webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

CO2 BS

see coalition

no merri

see plant food ?!

bak 1019

---

3 26 EPSTEIN SPOUTS ~ kRAUSE? DYSON LIKES TOO PLANT FOOD

---

an 4 23 ron johnson

https://www.alternet.org/ron-johnson-climate-change-benefit/

DESMOG MURRAY COAL

March 31, 2020

Robert Murray was included in a list by Rolling Stone in an article titled “Climate Enemies: The Men Who Sold the World.” According to the magazine, “bad actors are not only failing to address the crisis, they’re actively exacerbating it.” The list includes “America’s worst offenders, from fossil-fuel industry magnates, to investment gurus, to the president himself.”63

“Murray’s influence extends beyond his floundering dirty-energy company,” the article states. “For years, he pumped money into a diverse portfolio of conservative groups that continue to push disinformation about the climate crisis. Murray also had an oversize influence on Trump’s climate policy, donating $300,000 to his inaugural committee before handing the president a literal wish list of rollback requests, many of which were dutifully carried out by the administration.”64

December 17, 2019

Murray Energy bankruptcy filings revealed that the energy company, even while undergoing bankruptcy, had continued to fund a wide range of climate change denial groups. That included theInternational Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a group that has closely guarded its funding sources, which received $60,000. Other groups named included the Heartland Institute ($130,000), the Competitive Enterprise Institute ($200,000), and Government Accountability & Oversight ($300,000). Murray’s company also donated $60,000 to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, making it one of the group’s largest donors. See related reporting from The Intercept, Energy and Environment News*, and *The New York Times.65 ^66 ^67

Other groups funded by Murray Energy include FreedomWorks, the Cato Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and Judicial Watch. As The New York Times noted, Murray continued to fund climate change denial even as his company was going bankrupt.

May 31, 2018

Based on a draft Department of Energy (DOE) memo obtained by Bloomberg,the Trump administration was making plans to bail out coal and nuclear plants. This followed more than a year of lobbying by Murray for President Donald Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry to bail out struggling coal plants. *Bloomberg*was the first to report:68 ^69

---

February 23, 2026 — John Hinderaker

Three Cheers for CO2

Featured imageI have been following debates over global warming since the 1990s. In the early days, the oil companies defended themselves both by challenging the bad science underlying the global warming theory and by pointing out the benefits of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. At one time I had a VHS documentary called “The Greening of Planet Earth” on that topic. The benefits of CO2 are indisputable, as anyone who knows »

Read more...39 Responses

NOTE NO MENTION THEY ARE ON FIRE!

Three Cheers for CO2

I have been following debates over global warming since the 1990s. In the early days, the oil companies defended themselves both by challenging the bad science underlying the global warming theory and by pointing out the benefits of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. At one time I had a VHS documentary called “The Greening of Planet Earth” on that topic.

The benefits of CO2 are indisputable, as anyone who knows anything about photosynthesis–i.e. everyone who went to school before the collapse of recent years–will understand. The Sahara Desert is shrinking, while the rain forests are becoming more lush. That is the theme of this article by a NASA scientist: “Satellite record shows boreal forests expanded 12% and shifted north since 1985.” 12% is a lot!

To understand the changing dynamics of boreal forests, Min Feng and colleagues analyzed the biome from 1985 to 2020, leveraging the longest and highest-resolution satellite record of calibrated tree cover to date. The study, published in Biogeosciences with four co-authors from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, confirms a northward shift in boreal forest cover over the past four decades.

The analysis revealed that boreal forests both grew in size and moved northward. The forests expanded by 0.844 million km² (a 12% increase) and shifted northward by 0.29° mean latitude, with gains concentrated between 64°N and 68°N. Their work also showcased the capacity of new growth to act as a carbon sink. Young boreal forests (up to 36 years) hold an estimated 1.1–5.9 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) with the potential to sequester an additional 2.3–3.8 Pg C if allowed to mature.

The data points all align: more CO2 is good for the Earth’s plants, which means it is good for us.

39 Responses

Join the discussion by becoming a VIP member

Comments:

Avatar

ChristopherChantrill

Good to see the experts catching up. In Discordant Harmonies in 1990 Daniel Botkin observed that forests moved north and south with the climate. So stop worrying about CO2!

Avatar

Jo Ponte

If forests are progressing and absorbing more CO2, from the perspective of climate crisis scientists, isn't the planet healing itself? More productive farming, more food for people and animals. Sounds like a win to me.

Avatar

Palmer_in_NC

The genesis of the CO2 tragedy, and a comparison footnote:

  1. Clean Air Act of 1963, a fairly innocuous, well-meaning law meant to address state pollution control.
  2. Amended in 1970. Major rewrite. Federal enforcement.
  3. Formation of EPA by executive order of Richard Nixon in 1970.
  4. Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007. SCOTUS ruled 5-4---liberals + Anthony Kennedy in majority---requiring EPA to determine whether "air pollutants" (as defined by the Clean Air Act, “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical… substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.”) endangered public safety or welfare. Literally anything emitted into ambient air can be called an "air pollutant".
  5. This was the EPA's opening. In 2009, under Barack Obama, Lisa Jackson, the administrator, said essentially, "Yeehaw, heck yeah, let's fundamentally change this place! CO2 is a 'pollutant' as defined by the Clean Air Act. We find that it endangers the climate, causes sea level rise, makes the climate hotter, impacts agriculture, make gorillas angry, etc. etc."
  6. Nevermind that the science was never clear on any of this. For the next 15 years, the energy economy of the United States was impacted in costly, negative ways by a ruling from an unelected, bureaucratic agency, empowered by a left-dominated SCOTUS.

Note: Contrast this deferentiality to an unelected bureaucracy--which cost us $trillions--with the microscope it put an elected president's tariffs under. The inconsistency is notable.

Avatar

JAW3

"Taiga or tayga, also known as boreal forest or snow forest, is a biome characterized by coniferous forests consisting mostly of pines, spruces, and larches. The taiga, or boreal forest, is the world's largest land biome. " This is from Wikipedia and naturally the Wiki nuts assert that Climate change is attacking it.

Avatar

A Cohn

Just a couple of thoughts:

I TRY to breath on my houseplants every day.. They seem to like it!

Avatar

Eric A

Higher CO2 allows plants to thrive with less water, here’s the biological reason: plants breath CO2 in through openings called stoma under their leaves. When starved by low CO2 they open these wider to let in more air, but then more water uselessly evaporates and they have to draw more water through their roots.

