150 world leaders are gathered in Paris for what promises to be ground-breaking climate talks. Meanwhile, Charles and David Koch continue a selfish, profit-motivated campaign promoting climate change denial. Over the years, the two brothers have spent tens of millions of dollars bankrolling a misinformation campaign that aims to advance their polluting business interests over the health and public welfare of the American people.
The Kochs’ known influence in climate change denial circles has been anecdotal for some time, but a new scientific study published last week proves that their corporate influence has created polarization in public debate despite the fact that the scientific community is largely in agreement on climate change. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which examined the efforts backed by 164 groups funded through the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil, finds:
[O]rganizations with corporate funding were more likely to have written and disseminated texts meant to polarize the climate change issue. Second, and more importantly, that corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, and the discursive prevalence of that thematic content over time. These findings provide new, and comprehensive, confirmation of dynamics long thought to be at the root of climate change politics and discourse.
In short, the Kochs and their big oil allies are using their millions to advance a climate change narrative that supports their own corporate interests in opposition to fact-based science.
Earlier this year, Inside Climate News reported that ExxonMobil recognized the reality of global warming as early 1977 and in the subsequent years “put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed.” These reports have led the New York attorney general to launch an investigation into what Exxon knew about climate change and when.
What does that have to do with the Kochs? Charles and David Koch’s anti-science propaganda peddling is even more prolific: “[F]rom 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups,” according to a 2010 report from the New Yorker, citing a University of Massachusetts at Amherst study. From 1997 to 2010, the Kochs — “one of the country’s biggest polluters” — “spent more than $48.5 million…to fund [climate change] disinformation.”
But beyond the tens of millions in outsourced climate change misinformation that Charles and David Koch bankroll, they’re public science-deniers in their own right.
Just last week, in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Charles Koch ludicrously suggested that the scientific consensus of climate change is an “anti-science” rejection of the scientific method. Elaborating further, Charles said, “And now we have what Einstein criticized…so-called scientists having a theory and then running around and just finding the pieces that will support it.” Yes, Charles Koch claims to have a better grasp of what constitutes real “science” than the “97% or more” of actively publishing climate scientists” who agree that climate change is a reality.
And then there’s the Kochs’ criminal justice reform PR sham that’s as of late devolved into an effort to protect themselves from legal action. Charles and David are supporting legislation in the House of Representatives that, according to the Huffington Post, would “eliminate a host of white-collar crimes where the damaging acts are merely reckless, negligent or grossly negligent. If enacted, the legislation would make it more difficult for federal authorities to pursue executive wrongdoing, from financial fraud to environmental pollution.” Are the Kochs pursuing leniency towards white collar crimes because they’re afraid state AGs might target them next over climate change denial?
As with any of their advocacy, Charles and David’s efforts to suppress the scientific consensus of climate change is pure self-interest. Any restrictions on emissions or shifts toward alternative energy technologies are a threat against the two brothers’ bottom line — they aren’t going to sit around and let that happen.