http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1999/morefunding.htm
Well, at least they aren't a creature of the Federal government, the UN, or the Sierra Club...
So, you think the jury is still out? Oh, I see that you're new here. We can change that if you have a logical thinking brain.
As for funding for the Center, here is their position.
As a 501(c)(3) public charity, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations to fund its educational activities. All donations are kept confidential. Please consider supporting the Center so access to CO2 Science Magazine can remain free to everyone.
Where does GreenPeace get it's funding? Club Sierra? WWF? PBS? NPR? PeTA? Will any of them tell you where the bulk of their funding comes from? Didn't think so. Do you really want to know?
but this organization appears to be a creature of the petroleum industry. They've received grants from Exxon, and currently they are funded by parties which they decline to identify.
Who would you expect to fund their research? The UN, Sierra Club, the government. I don't think so.
Opposing viewpoints are always funded by opposing interests. That does not however lead to the conclusion that the research or conclusion is invalid. Merit of the argument and data only, can make that determination.
Fallacy: Guilt By Association:
Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.
Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).
The NGOs foisting the GLOBAL WARMING chimera are even more creatures of the foundations of petrochemical wealth. The banks founded thereupon are looking to cash in on the carbon credit scam associated with Kyoto.