Claim: it’s virtually impossible to get funded for work that disputes climate change through other channels [other than oil companies]

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: The New York Times and others reported in 2015 that oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause climate change and global warming since the 1970s but nonetheless funded deniers for years.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists who have been voicing opposition to the near-universal consensus are being funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: A lack of funding can be a barrier to successful strategies as there are no formal arrangements to finance climate change development and implementation.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Public support of climate change research ultimately decides whether or not funding for the research is made available to scientists and institutions.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The governments of four countries (the gas/oil-producers USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) blocked a proposal to welcome the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C at the 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP24).

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: According to the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March 2002 by former attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency, “Companies like ExxonMobil and Sunoco keep reporting record profits while increasing emissions or more cancer causing chemicals from their refineries.” The energy lobby has been criticized by environmentalists for using its influence try and to block or dilute legislation regarding global climate change.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical documentary film that suggests that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced by funding and political factors, and questions whether scientific consensus on global warming exists.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The human cost associated with denying climate change science is one that concerns many governments.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Between 2008 and 2010 the WWF worked with The Co-operative Group, the UK's largest consumer co-operative to publish reports which concluded that: (1) exploiting the Canadian tar sands to their full potential would be sufficient to bring about what they described as 'runaway climate change; (2) carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology cannot be used to reduce the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to a level comparable to that of other methods of oil extraction; (3) the $379 billion which is expected to be spent extracting oil from tar sands could be better spent on research and development in renewable energy technology; and (4) the expansion of tar sands extraction poses a serious threat to the caribou in Alberta .