Klimaathoax is zelf een bewust opgezette hoax door ExxonMobil: - Pagina 7

grievous · 27 maart 2010, 08:30

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

Doe maar, maar zoals het spreekwoord zegt: wie laatst lacht, best lacht.

Gij zult niet laatst lachen.De klimaatsceptici zullen het onderspit delven.

rikbe · 27 maart 2010, 14:37

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Gij zult niet laatst lachen.De klimaatsceptici zullen het onderspit delven.

Ik lach me nu al een kriek.

grievous · 27 maart 2010, 17:54

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

Ik lach me nu al een kriek.

Maak u maar belachelijk.

rikbe · 27 maart 2010, 18:14

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Maak u maar belachelijk.

LOL.

grievous · 2 april 2010, 14:35

Weer een slag voor de sceptici.

'The British House of Commons today issued a report exonerating Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Dr. Jones was embroiled in controversy following the theft of internal emails and documents from the University’s servers in November of last year.

The report states that “the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced,” and that Dr. Jones’s actions were “in line with common practice in the climate science community,” and the CRU’s “analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.”

The review by the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee began in January in the wake of the ‘Climategate’ media frenzy. While the committee’s report recommends that climate scientists should seek to improve transparency in their work, release raw data when possible, and provide more detail on their methodologies, the committee firmly concludes that there was no dishonesty on the part of Dr. Jones and the CRU. The committee compared the results of other independent analyses of climate data to that of the CRU, and found that they are consistent and independently verifiable.

From a statement released by the committee to the press today:

“The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—“trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.”

Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.

The committee’s report [PDF] provides detailed responses on each of the issues raised in its investigation.

On the matter of Dr. Jones’ use of the phrase “trick” in an email referring to Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, the Committee concludes:
"Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data."

On the matter of Dr. Jones’ email including the phrase “hide the decline”, the Committee concludes:
"Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous."

On the matter of whether Dr. Jones suppressed or perverted the peer review process, the Committee concluded:
"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers."

The report goes into further detail on Freedom of Information requests and other issues, culminating in a set of recommendations for improving data access and transparency at CRU and increased transparency in the scientific community at large to ensure that the science remains “irreproachable.” '
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta...s%20report.pdf

Khwajagan · 2 april 2010, 14:37

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Gij zult niet laatst lachen.De klimaatsceptici zullen het onderspit delven.

waarom?

grievous · 2 april 2010, 14:38

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Khwajagan

waarom?

Omdat ze een kleine ideologisch gemotiveerde minderheid zijn en de klimaatverandering te zichtbaar is om ontkent te worden.

grievous · 2 april 2010, 14:47

Nog een bedrijf ontmaskerd dat als sponsor van de ontkenners optreedt.

'Koch Industries has “become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition,” spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the climate denial machine, according to an extensive report today by Greenpeace.

The Greenpeace report reveals how Koch Industries and the foundations under its control spent far more than even ExxonMobil in recent years to fund industry front groups opposed to clean energy and climate policies. Koch spent over half the total amount -nearly $25 million - funding climate denier groups from 2005 to 2008, a period in which Exxon only spent $8.9 million.

Greenpeace’s attempt to lift the veil of secrecy inherent to a private company like Koch Industries is no easy task. Because it remains privately owned, Koch faces few of the disclosure requirements designed to increase transparency among publicly-traded companies.

That intentional secrecy allows Koch Industries, the second-largest privately-held company in the United States, to fly largely below the public’s radar. Few Americans have likely heard of Koch, even though it operates crude oil refineries and pipelines across North America and owns such well-known consumer brands as Dixie cups, Brawny and Quilted Northern paper products, Stainmaster carpet, CoolMax and Lycra.

The company’s founder, Fred Koch, who once earned $5 million building oil refineries in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin’s reign, was a co-founder of the libertarian John Birch Society. Charles G. and David H. Koch, two of Fred’s four sons, each now own 42% of the company’s stock. According to 2009 Forbes rankings, the Koch brothers are tied for the 19th richest person in the world, and for ninth richest American, each worth between $14 and $16 billion, more than George Soros or the founders of Google.

The Koch brothers use three foundations to spread Koch Industries’ influence, including support for roughly 40 organizations that doubt or downplay climate change or otherwise oppose policy solutions to build a clean energy future. Greenpeace also notes that Koch Industries has been the largest oil and gas industry contributor to electoral campaigns since the 2006 election cycle, and its done its fair share of lobbying as well. During the 2008 elections, Koch Industries contributed over $1.8 million, 88% to Republican candidates. Koch’s political action committee (PAC) also spent more than $2.5 million on contributions to federal candidates for that period, more than any other oil-and-gas sector PAC.

Koch Industries has bankrolled Americans for Prosperity to the tune of over $5 million since 2005. AFP – known primarily for its role in organizing the tea party movement in the U.S. – brought notorious climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton to the Copenhagen climate summit as its guest speaker. Despite Lord Monckton’s reprehensible behavior in Copenhagen – where he repeatedly compared college students advocating for a clean energy future to “Hitler Youth” and “Nazis” – Americans for Prosperity continues to host Monckton at its events in the United States, including a recent appearance in Wisconsin.

While in Wisconsin on AFP’s dime, Monckton booked a side gig at a GOP fundraiser where he described President Barack Obama as a “monster.” I wonder if David Koch – the second richest man in New York behind Michael Bloomberg - is even aware that Koch’s funding of AFP is in part providing support for Monckton to run around the world labeling American college students “Hitler Youth” and calling the President of the United States a “monster”?

Koch was also one of the funders of the 2007 polar bear junk science “study” authored by prominent climate deniers (including Sallie Baliunas, David Legates and Tim Ball) that claimed to prove that polar bear populations were not affected by anthropogenic climate disruption in the Arctic. Dr. Willie Soon, one of the non-peer-reviewed paper’s authors, disclosed in the acknowledgements section that he had received direct corporate funding for the work, stating “W. Soon’s effort for the completion of this paper was partially supported by grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.”

Although the paper was thoroughly debunked by actual experts on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, many of the front groups funded by Koch and Exxon rebroadcast the study widely, creating public confusion. The matter came to a head when Sarah Palin and her officers in the Alaskan government referenced the Soon/Baliunas polar bear paper before it was even published in Alaska’s formal protest of efforts to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. Both Soon and Baliunas have served as spokespeople, advisors and/or board members of multiple Koch-funded climate denial groups over the past decade.

The Greenpeace report notes Koch’s role in funding the Institute for Energy Research, which was behind the Danish study that attacked the viability of wind power. Greenpeace also points out the role that Koch’s web of climate denier groups played in supporting, disseminating and promoting the Spanish study attacking green jobs, including AFP, IER and the Heritage Foundation.

Greenpeace has helped to shed some much-needed light on Koch Industries with this report, providing several case studies, a detailed look at lobbying and campaign expenditures, and other little known facts about the Koch Brothers’ web of front groups.

If you thought you knew everything about anti-science front groups from hearing about ExxonMobil’s efforts over the years, think again. This expose of Koch Industries serves up a heaping pile of unsavory evidence that the climate denial industry is alive and well-funded, even with the scaling back of ExxonMobil’s support.

More attention needs to be paid to Koch Industries, and this report will hopefully encourage deeper investigation into the Koch web’s confusion campaign.'

Cdude · 2 april 2010, 15:17

"..te zichtbaar is om ontkent te worden.." Niet genoeg data, volgens mij.

Verder zijn de belangen te groot. Subsidies/bestaansrecht aan de ene kant, bedrijfs en economische groei aan de andere kant.

Loose-loose situation.

grievous · 2 april 2010, 16:55

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cdude

"..te zichtbaar is om ontkent te worden.." Niet genoeg data, volgens mij.

Verder zijn de belangen te groot. Subsidies/bestaansrecht aan de ene kant, bedrijfs en economische groei aan de andere kant.

Loose-loose situation.

Weer zware beschuldigingen tegen wetenschappers die aan fundamenteel onderzoek doen en tot besluiten komen die de politici niet graag horen.

FerdiEgb · 2 april 2010, 16:58

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Weer een slag voor de sceptici.

'The British House of Commons today issued a report exonerating Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Dr. Jones was embroiled in controversy following the theft of internal emails and documents from the University’s servers in November of last year.

“The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—“trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta...s%20report.pdf

Met andere woorden: "niks te zien, niks te horen, niks te voelen" door de Engelse politici (2 tegen 1 in dit geval). Oftewel een witwasoperatie.
Als eender welke firma zo zou knoeien met de boeken to "hide the decline" en andere "tricks", dan zaten ze al lang in de gevangenis...

De andere kant van het verhaal:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/31/t...the-committee/

Citaat:

Contrary to UEA’s claims, there is no valid statistical procedure supporting the substitution of tree ring proxy data going the wrong with instrumental temperature data to create a false rhetorical impression of the coherence of the proxy data. Indeed, as I observed in my submission, Mann himself had condemned the merging of instrumental and proxy data as follows:

Citaat:

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually
find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum [realclimate].

en ook:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/3...iry-in-the-uk/

FerdiEgb · 2 april 2010, 17:17

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Nog een bedrijf ontmaskerd dat als sponsor van de ontkenners optreedt.

