Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change (Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian)Congratulations to all of us. A possible problem – one pointed out to me by the Galileo Movement via Twitter – is that I may find out that we just "may have received" the billion instead of the phrase "did receive" it.
Meanwhile, if you send a few tens of dollars via PayPal, it will be noticed and appreciated. ;-) Just like there is a missing heat, I noticed that there seems to be a missing billion of dollars somewhere because I am sure that the climate lunatics' calculations must be accurate!
If I had a m/billion dollars – or at least some global warming. Mr Brulle probably estimates that the Minnesotans for global warming have received $5 million for this song so that they may buy a new chair.
Goldenberg's extraterrestrial article was based on the preprint in Climatic Change
Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations by Robert J. Brullethat studied the antisocialist elements and U.S. climate change counter-revolutionary organizations (the so-called CCCM, an acronym chosen by them to distinguish us from "their" side, CCCP).
I suppose that due to the climate skepticism of the Czech ex-president Václav Klaus (and much less prolific and sophisticated skeptical views of his successor Miloš Zeman), the budget of the Czech government and the President's office was included in the funding – just to be sure.
More seriously, these people live outside the reality not only when it comes to the atmospheric phenomena but when it comes to finances and lots of other aspects of the everyday life, too.
The funding of climate skepticism work is at most something of order $10 million a year and much if not most of the most influential work is being done on a budget that is smaller than that by additional orders of magnitude. Something like a dozen of people in the U.S. – like Marc Morano, I believe – might be called "professional climate skeptics" and they're getting at most a "good ordinary salary" which an extra overhead factor of 5 or so to organize events. Add one or two conferences a year. Think hard, you will not get (much) above $10 million.
This figure should be compared to $80 billion that have been paid to promote the climate hysteria pseudoscience, mostly in the recent decade or two, and with hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars that these Luddites want to waste every year (only a fraction of this wasted amount would go to their pocket but it would still be an obscene amount of money – and a part of it is already happening).
If Suzanne Goldenberg believes that the purpose of this funding is to change people's minds, well, then I must say that the climate skeptics are more efficient by almost 4 orders of magnitude. The climate alarmists act like the usual leftist managers, throwing a vast majority of the funds to the sewerage system.
The inefficiency of the climate delusions is staggering – well, it's only partly due to their being extremely lousy managers. The main reason why their propaganda doesn't work is that their claims are self-evidently ludicrous and most people, especially intelligent enough but ordinary people, simply are able to see through the fog. It's simply a bad investment to spend money by trying to convince other people about this nonsense. You won't convince any other people by this pseudoscience. The people who believe that there is a dangerous climate change around the corner are the intrinsically stupid people who have already been convinced – pretty much for free.
I was also intrigued by the terminology: "climate change counter-movement organizations" surely sounds cool. The analogy with the "antisocialist elements" (=dissent) that the official newspaper articles would be writing about during communism is extremely close. Well, comrades, it is you who is participating in a counter-movement. We are the defenders of the straight, normal, default state of the society and the principles it is built upon while you are fighting against science as we have known it, against the naturally evolving surface of the Earth, against capitalism, against some basic principles of a sound economic reasoning, and against some key portions of the contemporary world economy.
You are counter-culture, counter-industry, counter-science, and counter-climate-change, comrades.