Quote:
Originally Posted by wookster
Im not promoting it either way, but a simple google search shows that its mostly funded by Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies like State Farm, Prudential and Pfizer. Although yes, it looks like Exxon has contributed a bit as well but it doesn't appear that "big oil" as you put is actually the majority contributors.
|
You should dig a little deeper, because how these “institutes” are funded matters. Let’s quickly review who gave over a million dollars to the Manhattan Institute and where their fortunes were made.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation* ($8,351,560) Petro Chemical
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ley_Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation ($6,779,500) Petro Chemical
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...lin_Foundation
Searle Freedom Trust* ($5,886,000) Pfizer
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph..._Freedom_Trust
Sarah Scaife Foundation ($5,765,000) Gulf Oil
https://www.desmogblog.com/scaife-family-foundations
William E. Simon Foundation ($4,066,200) Merchant Banking
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...mon_Foundation
Diana Davis Spencer Foundation ($3,525,000)
https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/h...cer-foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation ($2,904,966) Vicks Vapo Rub
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...son_Foundation
The TWS Foundation ($2,882,896) Private
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($2,100,000) Koch Industries
https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-family-foundations
John Templeton Foundation ($1,959,000) Investment Banking
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ton_Foundation
Mercer Family Foundation ($1,734,225) Hedge Fund
https://www.desmogblog.com/mercer-family-foundation
Ravenel and Elizabeth Curry Foundation ($1,696,000) Hedge Fund
Brady Education Foundation ($1,620,000) Private
Gilder Foundation ($1,330,300) Hedge Fund – Trustee of the Manhattan Institute
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...Richard_Gilder
Walton Family Foundation* ($1,236,512) Walmart
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ily_Foundation
F.M. Kirby Foundation ($1,142,500) Woolworth Company
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...rby_Foundation
National Philanthropic Trust ($1,099,798) Philanthropic shell
Exxon Mobil ($1,060,000) Exxon
DonorsTrust ($1,053,115) – Philanthropic shell used heavily by the Bradley, Simon and Koch Foundations (Koch Industries).
https://www.desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,015,755) Koch Industries
https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-family-foundations
Thomas W Smith Foundation ($1,009,186) Education
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/e...servative.html
Jaquelin Hume Foundation ($1,000,000)
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ume_Foundation
*American Legislative Exchange Committee funder
The really interesting thing about this list is that it is literally a who’s who of conservative funders who try to manipulate public opinion on issues ranging from climate science to political bias in education to political activism and stacking of the courts to forwarding Christian fundamentalism as a central core belief in our public services. This is the intent of these foundations, to affect policy so it aligns with the ideals of their benefactors, even long after the benefactors are dead.
Something that really needs to be understood is the intent of these think tank organizations. These are policy groups who were set up to counter academia and “produce” research to support political policy. It is not true research like is done in academia, it is directed issue driven research written with an outcome in mind. A policy position is defined, then the research is conducted to find information that can support the position, even if the information is incomplete or mischaracterized. Many of these papers sound credible until you look at the assumptions and dismantle them. But too many people are intellectually lazy and will not take the arguments apart or do the research. They will instead take what is said, because it is said with such conviction, and accept it as factual.
Quote:
|
Regardless, I don't care who funds it as long as what is printed is factual, and this appears to be factual and provides real theory like the Benz Limit etc. But please feel free to point out anything that isn't factual and provide some evidence other than just your opinion and I'll be happy to read that as well.
|
You should care who is paying for something, because the source of the money usually is indicative of the outcome from these “institutions.” Canadians really haven’t been subject to the propaganda that comes from these think tanks, but that is changing as Canada adopts the machinations of the American political system. You’re going to have to get better at recognizing where information is coming from and what spin is being put on the data.
Let’s just jump right in and see how factual some of these initial assumptions are.
Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.
GGG already took this one apart. No need to rehash.
Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
This is inaccurate. It only describes what is possible using a single layer PV. Tandem and multi-layer PVs outperform this limit, with a theoretical efficiency of 86.8%. The practical application is in a dual layer (44% efficiency) and tri layer (49%) construction. That is without augmentation of the solar cell through concentration of the light using devices such as focusing bezels. Light concentration acts as a force multiplier as well, creating greater levels of efficiency and reaching those theoretical limits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockl...Queisser_limit
Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
This is true, but an overstatement and mostly misdirection. The Betz Limit does indeed state this restriction, but this is no different than pointing out the inefficiency of the combustion engine, only reaching heights of 38% thermal efficiency, which does not speak to the inefficiency of the rest of the vehicle design and such. This is a limit that we can accept and build into future solutions, just like we accept the inefficiency of the combustion engine. So this is really a moot point and an assumption that doesn’t hold much merit. There are limits in everything, it is the application that matters.
https://rentar.com/efficient-engines...on-efficiency/
https://www.greencarreports.com/news...-of-38-percent
The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
This is irrelevant. There are other ways of storing energy, including other types of batteries. Short term storage is a requirement, for solar and wind but can easily be achieved through cheap and inexpensive solutions like salt water batteries. In a commercial or residential application larger storage can be built into the footprint of a building, and built in as part of the solution. Pointing to Tesla’s giga factory manufacturing capacity as a fail point for this technology is a strawman.
Those are the main assumptions. The rest of the paper is also specious, but the most damning thing is the misappropriation of information in the paper itself. The paper is rife with sections that suggest one thing when the actual article their attribution leads to says something completely different. They take a complex paper and distill it down to a single comment bereft of context or accuracy.
Examples include their quote from Bill Gates saying “we need scientific miracles.” That is a misquote of what he actually said and taking the quote way out of context (something these think tanks do with regularity). Gates was explaining in an interview that we need some “miracles” like those we saw with the microporcesser and some of the pharmaceuticals that have been developed over the past couple decades, and that the problem is lack of research and development dollars in the system. The article (
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...iracle/407881/) was more focused on research and development funding than it was on the subject of renewable energy, but that didn’t stop the use of the salacious quote from being used for easy gain.
Another is the claim that Google engineers made the claim “we don’t have the answers.” Well, yes they did, but not in the context of what was said in the attributed article (
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/ren...climate-change.) The issue is very complex and the engineers have a very different take than that presented.
The article is rife with disinformation and flat out lies, but it is written in a very engaging narrative tone that people will easily swallow. It is part and parcel of these think thanks whose job it is to create disinformation and make the public believe one thing, even if the actual research and commentary they use says something completely different. So long as they can extend the discussion, they are worth every penny their benefactors are paying for their services. When it comes to climate science, there is a massive industry that working hard to keep us burning dinosaur carcasses and dino farts, even if it means we speed up the demise of our own species. The list is long and proud, and many of them quite recognizable.
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-wa...enier-database
This is why media literacy matters. And why everyone should source the information they consumer and understand context.
