Skip to main content

Okay, so you finally got the damn degree, but you're over a hundred grand in debt and your dick of a supervisor at KFC won't give you more hours. What are you going to do? Ask Mom for a loan? Sell your gold for cash? Walk the streets?

No! Right now, thanks to infamous petroleum giants David and Charles Koch, there is another option. If you want your debts paid off and maybe have a little foldin' cash (say, a million or so) to play around with all you have to do is DENY CLIMATE CHANGE!

Step through the orange gas cloud below. It's safe! Trust me...

Okay, first of all I have to acknowledge that David and Charles Koch have had a bad year. First of all, their little Florida voter purge scheme basically failed on every level, unsuccessful not only in electing Mitt Romney president but also santorum-ing the bed when it came to turning Florida even the faintest shade of pink.

Plus there was that extremely embarrassing incident where climate change denier, physics professor Richard A. Muller, finally joined the 20th century when he stated that his Koch-funded climate change research actually DID prove that the earth was warming and that human activity was responsible for it. I think Dr. Muller can now count on no longer being invited to future secret, invitation-only, koffee klatches. with Davy and Chuck and the rest of the Koch heads.

Oh, plus there was a record-shattering drought last year that brought triple-digit heat across most of the US for months at a time. That really brought climate change home for Americans. As of now, only 30% of all Americans deny climate change. That's the lowest number in history. Compare that to the 48% of Americans who believe in ghosts. Believe me when I say that climate change denial is, well, evaporating quicker than Arctic summer ice.

You'd think that with the embarrassment of Dr. Muller the Koch brothers would at least have the decency to admit that climate change is real.... but you'd think wrong. The Koch brothers are still denying climate change and funding bogus studies which falsely claim that renewable energy isn't efficient.

But here's the good news for you, Mr. I-have-a-Phd-now-but-still-can't-afford-to-move-out-of-Mom's-basement. The Koch brothers have been spending loads of money on right-wing programs at such staunchly conservative institutions as Utah State and West Virginia University. What is more surprising is that Brown University has ALSO been receiving money from the Koch Brothers. This is Brown University, remember.... the Marxist-Communist Pro-Obama Prius-driving dope-smoking dares-to-see-women-as-more-than-walking-wombs bugaboo university that ranks only behind Berkeley when it comes to the amount of angry words it receives whenever "The National Review" goes on its usual "conservatives are getting short-changed on college campuses" whine-a-thon. Still, despite being a target of the right-wing intellectual magazine that dared to print Charlotte Allan's eloquent words condemning the 6-year-old victims of the Newtown massacre, ... Brown University has shown itself to not be above receiving a little green from the most anti-green source available:

The Charles Koch Foundation funds the Political Theory Project at Brown, which provides funding for “Seminar Luncheons for undergraduates, academic conferences, research fellowships for graduate students, support for faculty research, and a postdoctoral fellowship program.” Amity Shales, a pop-conservative writer who argues that the New Deal made the Great Depression worse, an odd theory promoted by Charles Koch himself, has been a featured speaker at the Koch-funded Project at Brown. Moreover, Koch’s donation of at least $419,254 to Brown has underwritten a number of research projects in the Economics and Political Science deparments, including a paper arguing that bank deregulation has helped the poor.
Of course none of this money goes specifically towards denying climate change... though Lord knows it hasn't been through lack of trying! The problem for Koch-sniffers hoping to get some of that delicious petroleum moolah is that scientific evidence that goes against the irrefutable facts involving human-triggered climate change is ... well, such evidence isn't there.

Nevertheless this is the Age of Information, so for every ten-thousand studies showing the appalling consequences of global warming there is bound to be one quirky little study showing some quibbling detail that might, if you squint a bit, give the illusion that climate change isn't really happening.

Have you found evidence that California's Mt. Shasta's glaciers are growing? Publish it! Never mind that 90% of the world's glaciers are in retreat! Your gorgeous Mt. Shasta glacier report could potentially earn you a nice check from Les Freres Koch. Have you found evidence that Antarctic ice is thickening? Is the Sahara turning green? Has there been a lot of snow lately? Such news can make a Koch positively tumescent with delight! Well, if you rub your Koches the right way, you could parlay that cherry-picked data into some serious payout! Who cares if Greenland is basically gone now?

David and Charles Koch are both in their seventies anyway so they'll be long dead before the Earth is entirely roasted. Plus you'll be sitting on a stack of their moolah while typing studies showing that ice caps are expanding while the rest of us schlubs wilt in 150 degree weather. "But- but all your data concerns only Martian ice caps!" We'll whine... but in the end we'll be losing because we selfishly clung to our integrity instead of boarding the climate change denial money train.

