Climate Denial: A look at the culprits

I just want to post some of the research that I've done on climate denial and the people who actively fund it. Since climate change/climate denial is such a hot topic here, it is important that people do the research to find out just where their information is coming from. Since people like to talk about the corporations and people who fund the "climate change hoax", I thought I would do an investigation into the people who are funding climate denial.

My research is not yet complete but so far, I've found some interesting stuff. I've also included links to where I found my information. This paper is part of a course I'm taking that goes into depth on climate change. Again, the research still needs some work. My paper isn't about validating climate change, but rather outing the people who fund climate denial so that those who support climate denial can see exactly who is pulling their strings.

"Climate change (or global warming) is a serious subject that should be met with an understanding that our continued path of consumption and pollution is unsustainable. However, climate denial is on the rise and that should raise eyebrows.

A BBC poll conducted in December of 2009 listed 13 countries and the importance of climate change in those countries. Six countries were polled regularly over the past 11 years (Brazil, France, UK, China, India and the U.S). Brazil polled the highest with 86% of poll respondents listing climate change as a very serious concern. France was second with 65%, followed by the UK at 59% and India and the U.S tied at 45%. 42% of the Americans polled were opposed to government action to address climate change, especially if it hurt the economy. They were exceeded only by Pakistan (58%) and the Philippines (63%).1 For this paper, the focus will be on climate denial in the U.S. However, low percentages in a poll like the BBC poll indicate that climate denial is a serious issue that runs counter to the facts about climate change.

Simon Butler has pointed out that climate deniers have never published peer-reviewed articles, nor have they presented any facts to support their positions on climate change. He pointed out statistics from a recent U.S poll that found that less than 50% of Americans considered global warming to be worrying or somewhat worrying. This percentage is 13% less than a similar poll taken in October 2008. 2 Further analysis of this poll shows that when asked if they thought global warming was happening, 57% of the respondents answered “yes”, a 20% drop from 2008. The percentage of those who answered “no” had risen from 10% in 2008 to 20% in 2010. People who answered “yes” were then asked how sure they were that global warming was happening. 24% answered “extremely sure” (down from 35% in 2008), 35% answered “very sure” (down from 37% in 2008) and the combined percentage of those who answered “somewhat sure” and “not at all sure” was 42% vs. 28% in 2008. One of question of interest pertains to the cause of climate change. In 2010, 47% of people answered “caused mostly by human activities” (down from 57% in 2008) and 36% of people answered “caused mostly by natural changes in the environment (down from 33% in 2008). 3

The results of both polls show an alarming change in perception of global warming/climate change among Americans. Further investigation shows that the web of deceit starts with corporations and media. According to a report by Greenpeace, Koch Industries is considered to be the kingpin of climate denial. Koch Industries is the second largest private company in the U.S in which 2008 revenues were $100 billion. They have outspent corporations such as Exxon Mobil when it comes to climate denial. From the years 2005 to 2008, the front groups of Koch Industries contributed $24.9 million to fund climate change denial. For example, Koch Industries gave money to the following organizations: Americans for Prosperity Foundation (more than $5 million), Heritage Foundation ($1 million), Cato Institute (over $1 million), Manhattan Institute ($800,000), Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment ($365,000), Pacific Institute for Public Policy ($360,000) and Tax Foundation ($325,000). Koch Industries has also promoted the Climate Gate smear campaign, pushed junk science regarding polar bears and they have sponsored Spanish and Danish studies that attacked green jobs. 4

The efforts of Koch Industries to fund and promote climate denial are not only dangerous, but it distracts Americans from the pressing issue of climate change, allowing Koch Industries and their beneficiaries to continue their agenda of pollution and further destruction of the environment. For example, the money that Koch Industries sent to the Americans for Prosperity organization went to sponsor a “Regulation Reality Tour”. The purpose of this tour was to promote efforts to block U.S efforts under the Clean Air Act to protect the health of Americans and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. AFP has repeatedly claimed that actions taken towards climate change are based solely on alarmism that will wreck the American economy. AFP has also failed to provide credible evidence to support their agenda of climate denial, spouting out such gems as the notion that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and that it makes crops and forests grow faster. 5

Koch Industries is not alone in the sponsorship of climate denial. As mentioned, ExxonMobil has also contributed money towards climate denial. According to an article from the Guardian, ExxonMobil in 2008 contributed $75,000 to the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, TX. They also contributed $50,000 to the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. According to this article, the NCPA has stated that “the cost of action required to reduce CO2 emissions is quite high and would result in economic decline.” The Heritage Foundation has claimed that scientific evidence that casts doubt on the threat of global warming is increasing, pointing to a claim that the year 2008 was cooler than the year 2007 and attempting to connect it to their agenda of climate denial6.

