Stop the Press: A few Climate Skeptics Received Some Money

green_money_windmills

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian is thrilled that it has finally found some cashflow to “deniers”, from a now destitute coal company which sought to defend its business model from politically motivated attacks.

Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

Analysis of Peabody Energy court documents show company backed trade groups, lobbyists and thinktanks dubbed ‘heart and soul of climate denial’

Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company, has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations, analysis by the Guardian reveals.

The funding spanned trade associations, corporate lobby groups, and industry front groups as well as conservative thinktanks and was exposed in court filings last month.

The coal company also gave to political organisations, funding twice as many Republican groups as Democratic ones.

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change.

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

Peabody refused to comment on its funding for climate denial groups, as revealed by the bankruptcy filings.

“While we wouldn’t comment on alliances with particular organizations, Peabody has a track record of advancing responsible energy and environmental policies, and we support organizations that advocate sustainable mining, energy access and clean coal solutions, in line with our company’s leadership in these areas,” Vic Svec, Peabody’s senior vice-president for global investor and corporate relations, wrote in an email.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

Greens have long been confused at the success of climate skepticism. Given the lavish funding organisations like the WWF receive from government sources and green activists, they are desperate to find out where we get our funding from.

Consider the following – the budget breakdown for the WWF FY2015;

INDIVIDUALS $98,329710 34%
IN-KIND AND OTHER $69,496,505 24%
GOVERNMENT GRANTS $48,459,713 17%
OTHER NON-OPERATING CONTRIBUTIONS $19,682,814 6%
CORPORATIONS $10,712,311 4%

Read more: http://www.worldwildlife.org/about/financials

So what sort of funding did skeptics receive?

Earlier this year, bankruptcy filings from the country’s second-biggest coal company, Arch Coal Inc, revealed funding to a group known mainly for its unsuccessful lawsuit against the climate scientist Michael Mann.

The $10,000 donation to the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E) was made in 2014, according to court documents filed in Arch’s chapter 11 bankruptcy protection case.

Last October, court filings from another coal company seeking bankruptcy protection, Alpha Natural Resources, revealed an $18,600 payment to Chris Horner, a fellow at E&E.

Read more: Same link as the first article

Just one green group, the WWF, last year received just under eleven million dollars from corporations, and just under fifty million dollars from government. Yet greens think a handful of skeptics receiving a few 10s of thousands of dollars is news.

The truth is very few climate skeptics receive funding. I have never received a penny for what I do. We do what we do, because we believe our efforts will help make the world a better place.

It is bizarre and I think more than a little telling, that today’s well paid green executives find it difficult to accept that the people who oppose their climate propaganda are mostly volunteers.

Leading green groups might have been founded by volunteers, but most of those volunteers have long since retired. Perhaps the lavishly rewarded executives of today’s establishment green organisations have forgotten that doing what is right, helping to create a better future for our kids, is more important to some people than the size of your bank balance.

Advertisements

179 thoughts on “Stop the Press: A few Climate Skeptics Received Some Money

  1. Skeptics have no rights greens are obliged to respect (yes, I do mean a reference to Dred Scott). All opposition is automatically a vile conspiracy given their holy cause/sarc

  2. I bet you’re not really skeptical of climate, Eric. I bet you’re actually skeptical that there is a climate crisis, which is to say you are a climate alarm skeptic . . or some such thing.

    Now, you can call me John, or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me JK, or you can call me JohnKnight . . but ya doesn’t have to call me crazy ; )

  3. Foundations are furnishing plenty of money to environmental NGOs. Money which is transferred foundation to foundation.

    Tax free with the donors receiving income tax deductions. Money which can also be transferred to ENGOs through foundations to other countries.

  4. “It is bizarre and I think more than a little telling, that today’s well paid green executives find it difficult to accept that the people who oppose their climate propaganda are mostly volunteers.”

    In their world, no profit doesn’t mean no money and volunteer doesn’t mean free. They cannot help but project their world onto their perceived enemies.

    • In the uk, you can be told to work for these people to receive your state benefits, laughable slave labour. but what is “climate denial” and who would be stupid enough to fund such an idea hahaha

      • In the uk, you can be told to work for these people to receive your state benefits

        That is an outrage.

      • I expect this means that if you are receiving benefits and they offer you a job, you can either accept it or lose your benefits. I support that policy. I had jobs much worse in my youth and wouldn’t have dreamed of quitting without finding something better.

