Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine

Posted on 18 February 2012 by dana1981, jg

Note: the graphic below was updated at at 16:35 PM on 18 February 2012 to correct a couple of minor errors.  A portion of the government relations budget had been double-counted, and some of the Heartland proposed budgetary figures extend beyond 2012.  See the discussion below for further details.

*update* the graphic was updated again on 23 Feb 2012 to remove the Charles Koch Industries $225k donation.  The foundation donated $25k to Heartland in 2011 for health care research, but will not make Heartland's expected $200k 2012 donation.

*update 2* the graphic was updated again on 24 Feb 2012 to remove David Watkins' name.  Watkins relayed the following message to Skeptical Science:

"David Watkins has had no relationship with the Heartland Institute.  He has not accepted (nor has he been offered) any funds from them.  He is not a supporter of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and in fact he routinely uses results from reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in his research on water resources adaptation planning for climate change."


Skeptical Science's resident artist (that's pronounced "ar-teest") jg has put together an infographic illustrating the Heartland Institute's funding sources and planned budget payments (based on lots of input and suggestions from the whole Skeptical Science team; click the image for a hi-rez version):

heartland funding infographic

* Craig Loehle declined the Heartland funding offer.

These numbers come from the Heartland 2012 Budget and Fundraising Plan documents (in US dollars).  Note that while some of the figures in this graphic have been confirmed, Heartland has not yet confirmed that all the numbers are correct.  There is also no reason to doubt their veracity to this point.  If any of the numbers are found to be in error, we will revise this graphic accordingly.

Although there are too many donations and programs to include in a single graphic, we selected some of the larger and more prominent contributors for the upper half of the graphic.  Most of the programs and individuals in the lower half are potentially climate-related, with the exception of Operation Angry Badger, which we included because it potentially vlolates Heartland's tax-exempt chartiable organizational status, and James Taylor, because he frequently writes climate "skeptic" blog posts for Forbes.

The proposed budget numbers for Angry Badger and the Center for Transforming Education also appear to be long-term budgetary figures, not just applicable to 2012.  The Angry Badger 2012 budget is closer to $200k, but net planned budget is $610k.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page | Repost this Article Repost This

Comments

1  2  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 70:

  1. Some of the figures in the fundraising plan are earmarked for projects which are not associated with climate science denial. You should account for that in this graphic.
    0 0
  2. jmsully, nowhere is it stated in the OP that all the funds are earmarked for climate science denial. Although you may have a point with OP's the title.

    As for Loehle's claim, I'd like to see some compelling evidence that he did indeed decline the money and that he has not received money from them now or in the past. His word alone does not suffice.
    0 0
  3. Someone asked about a similar diagram for WWF. That just shows that whoever asked for that didn't know anything about the WWF programme.

    The programme is called the Climate Witness Science Advisory Panel. The large number of names deniers like Laframboise and Motl go on about as being compromised by their association with WWF are advisers and receive no remuneration for their participation.

    A quick look at the programme shows that deniers are once again slandering and smearing scientists when they claim they are compromised when acting on behalf of the IPCC. It is just more slander and smearing of climate scientists doing their job.
    0 0
  4. Have we seen this - the open letter from climate scientists to Heartland in the Guardian?

    We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said. Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.


    Bradley, Karoly, Santer, Schmidt, Mann, Overpeck, Trenberth.
    0 0
  5. This graphic is not one of your best. A better graphic might be a scaled pipeline showing trickles in, and trickles out, explicitly by donor and ear-marked program.

    You could use the Heartland budget documents to itemize the various project-elements including climate, health-care or operations. That would more clearly indicate which funders are interested in funding which.