Originally posted to eowynsdottir on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 05:30 AM PST.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots, Climate Hawks, and Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Holy fuck, I'm an alum (13+ / 0-)

    I'm writing a letter write now!  Wow.  Thank you for letting me know.

  •  don't waste time on a real degree (11+ / 0-)

    why spend 4 years undergrad and then an additional 4-7 years doing grad and postgrad just to graduate $100K in debt in a field where there were 3 job openings the last decade?

    There are plenty of universities which grant advanced degrees based on "life experience" and "employment history" to get some of those pesky pre-reqs out of the way.  Sure they are either nonaccredited or accredited by some screwball agency but who checks a CV anymore and there are now tons of universities offering advanced degrees where once there were only a few.

    If you can pony up $5000-$15000 (lot less than $100K for non-math majors) and have six months to spend on a PhD you too can be a Dr!  Better yet, you might could land that job or at least impress the neighbors and relatives (which is why people get a PhD, right?) Better yet, you can now qualify for some of the climate denial lucre.  After all, you will have the paperwork and Dr. to make you an "expert".  After all, one "leading climate change critic's" main credential seems to be he is an English lord.  To be sure a quickie PhD trumps that (and who can turn down a quickie?)

      •  I just spit coffee all over my computer! (5+ / 0-)

        ...and the cat.

        Good one.

      •  Don't laugh; I know somebody who tried that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        He's not a friend; let's just say that we have tried to do business together and ended up with some serious disputes.  This guy owns some businesses and while middle-aged, went to a very, uh, undistinguished law school and picked up a degree.  A couple of years later he opened up a law school of his own!  Not in his state of residence, but in California.  The law school was virtual, just a web server.  The courses were on line.  In California, apparently it's legal to run a 4-year "read for the bar" (or some such term) program that allows its graduates to take the bar exam.  This is in lieu of a normal 3-year law school.  So an on-line study program could be a substitute for a brick-and-mortar school.  The funniest thing was how, as "dean", he said that his door was always open.  Not noting that it was on the other side of the country.  The good news, though, is that the scheme failed and he closed the "school" down within months of opening it. I wonder if he fleeced anyone along the way.

        So if Orly wanted to open one on those terms, she legally could.  California just has no stanadards.

        •  California has standards (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          K S LaVida, JerryNA

          Standards for auto emissions; standards for labeling housewares that contain lead; we even give standard human rights to transgender people.

          But standards for lawyers? Not so much because -- well, how could anybody tell a bad lawyer from the rest? We don't have standards for shrinks either, for the same reasons. So lawyers and shrinks can come from online universities. We are even cranking out PhDs in Forensic Psychology from online schools. The for-profit prison industry -- which owns the county supervisors of San Diego -- loves it when incompetent people are on the public defender team.

          •  "Family Chiropractic" -- for no-immunization (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and no-medicine tom foolery. Insane expansions of the "chiropractic" label to cover damn near any whackery.

            And that's legal. 100%.

            "Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Army Attorney to Sen. McCarthy, 1954. "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012.

            by bontemps2012 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:55:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Another unexpected consequence (10+ / 0-)

    of the economic downturn!  Keep people in precarious employment predicament so they are too timid to speak up, or too overwhelmed to take the time to protest.  Now, they have a way to "buy" the information they want.  Interesting....

    "The light which puts out our sight is darkness to us." Thoreau

    by NancyWH on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 06:31:12 AM PST

  •  Great writing! (5+ / 0-)

    Many are called to attempt humor but few succeed!

  •  Whenever Boenher says "the American people want" (14+ / 0-)

    ... as the preamble to almost every sentence, I am reminded that to Republicans, "the American people" really means "David and Charles Koch."

    Why so coy, Republicans"? Think we don't know, or your knee jerk obeisance is the new "love that dare not speak its name"? No one is fooled.  Just say "Dave and Chuck want."

  •  HERE I AM...A Ph.D. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Guyer

    Read  your post with great excitement....sat thinking could I do it?  Participant observation perhaps?  An anthropologial, multi-level study of anti-climate change thought?  Nope.  Integrity and human subjects protection got in my way.  But wait...maybe they are not REALLY human.  Hmmmm.

  •  I don't understand the outrage at the publication (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ozy, ocschwar

    of a result showing Shasta's glaciers are growing.  If they are growing (and Lonnie Thompson seems to admit that), why not publish it?

    Until recently, the same phenomenon that is benefiting Shasta's glaciers was feeding glacier growth in southern Norway and Sweden, the New Zealand Alps and northern Pakistan, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    The last item was even in IPCC.

