Usted no se lo cree

Página referenciada: The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace

Holly Sklar and Chip Berlet (1991) – NED, CIA, and the Orwellian Democracy Project – Covert Action Information Bulletin – 21/12/1991 – http://powerbase.info/index.php/NED,_CIA,_and_the_Orwellian_Democracy_Project – autores «John Richardson, the current and past (1984-88) chair of the NED board of directors, is an old hand in the CIA’s front group network. He was president of the CIA-sponsored Radio Free Europe from 1961 to 1968. From 1963 to 1984, he was variously president and director of Freedom House, a conservative/neoconservative research, publishing. networking, and selective human rights organization. Freedom House is now heavily endowed with NED grants. Richardson later became counselor of the congressionally-funded U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) which is governed by a presidentially-appointed board of directors dominated by past and present government officials, including Defense and CIA, and members of right-wing organizations such as the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace.»

Sara Diamond (1995) – Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States – Guilford Press, New York – ISBN-13: 978-0898628647 – 445 Págs. – “Simon was not alone in this thinking. By the late 1970s, corporations and corporate foundations had revitalized the pre-existing American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Hoover Institution, plus a slew of new ‘non-egalitarian’ think tanks. During the 1970s, AEI grew dramatically. In 1977, about 200 corporations provided 25 percent of AEI’s $5 million budget [ref]. AEI welcomed as resident scholars libertarian economist Milton Friedman, s well as neoconservative thinkers Seymour Martin Lipset, Ben Wattenberg, and Irving Kristol. AEI, Hoover, and corporate-funded university programs concentrated on ‘free-market’ research and advocacy.” (p. 199)

Sara Diamond (1995) – Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States – Guilford Press, New York – ISBN-13: 978-0898628647 – 445 Págs. – “In eager anticipation of the Reagan tax cuts, the 600 conservative economists and their members of the elite Mont Pelerin Society held their fall 1980 conference at Reagan’s favorite think tank, the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Timed closely with Reagan’s inauguration, the publication of George Gilder’s bestselling Wealth and Poverty lent a ‘moral’ imperative to the supply-siders’ calls for tax and spending cuts. (p. 212)

Edward Teller et al (1997) – Global warming and ice ages: Prospects for physics-based modulation of global change – 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies – 23/08/1997 – Hoover Institution, Stanford University – http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/documents/fullText/ACC0229.pdf – 3 autores “It has been suggested that large-scale climate changes, mostly due to atmospheric injection of greenhouse gases connected with fossil-fired energy production, should be forestalled by internationally-agreed reductions in, e.g., electricity generation. The potential economic impacts of such limitations are obviously large: ≥$1011/year. We propose that for far smaller — <1% — costs, the mean thermal effects of «greenhouse gases» may be obviated in any of several distinct ways, some of them novel. These suggestions are all based on scatterers that prevent a small fraction of solar radiation from reaching all or part of the Earth. We propose research directed to quite near-term realization of one or more of these inexpensive approaches to cancel the effects of the «greenhouse gas» injection. While the magnitude of the climatic impact of «greenhouse gases» is currently uncertain, the prospect of severe failure of the climate, for instance at the onset of the next Ice Age, is undeniable. The proposals in this paper may lead to quite practical methods to reduce or eliminate all climate failures.”

Edward Teller (1997) – Sunscreen for Planet Earth – The Wall Street Journal – 17/10/1997 – Hoover Institution, Stanford University – http://www.hoover.org/research/sunscreen-planet-earth-0 – autores «Society’s emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming–the jury is still out. As a scientist, I must stand silent on this issue until it’s resolved scientifically. As a citizen, however, I can tell you that I’m entertained by the high political theater that the nation’s politicians have engaged in over the last few months. It’s wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation–America–can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to address a problem that may not exist–and that, if it does exist, certainly has unknown dimensions.»

Thomas Gale Moore (1998) – Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Global Warming – Cato Institute – 01/01/1998 – Hoover Institution – http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Climate_of_Fear.pdf – autores

Tom Bethell – The Politics behind Global Warming – Hoover Digest 3 1998 – 01/01/1998 – http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532036.html – autores “Most greenhouse gases are the work of nature, not of man. And most of the tiny recorded rise in temperature in this century took place before World War II, contradicting current global warming theory.”

Edward Teller et al (2002) – Active Climate Stabilization: Practical physics-based approaches to prevention of climate change – National Academy of Engineering Symposium – 19/04/2002 – Hoover Institution, Stanford University – http://www.chemtrails-france.com/geoingenierie/physique_applicable/pdf/physique_applicable_stabilisation_active_climat.pdf – 3 autores “We offer a case for active technical management of the radiative forcing of the temperatures of the Earth’s fluid envelopes, rather than administrative management of atmospheric greenhouse gas inputs, in order to stabilize both the global- and timeaveraged climate and its mesoscale features. We suggest that active management of radiative forcing entails negligible – indeed, likely strongly negative – economic costs and environmental impacts, and thus best complies with the pertinent mandate of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. We propose that such approaches be swiftly evaluated in sub-scale in the course of an intensive international program.”

Tom Barry – The Right’s Architecture of Power – IRC Right Web – 22/04/2004 – Policy Director of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), online at http://www.irc-online.org . He is the founder of Foreign Policy In Focus and directs the IRC’s Right Web project. – http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/grebe1.pdf – autores “The most potent force in this architecture of power is the package of cultural, economic, political, and military ideologies propagated by the right’s think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, and Hoover Institution. Less prominent think tanks that advance neoconservative views on foreign policy include the Jamestown Foundation, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Manhattan Institute. Also important on the right but situated outside the neoconservative family is the prominent Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Other less prominent foreign policy think tanks on the right are the Lexington Institute and the Nixon Center.”

