4 ms·
Your first link claims Koch Industries is "a little-known, privately owned US oil company". That's the sort of lie you've got to expect from the Guardian. Quoti
by origin_path 4y ago
Your first link claims Koch Industries is "a little-known, privately owned US oil company". That's the sort of lie you've got to expect from the Guardian. Quoting Wikipedia:
"Koch Industries, Inc. (/ˈkoʊk/) is an American privately held multinational conglomerate corporation based in Wichita, Kansas and is the second-largest privately held company in the United States, after Cargill.[2] Its subsidiaries are involved in the manufacturing, refining, and distribution of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizer, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, cloud computing, finance, commodity market trading, and investments. Koch owns Flint Hills Resources, Georgia-Pacific, Guardian Industries, Infor, Invista, KBX, Koch Ag & Energy Solutions, Koch Engineered Solutions, Koch Investments Group, Koch Minerals & Trading, and Molex. The firm employs 122,000 people in 60 countries, with about half of its business in the United States"
The Guardian states that the Koch brothers aren't directly funding climate related stuff, but they do fund libertarian and conservative groups. This is, in their eyes, immoral.
Is it terrible for wealthy billionaires to fund people with particular perspectives on what to do about the climate? If you believe so then your biggest criticism must be in the other direction, because the money flows to support pro-doom climate journalism are vast. The Gates Foundation literally directly gives money to news companies that can only be used to hire people to write about climate and vaccines (in his preferred direction). Amongst the recipients of Gates' largesse is, of course, the Guardian.
https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-fu...
"I recently examined nearly twenty thousand charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism. Recipients included news operations like the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for “Superman” supports Gates’s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a “news site” to promote the success of aid groups."
- AlexandrB 4y agoI think you're missing the forest for the trees. When you look at the people who actually study this stuff for a living there is very little disagreement about the nature of the problem and the direction things are headed. Most of the controversy and the oft-regurgitated talking points about "solar cycles", "ice age", "but everyone thought it was global cooling in the 70s", etc seem to originate from the same few sources. I agree that journalists suck and are easily manipulated. But the overwhelming scientific evidence seems to point in one direction and it's not good. It's ok to disagree on policy, but the global warming "skeptic" game plan has been to disagree on reality.
- taylodl 4y agoPeople keep forgetting how science works when it's convenient for them to do so. In the 70s Time reported scientists concerned with global cooling. Yes, some scientists were concerned about global cooling, but there was no scientific consensus. It was a scientific discussion. Now of course people say "scientists said" something back then and "scientists are saying something different" today - you just can't trust those darned scientists! Which of course simply isn't true but even if it were - so what? The evidence is the evidence.
- helloworld11 4y agoIt should in principle be okay to disagree with whatever posture you like, just it should be okay for billionaires to fund the viewpoints of their choice if other billionaires can fund more dominant viewpoints of their choice without problems. I'd say it's you who misses the forest for the trees, and the other poster's main point, which to my reading was that if the Gates Foundation (and many others) can funnel billions to a certain climate science/policy stance, it's nothing short of hypocritical for hysteria to be devoted on people like the Koch brothers for doing the same in a different direction. On a final note, while the basic scientific consensus that human caused climate change is a real thing seems quite firmly settled, there are many details and disagreements that no self-respecting scientist can claim don't exist. There are enough of these for plenty of healthy debate, even on major points, to be a good thing, as it almost always is on most topics. There's also no shortage of self-interested politics being mixed into narratives pushing for aggressive climate change responses. This is rarely conducive to completely honest discourse from either side of the table.