Denial-a-Palooza 6: Heartland's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, Courtesy of Koch, Scaife & Exxon

Read time: 6 mins

The Heartland Institute is convening a who’s-who of the global warming denial machine in Washington, DC over the next two days for the sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC6).

Seemingly content to let the world burn, the denizens of Denial-a-Palooza work year-round to sow doubt and confusion about climate change among the public - aided by Fox News and other friendly media outlets - so that no action is taken to limit heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere. This event is attended by the best corporate front groups that polluter money can buy, and this year is no exception.

As in past years, the speakers and sponsors lists are dripping with oil money, and comprise nearly the full roster of groups who share a common interest - greenwashing dirty energy sources like oil and coal while simultaneously attacking the credibility of the world’s top climate scientists. The presentations will misrepresent the state of climate science, while the real action will take place backstage, as these groups coordinate their ongoing efforts to smear the reputation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Note the intentional naming of this “ICCC” to sound like the IPCC.)

Let’s take a look at the funding of the sponsors of ICCC6:

17 of the 43 sponsors of the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, including the Heartland Institute itself, have collectively received over $46 million from either Scaife Foundations, Koch Foundations, or ExxonMobil and its foundation.

Most of these organizations, including many that choose not to disclose their funding sources, comprise the core of the industry attack on global warming science. See below for a complete breakdown of funding details:

Scaife Foundations (1998-2010): $28,557,000  ($12,205,000 more than 2010*)
Koch Foundations (1998-2009): $11,330,980 ($6,241,230 less than 2010)
ExxonMobil (1998-2010):   $6,276,900 ($311,350 less than 2010)
Total Funding (1998-2010):  $46,164,880

*The Heritage Foundation, notably absent from the 2010 ICCC, is a sponsor again for the 2011 ICCC. Heritage has received $14,873,571 from industry sources.

Here are the funding totals for organizations sponsoring Heartland’s conference that are known to have received support from oil-fueled ‘free market’ foundations:

*= past sponsor. 

Accuracy in Media* 

  • $3,120,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010

Americans For Prosperity* 

Americans for Tax Reform *

  • $60,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009
  • $575,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010
  • Total: $635,500 

Ayn Rand Institute*

  • $25,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE)*

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change*

  • $85,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009
  • $100,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010
  • $100,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010
  • Total: $285,000 

    Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)*

    • $12,285 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009
    • $582,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010
    • $1,915,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010
    • Total: $2,509,285

      Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)*

      • $421,746 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009
      • $2,005,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010
      • $2,575,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010
      • Total: $5,001,746

        Foundation for Economic Education (FEE

        • $27,592 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009
        • $90,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 
        • Total: $117, 592

        George C. Marshall Institute*

        • $310,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009 ($70,000 in 2009)
        • $840,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
        • $2,595,000 received from Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($230,000 in 2010)
        • Total: $3,435,310

        Heartland Institute

        • $20,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 (none in 2009)
        • $676,500 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
        • Total: $696,500

        Heritage Foundation*

        • $3,708,571 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 ($618,571 in 2009)
        • $670,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 ($50,000 in 2010)
        • $10,495,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($600,000 in 2010)
        • Total: $14,873,571

        Independent Institute*

        • $50,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 (none in 2009)
        • $85,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
        • Total: $135,000

        Independent Women’s Forum (IWF)

        • $485,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 ($150,000 in 2009)
        • $50,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
        • $1,850,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
        • Total: $2,385,000

        Media Research Center (a.k.a. the Business & Media Institute)*

        • $15,005 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 (none in 2009)
        • $362,500 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
        • $3,667,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($250,000 in 2010)
        • Total: $4 044 505

        National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)

        • $500,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 ($25,000 in 2009)
        • $645,900 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
        • $1,575,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($100,000 in 2010)
        • Total: 2,720,900

        Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)*

        • $20,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2000

        Many of the conference’s other sponsors have been indirectly funded by industry, or are tied to “free market” foundations:

        60 Plus Association* 

        African Center for Advocacy and Human Development* 

        • No funding information.

        Alternate Solutions Institute American Energy Freedom Center*

        • Received a $100,000 grant in 2008 from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which in turn has received over $1,080,000 from ExxonMobil, $153,000 from the Koch Foundations, and $2,270,000 from the Scaife Foundations.

        American Policy Center*

        • No funding records.