David Teather – Liberals pledge millions to revive US left – 08/08/2005 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/08/usa.davidteather – autores «»It wasn’t only the failure to win, it was the question, ‘what does it take to win?’,» Mr Gluckstern said. «Among the lessons learned was that to bring back the progressive majority in this country is not just a periodic election investment strategy.» … A board of directors will draw up a list of established and new organisations to develop and promote ideas on the left. The aim is to foster the growth of institutions that can act as a counter-weight to rightwing thinktanks such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. The alliance is the brainchild of Democratic strategist Rob Stein, who says the left’s infrastructure is outdated.»

John Jos. Miller (2005) – A Gift of Freedom: How the John M. Olin Foundation Changed America – Encounter Books – Writer for ‘National Review’ and contributing editor of ‘Philanthropy’ – ISBN-13: 978-1594031175 – 200 Págs. – “One of the favorite forums for these scholars was Commentary magazine, started in 1945 and published monthly by the American Jewish Committee … As Commentary flourished and The New Criterion was getting off the ground in the early 1980s, the John M. Olin Foundation continued to support its preferred groups, from the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation in Washington to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and Henry Manne’s law and economics program at Emory University. A number of academics obtained assistance as well, including George Stigler, a University of Chicago professor who won theNobel Prize for economics in 1982. Another favorite was Murray Weidenbaum, whose Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis examined the costs of government regulation.” (p. 113)

John J. Miller – Freedom’s Mr. Moneybags – National Review – 10/11/2005 – http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/miller200511100823.asp – autores «Lopez: What did the Olin Foundation make possible, when you consider other big conservative successes? – Miller: First and foremost, the foundation helped create what its longtime president William E. Simon called the “counterintelligentsia”–a group of scholars and activists who provided a balance to the liberals who have dominated the universities, the media, and the nonprofit world. When conservatism was still emerging from the intellectual ghetto, this was a critically important task, and this list of the foundation’s beneficiaries is incredibly long. Prominent groups include the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Individual Rights, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the National Association of Scholars, The New Criterion, and the Philanthropy Roundtable. And lots of individuals as well: Linda Chavez, Dinesh D’Souza, Milton Friedman, Robert George, Owen Harries, Samuel Huntington, Irving Kristol, Henry Manne, Harvey Mansfield, Father Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Novak, and George Stigler. And if we’re going to isolate categories of giving, the foundation was especially important to the law-and-economics movement–a school of thought, born at the University of Chicago, which insists that legal rules have economic consequences. The foundation sank more than $68 million into law and economics, and because of this it had a big impact on legal scholarship, the training of lawyers, and judicial behavior.»

Christian E. Weller and Laura Singleton (2006) – Peddling reform: the role of think tanks in shaping the neoliberal policy agenda for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund – En: Neoliberal Hegemony: a global critique – Dieter Plehwe Bernhard Walpen and Gisela Neunhöffer (2006) – 01/01/2006 – Senior economist at the Center for American Progress + Research associate at the Economic Policy Institute; University of WISCONSIN+ Economic Policy Institute – autores «The MPS identified and developed many venues of academic research to defend and to promote a world order based upon open markets and small governments. It was established to facilitate the intellectual exchange between neoliberal researchers and scholars, which would in turn assist the spread of free market practices and policies around the globe. A partial list of MPS membership illustrates the ideological links between various US research institutes, universities, government and media. The four most frequent think tank associations of MPS members in the US are AEI, Cato, Heritage, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Affiliated with Stanford University, the Hoover Institution occupies a privileged intellectual position in scholarly and policy debates. Started by Herbert Hoover in 1919, the Institution seeks ‘to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals’ through recognizing ‘the principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government’ (Hoover Institution 2002). The Hoover Institution has strong ties to the MPS as well as to the other think tanks.»

Christian E. Weller and Laura Singleton (2006) – Peddling reform: the role of think tanks in shaping the neoliberal policy agenda for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund – En: Neoliberal Hegemony: a global critique – Dieter Plehwe Bernhard Walpen and Gisela Neunhöffer (2006) – 01/01/2006 – Senior economist at the Center for American Progress + Research associate at the Economic Policy Institute; University of WISCONSIN+ Economic Policy Institute – autores «Moreover, the Hoover Institution not only reflects the academic and political influence of MPS members, but also their close ties to the media. Appropriately entitled Hoover Media Fellows, the program enables print and broadcast journalists to spend time in residence at Hoover to exchange information and perspectives with Hoover fellows through seminars, informal meetings, and public lectures. Additionally, the Institution makes all of its research resources available to the Media Fellows. As testament to the program’s success, many US-based MPS members maintain close ties to both Hoover and a media group, most frequently the Wall Street Journal.»

Andrew C. Revkin – Poor Nations to Bear Brunt as World Warms – The New York Times – 01/04/2007 – http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/science/earth/01climate.html?_r=1 – autores «In contrast, Africa accounts for less than 3 percent of the global emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel burning since 1900, yet its 840 million people face some of the biggest risks from drought and disrupted water supplies, according to new scientific assessments. As the oceans swell with water from melting ice sheets, it is the crowded river deltas in southern Asia and Egypt, along with small island nations, that are most at risk. “Like the sinking of the Titanic, catastrophes are not democratic,” said Henry I. Miller, a fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “A much higher fraction of passengers from the cheaper decks were lost. We’ll see the same phenomenon with global warming.”

