The owners of the oil company Koch Industries donated approximately 50 million dollars to organizations whose goal is to convince decision makers not to take measures against global warming * At the same time, the British Parliament finally proved that Climate Gate is nonsense, and that the University of East Anglia did not play with the data
Greenpeace's new report shows how cash flowed between 1997 and 2008 to groups working to prevent climate change action.
It therefore turns out that the denial of global warming is not based on healthy scientific skepticism and debates within the scientific community, but is manipulated and exploited by Koch and his friends. Between the years 2005 and 2008, the Koch brothers donated to the denial organizations twice as much as the energy giant Exxon spent in an attempt to influence the reduction of anti-warming activity during that period.
Charles and David made billions of dollars from the Koch Company, an oil refining and industrial conglomerate that is the second largest private company in America with facilities all over the world. The Greenpeace report: "The Climate Denial Machine Funded by Koch Industries" reveals the connection between the Koch family, its employees and an international network of front groups involved in trying to sabotage climate science.
Between the years 1997 and 2008, the Koch brothers poured over 48.5 million dollars into organizations that align with the Kochs' agenda, but presented themselves as "experts". Exxon Mobil spent 24 million dollars in that period.
The Mercatus Center received the most generous support from the Koch brothers - $9.25 million between 2005-2008. In addition to another half a million before. The Mercatos Center is a think tank at George Mason University, where Charles Koch sits on the board.
The Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) received about 5.2 million dollars. Since 2008, the foundation has held fake events dealing with climate, including a "hot air tour" that includes a hot air balloon designed to build opposition to green laws and laws to stop global warming.
The Heritage Foundation received $1.6 million from Koch in 2005-2008 and a similar amount before that. The Foundation is a conservative think tank that misinterprets climate science and policy and uses its erroneous conclusions to argue that action on climate change is unnecessary.
The Cato Institute received approximately one million dollars between the years 2005-2008 (and a total of 5.3 million dollars). The institute focuses on challenging the scientific consensus on the subject of global warming and wonders what the rationale is for taking steps against warming.
The brothers also financed election campaigns of several members of Congress so that they would try to block green legislation.
To download the full report in PDF from the Greenpeace website
The reputation and prestige of climate science is unscathed and that there is no evidence of data manipulation by East Anglia climate scientists
A committee of British MPs investigated whether scientists at the University of East Anglia compromised the transparency of climate science. The Committee on Science and Technology criticized the university authorities for failing to respond to a request for data from the climate skeptics, but found no evidence that Prof. Phil Jones, whose emails were exposed and published online, manipulated the data.
According to the committee, his reputation and that of the Climate Research Unit remains intact. The emails were exposed in a hack into the university's computer network and were published on the Internet shortly before the climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. This incident is known as Climate Gate, and it serves as fuel among climate skeptics to supposedly prove that it is not science but politics.
Climate skeptics have argued that the emails provide evidence that scientists at the university's climate research division hid data and distorted scientific evidence of global warming.
The committee determined that most of the information that the skeptics claimed that Prof. Jones hid was already available to the public and Othlem said that his refusal to provide data to the climate skeptics caused understandable suspicion among the skeptics. The committee was impressed that Prof. Jones found great frustration in handling requests for data that he knew or estimated that the request to him stemmed from a desire to look for ways to tamper with his work.
The committee also determined that the responsibility for the information requests was carried out under the freedom of information law with the university authorities and not with Prof. Jones himself or the department. According to her, the university authorities should have provided the data to those who requested it, directing them to the place where it can be found. Even if the repeated requests for data were annoying. The committee criticized the culture of closure and resistance to providing information to climate change deniers.
The chairman of the committee reprimanded the university for this and said that climate science must be transparent and impeccable.
Vice President of the University of East Anglia, Eduard Acton said that he was happy with the conclusions. "We are also happy that the report dispelled suspicions and dispelled some of the myths created around the case, while we take it upon ourselves to correct what is necessary."
Personal note
These two pieces of news should therefore close the door on at least the repeated references to the scientist website to apparently take a more balanced position towards climate science which is "controversial" or worse - wrong, and that it is worth switching sides because there are good people on the other side and that the choice is between carbon emissions and food, while on the side of the warming parties there are stakeholders, today it is clear that the answer I gave them - that the stakeholders are the oil companies who, just like the cigarette companies at the time, tried to obscure their responsibility for the disaster they created, and are trying to blame it on volcanoes, the sun's rays, etc. - has been proven correct again.
32 תגובות
to B5
In response to your claim against the integrity of scientific research.
Your words here are only partially correct. Be careful not to "throw the baby out with the dirty water".
A]. Science as a method (!!!) checks and criticizes itself in a very objective way through two basic principles:
Principle 1 - Full transparency on the relevant theoretical and technical information.