    You could even animate it using the available annual data. This would have the effect of highlighting the substantial changes in funding per program over the last few years.
    0 0
  6. Albatross @2 if the HI's word that they proposed to pay Loehle is good enough to accept that fact, then Loehle's claim that he declined the offer is also goode enough to accept his claim. That is because there is no contradiction between the two claims. If, on the other hand a document turns up showing a payment in the budget (ie, a payment to have occurred) then that would raise a conflict between the two claims and require further explanation.
    0 0
  7. Tom @6,

    That may be, but why then is Loehle's salary still included in the budget at this point. Loehle or HI need to provide a timeline. When did they offer the payment to Loehle and did Loehle decline before or after these documents were created? These are valid questions IMHO.

    Call me cynical, but I do not trust these folks at all and it would be folly to take their claims at face value.
    0 0
  8. The proposed payment to Loehle is small enough that he may simply not have felt it worth being associated with Heartland. I'm willing to take his word on it.
    0 0
  9. Altria appears twice in the donors.

    Looking at combined 10/11 actual the order is: Nucor ($502,000), William Dunn ($480,000), Renaissance ReService ($407,000), Bartley Madden ($398,933), State Farm ($344,200). Three of them don't appear at all, and yet General Motors' piddly $45K gets in?

    And where's the 'Big Oil' we keep hearing about?
    0 0
  10. RyanStarr - most oil companies have moved on from climate denial to acceptance, which makes it all the more confusing why so many continue to cling to their own climate denial.
    0 0
  11. #3 it would be good to see more information. Potential conflicts of interest should be out in the open, whereever the money comes from.
    0 0
  12. "John Mashey, a retired computer scientist and Silicon Valley executive, said he filed a complaint to the IRS this week that said Heartland's public relations and lobbying efforts violated its non-profit status.

    Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months' research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents."

    "I believe there was a massive abuse of 501c(3)," Mashey said. "My extensive study of these think anks showed numerous specific actions that violated the rules – such as that their work is supposed to be factually based. Such as there was a whole lot of behaviour that sure looked like lobbying and sending money to foreign organisations that are not charities."
    Source: Heartland Institute faces fresh scrutiny over tax status

    The U.S. charity laws appear to share our U.K. common law base of charity law. What is held in common is that falsehoods, bias and insufficiently researched studies all count against an organization being able to call itself a charity. Again in common, a charitable organization must be primarily engaged in a permitted activity, or what the tax authorities describe as an exempt purpose.

    "Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations."
    "To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), ..."
    IRS exemption requirements.

    caveat: I am not a lawyer.

    More info from John Mashey: Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax
    0 0
  13. RyanStarr#9: "And where's the 'Big Oil' we keep hearing about?"

    Right here:

    Based on this Heartland statement, in 2007 foundations provided approximately $3.69 million, corporations contributed $832,000 and approximately 1,600 individuals. Energy companies -- "coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear" -- contributed approximately 5% or around $260,000.)
    0 0
  14. I note that Fred Singer has pretty much confirmed receipt of the money and it has been used to "...hire students whose job it is to review current papers in the literature and these are reviewed and get published in the NIPCC reports."
    0 0
  15. MarkR#11, it is all described in the link. There is no money going to the scientists, they are, in effect "peer reviewing" (at no cost) articles sent in by citizens who have seen the effects of global warming in their area. The nonsense put out by Laframboise and other deniers is just more slander and smearing of climate scientists. Please check the link I gave.

    To claim that it is a conflict of interest for scientists to be on the Advisory Panel and also to be affiliated with the IPCC is just nonsense plus there is no attempt to hide their associations unlike the way deniers do.
    0 0
  16. Credit Union National Association?! Why? I am a member of a couple of credit unions. What is the best way for me to protest the use of MY money to fund the Heartland Institute (I just got a little sick thinking about it).
    0 0
  17. @ RyanStarr #9:

    The funding provided to arch-conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute is not the only money spent by "Big Oil" to influence public policy and public opinion in the US and Canada.