        American Tradition Institute

        • The ATI’s staff include Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading force in climate denial.  Horner edits the Cooler Heads Coalition’s website.   The ATI has successfully sued [Correction: U.Va was already in the process of compiling the emails prior to ATI’s lawsuit against] the University of Virginia for Dr Michael Mann’s emails and are now attempting a similar legal action at NASA to get Dr James Hansen’s emails.  

        Australian Libertarian Society*

        • No funding records.

        Business and Media Institute*

        Cascade Policy Institute*

        Centro de Investigaciones de Instituciones y Mercados de Argentina 

        • No funding records. 

        Cathay Institute for Public Affairs*

        • No funding records. 

        Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

        • According to a report by Think Progress, the Cornwall Alliance is a front group for the shadowy James Partnership. Both the James Partnership and the Cornwall Alliance are closely linked to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), an anti-environmental group that is “funded by at least $542,000 from ExxonMobil, $60,500 from Chevron, and $1,280,000 from Scaife family foundations,

        Energy Makes America Great Inc.

        • No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

        Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

        • No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

        • No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

        Istitulo Bruno Leoni (Italy)

        • No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

        International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

        Instituto Liberdade*

        • No funding information. 

        Instituto de Libre Empresa*

        • No funding information. 

        Institute for Liberty (IFL)*

        • A Tea Party group in the United States founded by Andrew Langer, an ex-employee of the Competetive Enterprise Institute (CEI). 

        Liberaty Institute (India)

        • No funding information. 

        Lavoisier Group*

        Mannkal Economic Education Foundation*

        • No funding information. 

        DENIAL-A-PALOOZA MAP 2011: Sponsors, Speakers and Funders
        (view interactive map at ExxonSecrets):
        Denialapalooza Heartland ICCC6

        Sources: Greenpeace, DeSmogBlog, Media Matters Action Network, ExxonMobil 2010 Contributions and Community Investments [PDF] and the Scaife foundations website (for 2010 grants and 2008 grants see the Carthage Foundation).

        Get DeSmog News and Alerts


        Really? The Heartland conference is the ONLY org that receives Big Oil funding?

        Lets see who else Big Oil is sponsoring shall we?

        Who is getting all the Big oil money?

        Funny, Greenpeace doesn’t talk about that. Nor does it mention:

        * that BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years
        * that BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”
        * that ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”

        Hmmm, thats $602 million. How does that compare to the above info. A rough estimate of the above numbers equals $47 million.

        I wonder which one is greater? $602 million or $47 million?

        If you include the millions that the govt has wasted on studing this hypothesis then the total can easily reach $1 Billion.

        But you keep telling yourself that Big Oil is the enemy when in fact most Big Oil companies SUPPORT cap and trade as a means to keep their smaller competitors out of the market.

        Meanwhile a self-funded scientist is busily getting ready to offer his technology to the market that he delevoped with his OWN money and produces more energy than solar, wind, or Big Oil. Perhaps you have heard of him.

        Defkalion Press Conference Reveals E-Cat Rollout Plans

        Don’cha just love the smell of desperation in the morning?

        The wheels came off with ClimateGate, and the hangers-on keep trying to push the same cart.

        Another source of the Big Salaries that the Big Green industry gets.

        A report in the Washington Examiner, entitled “Working for Big Green can be a very enriching experience” by Mark Tapscott, showed that the leaders of 15 top Big Green environmental groups are paid more than $300,000 in annual compensation, with a half million dollar plus figure for the top “earner”.

        He mentions that Environmental Defense Fund President Frederic Krupp, receives total compensation of $496,174, including $446,072 in salary and $50,102 in other compensation.

        Close behind Krupp among Big Green environmental movement executives is World Wildlife Fund- US President Carter Roberts, who was paid $486,394, including a salary of $439,327 and other compensation of $47,067.

        Krupp and Roberts are particularly interesting because EDF and WWF-US both receive funding from the Grantham Foundation and both are on the joint management board of Jeremy Grantham’s climate institutes at the London School of Economics, (LSE), and Imperial College, London.

        Jeremy Grantham is the chairman and co-founder of GMO, a $140 billion global investment management company based in Boston with offices in London, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich.

        His first excursion into climate funding in the UK was “The Grantham Institute for Climate Change” set up with £12 million, (~$19million) at Imperial College, London in 2007. The chairman of the LSE Grantham Institute, Lord Stern of the infamous Stern Review, is heavily involved in carbon trading via carbon ratings agency, Idea Carbon. He joined IdeaGlobal, the parent company in 2007, as Vice Chairman. He also advises HSBC on carbon trading.

