Stephen Dinan’s March 5th Washington Times article entitled “Climate scientists plot to fight back at skeptics” allows a climate alarmist  to assert that scientists “will never be able to compete with energy companies” when it comes to pushing their side of the debate.

The claim is false for several reasons:

• Energy companies have funded research on both sides of this debate, but spent more funding those “alarmists” who support claims of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (“AGW”).
• No company or association of companies can compete with government funding.
• Between government, foundation, and corporate money, the funding of “alarmists” dwarfs funding to “skeptics” who doubt that humans have substantial impact on global climate.

Last year, it was reported that ExxonMobil, long the poster-child of evil skeptical energy companies gave “hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups that continue to question the cause and effects of global warming”. Beyond the shocking implication that nobody should be allowed to ask such questions, the amount of money is paltry in the scope of the climate alarmists’ full-fledged industry.

A few examples:

• The head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, received $9.5 million from BP between 2006 and 2009.
• The disgraced British Climate Research Unit still relied on energy companies, particularly Shell, for financing right up to the “ClimateGate” release of their internal e-mails showing apparent scientific corruption and even violations of law.
• BP committed nearly $20 million to a joint research project with Princeton University which aims for “inventing an implementing strategies for climate change mitigation.”
• Until they recently realized the tide was turning against alarmism, Conoco was also a consistent funder of their work, such as a $1 million grant to a “climate change policy partnership” at Duke University. Duke Energy contributed $2.5 million to the same group, giving the companies “the ability to vet climate policy research before it is released to the public.”

While a reporter is not responsible for the quote of a person he interviews, it is incumbent upon members of the media not to allow their pages or screens to be used as outlets for unchallenged bald-faced propaganda. The myth of energy companies massively funding climate skeptics is just such propaganda.