Please dude I have posted pleanty of examples that shows it's a big Fucking SCAM, and the links I posted a 4th grader could understand them. Your just to stubborn so you probably din't even read any of the links,but so what.
I can sit on my ass all damn day and post like some peoople can. I actually have a life and a job unlike some people. and I said CARBON DIOXIDE (Co2) not MONOXIDE (CO) I guess your not as smart as you think you are. maybe you need to go back to the PTE and refresh your brain.
this is another example ... CO2 IS TOXIC at concentrations above 1% ... look it up ... like seriously - don't you feel embarassed for yourself posting this stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[2] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.
every single one of your links have been refuted ... just go and peruse your "Busted" thread ... again - go read "trust us, we're experts" ... i suspect you will disappear from this thread as well ...
Oh so just because I don't respond right away I dissapear ? :roll: :roll: What ever Dork.. I told you... I have a life, I can't sit on my ass and post all day long.
So what are the chances of anyone being exposed to high concentrations ??? Slim to none I would bet.
Look Dude. Im sure your a nice person and all but your not going to change my mind. I don't believe in man made climate change and I have posted pleanty of evidence that supports that it's a big scam,and If you don't want to believe it than don't. I could care less..
Oh so just because I don't respond right away I dissapear ? :roll: :roll: What ever Dork.. I told you... I have a life, I can't sit on my ass and post all day long.
So what are the chances of anyone being exposed to high concentrations ??? Slim to none I would bet.
Look Dude. Im sure your a nice person and all but your not going to change my mind. I don't believe in man made climate change and I have posted pleanty of evidence that supports that it's a big scam,and If you don't want to believe it than don't. I could care less..
uhhh ... you were the one who said CO2 wasn't toxic ... i was just refuting your knowledge which is the whole idea here ... if you don't understand that CO2 is indeed toxic then what does that say for your ability to understand climate change ...
the FACT is - you have not sent ANY evidence ... we've read your links and they have all been refuted ... you keep saying follow the money ... you should take your own advice ...
then stop posting your links that ultimately you never back up ... and again - do yourself a favour and read the book i suggested ... if you want everyone to read your links - the least you could do is read a short book ...
If CO2 was that toxic, shoudn't we cut down all the trees.
(I guess anything is toxic in high enough quantities, though).
I, like others, do not believe that climate change (or whatever the current popular name is) is as directly attributable to the actions of humans as some woud try to make us believe.
I don't think it has anything to do with being conservative, though.
I also get confused when some say that the answer to it is to increase taxes. If that's the answer, then can we lower taxes in some other area because the last thing governments need is more money and power?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If CO2 was that toxic, shoudn't we cut down all the trees.
(I guess anything is toxic in high enough quantities, though).
I, like others, do not believe that climate change (or whatever the current popular name is) is as directly attributable to the actions of humans as some woud try to make us believe.
I don't think it has anything to do with being conservative, though.
I also get confused when some say that the answer to it is to increase taxes. If that's the answer, then can we lower taxes in some other area because the last thing governments need is more money and power?
why would we cut down trees when they use carbon dioxide and release oxygen into the air?? its called photosynthesis...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
If CO2 was that toxic, shoudn't we cut down all the trees.
(I guess anything is toxic in high enough quantities, though).
I, like others, do not believe that climate change (or whatever the current popular name is) is as directly attributable to the actions of humans as some woud try to make us believe.
I don't think it has anything to do with being conservative, though.
I also get confused when some say that the answer to it is to increase taxes. If that's the answer, then can we lower taxes in some other area because the last thing governments need is more money and power?
why would we cut down trees when they use carbon dioxide and release oxygen into the air?? its called photosynthesis...
Good point. I'm an idiot.