        Environmental Defense boast on their website of their influence on policy in Washington and how they get around the law on lobbying caps:

        EDF has long been a powerful voice in Washington, and when the need began to exceed the $1 million annual cap on our lobbying established by tax law, we created a sister group, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, which is free of spending limits. This has enabled us to ratchet up our legislative efforts, particularly on climate, and to advocate strong environmental laws even as the stakes increase.”

        Of course the above figures do not include the compensation that this PR firm receives from the Big Green industry of smear and innuendo.

        and offers up more phlegm.

        When it comes to following the money the last place you should start is anything at The Washington Examiner.

        Now here is a snippet from the replies at another blog and from somebody who knows the turf:

        ‘Richard Brenne · Top Commenter · UCLA
        Thanks Jonathan and Bill, great comments. Yeah when Hurricane Forecaster (a profession Kerry Emanuel described to me as a “Dark Art”) William Gray said that climate scientists only issue doomsday scenarios to get all that grant money, CU Atmospheric Science Department Chair Brian Toon responded that at universities or institutions like NASA, NOAA or NCAR you have strict institutional salary guidelines that cannot be waived, and all an additional grant gets the PI scientist is some more computers and graduate students and post-docs to manage, as Jonathan says cutting into their own research time.

        I’ve also responded to Gray that NCAR’s annual operating budget has been stuck in the $135 million range for years, while in 2005 the Exxon-Mobile CEO made $400 million in that year by himself. So Gray and anyone so inclined is right to follow the money, but since 80 per cent of the global and U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels, if you do some real math the trail leads directly to those who profit most from fossil fuels, not those worth one-ten thousandth or less who study their effects.’

        That above from:

        where Hansen is quoted:

        BTW, do you really believe that scientists make up or exaggerate global warming to get research funds? Our salaries do not depend on how much research the government funds. Government scientists get paid for working 40 hours a week, regardless of how long they work. My wife claims it is about 90 hours a week, but I say about 80. If you succeed in getting the government to cut back on science, because you don’t like the results, the main effect will be erosion of our competiveness relative to other nations. Your hounding of scientists does not bother me, but it may discourage young people from entering the profession, contributing to a national spiral into second or third rate technical and economic status. Perhaps, instead of questioning the motives of scientists, you should turn around and check the interests (motives) of the people who have pushed you to become so agitated.’

        You guys wouldn’t know the truth if it sat on your face.

        ‘Currently were are on the highest emission path while temps continue to go down which makes Hansen WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG.’

        Your like the kid in the playground with his hands over his ears, stamping his foot while shouting abuse.

        What sources lead you to believe that temperatures, as an average global anomaly, are going down?

        More coal use will mean that we overshoot even that maximum emissions path as indicated in the last conservative IPCC report. The real truth was too painful for the fossilised brains of fossil fuel industry and thus the full message from the science was watered down - that was the source of dissent amongst scientists of ability and honesty i.e. that the IPCC FAR in its final version understated the probable outcomes.

        If you do have some sources for those outrageous remarks (and they will come to haunt you) then they are demonstrably untruthful but then by doing the following you have lost what few brain cells you had left:

        ROFL!! LOL!!! LMFAO!!!

        as your alpha-romeo-sierra-echo hit the floor and thus left you without the capacity for rational thought.

        What sources lead you to believe that temperatures, as an average global anomaly, are going down?

        Pielke Senior on NCDC’s recent “state of the climate” rehash

        “The climate system has not warmed since about 2003 either in the upper ocean or in the lower troposphere as shown in the three figures below.

        Tom Karl is wrong in his first quote - The indicators DO NOT show unequivocally that the world continues to warm. This warming has stalled, at least for now, since about 2003.

        The Selective Bias Of NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) With Respect To The Analysis And Interpretation Of Multi-Decadal Land Surface Temperature Trends Under The Leadership Of Tom Karl and Tom Peterson

        Erroneous Climate Science Statement By Tom Karl, Director Of The National Climate Data Center And President Of The American Meteorological Society

        E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Of Surface Temperature Trends

        Erroneous Statement By Peter A. Stott And Peter W. Thorne In Nature Titled “How Best To Log Local Temperatures?”

