Skip to content

Heidi Central’s Funding

October 16, 2015

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

 

I wondered where Heidi Cullen’s Climate Central got its funding from earlier. Remember that according to Wiki, Climate Central is a nonprofit news organization that analyzes and reports on climate science.

Thanks to Jos, who points us to the relevant page on their website:

 

image

http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/funding

 

We can recognise many of these as what Owen Paterson has previously referred to as the green blob. For instance, ClimateWorks, The Packard Foundation, Flora Family, Rockefeller and so on.

There is evidently heavy funding as well from Federal organisations. So taxpayers are having to pay Climate Central to produce what is often grossly inaccurate and misleading propaganda, which in turn supports the Federal Government’s agenda.

14 Comments
  1. meto permalink
    October 16, 2015 4:32 pm

    Thank you again, Paul. This is why the U.S. Congress wants to cut funding to NASA, NSF, etc. As you very aptly put it, Paul, this is about the talking points and not the actual science. My students come into class frequently with an agency gloom and doom press release. So in my climatology classes, I take a few minutes to explain just how the coolaide is drunk by the political appointees who got the coolaide from the top minions, despite the actual careful scientific work being done by many bench scientists at agencies and through university cooperative programs.

  2. mwhite permalink
    October 16, 2015 5:34 pm

    Government departments paying organisations to lobby them, thus justifying their existence, and their jobs.
    Doesn’t that happen at EU central?

    • Denis Ables permalink
      October 16, 2015 6:50 pm

      I haven’t noticed any “clarification” by the White House wrt Obama’s claim during his recent visit to Alaska. He visits a couple of receding glaciers and links that to “climate change”, but one of the two, “Exit”, has been receding since1750, about 100 years BEFORE co2 began increasing (so definitely not due to human activity). More importantly, there’s more than a half dozen other Alaskan glaciers which are GROWING, including “Hubbard” and “Taku”.

      Then there’s NASA and NOAA initial claims in late 2014 that 2014 was “hottest”, but both organizations had to back down when it was pointed out by numerous (evidently more knowledgeable readers) that the difference in annual temperatures amongst recent years is MINISCULE, a few hundredths of a degree so well within the uncertainty error. This became laughable when it was noted that if their “analysis” had been applied instead to the two weather satellites then 2014 was either 3rd or 6th. (both imply a recent cooling trend. Finally, neither NASA or NOAA use the weather satellite data for their “analysis”. Apparently they prefer the “flexibility” available when dealing with just terrestrial data. (Almost all the new and old raw data has to be continually “corrected”, evidently largely because of the changing UHI effect.) It’s also strange that there is not a secondary analysis, for comparison purposes, using only those terrestrial sites which need no revisions to raw data (mostly rural locations).

  3. tomwys1 permalink
    October 16, 2015 6:56 pm

    I understand that some of these “Green Blob” organizations also file suits against government agencies, then reap the rewards of settlements in their favor when the government ineptly defends or just capitulates on (it has been claimed) a pre-arranged basis.

  4. October 16, 2015 7:50 pm

    Certainly should make an informed reader skeptical about the concept of “Peer Review”

  5. AndyG55 permalink
    October 16, 2015 8:27 pm

    OT, but this is a great page for people’s links..

    View story at Medium.com

  6. Brian permalink
    October 16, 2015 8:33 pm

    “National Science Foundation via George Mason University.. Columbia University.. Johns Hopkins University”

    Hmm… Where have I heard that name?

  7. October 16, 2015 10:45 pm

    Always nice to see our hard-earned tax dollars being spent on propaganda. Is there a reason we have a Congress? Oversight, perhaps? Oh, never mind.

  8. October 17, 2015 1:14 pm

    No surprise to see ‘google.org’ on the list.

    ‘Google will stop supporting climate change science deniers, calls them liars’
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/google-will-stop-supporting-climate-change-science-deniers-calls-them-liars/

  9. Rhee permalink
    October 19, 2015 8:31 pm

    Heidi Cullen has had no credibility in over a decade since she tried to strongarm the AMS to revoke the AMS Seal from any broadcast meteorologist who wouldn’t kowtow to the CCAGW/IPCC line.

  10. October 24, 2015 8:36 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    Follow the money that drives Warmist propaganda…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: