Since this blog is almost entirely on the topic of dissecting the accusation that funding (otherwise comprehended as outright bribery) has corrupted skeptic climate scientists, it is incumbent upon me to disclose and detail anything relating to money I receive which even has the smallest appearance of possible corruption. Such disclosures are always in the Uncategorized section here, and this is the 2017 announcement.
The Heartland Institute has once again given me a strings-free grant for a year, and the total amount is …….. wait for it ……. $12,000, with the first half arriving in my bank account today. That’s for the entire year, unless they decide to increase the second half in July, and either way, I’ll disclose what shows up at that time, just like I did last July.
Do the math here. If I was in the climate issue for personal monetary gain, I’d be employed at the every least at a wage level higher than what my gift grant breaks down to, and considering my knowledge and skill level, I’d probably be considerably higher up the chain than that.
How must a person live on such meager amounts of cash? Very frugally. When my Heartland grants were $18k and $24k for 2014 and 2015, I kept to that same frugal level, which enabled me to have cash savings to ease some of the economic inconvenience of last year’s $12k grant, and some of that savings will be applied to this year’s budget as needed. If the OccupyWallStreet people got any particular economic concept correct, sub-poverty level cash isn’t the American dream.
Meanwhile, there’s the recurring thing thrown at me by mostly anonymous critics, that I’m paid to do what I do. Meaning bribed, of course, because I know better, thus the money corrupts me. But since it is demonstrable that I’ve voiced the position I have years before Heartland gave me anything, how can it be said that my grants have corrupted me? Then there is the “paid” part of that – no less than the Obama-era Internal Revenue Service was unable to declare that I was in a pay-for-performance work association with Heartland, and I have the IRS document to prove that. I’m unemployed, I do not work for anyone under a contractual or consulting way, or in any way. The notion that big piles of cash prompts me to say what the cash giver wants me say could be easily proven, as I noted in my July 16, 2014 post, by big-dollar global warming people giving me any amount larger than what they think Heartland is “paying” me and then sitting back to watch what happens. So far, no takers willing to put their money where their mouths are.
Funny thing about the accusations against me, I don’t feel defamed or harmed by them because they only help illustrate just how weak the accusation really is when zero evidence is offered to prove that I am corrupted. The same accusation is hurled at skeptic climate scientists, and none of my critics people rise to the challenge of disputing what I say about the baselessness of the larger accusation. However, if some pro bono lawyer can convince me that actionable defamation has occurred against me, well, accusers who have made it this far through this post need to be reminded of the statement I borrowed from Heartland which was at the bottom of my December 30, 2015 post, if they choose to continue calling me a paid shill:
With this notice, the reader is informed he/she will have no defense of “innocent mistake” made because of lack of knowledge and may have legal liability for defamation.