Big Money in Climate Denial

28 Jun 2011 15:14 #1 by ScienceChic
http://www.desmogblog.com/denial-hire-w ... koch-money
Denial For Hire: Willie Soon’s Career Fueled by Big Oil, Coal and Koch Money
28 June 11

Willie Soon, the notorious climate denier who has made a career out of attacking the IPCC and climate scientists, has received over $1 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a new report from Greenpeace.

The Greenpeace report , “Dr. Willie Soon: a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal,” reveals that $1.033 million of Dr. Soon’s funding since 2001 has come from oil and coal interests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, according to documents received from the Smithsonian Institution in response to Greenpeace FOIA requests.

Dr. Soon is among the speakers at the annual Denialapalooza climate denier meeting hosted by the Heartland Institute in Washington DC later this week. Since the theme of that Heartland junk science junket is “Restoring the Scientific Method,” perhaps the attendees will query Dr. Soon about the ethics of accepting a million dollars from polluter interests while claiming that climate change is nothing to worry about.


http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011 ... nge-denier
Did ExxonMobil Break Its Promise To Stop Funding Climate Change Deniers?
— By Kate Sheppard
| Tue Jun. 28, 2011

Back in 2008, ExxonMobil pledged to quit funding climate change deniers. But according to new documents released through a Greenpeace Freedom of Information Act request, the oil giant was still forking over cash to climate skeptics as recently as last year, to the tune of $76,000 for one scientist skeptical of humankind's role in global warming. This—and much more—came to light in a new report about the funding of Wei Hock "Willie" Soon, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Soon has been a favorite among climate skeptics for years, since coauthoring a paper back in 2003 that claimed that the 20th century was probably not the warmest, nor was it unique. That paper, published in the journal Climate Research, was widely criticized by climate scientists for its content, not to mention the funding it received from the American Petroleum Institute. An astrophysicist by training, Soon has also claimed that solar variability—i.e., changes in the amount of radiation coming from the sun—are to likely to blame for warming temperatures.

Given that Soon had previously disclosed some of his corporate funding, in December 2009 Greenpeace submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Smithsonian Institution asking for information about Soon's funders and any conflict of interest forms he may have submitted. In response, Smithsonian produced a list of his major bankrollers, which included more than $800,000 from major energy interests. According to the document, Exxon provided $55,000 for a study on Arctic climate change in 2007 and 2008, and another $76,106 for research into solar variability between 2008 and 2010.

ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers accused Greenpeace of "peddling this discredited conspiracy theory" about its support for climate deniers. He maintained that the company stopped funding Soon in 2009. Even if Greenpeace and Smithsonian are wrong and ExxonMobil has stopped funding his work, Soon still appears to be getting significant backing from other fossil fuel companies, with the coal giant Southern Company providing $120,000 to look at "solar variability and climate change signals from temperature" in 2008 and 2009, and the Koch Foundation providing Soon another $65,000 last year.

"There's been a long-term campaign of climate denial for over 20 years, organized by big coal and big oil. This is evidence that it continues to this day."


"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jun 2011 15:44 #2 by Something the Dog Said
Don't forget about the money spent on the climate denial machine by those wacky Koch Brothers:

The Kansas-based company and its affiliates and foundations spent almost $25 million on "organizations of the 'climate denial machine'" between 2005 and 2008, according to the report. Koch Industries and the Koch family also spent $37.9 million between 2006 and 2009. "Although Koch intentionally stays out of the public eye, it is now playing a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global warming," the report concludes.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010 ... al-machine

Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was "the biggest company you've never heard of." Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $55 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming.

A lot can happen in a year. Today, the Kochs are being watched as a prime example of the corporate takeover of government. Their funding and co-opting of the Tea Party movement is now well documented.

Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they've made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It's timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they're up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires' destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... ndustries/

"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jun 2011 15:48 #3 by bailey bud
I'd hazard a guess that there's fairly significant money invested in the non-denial machine, as well.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jun 2011 17:20 #4 by OmniScience
Hey Global Warming Chic - want to comment on the millions of dollars of Climate Change grant money that scientific institutions and researchers seek every year? Or, the Billions that our Federal government has spent?

There's big money in Climate change research, - just keep telling the proponents of AWG what they want to hear.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jun 2011 18:09 - 28 Jun 2011 23:06 #5 by pineinthegrass
I just don't care for the bias and politics of the articles in the first post. As soon as they start calling skeptics "deniers" (inferring Holocaust deniers) in an article, I know that article is not going to be a balanced one. Throw in other words like big oil, big coal, then call the Heartland meeting the "annual Denialapalooza climate denier meeting" and I'm sick to my stomach already.

