The Kochs' Climate Change Denial Media Machine

Submitted by Anne Landman on

Charles (left) and David KochBillionaire brothers Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, the second largest privately-held energy company in America, have poured millions of dollars into creating a web of media influence to increase their power to sow doubt about climate change among the American public. A network of bloggers, pundits, think tanks and foundations get funding from the Kochs, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received over $700,000, and the libertarian Cato Institute, which has received $13 million from the Kochs since 1998. The Manhattan Institute received $1.5 million, Americans for Prosperity has gotten $5.5 million, the Pacific Research Institute has gotten $1.2 million and the Federalist Society $2 million. This web of think tanks and foundations operates blogs and Web sites and house prominent writers who pump out climate denial writings that help spread the Kochs' anti-climate change ideology. The Kochs' influence isn't limited to fringe media, either. Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, who writes for the Weekly Standard and the Washington Post, Philip Anshutz, owner of the Examiner newspapers and the Weekly Standard, Stephen Moore, a Wall Street Journal editorial board member, are just some of the conservative media figures who attend the Kochs' exclusive, private annual gatherings.

Main Source: 
Mother Jones, February 4, 2011
Topics: 
Energy
Climate Change
Media

Comments

Anonymous replied on

There should be no argument as to whether or not climate change happens. It does. It has happened since the dawn of time. Geologic evidence tells us it was going on long before man showed up on this little planet. It was going on back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. It was going on 4.5 billion years ago or so when the planet formed. The argument comes in as to what causes it. So many people in power want you to believe people cause it because then they can get you to relinquish control of your life, they can pass laws and use the force of police and military to curtail the choices you should be allowed to make. They can use the same force to steal your money in the form of taxes for their programs. Sure, they'd like you to believe that they are taxing huge corporations, but when you look at the power structure the corporations have bought and paid for most of the politicians worldwide and they are the ones getting large chunks of tax dollars in the form of bailouts, etc. They are the ones writing the laws. That should give you something to think about. I can tell you this, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a life giving gas that is used by plants to respire. It is not a leading indicator of warming, it is a following indicator. Those who have been advocating the idea that mankind is a major contributor to climate change have been proven to be deceptive. They, too, have received millions from questionable corporate and private entities. Al Gore himself stood to make billions as a major share holder in the Chicago Climate Exchange. If you think that politicians and those holding power today are going to fix the climate, think about this. 1) Governments are the biggest polluters on the planet. 2) Why does the US federal government give people tax breaks when they set up solar cells on their property and feed the energy to the grid, but not when they do so to take themselves off the grid so they are independent of any fossil fuels? If you think they care about individuals, then why are corporations providing them with so much campaign money and why are they constantly passing laws that help corporations over the little guy? Whether you believe humans are the cause of climate change or not, the answer is not going to come from the government sector. The answer will come from individuals who care. Quit whining about what the government should or shouldn't do and who funds what and do something about it yourself. Get yourselves off the grid and build your own little solar power plant or some other form of renewable energy. Look into the suppressed technologies that are available and bring that into your life. Spend your own money on that stuff, quit making excuses and see how far you can get without having to beg the government for permission. In this way you will stop having to deal with the corporations and help achieve your own independence.

Anonymous replied on

Even if you don't agree with 98% of scientist around the world, there are still other factors that would suggest a move away from big oil monopolizing the worlds energy consumption. Clean air and good health correlate. Our national security is greatly impacted by the hands of foriegn oil cartels, and the future of alternative energy and better technologies are being delayed by the very people who have the most to lose if these new initiatives took off and improved our way of life.

Anonymous replied on

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. -- Michael Crichton

This is exactly what the carbon alarmists have done. By claiming a consensus when there is none, they violate the basic principles of scientific debate, revealing there's to be religious rather than scientific thought.

Now that the wicked cold winters and falling temperatures belie their these, the carbon alarmists are morphing "global warming" into "climate change" so we will follow their global taxation path without noting their scientific inconsistencies.

This article demonstrates that guilt by association is yet another non-scientific approach to promoting the carbon alarmist religion. That the Koch's fund groups that dare to question global warming does not mean that others should not. Many scientists and leading meteorologists think it is total crap and they deserve more respect from the "Center for Media and Democracy."

Lisa Graves replied on

Come on, Anonymous. Where is the courage of your convictions? Who do you really work for?

Nice rhetoric--carbon alarmists--how many focus groups did your allies pay to study to come up with that little line?

And, global taxation? Absurd. What a bunch of hogwash. Now, if you have mentioned the problem of enormous subsidies for global carbon corporations maybe we'd be able to find some common ground.

