Remember me
▼ Content

Project Censored #21 Fossil Fuel Industry "Colonizing" US Universities


Project Censored #21 Fossil Fuel Industry "Colonizing" US Universities20-06-2018 00:26
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
"Without the public's awareness, fossil fuel interests—representing oil, gas, and coal companies as well as utilities and investors—have "colonized nearly every nook and cranny of energy and climate policy research in American universities...

... Beyond Harvard, Franta and Supran documented that the MIT Energy Initiative is "almost entirely funded" by fossil fuel companies, including Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. MIT has received $185 million from David Koch, the oil billionaire and climate change denial financier, who is a life member of the university's board. ExxonMobil funds Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project. UC Berkeley's Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) was initiated thanks to a $500 million deal signed in 2007 with BP. BP appoints half of the voting members of EBI's Governance Board."

http://projectcensored.org/21-fossil-fuel-industry-colonizing-us-universities/

Charles Koch University Funding Database
http://polluterwatch.org/charles-koch-university-funding-database


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
20-06-2018 15:07
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
"Without the public's awareness, fossil fuel interests—representing oil, gas, and coal companies as well as utilities and investors—have "colonized nearly every nook and cranny of energy and climate policy research in American universities...

... Beyond Harvard, Franta and Supran documented that the MIT Energy Initiative is "almost entirely funded" by fossil fuel companies, including Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. MIT has received $185 million from David Koch, the oil billionaire and climate change denial financier, who is a life member of the university's board. ExxonMobil funds Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project. UC Berkeley's Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) was initiated thanks to a $500 million deal signed in 2007 with BP. BP appoints half of the voting members of EBI's Governance Board."

http://projectcensored.org/21-fossil-fuel-industry-colonizing-us-universities/

Charles Koch University Funding Database
http://polluterwatch.org/charles-koch-university-funding-database

Energy companies funding energy and policy research at universities? Who would have ever imagined?

In other news, medical companies fund medical research by universities. Semiconductor companies fund semiconductor research at universities, etc.

What's your point?
20-06-2018 15:35
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Jeffvw wrote:
Who would have ever imagined?
What's your point?


This is not my point, I am but the messenger.
But, they'd have to imagine ...

"Without the public's awareness..."

... so probably not many.
And you made a typo ...

Jeffvw wrote:
Energy companies funding energy and policy research at universities?


It said "... climate policy research"

Not within their remit most would agree - had they imagined.


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
20-06-2018 15:45
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
This is not my point, I am but the messenger.
But, they'd have to imagine ...

"Without the public's awareness..."

... so probably not many.

So because they don't advertise it, it is evil? Many corporations fund research without advertising. A lot of research is done to gain a competitive advantage. You lose an advantage if you publicize what you are doing.
monckton wrote:
And you made a typo ...

Jeffvw wrote:
Energy companies funding energy and policy research at universities?


It said "... climate policy research"

Not within their remit most would agree - had they imagined.

In today's world, climate policy is generally considered closely related to energy policy. I'm sure the energy companies are trying to figure out how to best align their business to today's political climate. Big corporations do this all of the time. They would be stupid to not be doing this.
20-06-2018 16:10
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Jeffvw wrote:
So because they don't advertise it, it is evil? Many corporations fund research without advertising. A lot of research is done to gain a competitive advantage. You lose an advantage if you publicize what you are doing.


I'm not sure the article goes that far and disclose would be a better term.
As for the US and it's competitive advantage in climate policy, well ...
Maybe you're right, maybe they're working on a new approach as we speak and hope to reverse the decline.


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
20-06-2018 16:26
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
I'm not sure the article goes that far and disclose would be a better term.
As for the US and it's competitive advantage in climate policy, well ...
Maybe you're right, maybe they're working on a new approach as we speak and hope to reverse the decline.

What decline? The US is leading the world in CO2 emissions reduction and increases in energy efficiency.

On a related note, there is no evidence that CO2 is bad for the climate. It always seemed silly to me to want to reduce CO2 emissions since plants love it, it moderates temperatures, and in general has phenomenal benefits. Even if we want to have a world that is 0.1 C cooler than it would have been by the year 2100, how is it possible to justify the huge cost of drastically restricting CO2 emissions. People don't seem to realize just how much CO2 it takes to have any impact at all on anything. It sucks as a control knob. Planting an extra tree will make a much bigger difference.
20-06-2018 16:38
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Well there's probably still a bit of integrity in the academic pipeline that needs to be flushed out.
You're ah, sending mixed messages btw.
20-06-2018 17:18
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
Well there's probably still a bit of integrity in the academic pipeline that needs to be flushed out.

I'm not sure why you are concerned about the funding source. The government is by far the biggest source of funding for climate science. The ability to get funding from industry sources is a good thing and should give a better chance of diversity of research.

