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.
EDF does a lot of valuable environmental work that has nothing to do with climate change.
Examples, please. Opposing KXL does not count.
Now that the GOP controls the House and Senate I would guess that the funding for climate related stuff will not go up. 😉
“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.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VGD3Nsk2qcQ
Also, last year oil and gas interests spent >$144 million lobbying the US Congress.
http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/political-footprint-of-the-oil-and-gas-industry-lobby
While environmental groups spent about 1/10 of that.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=Q11&year=
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?
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.
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.
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/us_heartland_spending.jpg
Sir Harry, which of these oil funded bodies do you object to?
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.
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.
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.
Sir Harry Flashman, the top link points to the Union of Concerned Scientists. They say:
Oh the horror!
Oh the horror!
Oh the horror!
Oh the horror!
and so on. Now check out the oil funded green bodies.
Here are the UCS in action.
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.
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.
Oh the horror!
The link for the TIME article is here.
http://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
Where are you Flashman?
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.
rip
To clarify, my reply above is directed at Sir Harry Flashman and his link to the UCS website.
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.
flashman, are you really going to attempt to argue that oil money corrupts, but government money does not?
Flashman, you are conflating oil companies with skeptics. That’s not very honest, is it?
Sir Harry Flashman, now it’s time to look at US Climate Change TM funding. (3 years ago).
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.
Hey! “Sir Harry Flashman” from that 1970’s movie “Royal Flash”? Thanks for the smile.
Read the books – they’re much better :).
Harry,
Looked at your link (http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/political-footprint-of-the-oil-and-gas-industry-lobby). 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)
To a real leftist, anything less than a 100% taxation rate is a subsidy from government.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/political-footprint-of-the-oil-and-gas-industry-lobby
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?
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. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
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.
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
The Daily Mail has a substantive piece on the green funding machine:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807849/EXPOSED-shadowy-network-funded-foreign-millions-making-household-energy-bills-soar-low-carbon-Britain.html#ixzz3HMJbgvTl
But probably WUWT has this covered already?
H/T to Jo Nova.
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
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.
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.
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”….
I call them crooks.
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:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.mx/2014/11/exposing-green-money-machine.html
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 ??
Follow the money indeed.
How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8af3d005-1337-4bc3-bcd6-be947c523439
From here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/30/breaking-senate-report-exposes-the-climate-environmental-movement-as-being-a-cash-machine-controlling-the-epa/
Anthony,
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:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
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.
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??
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.
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
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
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
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.
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!!
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).
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” ???
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
The hookers got paid more than Skeptic Scientist got.
Hahaha. The scared scientists mistook the same treatment for a marriage.
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.
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.
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.
“Climate-related expenditure” is an awfully broad category. Does that include weather forecasting (NOAA), even though we all know that weather is not climate?
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.
.
.
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.
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.
Well, Mr. Lewandowski, isn’t “Koch-funded oil machine” conspiracy ideation? ( I don’t expect him to reply)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
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 http://www.dailyclimate.org.
cesium62, The article you point to says:
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?
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.
Lol that he is.