But higher CO2 lets plants breathe sufficient CO2 without opening too wide and losing lots of water.

This is why the Sahara desert is starting to green up. It’s a bit of a miracle: thanks to human atmospheric intervention, a desert region is starting to go green.

Avatar

Sotto Voce

District Judge Orders Boreal Forest Returned to Previous Border

Avatar

igotanewname

Well, it’s on stolen land, so…

Avatar

Invisible Ray

I have been following a European group of scientists. Their website is https://clintel.org/ . They have been publishing facts against the Climate Change argument for more than the ten years I have been following them.

Avatar

HdwJunkie

About 2016, NASA published data documenting the increase in global green cover. Then, the increased green area amounted to ~2x the area of the continental US. Over time, this report became very hard to find thru most search engines. The most recent report ups that number to 3x. CO2 is good for plants, and by extension, people.

Avatar

C. Auguste Dupin

You have to give that fat illegitimate grifter Gore credit. As shysters go, he deserves the HRC Nobel prize for lying directly to your face.

Avatar

Invisible Ray

He's still at it!

Avatar

Mike Crognale

There was an article recently that posited that we just barely escaped reducing so called “greenhouse gases” past the tipping point where the planet’s biomass would collapse. Glad to see this article.

Avatar

Lem Motlow

That carbon dioxide is a life-destroying poison is such a nonsensical notion that I have hoped that Herbert Stein's aphorism would eventually triumph: "If something can't go on forever, it won't go on forever."

I have despaired that the climate change folks would belie that notion, but maybe, just maybe...

Avatar

LongRider

They would rather eat dirt than admit they are wrong. Que Gypsy Boots!

Avatar

CorralesDan

But, but, but the science is settled!

Avatar

WildernessLawyer

And “climate change” hits people of color, women, non-binaries and gays hardest.

Avatar

Ba

And tabby cats too!

Avatar

*John Barber

Two things: I heard once and have never been able to verify, but it was said that just prior to the Industrial Revolution there was so little CO2 in the atmosphere that life on earth was on the brink of collapse..

Two: used to live in a small mountain town in So Cal. Really desert in the mountains. Pictures in the 1930 show significantly less trees. Even with drought, bark beetles and fires, there are between 40 and 60% more trees now that in the 1930's I assume there was a similar increase between 1830 & 1930.

Avatar

J Cheever Loophole

I believe the time period of CO2 paucity was a lot longer time ago; possibly five hundred million to one billion years ago. Up until that time, most plants could grow, reproduce and then die but the dead plant matter would not be broken down or decayed by microorganisms. This meant that all of the atmospheric CO2 was gradually being locked up in dead plants. Then, lucky for us today, new forms of fungi evolved that were able to digest the plant matter and produce a surplus of carbon dioxide and restore a sort of equilibrium to the atmosphere.

This bit of science was posted on PLB several years ago during another discussion of "global warming". FWIW during the cretaceous period (66-130 million years ago) CO2 in the atmosphere was 10 times as much as today and surface temperatures were much warmer.

Avatar

Ba

Doubt #1. Life like pur's has a very wide tolerance of atmospheric co2 concentrations. We know that during the cretaceous, with frequent volcanic eruptions, the co2 was very high. I believe that Ds (democrats) have been unearthed from that time. am not sure that the levels threatened dinosaurs or big chucks of volcanics hit them in the head and it was fatal, or meteorites? I do know that they have uncovered evidence of them in the arctic, showing i guess it was once quite warmer, as we know was true from other sources. Dinos do not like the cold. They may have gptten stuck in an arctic freeze. Do not trust anything i tell you about dinosaurs. I mostly make it up as i go along.

Avatar

Jack Hughes

I believe it. Please observe this rule: do not post when drunk.

Avatar

Ba

Please observe this rule - dont make accusations you cant substantiate on PL. if my response about dinosaurs bothered you, ignore it.

Avatar

Wannabe Polemicist

We had a serious denuding of our forests from 1700s to the 1900s. It's not hard to find pictures of whole hillsides of clearcut that are now regrown. Heck, even the New England fall foliage tours are a result of mass tree loss due to a hurricane in the late 1930s.

Avatar

*John Barber

I don't believe there was ever any logging at this location. It went from unsettled, to State Forest to National Forest. But early pictures of the State and County parks were much less forested.

Avatar

Jack Hughes

The northeast was largely denuded of trees by farming, is my understanding; and the regrowth (more trees than in the 19th century, maybe even earlier) seems to be due to lack of farming.

Avatar

MN Steve

Disqus Image

Avatar

Jack Rudd

If I recall correctly, in one of the Star Trek movies "Vger" remarked about the carbon infestation aboard Enterprise.

Avatar

Jack Rudd

"...confirms a northward shift in boreal forest cover over the past four decades."

Did the forests in the southern hemisphere also advance toward the south? One would expect so.

Avatar

Jack Hughes

There is very little land in the southern part of the southern hemisphere. The chief geographical feature is the Great Southern Ocean, which spans the globe at that latitude. The weather is so fierce there (e.g. crossing Cape Horn) because there is no land to form a barrier against the wind.

Avatar

Thomas Paulick

Great to read. Thanks for this report.

Avatar

The EZ Rider

It's good to see NASA scientists finally come clean on the global warming scam after decades of promoting it. Another Trump triumph. How these supposed scientists, with the help of the leftist media and mendacious NGOs managed to persuade the world that the stuff coming out of our lungs is poison, is a feat Goebbels would have envied.

Avatar

Ba

Yes these folks were not on the forefront of truth for many years. Better late than never.

Avatar

Jack Rudd

"...more CO2 is good for the Earth’s plants, which means it is good for us."

Well, within reason that's true. It wouldn't be true at a concentration of 50%.

Avatar

The EZ Rider

So would water and a lot of other beneficial substances. If this was meant as a joke, it's lame. If it's meant as a serious comment it's not terribly astute.

Avatar

Jack Rudd

Thanks for the feedback.

Avatar

MN Steve

Yes. But it’s currently at something around 0.05%, so I’m not worried.

Avatar

Steven James Piet

It is critical to point out that more plants absorb more CO2, which means that this increase in plant mass moderates whatever warming is caused by CO2. The planet is resilient; the models only capture some of the many feedbacks. The biology and water vapor feedbacks are particularly suspect.