Susan George (2007) – El Pensamiento Secuestrado: Cómo la derecha laica y la religiosa se han apoderado de Estados Unidos – Icaria Editorial – ISBN-13: 978-8474269499 – 264 Págs. – “Otro premiado por Bradley con 250.000 dólares es Charles Krauthammer … ha dicho de la política exterior estadounidense: ‘Dirigimos un imperio excepcionalmente benigno [ref]. George Will, también difundido periodista conservador, obtuvo otro premio Bradley por logros intelectuales destacados, al igual que Thomas Sowell, economista negro que hizo su tesis doctoral en Chicago y que es actualmente ‘Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow’ de la Institución Hoover, un venerable centro de estudios conservador situado en Stanford también financiado generosamente por los neocón. Charles Murray [AEI] … ha recibido al menos q19 subvenciones … por un extraordinario total de casi 2,8 millones de dólares. Las dos obras más conocidas de Murray son ‘Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980 … de 1985, que intenta demostrar que la concesión de prestaciones sociales es causa de pobreza; y The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life … de 1994, cuya tesis es que los negros tienen una capacidad mental inferior inherente (hereditaria) a los blancos … se convirtieron en superventas, se debatieron y discutieron en la radio y la televisión, y … Murray se convirtió en una autoridad ‘experta’ sobre estas cuestiones.” (p. 65)

David Miller and William Dinan (2008) – A Century of Spin. How Public Relations Became the Cutting Edge of Corporate Power – Pluto Books London – Department of Geography and Sociology, University of Strathclyde – ISBN: 978-0-7453-2689-4 – 232 Págs. – http://ddj.rs/zp/A%20Century%20of%20Spin%20How%20Public%20Relations%20Became%20the%20Cutting%20Edge%20of%20Corporate%20Power.pdf – “’International patrons’ of the [Henry Jackson] Society [Project for Democratic Geopolitics] include leading American neo-conservatives, such as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, Joshua Muraychik of the American Enterprise Institute, and Michael McFaul of the Hoover Institution. Also signed up are Richard Perle of the Bush administration, James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, and perhaps more significantly Irwin Stelzer, who is Rupert Murdoch’s representative in the UK and introduced Blair to Murdoch. The Society ‘campaigns for a ‘forward strategy’ to spread ‘liberal democracy across the world’ through ‘the full spectrum of ‘carrot’ capacities, be they diplomatic, economic, cultural or political, but also, when necessary, those ‘sticks’ of the military domain.’ [ref].” (p. 165)

Jeff Sharlet (2008) – The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power – Harper Collins – ISBN-13: 978-0060559793 – 464 Págs. – “FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover would declare that communist stealth operatives, ‘schooled in atheistic perversity’, had made Christian pulpits a main objective – and tool – of their propaganda. A ‘deadly radioactive cloud of Marxism-Leninism’, he preached, was fogging America’s liberal houses of worship [ref].” (p. 184)

Wiki – John M. Olin Foundation – Wikipedia – 02/06/2008 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Olin_Foundation – autores “Because the Foundation has dissolved, information is no longer available from the Foundation Directory. However, SourceWatch reported the following: In 2001, the Foundation expended $20,482,961 to fund right-wing think tanks including the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, the Hudson Institute, the Independent Women’s Forum, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). «The Foundation also gives large sums of money to promote conservative programs in the country’s most prestigious colleges and universities.»

Wiki – Gale A. Norton – Sourcewatch – 11/09/2008 – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gale_A._Norton – autores «Gale A. Norton, the first woman to head the U.S. Department of the Interior, was sworn in January 2001. Norton resigned as Secretary March 16, 2006, announcing that «she’s giving up the Cabinet position to set ‘new goals to achieve in the private sector,’ and settle with her husband ‘closer to the mountains we love in the West.'» [1] President George W. Bush nominated Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne as her successor … «Prior to her election as Attorney General, Norton served in Washington, D.C. as Associate Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior, overseeing endangered species and public lands legal issues for the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. She also worked as Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and, from 1979 to 1983, as a Senior Attorney for the Mountain States Legal Foundation.»[5] … «Former Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton is a protegee of Ronald Reagan Interior Secretary James Watt. She was hired by the Mountain States Legal Foundation in 1979. In 1983 Norton moved to the right-leaning Hoover Institution, where she urged a market-based approach to controlling air pollution. She also served on the advisory boards of two other right wing groups, Defenders of Property Rights and the Washington Legal Foundation. In 1998, she founded a group called the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) to counter the image that Democrats are the party that protects the environment. But Martha Marks, the head of a rival GOP group called Republicans for Environmental Protection, said the group was a front to obscure the records of Republicans with bad environmental records. Indeed the sponsors for CREA’s kickoff gala included the Chlorine Chemical Council, National Coal Council, Chemical Manufacturers Association, and the National Mining Association.» [7]»

Robert Asen (2009) – Ideology, Materiality, and Counterpublicity: William E. Simon and the Rise of a Conservative Counterintelligentsia – Quarterly Journal of Speech 95:263 288 doi:10.1080/00335630903140630 – 01/10/2008 – Professor in the Communication Arts Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. – autores “Simon served as treasury secretary in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Prior to his official appointments, Simon worked as a senior partner and member of the executive committee of Salomon Brothers, a prominent Wall Street investment firm. After leaving government service, he assumed the presidency of the John M. Olin Foundation, an influential source of funding for conservative institutions and ideas. Simon also held seats on the boards of corporations such as Xerox, Citibank, and Halliburton, and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution.”

Curtis A. Moore (2008) – Milking the Cash Cow – Curtis A. Moore – 01/10/2008 – Basel Action Network – Former counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works from 1978 to 1989 – http://curtismoore.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/milking-the-cash-cow.pdf – autores “Hoover’s board, like most, is a virtual Who’s Who of corporate executives, core foundation officials and officers or trustees from other fronts. For example, Richard Mellon Scaife, head of two of the core foundations, is on Hoover’s large Board of Overseers. The Sarah Scaife foundation, overseen by Richard, gave the Hoover Institution a $450,000 grant in 2001, $370,000 in 2000, and $635,00 in 1999. In 2003, Olin gave it $35,000 for a “ Fellowship for D. D’Souza.” and in 2001, it gave $100,000 for “the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellowship for Dinesh D’Souza” followed in 2002 by another $65,000. All of the core foundations have given money for general support: $175,000 in 2005 from Olin, for example, and $725,000 in 2004 from Sarah Scaife Foundation.”

