In August, The Intercept revealed that Alpha Natural Resources, one of the largest coal mining companies in America, has been secretly financing think tanks and political organizations that deny climate change. One of the people they funded, attorney Chris Horner, is well known for hounding climate scientists across the country.
The payments were exposed in the firm’s bankruptcy filings last month.
On Monday, when I asked Kevin Crutchfield, the chief executive officer of Alpha Natural Resources, about his company’s support for Horner and his aggressive investigations of climate scientists, he was unapologetic.
“It should come as no surprise to you that we support those with like-minded philosophies,” Crutchfield said.
We spoke briefly at the Southern States Energy Board, an energy conferenced hosted at The Greenbrier resort in West Virginia.
“Everything we have to disclose, it’s on our restructuring website,” Crutchfield added, referring to the website that helps manage Alpha Natural Resource’s bankruptcy proceedings. He added, “The other thing I’d like to say is that the amount of political contributions pale in the amount of charitable contributions we’ve made over the years.”
As we reported, Alpha Natural Resources has funded a wide array of political groups that have helped the coal industry beat back environmental regulations, including the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Heartland Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The filings also showed that the firm helped finance the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, a dark money group that was set up to provide undisclosed campaign support to the reelection effort of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in his race last year.
The bankruptcy filings named recipients of Alpha Natural Resources’ money, but did not provide dollar amounts for the contributions. I asked Crutchfield how much he has given to Horner and other groups that work to deny the existence of manmade climate change.
“I don’t know the numbers. We believe in transparency,” he retorted, and began walking away.
I asked if he believes that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change. “It doesn’t matter what I believe because the bus has left the station seems like,” Crutchfield said, smiling. By then, a group of men with earpieces surrounded the Alpha Natural Resources CEO, blocking me from asking any more questions.
Idiotic article. No one denies climate change, they deny AGW and catastrophic climate change caused by CO2 because it is total BS-junk-science-fraud.
Why isn’t the opposite a story worthy of this leftist site – how the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Green Peace and other commie fronts fund fraudulent AGW climate junk science. Could it be bias on The Intercept’s part? Yes it is.
Willie Soon. – Solar physicist at harvard.
Greenpeace got harvard funding via FOI.
Willie Soon reveived some funding from Exxon it was claimed.. and this man attacked from all quarters of the “man made climate change” side.
Willie’s crime? He discredited a paper the IPCC rely on regarding solar irradiance, and Willie used science to discrredit that paper.
So his character was attacked in a libelous and completely inaccurate manner, “big oil funds scientsist.
I did contact Mr Fang re this story because for balance we can see the “pro” IPCC side attacking scientists character not science.
The truth is this and it can indeed be confirmed.
Harvard recieved the funding from Exxon not WIllie Soon, the University procured the funding.
The funding was split up between 3 scientists, one of which was Willie Soon
Soon received approx 40.000 per year for 10 years, about the same as working in McDonalds..
Soon could disclose who actually provided the money, only harvard could do that. They procured the funds.
Soon is a solar physicist and has nothing to do with fossil fuels or climate change so there is no conflict of interest.
This is just one case where the clima loons character assasinate people and the media including Mr Fang here ignore it.
No one seems to think the fact that Michael Mann refused to show his data and what he did with millions in public funds.. is not news. A court in Virginia said “he has a right to privacy” with regards to what he is spending the public’s money on? The politicains who gave Mann the money have to account for it but Mann doesn’t?
The Hockeystick has been utterly discredited as has the Cook et all paer on the 97%.
The IPCC predictions have been utterly discredited and Mr Fang won’t write about how NASA claim temperature records and whisper to low to hear “we are only 38% certain” which as we know means they are less than 38% certain.
The word “denier” is something that is used when the science fails to support an argument.
No warming trend 18 years and counting.
The word ‘denier’ shows bias. The comparable for pro AGW is ‘chicken little’. Don’t confuse Lee Fang for being a journalist.
did anyone bother to follow up on Crutchfield’s claim that political contributions would pale in the face of charitable contributions. I would have liked to have seen figures substantiating that claim as all too often, CEOs and lobbyists have been proven to disseminate lies.
Some quick google searching indicates Heartland Institute & American Enterprise Institute are non-profit corporations, aka 501 (c)(3) corporations, aka charitable organizations. So funding these denialist hack organisations counts as charitable contributions.
A non-profit is not necessarily a 501 (c)(3) and therefore charitable organization.