Avatar

Ba

And evapotranspiration is a cooling process

---

8 23 snapshot

https://www.mediamatters.org/climate-deniers/15-nonsensical-comments-made-right-wing-media-during-2023s-summer-climate-fueled

15 nonsensical comments made by right-wing media during 2023’s summer of climate-fueled extreme weather events

Special PROGRAMS

CLIMATE & ENERGY

WRITTEN BY ALLISON FISHER

PUBLISHED 08/07/23

July 2023 was the earth’s hottest month on record, punctuated by record-shattering extreme heat events, catastrophic floods, and historic wildfires. While major media outlets sounded the alarm on the climate crisis, climate denial and downplay reached a fever pitch among right-wing media outlets and influencers.

Many in the right-wing media have downplayed the record heat — suggesting that it’s normal summer weather, despite clear evidence that the intensity of this summer’s heat waves would not have been possible without climate change — or dismissed its lethal impact by arguing that more people die of cold than heat. Others have said those linking July’s extreme weather to climate change are weaponizing these events to push a radical climate agenda or call for climate lockdowns.

Here are 15 other examples that illustrate the lengths to which right-wing media are going — often deploying nonsensical arguments or outright lies that attempt to ignore the fact that there is scientific consensus that carbon emissions are heating our planet— to maintain climate denial in the face of climate-fueled catastrophes: 

1 in

  1. response to extreme weather that grounded planes in the Northeast, Fox host Rachel Campos-Duffy said the left is “trying to control the weather” and “trying to be God.” Fox News, Fox & Friends, [7/3/23]
  2. Responding to calls for climate action, Newsmax host Eric Bolling denied that human activity is responsible for warming: “Real scientists, meaning those not purchased by the kings of propaganda, well, they’ll tell you there is actually no such thing as climate change.” Newsmax, Eric Bolling The Balance, [7/11/23]
  3. Fossil fuel shill Steve Milloy on Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt Tonight: “The Earth is greener than ever before. Have we affected the planet and wildlife? Yeah, sure. But you know, in the end, it's been, I think, positive. The Earth is carrying more life now than ever before thanks to warming, thanks to CO2, thanks to fossil fuel use.” Newsmax, Rob Schmitt Tonight, [7/11/23]
  4. Newsmax host Greg Kelly said that “LGBTQ+IA whatever has been kind of pushed so relentlessly. … I think climate change and the whole phony debate about it has something to do with it,” suggesting the goal is to decrease population in order to reduce climate impacts. Newsmax, Greg Kelly Reports, [7/11/23]
  5. Fox host Jesse Watters suggested that U.S. special presidential envoy for climateJohn Kerry made it “impossible” to believe in climate change because according to Watters he lied about using a private plane. Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, [7/13/23]
  6. Conservative radio and Fox News host Mark Levin on his radio show said climate change is a religion not based on science: “This is a religion. This is an ideology. This isn’t science. ...Don't you see how hot it is in Nevada? In the middle of the damn summer?It's what we have air conditioning for.”Westwood One, The Mark Levin Show, [7/13/23]
  7. :{:{Far-right media host Steven Crowder claims that carbon dioxide is not pollution because plants use it: “Is carbon dioxide the — basically, you know, the neurotoxin atmospheric poison that people make it out to be? Because you just pointed out }::{plants thrive on it.” Rumble, Louder with Crowder:(style="background-color:#6666ccff"):}:, [7/15/23]}:
  8. Fox host Greg Gutfeld attempted to downplay the record-breaking heat with bizarre logic: “The problem with using weather — like saying, ‘This place broke records’ — how many states,how many countries didn't break records? Nobody ever provides you the context. They’re going, ‘Three countries had record-breaking heat waves.’ It’s like, well, how many countries are there?” Fox News, The Five, [7/17/23]
  9. The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh claimed that the record heat is not a result of human activity but the sun: “The sun … that’s what calls the shots on Earth. It determines the temperature. It determines everything in terms of weather. … And until you can figure out a way to literally control the sun, there is basically nothing we can do to intentionally and significantly raise, lower, or otherwise affect the temperature on Earth.” The Daily Wire, The Matt Walsh Show, [7/18/23]
  10. The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro: “Thank God we have this thing called air conditioning. … You know what’s a great cure for being super-duper hot outside? Being a first world country.” The Daily Wire, The Ben Shapiro Show, [7/20/23]
  11. Fox Business host Larry Kudlow on America Reports: “This is not an overly hot July. ... Hot weather happens in some places; cooler weather happens in other places. We do not have a climate catastrophe.” Fox News, America Reports, [7/21/23]
  12. Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk on climate science and why carbon dioxide is not pollution: “The science is not solid. The science is debated. They look at science as if it is religious, irrefutable dogma.” Kirk added, “The built-in premise of the climate hoax is carbon is bad. OK, well, carbon is life, actually. … Don’t plants thrive on carbon dioxide?” Real America’s Voice, The Charlie Kirk Show, [7/24/23]
  13. On The Ingraham Angle, American Majority founder Ned Ryun called climate change a “hoax”: “It is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate people into a state of fear to have them give more control over to a ruling elitewho would take thishoaxand enforce it through a whole host of means.” Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, [7/27/23]
  14. On America’s Newsroom, fossil fuel shill Daniel Turner deliberately conflated weather with climate: “And if you look at the weather forecast for this great city, where I’m born and raised, next Friday is mid-70s. So we are in what's called a heat wave.” Fox News, America’s Newsroom, [7/28/23]
  15. Climate denier Marc Morano on Jesse Watters Primetime blamed global wildfires on arsonists, dismissing the role of climate change: “This is a global problem of people starting this. Now, is it climate change? Well, this would be the equivalent of blowing up a dam or sabotaging a dam and allowing a valley to flood and then saying, oh, look, climate change is causing more floods.” Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, [7/28/23]

Related

Right-wing media deny climate change in face of deadly and record-breaking extreme weather event

07/20/23

Right-wing media downplay the hottest day in modern history with the help of Twitter’s community notes feature

07/11/23

Only 5% of national TV news segments on the record-shattering heat wave that scorched Texas mentioned climate change

07/03/23

---

==

clexit: Viv Forbes:

“There is no justification for the War on carbon dioxide – CO2 does not drive global temperatureand Earth’s climate cannot be tweaked by erecting windmills or putting taxes on carbon dioxide. CO2 is naturally sequestered by oceans and the biosphere. Burning natural hydrocarbons merely recycles Earth’s carbonaceous nutrients vital to all life –already world food production and global forests have benefitted from the small increases in carbon dioxide plant food in Earth’s atmosphere.”