Koch was also one of the funders of the 2007 polar bear junk science “study” authored by prominent climate deniers (including Sallie Baliunas, David Legates and Tim Ball) that claimed to prove that polar bear populations were not affected by anthropogenic climate disruption in the Arctic. Dr. Willie Soon, one of the non-peer-reviewed paper’s authors, disclosed in the acknowledgements section that he had received direct corporate funding for the work, stating “W. Soon’s effort for the completion of this paper was partially supported by grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.”

Junk of géén junk, die uitkomst van die studie werd bevestigd door specialisten terzake:
http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/200701_taylor.pdf

Als Soon netjes meldt dat hij voor dit werk gesponsord werd, dan kan men dat in het achterhoofd houden als men het rapport leest. Veel belangrijker is dat de inhoud klopt.

Pantoffeldiertje · 2 april 2010, 22:45

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Omdat ze een kleine ideologisch gemotiveerde minderheid zijn en de klimaatverandering te zichtbaar is om ontkent te worden.

De klimaatbeweging is te zichtbaar? Sinds wanneer is aanwezigheid/populariteit een maatstaf voor de correctheid van iets?

Alboreto · 2 april 2010, 22:50

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pantoffeldiertje

Sinds wanneer is aanwezigheid/populariteit een maatstaf voor de correctheid van iets?

Populariteit is inderdaad niet noodzakelijk een maatstaf, wetenschappelijke consensus echter wel.

grievous · 3 april 2010, 08:23

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door FerdiEgb

Met andere woorden: "niks te zien, niks te horen, niks te voelen" door de Engelse politici (2 tegen 1 in dit geval). Oftewel een witwasoperatie.
Als eender welke firma zo zou knoeien met de boeken to "hide the decline" en andere "tricks", dan zaten ze al lang in de gevangenis...

De andere kant van het verhaal:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/31/t...the-committee/

en ook:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/3...iry-in-the-uk/

Gij volhardt in de boosheid door gewoon te negeren wat in het rapport staat.
Er was geen trick en er was geen sprake van 'hide the decline'.
Gij zijt een slechte verliezer.

grievous · 3 april 2010, 08:26

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door FerdiEgb

Junk of géén junk, die uitkomst van die studie werd bevestigd door specialisten terzake:
http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/200701_taylor.pdf

Als Soon netjes meldt dat hij voor dit werk gesponsord werd, dan kan men dat in het achterhoofd houden als men het rapport leest. Veel belangrijker is dat de inhoud klopt.

Al wat die klimaatsceptici schrijven,is ideologisch gemotiveerd en/of geschreven op maat van privé-belangen.
Klimaatscepticisme zit in een welbepaalde politieke hoek die zich goed laat betalen door bedrijven die er belang bij hebben de klimaatverandering te ontkennen.

FerdiEgb · 3 april 2010, 09:52

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Gij volhardt in de boosheid door gewoon te negeren wat in het rapport staat.
Er was geen trick en er was geen sprake van 'hide the decline'.
Gij zijt een slechte verliezer.

Een rapport van politiekers die angsvallig vermeden om te diep in de materie te duiken? Komaan jong, als dat een maatstaf is voor degelijkheid van het onderzoek dan weet ik er nog wel een paar...

Lees ook het minderheidsrapport: http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/30/s...plit-decision/

Citaat:

He proposed an amendment to paragraph 66, to leave out from the beginning to “We” in line 6 and insert “We have not taken enough evidence on this matter to come to a final conclusion”.—(Graham Stringer.) Paragraph 66 read as follows:

Citaat:

66. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.

"data known to be erroneous"? Als de proxy data in de laatste decennia de temperatuur curve niet meer volgen, dan zijn ofwel de proxies niet betrouwbaar, ofwel de temperatuur data ofwel beiden. Als het eerste het geval is, hoe kunnen we dan zeker weten dat die proxies wél betrouwbaar waren in de warme(re) middeleeuwen? Het weglaten van data die niet passen in het (verwachte plaatje) is misschien een praktijk die "normaal" is in de klimaatwetenschap, maar in alle andere wetenschappelijke disciplines is dat een zware fout en ontoelaatbaar. Behalve als het duidelijk om uitschieters gaat waarvan de oorzaak bekend is, wat hier niet het geval was, maar dan nog moet men dat duidelijk aangeven waarom die data niet gebruikt worden en niet zomaar vervangen door "betere" data. Als dat, zoals hier, bewust gebeurt, dan is dat wetenschappelijke fraude.