    "Big Oil" spends big bucks on:

    1. lobbying the federal governments of both the US and Canada,

    2. donations to candidates for offices, PACs, and super-PACs, and,

    3. "sublimibal messaging" about the benefits of maintaining "business as usual" thorough purchased advertising on the mainstream media.

    Of course, "Big Oil" is only one copmponent of the fossil fuel industry making these expenditures.
    0 0
  18. I noticed that too. My guess is that the contributions were in kind services of some sort, like the microsoft ones. But I have a hard time imagining what those services would be.
    0 0
  19. Heartland is paid to do the dirty work that these companies and individuals do not want to do themselves. Secrecy means that their contributions go for actions that they might not want to be seen doing. Now they are caught and named in funding anti-science curricula and distractionist science.

    It is just business... and this means they have to spend lots more on PR to recover in the future. Or find another organization with information thugs.
    0 0
  20. actually thoughtful:

    I contacted the CEO of one of my credit unions. Unfortunately (?), she said they had not been a member of CUNA since 1999, so she didn't have a clue.

    Maybe it's worth writing CUNA directly.
    0 0
  21. actually thoughtful & nealjking

    I'd suggest writing to the CUNA and just tell them that you're a member of a credit union and want them to know what you think of their funding of the Heartland Institute. Ask them to confirm that they've terminated the sponsorship. You don't need to tell them whether your union is one of their members or not: they'll probably just jump to the conclusion it is.
    0 0
  22. Just came across this post about a press release from Republicans for Environmental Protection.

    Quote: "Let’s have a public debate that is based on truth, not truthiness, with a sound basis in science rather than the propagation of skewed “sound science”. This is a perspective that the vast majority of Americans would likely support."

    A timely reminder that global warming is -- or should be -- apolitical. Too many try to cast concern for the environment as left versus right (or vice versa).
    0 0
  23. Surely this Heartland Institute has committed a far larger crime than footling tax infringements.

    The have to be aware of the dangers posed by not combating climate change. It would be an interesting spectacle to watch them defend their deliberate attempts to hinder action to reduce those dangers. Especially when their position is contradicted by 97% of all bone fide climate scientists. I just hope that the court concerned has the death penalty available to it. (And I disagree with capital punishment!)

    I sometimes wonder it these people think it is all a game, a game that their grandchildren are not going to be pawns in.
    0 0
  24. No one has commented yet on the $610K to Operation Angry Badger - it exists to resist Republican state legislators in Wisconsin from being recalled, a consequence of their voting to strip public employees of their collective bargaining rights. That is a cause that is widely reported to be supported by the Koch brothers, who have funded the political career of Governor Walker, who has led in the attempt at disabling the public employee unions.

    In any case, though the climate connection appears to be non-existent, the overtly political donation would seem to be blatantly illegal.
    0 0
  25. Eternal Sunshine, actually while I agree that it should be blatantly illegal, they may have some cover on that issue. The whole 'money is speech' / 'corporations are people' movement pushed through by 'conservative' judges in the US has included several rulings that money spent on 'issue' campaigns does not violate the prohibitions on interfering in politics... even if these 'issue' ads clearly support or oppose a specific candidate. So, if Heartland can make a case that their focus was to weaken collective bargaining (which, is likely true) and any support for specific candidates was motivated only by their position on that issue they might very well be on solid 'legal' grounds.
    0 0
  26. We, the convinced, read these things but need no convincing. The question is how to get such information to the public. Does anyone out there have the ability and funding to produce a cartoon that could go viral. Here is an example on a different subject of the sort of thing that might just inform a wider audience than us.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI5AjJd00cM
    It combines humor and information in a very palatable form.
    0 0
  27. Those interested in local connections (to Australia, that is), don't forget SA's own Senator Cory Bernardi.

    He was funded for travel an accommodation by Heartland to speak at their 4th ICCC in 2010, and then had accommodation provided for him again later that year.

