New York Times’ criticism of Koch Industries


The anti-human agenda of the New York Times is on full display in its criticism of Charles Koch, David Koch, and Koch Industries regarding a contribution to the campaign against the AB32 ballot measure in California.

To the Times, the question of man-made global warming and its purported harm is fully settled. Anyone who questions this is labeled a crank — or worse.

Slowly but surely, the contradictions of the global warming alarmists are being revealed. Writing in the Washington Times, Richard Rahn points out the conflict of interest inherent in many of the global warming alarmists:

It is also true that more environmental scientists say that global warming is a problem than not. But if you omit from your sample all of those environmental scientists who are on a government tab — salary or research grant — and those relatively few environmental scientists who are on the tab of an oil company or some other vested private industry, you are likely to have a much smaller ratio between those who agree versus those who disagree about global warming. If you are a professor at a state university and write a research paper showing that global warming is not a problem, how long do you think your government funding will remain?

In the case of the New York Times, a crusade against energy fits right in with its hatred of capitalism and the freedom that inexpensive energy gives to millions of Americans with modest incomes. If you’re the typical Times reader, you don’t have to worry much about the cost of energy. But for most Americans, the cost of energy is very important.

Inexpensive energy — which the Times opposes — is essential to our standard of living and its continued advancement. As economist George Reisman has written, we need to consider “the comparative valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global warming.” This is a balance that global warming alarmists don’t consider. Or if they do, they come out against human progress in favor of something else.

The types of carbon emission controls and reductions advocated by the Times would lead to — in Reisman’s words again — “the end of further economic progress and the onset of economic retrogression.” Summing up, he writes: “Global warming is not a threat. But environmentalism’s response to it is.”

This is why we should be thankful that Charles and David Koch have been active in the global warming debate. Koch Industries‘ position on this issue is given on their website

A free society and the scientific method require an open, honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree. We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases. Because it’s crucial to understand whether proposed initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases will achieve desired environmental goals and what effects they would likely have on the global economy, we have tried to help highlight the facts of the potential effectiveness and costs of policies proposed.


5 responses to “New York Times’ criticism of Koch Industries”

  1. Ictitator

    The NY “Slimes” ought to practice what it preaches and cease emitting CO2 at their printing operations. If we must begin implementing new environmental edicts to satisfy the Green NY Times, let it begin with daily newspapers.

    The NY Times is losing readers faster than the snow is melting in the Antartic Spring that begins this week. Of course, that “global warming” is being offset by the growing ice pack in the artic.

    When will the media and their scientific allies really look at the interesting question that is being ignored in all of this: what is happening to the sun, the lack of sunspots that “normally” are seen there as part of the solar cycle as well as how the variance in the sun’s heat and light emissions are impacting our tiny planet.

  2. sue c.

    The left hates the Koch’s so much because what they say is right, and resonates with normal mainstream Americans. They talk clearly and with common sense.

    The left has to demonize and tear down anyone who gets in the way of their progressive agenda. Pure Alinsky tactics.

  3. I really wonder how many people who indulge in this “denial of global warming” rhetoric have actually ever read the National Academy of Sciences reports or the position adopted by the sober and conservative American Geophysical Society .

    I know the response will be that some of the scientists involved are government funded so you don’t trust them. Does that mean you won’t accept medical treatment that was developed through government funded research?

  4. Anonymous Mike

    HI Seth, you’re exactly right. I don’t have the time to waste reading something I’m unlikely to believe. If I DID have the time, I would read it just “to see what the enemy thinks”, but that about covers it.

    Face it, the Feds have been giving out grants to “study global warming” for the past 10 years or so. Will you get a grant next year if your study says that the answer is “there is no global warming”? The Feds (at least a good portion of them) want to show global warming exists so that they can manipulate the economy of the US to that of a 3rd world country making us easier to control.

    Just cause I’m paranoid, don’t mean they ain’t out to get me…


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.