      • No that’s not what it means, I also think that if you’re unemployed and refuse a job then you should lose benefits but that’s not what happens, there are agencies contracted by the job centres here and the abuse I’ve heard about is unbelievable, I currently work as an electronics engineer for a security company, I’m basically the guy the experts call in when they get stuck, but I have worked in a job centre doing unrelated work and I have seen how they treat unemployed people first hand, I remember there was a guy on a work experience program who got himself a job out of it and because he didn’t tell the job centre that week the girls in the office wouldn’t get their bonus so they tried to sanction him and stop his benefits, they took it really personal I couldn’t believe it. I also worked for a big electrical contractor here and we had fully qualified engineers sent to us, they were told they had to do 8 weeks with us or they would lose their benefits, it was disgusting seeing these guy’s having to do the same work we were doing and not get paid for it, and the firm I worked for weren’t hiring so there was no job there at the end of it for them, I remember over a Christmas week feeling really bad for this guy who worked along side me and at the end of the week everyone else got paid and this qualified hard working engineer didn’t get a penny. I hate when the state puts people through situations like this, I did take this guy out for a good drink that Friday and I paid him what I could and thanked him for his help, he told me it was like he was on community service like some sort of criminal just for being unemployed…

        And I know another engineer who was unemployed who had all his benefits stopped when he missed some daft appointment to sit around looking unemployed because he went on a job interview for a part time job, even though he told the job centre he was going on the interview and he got the job he was sanctioned for six weeks, I know a lot of engineers who can end up unemployed from time to time the construction trades can be like that, and it’s unacceptable to me when I see how much power a “job centre” has over these people. you would understand if you seen a hard working engineer building a school or a hospital one minute and then taking abuse and having to jump through ridiculous hoops from a paper shuffling bureaucratic useless jobs-worth twit at a “job centre” the next.

      • BTW John, I have never heard of an unemployed person turning down a job, that’s an unrealistic point of view to have…

      • Sparks, did you mean that you could be forced to work for some “Green” organization in order to continue to receive government benefits?

      • Yes you can, I know of people being sent to work for the national trust to work of lose the benefits. I don’t think that would be a very nice situation to be in.

  5. The Alarmists want to change the subject from the science of AGW/CAGW to funding for opposition groups.

    The Alarmists get paid millions of dollars and the Skeptics get paid a pittance, but none of the payments change the science. They are irrelevant to the science.

    The science says there is no proof humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change.

    • The science paid for by coal companies say there is no warming – other science disagrees.

      The science paid for by Exxon and suppressed says its warming.

      The are few skeptic scientists and clearly most of them are fossil fuel funded.

      • Oh, and can you direct me to the law that mandates that Exxon have to reveal to the public the results of any research they carry out?

      • Griff,

        The depth of your lack of knowledge of climate issues seems to be without limit. Exxon did no original science on global warning of any significance. They did reviews of the science as it was published for senior leadership.

        Most working (versus academic) geologists seem to be skeptical of the CO2 catastrophe theory. Even the papers that end with a variant of “and this will all be worse with global warming – send more money”. Don’t seem to really support the theory lately. The papers that have been whole hog for CAGW have made a hash of the analysis and really had to stretch the data to get it to fit the prose of their likely pre-written abstracts and conclusions.

      • Sad little troll can’t give up the narrative, no matter how completely refuted it is.
        1) It’s a lie that most scientists agree with CAGW.
        2) It’s a lie that those who disagree are funded by coal companies.
        3) It’s a lie that Exxon believed that it was going to warm and suppressed it.
        4) You have nothing but lies. Lies are all you have ever had. Lies are all you are ever going to have.

        I’d feel sorry for you, if you weren’t so evil.

      • Mark W
        I’d like to say it’s surprising, but it’s standard operating procedure for the climate loonies. Doesn’t make it any less chilling though.

      • The science paid for by NGO’s says there is warming.
        Stuff it, Griff.
        And what Exxon “suppressed” was something you should actually read about, tool.

      • Either prove that or shut your yap! How many of the skeptic scientists were publishing critiques of AGW long before they got any outside funding? They are in no one’s pocket. You don’t know what you’re talking about! That’s how I know you’ve drunk the kool aid and can’t think for yourself.

    • David, Science funded by a commercial interest must always be suspect. for example research on pesticides from agri-chemical companies.

      Exxon was not under any obligation. but that they didn’t reelase something which might damage their commercial interest speaks volumes.

      Owen, I am the proud parent of a working geologist – who seems to accept the science of climate change as do those of his colleagues I’ve met.

      Lindzen et al are in a minority in their field…

      How many skeptic scientists of repute can you name who now seem to not be fossil fuel funded?

      • I love the way trolls declare that any science funded by private sector is suspect, but of course their own funding sources are pure as the driven snow and must never be questioned.

        Hypocrisy, it’s what the left does best.

      • Science funded by a commercial interest must always be suspect.

        So, in that case you’ll agree that science funded by ‘green’ companies is also suspect, yes? Or is it only companies that you personally don’t like that must automatically be suspect.

        Exxon was not under any obligation. but that they didn’t release something which might damage their commercial interest speaks volumes.
        They’re a business, not a bleeding-heart charity. Of course they’re going to protect their commercial interests. They’d be running a pretty poor business model if they didn’t. It would only be a scandal if they covered up something illegal, but they didn’t.

        Owen, I am the proud parent of a working geologist – who seems to accept the science of climate change as do those of his colleagues I’ve met.