    For more (with video; get your head-vice out!) see my comment over at Hot Topic.
    0 0
  28. Hey umm, this post is about "denial money", but what about the massive amounts of money spent by governments on AGW?
    I mean, it's a full order of magnitude over the few million outlined in the graphic above isn't it?
    I have just added up all those figures and the total comes to around about $10 Million, including the faceless, anonymous donor.

    In all honesty, what do you guys think of the many billions of dollars spent so far, and continuing to be spent, on pro AGW think tanks, studies and conferences?

    Bill, your example of Corey Bernardi's travel to a conference for Heartland pales into embarrassing insignificance when compared to the money spent by governments on meetings such as Copenhagen and Durban.
    Wouldn't Australia's contingent for those meetings have had accommodation provided for them too? (if accommodation being provided is your bug-bear)

    I mean am I wrong about this??
    The Australian government (to name but one) expends/invests money in the hundreds of millions on AGW.
    0 0
  29. It really bugs me when these organisations are thought of as ‘Libertarian’ They are any but.
    0 0
  30. Michael of Brisbane @28, there are several crucial differences between the money received by climate scientists and that received from the Heartland Institute.

    The first, and most crucial is that money paid to scientists is paid based on the quality of their research, not on the basis of the conclusion reached. So called climate skeptics will dispute that, but there is no question that it is formally correct; and no question also that some well known so called skeptics continue in the university sector in publicly paid positions with no financial penalty despite rejecting the consensus on climate change for over a decade. (Spencer and Christy come to mind, but there are others).

    In contrast, payment from the Heartland Institute is definitely conditional on the recipients hold particular opinions. I do not know if that is a formal requirement, but how long do you think Craig Idso would continue receiving his $139,000 a year if he started publicly arguing that the evidence supported the IPCC consensus, and that the IPCC AR4 was a sound document, with few and inconsequential errors?

    Because payment form the Heartland Institute is conditional on opinions held, it represents a conflict of interest for any scientist investigating climate change, and any person speaking out on the topic. This does not mean that those receiving payments are wrong (although we know they are wrong on other grounds), but because it is a conflict of interest it should have been publicly declared by those people long before now. Not declaring a known conflict of interest is an ethical breach.

    Second, contrary to your supposition, many of the activities of scientists are unpaid, including any participation in the IPCC, and of course in internet forums. While Anthony Watt can build his site with 44-88 k donations from the Heartland Institute, John Cook (for example) must do so with his own money, and that from a few small donations from friends. I understand that RealClimate does receive free web hosting, but that is the limit of funding. As they say:

    "The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.

    RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor SCN nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked."

    (My emphasis)

    I am sure there are climate scientists who would love to be paid $119,000 a year to work full time in science communication as Craig Idso is paid to work full time on pseudo-science communication, but the money is not forthcoming for that purpose.

    Further, unlike payments from the Heartland Institute, payments to scientists are largely used up in research costs and administrative costs for universities (which always take a large chunk). Not having been employed as a scientist, I cannot speak from experience, but my understanding is that scientists typically get paid significantly less than Craig Idso is being paid, and for positions which are very demanding in terms of time and stress. This is not a significant factor for most of the anti-scientists paid by the Heartland Institute. Most of their "research" consists of cherry picking librarianship, with their research costs being restricted to the costs of journal subscriptions (where they do not already have such subscriptions through university affiliation.

    Finally, assuming that the Heartland Institute payments are the limits of payments to the various scientists received for their opinions held. There are many conservative "think tanks" which attack AGW, and most of the scientists involved are affiliated with more than one of them. The assumption that they only receive money form one of the poorest and smallest of those organizations is unwarranted.
    0 0
  31. Koch Brothers? not so much, in fact nothing for climate in at least ten years if ever according to this update at Desmogblog.


    [Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute's climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released on KochFacts.com and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org states that "…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”]
    0 0
  32. Why spend time on this?

