DOCSLIB.ORG

Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony Behind the 2006 Wegman Report and Two Decades of Climate Anti-Science John R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony Behind the 2006 Wegman Report and Two Decades of Climate Anti-Science John R Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony Behind the 2006 Wegman Report and Two Decades of Climate Anti-Science John R. Mashey* Climate science has produced increasingly-stronger scientific results intentionally obscured by an increasingly-noisy anti-science PR campaign. This has surged in a long crescendo from 1990 to the cacophony of ―Climategate,‖ the email hack of the University of East Anglia‘s Climatic Research Unit. This 185-page report details the long history of these attacks, including funding flows, organizations, people and tactics. It highlights the reality behind a 2005-2006 campaign that purposefully misled Congress. Its results have formed a pillar of the anti-science PR campaign to this day, including Climategate. Although the author has benefited from frequent discussions with leading researchers, the report is based primarily on public information - government reports, organizations' websites, peer-reviewed articles, scholarly books and existing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data. This report shows in detail: A tight network of organizations and individuals funded and executed the long campaign. They used well-honed tactics pioneered by tobacco companies, but to obscure the dangers of second-hand smoke, acid rain, chlorofluorocarbons and greenhouse gas emissions. From 2001 to 2005, several of these, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Senator James Inhofe and allies found ―new voices‖ in Canadians Ross McKitrick & Steven McIntyre, encouraged them and introduced them to Washington, DC. Using the old tactics, they tried to discredit specific scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In 2005, Representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield unusually demanded information from climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcom Hughes, originators of a 1999 ―hockey stick‖ graph later used in the IPCC 2001 reports. The scientific community pushed back. Barton and Whitfield bypassed the National Academy of Sciences, preferring an odd route to reach Edward Wegman to form an ―independent, impartial, expert‖ panel to evaluate hockey stick statistics. In July 2006 the ―Wegman Report‖ and House hearings combined into a major pillar of widespread and continuing attacks on Mann, the IPCC, and climate science, still employed since then. For example, Climategate testimony to the UK Parliament 03/01/10 still cited Wegman. The Panel had none of the attributes claimed. In no sense were its members independent. It far exceeded its charter. It relied heavily on information via Barton staffer Peter Spencer. It worked with critic McIntyre, but never contacted Mann. Key material even seems plagiarized from Bradley‘s classic Paleoclimatology text, sometimes modified to weaken or even invert its meaning. Unlike the time of the tobacco wars, the media and Internet now amplify anti-science attacks by: (a) enabling a few determined people to divert chosen scientists‘ research time entirely into responding to FOIA requests and personal attacks and (b) inciting harassment of scientists via public outcry, hate mail or threats of violence. This report suggests: Congress should investigate the manufacture and exploitation of the Wegman Report. Such an investigation might well grow into the scope of the 1990s tobacco investigations. It has been suggested that 18.U.S.C §1001 and 18.U.S.C §371 might apply to organized efforts to mislead Congress. As part of that, Congress might investigate the nature of some organizations claiming nonprofit 501(c)3 status. Congress should consider changing FOIA law to preserve appropriate public access, but better differentiate between reasonable requests and unreasonable Internet-amplified harassment. Congress should consider better ways to deal with organized, Internet-amplified defamation campaigns not handled well by current laws. Climate scientists should not face death threats. *Dr. Mashey is an easy-to-Google computer scientist. He has worked with a wide variety of scientists, many of whom use software or hardware he helped create. So do most readers, given software features found on many computers and microprocessors used to implement much of the Internet. In 1988 he cofounded SPEC, which set new standards for disclosure, objectivity and cooperation in (often-contentious) computer performance evaluation, widely used to design computers since. For the last few years he has been involved in climate science, anti-science, and energy issues. Contact: JohnMashey (at) yahoo.com. Permalink: www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony. Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony V1.0 03/15/10 Table of Contents Index to A.2 Funder, A.3 Organization, A.4 Activities, A.7 Individuals ........................................................................ 4 Guide to Reading this Report ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction – Definitions, Science Bypass, Cigarettes, and Climate .................................................................... 7 2 The Machinery of Anti-Science – Laundering Money and Memes........................................................................ 9 3 1988-2010 Overall Chronology Chart .......................................................................................................................... 15 4 1988-1997 IPCC to Kyoto.............................................................................................................................................. 16 4.1 1988-1997 From Creation of the IPCC to the Kyoto Protocol ........................................................................ 16 4.2 Summarized Chronology .......................................................................................................................................... 18 5 1998-2006 From Kyoto to the Wegman Report (S plit in 2 Phases) ................................................................... 