×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Climate Skeptic Funded By Oil and Coal Companies

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-that-I-can-recall-at-this-time-sir-no dept.

Earth 504

Honken writes with a report from The Guardian that "'One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.' This somewhat contradicts that [Harvard researcher Willie] Soon in a 2003 US senate hearing said that he had 'not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

504 comments

EPIC SEPTIC FAIL !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625334)

Alrightnow !!

Re:EPIC SEPTIC FAIL !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625538)

Yeah, it was a really shitty thing to do.

and in other news (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625362)

many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another.

So, you found one you don't like, I am quite sure we can find more, there are probably even websites dedicated to this.

Re:and in other news (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625444)

I tried searching for global warming experts at www.hotornot.com, but those people didn't appear to be educated in much of anything besides cosmetology and binge drinking.

we found one that lied under oath (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625458)

that makes this one even wore then admiting he/she worked for or does work for such n such.

Re:and in other news (3, Insightful)

Biff Stu (654099) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625466)

Most climatologists who support global warming are employed by public sector or non-profit universities and rely on research grants from the federal government. How is this in any way equivalent to taking money from Big Oil and Coal?

Re:and in other news (2, Insightful)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625588)

It's quite simple: the more catastrophic the scenario, the more cash your institution will get for further research work and the more expenses paid trips you'll get to the Maldives.

Re:and in other news (4, Insightful)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625624)

Other than the fact that that is a lie promulgated by conservative talk radio hosts, it would be a good point.

Re:and in other news (4, Insightful)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625700)

But it isn't a lie. It's a fact. Billions of dollars are being poured into climate research by tax-payers. That is an order of magnitude more than corporations are spending on the sceptical viewpoint. None of that money would be available to these institutions and researchers if the conclusion was, "climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is ~1C and in other news, increasing CO2 makes plants grow more vigorously". Al Gore has made millions from this fraud. But you people are completely blind to these things.

Re:and in other news (1, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625774)

But it isn't a lie. It's a fact.

Well, no, it just isn't. Perhaps you are wishing really hard for it to be a fact, but that will not make it so. It just plain isn't true.

But it really doesn't need to be my word against yours. There's a rule to these situations. That rule says that you are supposed to provide evidence, since you're the one making the claim.

That should be easy, since it's a "fact", yes?

Re:and in other news (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625922)

I'm reminded of when all the government and educational-funded scientists were doing studies that showed smoking tobacco is bad for you and leads to cancer... and the tobacco companies all had their "scientists" [wikipedia.org], many of whom later testified to Congress about the fact that they'd falsified their "studies" to suit those who were paying them.

Eerily familiar isn't it?

Re:and in other news (3, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625812)

Research does not equal support for global warming.

Research finds support but it also finds things such as weather satilites. Climate trends. Water tables. Pollution and air quality surveys. Storm prediction. I could go on.

There are many reasons to pour money into researching the climate and weather other than just to "support" global warming. The research just happens to be supporting it.

Re:and in other news (2)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625944)

[citation needed]

Then again, I understand your skepticism: It's the same feeling I get whenever someone yells about those "Islamic terrorists" and then it turns out the yeller is a Christian - not exactly a neutral party in the inter-religious struggles.

If you want to see the effect of the "billions of dollars in climate research", turn on the Weather Channel. Also, it does not help that CO2 makes plants grow more if we keep cutting them down and burning them, and learn something about system equilibrium - +1C can be a lot in the right circumstances over time.

Re:and in other news (4, Interesting)

haruchai (17472) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626012)

Oil companies have been getting billions in corporate welfare for a long time. Why is this necessary? BP, despite spending over $20 billion on the DeepWater Horizon spill, have already returned to profitability. Gore's supposed "millions" pale in comparison to the clout and resources of just the oil and coal industries.
While most plants grow more quickly as CO2 increases, it's not a slam dunk. Researchers have discovered that soybean crops grown in higher levels of CO2 are more susceptible to attack by insects. Bigger and faster doesn't necessarily mean better and healthier.

Re:and in other news (3, Interesting)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625914)

Other than the fact that that is a lie promulgated by conservative talk radio hosts, it would be a good point.