Clexit also featured an article by Will Happer, originally published in The Washington Times,where he argues “The Case for Nixing the Paris Agreement.” According to Happer, “[…] more CO2 is not a pollutant but is a benefit to humanity. The ‘social cost of carbon,’ akaCO2, is negative. It is immoral to prevent developing countries from using reliable, inexpensive fossil fuels to escape centuries of poverty.” [12], [13]

---

==

cmd 720

Facebook is “aiding and abetting the spread of climate misinformation,” said Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist at Drexel University. “They have become the vehicle for climate misinformation, and thus should be held partially responsible for a lack of action on climate change.”

Brulle was reacting to Facebook’s recent decision, made at the request of climate science deniers, to create a giant loophole in its fact-checking program. Last year, Facebook partnered with an organization, Science Feedback, that would bring in teams of Ph.D. climate scientists to evaluate the accuracy of viral content. It was an important expansion of the company’s third-party fact-checking program.

But now Facebook has reportedly decided to allow its staffers to overrule the climate scientists and make any climate disinformation ineligible for fact-checking by deeming it “opinion.”

The organization that requested the change, the CO2 Coalition, is celebrating, E&E news reported on Monday. The group, which has close ties to the fossil fuel industry, says its views on climate change are increasingly ignored by the mainstream media. Now it plans to use Facebook to aggressively push climate misinformation on the public—without having to worry about fact checks from climate scientists.

How it all started

A column published in the Washington Examiner in August 2019 claimed that “climate models” were a “failure” that predicted exponentially more warming of the earth than has occurred. The piece, co-authored by notorious climate science denier Pat Michaels, was quickly shared more than 2,000 times on Facebook.

There was just one issue: It wasn’t true.

This is exactly the kind of mess that Facebook’s network of independent fact-checkers is supposed to solve. In May 2019, Facebook partnered with Science Feedback, a site dedicated to explaining “why information is or is not consistent with the science.” Science Feedback’s process is extremely rigorous. Each piece has multiple reviewers, and each reviewer “holds a Ph.D. and has recently published articles in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals.”

Five scientists reviewed the Washington Examiner article for Science Feedback. The scientists identified a number of problems with the piece: “false factual assertions, cherry-picking datasets that support their point, failing to account for uncertainties in those datasets, and failing to assess the performance of climate models in an objective and rigorous manner.” The article was rated “false” by Science Feedback and logged in Facebook’s system.

That should have been the end of the story. The Washington Examiner article should have had a warning overlaid each time it was shared on Facebook, and its distribution on Facebook should have been dramatically reduced.

But that’s not what happened.

Instead, an organization affiliated with Michaels, the CO2 Coalition, wrote Zuckerberg and complained about Science Feedback’s rating. Among other things, the coalition claims that Science Feedback’s analysis amounted to “simple differences of opinion.” The coalition asked Zuckerberg to “remove Facebook’s censorship, labeling, and restrictions on this article.”

Amazingly, it worked. In September, Facebook removed the false rating, overruling the judgment of Science Feedback. According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook found that the misinformation about climate models was an “opinion” and, therefore, not eligible for fact-checking.

Now, the CO2 Coalition has announced its intention to exploit this loophole to spread climate misinformation on Facebook.

How Facebook’s fact-checking program is supposed to work

The rules for Facebook’s fact-checking program are clear. Facebook does not conduct the fact-checks itself. Instead, it has outsourced the process to third parties that are certified by Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network.

If a publisher has a dispute about a rating it receives on Facebook, it should “reach out directly to the third-party fact-checking organizations.” The rating can only be removed by the organization that issued the fact check — either because the fact checker is convinced by the publisher’s dispute or the publisher corrected the false information. There is no mechanism to appeal a fact-check directly to Facebook.

According to Facebook’s rules, all “public, newsworthy Facebook and Instagram posts, including ads, with articles, photos, or videos,” are eligible for fact-checking. The only type of content that is listed as exempt is original content posted by politicians or political candidates.

The Wall Street Journal reported that, after receiving the complaint from the CO2 coalition, Facebook planned to create a new rule exempting “opinion pieces” from fact-checking. But Facebook did not “respond to requests for comment” on the new rule. No such rule has been publicly acknowledged by Facebook in the months that followed.

In response to a request for comment, Facebook did little to clarify the situation, reiterating the company’s official fact-checking policies but not addressing its decision to overrule Science Feedback. “The focus of Facebook’s third-party fact-checking program is combating viral misinformation,” Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said. “There’s an appeals process in place for publishers to appeal directly to fact-checkers to dispute ratings.”

How climate science deniers plan to exploit Facebook’s loophole

Creating an unwritten exemption for “opinion” content, which is enforced by Facebook and not its fact-checking partners, creates a giant loophole for misinformation. The CO2 coalition told E&E News that they plan to exploit it.

After the quiet decision by Facebook, the coalition says it and other groups that attack consensus climate science can share content that climate scientists have labeled as misleading because Facebook will consider it “opinion” and therefore immune to fact-checking.

The CO2 Coalition is increasingly focused on using Facebook to reach more people with its message that climate change fears are overblown and that burning more fossil fuels would help humanity, Executive Director Caleb Rossiter told E&E News this week. He sees the battle over its climate-related posts as part of a larger proxy war over how to reach an audience outside of conservative media.

Rossiter said Facebook was increasingly important because “the mainstream media” is no longer willing to amplify the group’s opinions. But the reason the “mainstream media” is not willing to amplify the group’s opinions is because they’re not opinions at all. They’re falsehoods.

Climate facts are not climate opinions

Andrew Dessler is one of the five climate scientists who originally fact-checked the CO2 Coalition’s op-ed by Pat Michaels. It was “complete bullshit,” he said. “We gave it a bad review, which it 100 percent deserved.”

The article claimed computer models used by climate scientists to predict warming have proved overblown, and thus shouldn’t be trusted. To prove it, Michaels compared “actual temperatures since 1979 with what the 32 families of climate models used in the latest U.N. report on climate science predicted they would be.”

The comparison was flawed. Michaels compared the earth’s present temperature with past climate models that predicted more carbon pollution than actually occurred. If we had polluted as much as the models predicted, the world would have warmed as much as the models predicted.

We know this because actual climate scientists have published research assessing the accuracy of climate models. That research, which went through the rigorous peer-review process, says computer climate models have been largely accurate for the last 40 years. Michaels’ analysis, on the other hand, didn’t go through any peer-review process, nor is Michaels climate scientist himself. What Michaels did was amateur Google sleuthing. What the scientists did was science.

