Yet another claim that somebody is "behind" climate skeptics or has "bought" them

Like all the skeptics I know, I am still waiting for my cheque!

Warmists very commonly ascribe disagreement with their ideas to their opponent being "in the pay" of someone else, usually "Big Oil", without troubling themselves to provide any proof of that assertion. They are so certain that they are right that that seems to be the only reasonable explanation for opposition to them. They thus reveal themselves as classic bigots -- people with fixed and rigid ideas.

The guy below however was apparently aware of how unsubstantiated are the usual assertions about skeptics being "bought" so has tried to provide evidence of it.  He claims to have data on ALL the skeptics in the USA.  But he says that only some of them have corporate funding.  But those who DO have corportate funding are more likely to have issued anti-warming statements. And he has done no similar study of climate alarmists.

One wonders where he got his information about funding.  It would be pretty normal for ANY organization to be cagey about that.  Let me assume that his data on that are right, however.  So what do we have from his study:

1).  Some skeptics and skeptical organizations receive NO corporate funding.  That is a rather damaging admission.  Warmists normally talk as if ALL skepticism was "paid for".

2).  The skeptics who received funding write more.

Such trivial findings!  OF COURSE people who received funding wrote more.  Time is money and money is time.  If you are funded to write on some topic you will be able to divert some of your  time onto writing about that topic.  And you will write more on that topic if you have more time.  Money can buy time.  That money can buy time is in fact the only real conclusions of the study.  But who did not know that already?

A very uninformative study

What Warmists MUST close their eyes to is that any intelligent person can see huge holes in the Warmist story if he cares to  think about it.  You don't need funding to be skeptical.  You just need to know some very basic stuff.

For instance, the scare started with Al Gore and others warning us of a huge rise in the oceans as the polar ice melted. And if all the polar ice melted, that would indeed cause a large sea-level rise.  But will it?  91% of the earth's glacial ice is in Antarctica so Antarctica is where the game will play out.

Temperatures of the Antarctic vary with time and place but they are all WAY below zero -- averaging around -49 degrees at the pole in winter -- so you would have to bring those temperatures up by a LOT to melt any ice.  You would have to bring them up to above zero. Yet even in their wildest dreams, Warmists predict a temperature rise of only 6 degrees.  And what would that do?  Nothing.  It might change the temperature of some Antarctic ice from -30 degrees to -24 degrees but -24 degrees is still way too cold for anything to melt.  The surrounding sea ice (floating ice) might melt a bit but, as Archimedes discovered about 3,000 years ago, that doesn't raise the water level anyhow.

I have of course not gone into detail but that is the ballpark story.

So Warmism is patent nonsense and nobody needs to pay you to see that.  You do however have to have a vested interest to believe in it -- and the scientists who promote it do.  The scare gets them a golden shower of research grant money.  They live high on the hog as long as the scare lasts

Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change

Justin Farrell


Drawing on large-scale computational data and methods, this research demonstrates how polarization efforts are influenced by a patterned network of political and financial actors. These dynamics, which have been notoriously difficult to quantify, are illustrated here with a computational analysis of climate change politics in the United States. The comprehensive data include all individual and organizational actors in the climate change countermovement (164 organizations), as well as all written and verbal texts produced by this network between 1993–2013 (40,785 texts, more than 39 million words).

Two main findings emerge. First, that organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have written and disseminated texts meant to polarize the climate change issue. Second, and more importantly, that corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, and the discursive prevalence of that thematic content over time.

These findings provide new, and comprehensive, confirmation of dynamics long thought to be at the root of climate change politics and discourse. Beyond the specifics of climate change, this paper has important implications for understanding ideological polarization more generally, and the increasing role of private funding in determining why certain polarizing themes are created and amplified. Lastly, the paper suggests that future studies build on the novel approach taken here that integrates large-scale textual analysis with social networks.

PNAS November 23, 2015, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1509433112

A popularized version of the paper here.


  1. when they say a 6 degree rise in temp. It means a rise in global average temp. It does not mean every where will be 6 degrees hotter. The average global temp of the last ice age was only a few degrees cooler than the 20th century. You should actually learn a little about the science behind climate change you'd probably find it interesting.

  2. AnonymousNovember 29, 2015 at 2:42 AM

    There would still need to be a temperature rise of several tens of degrees in the Antarctic to release the volume of water required for the seas to rise enough to flood the lands, particularly to the extent that tall city buildings are underwater with fish swimming around them as gets shown in pictures of the future to primary school children by government funded visiting educators.

    With such a great Antarctic temperature rise, how could it be that an overall average would only be 6 degrees at most?

  3. as usual your assessment of the situation is very simplistic. Not that I have all the answers either but I know the world is more complex than the simple black and white world you live in.
    The coastal regions of antarctica are much warmer than the interior, when the ice sheets break up due to warming (if this happens that is) it causes accelerated glacial movement- they melt more causing sea level rise. I don't know if any one is saying the whole thing is going to melt, I think that is just you making straw man arguments like you are prone to do.
    Also Antarctica is warming at a faster rate than the average; 3 degrees over the past 50 years compared to the 1 degree or so average for globally.
    Also this utter horseshit about the 90% or so of the climate scientist or agree with climate change fudging results and lying about conclusions because it is lucrative is ridiculous. Think a little harder! I don't think they have all of the answers but to think it is a global conspiracy involving governments and international organisations - fuck me, think a whole lot harder than this.
    You should look sometimes into a mirror - All of the hateful attributes you use to describe liberals, you can pretty much apply to you. I know thaat self reflection is not something you do, but I like to try.

  4. You seem to forget that we are talking about GLOBAL effects. If CO2 has the asserted effects, those effects should be global. If different parts of the world have greatly different temperature changes, those are local effects, not global ones

    Most reports show Antarctic temperatures as stable or cooling -- not warming -- so you should give the sources of your "facts"

    You are politically naive if you believe that elite collusion does not occur

  5. Antarctica WAS warming in C20 but is now cooling. The Zwally study:;jsessionid=pi1c23u2cqo4.alexandra

    1. this study refers to ice sheet gains not about cooling. can you refer me to the part showing antarctica is cooling?

  6. See also:

    See the NASA press release

  7. A classic example of elite collusion:

    The death penalty is banned in most of the Western world. Yet in all those countries there is a popular majority in favour of it


  8. See here on cooling:


All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them