Skip to main content

Scientists are fighting back, with a Scientific Study of the funding devoted to the denial of human-caused Climate Change. This is significant, that this has happened.

Perhaps they are trying to tell us something?   Those dang Scientists!  Always explaining stuff.

The politics of climate change -- Apr 29, 2013

The study, in the journal Climatic Change, is one of the first to examine the influence of political orientation on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action to reduce emissions.

"The more people believe scientists agree about climate change, the more willing they are to support government action, even when their party affiliation is taken into account," McCright said. "But there is still a political split on levels of perceived scientific agreement, in that fewer Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and liberals believe there is a scientific consensus."

McCright and colleagues analyzed a Gallup survey of 1,024 adults who were asked about their views on climate change.

The results reaffirm the success of what McCright calls the "denial machine" -- an organized movement to undercut the scientific reality of climate change during the past two decades.

The amount of money being devoted to the Climate Change Counter-Movement (CCCM) is truly phenomenal. This is what free speech has come to:  If you have enough funds, you can turn even the established findings of Science upside down.

Worse yet, this funding study has concluded that as much as 75% of this Denial Funding, has made itself 'untraceable' -- aka.  It's "Dark Money,"  ... buying itself a 'dismal future' for humanity, in exchange for their own status quo.

Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort

provided by Drexel University, -- Dec 20, 2013

A new study conducted by Drexel University's environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.

larger image

Key findings include:

 -- Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.

  -- Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.

  -- Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.

  -- Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.


And you thought "Dark Money" was only for Wall Street Moguls and grifted Politicians ...

Who knew, that conservative Think Tanks had significant in-roads here too?

Perhaps they are trying to tell sell us something?

Here's some more of the nitty-gritty of quid-pro-quo keeping human-caused climate change quote "a debatable idea" -- direct from that new scientific study itself.

Don't you love it, when Scientists decide to fight back?

Institutionalizing delay:  foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

by Robert J. Brulle  [Environmental Sociologist, PhD;  Drexel University]

Received: 25 January 2013,   [ ]

Abstract:  This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

larger image

Figure 2 illustrates the overall sum of foundation funding received by the 69 CCCM organizations [Climate Change Counter Movement] listed in the Foundation Center Date Base. As this figure shows, conservative think tanks were the largest recipients of foundation support. These think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute, are among the best known conservative think tanks in the United States. The American Enterprise Institute received 16 % of the total grants made to organizations that are active in the CCCM . The Heritage Foundation was a close second, receiving 14 %. The majority of foundation funding goes to multiple focus conservative think tanks. As previous analyses have shown (Jacques et al. 2008; Dunlap and Jacques 2013), these multiple focus think tanks are highly active in the CCCM.

4 Conclusion

The debate over climate change involves a political and cultural dispute contest over the appropriate field frame that governs energy policy. The CCCM efforts focus on maintaining a field frame that justifies unlimited use of fossil fuels by attempting to delegitmate the science that supports the necessity of mandatory limits on carbon emissions. To accomplish this goal in the face of massive scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change has meant the development of an active campaign tomanipulate and mislead the public over the nature of climate science and the threat posed by climate change. This counter-movement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.

It is without question that conservative foundations play a major role in the creation and maintenance of the CCCM. All of the available information illustrates strong links between these foundations and organizations in the CCCM, even despite efforts such as the creation of Donors Trust/Capital to conceal these funding flows. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating efforts to defeat efforts to mitigate climate change are a number of well-known conservative foundations. These foundations promote neoliberal free-market ideas in many realms, and have extended their funding of conservative causes to encompass climate change.

With delay and obfuscation as their goals, the U.S. CCCM has been quite successful in recent decades. However, the key actors in this cultural and political conflict are not just the “experts” who appear in the media spotlight. The roots of climate-change denial go deeper, because individuals’ efforts have been bankrolled and directed by organizations that receive sustained support from foundations and funders known for their overall commitments to conservative causes. Thus to fully understand the opposition to climate change legislation, we need to focus on the institutionalized efforts that have built and maintain this organized campaign. Just as in a theatrical show, there are stars in the spotlight. In the drama of climate change, these are often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians, such as Senator James Inhofe. However, they are only the most visible and transparent parts of a larger production. Supporting this effort are directors, script writers, and, most importantly, a series of producers, in the form of conservative foundations. Clarifying the institutional dynamics of the CCCM can aid our understanding of how anthropogenic climate change has been turned into a controversy rather than a scientific fact in the U.S.