Curtis A. Moore (2008) – Milking the Cash Cow – Curtis A. Moore – 01/10/2008 – Basel Action Network – Former counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works from 1978 to 1989 – http://curtismoore.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/milking-the-cash-cow.pdf – autores “Typical of the university-based think tanks is that only a small fraction of their budget is devoted to teaching. The Hoover Institution, for example, spent 60 per cent of its budget on research and publications, 33 percent on libraries (the reason it was created in the first place) and 7 per cent on administration. Of the nearly $4 million that Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs received in 1991, only $33,040, or less than 1 percent, was spent on student programs. When money does go to students, it is often in the form of grants or scholarship to select students: those who have demonstrated an affection for the “free market” values that their institutes espouse.”

– Scaife Foundations – Right Web – 24/02/2009 – http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/scaife_foundations/ – autores «The Scaife Foundations are a collection of conservative foundations—the Sarah Scaife, the Allegheny, and the Scaife Family—that served as the primary vehicles for the philanthropic activities of the late Richard Mellon Scaife, a major patron of the American Right for decades whose wealth shortly before his 2014 death was estimated to be $1.45 billion.[1] The Carthage Foundation was for years also a part of the Scaife Foundations, until it merged with the Sarah Scaife Foundation in late 2014.[2] The Scaife Foundations’ support for groups like the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Hoover Institution have been instrumental in pushing right-wing domestic and foreign policy agendas, from the anti-communism of the 1970s to the neoconservative ideas that influenced the George W. Bush administration’s «war on terro»

Yvan Dutil – Comment on ‘Groundhog day’ – Real Climate – 07/06/2009 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/groundhog-day-2/#comment-126317 – autores The Independent Institute, a conservative think-tank with links to the Hoover Institution. Board of Academic Advisors included economist Julian Simon, famous for his “cornucopian” theory that, given truly free markets, technological innovation can and will solve social problems.

Wiki – John M. Olin Foundation – Wikipedia – 06/09/2009 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Olin_Foundation – autores “Because the Foundation has dissolved, information is no longer available from the Foundation Directory. However, SourceWatch reported the following: In 2001, the Foundation expended $20,482,961 to fund right-wing think tanks including the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, the Hudson Institute, the Independent Women’s Forum, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). «The Foundation also gives large sums of money to promote conservative programs in the country’s most prestigious colleges and universities.»

Morris P. Fiorina, Samuel J. Abrams and Jeremy C. Pope (2010) – Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America – Pearson Education – Wendt Family Professor of Political Science, Stanford University + Hoover Institution – ISBN-13 : 978-0205779888 – 275 Págs. – “Reseña del editor: Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Moore — from the shouting and the vilifying that permeates the airwaves, one would think that bitter and entrenched political divisions among Americans are ripping the country apart at the seams. Research suggests otherwise. According to a groundbreaking new book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America most Americans stand in the middle of the political landscape, preferring centrist candidates from either party to the extreme partisans who often emerge from the primary process. It is the political parties and the media that have ignored this fact and distorted public perceptions. In Culture War? the authors explore the role of the political class — office-holders, activists, and pundits–in shaping the public face of American politics. Through data analysis, they show how the political class has distorted the reality of most Americans actual views about the social, political and economic issues of the past 30 years. … Updated in a new 3rd edition and part of the «Great Questions in Politics» series, Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America combines polling data with a compelling narrative to debunk commonly-believed myths about American politics-particularly the claim that Americans are deeply divided in their fundamental political views. Authored by one of the most respected political scientists in America, this brief, trade-like text looks at controversial and hot topic issues (such as homosexuality, abortion, etc.) and argues that most Americans are not polarized in relation to them. ”

Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway (2010) – Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming – Bloomsbury New York – Professor of History Science Studies Program University of California; National Aeronautics and Space Administration – Págs. – http://climatecontroversies.ulb.ac.be/wp-content/uploads/slides/oreskes.pdf – «Seitz’s strident anti-Communism was shared at influential foreing policy think tanks. They included the Hoover Institution (originally founded as the Hoover War Library, dedicated to promoting the ‘ideas that define a free society’), the Hudson Institute (founded by the military strategist Herman Kahn during the mid 1970s), and the Heritage Foundation (established in 1973 to promote conservative ideas). [ref] These organizations and their allies in Congress fostered an assault on détente.» (p. 37)

Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway (2010) – Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming – Bloomsbury New York – Professor of History Science Studies Program University of California; National Aeronautics and Space Administration – Págs. – http://climatecontroversies.ulb.ac.be/wp-content/uploads/slides/oreskes.pdf – «Krug’s argument was presented in Policy Review, published by the Hoover Institution, [ref] and taken up by Reason magazine, which insisted that new evidence showed that ‘acid rain was not a problem’. [ref].» (p. 102)

– Philanthropy Roundtable – Right Web – 12/01/2011 – http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Philanthropy_Roundtable/ – autores “Philanthropy Roundtable directors have included Leslie Lenkwosky and John Waters, both of whom served in the George W. Bush administration, as well as Kim Dennis, now executive director of the Searle Freedom Trust. Adam Meyerson, a former vice president of the Heritage Foundation, has been the director since 2001.[6] Meyerson is co-editor of the Wall Street Journal on Management, former editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal, former managing editor of the American Spectator, and the spouse of Nina Shea, a long-standing neoconservative activist based at the Hudson Institute who was formerly director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House. Karl Zinsmeister, a domestic policy aide to the George W. Bush White House, is the group’s vice president for publications.[7] The board of directors listed on the website as of 2013 included: Michael W. Grebe (chairman), James Piereson (vice chairman), John Tyler (secretary), Donn Weinberg (treasurer), Ana Thompson, Heather Higgins, Daniel S. Peters, and Jeff D. Sandefer. Grebe is the president of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a major funder of neoconservative and Islamophobic causes, as well as a former overseer of the Hoover Institution and general council for the Republican National Committee; James Piereson served as the executive director and trustee of the conservative John M. Olin Foundation; Daniel S. Peters serves as president and director of the Ruth & Lovett Peters Foundation; and Jeff D. Sandefer is a director of the National Review magazine.[8] ”

