Should the United Negro College Fund turn down the gift from the Koch brothers?

[billfish678]

I seem to recall them trying to corner the orange juice futures market pissing off some black folks…

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Sam_Stone

The Koch brothers have been major philanthropists for decades - long before they were a blip on the radar of the left. And they’re known for being low-key donators - they don’t do it to prop up their reputations.

Really? I enjoy Nova on my kindle, and I’ve seen dozens of plugs for David H. Koch at the end of the show. I’m not complaining: I’m saying the low key characterization is laughable. Nothing wrong with having an outsized ego though.

The Koch Brothers do make political contributions that are not disclosed to the public of course, but that is something other than modesty, something far sleazier.

I see from the OP’s article that the scholarship grantees, “…will attend an annual summit, have mentorship opportunities and have the ability to participate in an online community.”

So they’re hoping to groom the next generation’s Alan Keyes I guess. That said, 3000 business scholarships are a good thing.

[MoiBree]

The United Negro College Fund should take the $$ from the Koch brothers.

The Kochs are laughing at them with such a small donation — about .00025 of their wealth.

Take the money and run. And, laugh back at the Kochs who are truly awful people.

[ElvisL1ves]

@doorhinge

But not convincingly.

To repeat: Horse, water.

Global warming zealotry was gaining support and then lost it’s support.

To some degree, although it’s recovering. Know why, don’tcha? An intensive campaign to discredit both the science and the scientists, originally led by ExxonMobil and now by the Kochs. A campaign so successful that it’s even worked on you.

It’s still up to the friends of the IPCC to provide convincing evidence that their theory is correct.

Already done. Time to straighten up.

[C6541]

@doorhinge

And you’re still left struggling to find public support for your views.

I guess the fact that people with vested interests have been poisoning the debate (i.e energy companies) means nothing to you. You’re something special alright.

By the way, public scientists overwhelmingly agree that AGW is occurring, so there’s that.

[Czarcasm]

@MoiBree

The United Negro College Fund should take the $$ from the Koch brothers.

The Kochs are laughing at them with such a small donation — about .00025 of their wealth.

Take the money and run. And, laugh back at the Kochs who are truly awful people.

I’m sorry-have your read anything in this thread beside the OP? Numerous reasons have been given as to the possible strings attached to this “gift”.

[GIGObuster]

@Czarcasm

I’m sorry-have your read anything in this thread beside the OP? Numerous reasons have been given as to the possible strings attached to this “gift”.

Not that I’m playing devil’s advocate, but IMHO what I have seen is not so nice, but not a deal breaker IMHO, one has to look at this things on a case by case basis and in the area of academics I have seen many plans from the Brothers backfiring on them.

I do see your point but in this case I do think that just as in the case of Muller and Berkeley Earth; vigilance, the old fashion eternal one, will be needed to ensure that whatever ideas they had to subvert science or academics are identified and criticised as they should, the point here is that by then I do think that the College will had more benefits than what the one the brothers expected to get.

[foolsguinea]

@ElvisL1ves

Right. Yes, the Kochs, with their massive fossil-fuel holdings, are the financiers of most of the denialist “movement” since ExxonMobil gave it up. But if - IF - there’s no strings attached, even as an understanding, money is money, and that’s a buttload of it.

It’s also a piddling amount in comparison to the amount of money the Kochs pay (the media to advertise) for the election of polticians. And as the biggest political funders of the “corporate” and “libertarian” types, they’ve ended up associated in people’s minds with a right wing full of white nationalists, anti-science fanatics, and screw-the-poor types.

[LonghornDave]

@GIGObuster

And oh yeah, it is important to notice here that The Berkeley Earth team was financed in part by Koch too, they expected that Muller would find all the flaws and support people like Anthony Watts, they got another thing coming.

I think it is possible that people are very eager to portray them as evil cartoon characters when reality is probably quite a bit different.

[Quote=USN]
University of California-Berkeley Physics professor Richard A. Muller, who led the new study, told Whispers that he believes the Koch brothers really do “want to get the science clarified.”

“People think they can look into the minds of Charles and David Koch,” says Muller, who himself was previously a climate change denier. “But I have had conversations with them, where they are interested in the science and the proof, so that these issues [on climate change] would be resolved.”
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=USN]
Elizabeth Muller, executive director of the Berkeley Earth Project, tells Whispers she too believes the Koch brothers are genuinely interested in the science.

Muller points out that the Arlington, Va.-based foundation’s $150,000 grant for the study was “unrestricted,” and that the study’s stated purpose was to “increase the transparency” of climate change studies.
[/QUOTE]

[BobLibDem]

I think you have to accept it, since without it there will be some people not going to college who otherwise could. That being said, the recipients should be aware that their benefactors support politicians who are trying to minimize black voting, through the son-of-Jim Crow voter ID laws, cutting voting hours, purging voter lists, etc. But it’s one thing to stand on your principles, it’s another to deny someone else a scholarship because of your principles.

