Corporate Lies

The study by Anderegg, et al that found that 98% of all qualified professionals agree that CO2 emitted by humans is causing global warming was conducted because the authors already knew that public opinion on climate change is much more divided than the scientific community.


Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC.  A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.  Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

The mission of this entire website is essentially to underscore that finding, and show how it is true for each specific new "controversy" as it pops up, whether in climate science or climate policy and energy policy.

Two oil companies, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, have funded the vast majority of "research" disputing the scientific consensus published periodically by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Of these two, Koch Industries is the lesser known and by far the more prolific spender on climate science denial propaganda and anti-climate bribery.  They do so indirectly, through a vast web of "think" tanks and pseudo-scientific front groups, and even a few faux environmentalist front groups.  They have recently become fairly well known, at least to Liberals and Progressives, as the teabaggers' sugar daddy, leading to the pejorative "Kochsuckers" for the activists they fund.

The overarching goal of this section will be to lay out a case that Eric Holder could win in front of the Supreme Court, proving that those two companies and several other coal and petroleum companies and trade groups have been falsifying evidence that carbon dioxide emissions do not cause devastating and ever-worsening side effects to the global climate, and therefore are guilty of criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States of billions of dollars annually in direct subsidies, targeted tax exemptions and lackadaisical enforcement of environmental laws.

Subpages (2): "Think" Tanks Willie Soon