    There are so many valuable studies and data that could occupy the space.
    0 0
  33. PLbrunson--because studies and data have no effect on some people. This site is dedicated to the communication of climate science to non-scientists, and sometimes that requires revealing for what they are those people, projects, and organizations who are significantly responsible for keeping people ignorant of the actual science.
    0 0
  34. Hi Tom, (@#30)
    Thanks for your reply. I understand what you're saying about payments to Climate Scientists for research, but I was mostly referring to the difference in the amounts of money involved. I added up all the figures in the graphic above and the total is around 10 million; But governments of the western world currently spend Billions of dollars, not just on research, but on myriad "other" aspects of the Climate Industry too.
    This is what is upsetting me.
    What about the "hangers-on"? What about the thousands of delegates of Durban and Copenhagen? How many of those delegates where Climate Scientists?
    I would like to know your opinion on the money generated by the AGW industry when compared to the amounts of money discussed in this post, and for that matter, any other amounts that "big oil" may have paid to any organisation to "get their point across".

    In my opinion, The AGW Industry is an enormous Cash Cow.
    0 0
  35. @Michael of Brisbane "The AGW Industry is an enormous Cash Cow." if it is, one group that is not included in that is climatologists.

    If govenrments are spending large amounts of money on it, then perhaps there is a good reason for that, which is that a sober assessment of themainstream scientific position suggests that it would be in our (economic) benefit to mitigate rather than adapt to the range of climate change we can expect to see.
    0 0
  36. @Michael of Brisbane #34:

    Please define what you mean by the term, "AGW Industry."
    0 0
  37. John, I mean exactly what I assume you think I mean.
    I don't mean it in a positive way either.
    The Australian Government (to use my own county as an example) has a Department of Climate Change which of course has a multi-million dollar budget.
    here is an example from today's news.

    Note that it says: "For the development of this report, PWC formed an advisory group which included the Bureau of Meteorology, federal and state government agencies and the private sector."

    To me, that is an example of the AGW "industry". (I mean irrespective of scientific evidence, that is an industry. Don't you agree?
    0 0
  38. Michael of Brisbane, if you can provide evidence that the bureaucratic elements of the various conferences on climate change have been hired specifically to assist dignitaries attending those conferences, then, yes, there is the beginnings of an "industry" (used in the late 20th century sense of the term). You seem to see a massive bureaucracy dedicated to a "pro-AGW" agenda. I doubt if there are many people who actively try to spread the theory of AGW in order to achieve job security. Then again, the theory is quite strong, and if you want to argue the reality and possible consequences, there are plenty of threads here at SkS. If you do understand the science, you must also realize that solving the problem is not an easy job. You understand the complexity of global politics and the global economy. You understand how difficult it is to change significant elements of culture (beliefs). You understand how consequences of large-scale, deliberate acts can have a range of unintended consequences (both positive and negative). You may understand all of these things, and yet you want to limit the number of people engaged in understanding them--people who are trying to find ways of solving the problem.

    True, if these "hangers-on" are actually the fops, courtly fools, and yes-men of the new kingdom, then they need to be excised. Consider this, though: the subject of this article is the Heartland Institute. It is a political organization demonstrably dedicated to misinforming the democracy (wasting taxpayer time and money by obscuring reality). It is comprised of a set of individuals who have had their misinformation revealed for what it is publicly (Monckton, Singer, Watts, et al.). They refused to publicly acknowledge their errors in fact and errors in methodology. What else could you call them but fops, yes-men, and courtly fools doing the bidding of their masters? (Yes, moderators, I know about accusations of dishonesty, but when the evidence is available (and lots of it), one has to accept the dishonesty as reality).

    You suspect government waste at Copenhagen and Durban. You have a ton of evidence of waste at corporate-funded organizations like Heartland. You choose to ignore the corporate waste (which you pay for through use of gas, oil, and a variety of products controlled directly or indirectly by the Heartland donors) and instead focus on what might be government waste or might be the same old staff presence. You might also consider how climate denialism has helped Copenhagen and Durban be much less effective (more waste).