As for the carping about consensus, first of all Crichton a fiction writer after all is not exactly a credible source.

But, more importantly, just because a small percentage of scientists--many of whom are funded by the oil and gas industry--are denying the climate changes underway does not mean there is not scientifically reliable and credible evidence in support of the view that burning fossil fuels at the rate we are burning them is affecting our climate.

But, you don't have to be a scientist to just believe what your eyes would tell you is true, if you'd only open them. Centuries old glaciers and ice sheets are not just retreating but are disappearing at a very rapid rate. I don't take this as a matter of faith. I take this as a matter of plain common sense observation.

It may be your view that this is just part of the normal cooling and heating of the planet given the climate changes over the course of eons, but surely you cannot let your faith in the pundits propped up by Koch funding discredit what your own eyes must surely reveal to you.

The fact is that just as climates and micro-climates vary across the world and within states and even cities, how the climate changes will affect a particular place over the course of a year of seasons is difficult to predict, but there are sound scientific measurements of changes that have already taken place at a pace that far exceeds recent shifts.

I challenge you to name the leading weathermen and scientists who think climate change (dramatic changes in warming some places and cooling in others) is "total crap" who have not received any funding from the oil and gas industry (companies or their CEOs) through grants or donations to non-profit front groups.

Let's talk about your sources, anonymous.

Anonymous replied on

You mean Bambi the Well Endowed Weather Girl or Jimmy the Ruggedly Handsome Jock-are these the same ones who can't accurately predict the rain or blizzards? The same ones which same there's a 10% "chance of rain" on my TV/Phone when all i have to do is look outside and see a torrential down pour?

Hay Jeus, stop the presses!

Down Under replied on

The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A survey by scientists, Stephen Schneider et al found that climate scientists unconvinced by the evidence comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with all expert surveys, indicating that >97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC.

The Koch Brothers are incapable of debating the tenets of climate change. However, they are extremely capable of providing deniers with millions of dollars of filthy laundered lucre. This enables the Koch Brothers and their partners in biospheric crime to continue bludging off the environment, free of charge.

One need not be a believer in climate change to demand that the fossil fuel industry be held to account for the damage they have caused. Fortunately the majority of people have an IQ superior to the greed barons and their retarded dancing boys and are seeking change to eradicate the planet of the hit and run fossil fuel giants (predominantly from the US, Canada and Australia) who believe they have a mandate to cull the biosphere.

These avaricious Neanderthals on rampage have wiped out entire ecosystems, committed atrocious human rights abuses, thrown people off their lands and contaminated the entire planet with fossil fuel chemical hazards and their unintended toxic by-products, and with impunity - free of charge.

Of course the taxpayer has always picked up the tab to remediate the environmental carnage committed by the fossil fuel industry (if in fact it can be remediated) but frootloops in denial are too obtuse to realise that since they appear to have the IQ of a beach ball.

Australia was recently force-fed two freak shows performed by two sad little men - the fraudulent, Christopher Monckton and cut-and-paste weather man, Anthony Watts - hilarious! Verrrrry "scientific" eh? Is that the best you can produce deniers? Gulp!

Gary Williams replied on

How so many conservatives are able to not only repeat blatant garbage but actually believe so much of it is related to the high correlation between conservatism and authoritarian leader/follower personalities. These people appear to have cognitive level filters that disallow info that conflicts with their prior beliefs and emotional attachments to the status quo. Their leaders tell them what they believe and they repeat it without analyzing it's coherence or veracity in the way other people, whatever their ideology, all do (even the left extreme).
Some quotes from a criminology paper at Okla. government website are instructive regarding the extent of the folly involved by our own projection, hence assumption, that these are also people who use reason and intellect to make important decisions. Most, the RWA-SDOs (see Dr. R. Altemeyer - The Authoritarians) do not. Being, or following power and authority - does.

"It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development" (Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional (conservative personality) than non-traditional personalities."

"neither conceptually nor empirically does there appear to be any grounds for distinguishing authoritarianism and conservative personality-except that the former may be regarded as a somewhat more particular case of the latter" (Wilson, 1973, p. 33). Dogmatic attitudes tend to be related to close-mindedness. The individuals who adhere to dogmatic attitudes have behaviors including: authoritarianism, tough-mindedness, conservatism, and alienated behavior (Rajnarain, 1986)."

"Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uniformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent" (p. 38). McClosky, H. Conservatism and personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45. http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/95/950725c.htm

For much, much more simply use Google Scholar to search the terms "authoritarianism, conservatism".

Pages