Principle 2 - The experiment/process can be repeated an unlimited number of times.
A concept of the type Miracle whatever cannot belong to the field of science because its whole intention is
hide and lie This concept is borrowed from the field of commerce.
Aside from these things, there are two related phenomena in scientific sociology for which your words are correct:
B]. Commercial companies that allocate funds for applied research aim to "leverage" their investment funds to generate profits. Therefore, they are always suspected of making forceful and manipulative moves to realize their financial interest.
third]. Scientists who dedicate their professional lives to proving some thesis tend, at least some of them, naturally,
To develop an uncompromising adherence to their scientific preservation, to the point of obsession. It is natural and even important to science. Scientific history knows theories that were rejected in their time but accepted in later periods.
to B5
Your words are really pathetic.
In an era where chemistry and medicine are developing antibacterial drugs based on the latest knowledge
Known today in the intracellular biochemistry of genetics, are you coming to tell us about deoxychlorin?
For your information, hydrochloric acid at a concentration of 30% also has antibacterial properties.
Using the term "antibacterial" you can't even make an impression on girls today.
That's how farce it is.
What is it? Subaru-B5, great car.
And who finances them? - And who sells billions of "carbon pollution rights" to industrialized countries, at the expense of the territories they and the WWF bought in the jungles of D. America?
http://sites.google.com/site/mmsdebunked/
http://www.smh.com.au/national/death-in-paradise-20100108-lyxv.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/deadly-chemical-being-sold-as-miracle-cure-20100108-lyvl.html
http://atheistage.org/?p=901
What about the name and the content?? This is exactly the ancient transport that I knew was somewhere in your words. Any product that has Miracle in the name is a scam?
As I explained - check the substance Chlorin Dioxide - there is no doubt about its antibacterial abilities for 70 years.
The bottle that says Miracle whatever - it's the same substance with the addition of citric acid and distilled water.
The word Mircale in the name of the product already says it all. Science by its nature does not create miracles and scientists basically do not believe in miracles.
Indeed, science is not fascist, but the people who are involved in scientific fascism (- decide what is considered scientific and what is not based on their opinion only and without reference).
I sent you enough information including medical studies that tested the effectiveness of the substance. Chlorine dioxide is a very simple chemical and there is a great deal of scientific evidence for its antibacterial effect. The "wonder drug" as you call it is simply chlorine dioxide in a bottle - what is pseudoscience about that? (You still haven't explained what you defined as a miracle cure by the way).
Science is not fascist, if it rejects something then the same thing is not proven and therefore dangerous in the worst case or just costs money and gives nothing in the best case. That's why I stick to and ask the authors to also rely on scientific publications. If everyone invents their own science, we will return to the Middle Ages.
I don't have the tools and certainly not the resources to judge independently and privately on a certain substance whether it is a medicine or not, that's what the FDA and the scientific journals are for.
That's always the answer you end up giving.
I wanted to believe that this site is unbiased but I am deceived again and again. You created this site in your image (which is not a compliment) and it is severely flawed by scientific fascism.
You have no idea, every other day I get advertisements for Bach flowers, magnets and all sorts of things, and I save them from the readers.
Open your own website and write there what you want.
If you were conscientiously responsible for all the things written on the site (especially in the comments) I don't think you would sleep at night...
I didn't ask you to publish an article about the material, I just wrote a comment that tells about personal experience and gives a little information.
Any scientific discovery may sound impossible at first, but there is already enough information about this substance to establish its effectiveness at least against malaria (as you remember the first response I published in the article about the malaria drug).
This is not my insistence - it is my responsibility towards the readers who expect on a scientific website that the information presented to them will be correct. So it's true that I'm not responsible for what people write in talkbacks, but if something happens to someone as a result of this or that material they read about, it's on my conscience.
I have a hard time understanding your insistence.
It's not a miracle cure, it's a chemical with antibacterial action.
Go to the Wikipedia link again - I changed it and added a link to scientific studies on the material as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement
Perhaps you could define what is "pseudo science" and "wonder drug" so that I can finally understand if the material does meet the definition or if it is your prejudice.
Several points:
The person behind the initiative to write the report The Long Shadow of Livestock (of the United Nations) is the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. They promote animal food production projects - so if they have a tendency, it would be to reduce the extent of the real damage to farm animals
The UN report is based on a large number of studies done in the past
In parameters such as water use, space and energy - meat food wastes much more than plant food (both according to the same caloric value and according to the amount of protein)
According to the UN report, one third of the land area of the earth, which is not covered by glaciers, is used by livestock. Without a book, this is an industry that is the most significant cause of land destruction
Michael, you are right.
I made a note of intention to my father.
B5:
There were such cases, but to claim that history is littered with them is bullshit.