    Michael, is AGW a problem, and if so, what will it take to solve the problem?

    By the way, the advisory group you point to is comprised of pre-existing entities. An industry has a fully-developed production-distribution-consumption(-waste, ignore me) cycle. If I lived in Australia, I would ask for budget transparency, unless, again, you want to argue about the simple need for such an organization. It is certainly easier to see waste if one doesn't believe in the need for spending.
    0 0
  39. @Michael of Brisbane #37:

    I completely disagree with your premise that a government entitity is an "industry."

    Does Autralia's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry constitute an "industry" in your opinion.
    0 0
  40. Wow that's alot of money that the Heartland Institute gets ...I wonder what financial support the likes of World Wildlife Fund and or Greenpeace have at their disposal, it would be helpful to see comparisons..just curious?
    0 0
  41. Good point CraigR.

    John, I wasn't saying anything about the Department of Climate Change being an industry in itself. But to use your example of The Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, that is a department that is involved in an industry or industries isn't it?
    Do you accept that the Department of Health is involved in the Medical industry?
    Well, by the same token, The Dept of Climate Change is involved in the AGW "Industry".
    Do you accept that?
    0 0
  42. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry are endeavors closely related to every day needs of human existence, and directly relevant to many types of commodities exchanged on markets.

    There is no such thing as an AGW industry. You might as well say that there is a gravity industry or an evolution industry. That is strecthcing the meaning attached to any piece of scientific knowledge beyond what's meaningful. Let's not go there.
    0 0
  43. Hi Phillippe.
    If something has to be a part of every day human existence to be an industry, then surely living with our new Carbon Tax, soon to become an ETS with its Carbon Credits traded in a a market as a commodity would count?

    I googled the words "industry definition"
    The first result was:

    Industry

    noun /ˈindəstrē/ 
    industries, plural

    1. Economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories
    - the competitiveness of American industry

    2. A particular form or branch of economic or commercial activity
    - the car industry
    - the tourist industry

    3. An activity or domain in which a great deal of time or effort is expended
    - the Shakespeare industry

    4. Hard work
    - the kitchen became a hive of industry

    Please note especially points 2 and 3. (We have a Tourism Department too)
    I still say there is an AGW Industry!
    (But who ever heard of "the Shakespeare Industry?? .... then again, I guess there is such a thing as an "elvis industry" and a "beatles industry" ....)

    By the way, I totally agree that the Earth's Climate should not be an industry, and there should be no such thing as the AGW industry.
    Yet, there is.
    I guess, ironically, when you think about it, Heartland is a part of that industry.
    0 0
  44. Michael of Brisbane @43, Australia has a medical industry (in your terms). A very large one. But nobody seems to worry about that, because before we had a health industry, we had a health problem. The health industry exists only because there is a health problem, and the health industry helps to solve it.

    We have judicial industries, and law enforcement industries, and even a defense industry as well (in your strangely flexible use of the term). Again, nobody is to much worried. Nobody gets on the internet and says in aghast tones, but look how much money the law enforcement industry rakes in compared to the Heartland Institute donations. If they did, they would be thought fools and not worth talking to.

    The reason they are thought fools is because the base questions are these:

    1) Is there a genuine problem which the industry solves; and

    2) Is the industry cost effective at solving the problem.

    If you don't ask those questions, then you contribute nothing of interest to the conversation. And if you do ask them, and are committed to rational, scientific answers, the answer is yes, there is indeed very large AGW problem; and no, the industry is not adequately funded to deal with the problem.