Either you don't work at a Univeristy or you are dishonest. The amount of grant money one can bring is a significant part of your evaluations and status within the University and the science community as a whole. When a University looks at hiring someone for the faculty, one of the things they look at is grant history and existing grant money that the new hire will bring with him. (Not the only thing, but one of them.) If you want to move up the ladder you need to have grants.

Research faculty write their salaries into those grants. If they don't get grants, they either don't get paid or they have to take University money which has teaching responsibilities attached. If you want to do research full time instead of being saddled with the 100 level undergrad courses, you pray for grants.

If they don't get grants, they don't get to buy the fancy new computers and pay for graduate students and research assistants. The larger your number of supported people, the higher your status.

The more students you have, the more conferences that you are likely to attend. If you are thinking about doing field work, the more students you have means the more likely you are to be able to do that field work. (If your grant is to do field work and you don't pull it off, your chances of getting another one drops significantly.) Those students will be busy doing research which will result in papers being published which will be added to your vitae, and when it comes time for tenure to be granted, your publication history is one of those things they look at. Lots of grants, lots of students, lots of papers, more likely to get tenure.

Now, when it comes time to write those grants, is someone going to write a grant that says "this isn't really much of a problem but it is an interesting science question", or will they be likely to write "DANGER DANGER this could kill us all if we don't study it!"? Yes, that was hyperbole, but the impetus to be more like the latter than the former is still there. Funding agencies have limited amounts of money and are often tasked with supporting research to find practical answers to pressing issues. They're more likely to fund something that is "DANGER kill us all!" than "yawn, why is the sky blue?" kinds of things.

So, no, it isn't a lie propogated by talk radio hosts. Quite the opposite. And anyone who works in a University knows it and has seen it first hand. Other than maybe the janitors. Anyone whose job involves being paid by grants know this.

Re:and in other news (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625768)

Not really. Catastrophic is actually looked down upon in the scientific community.

Re:and in other news (0)

bell.colin (1720616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625872)

At least the climate skeptics are using "their" own earned money instead of "my" money by force (i.e. taxes taken from me and given to these public institutions)

If the Global warming/cooling/change alarmist want to lobby and preach do it with your own damn money.

Neither side should get any money from the govt. (i.e. tax payers) They can do their own research with their own money.

Re:and in other news (0)

shilly (142940) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626040)

Hoo yeah. You stuck it to the man there. Who wants gummint paying scientists to research such alarmist things as water tables and weather patterns and fluid mechanics and oceanography and speciation and all those other stooopid sciencey subjects. We could just give the money back, instead. Only to rich people, obviously. Poor people are undeserving and don't pay any tax anyway.

Big Ego Problem (4, Funny)

Biff Stu (654099) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625934)

I have heard this idea before. It assumes that all the climate researchers are somehow in collusion on a vast conspiracy. The problem with your idea is that the top tier universities are full of egotistical bastards who would gladly screw their peers in order to demonstrate that they are smarter than everyone else. These professors tend to do pretty well with grant money and anything that enhances their fame just ensures that the money keeps coming, even though this may be at the expense of others.

Re:and in other news (0)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626024)

It's quite simple: the more catastrophic the scenario, the more cash your institution will get for further research work and the more expenses paid trips you'll get to the Maldives.

Bollocks.

Re:and in other news (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625690)

You say that as if it's not immediately obvious. Since when did we trust government organizations to not politically interfere with research?

Those awarding the grants (0)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625760)

They expect to be paid off in the future.

Are there an equal number of grants going to climate change skeptic research? Yeah, right. Somebody has to fund the opposition.

Even so, the governments have far more money to give than the oil and coal companies, especially when they already collect billions in taxes from those companies to help pay for the research to destroy them.

Re:Those awarding the grants (1)

micheas (231635) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626000)

Except that those billions collected from the oil companies are more than spent on hiring and equipping troops to enforce their contracts to extract oil from various places around the world, and making sure that their tankers (flagged in an off shore tax haven like the Cayman Islands that has essentially no Navy.) are not taken buy pirates.

Exxon probably gets more than 5x what it pays in taxes in the form of military assistance alone, not to mention R&D and other small perks.

Strictly domestic oil companies are probably getting the shaft as far as their tax bill, but the multinationals are more than getting what they pay for.