A bigger issue would be if all funding came from one source.
20-06-2018 17:33
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Jeffvw wrote:
I'm not sure why you are concerned about the funding source ... The ability to get funding from industry sources is a good thing and should give a better chance of diversity of research.


Oh we all know the concerns and how far a little scientific diversity can go in the right dirty, grasping hands ...

"In the relatively small universe of climate denial Soon, with his Harvard-Smithsonian credentials, was a sought after commodity. He was cited admiringly by Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who famously called global warming a hoax. He was called to testify when Republicans in the Kansas state legislature tried to block measures promoting wind and solar power. The Heartland Institute, a hub of climate denial, gave Soon a courage award."

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry




"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
20-06-2018 18:12
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
Oh we all know the concerns and how far a little scientific diversity can go in the right dirty, grasping hands ...

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

You obviously didn't follow up on Soon's explanation:

Willie Soon

There was nothing done wrong. Compare the amounts that the Smithsonian received from big oil over a period of 10 years (hundreds of thousands of dollars) with that received by climate change advocates (tens of millions of dollars in one case. A good example is where someone looked at a press release from Harvard on a study that supported a proposal by the EPA, took the list of authors, and summarized their grants from the EPA; it totaled over $50 million; Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions. With that kind of funding, reaching the conclusion that they reached goes without saying.

There is a LOT more money going to climate change fear mongers than to skeptics.
20-06-2018 18:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
monckton wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
I'm not sure why you are concerned about the funding source ... The ability to get funding from industry sources is a good thing and should give a better chance of diversity of research.


Oh we all know the concerns and how far a little scientific diversity can go in the right dirty, grasping hands ...

"In the relatively small universe of climate denial Soon, with his Harvard-Smithsonian credentials, was a sought after commodity. He was cited admiringly by Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who famously called global warming a hoax. He was called to testify when Republicans in the Kansas state legislature tried to block measures promoting wind and solar power. The Heartland Institute, a hub of climate denial, gave Soon a courage award."

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry



So I see you are a bigot and a socialist too.


The Parrot Killer
20-06-2018 18:33
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Jeffvw wrote:
Compare the amounts that the Smithsonian received from big oil over a period of 10 years (hundreds of thousands of dollars) with that received by climate change advocates (tens of millions of dollars in one case ...

... There is a LOT more money going to climate change fear mongers than to skeptics.


Oh you don't need much to leverage it into 'disagreement in the scientific community' using false equivalence.
We all know how it worked - until quite recently too ...

BBC apologises over interview with climate denier Lord Lawson
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/24/bbc-apologises-over-interview-climate-sceptic-lord-nigel-lawson

... but probably not any more, people are getting pretty wise to that now.


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
20-06-2018 18:41
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Into the Night wrote:
So I see you are a bigot and a socialist too.


Oh that's not Willie Soon ...



... that's Senator Inhofe.

Here's the Heartland Institute ...



And here's Willie ...




"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
20-06-2018 21:47
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
Oh you don't need much to leverage it into 'disagreement in the scientific community' using false equivalence.
We all know how it worked - until quite recently too ...

BBC apologises over interview with climate denier Lord Lawson
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/24/bbc-apologises-over-interview-climate-sceptic-lord-nigel-lawson

... but probably not any more, people are getting pretty wise to that now.

The BBC should be embarrassed for apologizing. The skeptic stated two things: 1) Global temperature have not increased in the past decade and 2) There has been no increase in extreme weather events. They are both true.

See UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2018: +0.18 deg. C for the satellite temperature data for the last 40 years. You will see that current temperatures are much lower than they were 20 years ago and about the same as they were 10 years ago. The claim that the last few years were records only show the ignorance of those claiming it. In science you use error bars to make that claim, and when the error bars are much greater than the increment, you don't claim a record. In this case they say it broke the record by 0.01 C. That is plain silly to think that we can measure global temperature to that precision.

There is no upward trend in extreme weather events. If anything it is going downward. Here's an example for droughts in the US: Climate Change Indicators: Drought.

Storms are flat, extreme rain is flat, tornados are flat, hurricanes are flat.

There should have been no apology.
20-06-2018 22:36
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Yet there was, and your man Spencer appears to be a trend ignoring religious nutcase, I believe they're referred to as The American Taliban.
He needs to wrap some error bars around his head ...

"Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."

In February 2014 Spencer posted on his blog that he was going to start referring to those who referred to those questioning the mainstream view of global warming (such as Spencer himself) as "climate change deniers" as "global warming Nazis", contending that "...these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Climate_change

Ah, so that's where this 'Live Aid' shit's coming from, the same people who hold the record for lynching uppity blacks.
He's a creationist ...