        That’s a shame they are so accepting of an obvious scam. Him and his colleagues need to brush up on their critical thinking skills :)

        Lindzen et al are in a minority in their field…

        So was Einstein…

        How many skeptic scientists of repute can you name who now seem to not be fossil fuel funded?

        Straight off the top of my head I can think of one (sadly departed) emeritus professor of Physics who was not funded by fossil-fuels (as far as I know) and was extremely sceptical of the CAGW scam. I’m sure I could find more, but I really can’t be bothered:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/

      • Whoops, my html came off a bit skew-wiff.
        I’ll try again, and mods can you delete my previous attempt please.

        Science funded by a commercial interest must always be suspect.

        So, in that case you’ll agree that science funded by ‘green’ companies is also suspect, yes? Or is it only companies that you personally don’t like that must automatically be suspect.

        Exxon was not under any obligation. but that they didn’t release something which might damage their commercial interest speaks volumes.

        They’re a business, not a bleeding-heart charity. Of course they’re going to protect their commercial interests. They’d be running a pretty poor business model if they didn’t. It would only be a scandal if they covered up something illegal, but they didn’t.

        Owen, I am the proud parent of a working geologist – who seems to accept the science of climate change as do those of his colleagues I’ve met.

        That’s a shame they are so accepting of an obvious scam. Him and his colleagues need to brush up on their critical thinking skills :)

        Lindzen et al are in a minority in their field…

        So was Einstein…

        How many skeptic scientists of repute can you name who now seem to not be fossil fuel funded?

        Straight off the top of my head I can think of one (sadly departed) emeritus professor of Physics who was not funded by fossil-fuels (as far as I know) and was extremely sceptical of the CAGW scam. I’m sure I could find more, but I really can’t be bothered:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/

      • “David, Science funded by a commercial interest must always be suspect.”

        All research must be suspect. The Key is how it is subject to refutation, whether through analysis and data gathering, or class bigotry. Those who believe that businessmen as a class are suspect are not using science, but bigotry.

      • Griff, the trouble you’re running into is that most scientists are actually agnostic. They publish their research regardless of whether or not it supports CAGW. They might fare better adding a tag line late in the paper to yield attention and funding. But journals are printing oodles of literature which throws the CAGW meme into question. You might try to dig into the lit; I would suggest reading the recent material on methane clathrates; you can link to papers right here in this site.
        Its never been acceptable, in science, to cling to and parrot falsified theories. CAGW is a dead hypothesis.

      • You might want to watch Eisenhower’s last address before you place government funded science above the results funded privately.

  6. By focusing on the funding aspect of the “climate change” debate, the warmists have admitted that this is a propaganda war and not anything that has a solid scientific foundation.

    • the truth is, the more they focus on the propaganda, the more hearts and minds they lose.

      it takes very little to counter their BS these days. people understand from a very early age that when someone is arguing the man and not the ball, they don’t want to tell the truth. it prompts investigation if there is a bright spark or a lack of trust if there is none. either way, the argument is over before it starts, and those that choose the path of manipulation (most politicians) over truth (previously scientists) will ultimately fail.

      the manipulators realise this and try to abuse the trust science has garnered over the years. we hear it constantly in the media- ‘scientists say’. now it means ‘wait for the BS statement’. such a shame, and the manipulators now outnumber the scientists at least 4 fold. social sciences are what universities teach now, not hard science. but truth still stands, all that is happening is that the good name of science is being gutted.

      i have no problem with that as long as the manipulators dont get control of all the data/internet.

  7. Remember Chesapeake Energy (natural gas) funding Sierra Club for its anti- coal actions.

  8. The long and short though is they lost. Peabody is now out of business. You can’t fight city hall, even if you’re the largest coal producing company in the US.

    • Bartleby:

      So far its the greenies and some of the current coal company S/H who are the losers – and I’m not too worried about the latter either – take a closer look at the Phoenix like powers of a Chapter 11 workout and maybe you’ll understand.

      Like it or not, coal is far from dead and actually making a strong comeback, even where you’d least expect it like uber-green Germany – the greenies may think they’ve won a battle but real world data tells us they’re losing the actual war.

      • After their stocks dropped to next to nothing they were bought up by people like Soros and the Berkshire group witch promptly started mining and exporting to ?? China! ( Berkshire owns the rail roads the coal travels over plus the shipping terminals on the West coast

      • Tetris .
        Today in The Conversation (Australia) a miracle occurred. This online academic site is 100% luvvie left and any article on Coal and renewables -Solar and wind – has the usual Evil versus Saintly pitch.
        Today this heading – ‘Is coal the only way to deal with energy poverty in developing economies?
        By Shabbir Ahmad Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Australian Institute of Busines and Economics, The University of Queensland,