If Obama would refuse to send us war ships to rescue foreign flagged ships from Somali pirates I would be a little happier about the situation. (and our national debt would be a little lower.)

Did you really need to ask that question? (4, Insightful)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625828)

Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change. The oil companies who employ all of the prominent ACC skeptics stand to lose billions of dollars if the findings are not a certain way.

Let's put it another way. Acme Pharmaceuticals wants to start selling a new drug. Scientists from universities find that the drug is not safe. Scientists employed by Acme Pharmaceuticals find that the drug is perfectly safe. Given these two pieces of information, would you give this new drug to your children?

This constant "the other side is exactly as bad" argument from conservatives and libertarians is laughable in almost every instance it is used.

Re:Did you really need to ask that question? (1, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625942)

30 years ago the Republicunts insisting smoking wasn't bad for you (on the pay of Big Tobacco) were playing the same game there. They still are screaming about the "free choice to smoke" in my area as we try to eliminate smoking from public places.

Remember the "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" idea the Republicunts keep screaming about when they want "freedom"? Well, your right to smoke ends when you blow it in my face, asswad.

Re:and in other news (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625468)

Yep.. on one side are the people who want to keep making $$$ profits. And on the other side are people who'd like to avoid massive coastal flooding and ecological destruction in the next several centuries. We all have our biases, I guess.

Re:and in other news (5, Insightful)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625470)

The news here is that he lied about it.

Re:and in other news (4, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625834)

It isn't news.

You won't hear about it in the media.

If he was a supporter of Global Warming we'd hear about it for a couple of weeks as one of the top stories.

sunshine is the best disinfectant (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625534)

many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another

Your attempt to muddy the waters aside, one thing is clear: this guy accepted a million dollars to deny reality.

Re:and in other news (-1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625544)

Yea, and how is this different from the fact that the "man-made global warming is settled science" talk is coming from Al Gore who is perfectly positioned to benefit from all the regulation and carbon credits, etc?

Re:and in other news (5, Insightful)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625644)

Al Gore isn't a climate scientist.

About time someone remembered that about Gore (1, Flamebait)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626054)

Maybe you can help tell Gore to STFU.

I stopped listening to this totalitarian political hack back when he wanted to force us to let the government have the keys to all of our encryption. Al Gore was the administration's point man in the crypto wars of the 90s, and he wasn't on our side.

Probably the one positive thing about George W. Bush is that he prevented Al Gore from becoming President.

Money sources [Re:and in other news (4, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625666)

many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another.

What do you mean by "both sides"? Really? What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?

That's the party line of the climate-change deniers: "Oh, it doesn't matter that the so-called skeptics are all funded by fossil-fuel companies, because both sides are funded by dirty money."

But, oddly, when there is even a rumor that a climate scientist has received as much as a lunch paid for by a source that is not absolutely spotlessly apolitical, isn't it amazing how the blogosphere lights up with accusations of how climate change is "bought and paid for." (Even when the rumor turns out to be unrelated to actual fact.)

Re:Money sources [Re:and in other news (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625970)

What do you mean by "both sides"? Really? What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?

I believe you'll find the oil companies have put hundreds of millions of dollars of funding into 'global warming' and 'green energy' research. They'd probably be foolish if they didn't, because if they can use 'global warming' to reduce the usage of coal, then they're likely to make more money selling oil.

Didn't the 'Climategate' emails include a bunch where they were discussing how to get funding from oil companies?

Re:and in other news (4, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625680)

This is not just a person who happens to get money from somewhere. This is a person who lied to the US senate about where they were getting money. There is a big difference here and trying to make the two issues equivalent just makes me think you are pushing an agenda.

Re:and in other news (1, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625752)

Ok. Who are the big bidders for pro-climate change? And by big I mean those that can put down millions.

Clean energy, who spends most of their money on R&D?

Politicos? Who could get leverage a lot cheaper elsewhere with that same money?

Who?

"All who gain power.." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625428)

Heh, how typical.
Always greed.
Never for the good of all..

That article was a steaming pile of Guardian (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625442)

Also had the Koch bogeyman in there to keep the kids awake at night.

Keep up the good work.

