File:Conservative think tank super-claim prevalence and funding from key donors.webp

English: "CTT super-claim prevalence and funding from key donors. This figure includes scatterplots and linear regression results (see Supplementary Table S6 for the full results) showing the relationship between the share of CTT funding from “key” conservative donors and the prevalence of claims from the following categories: (a) “Climate movement/science is unreliable” [Category 5] (β=0.403, p<0.05, R2=0.56), (b) “Climate solutions won’t work” [Category 4] (β=−0.608, p<0.05, R2=0.56), and (c) “Global warming is not happening”, “Human GHGs are not causing global warming” & “Climate impacts are not bad” [Categories 1–3] (β=0.205, p<0.05, R2=0.25). Total funding in millions of US dollars over the period 2003-2010 is displayed in (d) along with the share of funding from DonorsTrust/DonorsCapital (red), key donors other than DonorsTrust/DonorsCapital (yellow), and other donors (blue)." "urther, we are now able to investigate the types of claims which are linked to funding from concealed donations from “dark money” funders such as Donors Trust/Donors Capital Fund25,32, Fig. 4 compares CTT claims with the amount and source of their funding. Brulle32 compiled annual funding data of CTTs over the period 2003-2010. We focus our analysis on the association of funding by “key” donors—defined as the ten donors with the highest node degree scores from a network analysis of donors and recipients by Brulle32—with CTT climate contrarian communication (Methods). After merging these funding data with our CTT dataset, we were left with 14 observations due to missingness in the Brulle dataset. Figure 4 displays a series of scatterplots which compare the share of funding from these “key” donors with a CTT’s share of category 5 (Fig. 4a), 4 (Fig. 4b), and 1–3 (Fig. 4c) claims. Linear regression results show that the proportion of category 5 and category 1–3 claims are positively associated with the proportion of funding originating from these 10 key donors. Likewise, we find a negative association of category 4 claim prevalence with key donor funding. Figure 4d illustrates the sources of funding for 14 CTTs in our sample. Notably, prominent contrarian CTTs such as the Heartland Institute are heavily dependent upon these key donors and, in particular the “donor-advised” funding flows from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, which ensure anonymous funding to conservative causes25,32,38."