FerdiEgb · 3 april 2010, 09:58

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Al wat die klimaatsceptici schrijven,is ideologisch gemotiveerd en/of geschreven op maat van privé-belangen.
Klimaatscepticisme zit in een welbepaalde politieke hoek die zich goed laat betalen door bedrijven die er belang bij hebben de klimaatverandering te ontkennen.

Grievous, het interesseert me geen bal wie wie sponsort of wat diens filisofische, religieuze of politieke overtuiging is. Het enige wat me interesseert is of de argumenten kloppen. In het geval van de ijsberen hebben de skeptici gelijk gekregen van de specialisten terzake.

Overigens werkte mijn jongste dochter tot voor kort als kelikopterpilote in Alaska (North Slope). Een van de helikoptertaken was mee helpen om ijsberen te verdoven en te merken (gevaarlijke job) en ijsberen weghouden van mensen en installaties. Ook in Alaska werd een toename van het aantal ijsberen genoteerd.

Alboreto · 3 april 2010, 10:29

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door FerdiEgb

Als de proxy data in de laatste decennia de temperatuur curve niet meer volgen

De vele proxy data volgt wel degelijk de curve,

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door FerdiEgb

Het weglaten van data die niet passen in het (verwachte plaatje) is misschien een praktijk die "normaal" is in de klimaatwetenschap, maar in alle andere wetenschappelijke disciplines is dat een zware fout en ontoelaatbaar.

Het is niet data die niet past in het plaatje die werd weggelaten, maar data waarvan men wist (aangetoond heeft) dat die fout was die werd weggelaten, en dat is wel degelijk wetenschappelijk.

Valentine Julien · 3 april 2010, 10:55

Prof Jones (CRU) was itt de echte klimaat sceptici wel degelijk gesponsord door de grote olie reuzen.
zie hier onder de lijst :
http://web.archive.org/web/200806271...about/history/

Acknowledgements
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

2 april 2010, 14:35	#125
grievous Banneling Geregistreerd: 16 januari 2009 Berichten: 2.060	Weer een slag voor de sceptici. 'The British House of Commons today issued a report exonerating Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Dr. Jones was embroiled in controversy following the theft of internal emails and documents from the University’s servers in November of last year. The report states that “the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced,” and that Dr. Jones’s actions were “in line with common practice in the climate science community,” and the CRU’s “analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.” The review by the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee began in January in the wake of the ‘Climategate’ media frenzy. While the committee’s report recommends that climate scientists should seek to improve transparency in their work, release raw data when possible, and provide more detail on their methodologies, the committee firmly concludes that there was no dishonesty on the part of Dr. Jones and the CRU. The committee compared the results of other independent analyses of climate data to that of the CRU, and found that they are consistent and independently verifiable. From a statement released by the committee to the press today: “The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change. On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—“trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.” Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified. The committee’s report [PDF] provides detailed responses on each of the issues raised in its investigation. On the matter of Dr. Jones’ use of the phrase “trick” in an email referring to Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, the Committee concludes: "Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data." On the matter of Dr. Jones’ email including the phrase “hide the decline”, the Committee concludes: "Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous." On the matter of whether Dr. Jones suppressed or perverted the peer review process, the Committee concluded: "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers." The report goes into further detail on Freedom of Information requests and other issues, culminating in a set of recommendations for improving data access and transparency at CRU and increased transparency in the scientific community at large to ensure that the science remains “irreproachable.” ' http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta...s%20report.pdf Laatst gewijzigd door grievous : 2 april 2010 om 14:37.

