Here is further clarification by Robert Brulle:
>>The environmental movement actually has more funding, but it’s the nature of the spending that makes the difference.
When you look at what the environmental movement spends its money on, it actually tries to spend its money on developing solutions to climate change, such as developing a solar panel industry in China, making sure everybody in India has an appropriate solar oven to reduce CO2 emissions, things like that. And they spend hardly anything on political or cultural processes. The climate change countermovement spends all of its money there.
So you end up with this great difference between the two movements. As one movement is actually out there trying to develop technological solutions on the ground, the other is engaged in political action to delay any kind of action. …<<
=======
So, Brulle’s bottom line is that AGW-denial funding is all politics and no science – which makes sense since AGW-denial has never had anything to do with science and has no supporting scientific data or evidence.
If you were a conservative you would not want the climate to change. [1] If you were not to lazy to follow the link in your own article, you would have found the "proof" you asked for.
"Liberal propaganda" is an oxymoron [2]
The study did not account for the money companies use to advertise directly for things like clean coal, it is well know that advertising is used to persuade the public, it is less known that it is also used to persuade news organizations to distort the truth. Or do you think that Fox News is 93% wrong about climate change [3] purely by chance?
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
Ask, and you shall receive - http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothe...
I seriously doubt that even you would claim these to be liberal groups.
Added***
Ottawa Mike, I fully expect you to call this "propaganda" since it does not support your ideologically driven view that any statements that contradict the scientist concerning the AGWT are not but from pure and wholesome members of our society. Certainly they would never favor an attack on the climatologist or any other scientist that would support their findings just to protect their monied interests. ..... Do you live on the planet Earth?
From the link that I provided:
"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."
Al Gore funds the global warming socialists
There's a small problem with that sensationalized headline as the author states here: " I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities." http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1ru6cd9
Anyone promoting that headline is misleading and if they know the author's thoughts then it's on purpose which is deceptive. Of course, these are also the type of people who accuse others of being misleading so really there's no point in listening to anything they have to say.
And any media outlet repeating the story is obviously not doing any double checking so their credibility is near zero. So is this a propaganda effort? The evidence is pretty clear.
_______________________________________...
Edit@Some1Has: Thanks for the link. It's sad when a group like Phys.org falls into the propaganda message.
_______________________________________...
@GaryF: Well that's changing the subject of my argument which is a statement like this: "Conservative organizations spend as much as a billion dollars a year trying to convince Americans that climate change isn’t real, or if it is real, that it isn’t caused by humans." is not what the study is saying and the author's remark verifies this. What word you put on this type of statement is up to you. Honest isn't one that qualifies in my books.
As for your quote from the author, I call BS on this: "And they (environmental movement) spend hardly anything on political or cultural processes." That's ridiculously easy to debunk unless there's a new definition of "hardly" that I'm unaware of.
I haven't read the author's report but going by his comments he is probably a biased from the far left and his report is hardly likely to be objective. It's typical of a far leftist to see the whole world as "good" guys and "bad" guys. I hope my tax dollars aren't funding this drivel.
According to this link: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/ar2... the WWF Network had an income of EUR 593 million in 2012 – about $810 million. The “dark money” of “$558 million from 2003 to 2010″, i.e. $70m per year, does not seem quite so impressive now.
Also, if they want to find out about “dark money” shouldn’t they be talking to Tides? Do these people really not know how the AGW side is funded or are they choosing not to look?
"Their is none so blind as those who won't see."
Someone has......
I read the link. I did not realize that 'hunches' were afforded 'peer review'.
The thrust of what you provided was that Brulle suspects that certain groups are providing ????amounts of funding to organizations that he deems as being purveyors of 'denial'.
IF Brulle is a legit scientist.....he shames his profession by his use of 'denial/denier'....etc. He comes off as more of an Activist than a real scientist......you know.....kinda like that Hanson character with NASA who quit real science to become a global warming activist.
Last study I saw on spending from both sides of the Global Warming fraud debate was that for every single dollar spent by conservative groups to fight Warmist propaganda --- the Warmists get about a thousand dollars.
Yes that's right, the ratio is about a thousand to one. That's because Warmists are into the taxpayer's pocket, they collect huge amounts every year from governments all around the world.
We are probably getting close to a Trillion dollars spent on this scam and governments just keep on pouring money into it.
-----------------------
Well obviously if people aren't convinced by the arguments being made in favor and the false predictions, it is because they are being misled. The misleading must be happening by conservative groups, spending billions. Most likely this is a projection of their own behavior, where green groups spend lots of money trying to convince people to sign up to their agenda.
Strange subject, if, as we are told scientists are honest people with integrity, who only search for the truth, it wouldn't matter where the money comes from.
Suggesting that funding coming from big oil to sway belief's is like saying science can be corrupted, hmm who would think that.
http://theweek.com/article/index/254569/belief-in-climate-change-depends-on-the-weather
Where's the proof that conservative groups spend this much money?
The stupid thing about this claim is that conservatives don't spend money. That's why they are called "Conservative". LOL!
Another liberal propaganda effort?
Obviously sponsored by big oil but nothing mentioned about the $100s of billions spent by big government to promote and propagandize this AGW Scam.
liberals are stupid people