        ‘…Consider India, which has the second-largest population in the world. It accounts for only 6% of global energy consumption and has 240 million people without access to electricity. With another 315 million Indians expected to move to urban areas in the next few decades, the country’s energy demand is likely to surge in the coming years.
        Neighbouring Pakistan is facing a serious energy crisis and many people in that country are spending more than 12 hours each day without electricity….
        …Over the last two decades, China has been able to electrify about 700 million households through coal-fired energy production…
        … According to the World Bank, one-third of the world’s economies have severe energy crises and about 1.1 billion people lack access to electricity…particularly in Africa,..many inhabitants of these countries face power outages of up to 20 hours a day…India is still meeting the majority of its energy demand from coal-fired electricity generation and was among the world’s three largest coal importers in 2015…While renewable energy sources are in their infancy and facing many uncertainties, developing economies have a long way to go before they can completely abandon fossil fuel energy sources…All that means the coal industry will potentially remain a major part of the world’s energy mix…

        The article has its usual suspects with providing clean energy and threats to water, climate change and food security but it clearly places Coal as a prime, efficient and reliable means of driving energy creation thru the world, and the poor parts of the world, for a long, long, long time to come.

        And for one of the major pro climate change online Australian sites it is quite remarkable that it has published such a realistic article. Now tomorrow it will resume its normal ‘the end is nigh’ standard but this article is unique. Not a Pro Coal missive but balanced and nods to the inefficiency of Renewable Solar and Wind.

        The other surprise being that the Responding posters, normally feral at the mere mention of Coal and its future in energy creation, were quite muted and much less delusional about The Saintlyness of Solar and Wind.

        As Tetris States…Like it or not, coal is far from dead…In fact The King lives long and we prosper.

        This sentence is so good it is worth repeating and should have a hallelulyah added…….’Over the last two decades, China has been able to electrify about 700 million households through coal-fired energy production…

        Next time you are discussing Coal versus Solar and Wind with a renewable fan cite this sentence and ask them if it is not absolutety fantastic that 700 million households have power from coal fired energy production and ask them if they agree that these people and their kids have power or should they be denied this basic human right to heating, cooling, cooking and cleaning.
        Put them right on the spot and expose their immoral elitism if they complain that this should not be allowed to happen and that only Solar and Wind should be used.

      • Robert, good comment, but one disagreement. It is not a basic human right to have electricity. Someone has to pay for it, and I do not think I have the right to make you pay for mine. , That being said, the right to develop electrical supply without paying sky high rates because some government yahoo wants more tax revenue, that is worth fighting for.

      • Robert, the article seems to ignore the vast Indian investment in wind and (especially) soalr power now underway… 175GW by 2022. This is already moving in a big way, fully funded…

      • Tetris, I’ve wondered about that. Even light references to the possibility has gotten me shouted down as a tin-foil moon landing denier conspiracy theorist, but it does seem to me the President of the US deliberately manipulated the energy market to make Soros and Co, billions.

        Yet there seems to be no inquiry. No investigation. No public concern. It’s a little depressing, a lot like watching Bush hand over trillions to Goldman-Sachs in what I like to call the largest daylight robbery in world history.

    • Griff

      Like Wikipedia, any “information” or “data” coming out of Greenpeace is fatally biased. Useless other than for propaganda purposes -which is what they use it for.

      • I confess, I had a range of sources for reduced coal use – I tend to trust the sources produced by financial firms more on energy use projections… but I was feeling a bit like mischief making during a dull afternoon…

        The facts are though that coal use worldwide is falling… only India, china, Indonesia and Japan are seriously into future coal power plant building now and doubts exist on India, china may have cut back/stopped and Japan is a special case, what with its nukes out.

        Most of the world is going off coal in a big way.

  9. The Guardian knows a lot about cash flow problems . At its current cash flow burn rate the Guardian
    will be extinct in less than a decade . But go ahead and preach the diminishing interested readers
    are hanging on .

    • It’s ironic that the Guardian is only kept financially afloat by it’s parent company selling off its (very large) majority stake in “Auto Trader”, a magazine all about umm…fossil-fuelled cars.
      The wonder of fossil fuels keeps on giving, even to the swivel-eyed alarmists at the Graun.

  10. Did anybody really expect the uneducated unthinking masses scared into screaming obedience by fake thunder and lightning would have any reasonable logical capacity in science or the scientific method?

    It’s like trying to teach a heavily beaten dog rescued from a lifelong abuser not to cower when you pet it.

    • I don’t see any problem in money shovelled to Green totalitarians /sarc, as long as the system keeps being a democratic one. Let’s see how long that is true. But surely it hurts to see national wealth be shovelled to projects which you can immediately see worthless in terms of outspoken goals.

      Various random energy and infrastructure projects which produce very little if none CO2 emission reductions for a very high price are painful to watch. One can clearly see the reason for implementing was stupidity in combination with opportunism of others. Guardian here represents mostly stupidity in economical matters, inability to see what to do in order to get the best results with the money we have. Many corporations in the WWF train are in for the big profits they can achieve if our government bends implementing what WWF and friends try to do. For example, I would imagine WWF wants to stop building icebreakers (since they can be used at the Arctic to find oil), and be totally oblivious to the fact that icebreakers are used to plenty of things not related to Arctic oil. And when they object, they actually do a favour for competing industries, which always exist. So the competing industries support WWF in their actions. There is a money flow.