“I don’t know the numbers. We believe in transparency,” he retorted, and began walking away. . . and my brain explodes
The motto of every government and corporation since the Akkadian Empire.
I doubt that even he believes that it is OK to fund causes that will result in death and destruction because he gives more money to charities of his choice. But he has to excuse his incompetence somehow, and what better way than to deny reality?
Thugs with earpieces supplied by the CIA. Buy one get one free!
Whether or not there is any truth at all to the “mankind caused climate change” nee “global warming” (till it evidence didn’t back it up) nee “human caused coming ice age” of the ’70s–all supported by the same world government advocates–you can’t blame an industry for applying similar tactics to what they’re being attacked with.
Man caused global climate change is a political, not environmental, movement. When credible evidence is presented which casts any doubt on what is being pushed, the reaction is telling: “Climate Deniers!! Conspiracy Theorists!!”
Lacking, however, is rational rebuttal or engagement with those presenting the evidence to the contrary.
What’s the real truth of it? Can’t tell, really. There’s too much political swamp gas in the air to get an accurate reading.
John what kind of hallucinogenic drugs are you on ? credible evidence ? are you kidding.. there MOST certainly IS and BTW even if only 1/2 of scientist agreed with Climate Reality THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH.. !!! and can we blame this immoral coal idiot for using ‘the same’ tactics.. HELL YES.. !!! Truth, Reality, Science and Math matters.. that’s not Meth.. something that seems like you are familiar with !
“There’s too much political swamp gas in the air…”
No John. There is too much disinformation promulgated by corporate funded “think tanks”, privately paid PR firms and well-compensated shills like you that bombard honest discussion in forums such as these as well as in the print and televised media inserting false media crafted non fact checked statements and false references to supposedly independent scientific studies, when in fact they are mostly corporate financed that are not properly performed and do not meet accepted guidelines.
Yet, knowing the media is irresponsible and always welcoming to any corporate response without a word of criticism or identifying corporate paid scientists as such, you have been incredibly successful in prolonging doubt as to climate change. But alas, like tobacco, the BS campaign is becoming untenable and your industry is losing money by the day, as evidenced by this recent bankruptcy.
But with all of the shills placed in the highest levels of power in every form of oversight or regulation, I’m sure you scumbags will once again escape unscathed for all of the damage your irresponsible behavior and practices have done to environment writ large. But don’t think for a second you going to walk into this forum and sling that bullshit unchallenged.
Douchebag.
That’s just not true. All “skeptic” arguments are routinely rebutted, and it’s not hard to do. I’m fairly familiar with the “debate”. Go ahead and hit me with the best you got.
Why bother. The rebuttals will be as fake as the evidence.
It’s actually pretty easy, as it all comes down to the question of whether a greenhouse gas (CO2) will act like a greenhouse gas if it is released into the atmosphere?
The answer is: of course it will, that’s why its a greenhouse gas.
Catastrophic Atmospheric/Oceanic CO2 Feedback
Carbon Dioxide cannot be the driver of global temperature. The oceans have 50 times the carbon dioxide our atmosphere has. The plant life in the ocean depends upon it. Water retains its carbon dioxide (carbonation) much better when it is cool and looses it (goes flat) when it warms. When the climate warms so do the oceans, releasing carbon dioxide. In the ‘Carbon Dioxide Driven Climate Scenario’ the climate warms because of an increase in carbon dioxide. But then this would cause the oceans to warm releasing more carbon dioxide. With more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the climate would warm even more and the oceans would then warm again releasing even more carbon dioxide… You see the problem. This scenario necessitates a vicious cycle resulting in a permanently boiling earth, which has never been the case. Whatever the cause of global warming is, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere must be a result, not the driving force.
I ran into this concept. It kind of makes sense but where does it go wrong?
Numerous logical errors.
Yes, water can hold more gasses in solution when cooler. But no, the oceans are nowhere close to saturation and therefore continue to absorb much of the CO2 emissions even as they warm.
We are oxidizing carbon that was geologically sequestered over 10’s of millions of years in decades. Therefore, we are overwhelmingly the negative feedbacks. In past warmings, CO2 increased slowly, polar ice had time to melt, bare silicates were exposed to weathering that absorbs CO2. Also, the diatomaceous and other marine life that you mentioned would biomineralize CO2 and it would be buried on the sea floor.
Just as the poison is in the dose, the effect of CO2 is in the speed with which it’s increasing.
These allegations are a blatant assault on the First Amendment. /s