Well, if only we could get the congressional bit-players {Imhofe, et al.} off the stage, and turn our focus to the stage directors, 'feeding them their lines' ...

The Drexel University study has provided us the necessary "cliff notes" about who is funding, fabricating, and selling us their Climate Change Denial machine (aka. denial hypothesis)

Time to follow up on those "forensic" funding clues. And find the factual reality, that lies behind them.

Figure 1: Total Foundation Funding Distribution - 2003 to 2010

U.S. Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations

Note: All Dollar Amounts listed in Millions

Donor Trust/Donors Capital Fund, $78.8, 14%
Scaife Affiliated Foundations, $39.6, 7%
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, $29.6, 5%
Koch Affiliated Foundations, $26.3, 5%
Howard Charitable Foundation, $24.8, 4%
John William Pope Foundation, $21.9, 4%
Searle Freedom Trust, $21.7, 4%
John Templeton Foundation, $20.2, 4%
Dunn's Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking, $13.7, 2%
Smith Richarson Foundation, Inc., $13.5, 2%
Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, $13.1, 2%
The Kovner Foundation, $12.8, 2%
Annenberg Foundation, $11.3, 2%
Lily Endowment Inc., $10.3, 2%
The Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, $10.0, 2%
ExxonMobil Foundation, $7.2, 1%
Brady Education Foundation, $6.8, 1%
The Samuel Roberts Foundation, Inc., $6.7, 1%
Coors Affiliated Foundations, $6.2, 1%
Lakeside Foundation, $5.8, 1%
Herrick Foundation, $5.7, 1%

118 Others < 1%, $170.4, 31%

Figure 2: Total Foundation Recipient Income Distribution - 2003 to 2010

U.S. Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations

Note: All Dollar Amounts listed in Millions

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, $86.7, 16%
Heritage Foundation, $76.4, 14%
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, $45.4, 8%
Manhattan Institute Policy Research, $33.1, 6%
Cato Institute, $30.6, 5%
Hudson Institute, $25.5, 5%
Altas Economic Research Foundation, $24.5, 4%
Americans for Prosperity Foundation, $22.7, 4%
John Locke Foundation, $18.0, 3%
Heartland Institute, $16.7, 3%
Reason Foundation, $15.0, 3%
Media Research Center, $14.5, 3%
Mercatus Center, $14.3, 3%
National Center for Policy Analysis, $13.9, 3%
Competitive Enterprise Institute, $12.5, 2%
State Policy Network, $12.0, 2%
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, $11.4, 2%
Independent Womens Forum, $7.4, 1%
Landmark Legal Foundation, $7.0, 1%
FreedomWorks Foundation, $5.3, 1%

49 Other Organizations < 1%, $63.7, 11%


PS. Here's a hearty Hat Tip to DK user palantir, who provided me with that original link to this eye-opening report.  Thanks palantir, much obliged!

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What is the ratio? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How does this compare with the amount of money, both public and private, spent affirming climate change?

    •  dunno (6+ / 0-)

      read the report, maybe answer your own confusing question.

      In the meantime here's another "ratio" to ponder.

      Source: DeSmogBlog,

      Scientists who think human-cause Climate Change is real,
      vs those that don't.

      That's another "significant" ratio, from a purely statistically point of view.

      •  Reading article comments (0+ / 0-)

        This dialogue [on top of the fold] is but one example of how ignorant a person is without formal scientific training:

        From [Non-scientist]

        Thu, 2012-11-15 14:49 — RobH

        I realize you are a geologist and more knowledgeable in that field than I am.  Still, I find this statement a little odd:

        "It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology."

        If there is any field in science that has a "ruling paradigm," then surely that field is biology, with the ruling paradigm of evolution.  Life would not exist in the absense of evolution.  On the other hand, geology exists in the absense of plate tectonics, and climate exists without anthropogenic influence.


        Scientist replies:

        RobH writes:

        "  On the other hand, geology exists in the absense of plate tectonics, and climate exists without anthropogenic influence."  

        ~ ~ ~


        Think about the evolution of life on this planet and the many ways it has been intinityly intertwined with geology.

        Life on this planet wouldn't be possible where it not for those floating tectonic plates and that roiling planet they are floating on and likewise our planet's life has made a huge difference to how the geology has unfolded.  Think subduction and flux, erosion control, chemical process, etc, etc, etc.