19 5.1 1998-2004 American Petroleum Institute and Allies Get New Recruits ....................................................... 19 5.2 Summarized Chronology .......................................................................................................................................... 22 5.3 2005-2006 Wegman Report: Illusion and later Reality .................................................................................... 23 5.4 Summarized Chronology .......................................................................................................................................... 27 6 2007-2010 Crescendo to Climategate ......................................................................................................................... 29 6.1 2007- 2010 Crescendo, Climategate .................................................................................................................. 29 6.2 Summarized Chronology .......................................................................................................................................... 31 7 Suggestions........................................................................................................................................................................... 32 7.1 Congress should investigate the manufacture & exploitation of the Wegman Report................................... 32 7.2 Congress should consider changes to FOIA laws................................................................................................. 32 7.3 Congress should consider ways to handle organized, Internet-amplified defamation ................................... 33 8 Conclusion – Is there a Climate Cons piracy? ............................................................................................................ 34 Acknowledgements; About the Author ................................................................................................................................. 35 Bibliography and Useful Websites .......................................................................................................................................... 36 A.1 Glossary of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 A.2 Funders................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 A.2.1 Corporations (O1) ....................................................................................................................................................... 45 A.2.2 Foundations (O2)......................................................................................................................................................... 47 A.3 Advocacy Organizations (O3-O7), Media (O8-O9), others.................................................................................... 49 A.4 Anti-Science Activities: Project, Petition, Conference, Report, Attack ............................................................. 79 A.5 Internet Amplification of Anti-Science , A Tiny Sample ........................................................................................ 90 A.6 Maps of Funders, Organizations, and People ............................................................................................................ 92 A.6.1 Funders versus Funded Organizations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Andrew Montford's the Hockey Stick Illusion Is One of the Best Science
    Andrew Montford‘s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph. I can remember when I first paid attention to the ―hockey stick‖ graph at a conference in Cambridge. The temperature line trundled along with little change for centuries, then shot through the roof in the 20th century, like the blade of an ice-hockey stick. I had become somewhat of a sceptic about the science of climate change, but here was emphatic proof that the world was much warmer today; and warming much faster than at any time in a thousand years. I resolved to shed my doubts. I assumed that since it had been published in Nature—the Canterbury Cathedral of scientific literature—it was true. I was not the only one who was impressed. The graph appeared six times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)‘s third report in 2001. It was on display as a backdrop at the press conference to launch that report. James Lovelock pinned it to his wall. Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down). Its author shot to scientific stardom. ―It is hard to overestimate how influential this study has been,‖ said the BBC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tropical Skies: Falsifying Climate Alarm (Pdf)
    THE TROPICAL SKIES Falsifying climate alarm John Christy The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Note 17 THE TROPICAL SKIES Falsifying climate alarm John Christy © Copyright 2019 The Global Warming Policy Foundation Contents About the author vi 1 Measuring the greenhouse effect 1 2 The importance of the troposphere 2 3 Another metric 4 4 Hiding the problem 7 About the author Dr John R. Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center, Distinguished Profes- sor of Atmospheric Science and Alabama State Climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where he has been employed for over 30 years. His responsibilities include managing a science centre with over 80 employees, working on several research projects ranging from developing and launching space-based instruments to studying impacts of significant weather events in developing countries, to high-resolution studies of air pollu- tion (air-chemistry and meteorology). His own research concerns developing, constructing and refining global and regional climate data records that can be used to test claims ofcli- mate variability and change and to understand the climate’s sensitivity to various forcing factors. This work has resulted in almost 100 peer-reviewed publications. This paper is based a talk given by Dr Christy at the Palace of Westminster on 8 May 2019. vi 1 Measuring the greenhouse effect When I grew up, science was defined as a method of discovering information. You would make a claim or a hypothesis, and then you would test that claim against independent data. If it failed, you rejected your claim and you started over again.