A recent article by Bill McKibben attempts to analyze the underlying psychology behind climate denial. He argues that nearly none of the GOP Senate candidates believe in the idea that humans are heating up the planet. He points out to the Florida Senate race between Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist as an example. Rubio has attacked Crist as a believer in climate change. He also points to Ron Johnson, a candidate for Senate in Wisconsin, who argues that climate change is attributed solely to sunspot activity. McKibben also points out that Republicans such as James Inhofe and Darrell Issa have respectively pledged to reduce the budget of the Environmental and Public Works Committee and turn focus the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on “Climate gate”. Obviously, this would only happen if Republicans were to take back both Congress and the US House of Representatives. McKibben argues that money is one of the biggest factors in climate denial, arguing that the threat of harm to the fossil fuel industry is what fuels climate deniers, including Koch Industries and members of the Republican party. 7

McKibben makes a passing reference to the Tea Party movement and climate change. Further analysis of a recent article in the Guardian shows that BP and other European companies are funding American Tea Party candidates that deny climate change. The article goes on to cite a report in which 80% of campaign donations from several European firms were directed towards US Senators that blocked action on climate change, such as Jim DeMint (R-SC) and James Inhofe (R-OK). These candidates have been embraced by the Tea Party. These donors have also given money to The Chamber of Commerce, which has raised $75 million of its’ own money in support of pro-business Republican candidates. In the report cited by the Guardian, several of the donors to Tea Party-backed candidates included BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay. All four have collectively donated over $240,000 to senators that have blocked action on climate change. Bayer was the biggest single donor, giving over $108,000 to senators, followed by BP with $25,000, of which $18,000 went to senators that opposed action on climate change. 8

With all of this evidence at hand, it is not hard to see exactly why climate denial has increased in the US (and abroad as well). Corporate influence is the single biggest detriment on the issue of climate change. As long as organizations like Koch, ExxonMobil and BP are allowed to fund climate denial, it will continue to be a problematic part of American society.


1. BBC Climate Change Poll Shows Rising Concerns
2. The Lying Politics of Climate Denial: Climate and Capitalism
3. American Global Warming Beliefs Poll Yale University/George Mason University 2008-2010
4. Report: Koch Industries outspends Exxon Mobil on climate and clean energy disinformation
5. Wonk Room: “Regulation Reality Tour” Peddles Polluter Lies, Endangering American Prosperity
6. ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate skeptic groups, records show
7. Bill McKibben on Global Warming, Climate Denial and Conservatives
8. Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters

There is no "denying" that scientists trying to advance Global Warming, distorted, manipulated and deleted data to advance their agenda. They got caught and ultimately proved Global Warming to be a hoax.

The problem was when science and evidence became a political issue.

however, I guess it was bound to happen...finding out your overfishing a hole will not be good news for the fishermen whom get paid by fishing there...and so ya, they will turn a blind eye towards facts while they profit.

I think there is a special place in hell for people whom willfully distort information for the love of money. to purposefully destroy the prosperity of the future and the harmony of the environment in the only planet we have for a few bucks is not just bad politics, it is what I define as evil.

reply to post by Carseller4


Ah no...

The so-called "Climate Gate" data-sets represented approx. 5 out 300+ data-sets, and was probably done by some loser-scientists who wanted in on the action.

The science is like 99% concrete.

What pisses me off, as the OP points to, is that oil/coal company funded skeptics are given equal footing in the media and obfuscate reality. And all these people who are scared of change look to these people as saviours.

reply to post by Carseller4


I dare you to come up with something better than this response.

In fact, I dare anyone who posts to do so.

reply to post by ghostsoldier


Exactly. I'm not surprised that the first response after my post was one of the climate denial faithful.

Oh well. The facts from both sides need to be represented and "Climategate" has met its' match thanks to Koch Industries and their funding of the climate denial machine.

reply to post by ghostsoldier

The science is like 99% concrete.

Like, in your dreams. Phil Jones of the CRU has told the BBC that the "science" is far from settled.
Phil Jones; interview with BBC

Phil, one of the most-cited advocates of the AGW theory, was with the Univ. of East Anglia/CRU when he was fighting disclosure and censoring scientists with opposing viewpoints.

True science invites criticism and challenge to assumptions and conclusions; it does not stifle or run from them.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by The Sword
If your course is investigating AGW funding, perhaps it should assign someone to report on the BILLIONS being given to AGW advocates.

Of course, funding only matters when it comes to whose ox is being gored.

In fact, global warming alarmists are funded to the tune of $50 billion (in taxpayer money). This does not include the $60 Billion in carbon trading that has changed hands in the EU and UK failed schemes. It leaves out the $100million donated to Stanford's Environmental Studies program by Exxon-Mobil, alone.