[doorhinge]

@Marley23

Pretty much all scientists who study the subject. Let’s all take a moment to laugh at doorhinge’s idea that untrustworthy scientists make their living “promoting” this stuff, so we can obviously trust science backed by petroleum magnates because it’s not like they have a profit motive.

@doorhinge

And your acting like a bully is going to convince how many people that your personal view of global warming is correct?

I’ll let people make up their own minds about AGW and the evils of CO2.

@Marley23

Spending millions of dollars to influence the public in a way that endangers the public and enriches you? Cool. Saying on a message board that that’s bad? Bullying. This is educational!

I’d be fine with that, too, but someone is spending millions of dollars on disinformation campaigns and essentially bought off one of the two major political parties along the way. That’s not a situation that leads to well-informed decisions.

(bold and underline added)

Yes. It is educational.

As far as the debate is concerned - both sides are spending millions of dollars to convince the public that their side is right and/or that the other side is wrong.

The man-made-CO2-is-evil argument has lost ground because it has been unconvincing to many of the public. The friends of the IPCC could make a better, more convincing argument or they can continue to demand that people stop listening to their opposition.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Sinaptics

Well, in 2011 there was a controversy regarding a 1.5m donation to Florida State’s economics program. With that donation,

I don’t know if the blowback caused them to cease this practice or if this is their MO.

@John_Mace

No college worth the name should allow that practice. That a publicly funded university would do this is even more disturbing.

For what it’s worth, the university mostly cut the strings in response to the controversy.

[BobLibDem]

@doorhinge

The man-made-CO2-is-evil argument has lost ground because it has been unconvincing to many of the public. The friends of the IPCC could make a better, more convincing argument or they can continue to demand that people stop listening to their opposition.

Unconvincing to that segment of the public that gets its news from Fox or listens to Hate Radio.

[Marley23]

@doorhinge

As far as the debate is concerned - both sides are spending millions of dollars to convince the public that their side is right and/or that the other side is wrong.

I bet you have a great cite for this preposterous claim.

[Mr.Nylock]

@doorhinge

(bold and underline added)

Yes. It is educational.

As far as the debate is concerned - both sides are spending millions of dollars to convince the public that their side is right and/or that the other side is wrong.

The man-made-CO2-is-evil argument has lost ground because it has been unconvincing to many of the public. The friends of the IPCC could make a better, more convincing argument or they can continue to demand that people stop listening to their opposition.

I’m a show me the money type of person. Does anyone have any idea what the dollar amounts or gain in percentage of profits and revenue Koch Industries stands to gain by convincing the public of these positions vs. if the public does not believe these positions? I have just not heard an argument yet that convinces me that Koch industries is particularly evil. I have a pretty high bar admittedly, I tend to judge corporations like Ice hockey players - its’s rough out there and you must compete accordingly to survive, but hitting Donald Brashear in the head with your stick is way outta line.

[doorhinge]

@BobLibDem

Unconvincing to that segment of the public that gets its news from Fox or listens to Hate Radio.

Or those who believe that the current global warming cycle began during the last ice age.

Or those who believe that the large mass of 5000+ deg molten rock at the center of the Earth warms the planet and occasionally breaks thru the crust heating the Arctic Basin, creating islands, or spewing millions of tons of volcanic ash and gases into the upper atmosphere.

Or those who believe that radiation from the Sun warms the planet.

Or those who believe that the small amount of CO2 created by mankind in the most recent centuries could have caused the end of the ice age.

The friends of the IPCC need to do a better job of convincing the public or they’re not going to convince the public.

[ElvisL1ves]

“The public” first has to be *willing *to be convinced, hmm?

[BobLibDem]

@doorhinge

Or those who believe that the current global warming cycle began during the last ice age.

Or those who believe that the large mass of 5000+ deg molten rock at the center of the Earth warms the planet and occasionally breaks thru the crust heating the Arctic Basin, creating islands, or spewing millions of tons of volcanic ash and gases into the upper atmosphere.

Or those who believe that radiation from the Sun warms the planet.

Or those who believe that the small amount of CO2 created by mankind in the most recent centuries could have caused the end of the ice age.

The friends of the IPCC need to do a better job of convincing the public or they’re not going to convince the public.

Like I said, those that get their news from Fox or listen to Hate Radio.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Convincing the public isn’t the problem. The 40% of Americans who don’t buy into global warming are beyond help. The problem is convincing the public that they need to act. It’s one thing to convince people global warming is bad, but quite another to convince them they’ll have to change their lifestyles because of it.

[doorhinge]

@Marley23

I bet you have a great cite for this preposterous claim.

The IPCC, NASA/GISS, UEA, UN, political parties, and most of those advocating for global warming change do not work for free. Money is provided and money is spent to advocate for both sides. Lots-O-Money.