Dessler thinks Michaels should be able to state his opinions about climate change without getting fact-checked. “Things like, ‘we should [implement] a carbon tax,’ or ‘subsidize nuclear energy, or even ‘we shouldn’t do anything about climate change,'” he said. “Those aren’t facts; they’re policy choices.”

But statements about the physical condition of the planet; the effect of carbon on the atmosphere; the historical accuracy of climate models—those are scientific in nature. “Those are not opinions,” Dessler said. “They’re either true or false.”

“The earth is warming. Climate models have done a good job,” he added. “That should be covered by fact-checking.”

The dire consequences of not fact-checking climate denial

The CO2 Coalition told E&E News that it is getting assistance from a “‘conservative’ Facebook employee.” Facebook says that claim is not true, but did not specify who at Facebook reversed Science Feedback’s ruling.

American political conservatives have a long, well-documented history of perpetuating climate disinformation in order to delay climate action. Disinformation—that is, the intentional spread of misinformation—has been a key strategy of the fossil fuel industry and its political allies for decades. The less people understand about climate science, the strategy goes, the less likely they will be to support aggressive climate policies, which threaten the fossil fuel industry’s immense profitability.

The CO2 Coalition’s use of Facebook’s op-ed loophole “fits right back into that strategy of trying to promulgate misinformation to the public in order to keep alive the lack of public concern over climate change, to stop meaningful action to address it,” Brulle said. And by having the loophole, Brulle said, “Facebook is becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution, to climate change.”

Naomi Oreskes, an acclaimed Harvard University professor who co-wrote “Merchants of Doubt,” agreed that Facebook’s op-ed loophole is “potentially very damaging.”

“We know that many people, particularly young people, are getting their information heavily, or even primarily, from social media,” she said. “For social media to propagate disinformation, without any attempt at screening, is for them to become, in effect, part of the disinformation machine

==

==

Microsoft, Google, and Facebook have all publicly promised to fight climate change, but now their commitment is seriously being called into question.

A damning report from Mother Jones reveals that all three of these tech giants were sponsors of a political student conference called LibertyCon, which repeatedly promoted climate change denialism at a recent event in Washington, DC.

Out of all three companies, Google donated the most, offering up US$25,000 for platinum sponsorship, while Facebook and Microsoft each contributed US$10,000 for a spot at the gold table.

These hefty sums were among some of the largest donations for the event, seating the tech giants alongside a number of organisations that are notorious for their attacks on climate science.

Entering the event's exhibit hall, attendees were reportedly given pamphlets detailing how Earth will actually be improved by more atmospheric carbon dioxide.

One of the brochures apparently even claimed that "more carbon dioxide will help everyone, including future generations of our families" and that the "recent increase in CO2 levels has had a measurable, positive effect on plant life".

These were the inspiration of the CO2 Coalition, an organisation dedicated to pointing out "the important contribution made by carbon dioxide and fossil fuels to our lives and the economy". Unsurprisingly, the coalition is partly funded by none other than the Charles Koch Institute, a charity run by the brothers of the oil and gas giant, Koch Industries.

Under the CO2 Coalition's sponsorship, Caleb Rossiter, a retired statistics professor and infamous climate denier, was given a stage and a microphone. In his speech, he reportedly told the assembled students that when he hears that carbon dioxide levels are rising, he cheers because it "improves life expectancy".

Other activities at the conference were funded by The Heartland Institute, which has recently received a fair amount of media coverage for sending climate change-denying pamphlets to 200,000 teachers around the US.

The non-profit, which pushed President Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate accords, has reportedly received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, although it no longer discloses its funding sources.

The Heritage Foundation, another conservative group that supported the Paris agreement withdrawal, was yet another climate change-denying sponsor at the event.

At first, it's hard to fathom why these tech giants would want to keep such dubious company, especially at a conference that stands so firmly against their own, self-espoused policies.

Google is supposedly committed to a "zero carbon" future, promising to "meet the challenges posed by climate change"; Microsoft has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 75 percent by 2030; and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has loudly criticised President Donald Trump for leaving the Paris climate accord.

Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer proposes a reasonable explanation for the hypocrisy. With more and more talk about government regulation of tech, she argues, these companies have prioritised another battle at the expense of fighting climate change.

At the conference, Google alone sponsored two different sessions, one called "Why Permissionless Innovation Needs To Be Defended" and another titled "Will the Government Continue to let the Internet be Awesome? Examining regulatory threats on many fronts".

All three tech giants have since defended themselves in a similar way to the criticisms stemming from the controversy. Essentially, they argue, just because we have funded one aspect of this conference, does not mean we condone the entire agenda or agree with its other sponsors or speakers.

Google even claimed that it was sponsoring the event to "promote strong technology laws", although the subjects of its sponsored sessions might have some questioning that.

Whatever their ultimate goal may have been, at the very least, this new and revealing report brings their true motivations into question.

"The companies' underwriting of a conference with a climate denier on the schedule shows the hazards of trying to advance a policy agenda through interest groups without also supporting their fringe elements," Mencimer writes for Mother Jones.

You can read her report in full here.

 ===

OMG  http://www.co2isgreen.org/**

===

Here’s how the Mercer family’s climate denial funding influenced Trump

Nearly a quarter of the Mercers' 2016 donations went to groups which deny the science on climate change.

KYLA MANDEL

JAN 26, 2018, 3:10 PM

Robert and Rebekah Mercer attend the 12th International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute on March 23, 2017 in Washington, D.C.

CREDIT: Oliver Contreras/Getty Images

ROBERT AND REBEKAH MERCER ATTEND THE 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE HOSTED BY THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE ON MARCH 23, 2017 IN WASHINGTON, D.C. CREDIT: OLIVER CONTRERAS/GETTY IMAGES

Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, powerful conservative donors with close ties to the Trump administration, donated millions of dollars to climate science denial groups, newly released 2016 tax filing details show.

According to the tax filings published by Buzzfeed and obtained by the Climate Investigations Center, nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the total $19 million donated to nonprofits by the Mercer Family Foundation in 2016 went to groups working, at least partially, on spreading misinformation around climate change and pushing to repeal environmental protections. Many of the groups that received donations have promoted carbon dioxide as nonpolluting, called for the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and, over the past year, funneled officials into the Trump administration.

Advertisement

The Mercers have quickly become known as some of the most powerful and secretive donors behind President Donald Trump. The family has given millions of dollars to conservative causes through its foundation, prompting Bloomberg News to describe Robert as “the man who out-Koched the Kochs”.