I do think that the poster who initially brought up CO2 was really talking about CO and that's what the other poster was trying to point out.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I do think that the poster who initially brought up CO2 was really talking about CO and that's what the other poster was trying to point out.
no worries, it's cool man. we all make mistakes at times..i was confused by what was going on about CO and CO2 in the thread for a bit as well, but i think i have it figured out now.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I, like others, do not believe that climate change (or whatever the current popular name is) is as directly attributable to the actions of humans as some woud try to make us believe.
unfortunately i doubt you have any scientific backing to support your belief ... the debate on whether it is caused by man was held a decade ago ... we are long past that now ...
Quick!! Everybody stop breathing!! You're contributing to Global Warming and we're all going to die!!
Stop farting too.....methane is also a greenhouse gas....BTW, we all die in the end. :twisted:
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Quick!! Everybody stop breathing!! You're contributing to Global Warming and we're all going to die!!
Stop farting too.....methane is also a greenhouse gas....BTW, we all die in the end. :twisted:
stop farting ???? NOOOOOOOOO ! farts are funny....tell me you don't laugh when your grandmother farted
and had that look of surprise on her face like she didn't mean to
Oh so just because I don't respond right away I dissapear ? :roll: :roll: What ever Dork.. I told you... I have a life, I can't sit on my ass and post all day long.
So what are the chances of anyone being exposed to high concentrations ??? Slim to none I would bet.
Look Dude. Im sure your a nice person and all but your not going to change my mind. I don't believe in man made climate change and I have posted pleanty of evidence that supports that it's a big scam,and If you don't want to believe it than don't. I could care less..
uhhh ... you were the one who said CO2 wasn't toxic ... i was just refuting your knowledge which is the whole idea here ... if you don't understand that CO2 is indeed toxic then what does that say for your ability to understand climate change ...
the FACT is - you have not sent ANY evidence ... we've read your links and they have all been refuted ... you keep saying follow the money ... you should take your own advice ...
then stop posting your links that ultimately you never back up ... and again - do yourself a favour and read the book i suggested ... if you want everyone to read your links - the least you could do is read a short book ...
There are millions of things that are toxic in high concentrated levels im sure,but if CO2 was that toxic wouldn't you die when you sucked face with your mate. Or when groups of people are confined to one area like on a bus or a indoor concert ?
I don't neeed to back the links up cos they back themselves up. It's pretty clear to me that you probably didn't read any of them. Which is fine because no matter how much evidence comes out or when Someone says that they were wrong in there findings it still won't matter to you.
Tell you what, If you send me the book I will read it.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
There are millions of things that are toxic in high concentrated levels im sure,but if CO2 was that toxic wouldn't you die when you sucked face with your mate. Or when groups of people are confined to one area like on a bus or a indoor concert ?
I don't neeed to back the links up cos they back themselves up. It's pretty clear to me that you probably didn't read any of them. Which is fine because no matter how much evidence comes out or when Someone says that they were wrong in there findings it still won't matter to you.
Tell you what, If you send me the book I will read it.
exactly - so, what is your point of saying CO2 isn't toxic? ... it's secondary to climate change anyways - it just goes to show that you really don't understand the science ...
uhhh - if you go back to your thread - you will see that many of your links were read ... people made an effort but you don't ever defend them because again - you don't understand what is being discussed ... all you do is post link after link without even understanding what is being discussed ...
if you EVER post a link with legitimate information - we will listen ... unfortunately you are like 0 for 100 or something ...
also again - if you really care about the subject you would educate yourself ... and you will read the book i suggested because you are a textbook example of who these lobbyists/PR companies target (follow the money - your own advice) ...
ugh seriously fuck the debate on climate change.
its useless, there will always be people who deny any fault that they have fucked up this planet.
climate change is only ONE facet of this... I'll go out on a limb and make an assumption here:
we didn't have depleted oceans 2 million years ago, we didn't have poisoned rivers 2 million years ago, we didn't have landfills 2 million years ago seeping into the water, we didn't have elephants dying with removed tusks 2 million years ago...
simply put, people say climate change is a lie so they don't have to be responsible for ANYTHING on this planet.
here's some news for you, we're just killing ourselves. the planet will recover and be fine well after our species is gone.