    I invite you to discuss the answers to those questions on appropriate threads. But until you do, and show that your answers are correct you are just making empty noise. (Of course, in the unlikely event that you do show your answers to be correct, then you won't need to have this discussion in any event.)
    0 0
  45. Actually, Michael, Heartland is involved in the anti-science industry. They manufacture and distribute uncertainty within democracies, forcing people to rely more heavily on politicians, PR organizations, and/or traditional sources of authority. Climate science just happens to be one of their targets. Whenever science gets in the way of easy profit, organizations like Heartland are there. Out of one side of their mouths they'll spew a defense of the free market, and out of the other side they'll manipulate markets through campaigns of misinformation and doubt. This is, if all the forms of it are taken together, a huge industry. Companies used to grow their own market manipulation tools, but now there are hundreds of independent firms and organizations for hire.

    The difference between something like Greenpeace and Heartland is that Greenpeace, at least when it started, was out to prove a point: the Earth is a dynamic system, and if we treat it as a collection of disintegrated pieces of private property, we're going to whack the system. Big time. Heartland was started to create doubt where little actually existed (I'm not saying that no doubt existed/exists in climate science; I'm saying precisely "where little actually existed") in order to achieve economic and political goals. Finding the truth mattered/matters to Greenpeace. Finding the truth never mattered to Heartland. Encouraging the Heartlands of the world amounts to encouraging the death of science as an epistemology. In other words, no matter what you believe about climate science, supporting the social construction of knowledge through the scientific method is inconsistent with supporting Heartland.
    0 0
  46. Michael of Brisbane: "I totally agree that the Earth's Climate should not be an industry"

    Under your definition, that would mean there should not be any "economic activity" nor "a great deal of time or effort expended" nor any "hard work." Thus every human endeavor other than sitting and contemplating your navel is an 'industry.'

    So your statement is nonsensically over-generalized.
    0 0
  47. CraigR, the WWF and Greenpeace are world-wide organisations involved in a lot of other issues apart from Global Warming. You could find out the actual details by going to their websites :

    Best known as the world’s leading independent conservation body...[involved in]
    Conservation
    Tackling Climate Change
    Sustainability

    WWF UK - What we do

    We care about how all life on Earth shares our unique planet.
    WWF UK - About us

    OUR MISSION
    WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment, and to
    build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature by:
    • conserving the world’s biological diversity;
    • ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable;
    • reducing pollution and wasteful consumption.

    Tackling Climate Change [they spent just over] £7.5million worldwide

    WWF UK - Financial Report 2011

    Since our founding, we’ve invested nearly US$10 billion in more than 13,000 conservation projects in over 150 countries.
    And while our mission has developed over the years, it remains as clear as ever: “to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.”

    WWF International
    (It doesn't itemise Global Warming in this 2010 Report but you can see that most of their work is to do with Conservation)


    The underlying goal of all our work is a green and peaceful world - an earth that is ecologically healthy and able to nurture life in all its diversity.
    Greenpeace - Our vision

    We investigate, expose and confront environmental abuse by governments and corporations around the world.
    We champion environmentally responsible and socially just solutions, including scientific and technical innovation.

    Greenpeace - How we make change happen

    We do not accept funding from any political parties, governments or corporations.
    As ever, the great majority (95%) of our income came from individual supporters, who donated an average of €77 a year to Greenpeace. The remainder came from foundation funding.

    Climate & Energy €25,027,000
    Greenpeace International - Annual Report 2010

    Now, how does all that compare to a secretive Conservative group, working just in America, with an agenda to undermine science ?
    0 0
  48. Michael, whether or not it is valid, your point is of no interest whatsoever. You just like to be able to use the word so you can fabricate ominous sounding sentences with it. Whatever. I'm not going to waste any more time on this.
    0 0
  49. Thanks Phillippe.
    I agree with you.
    (although I do think my point is valid)
    0 0
  50. Thanks JMurphy... I would think the same would apply to HI ....eg they do other things. I think the reaction to what monies come into to an organization, in this case to HI, it is very much disproportionate to many others that are pro-AGW and therefore is an overreach by many. Even Mr Cook wrote above "half are potentially climate-related"
    0 0

1  2  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us