        It is disappointing that the media do not properly question the claims made by Tom Karl and Peter Thorne. They are presenting a biased report on the actual state of the climate system.”

        If you do have some sources for those outrageous remarks (and they will come to haunt you) then they are demonstrably untruthful but then by doing the following you have lost what few brain cells you had left

        Im not the one claiming a scientists whose predictions have been shown to be wrong time and again by actual data is correct. Perhaps it is you who should be concerned about their critical thinking skills and ability to evalute scientific information.

        ”What sources lead you to believe that temperatures, as an average global anomaly, are going down?’

        Pielke Senior on NCDC’s recent “state of the climate” rehash’

        Quoting anything that Pielke senior says on this issue means that your brains have now spilt all over the floor.

        Tell me why glaciers are melting, sea ice and both poles is now in decline, ice mass is being lost from Greenland and Antarctica, Texas is burning up whilst hayseed Inhofe’s Oklahoma bakes to a crisp but with many others experiencing floods with many repeated 100 year events across the world, such as drought in the Amazon basin?

        O, and BTW four words in two expressions for you to think about (oh sorry you can’t - you are no longer in charge of your brains):

        sensible heat
        latent heat.

        Lionel said:
        “If you do have some sources for those outrageous remarks (and they will come to haunt you) then they are demonstrably untruthful ”

        Seems pretty clear that Lionel has the closed mind of a religious zealot.

        Onec again I point out that no link in existance would sway him from his Faith so why bother.

        Simply point out the truth and let people know they can find it easily if they do their own research.

        Thanks to Lionel for confirming…..

        The bottom line is that the climate models upon which the AGW theory are based all predicted rising temperatures in the past decade. The models stand or fall based on their ability to predict. They did not predict. Excuses abound and the models may be revised. But they failed and thus their predictions for 100 years from now are worthless.

        I think a big “Thank YOU!!” should go out to all those contributors.
        Without their generosity, we might still be having to listen to Green propaganda telling us the Sky is falling.

        Impressive responses in the comments today.

        Big Oil is just big business and they will hedge their bets. If green works, they go green.

        There is really no point in demonizing them. They operate in accord with government policy and they provide a necessary service. If the gov puts a big price on carbon, they will adjust.

        “If the gov puts a big price on carbon, they will adjust.”

        Come off it Rick. You say it like the fossil fuel companies have no say in the matter. Where as they have spent countless millions on buying politicians, funding lobbying & front groups & carpet bombing the blogosphere with disinformation to make sure a price on carbon never happens in the first place & they can continue on business as usual.


        A price on Carbon will not hurt iol companies at all.
        The only hurt will be to US… The little people who will simply have to pay more to normal every day activities.

        That would not be a problem either if there was actually some justification for it..

        But there is none of course. Just some mythology about harmless plant food.

        “A price on Carbon will not hurt iol companies at all.”

        Soooo, they oppose it because it’s fun to oppose new legislation? They, fund dozens of front groups who in turn organize fund raisers, denier events, astroturf events & directly lobby politicians to defeat this legislation & water down the powers of the EPA because they want it? Maybe in denier bubble world you believe that, but elsewhere in reality, the evidence shows otherwise.

        “The little people who will simply have to pay more to normal every day activities.”

        For a short while yes. Possibly as much as $10 extra a week. You can spin that anyway you want. Nearly $500 per person extra a year or nearly $1.50 extra per day. Obviously no one will be given an annual bill to pay, so it’s closer to the $1.50 per day figure. This enables us to transition to less fossil fuels & encourage green technology. Technology that is really only in it’s infancy & has the potential to provide almost free energy given the chance. The fossil fuel industry will NEVER have a time where you will be getting our power largely for free. You will pay forever & not only that, but you will pay increasingly more for it as it becomes more & more scarce. Given the chance greentech will employ far more people than the fossil fuel industry ever could. The fossil fuel companies are never on their own going to resolve employment bottlenecks. Eventually our power will cost less than it does now under fossil fuels, therefore we will pay less overall.

        If you allow fossil fuel use to continue the way it is, we will pay more directly & even more indirectly through government expenditure on disaster clean ups, plus rebates & subsidies for those affected by disaster. On top of that, you will end up with even bigger government because private sector cannot authorise the relocation of populations, build levies or mobilize military. By not doing anything, conservatives will get exactly what they don’t want….big government.

        “That would not be a problem either if there was actually some justification for it..

        But there is none of course. Just some mythology about harmless plant food.”