As the filings show, the Mercers gave $125,000 to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a nonprofit based in Arizona which also goes by the name CO2 Science. Another $150,000 was donated to the CO2 Coalition, a small Virginia-based nonprofit with the tagline, “Carbon dioxide, a nutrient vital for life.” This contribution makes the Mercers the CO2 Coalition’s largest donor. Both organizations work exclusively on activities that promote a false uncertainty regarding the link between carbon emissions and their impact on global temperatures.

A series of other donations also went to groups that work in part to promote climate science denial, including: $2 million to the Media Research Center, $800,000 to the Heartland Institute, $500,000 to the Heritage Foundation, $300,000 to the Cato Institute, $200,000 to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and $200,000 to the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine.

Many of the organizations that received money from the Mercers have been consistently working to bring their anti-environmental agenda to the White House — from stacking the new administration with friendly faces to promoting fossil fuels and undermining the Paris climate agreement.

After the November 2016 election, Trump began assembling his transition team. One of the most influential forces in shaping its members was the Heritage Foundation, according to Politico. Rebekah Mercer, who sits on the board of the Heritage Foundation, was part of the transition team’s executive committee and, according to Politico, she worked with Heritage to recruit appointees to the transition team.

The Heritage Foundation and its affiliate, Heritage Action for America, were both signatories to an official January 2017 letter of support for Scott Pruitt, calling on the Senate to “swiftly approve his nomination” as administrator to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Heartland Institute also signed this letter. Pruitt’s nomination was approved one month later.

Kathleen Hartnett-White is also currently in the running for a top environment position as head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). During her Senate confirmation hearing last November, Hartnett-White said she did not have “any kind of expertise or even much layman study” of climate change issues. On carbon dioxide she said, “CO2 in the atmosphere has none of the characteristics of a pollutant that contaminates and fouls and all of that that can have direct impact on human health. As an atmospheric gas, it is a plant nutrient.”

This last sentence echoes the CO2 Coalition’s main message on carbon emissions. Hartnett-White sits on the advisory board of the CO2 Coalition and last February spoke at a CO2 Coalition sponsored discussion panel at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference.

The idea that carbon dioxide should not be considered a pollutant is also being promoted by the Fueling Freedom project directed by Hartnett-White at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. This project seeks to “explain the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels” while “building a multi-state coalition to push back against the EPA’s unconstitutional efforts to take over the electric power sector by regulating CO2 via the Clean Power Plan.” In June 2016, Hartnett-White was hosted at a Heartland Institute event on “Fueling Freedom.” While her nomination has been met with resistance in the Senate, if approved, Hartnett-White will likely be another Trump administration voice calling for the repeal of key environmental regulations.

Another potential member of Trump’s team connected to the CO2 Coalition is William Happer, the group’s founder, who has long been rumored to be a front-runner for the position of Trump’s science adviser. Ahead of Trump’s inauguration, Happer was reported to have met with both Trump and former adviser Steve Bannon. The Mercers funded Bannon’s Breitbart News but recently cut ties with the former White House adviser after his fallout with the Trump administration.

A spokesperson for the Mercer family did not respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment. Neither did any of the eight nonprofit climate denial groups that received donations from the family.

The Heartland Institute has perhaps made one of the most concerted efforts to influence the government agenda on climate change, and not just under the current administration. In a February 2017 report, however, the group’s president Joe Bast wrote that its “primary goal over the next four years is to win the global warming war.”

Both Rebekah and Robert Mercer attended the Heartland Institute’s climate denial conference last year where the government’s regulatory rollback was celebrated. And last September, the EPA reportedly reached out to Heartland to help it identify a list of researchers who reject mainstream scientific consensus on climate change for Pruitt’s “red team” exercise, aimed at poking holes in mainstream climate science. Emails and notes obtained by E&E News revealing the closed door meetings helped to give a “broad look at skeptics’ playbook under the Trump administration.”

Then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt gestures as he answers a question during a news conference in 2013. CREDIT: AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki

EPA is asking a climate denier think tank for help recruiting its ‘red team’

Finally, Trump’s campaign promise to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement could not be forgotten. On May 8, 2017 an open letter was sent to Trump urging him to “withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty and to stop all taxpayer funding of UN global warming programs.” Signatories to this letter include the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the CO2 Coalition, and CO2 Science.

On June 1, Trump announced he was pulling the U.S. out of the landmark agreement (although the United States doesn’t officially exit the accord until November of 2020, and could re-enter under a new administration).

Present in the Rose Garden for Trump’s announcement was Heartland President Joe Bast, who later described this as a “sign that our efforts for the past 20 years on the climate change issue have not gone unnoticed.”

==

n a video interview posted on The Wall Street Journal’s website, Journal editorial board member Mary Kissel told viewers that if they are “confused about the science surrounding climate change,” they should “trust” Rod Nichols, chairman of a climate science-denying fossil fuel front group known as the CO2 Coalition. During the interview, Nichols denied that human activities such as burning oil and coal are responsible for recent global warming, claiming that “[c]limate change has been going on for hundreds of millions of years,” that “[t]here is not going to be any catastrophic climate change,” and that “CO2 will be good for the world.” Kissel asked Nichols, “why don't we hear more viewpoints like the ones that your coalition represents,” and concluded that the CO2 Coalition’s research papers are “terrific.”

Here's the August 17 video:

MARY KISSEL (Wall Street Journal editorial board member): Are you confused about the science surrounding climate change? Don't know who to trust? Well, we have help for you! Rod Nichols is chairman of the CO2 Coalition ... Rod, I want to start with the CO2 Coalition. What exactly is it, and who's involved?

RODNEY NICHOLS (CO2 Coalition chairman): We formed about a year ago -- a group of scientists, mostly physicists, a few chemists, engineers, economists -- who are convinced that the public is being misled about carbon dioxide. CO2. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is not a pollutant. But if you read the editorial pages and the news pages of most papers the word "pollutant" is always used with CO2. 

KISSEL: So does that mean that your group doesn't believe in climate change? Or doesn't believe in something called "catastrophic climate change"?

NICHOLS: Climate change has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. Everybody should recognize that there is climate change. There is not going to be any catastrophic climate change. CO2 will be good for the world. CO2 enhances agriculture. Crops tend to grow on the average of 15 percent more per year given more CO2. And even more important, crops don't need as much water when they're growing if they have more CO2. You can see this at the edges of deserts where struggling little green plants -- you couldn't see them 35 years ago. Thirty-five years later the satellite photos clearly show that these little green plants -- with more CO2 and needing less water at the edge of deserts -- they're fluorishing!