Instead, I'd rather hear more about Dr. Soon instead of just name calling. What papers has he published? Are they peer reviewed? If they are criticised, why? Is the funding he's getting going directly to his research? How about an intelligent discussion about the speakers at the Heartland event and the findings they present?

No, I don't like oil and gas companies funding such research and I hope Dr. Soon can get funding elsewhere. But I doubt he can get it from the same sources the main climate scientists get it from. I bet he won't get any from the current federal government. So I don't know what other choices he has. Maybe he can get some from the Koch brothers, but he'd be attacked for that too.

I personally believe the planet is warming and that humans are a factor. But I think we should welcome legitimate (assuming Dr Soon is legit) research from both sides, rather than ridiculing one side with name calling (I'm referring to the articles, not the poster who is always interested in intelligent discussion about the subject).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jun 2011 19:24 #6 by Something the Dog Said
To help put Dr. Soon and the Heartland Institute in perspective, Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist with no background in climatological science. His "research" funding has primarily been from the Koch brothers, American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, Mobil, and similar organizations to the tune of millions of dollars. His two primary "works" were in attempting to discredit the hockey stick temperature graph. His research was later found to be shoddy and misleading. His other "work" was trying to claim that polar bears are not in danger from global warming. This viewpoint was rejected by peer review journals and only published as an editorial viewpoint in another journal. Although he has no background in climatological sciences, or any thing outside of astrophysicis, he proclaims himself a global expert in mercury, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases and global warming. His work for the Smithsonian has nothing to do with any of these fields.

The Heartland Institute has been around for years. They originally provided "science" to back up big tobacco claims that smoking was not harmful. They have since transistioned to providing "science" for denying that global warming is occurring, using some of the same experts that they used for big tobacco. Their leading "expert" on global warming is a lawyer based in Florida. They employ no climatological scientists. They also refuse to disclose the source of their funding.

"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jun 2011 23:05 #7 by pineinthegrass

Something the Dog Said wrote: To help put Dr. Soon and the Heartland Institute in perspective, Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist with no background in climatological science. His "research" funding has primarily been from the Koch brothers, American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, Mobil, and similar organizations to the tune of millions of dollars. His two primary "works" were in attempting to discredit the hockey stick temperature graph. His research was later found to be shoddy and misleading. His other "work" was trying to claim that polar bears are not in danger from global warming. This viewpoint was rejected by peer review journals and only published as an editorial viewpoint in another journal. Although he has no background in climatological sciences, or any thing outside of astrophysicis, he proclaims himself a global expert in mercury, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases and global warming. His work for the Smithsonian has nothing to do with any of these fields.

The Heartland Institute has been around for years. They originally provided "science" to back up big tobacco claims that smoking was not harmful. They have since transistioned to providing "science" for denying that global warming is occurring, using some of the same experts that they used for big tobacco. Their leading "expert" on global warming is a lawyer based in Florida. They employ no climatological scientists. They also refuse to disclose the source of their funding.


Your reply covers pretty much of what I object to.

I'm not here to defend Dr. Soon. I'd need to research it more. But I think a PhD in astrophysics is nothing to dismiss him by which you are trying to do. Do you have better qualifications to comment? And the article said his paper was about solar variability. Who knows more about that? An astrophysicist or a climate scientist?

I objected about the simplistic terms like big oil and big coal in the articles. That's what politicians do. And now you reply using "big tobacco". To me that is condescending. I know tobacco is bad. Do you really assume we are too dumb to realise it and can only understand it if you put "big" if front of it?

Yes, he's funded by "big" oil. But that alone doesn't prove anything, though I don't like it. As I asked, where else can he get funding that you wont object to?

It's like when LJ suggested that Anthony Weiner did nothing wrong just becaused he was accused by Breitbart. That ended up working out really well for her.

And if polar bears are really threatened more than other animals, please provide your links for the science. They've survived a long time already through huge temperature extremes. I think they are more threatened because they are cute, and are being used for that purpose for political reasons. But I could be wrong.

Look, Dr. Soon may be a tool, so far as I know. But all you do is regurgitate the usual big oil attacks. Instead, please let me know what's wrong in his papers.

So far as Heartland goes, I do not endorse them. I see some questionable speakers there which I could discuss. But you offer no specifics, so why should I?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

29 Jun 2011 07:08 #8 by FredHayek
Since some of the biggest reasons for Ice Ages appear to be more due to Earth's plce in space over events on our planet, I think an Astro guy does have revalance when discussing global warming, and I would also include geologists.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.157 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+