I'm not a conservative and I do not believe in man made climate change. I believe there is change but it is due to the earths natural state and not us. I think we are giving ourselves way to much credit to be able to fuck up the worlds climate.
I'm not a conservative and I do not believe in man made climate change. I believe there is change but it is due to the earths natural state and not us. I think we are giving ourselves way to much credit to be able to fuck up the worlds climate.
uhhh ... libertarian? ... we fucked up everything else - what makes you think we can't fuck up the climate?
I'm not a conservative and I do not believe in man made climate change. I believe there is change but it is due to the earths natural state and not us. I think we are giving ourselves way to much credit to be able to fuck up the worlds climate.
uhhh ... libertarian? ... we fucked up everything else - what makes you think we can't fuck up the climate?
Because you can't fuck with Mother Nature....
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
uhh ... we've polluted rivers and oceans killing all kinds of marine life and making people sick ... we've sent species into extinction ... the list goes on ... we are destroying mother nature ...
Well actually if you want to split hairs and be very technical, mother nature will merely be in a different, altered form once the human specifics is gone.
uhh ... we've polluted rivers and oceans killing all kinds of marine life and making people sick ... we've sent species into extinction ... the list goes on ... we are destroying mother nature ...
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Well actually if you want to split hairs and be very technical, mother nature will merely be in a different, altered form once the human specifics is gone.
uhh ... we've polluted rivers and oceans killing all kinds of marine life and making people sick ... we've sent species into extinction ... the list goes on ... we are destroying mother nature ...
uhhh ... i'm pretty sure mother nature is pissed now ... the giver of life does not appreciate having her life forms suffering ...
Well you make it seem as if mature nature is a person with feelings, thoughts or similar... when in fact it is a mere process of science - from the biggest to the smallest things.
uhhh ... i'm pretty sure mother nature is pissed now ... the giver of life does not appreciate having her life forms suffering ...
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I'm not a conservative and I do not believe in man made climate change. I believe there is change but it is due to the earths natural state and not us. I think we are giving ourselves way to much credit to be able to fuck up the worlds climate.
uhhh ... libertarian? ... we fucked up everything else - what makes you think we can't fuck up the climate?
No not a Libertarian, I actually lean Left on most issues but I just can't seem to buy into the climate. There is just not enough data for me. I think this planet is on it's own scedule and we are just along for the ride.
No not a Libertarian, I actually lean Left on most issues but I just can't seem to buy into the climate. There is just not enough data for me. I think this planet is on it's own scedule and we are just along for the ride.
interesting ... there's plenty of data ... do you believe in the greenhouse effect? ... if so, then you just need to make the connection that of all the variables that affect weather patterns - temperature makes the most influence ... forget about hockey stick graphs and hurricanes ... greenhouse effect and temperature are all you need to understand ...
Well you make it seem as if mature nature is a person with feelings, thoughts or similar... when in fact it is a mere process of science - from the biggest to the smallest things.
Yeah I knew what you meant, but it's nothing more than a euphemism, not actually a Mother of Nature as in a person who's pulling strings. Perhaps in terms of gods from the ancients, that's different, but I highly doubt anyone believes that now.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace
Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'
* John Vidal
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 March 2010
A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.
The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.
Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.
In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists' suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of "spreading inaccurate and misleading information" about climate science and clean energy companies.
"The company's network of lobbyists, former executives and organisations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. The propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and thinktanks," said Greenpeace.
"Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, 'green jobs', renewable energy and climate policy progress," it says.
The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment. All have been involved in "spinning" the "climategate" story or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.
Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.
The majority of the group's assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company's founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.
Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.
Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Koch industries $30m for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters.
"The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political action campaign donations and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the US," Greenpeace said.
A spokeswoman for Koch Industries today defended the group's track record on environmental issues. "Koch companies have consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products," said a statement sent to AFP by Melissa Cohlmia, director of communication. She added: "Based on this experience, we support open, science-based dialogue about climate change and the likely effects of proposed energy policies on the global economy."