KISSEL: So this is a completely opposite viewpoint than what is represented in, as you say, most of the media, most of our college classrooms. How did they get to this point, Rod? Why don't we hear more viewpoints like the ones that your coalition represents?

NICHOLS: Well, that's a really good question that I don't have a completely satisfactory answer to. I shy away from conspiracy theories, I don't think -- but it's true in the scientific literature, you can find "skeptics" as we are sometimes called who are arguing against what appears to be a consensus but their views are not covered. Their views are not debated. If nothing else, the CO2 Coalition wants to open up a real debate. Science thrives with discovery and debate. And the subtitle of our first report, about six months ago, was called "See For Yourself."

KISSEL: So where do viewers go to find out more information about what you're doing and to get educated on science about climate change?

NICHOLS: Good questions. CO2Coalition.org is a storehouse of very reliable data. We've surveyed data over decades published in our reports. One is called White Paper 1, and White Paper 2. You can get these, we'd be glad to send them to you.

KISSEL: And you don't need to be a scientist to understand these papers?

NICHOLS: They're prepared to be readable by any intelligent citizen. Even my daughter found them readable and she's not an environmentalist, she's not an alarmist, she's an art history major. She loved them.

KISSEL: Maybe even I will find it readable. In fact, it is readable. I have read these papers. They're terrific. CO2Coalition.org, go check it out, Rod Nichols is the chairman, thanks for joining us.

Related:

Climate Nexus Analysis: How The Wall Street Journal Opinion Section Presents Climate Change

Previously:

Breitbart News: Go-To Outlet For "Academics-For-Hire" By The Fossil Fuel Industry?

Slate Destroys Climate Denier Myth That CO2 Is Not A Pollutant

*The Wall Street Journal*: Dismissing Environmental Threats Since 1976

==

http://co2coalition.org/about/

Board  of  Directors

Roger Cohen, PhD: fellow of the American Physical Society. Former Manager Strategic Planning ExxonMobil Research and Engineering.

Will Happer, PhD: Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University, former Director Office of Energy Research Director of Research, U.S. Department of Energy, co-founder Magnetic Imaging Technologies.

Craig Idso, PhD: founder Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, member American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society.

Patrick Moore, PhD: Co-founder and 15-year leader of Greenpeace (1971-1986). Chairman and Chief Scientist, Ecosense Environmental. Leader, Campaign to Allow Golden Rice Now.

Rodney Nichols: former Chief Executive Officer of the New York Academy of Sciences; Scholar-in-Residence at the Carnegie Corporation of New York, former Executive Vice President Rockefeller University.

William O’Keefe: CEO George C. Marshall Institute; founder Solutions Consulting; former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer American Petroleum Institute.

Harrison Schmitt, PhD: geologist, astronaut and last man to walk the moon (Apollo 17), adjunct professor physics University of Wisconsin-Madison, and former U.S. Senator from New Mexico.

Leighton Steward: geologist, former Chairman, Louisiana Land and Exploration Company; chair, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man Southern Methodist University, author.

Advisory  Committee

Larry Bell, PhD: Professor University of Houston, established the research program in space architecture, author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.

Bruce Everett, PhD: faculty Tufts University’s Fletcher School, over forty years of experience in the international energy industry.

Kathleen Hartnett-White: distinguished fellow and director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment, Texas Public Policy Foundation, former chair Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Richard Lindzen, PhD: emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, member National Academy of Sciences, fellow of the American Meteorological Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science, author of 200 scientific articles and books.

Pat Michaels, PhD: director of the Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute, past president American Association of State Climatologists, former Virginia state climatologist, program chair American Meteorological Society.

Mark Mills: senior fellow Manhattan Institute, CEO Digital Power Group, a tech-centric capital advisory group, faculty Fellow McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University.

Norman Rogers: founder of Rabbit Semiconductor company, policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

Roy Spencer, PhD: Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama Huntsville; served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center; co-developer of satellite temperature measurement system.

Lorraine Yapps Cohen: former communications & marketing manager ExxonMobil, columnist Examiner newspapers.

--

piece itself touts a few classic denier myths, from CO2 being good, to the existence of a global warming pause, to the letter penned by “300 experts” accusing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of cooking the books on climate change.

On the bright side, this provides a good opportunity to look at the CO2 Coalition—the relatively new fossil fuel front group referenced in the op-ed. And make no mistake, it is almost assuredly a front group. The coalition’s “about” page lists the board of directors and advisory committee and regular Denier Roundup readers will recognize most of the names (Lindzen, Moore, Michaels, etc). The first committee member listed is Roger Cohen, whose bio identifies him as an American Physical Society fellow and as the former manager of strategic planning for ExxonMobil‘s research and engineering department. The second name listed is the author of the New York Post op-ed, Will Happer.

Happer is the emeritus professor whom Greenpeace recently exposed for his willingness to accept money from a Middle Eastern fossil fuel company in exchange for writing pro-CO2 content that would go through a sort of “peer-review” conducted by fellow deniers. In order to conceal that payment, Happer suggested the money be funneled through none other than the CO2 Coalition, the “nonprofit” that is given a plug in the Post’s piece.

This begs the question: Did someone pay Happer for this particular piece of pro-CO2 propaganda published in the Post?

==

see also

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is run by Sherwood Idso and his sons Craig and Keith, long-time climate science deniers. The Center runs the science denial site CO2 Science. The group has worked with the Greening Earth Society, founded by the Western Fuels Association. It also has received funding from ExxonMobil.

---

Per its unapologetically Orwellian name, CO2isGreen runs anti-climate/clean energy advertisements reflecting the strident climate science denial sentiments of the oil and coal executives who run it. H. Leighton Steward is chairman of CO2IsGreen.org and the related front group PlantsNeedCO2.org. Steward has worked at Shell and Burlington Resources. He has chaired the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, the Natural Gas Supply Association, and the Louisiana Mid Continent Oil and Gas Association. Steward currently serves on the board of the oil and gas company EOG Resources. In 2001, Steward was awarded the American Petroleum Institute's Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement. The Washington Post reports: "Steward has joined forces with Corbin J. Robertson Jr., chief executive of and leading shareholder in Natural Resource Partners, a Houston-based owner of coal resources that lets other companies mine in return for royalties." According to Astrotruth.org: "[Robertson] is the CEO of Natural Resources Partners L.P., which belongs to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. ACCCE is a 'pro coal group' that is linked to at least thirteen fraudulent letters mailed to members of Congress purporting to be from seniors, veterans, African American, Latino and Women's organizations expressing opposition to ACES. In 2008, ACCCE spent at least $45 million on a clean coal advertising campaign, and during the first two quarters of 2009, ACCCE has spent over a million dollars in direct federal lobbying."

