5 ms·

Last time someone made this claim about "probable billions of dollars" here, I asked for examples and the best anyone could show was a $10k donation to a tiny c

Last time someone made this claim about "probable billions of dollars" here, I asked for examples and the best anyone could show was a $10k donation to a tiny charity run by one guy that campaigned against offshore wind farms, with a stated justification that there were better ways to help the environment. Can anyone show an accounting of these billions? Because you can't spend that kind of money without leaving a lot of paper trails.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
From the desmog link in the comment you replied to: > “Fear and anger have to be a part of this campaign,” Berman said. “We’re not going to get people to like the oil and gas industry over the next few months.” > Berman also advised that executives continue to spend big. “I think $2 to $3 million would be a game changer,” he said. “We’ve had six-figure contributions to date from a few companies in this room to help us get to where we are.” > But always cover your tracks, he suggested, adding that no is better equipped at doing so than his firm. “We run all this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity,” he said. “People don’t know who supports us. We’ve been doing this for 20-something years in this regard.” > Berman, whose tobacco ties were profiled yesterday by DeSmog contributor John Mashey, is the founder and chief executive of the Washington-based Berman & Company consulting firm. He attended the conference in Colorado, hat in hand, looking to raise money from energy companies for an advertising and public relations campaign he started called Big Green Radicals.
- revelio 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    If that one firm takes in 10 million a year for 20 years that's .2 Billion going to one firm. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=E04 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=E04 You easily get to billions, even if you just look at one sector, or one country, or one target. Their PR budgets are about a Billion a year.
    - votepaunchy 3y ago
      The claim was “billions of dollars spent in an effort to increase public ignorance”, not political lobbying.
godelski 3y ago
There's the Koch brothers[0]. Here's one of their foundations[1] which you can see IRS filings for[2]. Idk what to tell you, it seems pretty easy to find money that is being spent against climate action. If you're having trouble finding it then I'm not sure what to tell you. Use Google in incognito? [0] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/koch-pledge-tied-to-congressional-climate-inaction https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/koch-pledge-tied-to... [1] http://www.noclimatetax.com/ http://www.noclimatetax.com/ [2] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/753148958 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/753...
- revelio 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - godelski 3y ago
    > climate doesn't even appear in their list of issues at all: Did you look at the link name? Here, we can use the wayback machine to check it around the same date as the New Yorker article[0]. I feel like I have to say you need to specifically also check the about page where you'll confirm it is the same organization. > why are you claiming this is the best example? I claimed this was a 30 second googling example where I could find more than a $10k donation from a small charity. > the Koch Brothers aren't an oil company anyway. That's weird, because the head image of one of their companies is an oil refinery and that company provides gasoline among other things[1]. Not even the only company they have that works with fossil fuels. > All these replies are reinforcing my point Are your points movable? Because I'm assuming not. It does not seem like you're willing to allow for alternative viewpoints. I saw in another reply that you just didn't accept someone's source. It does not seem like you're engaging in good faith and willing to look at what people are presenting to you with more than a glance. That doesn't allow for your beliefs to be changed as you're not even actually considering alternative viewpoints. If you want to engage and actually discuss things, we can. But clearly people are giving you a shovel and pointing to a place to dig and you're coming back and complaining about how you found nothing digging with a spoon. Complain about the Gates Foundation all you want. Fine. I'm not talking about them. They aren't relevant. Propaganda can happen from more than one side too. But you have to actually look at the facts and get some expertise knowledge. You have to challenge your own beliefs, not just find evidence that supports them. There's always evidence to support yours, or any belief. Even of flying spaghetti monsters. But "evidence" is a loose term and not a binary thing. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20130530051112/http://www.noclimatetax.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130530051112/http://www.noclim... [1] https://www.kochind.com/companies/flint-hills-resources https://www.kochind.com/companies/flint-hills-resources
ttctciyf 3y ago
This took about 30 seconds to find: "ExxonMobil‘s $33 million campaign to sow doubt and denial about global warming" > [...] We know this $33M figure is an underestimate of the total spending by Exxon to fund opposition work on climate policy. For example, the Chamber of Commerce appears for the first time on Exxon’s Worldwide Giving report in 2014 at $1 Million. We assume this is not the first (or the last) contribution Exxon has made to the US Chamber of Commerce. > On this page, you’ll find the total amount of funding from ExxonMobil and its foundations to dozens of organizations that worked to spread climate denial. Hyperlinks will take you to further detail about each organization’s funding specifics and activities. https://www.desmog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial/ https://www.desmog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-de...
- revelio 3y ago
  1. That list contains items like "Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory", "Congress of Racial Equality", "Chemical Education Foundation", the "Independent Women’s Forum" and so on, in fact not one of these organizations is specifically about climate, yet your source claims all $33M was spent exclusively on climate change. So already this website is lying to you in its very first sentence. Not a great start. 2. This $33M appears to be all charitable giving by Exxon spread over more than 20 years. That's not much, nowhere close to billions of dollars. 3. The tiny amounts are a problem for them, so they say they "know" it's really a lot more. As befits a site that just makes things up, the reason they "know" is: "We assume this is not the first (or the last) contribution Exxon has made to the US Chamber of Commerce". Brilliant. Assumptions, facts, what's the difference? Again, this isn't evidence for "billions of dollars" being spent on "increasing public ignorance". It's not even evidence for any money being spent on climate, because the reasons they donated to these various foundations isn't really known to the desmog guys. It's just more assumptions.
  - ttctciyf 3y ago
    I find the desmog website more credible than a random HN account, thanks.
    - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