Top 10 Koch beneficiaries 2005-2008
Mercatus center: ($9.2m received from Koch grants 2005-2008) Conservative thinktank at George Mason University. This group suggested in 2001 that global warming would be beneficial in winter and at the poles. In 2009 they recommended that nothing be done to cut emissions.
Americans for prosperity. ($5.17m). Have built opposition to clean energy and climate legislation with events across US.
Institute for humane studies ($1.96m). Several prominent climate sceptics have positions here, including Fred Singer and Robert Bradley.
Heritage foundation ($1.62m). Conservative thinktank leads US opposition to climate change science.
Cato Insitute ($1.02m). Thinktank disputes science behind climate change and questions the rationale for taking action.
Manhattan Institute ($800,000). This institute regularly publishes climate science denials.
Washington legal foundation ($655,000) Published articles on the business threats posed by regulation of climate change.
Federalist society for law ($542,000) advocates inaction on global warming
National center for policy analysis ($130,000) NCPA disseminates climate science scepticism.
American council on science and health ($113,800) Has published papers claiming that cutting greenhouse emissions would be detrimental to public health.
also reported today that all scientists associated with "climategate" have been cleared of manipulating or fudging science ... but that is of little consequence to those who think otherwise ...
prove it. prove that man is causing global warming ...oh i mean climate change ...since thats what you are calling it now. in 10 years you'll be saying global cooling....it's all BS and just another way to fuck the middle class.
Comments
Oh so just because I don't respond right away I dissapear ? :roll: :roll: What ever Dork.. I told you... I have a life, I can't sit on my ass and post all day long.
So what are the chances of anyone being exposed to high concentrations ??? Slim to none I would bet.
Look Dude. Im sure your a nice person and all but your not going to change my mind. I don't believe in man made climate change and I have posted pleanty of evidence that supports that it's a big scam,and If you don't want to believe it than don't. I could care less..
uhhh ... you were the one who said CO2 wasn't toxic ... i was just refuting your knowledge which is the whole idea here ... if you don't understand that CO2 is indeed toxic then what does that say for your ability to understand climate change ...
the FACT is - you have not sent ANY evidence ... we've read your links and they have all been refuted ... you keep saying follow the money ... you should take your own advice ...
then stop posting your links that ultimately you never back up ... and again - do yourself a favour and read the book i suggested ... if you want everyone to read your links - the least you could do is read a short book ...
(I guess anything is toxic in high enough quantities, though).
I, like others, do not believe that climate change (or whatever the current popular name is) is as directly attributable to the actions of humans as some woud try to make us believe.
I don't think it has anything to do with being conservative, though.
I also get confused when some say that the answer to it is to increase taxes. If that's the answer, then can we lower taxes in some other area because the last thing governments need is more money and power?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Good point. I'm an idiot.
I do think that the poster who initially brought up CO2 was really talking about CO and that's what the other poster was trying to point out.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
unfortunately i doubt you have any scientific backing to support your belief ... the debate on whether it is caused by man was held a decade ago ... we are long past that now ...
I don't care who ya are that was funny !!!
side note; why are people divided with names like Conservative left right republican Democrat ?
I have always just kinda voted for the best liar or believed what I thought was right and never
considered myself anything but a proud American.
Godfather.
stop farting ???? NOOOOOOOOO ! farts are funny....tell me you don't laugh when your grandmother farted
and had that look of surprise on her face like she didn't mean to
Godfather.
There are millions of things that are toxic in high concentrated levels im sure,but if CO2 was that toxic wouldn't you die when you sucked face with your mate. Or when groups of people are confined to one area like on a bus or a indoor concert ?
I don't neeed to back the links up cos they back themselves up. It's pretty clear to me that you probably didn't read any of them. Which is fine because no matter how much evidence comes out or when Someone says that they were wrong in there findings it still won't matter to you.
Tell you what, If you send me the book I will read it.