Wiki – Capital Research Center – Sourcewatch – 08/06/2011 – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Capital_Research_Center – autores «Spokesman for CRC Robert Berkebile explained that the American Cancer Society was classed as ‘liberal’ because it supported taxes on cigarettes. (It is now known that Philip Morris was funding CRC at the time). The American Lung Association got the same rating because it supported regulations on burning hazardous waste in cement kilns. Monsanto, not known for its support for radical causes, got a centre-left» tag because it contributed to the Nature Conservancy, amongst others. Equally interesting is CRC’s assessment of who it viewed as the real conservatives. The RAND Corporation was tagged as «center left» while the American Enterprise Institute was designated as in the «center». The true believers, gaining the «conservative» badge of honour were CRC itself, the Center for the Study of American Business, the Chamber Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution and the Hudson Institute. The director of the Congressional Accountability Project, Gary Ruskin, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the analysis was more than ‘defunding the left’ «it’s defunding the center, too». In mid-February 2001, CRC President Terrence Scanlon addressed the 28th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) stating «for the first time we have an opportunity to go after these [liberal nonprofit] groups and take away their federal money.».»

Case Study: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal – Greenpeace USA – 01/10/2011 – http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/ – autores «The Free to Choose Network was founded by the late neo-liberal economist Milton Friedman, who was closely associated with Big Tobacco. Friedman was also a fellow at the Hoover Institution that has received grants from ExxonMobil, Koch Foundations and other right wing foundations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation.»

Jacob Mchangama – The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws – Hoover Institution – 01/12/2011 – http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/100866 – autores «The states where criticism of totalitarian ideology was prohibited were the ones that internationalized hate-speech laws. «

Wiki – Edwin Meese – Wikipedia – 23/02/2012 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Meese – autores «Edwin «Ed» Meese, III (born December 2, 1931) is an attorney, law professor, and author who served in official capacities within the Ronald Reagan Gubernatorial Administration (1967–1974), the Reagan Presidential Transition Team (1980), and the Reagan White House (1981–1985), eventually rising to hold the position of the 75th Attorney General of the United States (1985–1988). He currently holds fellowships and chairmanships with several public policy councils and think tanks, including the Constitution Project and The Heritage Foundation.[1] He is also a Distinguished Visiting Fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University[2]»

Yongyang Cai et al (2012) – Open science is necessary – Nature Climate Change 2:299 doi:10.1038/nclimate1509 – 26/04/2012 – Hoover Institution – 3 autores «The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia led to an intensive examination of the scientific practices of climate change researchers.»

Angus Burgin (2012) – The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets since the Depression – Harvard University Press – Professor of History, John Hopkins University – ISBN-13: 978-0674058132 – 320 Págs. – “The Hoover Institution … had entered into a crisis of purpose amid disagreements between the former president and the university administration during the 1950s. By 1950 Hoover had become increasingly concerned that ‘leftwingers’ had ‘taken over’ the institution that bore his name … Under [new director W. Glenn] Campbell it was reinvented as a think tank that sought to provide a conservative counterpart to the Brookings Institution The world of conservative think tanks had traveled a great distance since the early days of the Volker Fund and the Earhart Foundation, and Friedman’s arrival on the permanent staff of the Hoover Institution was a powerful signal of their ascendance.” (p. 206)

Carolyn Lochhead – On climate, GOP turns from concern to denial – Chron – 26/04/2013 – http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/On-climate-GOP-turns-from-concern-to-denial-4467201.php – autores «But there are cracks showing. Top Republican economists, all former advisers to Republican presidents and presidential candidates, have begun calling for a revenue-neutral tax on carbon. They include Greg Mankiw, Glenn Hubbard, Art Laffer, Doug Holtz-Eakin and former Secretary of State and Treasury George Schultz – now at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution – who helped Reagan negotiate the Montreal Protocol.»

Brian Tokar – The Myths of ‘Green Capitalism – Climate and Capitalism – 17/03/2014 – Institute for Social Ecology – http://climateandcapitalism.com/2014/03/17/myths-green-capitalism/ – autores “Early “free market” interpretations of environmentalism were advanced by corporate executives such as DuPont CEO Edgar Wollard and Jim Rogers of Duke Power, as well as neoliberal economists such as Julian Simon, who advised the right-libertarian Cato Institute. Paraphrasing Simon, Terry Anderson of Stanford’s Hoover Institution described “free market environmentalism” as a way to show how “human ingenuity stimulated by market forces finds ways to cope with natural resource constraints.”[5] He continued: “In general, free market environmentalism emphasizes the positive incentives associated with prices, profits and entrepreneurship, as opposed to political environmentalism, which emphasizes negative incentives associated with regulation and taxes.”[6]”

David M. Slayton and David Titley – Time for real leadership on climate change, energy, national security – Fox News – 31/03/2014 – Research fellow at the Hoover Institution and Co-Chair of the Hoover Institution’s Arctic Security Initiative; Professor of Practice in Meteorology at Penn State and the founding director of Penn State’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk – http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/31/time-for-real-leadership-on-climate-change-energy-national-security/ – autores «The parallels between the political decisions regarding climate change we have made and the decisions that led Europe to World War One are striking – and sobering. The decisions made in 1914 reflected political policies pursued for short-term gains and benefits, coupled with institutional hubris, and a failure to imagine and understand the risks or to learn from recent history. The result was a disaster in many ways; its reverberations continue to shape Europe and indeed the entire world today.»