Should result in a prison sentence (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625454)

Lying in these kinds of hearings is utterly amoral and can have drastic negative consequences for society.

Re:Should result in a prison sentence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625522)

I can only assume that lying to the senate is or should be worse than lying to a judge in a court of law....

Re:Should result in a prison sentence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625532)

Lying in these kinds of hearings is utterly amoral and can have drastic negative consequences for society.

You want to outlaw lying in the Senate? What do you suggest they do with their time there instead?

Re:Should result in a prison sentence (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625632)

Please people RTF(biased)A carefully.

He didn't lie. They are taking a (true) statement he made in 2003 and then pointing at grants and stuff he received in 2005 and later then going "A HA! LIAR!"

Unless they have a quote of him saying he "would never ever take money from those groups ever" or time has suddently started working backwards I fail to see why people are up in arms or how this discredits him or his work.

He started out doing a bunch of research using a variety of funding sources. Took a certain position. Then as funding and open mindedness about the topic dried up he started accepting funding from the only sources that remained interested in paying for him to continue his work. I see nothing that would imply he started out chasing exxon et all with a "research slanted your way for cash" program.

Re:Should result in a prison sentence (5, Informative)

RatPh!nk (216977) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625906)

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

Take "Greenpeace" with a grain of salt but that clearly says 2001 and 2002 which is before 2003 testimony, no?

Re:Should result in a prison sentence (1)

btk1137 (1984836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626060)

The article clearly states he received money from API from 2001-2007. I don't see a problem with taking money from organizations interested in the work he is doing. As a climate skeptic, why not market to companies who are interested in funding you. It's only a problem if it compromises your scientific integrity. Still, I wouldn't know if that answer is a minor slip up at the time or a guilty conscience hiding an unfairly biased perspective. Honestly, I hate it when politics gets mixed up with science.

Re:Should result in a prison sentence (1)

Prune (557140) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625830)

Or, in this case, can have positive consequences depending on where you live. Canada for example is expected to have significant benefits from global warming over the rest of this century, due to things like the opening of the northwest passage allowing new shipping lanes in the arctic and exploiting the arctic's natural resources, as well as (what is more important in the longer term) an increase in arable land due to melting of the permafrost which raises the country's capacity for farming as well as livable land for development. Last year a US geographer claimed the resulting economic boost will make Canada a major power. http://m.io9.com/5631708/how-canada-will-become-a-superpower-making-the-northern-rim-the-envy-of-the-world [io9.com] So as a Canadian it would be unpatriotic of me not to cheer on this guy lying to the US congress if that leads to increased global warming and thus helps my people.

so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625456)

The article tries to imply that he lied to the senate but then doesn't show any evidence.

Lying to Congress (2, Insightful)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625480)

I remember when lying to Congress used to be a crime. Now it's just an alternative lifestyle.

Re:Lying to Congress (1)

Prune (557140) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625608)

Well it's not as big of a deal since congress is full of liars (or was that lawyers, can't tell the difference) anyways. It's like sitting in a sewer and adding to it.

Re:Lying to Congress (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625846)

I understand he also writes product reviews for Amazon's Vine program.

Funded by Exxon (5, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625498)

Not surprising; the main source of critiques that attempt to discredit climate science is the "Heartland Institute," which doesn't state its funding sources, except to say it's funded by "foundations and corporations"... but reading the budget information from Exxon Mobil shows those "foundations and corporations" tend to be fossil fuel companies, and fossil-fuel funded institutes like the American Petroleum Institute.

Re:Funded by Exxon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625818)

They are also funding anti-nuclear movement and pro-solar, partly as the former is a major threat to natural gas and oil, while the latter is provides a (temporary) distraction away from their own pollution.

Large cap businesses in favor of nuclear tend to be the ones that are very dependent on the scarce natural resources produced by Exxon et. all, namely, the utilities.

Re:Funded by Exxon (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626046)

Ah, Heartland Institute, the organization that most clearly shows that "libertarianism" is mostly just "you consumers and politicians should stop being mean to the wonderful mega-corporations".

So what? (-1, Flamebait)

cbeaudry (706335) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625508)

So what?