As I mentioned, science is structured so that such things will eventually be discovered.
Anyway - it has nothing to do with the article (but it really has nothing to do with the article).
Even in my debate with Ron and his ilk, I did not justify my claim by saying that "this is what science says" but by saying that there is no economic logic behind his claims and that in this case all the motivation and ability to bias the research is precisely on the side he is defending. Therefore, your words have nothing to do with the article, nor with my debate with Ron, and their entire purpose is to discredit science.
Of course this is a hypocritical slander because you are not ashamed to use the fruits of science even by using the Internet.
Michael,
History is littered with cases of scientific research conducted by highly respected scientific institutions, some of them even governmental, that served only the interests of interested parties. (One example - the American Ministry of Health once determined that smoking is good for health...). Unfortunately, peer review and scientific integrity are dwarfed by the amount of money diverted to bribes - this article is talking about exactly that.
In my opinion, the members of the scientific community that you often speak highly of are mostly motivated by foreign interests (money for those who don't understand...). The example in this article proves the rule in my opinion, and there are plenty of examples.
I lost faith.
B5:
The science came out "stinking" to your taste just because of the slander.
It is clear that there are interests among the scientists as well (they are also human beings) but what determines in the end is the scientific community and peer review and not this or that individual.
The interests of the scientists usually contradict each other because each wants to be the one who "discovered the truth" and therefore has an interest in refuting the words of the other.
This reality also makes scientists as individuals more careful and responsible because no one wants to write things that will be proven to be unfounded.
It is quite obscene to take an example of a case where someone who opposes science was proven to be a fraud and deduce from it that science stinks.
And here again my response is awaiting confirmation...
My father - here too did you find an advertisement or "pseudo-scientific" claims or are you simply not comfortable reading a review?
With all the celebration that the Greens and Michael R. "Victory", the "science" as they like to refer to it on this site may have turned out to be kosher but it stinks.
There are few scientists who are free from bias, it is the personal interests that run the scientific arena today (and perhaps always). Take any industrial field worth billions and you will find biased scientists and research - the oil industry, pharmaceuticals, food, chemicals - the list is very long. In every field, you will find studies that prevent real scientific breakthroughs because it is inconvenient for someone with money, along with a complete disregard or disdain for fields where there is great potential for breakthrough discoveries because there is no interest = money. More and more it seems that this is what makes up the scientific mainstream today - with very few exceptions.
In repeated cases I discovered that this site is closed for real examination of topics that are not in the scientific mainstream (the last one from a few days ago). It makes me think that maybe here too there are strong interests of one kind or another. There is a power group here that determines what is considered "science" and what is not based on personal opinion and exhausts anyone who tries to claim otherwise (sometimes in a very ugly way). This site is really not as unbiased as it tries to present itself.
Michael Rothschild is a cannon!!!
Hello scholars! Did anyone have any doubt that the uncontrollably multiplying "treasure of creation" ("Produce and multiply and fill - the earth"...) is the great and terrible polluter of the (blue) star "Earth"!..
The problem is...yes-we!!-the members of the human race 'know everything', including how to destroy our home and environment.
N. B.: And maybe the viruses and bacteria are the real rulers of this planet??..
Time for joy and Shabbat-Shalom!
LOL
Soon they will say that Greenpeace funded research supporting global warming...
Well, it's clear that everyone finances some of the research that supports their views.
You just have to sort out the chaff and read the independent studies..
Jacob:
Maybe you didn't notice, but you actually confirm Ronan's words, so the preface "absolutely not" is out of place
Ronen, absolutely not.
The food energy extracted from the crops is largely wasted when it is used to build the tissues of cattle and poultry, due to the partial metabolic efficiency of living creatures. Add to that the side energy costs of keeping livestock. We have another broker on the way who charges an expensive commission.
The amount of crops that will be required to supply the energy needed for our bodies will be much smaller, when all the energy will reach us directly.
From what is written in the article it appears that the land area needed for agriculture will actually decrease (by a lot) with the transition to vegetarianism.
Avi and Ronan:
For reliable information on the relationship between the type of nutrition and the required land area, see HERE
Ronan, do some math, to feed all the inhabitants of the earth with vegetarian food you would need 10 times the area. With all due respect, the organization you sent to is ideological, and you have to be careful of such things even when they are based on so-called facts.
The animal food industries are the number one cause of global warming
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
Michael, I really really appreciate you. In all seriousness
But boasting that you were right in an argument with Ron is not wisdom 🙂 I'm pretty sure the vast majority have seen this article... but who has the strength to argue with those who only believe in conspiracies?
It won't help them, the electric cars are only a matter of time. And the less the better.
Suddenly the pencil fell
And this is the end of the memory.
In other words - Ron - I told you?