        The rest of the world shouldn’t be made to pay for your lack of understanding that burning something that took millions of years to create ( fossil fuels) & releasing it back into the atmosphere in the space of a few decades has massive implications. Yes, it might be beneficial for plants…..but we are not plants are we?

        I just watched Tim Ball’s talk streaming on the internet – was interested because I met him years ago. I thought my head would explode with todays talk. Apart from the factual errors, clear misleading, and (deliberate?) misunderstanding of basic science, the talk came across as a classic conspiracy theorist that there’s this group engaged in pre-meditated fraud against the world! Do they *really* believe what they’re saying. They can’t be that dumb. The only other plausible explanation is “follow the money”.

        This may well all be true, but in the end the question of funding boils down to an ad hominem argument. The fuel industry will fund whoever they think will help them make more money in the future, regardless of what they say.

        What is important is that the people who will be at the conference have a long history of avoiding any real arguments against climate science - because they don’t have any.

        They are trying to create their own reality and get other people to believe in it.

        You cite funding for The Heartland Institute in years before the organization ever hosted one of its six climate conferences. You can’t say Heartland received a dime from “big oil” or any of your other demonized industries for these conferences.

        And why, exactly, is the funding of cosponsors relevant? As the program for the conference notes, cosponsors weren’t asked to pay for the privilege.

        You’re grabbing at straws here, apparently unable to refute the science and so preferring to repeat tired, inaccurate attacks that are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.

        Boy this article really nails the link between people who are skeptics and people who are skeptics. That about wraps it up for skeptics. Not sure why this should surprise anyone though.

        Of course AGW advocates don’t fund environmental organizations or vice verse. So no conflict of interest there.

        I hope more mainstream bring these facts to the people. Of course money cant change opinions or influence elections, but it is interesting.

        “Total Funding (1998-2010): $46,164,880”

        So that’s what you claim was spent over 12 years?

        Uh, that’s like 6 months budget for Greenpeace, alone.

        That’s the price of Al Gore’s mansions.


        “Greenpeace receives its funding from individual supporters and foundations.[3][4] Greenpeace screens all major donations in order to ensure it does not receive unwanted donations.[97] The organization does not accept money from governments, intergovernmental organizations, political parties or corporations in order to avoid their influence.[3][4][97] Donations from foundations which are funded by political parties or receive most of their funding from governments or intergovernmental organizations are rejected. Foundation donations are also rejected if the foundations attach unreasonable conditions, restrictions or constraints on Greenpeace activities or if the donation would compromise the independence and aims of Greenpeace.[97] Since in the mid-1990s the number of supporters started to decrease, Greenpeace pioneered the use of face-to-face fundraising where fundraisers actively seek new supporters at public places, subscribing them for a monthly direct debit donation.[98][99] In 2008, most of the €202.5 million received by the organization was donated by about 2.6 million regular supporters, mainly from Europe.[5]

        In September 2003, the Public Interest Watch (PIW) complained to the Internal Revenue Service, claiming that Greenpeace USA tax returns were inaccurate and in violation of the law.[100] PIW charged that Greenpeace was using non-profit donations for advocacy instead of charity and educational purposes. PIW asked the IRS to investigate the complaint. Greenpeace rejected the accusations and challenged PIW to disclose its funders, a request rejected by then-Executive Director of PIW, Mike Hardiman, because PIW does not have 501c3 tax exempt status like Greenpeace does in the U.S.[101] The IRS conducted an extensive review and concluded in December 2005 that Greenpeace USA continued to qualify for its tax-exempt status. In March 2006 The Wall Street Journal reported that PIW had been funded by ExxonMobil prior to PIW’s request to investigate Greenpeace.”

        Q2. Where does Greenpeace get its funding from and what is your current financial status?

        To maintain absolute independence Greenpeace does not accept money from companies, governments or political parties. We’re serious about this and, as far as possible, screen donations and return them when they’re drawn on a corporate account. All of the funding for our work comes from individual donations and some private foundations.”

        This is chump change compared to the money flowing through all the ‘green’ channels. Thanks James47 for all your responses!
        The CAGW scam is going down and it’s going to be so much fun to watch it all unravel! H

        “Chump change”? Care to tell us how many satellites that “chump change” (paid directly to those indivduals) has put into space and maintained in orbit, or how many Argo bouys are bobbing up and down in the oceans using that “chump change”?