Clive Hamilton – The Risks of Climate Engineering – The New York Times – 12/02/2015 – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/opinion/the-risks-of-climate-engineering.html – autores “Early work on geoengineering has given rise to one of the strangest paradoxes in American politics: enthusiasm for geoengineering from some who have attacked the idea of human-caused global warming. The Heartland Institute, infamous for its billboard comparing those who support climate science to the Unabomber, Theodore J. Kaczynski, featured an article in one of its newsletters from 2007 describing geoengineering as a “practical, cost-effective global warming strategy.” Some scholars associated with conservative think tanks like the Hoover Institution and the Hudson Institute have written optimistically about geoengineering. Oil companies, too, have dipped their toes into the geoengineering waters with Shell, for instance, having funded research into a scheme to put lime into seawater so it absorbs more carbon dioxide.”

Yongyang Cai et al (2015) – Environmental tipping points significantly affect the cost−benefit assessment of climate policies – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences PNAS 112:4606–4611 doi:10.1073/pnas.1503890112 – 30/03/2015 – Becker Friedman Institute, University of Chicago + Hoover Institution – 5 autores «Most current cost−benefit analyses of climate change policies suggest an optimal global climate policy that is significantly less stringent than the level required to meet the internationally agreed 2 °C target. This is partly because the sum of estimated economic damage of climate change across various sectors, such as energy use and changes in agricultural production, results in only a small economic loss or even a small economic gain in the gross world product under predicted levels of climate change. However, those cost−benefit analyses rarely take account of environmental tipping points leading to abrupt and irreversible impacts on market and nonmarket goods and services, including those provided by the climate and by ecosystems. Here we show that including environmental tipping point impacts in a stochastic dynamic integrated assessment model profoundly alters cost−benefit assessment of global climate policy. The risk of a tipping point, even if it only has nonmarket impacts, could substantially increase the present optimal carbon tax. For example, a risk of only 5% loss in nonmarket goods that occurs with a 5% annual probability at 4 °C increase of the global surface temperature causes an immediate two-thirds increase in optimal carbon tax. If the tipping point also has a 5% impact on market goods, the optimal carbon tax increases by more than a factor of 3. Hence existing cost−benefit assessments of global climate policy may be significantly underestimating the needs for controlling climate change.»

Wiki – William Volker Fund – Wikipedia – 05/04/2015 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Volker_Fund – autores “In the early 1960s, Luhnow’s management of the fund became increasingly inconsistent, and in early 1963 he suddenly fired most of his staff, including Harper and Rothbard.[8][9] Harper continued the basic nature and spirit of his Volker Fund work by creating the Institute for Humane Studies. Luhnow hired Ivan R. Bierly, an ex-Foundation for Economic Education senior staffer. Luhnow reorganized the Volker Fund as the Center for American Studies and ended the fund’s charitable commitments to Kansas City institutions.[9] Bierly recruited William T. Couch, R. J. Rushdoony, and David Leslie Hoggan to run the new center. Rushdoony hired his future son-in-law, |Gary North, as a summer intern in 1963. Immediately, Rushdoony and Hoggan became lightning rods for controversy. Rushdoony, a conservative Presbyterian minister, alienated many of the fund’s secular and non-Protestant supporters and was fired by Bierly.[9] Hoggan was even more controversial for his explicitly pro-Hitler and pro-Nazis ympathies.[13] He was fired shortly after Rushdoony. The Rushdoony/Hoggan controversy left Bierly and Couch scrambling to find support for the center even as Luhnow grew old and sick and was no longer able to support the organization. They courted Stanford University and the Hoover Institution with several million dollars in remaining Volker money only to be rebuffed. The center proved short lived and closed late in 1964 when Couch and Birely failed to secure the support of Stanford and Hoover.[9] A decade later, the remainder of the Volker Fund money, amounting to about seven million dollars, went to the Hoover Institution.[14][15] The Fund’s files have disappeared.”

Edward P. Lazear et al (2015) – Making Do with Less: Working Harder during Recessions – Journal of Labor Economics 34: S333-S360 – 18/12/2015 – Graduate School of Business + Hoover Institution; Graduate School of Business, Stanford University – https://economics.uchicago.edu/workshops/Lazear%20Making%20Do%20With%20Less%20Sept%202013%20.pdf – 3 autores «There are two obvious possibilities that can account for the rise in productivity during recent recessions. The first is that the decline in the workforce was not random, and that the average worker was of higher quality during the recession than in the preceding period. The second is that each worker produced more while holding worker quality constant. We call the second effect, «making do with less,» that is, getting more effort from fewer workers. Using data spanning June 2006 to May 2010 on individual worker productivity from a large firm, it is possible to measure the increase in productivity due to effort and sorting. For this firm, the second effect–that workers’ effort increases–dominates the first effect–that the composition of the workforce differs over the business cycle.»

Jane Mayer (2016) – Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right – Bantam Dell – ISBN-13: 978-0385535595 – 464 Págs. – “Think tanks funded by the Kochs and their allied network of donors, such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University— where six attendees at the Kochs’ annual seminars served in official capacities— began cranking out research papers, press releases, and op-ed columns opposing Obama’s stimulus plan.” (p. 171)

Yongyang Cai, Timothy M. Lenton & Thomas S. Lontzek (2016) – Risk of multiple interacting tipping points should encourage rapid CO2 emission reduction – Nature Climate Change 6:520–525 doi:10.1038/nclimate2964 – 21/03/2016 – Hoover Institution, Stanford University + Becker Friedman Institute, University of Chicago; Earth System Science, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter; Department of Business Administration, University of Zurich – https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43097731.pdf – autores «Evidence suggests that several elements of the climate system could be tipped into a different state by global warming, causing irreversible economic damages. To address their policy implications, we incorporated five interacting climate tipping points into a stochastic-dynamic integrated assessment model, calibrating their likelihoods and interactions on results from an existing expert elicitation. Here we show that combining realistic assumptions about policymakers’ preferences under uncertainty, with the prospect of multiple future interacting climate tipping points, increases the present social cost of carbon in the model nearly eightfold from US$15 per tCO2 to US$116 per tCO2. Furthermore, passing some tipping points increases the likelihood of other tipping points occurring to such an extent that it abruptly increases the social cost of carbon. The corresponding optimal policy involves an immediate, massive effort to control CO2 emissions, which are stopped by mid-century, leading to climate stabilization at <1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.»