2 april 2010, 14:47	#128
grievous Banneling Geregistreerd: 16 januari 2009 Berichten: 2.060	Nog een bedrijf ontmaskerd dat als sponsor van de ontkenners optreedt. 'Koch Industries has “become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition,” spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the climate denial machine, according to an extensive report today by Greenpeace. The Greenpeace report reveals how Koch Industries and the foundations under its control spent far more than even ExxonMobil in recent years to fund industry front groups opposed to clean energy and climate policies. Koch spent over half the total amount -nearly $25 million - funding climate denier groups from 2005 to 2008, a period in which Exxon only spent $8.9 million. Greenpeace’s attempt to lift the veil of secrecy inherent to a private company like Koch Industries is no easy task. Because it remains privately owned, Koch faces few of the disclosure requirements designed to increase transparency among publicly-traded companies. That intentional secrecy allows Koch Industries, the second-largest privately-held company in the United States, to fly largely below the public’s radar. Few Americans have likely heard of Koch, even though it operates crude oil refineries and pipelines across North America and owns such well-known consumer brands as Dixie cups, Brawny and Quilted Northern paper products, Stainmaster carpet, CoolMax and Lycra. The company’s founder, Fred Koch, who once earned $5 million building oil refineries in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin’s reign, was a co-founder of the libertarian John Birch Society. Charles G. and David H. Koch, two of Fred’s four sons, each now own 42% of the company’s stock. According to 2009 Forbes rankings, the Koch brothers are tied for the 19th richest person in the world, and for ninth richest American, each worth between $14 and $16 billion, more than George Soros or the founders of Google. The Koch brothers use three foundations to spread Koch Industries’ influence, including support for roughly 40 organizations that doubt or downplay climate change or otherwise oppose policy solutions to build a clean energy future. Greenpeace also notes that Koch Industries has been the largest oil and gas industry contributor to electoral campaigns since the 2006 election cycle, and its done its fair share of lobbying as well. During the 2008 elections, Koch Industries contributed over $1.8 million, 88% to Republican candidates. Koch’s political action committee (PAC) also spent more than $2.5 million on contributions to federal candidates for that period, more than any other oil-and-gas sector PAC. Koch Industries has bankrolled Americans for Prosperity to the tune of over $5 million since 2005. AFP – known primarily for its role in organizing the tea party movement in the U.S. – brought notorious climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton to the Copenhagen climate summit as its guest speaker. Despite Lord Monckton’s reprehensible behavior in Copenhagen – where he repeatedly compared college students advocating for a clean energy future to “Hitler Youth” and “Nazis” – Americans for Prosperity continues to host Monckton at its events in the United States, including a recent appearance in Wisconsin. While in Wisconsin on AFP’s dime, Monckton booked a side gig at a GOP fundraiser where he described President Barack Obama as a “monster.” I wonder if David Koch – the second richest man in New York behind Michael Bloomberg - is even aware that Koch’s funding of AFP is in part providing support for Monckton to run around the world labeling American college students “Hitler Youth” and calling the President of the United States a “monster”? Koch was also one of the funders of the 2007 polar bear junk science “study” authored by prominent climate deniers (including Sallie Baliunas, David Legates and Tim Ball) that claimed to prove that polar bear populations were not affected by anthropogenic climate disruption in the Arctic. Dr. Willie Soon, one of the non-peer-reviewed paper’s authors, disclosed in the acknowledgements section that he had received direct corporate funding for the work, stating “W. Soon’s effort for the completion of this paper was partially supported by grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.” Although the paper was thoroughly debunked by actual experts on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, many of the front groups funded by Koch and Exxon rebroadcast the study widely, creating public confusion. The matter came to a head when Sarah Palin and her officers in the Alaskan government referenced the Soon/Baliunas polar bear paper before it was even published in Alaska’s formal protest of efforts to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. Both Soon and Baliunas have served as spokespeople, advisors and/or board members of multiple Koch-funded climate denial groups over the past decade. The Greenpeace report notes Koch’s role in funding the Institute for Energy Research, which was behind the Danish study that attacked the viability of wind power. Greenpeace also points out the role that Koch’s web of climate denier groups played in supporting, disseminating and promoting the Spanish study attacking green jobs, including AFP, IER and the Heritage Foundation. Greenpeace has helped to shed some much-needed light on Koch Industries with this report, providing several case studies, a detailed look at lobbying and campaign expenditures, and other little known facts about the Koch Brothers’ web of front groups. If you thought you knew everything about anti-science front groups from hearing about ExxonMobil’s efforts over the years, think again. This expose of Koch Industries serves up a heaping pile of unsavory evidence that the climate denial industry is alive and well-funded, even with the scaling back of ExxonMobil’s support. More attention needs to be paid to Koch Industries, and this report will hopefully encourage deeper investigation into the Koch web’s confusion campaign.'

2 april 2010, 15:17	#129
Cdude Banneling Geregistreerd: 1 april 2010 Berichten: 14.352	"..te zichtbaar is om ontkent te worden.." Niet genoeg data, volgens mij. Verder zijn de belangen te groot. Subsidies/bestaansrecht aan de ene kant, bedrijfs en economische groei aan de andere kant. Loose-loose situation.

3 april 2010, 10:55	#140
Valentine Julien Burgemeester Geregistreerd: 24 september 2008 Locatie: Leuven/Amsterdam Berichten: 586	Prof Jones (CRU) was itt de echte klimaat sceptici wel degelijk gesponsord door de grote olie reuzen. zie hier onder de lijst : http://web.archive.org/web/200806271...about/history/ Acknowledgements This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order): British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).