      But none supports suspected sceptics with large sums, since that would be dangerous in the political climate Guardian and friends have set up.

      • You see no problem with money being taken by force from one group of people in order to be given to another group of people, so long as a majority of voters agrees with such actions?

    • Keep the focus, MarkW! If not you, who?

      Science or Fiction – once you gave it up, it stopped being yours and it never was ours.
      none of it was mine, anyway. i’m not a collaborator nor accomplice. Et tu?

      Hugs – gang rape is the quintessential democracy.
      Maybe you should learn from MarkW who understand RIGHTS and the nature of them.

      • I´m not sure what you are hitting at here.
        As long the things I think should be said are being said I don´t say it again.
        The times when I waited for new articles on WUWT, and read all comments, seems to be gone. There are so many articles and so many comments. I sincerely hope the tide must soon turn against the climate activists, those who shy no methods to achieve their goals – no matter the prize. I spend much more time than I should on this and I operate fully on my own. All the best :)

  11. The price of truth is always smaller than the eventual price of a lie.

    In the examples cited here by Eric that ratio in climatism dishonesty is about 1E+06/1E+04 ~ 100 cost to society.

  12. 7 of the world’s 10 biggest companies produce fossil fuel (the other 3 are heavily dependent). I wonder how much they have collectively spent on this issue. After all their business model depends on continually producing more CO2 each year.
    The list spending the most on propaganda, er lobbying, is surely going to include these companies.
    Yeah, I’m going to trust them.

    • 7 of the world’s 10 biggest companies produce fossil fuel (the other 3 are heavily dependent).“.

      I would really like to know which these 10 companies are. Of the world’s biggest public companies in 2015, according to Forbes, only one fossil fuel company, Exxon at #9, makes the top 10. [The top 10, in order, are ICBC, China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China, Berkshire Hathaway, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of China, Wells Fargo, Apple, ExxonMobil, Toyota Motor]. Of course, to suggest that any of these companies are not heaviy dependent on fossil fuels is ridiculous, so the dependency argument is meaningless.

      Note: The company rankings are by some Forbes formula. Public companies are I think more commonly ranked by Market Value. By Market Value, the 2015 top ten, in order, are Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, Berkshire Hathaway, Facebook, Johnson & Johnson, Amazon.com, General Electric, Wells Fargo. Still only one fossil fuel company. By sales, we do start to see some more fossil fuel companies, but only 5 not the 7 you claim: Wal-Mart Stores, Sinopec, PetroChina, Royal Dutch Shell, Volkswagen Group, ExxonMobil, Toyota Motor, Apple, BP, Berkshire Hathaway.

      • Mike, I just think it is inconceivable that operations of this scale, who spend millions lobbying on all sorts of causes wouldn’t allocate a LOT of money to fight this existential threat to their plans.

        My source was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue
        20 of the top 30 on that list have very vested interests in seeing the continuation of fossil fuel use.

        Their combined clout would dwarf most countries, maybe any country. Anyone who thinks their ‘investment’ is somehow less than what climate scientists earn is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

      • tony, what you think is meaningless. What you can prove is what matters.

        So far all you have done is yell that it must be in their interest to fight against the global warming crowd, therefore they are doing so.

        That may count as science amongst the global warming crowd, but the rest of us are just laughing at you.

      • Tony,

        “I just think it is inconceivable that operations of this scale, who spend millions lobbying on all sorts of causes wouldn’t allocate a LOT of money to fight this existential threat to their plans.”

        What if “they” didn’t initially believe it was an existential threat to their plans? The “they” in question are major share holders, not employees or oil/gas fanatics, and even if some in that “they” were aware it was eventually going to become such a threat to oil/gas industry products, there’s nothing to stop that some from profiting while the profiting is good, and easing on out before the “existential” threat aspect hits the fan, so to speak.

        We err when we think of such corporations as if mom and pop operations, run by people financially wed to the brand name, it seems to me.

    • How about trusting your own brain instead of just believing the propaganda and lies you’ve obviously been fed?

    • Tony. You want to believe it, it seems very likely to you, but you have no evidence. Not a very satisfactory situation. So here’s another angle that may help you : Take a look at the fossil fuel companies in the top part of your list (btw thx for posting it). They are all oil and gas companies. Now ask yourself – who would they finance, warmists or sceptics? I can see you thinking that the answer is obvious. Well, it is indeed obvious. Oil and gas companies would obviously be more likely to finance warmists, because they have so much to gain from the demise of coal. Have you any idea how much more profit the oil and gas companies can make by the replacement of coal with natural gas? There isn’t even any credible threat to them from electric vehicles, because the very same natural gas will be needed to provide the electricity (wind will never cut it, and solar won’t get there for decades – not even on a level playing field, and the oil and gas companies would I’m sure back themselves to tilt the playing field their way if necessary).

