uh sorta - while the livelihood of some deniers depend on dollars (commercial or political) I think its more correct to say that to make others doubt climate ch

uh sorta - while the livelihood of some deniers depend on dollars (commercial or political) I think its more correct to say that to make others doubt climate change is their primary task they get funding for. You can see this very well when compare American vs European climate change debate - in Europe is a very passive "not doing anything useful" while actually everybody gives at least lip service that something has to be done. This is because there was less opportunity to couple the debate into politics in an concentrated way. In the US the 2 party thing makes that very easy and the whole thing has staying power as an "issue" so it probably needs comparatively little or even no investment to keep alive. In the EU I can only directly speak for Germany but to me it seemed like there were no direct attacks against the concept of climate change directly (although we get some splash damage from the US). most issues stem from single big companies or industry groups trying to bend things to their advantage. A good example that is maybe best known international is the "Clean Diesel" thing that VW so disastrously chose because it was short term cheaper than investments into EV technology. This is what in the end lead to the diesel scandal. There are better examples but they get too local to be as easy to explain.