Jeremy Carl and David Fedor (2016) – Tracking global carbon revenues: A survey of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade in the real world – Energy Policy 96:50–77 doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.023 – 27/05/2016 – Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy, Hoover Institution, Stanford University – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302531/pdfft?md5=501fd2c9ec6918f095c55fd973ffb814&pid=1-s2.0-S0301421516302531-main.pdf – autores “Highlights • We analyze public revenue generated from global carbon tax and cap-and-trade systems. • 70% of cap-and-trade revenues ($4.60 billion) are earmarked for “green spending”. • 72% of carbon tax revenues ($15.6 billion) are refunded or used in general funds. • Revenues per capita vary widely and are a useful qualitative explanatory variable.”

Wiki – William E. Simon – Sourcewatch – 12/11/2016 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Simon – autores «Simon served as President of the John M. Olin Foundation and as trustee of The John Templeton Foundation. He has also served on the boards of many of America’s premier think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. He was the author of two best-selling books, A Time for Truth in 1978 (ghostwritten by libertarian author Edith Efron) and A Time for Action in 1980.»

Wiki – Thomas Gale Moore – Sourcewatch – 10/01/2017 – https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Thomas_Gale_Moore – autores “Thomas Gale Moore is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is an expert on regulation, transportation, privatization, and technology and the author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming. Speaking Topics: Global Warming Privatization Technology Transportation Trucking [1] Moore blew smoke in America’s face when he served as «peer-reviewer» for a Tobacco Institute hogwash report: Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination ”

Wiki – Thomas Gale Moore – Sourcewatch – 10/01/2017 – https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Thomas_Gale_Moore – autores “Moore is listed as Adjunct Scholar for Cato Institute, [2] and currently is on the board of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He is also associated with The Independent Institute, and Hoover Institution. The tobacco links to Cato and C.E.I. are well documented, and do not need repetition — just click the links provided. The Independent Institute is another Koch-funded organ using tabacco-techniques of the white lab coats to dissemble about global warming, of which Moore is an identified flack. Remember, Koch is an OIL company, even if they loan troops for tobacco battles. The evidence of this report is that Moore is corrupt, and was so on the day his name was listed on this report. Funders to Moore’s various institutes include the «usual suspects» Olin-Bradley-Koch-Scaife, et al. Moore has also been affiliated with the Marshall Institute’s Independent Commission on Environmental Education and Environmental Literacy Council. ”

– William K. Bowes, Jr. – The Independent Institute – 14/02/2017 – http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=1341 – autores «Mr. Bowes was the founding shareholder of Amgen and was its first Chairman and Treasurer. Prior to founding U.S.V.P., he’d already had success as a venture capitalist with companies like Cetus, Raychem (where he served on the board from 1961 until the late 1970s), and Dymo Industries. He had previously been Senior Vice President and Director of Blyth Eastman Dillon & Company, where he worked from 1953 to 1978 and was a consultant to Blyth Eastman Paine Webber from 1978 to 1980. He has also served on the board of directors for Devices for Vascular Intervention, Glycomed, and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems. Today Mr. Bowes devotes much of his time to education and medical research. He is on the executive committee of the San Francisco Conservatory of Music and recently retired as Board Chairman of The Exploratorium, San Francisco’s exemplary interactive museum of the sciences. He also serves on the Board of the Asian Art Museum, Grace Cathedral, UCSF Foundation, Institute for Systems Biology, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Hoover Institution. He is on the visiting committee at the Harvard Business School.»

Philip Morris – Tobacco Strategy – Tobacco Documents Bates 2022887066 – 28/03/2017 – http://goo.gl/qMMbFr – autores “Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace Have worked with them on several pieces focused on the Clinton program for universal health care coverage, which, combined with insurance coverage for mental health and reduced prescription costs, bound together with a fuzzy plan to finance the program, would be a recipe for disaster that will result in reduced employment in the international economy, continued unequal access to medical services and additions to the federal deficit.”

Wiki – Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace – Wikipedia – 04/04/2017 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution – autores “It is a think tank, a host to academic activity. Its mission statement outlines its basic tenets: representative government, private enterprise, peace, personal freedom, and the safeguards of the American system. The Hoover Institution is influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements.”

Wiki – Aaron Director – Wikipedia – 31/12/2017 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Director – autores “Aaron Director (/dɪˈrɛktər/; September 21, 1901 – September 11, 2004), a celebrated professor at the University of Chicago Law School, played a central role in the development of the Chicago school of economics. Together with his better known brother-in-law, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, Director influenced a generation of jurists, including Robert Bork, Richard Posner, Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist … Director founded the Journal of Law & Economics in 1958, which he co-edited with Nobel laureate Ronald Coase, that helped to unite the fields of law and economics with far-reaching influence. In 1962, he helped to found the Committee on a Free Society. In 1946, Director’s appointment to the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School began a half-century of intellectual productivity, although his reluctance about publishing left few writings behind. Director taught antitrust courses at the law school with Edward Levi, who eventually would serve as Dean of Chicago’s Law School, President of the University of Chicago, and as U.S. Attorney General in the Ford administration. After retiring from the University of Chicago Law School in 1965, Director relocated to California and took a position at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He died September 11, 2004, at his home in Los Altos Hills, California; he was ten days shy of his 103rd birthday. ”

