Why Exxon makes Koch Giggle
As regular readers of DeSmogBlog know, ExxonMobil has been a regular target of bad ink for their continued funding of "think" tanks and industry associations that spread misinformation about the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming.
However, an organization that you made not of heard of is equally guilty of such activities. The Koch (pronounced "coke") Family of Foundations is run by David and Charles Koch, sons of the founder of Koch Industries, Fred Koch. Koch Industries is the world's largest privately owned company and while it now boasts a diversified portfolio of companies, it cut its teeth in the 1940's as an oil refining company and today produces 800,000 barrels of oil per day through one of its subsidiaries.
While Exxon is continuously vilified as the leader of the attack on climate change science, the Koch Foundation is heavily involved in the same type of activity, but receives very little of the bad press.
Some examples:
The Cato Institute was founded by Charles Koch in 1977, and has received a reported $13.2 million from the Koch Family foundations since 1986. Cato has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since 1991.
The Heritage Foundation has received $2.4 million from Koch, while receiving $585,000 from ExxonMobil.
The Reason Foundation has received $2.2 million from Koch, while receiving $381,000 from ExxonMobil.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute received $666,000 from Koch, while receiving a whopping $2 million from ExxonMobil.
And the list goes on, but the media and NGO spotlight remains heavily focussed on the funding activities of the publicly traded oil company, while the private one remains, for the most part, private. We here at the DeSmogBlog are just as guilty of focusing most of our attention on the activities of ExxonMobil, as are many others. And why not. With ExxonMobil publicly disclosing its funding activities on an annual basis, they make an easy target.
In the Fall, 2006 the Royal Society in the UK issued a public letter demanding that ExxonMobil discontinue its think tank war on climate science and this demand was met with a small measure of success. ExxonSecrets.org, operated by Greenpeace, has done amazing work as well in this area. Such efforts are to be commended. However it is imperative that when it comes to such things we do not put on our Exxon blinders to the exclusion of all others.
To that end I have registered the website domain name www.kochsecrets.org if anyone is interested.
The dollar amounts mentioned are mere peanuts. No propaganda, no matter how effective, can accomplish and supposedly "confuse" the public on such tiny sums of money.
Regards,
It seems to have worked on you since you believe the non-sense put out by Exxon, CEI, AEI, Heartland, FOS, NRSP et al. and you refuse to read and acceept the real science as published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
However, maybe you are just cheap and easily bought.
Ian Forrester
Much more is needed Steve. You have a superficial understanding of propaganda and it's supposed effectiveness.
You assume that the public is composed of simpletons who you consider incapable of handling various viewpoints, and therefore, can only be offered the one, official viewpoint. But free expression of ideas does not work that way.
Blaming Exxon and its ilk is barking up the wrong tree.
Regards,
What makes you think that the disappearnace of the glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro are not caused by global warming? Just because the local temperature may not show much of a rise does not immediately invalidate the concept of global warming. The theory that deforestation is the cause is just more junk science. The most probable reason is that global warming is causing increased temparatures in the Indian Ocean and that is causing major climate changes in the African continent (droughts in the interior and major flooding in coastal areas). This is pretty well accepted now.
As for the old canard about temperature change preceding CO2 rises this is discussed in a number of places. Realclimate is a good place to start:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
As for the medieval warm period, there has been no evidence produced that there was a global increase in temperature during this period. There may, and even at that it is highly unlikely, that certain areas may have experienced a localized warming at that time. Please do not get excited about warming and wine making in Greenland, any warming there was very localized. It is unlikley that the Northern hemisphere experienced more than 0.2 degrees C of warming.
For information on the Antarctic see Realclimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/antarctica-snowfall/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/significant-warming-of-the-antarctic-winter-troposphere/
If you read these articles and approach them with an open mind and know a little bit about science I think that you will be less inclined to believe the pseudo-science put out by the AGW deniers.
Ian Forrester
Why is it not expensive to sow doubt Kevin?
Kevin, you are arguing the position that we, the general public, can not be trusted to absorb, assimilate, or discard information that is presented to us. But we can, and we do.
Canada's government has spent vast sums of money, and so have environmental groups, on the dangers of AGW, yet the general public remains largely unmotivated to serious action.
I believe the real "enemy", if there is one, is us; average ordinary Canadian citizens. Something to think about.
Regards,
Quantity does not equal quality.
"Cato has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since 1991."
Holy smokes! You've uncovered the scandal of the century! That works out to like, uh, $6,875 a year! Imagine if this gets out? The Cato Institute's credibility will be shot to hell, and you'll be famous.
This is the kind of muck-raking journalism that could win you the Pulitzer Prize. Even if it doesn't, you can still tell everyone you won. It's not like anyone ever checks these things.
Dear Ignoranus, the Cato Institute lost its credibility when, as a libertarian group, it supported stronger central government and reduced liberties at home in support of a "war on terror" which amounts to corporate welfare. If you held a consistent philosophy, you would know that. Also, you would not be able to write the above paragraph regarding Desmogblog without also applying the same argument to the Heartland Institute, etc.
"Dear Ignoranus, the Cato Institute lost its credibility when, as a libertarian group, it supported stronger central government and reduced liberties at home in support of a "war on terror" which amounts to corporate welfare."
Do you even know what you're talking about? Evidently not.
In what alternate reality did the Cato Institute ever advocate a larger government in support of the war on terrorism? And what on Earth that would have to do with "corporate welfare", is anyone's guess.
I'll stop here because Cato's claims to libertarianism are quite distant from the topic of this post. The original post is about groups other than Exxon funding climate misinformation. Thanks Kevin, it's all well and good to point out Exxon's role, but it's also important to know that there are deep pockets elsewhere demanding the services of AEI etc.
AHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man, that is so hilarious.
By the way, though it would be obvious to most halfway intelligent people, that "post" is actually a guest essay. What seems to be confusing you, is that you don't understand that other political philosophies, unlike your
hard core leftist"Environmentalist" cult, controversial viewpoints, discussion, and debate are tolerated and encouraged. Anyone expressing disenting opinion is not automatically pilloried and denounced as acounter-revolutionary"denieralist".But you wouldn't know about that, would you?
http://antiwar.com/who.php
"The founders of Antiwar.com were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP." Note that some of their contributors left the Cato Institute due to its shift.
Now, this isn't the place to argue the libertarian bonafides of other websites (sorry all), so I'll emplore you to read and to shove your underserved elitism wrt tolerance up any one of your equally unenlightened orifices.
Just how much does Internet money-laundering mogul John Lefebvre pay your employer, James Hoggan and Associates public relations firm for this propaganda?
Just asking ...
4yGood idea.0j I compleatly disagree with last post . hhg
ламинат купить 7t