> climate doesn't even appear in their list of issues at all:
Did you look at the link name? Here, we can use the wayback machine to check it around the same date as the New Yorker article[0]. I feel like I have to say you need to specifically also check the about page where you'll confirm it is the same organization.
> why are you claiming this is the best example?
I claimed this was a 30 second googling example where I could find more than a $10k donation from a small charity.
> the Koch Brothers aren't an oil company anyway.
That's weird, because the head image of one of their companies is an oil refinery and that company provides gasoline among other things[1]. Not even the only company they have that works with fossil fuels.
> All these replies are reinforcing my point
Are your points movable? Because I'm assuming not. It does not seem like you're willing to allow for alternative viewpoints. I saw in another reply that you just didn't accept someone's source. It does not seem like you're engaging in good faith and willing to look at what people are presenting to you with more than a glance. That doesn't allow for your beliefs to be changed as you're not even actually considering alternative viewpoints. If you want to engage and actually discuss things, we can. But clearly people are giving you a shovel and pointing to a place to dig and you're coming back and complaining about how you found nothing digging with a spoon.
Complain about the Gates Foundation all you want. Fine. I'm not talking about them. They aren't relevant. Propaganda can happen from more than one side too. But you have to actually look at the facts and get some expertise knowledge. You have to challenge your own beliefs, not just find evidence that supports them. There's always evidence to support yours, or any belief. Even of flying spaghetti monsters. But "evidence" is a loose term and not a binary thing.
The New Yorker article doesn't provide support for the claim of "probable billions of dollars" being spent on "increasing public ignorance", which is what I'm asking for. I didn't ask for examples of donations of more than $10k, that's obviously an irrelevant amount anyway, I just pointed out that it was the only example anyone could find last time I challenged this claim.
And it still stands, because the climate part of the New Yorker piece isn't about spending on propaganda. It says the brothers
"succeeded in persuading many members of Congress to sign a little-known pledge in which they have promised to vote against legislation relating to climate change unless it is accompanied by an equivalent amount of tax cuts"
So apparently climate change legislation is fine as long as it's tax neutral, which is also what the old version of the "noclimatetax" website says too. The New Yorker is biased as hell and tries to frame this pledge as making climate legislation impossible, which is clearly not the case. These are guys who hate tax rises a lot more than anything climate related, it seems. The New Yorker can't even tie any spending directly to this pledge, with all mentions of amounts and donations being about many different topics.
Yes, my views are movable. I'll happily accept a source that backs up the original claim about billions of dollars spent on public ignorance, but it has to do that. The other guy was reduced to something like, "ok but if this guy got 5x the money he asked for, for 20 years, then that's 1/5th of a billion so that's kinda like billions being spent right now", which is just hilarious.
I really don't get why anyone is trying to defend this claim that billions of dollars are being spent by oil companies on climate related advertising. It's just transparently untrue. All the most effective stuff arguing against climatology is by individual authors, bloggers, journalists and scientists. And they're doing it for peanuts, or nothing at all.
I think your specific bar is too high. We're talking about a specifically covert operation with subterfuge. You're looking for a smoking gun in the murder's hand at the scene of the crime. There are smoking guns, but the murder's fingerprints, and a man running away, but that's not the bar you're asking for.
You'll also find these useful as they help you understand subterfuge. I mean your arguments aren't consistent. You're saying that Gates Foundation is playing subterfuge and willing to dig into that but you aren't with these other foundations. Idk why you think that if you want to make a "grass roots" campaign why you wouldn't incorporate other topics and set up a bunch of shells that are hiding your name. I mean no one is going to donate to "Exxon Mobile thinks the scientists are dumb" charity.
I'm not convinced you can change your mind. I'm convinced you're seeking validation and like rolling around in the mud arguing with people on the internet. We're done.
We're looking for a smoking gun because the original poster said there were "billions of dollars spent in an effort to increase public ignorance". For that claim to be true you'd need an entire battlefield of smoking guns. The idea that there's billions of dollars spent on influencing the public and the whole thing is entirely covert is a conspiracy theory. It can be true, but requires good evidence, not a light-year sized goalpost move.
> You're saying that Gates Foundation is playing subterfuge
No I haven't said that. I've said, quite clearly, that the Gates Foundation is an example of spending vast sums very openly and non-subtly. You can even search their website to learn about their spending. Which is my point! I can evidence my claims because a billion dollars spent on influencing the public is about as non-subtle as you can get and easily proven when true.
This is the second time you've quite seriously misinterpreted clear statements by me in this thread. Firstly you read 60 seconds as 1 second, now you think I've said the Gates Foundation is an example of "playing subterfuge", but that's not a claim even its critics make of it. You've projected your own biases onto my posts and read things that aren't there.
Did you look at the link name? Here, we can use the wayback machine to check it around the same date as the New Yorker article[0]. I feel like I have to say you need to specifically also check the about page where you'll confirm it is the same organization.
> why are you claiming this is the best example?
I claimed this was a 30 second googling example where I could find more than a $10k donation from a small charity.
> the Koch Brothers aren't an oil company anyway.
That's weird, because the head image of one of their companies is an oil refinery and that company provides gasoline among other things[1]. Not even the only company they have that works with fossil fuels.
> All these replies are reinforcing my point
Are your points movable? Because I'm assuming not. It does not seem like you're willing to allow for alternative viewpoints. I saw in another reply that you just didn't accept someone's source. It does not seem like you're engaging in good faith and willing to look at what people are presenting to you with more than a glance. That doesn't allow for your beliefs to be changed as you're not even actually considering alternative viewpoints. If you want to engage and actually discuss things, we can. But clearly people are giving you a shovel and pointing to a place to dig and you're coming back and complaining about how you found nothing digging with a spoon.
Complain about the Gates Foundation all you want. Fine. I'm not talking about them. They aren't relevant. Propaganda can happen from more than one side too. But you have to actually look at the facts and get some expertise knowledge. You have to challenge your own beliefs, not just find evidence that supports them. There's always evidence to support yours, or any belief. Even of flying spaghetti monsters. But "evidence" is a loose term and not a binary thing.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20130530051112/http://www.noclim...
[1] https://www.kochind.com/companies/flint-hills-resources