Shouldn’t you report on all the alternative energy companies—who stand to reap large profits—sponsoring the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Cop 15) conference in Copenhagen?

The funding game and self dealing includes educational institutions such as the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES). UMCES has received over $65 million of that aforementioned $50 billion.

In short, many of these programs depend upon the AGW fearmongering to justify their existence and virtually unlimited resources. No crisis, no funding!

The UK alone, has allocated more than the equivalent of $180,000,000 just to the IPCC and CRU and their affiliated (and hopelessly flawed) studies of Himalayan glaciers and African croplands.

And what of the multitude of NGOs supporting AGW advocacy?

NGOs, such as "Friends of the Earth" are advocating a $400,000,000 US contribution to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for AGW advocacy. This, to supplement the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. As of July 2008, the Fund totaled over US$ 2.4 billion.

When one-sided propaganda pieces are masquerading as "term papers" or "research," they reveal either a failed institution or a deep-seated bias against truth and even-handed research.

When AGW advocates scream "Koch Industries" or "Exxon-Mobil," ask them where they are getting their money!

deny ignorance

jw

Now that the Republicans are back in power any idea of facing global warming is now dead.

reply to post by jdub297


There is already enough stuff out there about Climategate, etc.

I already explained that I'm not looking to validate global warming/climate change.

The paper is still open for editing. I will take your suggestion in consideration but I cannot guarantee it.

Also, you say "deny ignorance" a lot. What do you think I'm trying to do? I'm trying to show that climate deniers get money from special interests too. Both sides are equally culpable.

reply to post by The Sword


It's really too bad that this topic has gotten buried in favor of topics that promote climate denial.

Such a sad state of affairs.

I've yet to even find anyone who can debate this issue properly without parroting the crap they've seen on Fox News.

reply to post by The Sword


Unfortunately this is the ugly elephant in the room that the so-called skeptics refuse to acknowledge for fear of it collapsing all over their flimsy paradigm.

It's weird too - because if you talk to them enough you'll see they all pretty much tell the same story: "I used to believe in global warming, but then I heard Al Gore lied about it, and now I'm really leery of his secret agenda".

But when you explain to them that Al Gore didn't lie, that the people saying he lied are the ones actually lying, and that they're doing it to protect their blatantly obvious agenda - they all just go completely blank. They stick their heads in the sand and call you brainwashed.

I guess that saying is really true - "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." Dealing with their double-crossed shame issues is more important than the truth.

reply to post by The Sword


sigh - no one " denies the climate " , and very few deny that climatic changes happen .

the sticking point is :

1 ) how much impact does humsan activity have ?

2 ) how much impact will reducing human activity have ?

3 ) is reducing human activity worth it - yes SOME human activity should be reduced - but CO2 is not a viable target for reduction


my own personal view is that natural CO2 and solar activity dwarf human CO2 - to the point that the cost of human CO2 reduction is simply not worth the return

spend money on measures to adapt to climate changes - instead of attempting to fight it

because the AGW movment attempting to stop climate change remindes me of king canute of england - attempting to prevent tides rising

'Climate-gate' proved absolutely nothing about anthropogenic global warming being false, rather it showed for the most part how twisted and idealogical the deniers are. Since the vast sea of evidence points to anthropogenic global warming, this issue will not blow over and therefore the lack of climate change legislation so far merely is delaying the inevitable. The main issue, as I see it, is that the longer we wait the worse global warming will become, or we will have to implement emission cuts more quickly. The failure of Copenhagen cost us around one trillion dollars extra because we will have to implement measures much faster in the future to stop global warming at two degrees. The longer we wait the more that will cost (or we can go over 2 degrees of warming).

Generally what climate action means is ending all subsidies on all fossil fuels which amount to around 558 billion dollars per year which will help give energy security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, reduce air pollution, and bring economic benefits. It will also mean taxing dirty energy such as coal to reflect the true cost of the damages it causes (I don't need global warming to justify this either) which can then be fed into marginally more expensive options that are more sustainable in the long run both because they are cleaner, they are safer, and they are more abundant. No sane person would oppose this.

Generally what the deniers do is take a rather extreme-left position from a group such as Greenpeace and then they spin in some pathetic attempt to 'show' that global warming is some 'TPTB' agenda. Deniers do this generally without bothering to read what actual reputable organizations show. IEA (in World Energy Outlook 2010) for example, shows that adopting new policies to stop climate change would lower the cost of oil over the long term, rather than increase. It would also enhance energy security, and again, decrease air pollution.

spend money on measures to adapt to climate changes - instead of attempting to fight it

We are already going to spend money on measures to adapt to climate change, given that it is occurring. I would also rather solve a problem rather than continually adapting to it as it gets worse and worse and worse and worse, because the possible consequences are rather large. Besides, stopping climate change will kill six birds with one stone - lower air pollution, lower water pollution, lower acid rain, lower energy imports, decrease resource wars, as well as the core issue itself - global warming. If you support any of those, then it's obvious that you should support clean energy.