    [Show full text]
  • The Heartland Institute Under Attack Global Warming Fever Drives Scientists to Desperation
    GREEN WATCH BANNER TO BE INSERTED HERE The Heartland Institute Under Attack Global Warming Fever Drives Scientists to Desperation By Matt Patterson Summary: It was Valentine’s Day, but it was no love letter. On February 14, 2012, renowned environmental scientist Peter Gleick transmitted to a group of liberal bloggers and journalists documents that he obtained from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think-tank specializing in environmental policy. Gleick’s goal: destroy Heartland, a group that has mobilized scien- tists who are skeptical about global warm- ing. Gleick faked his identity and pretended to be a Heartland board member to obtain some of the documents. One of the docu- Dr. Peter Gleick - Thief ments that Gleick sent was a fake, created Yale and received his Ph.D. in Energy and social equity.” In 2010 the Pacifi c by Gleick or parties unknown to prove what and Resources from the University of Institute received more than $2.2 million wasn’t true. Gleick’s reckless, unethical and, California, Berkeley in 1986. He is in grants and contributions from a mix of most likely, criminal action shows just how currently president of the Pacifi c Institute foundations (e.g. Hewlett, Packard, Robert desperate green activists are to prop up their for Studies in Development, Environment, Wood Johnson, Rockefeller Brothers, overblown claims about global warming. and Security, which he co-founded in Rockefeller) and government agencies r. Peter Gleick was a trusted 1987. (e.g. Sacramento County and the Florida and respected scientist, with a Dcareer studded with honors and The Oakland, California-based research May 2012 awards.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 18-1451 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Petitioner, v. MICHAEL E. MANN, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KIMBERLY S. HERMANN HARRY W. MACDOUGALD SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL Counsel of Record FOUNDATION CALDWELL, PROPST & 560 W. Crossville Rd., Ste. 104 DELOACH, LLP Roswell, GA 30075 Two Ravinia Dr., Ste. 1600 Atlanta, GA 30346 (404) 843-1956 hmacdougald@ cpdlawyers.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae June 2019 ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM 1 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, Southeast- ern Legal Foundation (SLF) respectfully moves for leave to file the accompanying amicus curiae brief in support of the Petition. Petitioner has consented to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Respondent Michael Mann has withheld consent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Accordingly, this motion for leave to file is necessary. SLF is a nonprofit, public interest law firm and policy center founded in 1976 and organized under the laws of the State of Georgia. SLF is dedicated to bring- ing before the courts issues vital to the preservation of private property rights, individual liberties, limited government, and the free enterprise system. SLF regularly appears as amicus curiae before this and other federal courts to defend the U.S. Consti- tution and the individual right to the freedom of speech on political and public interest issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy, Hearing
    CLIMATE CHANGE: EXAMINING THE PROCESSES USED TO CREATE SCIENCE AND POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 Serial No. 112–09 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65–306PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY (II) C O N T E N T S Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page Witness List ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Better Science - Where Is the Recent Warming?
