by Crosspatch last year. Very sneaky.
More from crosspatch covering multi play and pay.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/15/bill-mckibben-is-not-what-he-seems-to-be-i-catch-him-in-a-lie/#comment-1225569
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/15/bill-mckibben-is-not-what-he-seems-to-be-i-catch-him-in-a-lie/#comment-1225576
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.
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”
or
“Stop the multi-billion dollar disinformation campaigns!
Donate NOW to support Climate Reality”
You might also try a look at this: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/who-fundsthe-european-science.html
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….;-)
rgb
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. 🙂
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.
Max,
Sorry I did not see your post.
I posted this before and have re posted this below
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
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” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/27/the-merchants-of-smear-2/
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?
The MSM is not negligent. They are complicit.
Quite likely. One could target a particular news outlet under a Senate investigation and see how that works out: http://junkscience.com/2012/07/13/pbs-newshour-global-warming-coverage-ipccnoaa-scientists-18-skeptic-scientists-0/
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!!
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
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…
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]
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 http://www.bonkcentre.fi/p2_eng.htm
That’s a fair point, and I’m a supporter of nuclear power.
eDf – Électricité de France: state owned utility.
EDF – Environmental Defense Fund: private NGO that, apparently, defends the environment
rip
EDF = Électricité de France: Part state owned utility
eDF is EDF’s Logo. The group name is EDF. See their website. http://france.edf.com/france-45634.html
Read the headings.
and their share listing – http://www.boursorama.com/cours.phtml?symbole=1rPEDF
But in essence, I don’t really care.
jaakkokateenkorva
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.