    There are good physical reasons that some glaciers will grow.  Even Antarctica has a growing area of its ice cap, due to extra snowfall from the increased water vapor in the atmosphere.  None of this denies climate change.

    Are you implying that any evidence which might contradict your expectation that all glaciers are disappearing should be suppressed?  That is not science.  That's dogma.

    We will never be free from fear as long as we fear the NRA.

    by captainlaser on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:48:55 AM PST

    •  Not only does it not disprove climate change, (0+ / 0-)

      it supports it. The increased water vapor in the air occurs specifically because the air is warmer. Also, in some locations lakes that normally would have frozen over stay open during the winter, and add moisture to the air increasing local snowfalls.

      Much of Antarctica is a desert precisely because the air is so cold. Warming of that air will enhance precipitation and growth of ice/glaciers, at least in some areas. Other areas of the continent, generally around the edges, that are already a bit warmer will lose ice from increased melting.

    •  It's not the data that's the problem; it's the (3+ / 0-)

      interpretation.  Of course, most of the time the misinterpretation is the responsibility of the right-wing fossil-fuel/media complex.  But sometimes it's a sin of omission or even commission by the researchers -- a.k.a., shills.  

      •  There is no proof that the Associate Prof (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheOpinionGuy, ocschwar

        who wrote the article on Shasta is a "shill'.

        Unless the author has something specific to state that the work was funded by Koch or global warming deniers, a pretty broad and indiscriminate brush was used in painting this picture.

        And having your research painted as "anti-climate change" can be pretty disheartening to a young scientist.  We should be careful that this type of criticism doesn't bring exactly the wrong result and create more John Christies or Ross McKinnons.

        We will never be free from fear as long as we fear the NRA.

        by captainlaser on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 03:31:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry Assistant Professor of Earth Scientists (0+ / 0-)

          Even younger.

          We will never be free from fear as long as we fear the NRA.

          by captainlaser on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 03:32:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, I'll explain. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DocGonzo, DuzT

          I did not mean to imply in ANY way that the scientists who put together the Mt. Shasta glacier studies, Antarctic ice thickening studies or the greening Sahara studies were in any way putting forward false work or manipulating data for political/financial purposes.

          All those studies, like the countless studies showing glacial retreat, global warming, etc.,... were honest studies showing verifiable phenomena. HOWEVER, such studies- because they WERE conducted by distinguished and accredited ecologists- can be used by climate change deniers to "prove" that climate change wasn't happening.

          Cherry-picking data is an old trick that climate change deniers have used for many years now. Even if the temperatures have been rising steadily over the last decade there will always be some town, some county, some city in a mountain shadow that will show a slight decrease in temperature. That doesn't mean that the scientists tracking the temperatures are dishonest- NO!- but it does mean that the data is vulnerable to deliberate misinterpretation by non-scientific, politically-biased people. "Moosejaw, Minnesota went down by 0.05 degrees in the last half century- so global warming is a fraud!" That sort of thing.

          It's true that I painted with a pretty broad brush in this diary, but that's only because I wanted to be funny. The last thing Kos needs, IMO, is another grim, leaden, we're-all-gonna-die-and-nobody-cares climate change diary. I was just trying to lighten things up.

    •  It's not a question of admitting... (0+ / 0-)

      There has been a 2-3 degC rise in temperature in the Mt> Shasta leading to increased snowfall. So Mt. Shasta glaciers are growing. But, a little more warming, and they'll start retreating like the other 95% of glaciers in the world.
        Stating something is different from "admitting" something.

  •  How do you think they got all those supply side (0+ / 0-)



    Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

    by meatballs on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 11:42:02 AM PST

    •  Bingo. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Selection of data for their models beggared my economics vocabulary. "Dishonest" doesn't cut it.

      "Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Army Attorney to Sen. McCarthy, 1954. "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012.

      by bontemps2012 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:57:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Silly, all the money is pro-climate change. (0+ / 0-)

    $400k?  Phil Jones got somewhere north of $19 million at the CRU.

    NASA's climate program is around $1.3 billion by itself.  The Carbon Sequestration project at Teapot Dome got around $291.3 million last year.

    •  That's quite true, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheOpinionGuy, DocGonzo, DuzT

      However the point of this diary is to show the DISPROPORTIONATE amount of money invested in climate change.

      Assuming that the investment in pro-climate change science totals about 2 billion dollars (I think it's somewhat less than that but I think better in round numbers) and that about 98% of scientists worldwide believe that climate change is real... that comes to about 21 million dollars per 1% of pro-climate change scientists.