    Better Science - Where is the Recent Warming? Two Friends of Science members published the following letters in the Readers’ Forum section of the September 2012 issue of “The PEG Magazine”, the official publication of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). HERE'S SOME BETTER SCIENCE Re: Online Denials Not Well Founded, by J. Edward Mathison, P.Geol., and Let's Get Back to Applying Science, by Joe Green, P.Eng., Readers' Forum, The PEG,April 2012. A return to the appropriate application of science would be most welcome. But how do we define Science? Since the 17th century a scientific method with accepted standards has developed. Researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of observed phenomena and design experimental studies to test them. Fundamental is the principle of full transparency, with data and methodology archived and shared so results can be verified and reproduced independently by other scientists. This has not been the pattern for the climatologists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who have shown a total disregard for these procedures by withholding data, refusing to reveal or discuss methodology, and essentially ignoring evidence contrary to their hypothesis. PhiI Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia has not been forthcoming. Despite numerous freedom of information requests and enquiries, data and its associated methodology have not been fully released for independent due diligence. This is notwithstanding that this is the temperature data set presented as primary evidence of late 20th century warming, and the basis for draconian policy and taxation measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Accommodating Climate Change Science: James Hansen and the Rhetorical/Political Emergence of Global Warming
    Science in Context 26(1), 137–152 (2013). Copyright ©C Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S0269889712000312 Accommodating Climate Change Science: James Hansen and the Rhetorical/Political Emergence of Global War ming Richard D. Besel California Polytechnic State University E-mail: [email protected] Argument Dr. James Hansen’s 1988 testimony before the U.S. Senate was an important turning point in the history of global climate change. However, no studies have explained why Hansen’s scientific communication in this deliberative setting was more successful than his testimonies of 1986 and 1987. This article turns to Hansen as an important case study in the rhetoric of accommodated science, illustrating how Hansen successfully accommodated his rhetoric to his non-scientist audience given his historical conditions and rhetorical constraints. This article (1) provides a richer explanation for the rhetorical/political emergence of global warming as an important public policy issue in the United States during the late 1980s and (2) contributes to scholarly understanding of the rhetoric of accommodated science in deliberative settings, an often overlooked area of science communication research. Standing on the promontory of the rocky rims in Billings, Montana, there is usually a distinct horizontal line between the clear, blue sky and the white, snowcapped Beartooth Mountains. But the summer of 1988 was different. A fuzzy, reddish tint lingered across the once pristine skyline of “Big Sky Country.” The reason: More than one hundred miles to the south, Yellowstone National Park smoldered in one of the most devastating forest fires of the twentieth century (Anon. 1988, A18; Stevens 1999, 129–130).
    [Show full text]
  • The Climategate Inquiries
    T HE CLIMATEGATE INQUIRIES by Andrew Montford SPPI REPRINT SERIES ♦ September 15, 2010 The Climategate Inquiries Andrew Montford Foreword by Lord Turnbull The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Report 1 The Climategate Inquiries The Climategate Inquiries Andrew Montford Foreword by Lord Turnbull We have to take a self-critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the carpet. Some of the inquiries – like in the UK – did exactly the latter. They blew an opportunity to restore trust.1 --Hans von Storch, Professor of Climatology, 2 August 2010 ISBN No. 978-1-906996-26-0 © Copyright 2010, The Global Warming Policy Foundation London SW1Y 5DB, September 2010 1 Von Storch, H. Wir müssen die Herausforderung durch die Skeptiker annehmen. Interview with Daniel Lingenhöhl, Handelsblatt, 2 August 2010. 1 CONTENTS Foreword by Lord Turnbull 3 Summary and Conclusions 6 Part I Introduction 8 Part II The Parliamentary Inquiry 12 Part III The Oxburgh Panel 25 Part IV The Climate Change Emails Review 36 Part V The Penn State Inquiry 50 About the author Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2008), a history of some of the events leading up to the release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He writes a blog specialising in climate change issues at http://bishop-hill.net and has made many media appearances discussing global warming from a sceptic perspective. Lord Turnbull Andrew Turnbull was Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05.