If I'm a scientist, and my conclusions are that that there is no climate change, or that the change is natural and not anthropogenic or again that there is another driving factor, or even that the change isn't as drastic as some claim and that the consequences aren't as bad or bad as being touted by other scientists.

I want to publish, further my studies, keep on researching.

What do I care who funds me? If the oil industry wants to fund me and leaves me to my own conclusions, does that mean my study is wrong?

We know for a fact that anything global warming or climate change is being funded left and right like crazy. If you study ANYTHING under the sun, but find an excuse to link it to AGW, BAM, funded.

If I'm a scientist having a hard time finding funding because of the current "Green religion mob mentality" I'll turn to whoever wants to give me money and be damned what you guys think.

IMO and my view, scientists funded by the IPCC, the UN and any "EnviroNUT group like greenpeace" looks just as bad as it does for those on the other side that see skeptics funded by the oil or coal industries.

Re:So what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625598)

I guest that would be fine if you disclosed your funding sources AND DIDN"T FREAKING LIE TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT!

Re:So what? (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625980)

He didint lie, they are taking a statement from 2003, then putting it against the findings of his funding from 2005 and 2010...

This what. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625744)

Let's but this into another perspective: Do you want that your local policemen get nice presents every day from the local people suspected to be drug dealers/organized crime/... every month. After all, if those suspects were actual criminals the policy would already have arrested them, so it cannot be bad if law officers have a bit more money so they can concentrate on catching criminals a bit more, can it?

And if you do not trust police officers to still be able to do uninfluenced decisions by getting money, why do you think a researcher would be able to?

If you take their money, you will always think twice before publishing something against their interests. You either realize that and have a bad time fighting all the time against that bad feeling or you might not even realize it.

In other words: Your research might still be valuable but totally worthless to decide the things your money-giver has a interest in. And thus you should not lie to other people that you get that money and that your research is thus not suitable for that discussion.

Re:This what. (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626026)

I agree, but then I dont like that public funds are controlled by groups put in place by public representatives, that are controlled by banking interests.

I dont like that the UN is controlled by the IMF.

I dont like that everything in this world is controlled by the banks and big money holders.

So the money comes from oil industries or from the public (which means bank controlled interests), makes no difference, on side is just as bad as the other.

Re:So what? (1)

shilly (142940) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625750)

You really are extraordinarily stupid if you can't understand the problem with this, aren't you? Have you never even heard of the commonplace saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune?"

What's the statute of limitations on perjury? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625514)

String 'im up alongside Bonds.

Climate Catastrophists are funded by everyone else (0, Troll)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625536)

In other news......

“EDF has long been a powerful voice in Washington, and when the need began to exceed the $1 million annual cap on our lobbying established by tax law, we created a sister group, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, which is free of spending limits. This has enabled us to ratchet up our legislative efforts, particularly on climate, and to advocate strong environmental laws even as the stakes increase.”

A BBC investigation in 2007 by reporter Simon Cox found that the European Commission is giving millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to environmental campaigners to run lobbying operations in Brussels. Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE), received almost half of its funding from the EU in 2007.

Greenpeace don’t mention the money that the EPA gives to NGO’s, for example National Resources Defense Council are currently in receipt of a grant of $1,150,123, (XA – 83379901-2) for promoting carbon trading.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) has received $3,879,014 from the EPA in the last nine years for propaganda projects and promotion of emissions trading schemes, $715,000 in the current period 2011/12. If the EPA really were interested in science, they would be funding the genuine research undertaken by people like Dr Soon, rather than policy promotion for their own agenda.

Members of the board of WRI, are Al Gore and Theodore Roosevelt IV. Mr Roosevelt is the chairman of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. and is the former chairman of the ill-fated Lehman Brothers’ Global Council on Climate Change and a board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection, whose chairman is Al Gore. The 2008 income for Gore’s “Alliance” was over $88 million.

The fact that a sceptic has received grants from Oil companies is somehow notable, but the fact that tax-payers are funding a propaganda operation by the environmental movement is not? Frankly, Greenpeace are complete hypocrites.

Re:Climate Catastrophists are funded by everyone e (0)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625692)

And which right wing think tank is sending out that bullshit?

