Last April Diogenes left a comment at
which was unfortunately trapped in WordPress’s censorship machine, which is activated as soon as you make more than two links. It’s interesting, and I shall be coming back to Robert Brulle in an article in the next few hours. Here’s Diogenes’ post in full, and it’s not a barrel of laughs ) unlike the life of the original Diogenes, recounted by a third Diogenes [D. Laertius] in his “Lives of the Philosophers”.
April 30, 2014 at 1:14 pm (Edit)
The critique of Lewandowsky is obviously a lifetime’s work – rarely can one man have produced such a steaming heap of academic dung in so short a space of time.
If, however, you want a diversion you might consider the work of a sociologist called Robert Brulle who is obsessed with the funding of the “denail machine”. He has a paper out that seems to exhibit all-out conspiracy ideation http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/ And here is an interview with him that reveals just how conspiracy-addicted he is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/robert-brulle-inside-the-climate-change-countermovement/
“This movement is fairly well funded. What’s interesting is that in comparison to the environmental movement, it actually doesn’t have as much money. The environmental movement actually has more funding, but it’s the nature of the spending that makes the difference.”
“when you do the analysis of the funding, all you can say is, “So many dollars went to this organization.” You can’t say how many dollars went from this foundation to this organization specifically for climate change, because most of the grants that come to the climate countermovement organizations have no conditions. They’re for general support, so we don’t know how much the organization is actually spending.” – he just knows tht it is funding climate “denial”
“We don’t know a whole lot about the Donors foundations other than they do a lot of pass-through funding. We don’t know who their donors are, except in a couple of cases where we find information in the databases about who funds them.
So a lot of it is just the mystery of who is funding it. But what you see is that as the contribution of Donors has increased over the 2003-to-2010 timeframe, the contribution of other foundations has declined. Koch went from a high of 9 percent of the funding flow in 2008 to 1 percent in 2010″
– the implication of course being that it is all Koch money in disguise. I imagine that the paper is just as full of implied results.
It might be an amusing diversion from the Lewandowsky crud. On the other hand, it seems to be the new weapon in the alarmist arsenal given the frequency with which the alarmist trumpeters such as BBD scream it out.