      • Mike said
        “Oil and gas companies would obviously be more likely to finance warmists…”
        I haven’t proffered any evidence, that wan’t my intention, I was just expressing my opinion. That’s why I am not trying support any propaganda, I am trying to interpret the evidence from a wide range of sources and from many different angles then draw my own conclusions. The vast majority of postings here are only opinions. Opinions, like our climate, change. I’m happy to share mine and have them criticized to see the error of my thinking, when it remains civil.
        BTW, I think your opinion of the chances of O&G companies supporting warmists is misguided to put it politely.

        “Have you any idea how much more profit the oil and gas companies can make by the replacement of coal with natural gas?”

        It seems you are saying that O&G companies would gladly just take up the slack.
        I don’t think it is just coal companies who would be threatened by the evidence of recent climatic changes, whether human induced or otherwise.

        The gut feeling I have, and yes, that is all it is without proffering any hard and fast numbers, is that these multi-trillion dollar industries: fuel/electricity/transport and you might as well add mining and commodities – basically the architecture of our economic lives – have a few things in common; they depend heavily on carbon-based fuel, they are made up of individuals who want their investment to grow and they depend on that architecture remaining relatively unchanged. The collective corporate entity, which is not a person with a brain, needs BAU and that is the problem.

        It’s a problem if there is a risk of that model is disrupting our eco-systems, food-chains, economies etc.
        There is a risk. Is the risk 5% or 55%? I don’t know. No-one knows.
        Is the risk 0% or 100%? Answering no to that question is not an opinion.

      • tony – I’m saying that O&G companies would happily drive coal companies out of existence.

      • Pure malicious innuendo! No evidence of anything illegal, nefarious or even significant. A few peanut shells and a starving anti-warming movement brutally harassing the gigantic, government funded idiot of AGW, followed around by a massive herd of brainless sheep, so desperate to be green they can only believe what they’re told.
        After preaching disaster for almost 40 years let’s take stock, shall we?

        Drought created food shortages? Nope! World food stocks at record levels-in spite of record population levels!
        Expanding deserts? Nope! Southern Sahara getting greener!
        Severe weather more frequent? Nope! Less frequent!
        Major ice caps melted? Nope! Greenland still has 99.7% and Antarctica gaining 80B tons per year!
        Acidic oceans destroying ecosystems? Nope! No change in pH whatsoever! Lots of pollution problems-no.measurable. change.in.ph!
        The poor will suffer disproportionately? Nope! More than a billion raised out of poverty!
        Sea levels rising 10’s of feet, inundating major cities? Nope! Rising about the same 2-3mm/yr they appear to have for at least 200 yrs!
        All other predicted disasters? Nope! With the exceptions of ISIS, Putin and the twin demons running for U.S. president, things are pretty much better everywhere!
        – One big exception! The deficits and idiotic decisions made by and for eco lefty morons have set the stage for the epic collapse of the West and the rise to world domination by China! Put that on your resume and give the Starbucks manager a laugh!

      • “things are pretty much better everywhere!”.

        I didn’t cite any sources because I was merely posting idle conjecture and gut-feelings, repeatedly admitted. Unlike your posts JH. You’ve posted a list of ‘truths’, the sources for the original research your citing I would like to see.

  13. The truth is very few climate skeptics receive funding.

    That hasn’t been shown:

    Even so, the full extent of Peabody’s financial support for climate denial is unlikely to be revealed until the completion of bankruptcy proceedings.

    “The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

    I have never received a penny for what I do.

    That’s only one skeptic.

    We do what we do, because we believe our efforts will help make the world a better place.

    That also hasn’t been shown.

    • Seth. It would be very helpful if you could actually show the amounts that sceptical groups have received. So far, we have pretty solid information that just one alarmist organisation has received hundreds of millions while the subject of the Guardian article, Peabody, has only been shown to have provided a very few tens of thousands of dollars to sceptics. Until someone can provide some figures that show otherwise, the inescapable picture is that funding of alarmists dwarfs that of sceptics by multiple orders of magnitude. It is also rather difficult to believe that there is a massive flow of cash to sceptics, because none of the sceptics’ activities (blogs, etc) appear to cost very much. Surely, if sceptics were funded to the tune of billions, or even of hundreds of thousands of millions, you would be able to work out where some of it had been spent?

      So, some hard data please.

      • With all that research money, why did all those warmists need to lie? What else can anyone call what Gore, Mann, Hansen and others concocted? Disgusting what slime Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club and the U.N. bought with their money. I guess green slime is o.k.? The Obama administration seems to think so! It is stocked to the rafters with true believers!

    • oh it has, by demanding to stick to scientific method, something the IPCC has abandoned, as well as most alarmist science.

      Model output only, is not scientific method, in fact it is not science

    • And then of course the funding for “truth” that the likes of ICN get from Rockefeller etc, would pale into insignificance. /sarc

    • So what has “been shown”? Certainly, no-one has ever shown any kind of organised paid climate scepticism. OTOH, there has been plenty of money shown to be going the other way.