    [Show full text]
  • Ngeo170 Commentary.Indd
    COMMENTARY To blog or not to blog? GAVIN SCHMIDT is at the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies Columbia University 2880 Broadway, New York, New York 10025, USA; co-founder of RealClimate.org. e-mail: [email protected] Scientists know much more about their fi eld than is ever published in peer-reviewed journals. Blogs can be a good medium with which to disseminate this tacit knowledge. ike it or not, there are certain important from a quick skim of the lively. However, this kind of informal scientific areas, such as climate methodology, a figure or two and the second-stage peer review is vital to change, stem-cell research, principal results. Their experience the need to quickly process the vast genetic modification of food teaches them to pay little attention to amount of information being produced. L or evolution, that attract a the occasional piece of overreach in Scientists from all fields rely on it heavily disproportionate amount of public the last paragraph and to fill in the to make a first cut between the studies attention. This is usually because they are sometimes understated background. that are worth reading in more detail and perceived to have relevance for strongly By contrast, a lay person might focus those that aren’t. held ethical, economic, moral or political much more on the easy-to-understand Scientists writing in blogs can make beliefs. Scientific results in these fields ‘throwaway’ comments, and spend little this context available to anyone who is are therefore parsed extremely closely to time evaluating the usefulness of the interested.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Transcript of Inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 Pm
    social epistemology, 2000, vol. 14, nos. 2}3, 131–180 A public debate on the science of global warming: is there su¶ cient evidence which proves we should limit greenhouse gas emissions because of climate change? Full transcript of inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 pm. JAMES E. HANSEN (aµ rmative) PATRICK J. MICHAELS (negative) 1. Moderator’s introductory remarks Dr Gordon R. Mitchell : … You know, it’s been said that rhetoric of science is nothing more than a bunch of covert neo-Aristotelians blowing hot air. Tonight, we plan to test that hypothesis when AARST hosts a public debate about global warming. Before the evening’s arguments cool o¶ , it is our hope that some of the heat and the light produced by this debate will start to melt away a few of the doubts that the rhetoric of science enterprise is a rare ed and detached scholarly project, of little relevance to con- temporary science policy discussions … But before I lay out tonight’s debate format and introduce the participants, I want to talk brie y about the origins of this event. At last year’s AARST preconference gathering in Chicago, Michael Hyde and Steve Fuller issued a charge to those gathered in the audience. This charge basically involved a call for relevance, a plea for ‘measurable outcomes ’ and ‘public engagement ’ in rhetoric of science scholarship. This call to action resonated deeply with my own political commitments, because I believe that privileged members of the academy shoulder a double-sided obligation.
    [Show full text]
  • Albert Jacobs
    Climate Science Newsletters By: Albert Jacobs ___________________________________________________________________________ CliSci # 82 2011-12-21 Four Sceptic Scientists testify before the Canadian Senate Committee. The Senate Energy & Environment Committee Hearing with Drs. Ross McKitrick, Ian Clark, Jan Veizer and Tim Patterson took place on December 15th 2011. The video is now on YouTube at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW19pPFfIyg#t=65> ------------------------------ The COP 17 aftermath The conclusions of COP 17 are found on <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011//eng/l04.pdf> In the words of Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director: “The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get- out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak,” “Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade. This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.” And on December 12th: <http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/12/canada-formally-withdrawig-from- kyoto-protocol/> Canada put a full stop after Jean Chrétien’s folly. We do not quote DeSmogBlog very often, but they seem to have blown their top: " Canada's decision to turn its back on its international obligations confirms yet again that Stephen Harper and his carbon cronies are securing a hellish future for generations to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenp Eace.Org /Kochindustries
    greenpeace.org/kochindustries Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization that acts to expose global environmental problems and achieve solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. Published March 2010 by Greenpeace USA 702 H Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 Tel/ 202.462.1177 Fax/ 202.462.4507 Printed on 100% PCW recycled paper book design by andrew fournier page 2 Table of Contents: Executive Summary pg. 6–8 Case Studies: How does Koch Industries Influence the Climate Debate? pg. 9–13 1. The Koch-funded “ClimateGate” Echo Chamber 2. Polar Bear Junk Science 3. The “Spanish Study” on Green Jobs 4. The “Danish Study” on Wind Power 5. Koch Organizations Instrumental in Dissemination of ACCF/NAM Claims What is Koch Industries? pg. 14–16 Company History and Background Record of Environmental Crimes and Violations The Koch Brothers pg. 17–18 Koch Climate Opposition Funding pg. 19–20 The Koch Web Sources of Data for Koch Foundation Grants The Foundations Claude R. Lambe Foundation Charles G. Koch Foundation David H. Koch Foundation Koch Foundations and Climate Denial pg. 21–28 Lobbying and Political Spending pg. 29–32 Federal Direct Lobbying Koch PAC Family and Individual Political Contributions Key Individuals in the Koch Web pg. 33 Sources pg. 34–43 Endnotes page 3 © illustration by Andrew Fournier/Greenpeace Mercatus Center Fraser Institute Americans for Prosperity Institute for Energy Research Institute for Humane Studies Frontiers of Freedom National Center for Policy Analysis Heritage Foundation American
    [Show full text]