Re:Climate Catastrophists are funded by everyone e (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625788)

See what I mean? You don't want to know about how the other side is funded. You've got your fingers in your ears, so to speak.

Re:Climate Catastrophists are funded by everyone e (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625732)

This.

Instead of 'hey lets figure out what is going on and fix it correctly'. We get taxes? Yelled at and called deniers. It has become a we vs they thing instead of lets find the real problem and fix it (if we can). Follow the money. Every damn time... *BOTH* sides are guilty of it. There shouldnt even be sides here...

Re:Climate Catastrophists are funded by everyone e (3, Insightful)

shilly (142940) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625912)

What *is it* with fuckwits like you?

Greenpeace global revenues in 2010: about 56m euros. Exxon just about pipped Greenpeace there, with an income of 311bn dollars in the same year. So clearly it is Greenpeace who is able to throw money around like billy-o and has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of this debate. Yes, that's absolutely clear.

Re:Climate Catastrophists are funded by everyone e (1)

RatPh!nk (216977) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626036)

Aside from the obvious gains those who have vested interest in alternative energy have what do those scientists who feel global warming is man made have to gain? What are the motives? The flip side is obvious, the fossil fuel industry stands to lose trillions of dollars if anthropogenic climate change is the real deal. I have always been a pragmatist. The logic goes something like this:

1. Everyone knows that fossil fuels are a finite resource whose peak availability may have just passed, is happening now or will happen reasonably soon (decades not centuries, likely)

2. There is a possibility that fossil fuel use is contributing to potentially catastrophic weather pattern shifts on the only habitable and reachable planet we know of in the universe.

3. Since we know this weaning is going to happen sooner of later, why not start (seriously) now.

There is no easy weaning in some industry. Organic solvents aren't going to be replaced by a commercially available synthetic anytime soon. This is important if you like medicine. Next, there aren't any alternative shipping/flight options available on the horizon for commerce. So we need reserve for commercial entities.

Thoughts?

Oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625554)

Oh no energy, like both sides don't lie. Don't believe the hype, be real live back in a cave MFers!!!! Fight the energy MAN.

somewhat contradicts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625576)

A) Either it contradicts or it doesn't

and

2) "some in the past decade" and "none before 2003" can both be true

Looks like there really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625594)

Was a global warming conspiracy.

And Soros funds the other team. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625616)

I'll take Oil companies, with their straightforward desire for profit, over a megalomaniac with a penchant for happily toppling National currencies in an attempt to remake the global economy.

What is the opposite of "skeptic" (-1, Flamebait)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625620)

According to Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com]

Near Antonyms: chump, dupe, gull, pigeon, sucker

Re:What is the opposite of "skeptic" (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625794)

Oh, you're one of those people who believe that everything is composed of black and white, with no neutral in between, and composed of discreet values.

Similarly, the opposite of rich is poor, so if you're not swimming in your private swimming pool on board your private jet, you're in the streets begging for money.

News flash: Climate change advocates funded by (1, Interesting)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625634)

The politicians who stand to gain power, money and prestige by implementing climate policy.

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, " -- Ottmar Edenhofer, UN IPCC

Re:News flash: Climate change advocates funded by (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625884)

The context for that remark:

INTERVIEWER: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

INTERVIEWER: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Re:News flash: Climate change advocates funded by (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625978)

Thousands of global warming frauds being funded by billions of politically corrupted government dollars every year is not news, but one skeptic earning a million over ten years from oil companies is news.

Misinformation, corruption (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625646)

and voter apathy are the main causes behind this country's approaching decline. This shit needs to stop. This kind of thing was rampant in the US around the late 1800s and the country went through war and economic depression before finally turning itself around. I fear that history is repeating itself, and that nobody who can actually do anything about is bothering to give a fuck. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the country's crumbling infrastructure (physical and digital), and the horrible US economy are all symptoms of those underlying three causes. Take care of those and the sinking ship that is the US would eventually right itself.

that's pennies (0)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625670)


one meeeellion? In a decade?

Get out town, that wouldn't even cover our bar tab for our sales people's trips in a year.

For any decent O&G company, that literally is pennies.

in other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625720)

bears deficate in woods, pope admits catholic leanings

Was there really any doubt? (5, Informative)

GreyFlcn (963950) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625728)

Was there really any doubt that Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon were full of it?