===

Plants Need CO2 was a climate complacency front group 501(c)(3) that (with ad-buying sibling 501(c)(4) CO2 Is Green) popped up in 2009, with a mission "to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2..."[1]. One of its directors, Corbin Robertson of Quintana Minerals, "is said to own more coal through his various ventures than anyone outside of the U.S. government"[2] - and was a Koch strategy group attendee.

Contents [hide]

Website content

Message: more CO2 good

According to the Plants Need CO2 website, "Earth and it's inhabitants need more, not less, CO2..."[1].

Science: more CO2 not good

Skeptical Science provides the evidence that "Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives".[3]

Visible personnel: Leighton Steward

The group's only named principal is its spokesman, H. Leighton Steward, described as "a geologist, environmentalist, author, and retired energy industry executive" who's interested in "helping to educate the general public and the politicians about the tremendous benefits of carbon dioxide (CO2) as it relates to the plant and animal kingdoms and their related ecosystems and habitats, and the general health of humanity".[4]

Domain registration

The plantsneedco2.org domain was originally registered on May 26, 2009; as of its August 25 2009 update it showed H. Leighton Steward as the registrant, using a networksolutionsprivateregistration.com email address and the Network Solutions business address.

Earlier, registration information reportedly tied it to Quintana Minerals Corporation, which "provides oil and gas exploration services to the energy sector" and "offers crude oil and natural gas production services."[5]

Directors and backgrounds

The Plants Need CO2 website does not name the group's directors, only spokesman H. Leighton Steward.

According to its corporate Certificate of Formation[6], the group has three directors: Steward, Wyatt Hogan and Corbin Robertson Jr.

Contact details

Website: http://plantsneedco2.org/

Phone: none provided

Email address: info AT plantsneedco2.org

Articles and resources

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 No byline (Undated). First Page. Plants Need CO2. Retrieved on 2011-03-27. “Earth and it's inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.”
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Mary Ann Azevedo (2007-09-09). Energy fund drills in new 'direction'. Houston Business Journal. Retrieved on 2011-03-27. “Hugh Roy Cullen, who was dubbed "arguably Houston's most famous oilman" by Texas Monthly in 2005, founded the now-defunct Quintana Petroleum in 1930. Today, Corby Robertson -- Cullen's grandson -- is said to own more coal through his various ventures than anyone outside of the U.S. government (see "Cullen heir nabs huge lumps of coal," Dec. 8, 2006). Besides his role with Quintana Energy Partners, Robertson also serves as president of Quintana Minerals Corp., CEO and chairman of publicly traded Natural Resource Partners LP, and chairman of Quintana Maritime Ltd., a Nasdaq-traded bulk shipping company.”
  3. ↑ gpwayne (2010-08-17). Positives and negatives of global warming. Skeptical Science. Retrieved on 2011-04-04.
  4. ↑ Plants Need CO2 (2009). About Plants Need CO2 - CO2 is Green & Green is Good. Retrieved on 2009-09-18.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Miles Grant, "Big Oil creates phony climate denial site, lies about it", Grist, September 4, 2009.
  6. ↑ Filing #801134935, filed June 15 2009 with the Texas Secretary of State
  7. ↑ Forbes (2009). Wyatt L. Hogan Profile. Forbes. Retrieved on 2009-09-18.

Related SourceWatch articles

External resources

External articles

Categories:

*See Plants Need CO2 for more information.

CO2 Is Green is the 501(c)(4) companion to 501(c)(3)Plants Need CO2, running media advertisements pushing a "More CO2 is good" message.[1]. According to its Certificate of Formation [2], the group's directors are spokesman (and EOG Resources Director) H. Leighton Steward, Wyatt Hogan, and coal baron Corbin J. Robertson, Jr., who "is said to own more coal through his various ventures than anyone outside of the U.S. government."[3]

Contents [hide]

2009 founding: $752k stock purchase and $752k income

Both groups were founded in mid-2009. Curiously, this organization 2009 income of $752,800[4] is within $10 of director Leighton Steward's $752,807.30 purchase of EOG Resources stock on June 3, 2009[5], the week after the first of the two groups' domains was registered.[6]. (As the purchase does not appear to have been a stock option exercise[7], it's unclear why the two amounts would match; an explanation has been requested.[8].)

Articles and resources

References

  1. ↑ Anne C. Mulkern (2010-07-14). Ads Backed by Fossil-Fuel Interests Argue 'CO2 Is Green' -. NYTimes.com Greenwire. Retrieved on 2011-03-27. “The organization "C02 is Green" funded a half-page advertisement in The Washington Post urging people to call their senators and seek a vote against "the president's cap-and-trade bill that will increase your cost of living and not change the climate.”
  2. ↑ Certificate of Formation of CO2 Is Green, Inc, filed Jul. 20, 2009 with Texas Secretary of State; filing #801149434, tax ID 32039951440
  3. ↑ Mary Ann Azevedo (2007-09-09). Energy fund drills in new 'direction'. Houston Business Journal. Retrieved on 2011-03-27. “Hugh Roy Cullen, who was dubbed "arguably Houston's most famous oilman" by Texas Monthly in 2005, founded the now-defunct Quintana Petroleum in 1930. Today, Corby Robertson -- Cullen's grandson -- is said to own more coal through his various ventures than anyone outside of the U.S. government (see "Cullen heir nabs huge lumps of coal," Dec. 8, 2006). Besides his role with Quintana Energy Partners, Robertson also serves as president of Quintana Minerals Corp., CEO and chairman of publicly traded Natural Resource Partners LP, and chairman of Quintana Maritime Ltd., a Nasdaq-traded bulk shipping company.”
  4. ↑ "gross receipts" from its 2009 IRS Form 990, Guidestar.org, EIN 27-0586701
  5. ↑ Weekly Top Insider Buys: American Express Company, EOG Resources Inc., American Water Works Company Inc., Genworth Financial Inc., and Strayer Education Inc.. GuruFocus.com. Retrieved on 2011-04-05. “Director of EOG Resources Inc., H Leighton, Steward bought 10,230 shares on 6/03/2009 at an average price of $73.51.”
  6. ↑ plantsneedco2.org Record created on 26-May-2009
  7. ↑ [1]
  8. ↑ Email sent to Leighton Steward 2011-04-05

Related SourceWatch articles

External resources

External articles

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.