    • It would be interesting to dig into how much Seth is paid from the climate trough.

      Of course , there is NO WAY he would admit to it, is there Seth.

      A true alarmist.. take the money and hide it.

    • Seth who cares where the funding comes from. Find something wrong with the science. I seen a lot of horribly biased science from the alarmist side.

      • Seth and the other climate trolls care, because they know they have lost on the science, so they have to find something else to argue about.

    • Seth,
      Your display of blithering, drooling ignorance is greatly appreciated. Please keep on.

    • Well, here is another that does what he does out of concern for the truth and has never received a penny for his contributions. It is telling that those who complain about funding from the fossil fuel industry seem to have a problem understanding that some people do what they think is right without concern for getting paid for it. I can’t help but wonder if those who get government money would be as motivated if their money were cut off.

  14. How many green funders openly launder money and fund sedition in foreign countries. Tides funding of anti gov groups in Canada comes to mind. Believe it or not, they think that’s not only ethical but “climate justice”.

  15. That is why, in the interest of balance, we need a cut of 99% of public money and mandates for climate in January 2017.

    With a cut of 99% of what is left in January 2018.
    That might barely bring things close.

  16. The unit is $5 billion in public received by Elon Musk.
    That’s a Musk. It’s far too big a unit.

    A miliMusk is $5 million.

    A microMusk is $5k, roughly what skeptics got…

    • So, Another anonymous Ian, please do explain in detail exactly what your issue is? Exactly what do you know about this apart from the fact that they have a double story building with some cars parked?

      A mansion? What because it’s got a gate? The number of cars parked there suggests it’s an office, not that it’s the luxury residence of some fat cat manager.

  17. A “newspaper” “finds” that someone gave money to “climate denial groups”, and you accept that?

    A “newspaper” is an excercise in spending money to broadcast falsities – thats the whole point of it!
    When you start accepting the falsities, you are conceeding the fight.

    There is no such thing as a “climate denial group” – therefore Peabody cannot have funded any..

    This is history repeating itself. The you-know-who’s first shut down free-thought groups, too.

    And when you repress the use of the name of the you-know-who’s – you are acting to protect the
    you-know-who’s – which is itself a disgrace.

  18. I’ve never understood this emphasis on “Funding” (apart from the inherent misuse of public funds).
    It doesn’t matter how much is thrown at the AGW/CC lobby, they are still unable to prove their theory.
    Reliance on models that don’t work in spite of all that funding is the real problem.
    We don’t need funding…….we’re working with reality not models!

    • The Grauniad is also probably more than grateful for the extra web traffic generated by this article.
      Hell, they need it.

      The smart global-warmers-on-the-make are beginning to realise that there is a significant market on ‘the other side’, and so write their articles as inflammatory click-bait. They need sites like WUWT.

      • I never go there anymore. It took all of three rational comments with links to peer reviewed skeptical science to get banned. I click no more.

    • When the Grauniad does it, it shuld be speld “enalisys”
      The hacks at the Graun are infamous for their bad spelling.

  19. Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company, has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations, analysis by the Guardian reveals.

    But only 10% or so of the average activities of these groups is devoted to the climate issue. The rest is devoted to various pro-business causes that a company like Peabody would want to fund regardless. This is shown by the fact that most of the funding these groups receive comes from companies not in the fossil fuel business.

    For a list of 20-plus things that would be happening (but aren’t) if climate contrarians were actually well-organized and well-funded, see my WUWT guest-thread, “Notes from Skull Island” at
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

  20. The Left is still seething over Citizens United. It galls them that corporations can speak in opposition to their agenda.

    • It offends them that it is legally permissible to disagree with them at all. Regardless of who or how.
      This is why they are working so hard to make the 1st amendment dependent on government permission.

      • It offends them because most of them don’t know what they’re talking about and it’s embarrassing. They couldn’t possibly be wrong so we must be using highly organized trickery. It’s pretty funny actually! We’re skeptics. Most of us are automatically leery of running with the crowd. A conspiracy of sceptics is like a herd of cats. We never drink the kool aid. That’s for the sycophants and suckers. No shortage of either!

  21. It’s so bizarre that we should feel defensive that someone funded voices with a valid critique of the Alarmist position. They really do occupy the linguistic high ground!

    • No, the climate extremists are like ISIS, demanding that no one but themselves get to have a voice in the public square.
      How dare the NGO parasites and hacks think they have the right to determine where people spend their money or what positions they take on political issues.
      Eff ’em.

  22. Consider the following – the budget breakdown for the WWF FY2015;

    INDIVIDUALS $98,329710
    IN-KIND AND OTHER $69,496,505
    GOVERNMENT GRANTS $48,459,713
    OTHER NON-OPERATING CONTRIBUTIONS $19,682,814
    CORPORATIONS $10,712,311
    .
    .
    Shouldn’t that be a point before the final three digits?