Here's a thorough debunk of their most infamous paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo#t=2m00s [youtube.com]

i.e. The one skeptics go crazy about how in emails, how other climate scientists said it shouldn't have even been published in the first place.

How is this any different... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625772)

...than the global warming 'experts' who are being funded by green-energy companies. We already know they are liars because of Climategate, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me...

Willie Soon also not highly ranked (1)

Lserevi (1270986) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625784)

I note that Willie H. Soon is also not highly ranked amongst climate science authors. See <http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html>.

This just in: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625790)

Climate fearmongers funded by the governments that stand to gain power.

Big news here.

What a surprise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625808)

In other news, scientists confirmed today that water is wet.

Let's Do Some Math (-1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625836)

2011-2003=8.

So eight years after claiming to have not knowingly receiving any money from the industry, he is being accused of having gotten a million dollars over ten years. FTFA, I can't find ANY actual grant funding that went in prior to 2003.

Further, clearly these people don't know much about scientific research. A million dollars in grant funding over ten years is 100K a year, barely enough to keep the damn lights on. If he didn't draw a salary off of it, maybe he could afford to pay for a graduate student as well. It's not like this money was being pumped directly into his pocket.

But hey, screw it. Even though climate scientists claim it is now too late to do anything, and that tens of trillions of dollars would have to be expended to have a "too little, too late" effect and despite the fact that simply saving the money would allow us to actually deal with the consequences of any possible warming, let's just throw money at the poorly defined problem until it goes away. After all, that has worked so well with everything else we have tried the strategy on.

Re:Let's Do Some Math (2)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626064)

"In addition the American Petroleum insitute (API), which represents the US petroleum and natural gas industries, gave him multiple grants between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000".
2011-2001 = 10 years
2001 < 2003

Conflict of interest? (0)

Aeonym (1115135) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625866)

So a skeptic was financially supported by like-minded corporate interests? Stop the presses! I look forward to the shocker exposes detailing how climate change evangelists were given grant money (from likeminded sources) to perform more studies which confirmed *their* beliefs. Oh wait--that won't ever happen. Because the academic grant system is pure and unbiased. LMAO.

Lets balance this out... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36625926)

This is nothing but propaganda. Let us not forget "climategate". The /. audience is perfectly capable of getting those files and reading the source code - pay attention to the comments. Climate scientists make a mockery of the scientific process [nationalpost.com] and it is spectacularly well funded by the most powerful people on the planet. It is well worth reading The Club of Rome's "The First Global Revolution" especially the part entitled "The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man" (page 85). It should be a warning sign when the media presents the science as settled - I think we all know that is never true and is a statement aimed at naive people.

The endgame for this nonsense are carbon taxes that will be used to radically change the way we live. If you would like to know what these people are after read Agenda 21 [un.org]. You can read a synopsis of that here [americanpolicy.org].

We need to stop this now.

Not climate 'skeptics' (5, Insightful)

TallGuyRacer (920071) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625960)

Please stop refering to these people as climate 'skeptics'. They are climate 'deniers' - just like holocaust deniers and round earth deniers.

Government Warmist paid by Climate Pressure Groups (-1)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 2 years ago | (#36625968)

NASA’s Hansen asked to account for outside activities [wattsupwiththat.com]

$250,000 7th Annual Heinz Award
$50,000 29th Annual Common Wealth Awards
$1,000,000 (split three ways) Dan David Prize
$100,000 Sophie Prize
$25,000 Nierenberg Prize
$5,000 AAAS Award

etc. etc.

By April, 2011 his (publicly known) prize money amounts to $683,000 [nofrakkingconsensus.com]

That is prize money, a.k.a income, not research grant money.

As far as the perjury goes, the "taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" bit has no legal significance. A prosecutor would have to prove that some actively was advocacy and that Soon knew about it and understood it to be advocacy. Good luck with that.

Neither side can demonstrate anything concrete. (0)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 2 years ago | (#36626010)

That's why we have to resort to WHO is making a claim and how it's paid for, instead of WHAT is being said.

Climate change? Of course there is climate change. Never in Earth's history, as far as we know, has there ever been a pause in climate change!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...