      So for the 2% of scientists that don't believe in climate change, the money should figure at about 42 million dollars. Yet the Koch brothers ALONE (remember, the Koch brothers aren't the only industry leaders who support anti-green agendas) have pumped over 60 million dollars into climate change denial studies.

      Remember, evidence that goes against the overwhelming proof of climate change is scarce,... and there are a lot of VERY rich people desperate for any information that can help them push climate change denial onto the American public.

      •  Sorry again, correction: (0+ / 0-)

        "However the point of this diary is to show the DISPROPORTIONATE amount of money invested in climate change denial."

        Sorry, that badly-written first sentence sort of destroyed my argument over the next two paragraphs. :-(

        Ah well.

  •  WVUs professors would publish a paper... (0+ / 0-)

    ...saying that combustion causes global warming if the fuel being burned is an old couch in the street.

    9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

    by varro on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 02:47:13 PM PST

  •  if stud&faculty demanded separation from RW radio (0+ / 0-)

    in the 70+ universities that support 170 plus limbaugh/GW denying radio stations (see sig) the kochs would have diddley.

    it is those community-dominating radio stations, piggybacking uni sports programs for community cred and ad dollars that do global warming denial 24/7 that make the difference and enable this bullshit.

    student activists and student groups working on climate change at those universities are wasting their time and donations if they allow their unis to make a joke of their mission statements and endorse the global warming denial coming from the local RW radio stations.

    but they do because like all dem and liberal and environmental orgs the last 25 years they have no clue how badly those radio stations are kicking their ass.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 06:30:57 PM PST

  •  Ten thousand year of human struggle (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Citizen, DocGonzo, DuzT

    ending in a planet of deserts, because a few families control all the messages.

    It probably won't be the first time this has happened; the planet is sprinkled with remains of dead civilizations once run by wealthy elites. But it will be the first time it has happened to the whole planet.

    Sadly, human "intelligence" is mostly the "ability" to be programmed by social messages to do any asinine thing the social programmers want. In short term -- measured in handfuls of generations -- that "ability" produces what we call "civilizations". But in longer term, it usually produces biological depletion and collapse. So long as these collapse were regional, the process could repeat somewhere else. But once the collapse is global, it is probably going to self-select out of Earth's evolution this largely mindless programmablity we call "human intelligence".

    The Kochs are the face of what is wrong with us as a species: they are the human Nemesis. Unless we can cure ourselves of producing Kochs -- and do so very, very quickly -- this disease will terminate our evolutionary experiment.

    All human religions and philosophies have inveighed against this disease of greed for as long as we have records -- yet it is killing us even more evidently today than at any previous time. We can't claim we weren't warned.

    •  First Time? (0+ / 0-)

      I won't be at all surprised to learn that several of the past global climate changes were due to human action. The change to an oxygenated atmosphere by cyanobacteria was a catastrophic climate change caused by a single species or a small group of related ones.

      If humans in middle latitudes caused one or more of the previous ice ages, or earlier climate changes in the earlier part of the ~7 million years since we diverged from our common ancestor with the other apes, it's entirely possible the evidence was destroyed by the resulting changes, like mile-thick continent-scale glaciers, continent-wide wildfires, deep coastal inundations from sealevel rise.

      Indeed the Atlantis myth (among other flood myths) sounds more and more like a flat island civilization that caused sealevel rise, wiping itself out and covering the relics. Submerged Mediterranean ruins are only now being discovered. Deep desert ruins only now being noticed in satellite imagery. We have stumbled across only the tip of the punny iceberg in our archaelogy, and only in this generation started to carry the context of climate change into our recognition of the consequences of ancient lifestyles.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:49:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The thought of tumescent Kochs is not very... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DuzT, snowwoman, rovertheoctopus

    ...edifying, I must say.

    "Believe me when I say that climate change denial is, well, evaporating quicker than Arctic summer ice."

    True. But there is denial and there is denial. While we have ever more believers, we still don't have big-time action.

    And failure to act is a big-time problem: Delay is denial.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:13:26 AM PST

  •  In the past we had "experts".... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    saying tobacco wasn't harmful. leaded gasoline and paints were A-OK, thalidomide was safe for pregnant women etc..
    Today we have "experts" saying GMO foods are harmless, high fructose corn syrup is just like sugar, frakking is perfectly safe, cannabis is as dangerous as meth and, yes, human-caused climate change is a hoax.
    So I'll take my "experts" with a grain of salt, thank you very much.

    I can see Canada from my house. No, really, I can.

    by DuzT on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:30:02 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site