"...created by God's intelligent design ..."

... and he sounds like a Dominionist ...

"Dominion theology (also known as dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their personal understandings of biblical law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

So probably a big fan of Anne Coulter ...

"The environment: "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0hlSo3QC27oC

It's a real freak show on the other side of reality.
Do you ever admit knowing about this guy in real world company?
20-06-2018 22:42
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
Yet there was, and your man Spencer appears to be a trend ignoring religious nutcase, I believe they're referred to as The American Taliban.
He needs to wrap some error bars around his head ...

Ad Hominem attack. Focus on the logic, data, and arguments.
20-06-2018 23:04
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
For that a$$hole and his supporters, you must be joking.
They're the absolute worst.
But thanks for posting, it does explain the multi-headed tenacity of the lunatic fringe 'viewpoints' expressed on this forum, and the crocodile tears for the unwashed masses.
Rattle rattle - donate.
Edited on 20-06-2018 23:04
20-06-2018 23:06
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
You still haven't addressed the data.
20-06-2018 23:09
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Actually I did in only two words - trend ignoring.
The rest was flat earth theology, nothing you can do with that but laugh.
20-06-2018 23:20
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
Actually I did in only two words - trend ignoring.
The rest was flat earth theology, nothing you can do with that but laugh.

There are no statistically significant trends the past 10 years or even the past 20 years.
20-06-2018 23:41
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Why not go back the whole 10,000 and fudge that?
21-06-2018 00:00
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
Why not go back the whole 10,000 and fudge that?

We didn't have satellites monitoring global temperature 10,000 years ago.
21-06-2018 00:39
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Well, the Lord can't think of everything.
You don't have a trend if you cherry pick the past 20 years.
21-06-2018 02:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
monckton wrote:
Well, the Lord can't think of everything.
You don't have a trend if you cherry pick the past 20 years.


You don't have a trend at all.

There are not enough thermometers on Earth to even begin to get a sensible idea of Earth's temperature.

It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature.


The Parrot Killer
21-06-2018 03:19
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Well fight it out amongst yourselves, it's being presented as evidence of no warming.

21-06-2018 03:43
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
monckton wrote:
Well fight it out amongst yourselves, it's being presented as evidence of no warming.


It's being presented as evidence for no warming for the past 10 years (remember that the BBC apologized for letting someone say that).

The data has a wide spread and each individual data point has relatively wide error bars and fitting a curve with confidence limits shows that the overlap covers a wide range including no warming.

Using the basic scientific method of coming up with a null hypothesis (no warming) holds true because the statistics show that the possible trends include a slope of zero; especially if you plot each point with its error bars. Statistics says there is not enough data to confirm a trend and therefore says there is no trend for the past 10 years.

Having said that, there may be enough data to show a trend for the past 40 years, but that is not what was claimed.
21-06-2018 08:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
monckton wrote:
Well fight it out amongst yourselves, it's being presented as evidence of no warming.



Manufactured data. Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They only measure light. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.


The Parrot Killer
21-06-2018 13:31
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Jeffvw wrote:
It's being presented as evidence for no warming for the past 10 years (remember that the BBC apologized for letting someone say that).


No they apologised for letting him air his fringe theories without challenge, not even a glance to camera and raised eyebrows. Why was he even allowed on air to discuss the topic ...

"The BBC complaints unit accepted that these statements "were, at the least, contestable and should have been challenged". In fact the Global Warming Policy Forum itself, the campaign group chaired by Lawson, acknowledged on 13 August that the temperature data he was referring to was "erroneous" and not official."

And don't mention the Global Warming Policy Forum, I really don't think they understand the issue very well, or even their own claims ...

"The coverage of climate change in the news media has been strongly biased in favour of alarm. For far too long, scientific organisations and the mainstream media have failed to give appropriate space to authoritative critics of climate alarmism. The Forum will campaign for more objective media reporting."
https://www.thegwpf.com/who-we-are/

SHOCK, HORROR: CO2 SHORTAGE SPARKS FEARS OVER WORLD CUP BEER SUPPLIES
https://www.thegwpf.com/shock-horror-co2-shortage-sparks-fears-over-world-cup-beer-supplies/


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."




Join the debate Project Censored #21 Fossil Fuel Industry "Colonizing" US Universities:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Project Censored #17 Young Plaintiffs Invoke Constitutional Grounds for Climate Protection219-06-2018 22:25
"Active" hydraulic draft accelerators fuel less generators211-05-2018 15:25
Climate Change Website and Legacy Project423-12-2017 06:50
SCHOOL PROJECT208-12-2017 19:08
Market trends now favor renewable energy as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels - Nov 20171902-12-2017 03:19
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact