• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Politics of Global Warming

Free episodes:

About five stories on this section of video - three of them are relevant to climate change and politics (the marijuana story has been making headlines - obviously not climate related ;) ).

Thom Hartmann on Science & Green News; April 14, 2015
TEXT: "Published on Apr 14, 2015: Thom Hartmann comments on science and green news for the week of April 13, 2015."
 
The true Republican (and bi-partian) origins of environmentalism in the US, and how during Reagan this was changed when in the 1980's the climate change science data began to emerge and it's significance to 'business-as-usual' in the economic sphere was realized. That's when the anti-climate science PR came into play.

Naomi Oreskes: "Merchants of Doubt" (Part 6 of 6)

TEXT: "Uploaded on Nov 5, 2010: Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Oreskes is also a co-author, along with Erik M. Conway, of the book, "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming." "
 
Last edited:
The basis of when and why science impacts public policy - well developed here. One rendering.

This video is a good summation of key elements regarding science -

- False theories can make true predictions. (The fallacy of affirming the consequent).

- Auxiliary hypotheses.

- A lot of science does not fit the standard ('textbook') model. A lot of science is not deductive but inductive - that is, starts with observation 'of stuff going on out in the world'.

- A lot of science builds a model that tests an idea. Computer simulations are a kind of model built with mathematics. Models/simulations are important for thinking about causes.

- Scientists do a lot of different things, scientists are creative. If scientists don't use a single method, then how do they decide what's right and what's wrong? And who judges? Scientists judge and they judge by judging evidence. Scientists collect evidence in many different ways, and however they collect it, they have to subject it to scrutiny. How do scientists scrutinize evidence? Via 'organized skepticism'. 'Organized' because they do it collectively, as a group, and 'skepticism' because they do it from a position of distrust - to say the burden of proof is on the person with a novel claim. In this, science is intrinsically conservative. It's hard to get the scientific community to say 'yes, we know something, this is true'. Major changes in scientific thinking - paradigm shifts - are relatively rare [sic] in the history of science.

- If scientists judge science collectively, this has led historians to focus on the question of consensus, and to say that - at the end of the day, what science is, what scientific knowledge is, is the consensus of the scientific experts who through this process of 'organized scrutiny', collective scrutiny, have judged the evidence and have come to a conclusion, either yea or nay. Science is a kind of consensus of experts, or as a kind of jury except it's a very special kind of jury that has a number of choices: yes, no, might be true (need more evidence), or might be true but we don't know how to answer the question and we will come back to it later. (That's what scientists call 'intractable').

- One final problem: if science is what scientists say it is, then isn't that just an appeal to authority? Weren't we taught in school that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? Here is the paradox of modern science, the paradox of the conclusions that a lot of historians, philosophers and sociologists have come to, that science is the appeal to authority - but it's not the authority of the individual, no matter how smart that individual is, like Plato or Socrates or Einstein - it's the authority of the collective community. You can think of it as the wisdom of the crowd, but a very special kind of crowd. Science does appeal to authority but it is not based on any individual no matter how smart that individual may be. It's based on the collective wisdom, the collective knowledge, the collective work, of all of the scientists that have worked on a particular problem. Scientists have a kind of cultural collective distrust, this 'show me' culture.

- Our basis for trusting science is actually the same for our trusting technology (that our car will work) or our basis for trusting anything - namely, experience. But it shouldn't be blind trust. Our trust in science should be based on evidence. Scientists have to become better communicators, they must be able to explain not just what they know, but how they know it, and it means that 'we' as laypersons have to become better listeners.

Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists
TEXT: "Published on Jun 25, 2014: Many of the world's biggest problems require asking questions of scientists — but why should we believe what they say? Historian of science Naomi Oreskes thinks deeply about our relationship to belief and draws out three problems with common attitudes toward scientific inquiry — and gives her own reasoning for why we ought to trust science."
 
Last edited:
Smithsonian Stands By Wildly Misleading Climate Change Exhibit Paid For By Kochs
BY JOE ROMM MARCH 23, 2015 UPDATED: MARCH 24, 2015
LINK: Smithsonian Stands By Wildly Misleading Climate Change Exhibit Paid For By Kochs | ThinkProgress

TEXT: "The Smithsonian risks damaging its reputation by having a polluter-funded science denier on the payroll and a wildly misleading Koch-funded exhibit that downplays the risks posed by human-caused climate change. It’s time for the world’s self-proclaimed “largest museum and research complex,” to live up to its mission — and its own climate statement — and cut ties with the anti-science, pro-pollution crowd.

Last month, a New York Times exposé revealed that Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.” This included funding from Exxon-Mobil and “at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.” The Koch brothers have become an even bigger funder of disinformation on climate science than Exxon Mobil.

During this period, Soon has advanced a repeatedly-debunked theory arguing that humans are not the primary cause of global warming. In October, the Smithsonian itself put out a climate statement, which makes clear that such a view is simply anti-scientific. The Smithsonian explains, “Scientific evidence has demonstrated that the global climate is warming as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases generated by human activities.”

The newly uncovered documents show that “Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as ‘deliverables’ that he completed in exchange for their money.”

Even more shocking, the Smithsonian repeatedly signed off on contracts (viewable here) with Southern Company Services — a coal company and long-time funder of science denial — requiring the Smithsonian to provide the coal utility “advanced written copy of proposed publications … for comment and input.” [See Graphic in Link]

But what may be most shocking of all is that the Smithsonian hasn’t fixed the misleading evolution exhibit at its National Museum of Natural History, which thoroughly whitewashes the dangers of modern-day climate change. This “Hall of Human Origins” was made possible by a $15 million grant from billionaire polluter David Koch. It has now been five years since Climate Progress exposed the myriad flaws in the exhibit, a story the New Yorker and others picked up.

Last week I spent some time going through the exhibit again with Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a psychiatrist and climate expert who has been featured by The Smithsonian. We were both stunned by the “Don’t worry, be happy” picture it paints of current climate change.

In particular, the most embarrassing and scientifically misleading display the Smithsonian designed — which directly suggests that humans can simply evolve to deal with global warming — is still in the exhibit. The final section about the present and future has a nonsensical interactive video that lets visitors create a “future human” who evolves over a long period of time to a variety of changing conditions. These conditions include a new ice age or even — I kid you not — a future Earth that “smells.”

One screen almost singlehandedly exposes this entire exhibit as intentionally misleading. Smithsonian visitors are asked to “imagine” a time (“Era 3″) that is “far into the future” when “Earth’s temperature has risen and it’s really hot.” Unbelievably, you are then asked “How do you think your body will evolve?” Your choice is “Will you have a tall, narrow body like a giraffe? Or more sweat glands?”

Note to Smithsonian: The “really hot temperatures” are literally decades away. And of all the proposed science-based approaches for dealing with the multiple, irreversible catastrophesthat such global warming entails, waiting for Homo Sapiens to evolve ain’t one of ‘em. As long as this anti-scientific video is part of the Koch exhibit, visitors will have every right to assume the museum is intentionally misleading the public on the gravity of the climate situation.

Significantly, the exhibit’s main theme is that extreme climate change in the past made humans very adaptable. This is a relatively new and interesting hypothesis based on limited data and lots of speculation. But the Koch-funded exhibit’s huge flaw is that it it leaves visitors with the distinct impression that human-caused global warming is no big deal — even though our understanding of the grave threat posed by that warming is based on vastly more research and data.

This embarrassing episode in the Smithsonian’s history raises serious questions about how big polluters may be pursuing yet another strategy to influence how climate science is communicated to the public (see “Can Big Oil buy a watered-down climate exhibit at the London Science Museum?“)

Below, I’ll update my original discussion, which started with a 2010 video that Lee Fang (then of Think Progress) shot of some key exhibit displays, narrated by me:

David Koch's exhibit at the Smithsonian
TEXT: "Uploaded on Mar 31, 2010: Climate Progress' Joe Romm explores and fact checks the David Koch's exhibit at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History."

Let me expand and clarify the points I made in that video.

The exhibit’s major intellectual failing is that it does not distinguish between two things. First: the evolution of small populations of tens (to perhaps hundreds) of thousands of humans and pre-humans over hundreds of thousands of years to relatively slow, natural climate changes. And second: the completely different challenge we have today, namely, the ability of modern civilization — nearly 7 billion people, going up to 10 billion — to deal with rapid, human-caused climate change over a period of several decades (and ultimately much longer).

The exhibit fails to make clear that while small populations of homo “sapiens” evolved over hundreds of thousands of years of fluctuating climate, the rapid population growth of human civilization occurred during a time of relatively stable climate.

Let’s be clear here. Not only has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 — the principal human-generated greenhouse gas — risen sharply in recent decades, it has risen at a rate that is unprecedented in the past million years. As the author of a 2008 study on this subject noted, “the average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume.” Humans have run up CO2 levels more than 100 ppm over the last two centuries. The author added, “right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium.”

We are already at or close to CO2 levels that could be devastating to the billions of people who have settled in places based on current sea levels and fresh water from inland glaciers and relatively consistent levels of soil moisture and precipitation.

Worse, we’re poised to run CO2 levels up another 500 ppm this century if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path!

But the casual visitor would never know any of that from the Smithsonian exhibit. The key figure they use as the basis of their intellectual case, which you can see in the video in two locations, is this reconstruction (from “Survival of the Adaptable,” click to enlarge):


Smithsonian1-816x431.gif


“Earth’s Changing Climate and Human Evolution: Earth’s climate has fluctuated between warm and cool over the past ten million years. The ratio of two oxygen isotopes, as measured in cores drilled from the ocean bottom, ranges from about 2.5 to 5.0 parts per million. This measure reflects both worldwide ocean temperature and the amount of glacial ice. Particularly dramatic fluctuations marked the six-million-year period of human evolution.”

Note that in this view, modern humans, who developed in the last couple hundred thousand years, were experiencing fluctuations of 10°C in the swings in and out of the Ice Ages. But on the scale of that figure, the last 10,500 years (“plant and animal domestication,” i.e modern civilization) would be virtually a flat line.

In fact, a 2013 study by Marcott et al. in Science found that recent warming is “amazing and atypical” — and poised to destroy the stable climate that enabled civilization. It was the source of most of the data in this jaw-dropping graph:

Carbon-T-F-1-638x398.jpg

Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013) plus projected warming this century on humanity’s current emissions path (in red, via recent literature).

Pretty bloody stable (until recently) on the scale of the Smithsonian chart.

The authors explain, “Our view is that the results of the paper will stand the test of time, particularly regarding the small global temperature variations in the Holocene.” The main, stunning conclusion we can draw from the paper is that the rate of warming since 1900 is 50 times greater than the rate of cooling in the previous 5000 years, which undermines the whole notion of adaptation.

It is the stable climate of that past 10,000 years that has coincided with rapid population growth. Here is a chart from the Smithsonian’s exhibit website:

6.1.2-28_KC_97PGK_new_xl.jpg


This chart does not have a linear scale for time. Here is a better graph from Wikipedia in which time has a linear scale but population is plotted logarithmically:

world-population-638x363.gif

The point is, natural “extreme climate shifts” may have helped make humans adaptable — or at least helped to wipe out the pre-humans who weren’t so adaptable — but a relatively stable climate over the last 10,000 years or so is what enabled modern civilization and rapid population growth.

The exhibit does have a couple of displays aimed at future climate change, including the absurd interactive video discussed above, but none of them lays out the threat posed by the rapid climate change we now face. The single strongest statement is one panel that says:

The level of CO2 today is the highest since our species evolved. The projected increase over the next century is more than twice that of any time in the past 6 million years and suggests a long-term sea level rise of 6.4 m (21 ft).

The Smithsonian never gives a time frame for sea level rise, and, of course, the key fact in that sentence is not accurate. The projected increase of CO2 emissions just in the first half of this century suggests a long-term sea level rise of 75 to 120 feet, as a major 2009 Science article explained. And a 2008 study argued that the projected increase of CO2 emissions by 2050 ultimately risks an ice-free planet. That is, if we stabilize at 450 ppm (or higher) we risk returning the planet to conditions when sea levels were higher by 70 meters — more than 200 feet!

If the overall exhibit presented a scientifically realistic picture of current and projected climate change, this might not be a big deal. But given how misleading the whole exhibit is, this error is another black eye.

How much does the exhibit downplay the impact of human-caused emissions? In the part of the exhibit about the present and the future, there is a display that says “Benefits and Costs of our success.” You can see the text online here:

Costs

By settling down and producing our own food, we created:

—piles of waste that form natural breeding grounds for contagious diseases;

—large concentrations of people, enabling diseases to spread and become epidemics;

—domesticated landscapes that displace wild habitats;

—loss of wild species that depend on natural habitats.

There is no mention of this cost: “Huge emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases that threaten rapid climate change and serious consequences for billions of people.” And yet this is an exhibit about climate change, and its impact on homo sapiens!

Or how about mentioning that “oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred.”

We know that when climate change is very abrupt, it does have consequences. The online exhibit has a timeline that notes:

Extinction1.gif


The extreme climate change 74,000 years ago — which is still a subject of much scientific debate — appears to have been driven by a massive volcano that led to a pretty rapid change in temperatures.

So yes, the Smithsonian is pointing out (online) that an unusual episode of extreme climate change nearly wiped out the human race, but the actual exhibit essentially ignores the myriad threats posed by comparably extreme climate change today.

If this were just another Smithsonian exhibit, I’d call it “seriously flawed.” But since it was primarily funded by the billionaire polluter David Koch, who is founder of a vast network of conservative organizations that deny the threat of global warming — the exhibit puts the credibility of the entire Museum of Natural History and science staff on the line. That’s doubly true in the light of the Willie Soon affair.

Bottom Line: Either the David Koch Hall of Human Origins should be completely reworked or they should give Koch’s money back so as not to taint this exhibit and the museum. Ideally both.

Back in 2010, Think Progress noted that Rick Potts, the director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program told ThinkProgress why the Smithsonian accepted $15 million from the climate-denial kingpin [video here]:

“David Koch is a philanthropist, who is deeply interested in science. He’s funded the dinosaur halls, for example, in the American Museum of Natural History…. He has a lot of interest in human evolution that goes back to about thirty or forty years. And so, uh, as is true with all Smithsonian policy, our donors have no control over the content of our science or scholarship of our exhibits. And the same is true in this case. We feel very grateful for David Koch’s contributions to helping, I hope, the American public and us being able to bring science to them.”