Wiki – Eric Voegelin – Wikipedia – 10/01/2018 – https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin – autores “Erich Hermann Wilhelm Vögelin, conocido como Eric Voegelin, (Colonia, Alemania; 3 de enero de 1901 – Stanford, Estados Unidos; 19 de enero de 1985) fue un politólogo y filósofo político de origen alemán, refugiado desde 1938 en Estados Unidos, país del cual adoptó la nacionalidad en 1944. Fue profesor de Ciencia Política en las universidades de Viena, Luisiana, Múnich y Stanford … Se establecería en Luisiana, donde impartió clases en la Universidad Estatal, hasta que en 1958 aceptó una oferta para ocupar una cátedra de Ciencias Políticas en la Universidad de Múnich que había estado vacía desde la muerte de Max Weber en 1920. Tras una década en Alemania, en 1969, desencantado con la situación política y social encontrada, regresó a Estados Unidos, esta vez a la Hoover Institution de la Universidad de Stanford, en California, donde continuaría con su trabajo hasta su muerte en 1985. ”

Wiki – Herbert Hoover – Wikipedia – 15/01/2018 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover – autores «Herbert Clark Hoover (August 10, 1874 – October 20, 1964) was an American engineer, businessman and politician who served as the 31st President of the United States from 1929 to 1933 during the Great Depression. A Republican, as Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s he introduced Progressive Era themes of efficiency in the business community and provided government support for standardization, efficiency and international trade. As president from 1929 to 1933, his ambitious programs were overwhelmed by the Great Depression, which seemed to get worse every year because of his insistence on immediately paying for the increasingly large-scale interventions he made in the economy. Hoover was defeated in a landslide in 1932 by Democratic Franklin D. Roosevelt and spent the rest of his life as a conservative denouncing big government, liberalism and federal intervention in economic affairs as Democrats repeatedly used his Depression record to attack conservatism and justify more regulation of the economy.»

Wiki – James Piereson – Wikipedia – 22/01/2018 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Piereson – autores “James Piereson is an American conservative scholar … Philanthropy: From 1985 to 2005, he served as Executive Director and Trustee of the John M. Olin Foundation.[1][2][3][4][5] He is President of the William E. Simon Foundation, a grant-giving organization headquartered in New York City.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] He is a Senior Fellow and serves as Chairman of the Center for the American University at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.[1][6][4][5][7][8][9] He also serves as Chairman of the selection committee for the VERITAS Fund for Higher Education, giving grants to selected programs at US colleges and universities.[1][4] Additionally, he is chairman of the selection committee for the Hayek Book Prize awarded by the Manhattan Institute each year.[1] He serves on the Boards of the Pinkerton Foundation, the Thomas W. Smith Foundation, the Center for Individual Rights, the Philanthropy Roundtable (where he served as Chairman from 1995 to 1999), the Foundation for Cultural Review, the American Spectator Foundation, the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and Donors Trust.[1][2][3][4][5][10][11][12] Additionally, he is a member of the selection committee for the Clare Boothe Luce Program for Women in the Sciences, Medicine, and Engineering.[1][4] He is a member of the grant advisory committee of the Searle Freedom Trust.[1] He is also a member of the Executive Advisory Committee of the William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Rochester and of the Board of Visitors of the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.[1][5] He also sits on the Advisory Council of the Henry Salvatori Center for the Study of Individual Freedom at Claremont McKenna College.[1][4] He sits on the publication committees of City Journal and National Affairs.[1][13][14] ”

David R. Loy (2019) – Ecodharma: Buddhist Teachings for the Ecological Crisis – Wisdom Publications – ISBN-13: 978-1614293828 – 240 Págs. – “The point of intersectionality — a more Buddhist term would be interrelationship, or interdependence — is that the ecological problems I’ve highlighted, and the inequitable and hierarchical structures of most human societies, are not separate issues. … “Like the sinking of the Titanic, catastrophes are not democratic,” said Henry I. Miller, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. ”

David R. Loy (2019) – Ecodharma: Buddhist Teachings for the Ecological Crisis – Wisdom Publications – ISBN-13: 978-1614293828 – 240 Págs. – ““Like the sinking of the Titanic, catastrophes are not democratic,” said Henry I. Miller, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “A much higher fraction of passengers from the lower decks were lost. We’ll see the same phenomenon with global warming.” Justin Lin, chief economist at the World Bank, has estimated that 75–80 percent of the damage caused by global warming “will be suffered by developing countries, although they contribute only about one-third of greenhouse gases.” Africa, for example, has been the source of less than 3 percent of global emissions since 1900, yet its 1.3 billion people (as of late 2017) are threatened by some of the biggest risks of water supply disruption, including drought and desertification. ”

Peter Robinson – Bjorn Lomborg Declares “False Alarm” on Climate Hysteria – Uncommon Knowledge – 24/07/2020 – Hoover Institution – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxWYglbtqnQ&ab_channel=HooverInstitution – autores «This week, a conversation with Bjorn Lomborg, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, the president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and one of the foremost climate experts in the world today. His new book, False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet, is an argument for treating climate as a serious problem but not an extinction-level event requiring such severe and drastic steps as rewiring a large part of the culture and the economy. Bjorn responds directly to some of the most vociferous climate policy critics, including Greta Thunberg, author David Wallace-Wells (The Uninhabitable Earth: Life after Warming), and proponents of the Green New Deal. We also discuss some promising emerging technologies and why worst-case scenarios are often just that—scenarios that are used to motivate the public into action but are not in fact likely to occur. It’s a sobering and even-handed discussion on climate that does not include apocalyptic endings for the planet.»