From the desmog link in the comment you replied to: > “Fear and anger have to be a part of this campaign,” Berman said. “We’re not going to get people to like the oil and gas industry over the next few months.” > Berman also advised that executives continue to spend big. “I think $2 to $3 million would be a game changer,” he said. “We’ve had six-figure contributions to date from a few companies in this room to help us get to where we are.” > But always cover your tracks, he suggested, adding that no is better equipped at doing so than his firm. “We run all this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity,” he said. “People don’t know who supports us. We’ve been doing this for 20-something years in this regard.” > Berman, whose tobacco ties were profiled yesterday by DeSmog contributor John Mashey, is the founder and chief executive of the Washington-based Berman & Company consulting firm. He attended the conference in Colorado, hat in hand, looking to raise money from energy companies for an advertising and public relations campaign he started called Big Green Radicals.

revelio 3y ago
[flagged]
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  If that one firm takes in 10 million a year for 20 years that's .2 Billion going to one firm. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=E04 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=E04 You easily get to billions, even if you just look at one sector, or one country, or one target. Their PR budgets are about a Billion a year.
  - votepaunchy 3y ago
    The claim was “billions of dollars spent in an effort to increase public ignorance”, not political lobbying.

godelski 3y ago

There's the Koch brothers[0]. Here's one of their foundations[1] which you can see IRS filings for[2]. Idk what to tell you, it seems pretty easy to find money that is being spent against climate action. If you're having trouble finding it then I'm not sure what to tell you. Use Google in incognito? [0] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/koch-pledge-tied-to-congressional-climate-inaction https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/koch-pledge-tied-to... [1] http://www.noclimatetax.com/ http://www.noclimatetax.com/ [2] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/753148958 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/753...

revelio 3y ago
[flagged]
- godelski 3y ago
  > climate doesn't even appear in their list of issues at all: Did you look at the link name? Here, we can use the wayback machine to check it around the same date as the New Yorker article[0]. I feel like I have to say you need to specifically also check the about page where you'll confirm it is the same organization. > why are you claiming this is the best example? I claimed this was a 30 second googling example where I could find more than a $10k donation from a small charity. > the Koch Brothers aren't an oil company anyway. That's weird, because the head image of one of their companies is an oil refinery and that company provides gasoline among other things[1]. Not even the only company they have that works with fossil fuels. > All these replies are reinforcing my point Are your points movable? Because I'm assuming not. It does not seem like you're willing to allow for alternative viewpoints. I saw in another reply that you just didn't accept someone's source. It does not seem like you're engaging in good faith and willing to look at what people are presenting to you with more than a glance. That doesn't allow for your beliefs to be changed as you're not even actually considering alternative viewpoints. If you want to engage and actually discuss things, we can. But clearly people are giving you a shovel and pointing to a place to dig and you're coming back and complaining about how you found nothing digging with a spoon. Complain about the Gates Foundation all you want. Fine. I'm not talking about them. They aren't relevant. Propaganda can happen from more than one side too. But you have to actually look at the facts and get some expertise knowledge. You have to challenge your own beliefs, not just find evidence that supports them. There's always evidence to support yours, or any belief. Even of flying spaghetti monsters. But "evidence" is a loose term and not a binary thing. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20130530051112/http://www.noclimatetax.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130530051112/http://www.noclim... [1] https://www.kochind.com/companies/flint-hills-resources https://www.kochind.com/companies/flint-hills-resources

ttctciyf 3y ago

This took about 30 seconds to find: "ExxonMobil‘s $33 million campaign to sow doubt and denial about global warming" > [...] We know this $33M figure is an underestimate of the total spending by Exxon to fund opposition work on climate policy. For example, the Chamber of Commerce appears for the first time on Exxon’s Worldwide Giving report in 2014 at $1 Million. We assume this is not the first (or the last) contribution Exxon has made to the US Chamber of Commerce. > On this page, you’ll find the total amount of funding from ExxonMobil and its foundations to dozens of organizations that worked to spread climate denial. Hyperlinks will take you to further detail about each organization’s funding specifics and activities. https://www.desmog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial/ https://www.desmog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-de...

revelio 3y ago
1. That list contains items like "Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory", "Congress of Racial Equality", "Chemical Education Foundation", the "Independent Women’s Forum" and so on, in fact not one of these organizations is specifically about climate, yet your source claims all $33M was spent exclusively on climate change. So already this website is lying to you in its very first sentence. Not a great start. 2. This $33M appears to be all charitable giving by Exxon spread over more than 20 years. That's not much, nowhere close to billions of dollars. 3. The tiny amounts are a problem for them, so they say they "know" it's really a lot more. As befits a site that just makes things up, the reason they "know" is: "We assume this is not the first (or the last) contribution Exxon has made to the US Chamber of Commerce". Brilliant. Assumptions, facts, what's the difference? Again, this isn't evidence for "billions of dollars" being spent on "increasing public ignorance". It's not even evidence for any money being spent on climate, because the reasons they donated to these various foundations isn't really known to the desmog guys. It's just more assumptions.
- ttctciyf 3y ago
  I find the desmog website more credible than a random HN account, thanks.
  - 3y ago