For related background, which suggests Koch knew exactly what kind of science he was buying from the Smithsonian, see the Matthew Yglesias post, “David Koch, Climate Change, and Human Evolution.”​
 
Groups Want David Koch Unseated From Smithsonian, AMNH Boards: Fifteen NGOs launch a petition, and Koch's record on carbon pollution, climate denial, and philanthropy gets thrown into the spotlight.
By Neela Banerjee, InsideClimate News March 24, 2015
LINK: Groups Want David Koch Unseated From Smithsonian, AMNH Boards | InsideClimate News

TEXT: "A new campaign urging science museums to cut ties with David Koch has thrown a spotlight on the billionaire Koch brothers' enormous philanthropic footprint and their oil interests, as they continue to undercut climate science, environmental regulations and clean energy.

Fifteen non-profits, including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Daily Kos, launched a petition calling on the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History in New York to remove David Koch from their boards of trustees, because "he bankrolls groups that deny climate science." The non-profits cite a letter to museums, also sent Tuesday, by more than 30 scientists asking for a severing of ties to all fossil fuel interests.

David Koch's considerable donations to the country's two premier natural history museums are part of the Koch family's wide-ranging philanthropy. The family has delivered hundreds of millions of dollars to leading cultural, medical and academic institutions over the last 40 years, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Lincoln Center and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

David and his brother Charles have also emerged as the nation's top donors to a vast array of libertarian-conservative politicians and causes, creating and sustaining a large, influential network of advocacy groups and right-wing think tanks. Among the top causes championed by Koch-backed groups and individuals are climate denial and opposition to climate-friendly policies.

As the Kochs' political agenda has grown clearer and more muscular, their philanthropy is raising questions about how museums, medical centers and universities can accept money from donors whose business and political dealings are often in direct opposition to the institutions' missions.

"It is one thing for David Koch to give money to Lincoln Center or Carnegie Hall, but it is quite another to support a science/natural history museum that has a role to play in doing research on, and helping educate the public about, climate change, the greatest threat ever to confront humanity," Nobel laureate Eric Chivian, a signer of the letter, said in a statement. "The philanthropy serves to silence any criticism of the practices of the donor, and even possibly, any critical discussion of the issue."

Koch Industries did not respond to requests for comment.

An oil, petrochemical and paper conglomerate, Koch Industries built its fortune on investments in Canada's heavy oil industry as early as 1959. That move has been central to the company's growth and diversification. The company remains deeply invested in Alberta, where most of Canada's tar sands deposits are located. The Kochs have long lobbied against carbon and environmental regulation, but their electoral spending and influence has soared since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling allowed companies and unions to donate unlimited amounts to political candidates.

In recent years the vast Koch network and rise of the Tea Party helped make climate change skepticism a litmus test for Republican candidates. The Koch-founded advocacy group Americans for Prosperity has persuaded members of Congress to sign a pledge opposing federal action on climate change. AFP and the Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have also gotten state legislators to introduce bills that would block state funding for the EPA’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants.

At the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins details the evolution of humankind through the use of video, sculpture, skeletons and interactive media that, for example, let you see yourself as a Neanderthal. David Koch donated $15 million for the exhibit. Just past the entrance, a video about global climate change runs in an endless loop. The video's text explains that the Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years and that while the shifts posed challenges for early humans, they adapted over time to survive.

Beneath the video screen, a timeline shows the spikes and dips in the Earth’s average temperature over millions of years––including the steep increase of the last 100 years. Yet the climate display says nothing about the cause of the current era's higher temperatures: the enormous use of fossil fuels, the kind that form a core business of Koch Industries. Instead, the exhibit leaves visitors with the impression that climate change is part of the Earth's natural cycle and that humans can adapt to it.


The David H. Koch Smithsonian exhibit leaves visitors with the impression that climate change is part of the Earth's natural cycle. Credit: Neela Banerjee/InsideClimate News

Inside the Kochs' Giving

Forbes estimated in late 2014 that Charles and David Koch, whose company is headquartered in Wichita, Kan., are the sixth richest people in America, worth about $40.6 billion each. The brothers inherited a successful oil refining company from their father, Fred, when he died in 1967.

They then built it into the second-largest privately owned company in the country, in part through their aggressive development of Alberta's tar sands. The company remains one of the oil patch's largest mineral leaseholders; one of Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters; and among the largest U.S. refiners of oil sands crude, responsible for about 20 percent of imports.

The Koch Family Foundations include the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation, which focuses on arts, conservation and university projects in Kansas, and the Koch Cultural Trust, which gives grants to performing and visual artists in the state.

The David H. Koch Charitable Foundation is arguably the splashiest donor of the network, giving money to David Koch's political projects and his cultural and scientific interests. The foundation’s website has a brief description of Koch's political giving without providing dollar amounts for the donations. The site says only that David Koch "has funded research and education programs that analyze how freedom creates prosperity and advances social progress. He serves on the boards of the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation and Americans for Prosperity Foundation," climate contrarian groups that promote limited environmental regulation and other libertarian causes.

The site's descriptions of Koch's cultural giving are far more detailed. He gave $65 million to refurbish the Metropolitan Museum of Art's outdoor area, now called the David H. Koch Plaza, replete with "with new fountains, landscaping and improved access, all designed with sustainability in mind."

The foundation also gave $100 million for renovating part of Lincoln Center, now known as the David H. Koch Theater, which is home to the New York City Ballet and New York City Opera.

After being diagnosed with prostate cancer in the early 1990s, David Koch has funded cancer research handsomely, including $66.7 million awarded to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City; $100 million to the New York-Presbyterian Hospital to help build the David H. Koch Center, an ambulatory care site; and $100 million to his alma mater, MIT, for the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT.

Yet as David Koch lavishly funded cancer research, his company fought hard to limit regulation of formaldehyde, a human carcinogen, according to a 2010 article in The New Yorker magazine. Koch Industries became a major producer of formaldehyde with its acquisition of the wood, chemical and paper products manufacturer Georgia Pacific, maker of Dixie cups and Brawny paper towels. The EPA has tried for years to tighten limits on formaldehyde. But its efforts have been stalled in large part because of resistance from members of Congress backed by industry, including the Koch brothers.

The Charles Koch Foundation gives to economics research and to dozens of universities, in an effort to win "the hearts and minds of American college students" to the brothers' libertarian free-market worldview, according to a 2014 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity.

The flagship of the Charles Koch foundation's work in academia is George Mason University in northern Virginia. The college has received tens of millions of dollars over the years to support the Mercatus Center, which describes itself as the "world's premier university source for market-oriented ideas," and its Institute for Humane Studies, which specializes in researching "the practice and potentials of freedom," according to the Center for Public Integrity.

In 2008, the Charles Koch Foundation pledged $1.5 million to Florida State University to fund teaching positions in the economics department. But the money came with strings attached, according to a 2011 Tampa Bay Times investigation. Among them: "An advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it's not happy with the faculty's choice or if the hires don't meet 'objectives' set by Koch during annual evaluations," the Times reported.

Florida State defended its decision. John Hardin, Charles Koch Foundation director of university relations, said in an email that critics of the philanthropy try to discredit its work because they don’t share the Kochs’ political views. "This is particularly troubling in Florida, where the school and its leaders have repeatedly reviewed materials and reaffirmed that everything has been conducted in accordance with university standards and the principles of academic freedom," Hardin said.

The periodic criticism about the Kochs' politics or even the potential conflicts of interest does not seem to have made institutions reluctant to take their money, and it's unclear if the new campaign would prompt them to cut ties. The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History closed its Dinosaur Hall last year to undertake a five-year $35 million renovation bankrolled by David Koch. Like the Hall of Human Origins, the Dinosaur Hall will be named after him.

'Painful Conversations'

The calls to turn away fossil fuel money stir up difficult questions about what kind of ethics museums, universities and other non-profits need to employ in taking major donations.

"One of the magical beliefs in the museum world is that you can take money made from questionable practices such as high carbon dioxide emissions and destruction of the environment and somehow this money is now pure because it's been taken by museum," said Robert Janes, a former museum director who is now editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal Museum Management and Curatorship.

"Museums need to have these conversations [about donors] and they may be painful conversations. The museums might have to return to their core purpose and be smaller," said Janes, who is based in Alberta.

Other experts on philanthropy contend that the outcomes the donations create are more important than the intentions of the donors. Olivier Zunz, a professor of history at the University of Virginia and an expert on American philanthropy, said the "more important thing is to see if there are strings attached than second-guessing the intent of donors."

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated that David Koch is on the boards of directors of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History in New York. He is on the boards of trustees of both museums.
 
Okay, we get it. The Koch brothers are scumbags who buy their way into universities, museums, scientific institutions plus buying various companies. Everyone mentioned above is going to sing the Koch line in order to keep the money flowing. The question becomes, what can anyone do about it. Very little it seems. Not one of these institutions has the guts to turn down cash.
 
Okay, we get it. The Koch brothers are scumbags who buy their way into universities, museums, scientific institutions plus buying various companies. Everyone mentioned above is going to sing the Koch line in order to keep the money flowing. The question becomes, what can anyone do about it. Very little it seems. Not one of these institutions has the guts to turn down cash.

Change happens. Not by itself, but through activism. Some history helps, because things have been far worse than currently. More may be at stake now - larger consequences - but it's all very familiar. :cool:
 
Call me a cynic but the majority of humans just don't care what goes on. As long as the smartphone is charged and working, all is right with the world. I just don't see a handful of people beating down the Koch Bros. and others like them. The whole house of cards will need to fall before action is taken.
 
Call me a cynic but the majority of humans just don't care what goes on.
When it washes up at their doorsteps they will, and it is in several places - even in the US.
As long as the smartphone is charged and working, all is right with the world.
True enough. Human nature. But that doesn't mean everyone - and not being everyone, there is hope.
I just don't see a handful of people beating down the Koch Bros. and others like them. The whole house of cards will need to fall before action is taken.
In some respects the whole house of cards is falling - I do think so, but solutions are being worked on. Or mechanisms for coping are. When the shit really starts hitting the fan, those folks doing so, laboring away anonymously, will be thanked.

It is my view that we are on a trajectory that cannot be stayed. The more I look into the data it seems clear (to me) that stopping this juggernaut - even if we slam on the brakes - would be hard to achieve now. 'Cooked into' the scenario is temperature rise - but the situation is changing far faster than predicted, so where we will land is hard to say. How high will the temperature go? Well, there are scientists who have a very extreme prognostication. As early as 2035 - in just 20 years - these scientists are predicting serious conditions will be upon us. To me that just means we need to work harder to find both coping mechanisms and put on the brakes, if even doing so will reverse what we have set in motion.
 
April 18, 2015
Obama: "No greater threat" than climate change
LINK: Obama: "No greater threat" than climate change - CBS News

TEXT: "As the nation's capital gears up for a large Earth Day celebration this weekend, President Obama issued a warning on the dangers global warming pose to the planet. "Climate change can no longer be denied - or ignored," the president said in a video Saturday. "The world is looking to the United States - to us - to lead." "Today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change," Mr. Obama continued. "This is the only planet we've got. And years from now, I want to be able to look our children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them that we did everything we could to protect it."
Though Earth Day isn't officially until Wednesday of this coming week, the president is getting a head start on reminding the American people of the dangers of global warming. Earlier this month Obama, accompanied by Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy, met with health experts in a recent public awareness initiative to tie global health to the effects of climate change. "The world's top climate scientists are warning us that changing climate already affects the air our kids breathe," Mr. Obama said.

The president, who plans to visit the Florida Everglades on Earth Day, also added in a dig against climate change-deniers in the opposing party. "This winter was cold in parts of our country - as some folks in Congress like to point out - but around the world, it was the warmest ever recorded," Mr. Obama said in his address. It may have been a jab at Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, who had brought a snowball to the Senate floor in late February, questioning the science behind global warming. The chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who has long called climate change a "hoax," was trying to prove that it was still "very, very cold" outside during the Washington, D.C. winter.

The president also touted his administration's efforts to increase the use of renewable fuel sources and cut carbon emissions abroad and at home. "We've committed to doubling the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China has committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions," Mr. Obama said. "And because the world's two largest economies came together, there's new hope that, with American leadership, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to prevent the worst impacts of climate change before it's too late."

Obama's declaration comes at a time when a major linchpin of his carbon-cutting strategy -- new EPA regulations called the Clean Power Plan -- is facing an uphill legal battle. A federal appeals court heard arguments Thursday on the far-reaching policies to limit the pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Obama on effect of climate change on public health
Obama: "No greater threat" than climate change - CBS News
TEXT: "April 8, 2015: The White House is launching a new initiative to help combat the effects of climate change, including asthma and allergies. CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook sat down with President Obama to discuss the environment's impact on personal health."
 
I wish I could believe politicians in general and Mr. Obama in particular but I can't. I take that back. If a politician says they are going to raise taxes or put us in another war, that I can believe.
 
I wish I could believe politicians in general and Mr. Obama in particular but I can't. I take that back. If a politician says they are going to raise taxes or put us in another war, that I can believe.
When a politician starts to say something, though, can be significant. Obama saying all this is significant imo, especially now, as he starts to prepare to leave office. He can do things now he perhaps was constrained from doing before.

Why Obama turned out the way he did as president I don't know (though I'm sure 'one day' we will find out) but his 'going against the money' at this point is no minor matter. Anyway, when a major leader speaks out, the world takes notice.

Note that Obama mentions that it's the military who have briefed him on the dangers of Climate Change, and that their concern is for our national security. Buzz words that matter. :(

Once the military starts to say - 'hey, we have a problem here' - a president is bound to take notice (and action). It's the one rationale that the whole of the populace will accept. Environment? Mass Extinction? Meh.... National Security? You bet.
 
By all accounts, the military is not too happy with Obama on a number of subjects( woman in combat, for one.) Many generals are in disagreement with the president. I wouldn't hang my hat on Obama listening to the military on climate change. No doubt he was briefed.

I seem to recall Obama saying he was going to shut down Guantanamo. I think we are still waiting on that and many other promises. We place way too much trust in politicians and have paid a heavy price for our foolishness.
 
From Australia - "The Backburner is Australia's most trusted news source, it is quite obviously satire and shouldn't be taken seriously or before operating heavy machinery. For all the latest comedy articles, videos and updates at SBS Comedy...."

Government Spends $4 Million to Not Study Climate Change - 17 April 2015
LINK: Government Spends $4 Million to Not Study Climate Change | SBS Comedy

TEXT: "The Abbott Government has set aside $4 million to fund a centre for scientists to pay as little attention to climate change as possible, a spokesperson for Education Minister Christopher Pyne has revealed.

"The centre, attached to the University of Western Australia, will gather a team of researchers to completely overlooking the deleterious effects of climate change while catching up on their reading, watching old seasons of the Simpsons and playing table tennis in the rec room. “It’s a great opportunity,” says head researcher Andrew Scott, “deliberate ignorance in the face of impending doom is often overlooked by the government and the extra funding will help us pay even less intention to the hellish nightmare that will surely be the outcome of anthropogenic climate change.

" “Using the first lot of funding we’ve already repaired the net on our table tennis table and bought a copy of GTA5 in HD. We had the non-HD version before but thanks to the government I’m much too busy enjoying the improved graphics and new content to even think about what rising sea levels will do to human civilization.” The rest of the funding will mostly be spent on hammocks, for the researchers to not think about climate change in, and large pits of sand, for the researchers to bury their heads in.

"A spokesperson for government told The Backburner that while at the moment it’s very “trendy” to try and avert the disastrous effects of climate change, it is also very important that 'not thinking about it at all' be included in the conversation: “For years we’ve been barraged with the almost universal consensus that not only is climate change real it’s also a pressing issue with very real negative effects, frankly we think it’s time for the other side to be heard. With that in mind we’re paying some of the best and brightest scientists available with good, hard taxpayer dollars to do basically anything else but look into it.

" “We’re excited to see what the outcome of $4 million and 4 intense years of negligent and deliberately ignorant non-research into climate change can yield not just for the government but for the Australian people. “If this goes well we could go on ignoring climate change until well after this centre and everything else is underwater.” "



 
Last edited:
Frustrated Dutch Citizens Sue Government over Inaction on Climate Change - April 20, 2015
LINK: Frustrated Dutch Citizens Sue Government over Inaction on Climate Change

TEXT: "More than 880 Dutch citizens have filed a class-action lawsuit against their government for its failure to take action on climate change, The Guardian reported. Hearings are scheduled to start in the Hague tomorrow, marking the “first case in the world to use existing human rights and tort law to hold a government responsible for failing to reduce carbon emissions fast enough.”

"Those involved in the suit are trying to force the Dutch government to “implement policies to reduce its emissions by between 25% and 40% below 1990 levels by 2020,” the target established for develop nations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The lawsuit was brought by environmental activist group Urgenda. Member Dennis van Berkel told The Guardian, “We wanted to show that this is not just one organisation that had an idea but it’s a broad movement of people who are very concerned about climate change and believe it’s necessary to sue the state over it.”

"Among those acting as plaintiffs on behalf of Urgenda are national weatherman Reinier van de Berg and Joos Ockels, whose late husband, Wubbo Ockels, was the first Dutch citizen in space. Wubbo founded the renewable energy foundation Happy Energy during his retirement, and gave an impassioned speech about climate change from his death bed last year. “What is wrong with our mindset?” he said. “Our earth has cancer. I have cancer, too. If only I could take you to space, you would see that this is your only planet; you have no spare.”

"Ambassador for the World Wildlife Federation and famous Dutch DJ Gregor Salto is also one of the plaintiffs. “Everybody is waiting for the government to take action, but the government has done so little,” he said. “If the case succeeds, they will be forced to take action. If you look at Denmark, they’ve managed [to reduce emissions], so why can’t we? I want the Dutch to lead the way in this.”

"Urgenda began its fight in 2012 when it wrote a letter to the Dutch government, telling it that they would head to court if it didn’t take action on carbon emissions. Now they hope that their efforts will start a chain reaction of other countries mounting similar campaigns. In Belgium, lawyers, along with more than 8,500 citizen supporters, are currently working on a case against their government.

"Maybe a similar case could do some good in the United States, too. Given that the vast majority of Republicans in Congress deny climate change to protect their fossil fuel industry donors, it’s unlikely the government is going to accomplish anything without being forced by the courts."

Final Speech of Dutch physicist Prof. dr. Wubbo Ockels
TEXT: "Published on Dec 7, 2014: Wubbo Johannes Ockels (March 28, 1946 – May 18, 2014) was a Dutch physicist and an astronaut of the European Space Agency (ESA). In 1985 he participated in a flight on a space shuttle (STS-61-A), making him the first Dutch citizen in space. After his astronaut career, Ockels was professor of Aerospace for Sustainable Engineering and Technology at the Delft University of Technology. On May 29, 2013 it was announced that Ockels had an aggressive form of kidney cancer (renal cell carcinoma) with a metastasis in his pleural cavity, and a life expectancy of one to two years.[6] He died from complications of cancer on May 18, 2014."
 