        ~ ~ ~

        Grab some popcorn and do a little easy learning


        Non-Scientist response:

        Rob, been rereading your comment.  I realize I went off on a side show.  But, dude the more I read your comment the more confusing it gets.  Whatcha try'n to say?


        As a Mechanical Engineer/Computer Scientist with too many credits allowing me up to 5 more degrees I find it utterly disheartening to those still on the quest of attempting reasoned conversation with a pre-cambrian mind.

        The person clearly never took unversity level Rocks for Jocks Geology, never mind any Paleontology courses, not to mention Biology courses. I know they know nothing of applied physics.

        Attempting to explain to them that life exists on this planet due to the events over billions of years that culminated into a material universe which cooled and formed galaxies, pulsars, quasars, black-holes, solar systems and finally gave us a planet which resulted in a molten core projecting a large electromagnetic field [shield], and thus an atmosphere where bacteria could create life is a complete waste of time.

        It's akin to explaining Differential Equations to people high on Methamphetamines.

    •  We do not have foundations wasting their money (6+ / 0-)

      attempting to prove politically what scientists have proved scientifically.

      I once amused myself by going through some Creationist pseudoscience to see how many different kinds of science they had to deny. Basically, it came down to biology, chemistry, and physics, although I broke it down in more detail. Most of all, they have to deny the entire scientific method, although they pretend to accept it for those parts of science that they think do not attack their belief systems. But the very basis of the method, that is, starting with verifiable facts and building theories that can be tested and improved, is beyond the ken of those who believe that Jesus cannot save them unless Creation is literal history, and those for whom God making Blacks morally and intellectually inferior (known as Curse of Ham Theology) is the essence of Christianity.

      We have the same phenomenon with Global Warming. Start by denying the chemistry and physics of the greenhouse effect, the geological and biological processes that have put CO2 and methane into the atmosphere at various times in the last several billion years or taken them out, and the industrial processes that have produced vastly more CO2 in proportion to the progress of the Industrial Revolution over several centuries.

      In particular, every discussion of scientific work is based on specific processes that accord with the scientific method. So on our side is essentially all funding for science and science education in whatever form and at whatever level.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 08:52:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No wonder your side is losing (0+ / 0-)
        We do not have foundations wasting their money attempting to prove politically what scientists have proved scientifically.
        Is the truth so pure and noble that no money needs to be spent in its behalf?  That is as naïve as the man who thinks he does not need a lawyer to defend him in court because he is innocent.

        In the fullness of time, the truth will prevail all on its own, regardless of how much effort is expended in trying to prevent it.  But since you guys seem to be in a hurry, and since you think so much is at stake, it might not be a waste of money to fund a few foundations of your own to advocate for your side.

        •  it is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lefty Coaster, wader

          the peoples of the world,

          especially future generations,

          who are "losing" due to this orchestrated deception.

          Isn't Big Oil and Co, swell?

        •  Try my last sentence again (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader, Naniboujou, AoT, jamess
          So on our side is essentially all funding for science and science education in whatever form and at whatever level.
          Spending money on science and education turns out to be quite effective. That is why the other side is losing millions of its children every year, and is shrinking toward irrelevance. The political tipping point on this and many other issues will come within 10–15 years. The economic tipping point for Global Warming, known as Grid Parity, will occur much sooner, and has indeed already begun in some locations particularly favorable for wind or solar power.

          You can also thank the infamous David Koch for funding Nova on PBS.

          What's up with the weather?

          NOVA and FRONTLINE examine the truth about Global Warming

          Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

          by Mokurai on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 08:06:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why should distortions be on an equal footing w (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, Naniboujou, AoT, jamess


      "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 03:33:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Glad you picked it up and ran with it (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, eeff, JayDean, walkshills, NoMoreLies, wader

    Great diary!

  •  You and I and most of the civilized world know (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walkshills, jamess, cordgrass, NoMoreLies

    how to read this stuff, and all manipulation aside, is still clearly says that the ususal suspects are still out there trying to fuck all of the rest of us.

    Despicable is now, as it always has been, an understatement.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 07:15:58 PM PST

  •  "Scientific Study"? (0+ / 0-)

    "Abstract:  This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States."

    This isn't a "scientific study." The article doesn't "study" anything, and it isn't "scientific."

    For that matter, the paper doesn't genuinely "analyze" anything, either. It names names, and that's all its author sought to do.

