Billionaires fund attacks on climate science

[StraitTalk]

Science for Sale!

----

A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.

The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.

However, an audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in Kansas.

Millions of dollars has been paid to Donors through a third-party organisation, called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, with is operated by the Koch family but does not advertise its Koch connections.

Some commentators believe that such convoluted arrangements are becoming increasingly common to shield the identity and backgrounds of the wealthy supporters of climate scepticism – some of whom have vested interests in the fossil-fuel industry.

The Knowledge and Progress Fund, whose directors include Charles Koch and his wife Liz, gave $1.25m to Donors in 2007, a further $1.25m in 2008 and $2m in 2010. It does not appear to have given money to any other group and there is no mention of the fund on the websites of Koch Industries or the Charles Koch Foundation.

The Donors Trust is a "donor advised fund", meaning that it has special status under the US tax system. People who give money receive generous tax relief and can retain greater anonymity than if they had used their own charitable foundations because, technically, they do not control how Donors spends the cash.

Anonymous private funding of global warming sceptics, who have criticised climate scientists for their lack of transparency, is becoming increasingly common. The Kochs, for instance, have overtaken the corporate funding of climate denialism by oil companies such as ExxonMobil. One such organisation, Americans for Prosperity, which was established by David Koch, claimed that the "Climategate" emails illegally hacked from the University of East Anglia in 2009 proved that global warming was the "biggest hoax the world has ever seen".

Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, has estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given to organisations devoted to undermining the science of climate change, with much of the money donated anonymously through third parties.

The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.

Dr Brulle said: "We really have anonymous giving and unaccountable power being exercised here in the creation of the climate countermovement. There is no attribution, no responsibility for the actions of these foundations to the public.

"By becoming anonymous, they remove a political target. They can plausibly claim that they are not giving to these organisations, and there is no way to prove otherwise."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 66312.html

[WhenWhatWho]

It's about time that people are countering the highly exagerated claims made by the greenies. So, it's OK for only one side to get billions in funding to propagate their myths.

[SurplusElect]

So, it's OK for only one side to get billions in funding to propagate their myths.

Its called science, not myth's.

Myth's are what the Koch brothers are paying for - so they can continue to make cake.

[underscore]

It's about time that people are countering the highly exagerated claims made by the greenies. So, it's OK for only one side to get billions in funding to propagate their myths.

Agreed.

[Static]

It's about time that people are countering the highly exagerated claims made by the greenies. So, it's OK for only one side to get billions in funding to propagate their myths.

Agreed

[Bsuds]

Its called science, not myth's.

Science changes it's beliefs all the time. After all the World used to be flat, they changed their mind on that one, and the Sun used to rotate around the Earth too.

Who knows what will get changed next....maybe Global cooling.

[GenuinelyInterested]

Science changes it's beliefs all the time. After all the World used to be flat, they changed their mind on that one, and the Sun used to rotate around the Earth too.

Who knows what will get changed next....maybe Global cooling.

WHAT? The Sun doesn't rotate around the Earth? When did this change and WHO paid for it?

[logicalview]

It's about time that people are countering the highly exagerated claims made by the greenies. So, it's OK for only one side to get billions in funding to propagate their myths.

agreed times 4 billion - the amount that James Hansen received from the US government last year alone to propagate the global warming myth. Yet no one ever talks about that.

[WhenWhatWho]

Its called science, not myth's.

Myth's are what the Koch brothers are paying for - so they can continue to make cake.

The science I follow is based on verifiable and reproducible facts AND common sense. Something the green side is seriously lacking.

[hobbyguy]

The issue here isn't the discussion of the causes of climate change, it is the co-opting of rational discussion by Randian psycopaths.

That can occur on both sides of any issue. If you see an ad that says "coal is good for you", and you see that it is sponsored by the Koch brothers, then you can judge its bias. If you see an ad, and it says "coal is bad for you" and it is sponsored by Greenpeace, then you can judge its bias.

Folks like the Koch brothers have demonstrated that they are not interested in rational discussion, they are interested in furthuring their own economic interests. If you look closely at most of the "science" or "studies" produced by these "non-profits" they contain many tricks of obfuscation and misdirection that relegate them to the bin of propaganda. That makes it important to know who is behind what. I know I won't take anything from Greenpeace at face value, other than to say "is there a point here at all". The same applies to the Koch brothers. The problem with the Koch brothers is that they are cluttering up the interenet with deliberately twisted and dishonest "studies" and "reports" and "papers" through these sham organizations.

That is a disservice to us all.

[SurplusElect]

Interesting that this organization's main goal is to hide the identities on the donors.

While people on this thread continue to deny mass consensus on the effects of pollution and human mechanization on the planet and throw around loose arguments debunking the validity of science, their main "backers" are paying tens of millions of dollars to hide their true intentions

Why hide?

As another poster mentioned - why would a tobacco company fund "smoking doesn't cause cancer" groups - secretly?

Especially if "tobacco" was the worlds biggest business, and wars were fought and millions of peoples lives were expendable on the behalf of the product.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

WhenWhatWho, Underscore and Static...
Just wondering how old you are ? Also wondering if you ever go outside ?
One only has to compare the 4 seasons of 50 years ago to the 4 seasons of the present to know something is going on.
Bird migration patterns are also changing.
I think the biggest question is, what is the cause ?

[WhenWhatWho]

WhenWhatWho, Underscore and Static...
Just wondering how old you are ? Also wondering if you ever go outside ?
One only has to compare the 4 seasons of 50 years ago to the 4 seasons of the present to know something is going on.
Bird migration patterns are also changing.
I think the biggest question is, what is the cause ?

Right, the earths climate has been static since the beginning. 50 years, that's a joke...right?

If you guys have the "real" science and truths on your side I don't know what you have to worry about. Maybe you're worried they might play to the same gullible masses that you guys have been playing to for decades?

[SurplusElect]

If you guys have the "real" science and truths on your side I don't know what you have to worry about.

Answer :

We worry about people like you continuing to ignore and pollute, obtaining positions of power to further individual greed at the expense of our planet, the one thing that keeps the human race alive.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Right, the earths climate has been static since the beginning. 50 years, that's a joke...right?

If you guys have the "real" science and truths on your side I don't know what you have to worry about. Maybe you're worried they might play to the same gullible masses that you guys have been playing to for decades?

You guys ? Worry about ? I'm not worried about climate change. It's just there. Not much I can do about it.
I'm more worried about everyday pollution. You know the kind like when you go to Vancouver and you can see the orange, grayish haze over the city. Disgusting. Men destroying wildlife habitat and the wetlands dissapearance. That kind of stuff.
You seemed very angry. Why ?