Conservatives Upset At Pope's 'Green Agenda'
Religion News Service | By David Gibson
Posted: 04/20/2015 Updated: 04/20/2015

LINK: Conservatives Upset At Pope's 'Green Agenda'

TEXT: "NEW YORK (RNS) The Vatican is set to host a major conference on climate change this month that will feature leading researchers on global warming and an opening address by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

"The meeting, which the Vatican detailed on its website late Tuesday (April 14), is another sign of Pope Francis’ “green agenda” and another potential red flag for conservatives who are already alarmed over an expected papal teaching document on the environment that is scheduled for release this summer. The one-day summit on April 28 will also include participants from major world religions and aims to “elevate the debate on the moral dimensions of protecting the environment in advance of the papal encyclical,” as the papal document is known.

"Another goal, says a statement on a Vatican website, is to highlight “the intrinsic connection between respect for the environment and respect for people — especially the poor, the excluded, victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, children, and future generations.” In addition to the keynote speech by Ban, participants will hear from Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent American economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Church sources said that leading scientists in the climate change field will also take part.

"Also addressing the conference will be Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, a top Vatican official who is leading the drafting process of Francis’ encyclical on the environment, which is expected to come out in June or July. An encyclical is one of the most authoritative documents a pope can issue, and church sources say this one has been the focus of intense lobbying by Catholics, especially American conservatives who believe that climate change is being overhyped or that human activity is not a factor and that remedies may do more harm than good.

"Others simply believe that Francis — who signaled that environmental protection would be a hallmark of his papacy when he took the name of the unofficial patron saint of ecology, Francis of Assisi — should not be weighing in on issues that touch on technical and scientific matters that some contend are still debatable. Francis “is an ideologue and a meddlesome egoist,” Maureen Mullarkey wrote in an especially trenchant column at the conservative journal First Things about what she called the pope’s’ “premature, intemperate policy endorsements” on the environment.

"Other Catholic conservatives have delivered similar critiques, while some, such as author George Weigel and Princeton political philosopher Robert George, have sought to downplay the import of any statements the pope might make on the environment. The Vatican’s Council for Justice and Peace, which is led by Turkson and is spearheading the drafting of the encyclical, has been a special focus of lobbying by climate change skeptics who hope to influence the final version, church sources say.

"Liberals and environmentalists, as well as the Obama administration, have embraced the pontiff’s “green” agenda and are hoping Francis will give support to their side. Francis himself does not appear to have heeded the critics so far. Though his two immediate predecessors, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II, also spoke out strongly on the Christian duty to protect the environment, Francis has done so more frequently and forcefully, and at a time when climate change has become a hot-button political issue.

" “(I)t is man who has slapped nature in the face,” Francis told reporters in January. “We have in a sense taken over nature,” he said, adding that he believed global warming is “mostly” the result of human activity. In February, he said “a Christian who does not protect creation … is a Christian who does not care about the work of God.” Francis has also expressed disappointment in the last round of international negotiations to reduce greenhouse gases, calling them “nothing much.” He has said he wants his encyclical to come out in time to influence the next round, set for Paris in November.

"This month’s Vatican summit on the environment appears to be another effort to try to press the pope’s agenda, and it’s a topic that’s likely to remain on the front burner as Francis prepares to make his first U.S. visit in September, which will include an address to the U.N. General Assembly in New York."
 
Pope Francis to Host Major Summit on Climate Change by EcoWatch April 18, 2015
LINK: Pope Francis to Host Major Summit on Climate Change | Care2 Causes

TEXT: "The Vatican announced Tuesday that it will host a major conference on climate change on April 28, featuring some of the world’s leading climate scientists and an opening address by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The conference, Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development, will also feature Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent American economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

"The summit hopes to “help build a global movement across all religions for sustainable development and climate change throughout 2015 and beyond,” and to highlight “the intrinsic connection between respect for the environment and respect for people—especially the poor, the excluded, victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, children and future generations,” says the Vatican.

"The one-day summit will also include participants from major world religions and aims to “elevate the debate on the moral dimensions of protecting the environment in advance of the papal encyclical,” the Vatican says. The Pope’s much-anticipated encyclical on the environment is scheduled for release this summer. Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, a top Vatican official who is leading the drafting process of Francis’ encyclical on the environment, will also speak at the conference.

"This event is just the latest in what many are calling Pope Francis’s “green agenda.” He has become an outspoken advocate on environmental issues, saying acting on climate change is “essential to faith” and calling the destruction of nature a modern sin. He has vowed to only increase pressure on world leaders after his disappointment with the Lima climate talks. He is hoping that his encyclical will influence the climate talks in Paris at the end of the year.

"He has also made plans to address Congress during his visit to America in September. It will be interesting to see what Pope Francis, who is wildly popular among both Catholic and non-Catholic Americans, has to say to one of the most powerful governing bodies on Earth about the issue of climate change."
 
A Think Tank for the UN that deals in political issues had this to say about the topic.

”In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.“ Quote by the Club of Rome.
 
Back
Top