    A genuinely "scientific study" would've identified "Drexel University environmental sociologist" Robert Brulle's "climate change counter-movement." Who are these people, and what do they believe? (They are not all conservatives, and few believe the climate isn't changing.)

    Also, a genuinely "scientific study" would've looked at funding sources for ALL climate-related research; even public-sector ("government") funding allocations are not devoid of political beliefs.

    Brulle looked for support for one side of an argument and, of course, he found it (and I wonder who paid him to do so). His article (published in Climate Change) is more of a feature story than a "scientific study."

    •  It's an honor (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to be your very first comment, WB.

      I wonder, who's providing  the "bread,"

      for your sockpocket reincarnations?

      Would you mind disclosing that.

      •  What exactly is, "DARK MONEY" ?? (0+ / 0-)

        Coming from someone that rejects both the LEFT, &  RIGHT side in politics my first question is, what exactly is "Dark Money"  isn't that just  code for : those crooked baby killing, pollution making evil republicans?
        Excuse me, but is there, or is there not, the exact same type of funding happening on the LEFT? What do you call that money?  Holy, enlightened, blessed, financial aid?  
         What I see is this, when you walk out your door everyday and interact with the world of people how many do you meet that make you suddenly make , coil up & start hissing because you sense a evil, mean cruel, vicious conservative?
            isn't it clear to you that when a (WELL PAID) member of the government propaganda machine produces a written editorial in a publication designed to attract a person who has the mental make up that agrees with the point of view of the left. The only reason they have written the editorial was to strike at your emotional response? The more they make you HATE some mythical political figure that does everything you are against. But you never see these people out in public? Can only politicians be the only people that are doing these things you hate?  You ever notice  that people in a crowd  don't do this type of thing on their own, it's a well oiled machine creating the boogieman that you have an emotional knee jerk reaction to certain keywords, and faces. If the TV, Internet, & newspapers were all never invented, and you went down to the town hall and spike to people yourself, and everyone else did the same, than both the LEFT,& RIGHT would quickly see that the media, politicians, & what they claim is "News",  are nothing but propaganda tools designed to make you HATE based on your mental make up.

  •  Where did the money go??x (0+ / 0-)

    Has anyone noticed that when what I call, " spokespersons agents"  paid to promote propaganda on behalf of their organized criminal crime corporation. ( they call it, The News)  think about this; when politicians on both sides of the isle need money,who do they get their money from? YOU, How do they get the money? Well,' if the republicans need money they send out one of their top fund raisers. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Obama. So when Nancy goes up to a Microphone and carefully makes a prepared statement designed to just infuriates the Right Wingers, they run & give their republican tons of money to get her gone. 'Right'
    Then when the democrats need money, the march G. Bush to the Microphone and he makes a carefully prepared statement designed to light a liberal minded persons hair on fire'  they run and give the Dem's money to get him gone. I mean, i very, very, very, rarely see people throwing money at politicians  for doing something that they promised to do, thats the one thing you hardly ever see. Thats because people have a real hard time trying to understand that anyone that raises $4 million, of other peoples money to get a job that only pays $250,000 is a criminal. "" its hard to grasps that government, & politicians are a business. If these same people weren't in office than they would be in jail. Think about it, how many people  give the amounts of money to friends, the needy, poor people, etc.. Not many, but if the media creates a so called shady, dark, almost criminal group of people you hate. Than are you voting "for your best interest"  or are you voting against someone you hate? "
     If your voting against someone, which I say we all are, than how can you actually be FOR "ANYTHING" because you didn't vote for what was in the best interest of your cause, you may agree with someone on the same things but they never actually do the things you believe in, they just tell you they agree with you. Think about that next time you back a candidate. Government is a business, its just that they don't ever produce a product,

  •  There is power in boycott (0+ / 0-)

    The effectiveness of "Flush Rush," however, depended upon his dependable consistency; every time we were tempted to lose our list of advertisers' emails, he said something even more reprehensible.

    Getting offended enough by bad science to walk farther down the grocery isle to avoid Georgia Pacific and those Red Solo Cups requires more intelligence than our "back to basics" educational system has given us, and more persistence than most have for a cause.

    But it must be done. The nation's science teachers can't do it alone. There are a million users here, and even if half of them are sock puppets there is a lot of power. Duck Dynasty can't keep the red solo cup market up totally on its own.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site