  23. The Climate Liars are merely doing what they always do, which is projecting. Climate propaganda receives easily a hundred times whatever pittance Skeptics/Climate Realists – the side of truth gets, and they know it. It is part of their continued effort to quell the cognitive dissonance created by the fact that they are losing. They are desperate to explain why, so they will grasp at any straw in their attempt to do so.

    • If climate scientists produce wrong results to keep getting grants, why would other scientists receiving fossil fuel money be more honest or accurate? They’d surely keep up the ‘no warming’ results to keep getting Peabody funding?

  24. It’s a tactic that uber-orgs such as the EU and UN do, they fund groups to create a false impression that the public support their politically motivated dogma, then cite the results as evidence of that so-called support to legitimise their actions. It’s a circular process, but wholly contained within their fantasyland.

  25. To get some idea of the funding that environmental organisations receive you just need to look at one of the donors, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. http://www.hewlett.org/grants/search?order=field_date_of_award_value&sort=desc&keywords=environment&year=&term_node_tid_depth_1=All&program_id=All

    The Hewlett Foundation gives environmental groups more money in a single year than DeSmog claims the Koch’s have donated to sceptics ever.

    These are other interesting links to see where the money goes in a more general sense:
    http://www.followthemoney.org/
    http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy-tracker

  26. Thank you Peabody and thank you Arch for all the work you’ve done to make the world a better place. Your efforts FAR outweigh the sum total good green groups ever have or ever will accomplish. And that’s the truth.

  27. If we are going to spend money on research, lets find out why the United States has been left out of global warming. The listed high temperature per US state shows that the vast majority of record high temps have been set before 1970 and none since 2000. The majority of those in the 30,s. I have arthritis and would love some warmer temps.

  28. “Green” NGOs receive funding because they do good work. If scientists that question global warming did good research, they would have no problem getting funding.

    • Now that’s a circular argument if I ever saw one.
      The problem is that the “good work” that the government funded scientists has nothing to do with science, but rather is good at advancing the interests of those who funded it.

      • So you believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy between governments and their climate scientists? Good luck with that.

      • I see. So there is a worldwide conspiracy between governments and their climate scientists to falsely hype anthropogenic global warming? Good luck with that!

      • I see. So there is a worldwide conspiracy between governments and climate scientists to hype anthropogenic global warming? Good luck with that!

        [You are allowed only one login_ID. You are not permitted per site policy to use several identities — and you have already used 4. .mod]

      • No, the green blob is a mass movement, like political Islam or communism. While there are leaders, they did not create the movement. The EPA commissioned a study in the early 1970’s on the origins of the environmental movement, and the researchers could not find any one cause or leader. Try reading the old book by Eric Hoffer “The True Believer”.

      • Notice how the guy who claims that any money transferred between an energy company and any skeptic is proof of a conspiracy whines when someone uses the same logic against him.
        As to the conspiracy between NGOs and governments, it’s been well documented.

    • But, but, but….
      … I thought you alarmists said sceptical scientists were handsomely reward by evil Big Oil and King Coal?
      You can’t have it both ways!

      BTW “‘Green’ NGOs receive funding because they do good work.” Ho, ho!

    • Yeah, like the “research” that claimed Polar Bears were going extinct. Or the “research” that said the corals were dying. Or the “research” that claims millions of people are dying from “climate change”. Or the “research” that said the oceans are “acidifying”.
      Nothing like a faux intellectual such as Arcticobserver to reconfirm that climate kooks are… kooks.

    • If by “good work” you mean tell their funding sources exactly what they want to hear, in a slick way that has the veneer of “science”, then yes, they do “good work”.

  29. Standard Liberal Projection – in the psychological sense: Accuse your foes of all the sins that YOU commit.

  30. So what?
    The vile green extremists are seeking to jail us.
    We still have the right to free association, free speech and free spending of our money.
    Eff ’em.

  31. It may not be the money per se but rather that the lavishly funded groups cannot imagine how skeptics can be so successful on a shoe string. Skeptics are obviously far better with money and numbers, which casts doubt on the alarmists, whose math and money skills seem to be lacking. If you don’t understand math, global warming looks far more plausible.

  32. Insult to injury: The Climate Liars, in many cases are spending OUR money (via taxes, mandates, and higher electricity costs) to further spread their lies and propaganda.

  33. Follow the money, why?

    The research and arguments should be judged on their own merits. The funding is only relevant when bad research and arguments form the basis for exploitation, sabotage, or injury.

    • The reason money enters into it is that CAGW isn’t really science, but rather, an ideology. And it takes a lot of money in addition to other things to prop it up. It is both supremely ironic then, when they point to the paltry sums skeptics get, as “proof” that that is the reason the skeptic/climate realist argument is not only surviving, but winning. It’s laughable.

  34. From the ClimateGate Emails:

    From: Tatiana M. Dedkova
    To: K.Briffa
    Subj: schijatov
    DateReceived: 3/6/1996 9:41 AM

    [blockquote]Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes… [/blockquote]

Comments are closed.