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
exactly - so, what is your point of saying CO2 isn't toxic? ... it's secondary to climate change anyways - it just goes to show that you really don't understand the science ...
uhhh - if you go back to your thread - you will see that many of your links were read ... people made an effort but you don't ever defend them because again - you don't understand what is being discussed ... all you do is post link after link without even understanding what is being discussed ...
if you EVER post a link with legitimate information - we will listen ... unfortunately you are like 0 for 100 or something ...
also again - if you really care about the subject you would educate yourself ... and you will read the book i suggested because you are a textbook example of who these lobbyists/PR companies target (follow the money - your own advice) ...
its useless, there will always be people who deny any fault that they have fucked up this planet.
climate change is only ONE facet of this... I'll go out on a limb and make an assumption here:
we didn't have depleted oceans 2 million years ago, we didn't have poisoned rivers 2 million years ago, we didn't have landfills 2 million years ago seeping into the water, we didn't have elephants dying with removed tusks 2 million years ago...
simply put, people say climate change is a lie so they don't have to be responsible for ANYTHING on this planet.
here's some news for you, we're just killing ourselves. the planet will recover and be fine well after our species is gone.
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
uhhh ... libertarian? ... we fucked up everything else - what makes you think we can't fuck up the climate?
uhh ... we've polluted rivers and oceans killing all kinds of marine life and making people sick ... we've sent species into extinction ... the list goes on ... we are destroying mother nature ...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
uhhh ... i'm pretty sure mother nature is pissed now ... the giver of life does not appreciate having her life forms suffering ...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
No not a Libertarian, I actually lean Left on most issues but I just can't seem to buy into the climate. There is just not enough data for me. I think this planet is on it's own scedule and we are just along for the ride.
interesting ... there's plenty of data ... do you believe in the greenhouse effect? ... if so, then you just need to make the connection that of all the variables that affect weather patterns - temperature makes the most influence ... forget about hockey stick graphs and hurricanes ... greenhouse effect and temperature are all you need to understand ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_nature
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace
Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'
* John Vidal
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 March 2010
A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.
The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.
Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.
In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists' suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of "spreading inaccurate and misleading information" about climate science and clean energy companies.
"The company's network of lobbyists, former executives and organisations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. The propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and thinktanks," said Greenpeace.
"Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, 'green jobs', renewable energy and climate policy progress," it says.
The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment. All have been involved in "spinning" the "climategate" story or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.
Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.
The majority of the group's assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company's founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.
Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.
Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Koch industries $30m for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters.
"The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political action campaign donations and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the US," Greenpeace said.
A spokeswoman for Koch Industries today defended the group's track record on environmental issues. "Koch companies have consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products," said a statement sent to AFP by Melissa Cohlmia, director of communication. She added: "Based on this experience, we support open, science-based dialogue about climate change and the likely effects of proposed energy policies on the global economy."
Top 10 Koch beneficiaries 2005-2008
Mercatus center: ($9.2m received from Koch grants 2005-2008) Conservative thinktank at George Mason University. This group suggested in 2001 that global warming would be beneficial in winter and at the poles. In 2009 they recommended that nothing be done to cut emissions.
Americans for prosperity. ($5.17m). Have built opposition to clean energy and climate legislation with events across US.
Institute for humane studies ($1.96m). Several prominent climate sceptics have positions here, including Fred Singer and Robert Bradley.
Heritage foundation ($1.62m). Conservative thinktank leads US opposition to climate change science.
Cato Insitute ($1.02m). Thinktank disputes science behind climate change and questions the rationale for taking action.
Manhattan Institute ($800,000). This institute regularly publishes climate science denials.
Washington legal foundation ($655,000) Published articles on the business threats posed by regulation of climate change.
Federalist society for law ($542,000) advocates inaction on global warming
National center for policy analysis ($130,000) NCPA disseminates climate science scepticism.
American council on science and health ($113,800) Has published papers claiming that cutting greenhouse emissions would be detrimental to public health.