Good post, written well and I believe your facts are correct.

One thing is for sure . . . if climate change is as bad as many say then we are in trouble because in the US because of the Republicans, there is little motivation to do anything about it.
Good post, written well, and I believe your facts are correct.

One thing is for sure . . . if climate change is as bad as many say then we are in trouble because in the US because of the Republicans, there is little motivation to do anything about it.

It’s no coincidence that right-wingers fund climate denial and that they are getting a welcome ear by Republicans.

It’s another indication that Republicans and conservatives are the biggest whores around who will always be available to whore themselves to any corporate predator.

Don't forget smoky Joe Barton. He's apparently a contender for the Energy committee.

Climate Change is not global warming

Climate Change = Winter, summer, autumn, spring

Global Warming = Caused by Sun

Man made global warming = hoax

You use "Climate denial" like you're referring to someone denying the holocaust. By the way I don't think anyone denies the climate, well maybe the BBC since they say the Sun has no link to climate change, but most people only deny man made climate change (unless of course you're talking about HAARP or something to that effect).

I share ignorant apes sentiments. 
The AGW theory seems sound, but the degree of the effect is based on extremely complex computer models that may or may not be accurate. The same holds true for the future predictions, they are all based on computer models that even the scientists themselves acknowledge have a wide degree of variance. That is why we see predictions ranging from 2 degrees all the way up to a 6 degree increase. 

Then you look at the proposed solutions for AGW.
In the US a cap and trade bill was proposed that would have cost in the neighborhood of 750 billion dollars. And how much would the proposed legislation reduce the impact of AGW? Negligible.

Personally, I make an effort to reduce my carbon foot print, and I encourage others to do same. Doing individual things to reduce carbon rarely have much downside therefore the decision is easy. Government intervention on the other hand is certainly very costly and potential very damaging to the economy. I admit that the possibility exists that the AGW evidence will become so overwhelming that government intervention will become necessary regardless of cost, but I don't think we are there yet.

reply to post by The Sword

Oh well. The facts from both sides need to be represented and "Climategate" has met its' match thanks to Koch Industries and their funding of the climate denial machine.

Climate denial machine? The Climategate emails revealed, among other things, that Professor Jones et al were engaging in scientific and political frauds of immense magnitude which implicated governments and scientific institutions in a worldwide web of intrigue and corruption. The evidence is there if you want to see it. Subsequent investigations masquerading as disinterested and independent parties want us to believe that their words were simply taken out of context and the infamous, enlightening phrase in one of hacked emails saying "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't" is apparently not the least bit suspect. Should we just sweep Climategate under the rug and are we really meant to believe that it was all just an innocent misunderstanding? I hardly think so.

Also, the term "climate change denial" is simply ridiculous. The correct term is "anthropogenic climate change denial". The former highlights the stupidity or dishonesty of CAGW-proponents. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find anyone who denies climate change. If we deny anthropogenic global warming, then does that mean you deny natural climate variability? To date I have yet to see any evidence that the warming over the last 30 years since the apparent correlation between TSI and temperature ostensibly broke down that the climate has warmed at a rate that is discernibly outside of established natural variation. Given that the temperature increased at exactly the same rate between 1906 and the 1930's as it did between the 1980's and 1998 each occurring during significantly different periods of anthropogenic emission output that to me suggests that the CAGW theory is sufficiently flawed in its basic tenets. And since 1998, there has been no statistically significant warming to date. There is something clearly very wrong with the officially-peddled veracity of the CAGW-hypothesis.

The global climate change issue is one big scam made by the government to force the people to do its will. I question and out right reject any notion of climate change, as made by the US federal government and refuse to institute any sort of change and am currently encouraging other people to do the same. The reason for this is that the federal government has a long history of cherry picking the data and not revealing the entire source, or even, as was demonstrated time and time again, not even using the entire report, when the report clearly concludes the exact opposite to what they are wanting. The federal government has not taken into the cost and the problems with the new changes, nor are they really caring at this time frame. The treaties and other proclamations done at all of the summits that are there, are more times than not rejected by the congress as it is flawed. Seems like a lot of issues these days are ultimately linked to the entire climate change issue, and some of the claims are just plain ridiculous and out right strange.
When science and politics are together, it is right that it should be viewed with suspicion and a skeptics point of view. Too many issues have come up, from censorship to threats against the scientists who were speaking out against this issue when it was making the news makes it highly unlikely that the entire story was given and the public was not allowed to review the opposing sides point of view.