Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
72 64 80 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
58 40 75
All types combined: 70 (likely 62 to 77, high confidence), from 52 claims: 43 factual claims, 9 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Vinod Khosla's claims
“I am absolutely convinced that that is the case.”
Vinod Khosla, venture capitalist, interviewee 28 September 2007 Interviews - Vinod Khosla (Frontline Heat) (PBS Frontline)
Oil interests are running massive PR campaigns against ethanol.
Mixed Partly true and partly false in roughly equal measure.
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of 2007-09-28 whether oil interests were running large ('massive') PR campaigns against ethanol. True: documented large-scale oil-industry-funded PR or advertising campaigns against ethanol in about 2006–2007 (e.g. ad spending, funded front groups or media campaigns of significant size). Mostly true: oil-industry PR and lobbying against ethanol is documented, but its scale falls short of 'massive'. Mixed: there was some oil-industry messaging against ethanol, but it was modest, or hard to tell apart from other industries' campaigns. Mostly false: opposition was mainly quiet lobbying or came mostly from non-oil groups, and the claim of massive PR is unsupported. False: the evidence shows no oil-industry PR campaign against ethanol in that period.
Evidence
- 08CORN-062 CornsTalk Fall08 Nebraska Corn Board · 2008
“Anti-corn and ethanol websites, blogs and headlines were bought and paid for with money from big food companies, livestock and poultry conglomerates and, according to reports, oil industry money.”
- [PDF] If we could create the perfect fuel, what Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Regional Economic Development commentary by Martha A. Schlicher) · 2009
“Oil companies were further threatened by the growing volume of ethanol reducing their refining capacity needs. Food companies were threatened by an alternative demand for their feedstock that increased prices. A well-funded, well-organized campaign convinced consumers and legislators around the world that corn-based ethanol was causing starvation and food riots.”
- 08CORN-062 CornsTalk Fall08 Nebraska Corn Board · 2008
“The Grocery Manufacturers Association joined with some national livestock groups to blame corn/ethanol for higher food prices. This is a multi-million dollar campaign to divert the attention of higher food costs away from energy while blaming agriculture.”
- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE U.S. Congress (Congressional Record, Senate proceedings) · 18 June 2007
“Now they are blaming ethanol, the small amount—these 1,200 pumps across the country at 170 gas stations— they are blaming that for the reason they can't do anything about their refineries.”
- Cornstalk newsletter, Fall 2008 (Nebraska Corn Board) Nebraska Corn Board · 2008
“Anti-corn and ethanol websites, blogs and headlines were bought and paid for with money from big food companies, livestock and poultry conglomerates and, according to reports, oil industry money.”
- Cornstalk newsletter, Fall 2008 (Nebraska Corn Board) Nebraska Corn Board · 2008
“Although an anti-ethanol coalition may have been loosely formed a year ago, by springtime the group had solidified its position and hired a high-dollar public relations firm inside the beltway in Washington, D.C., to spread its message.”
- Cornstalk newsletter, Fall 2008 (Nebraska Corn Board) Nebraska Corn Board · 2008
“The Grocery Manufacturers Association joined with some national livestock groups to blame corn/ethanol for higher food prices. This is a multi-million dollar campaign to divert the attention of higher food costs away from energy while blaming agriculture.”
- Commentary (Regional Economic Development, Vol. 5, No. 1) Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis · 2009
“A well-funded, well-organized campaign convinced consumers and legislators around the world that corn-based ethanol was causing starvation and food riots.”
- TIME TO CHANGE THE RECORD ON OIL POLICY Consumer Federation of America (Mark Cooper) · August 2006
“reports on the launch of a new public relations $30 million campaign by the American Petroleum Institute “to follow a national advertising effort that ahs cost around $25 million so far.””
- Energy Security and Oil Dependence (S. Hrg. 109-860), Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing, May 16, 2006, prepared statement of Vinod Khosla U.S. Government Printing Office / U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations · 16 May 2006 Own record
“The oil interests and the American Petroleum Institute keep propagating myths like insufficient land, poor energy balance, and high production costs to curb enthusiasm for ethanol.”
- Seeing Through Big Oil’s Smoke, Mirrors CropLife · 11 December 2007
“While the price of oil hits record levels, the petroleum industry continues its negative campaign against ethanol, specifically E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.”
- Grassley floor speech in opposition to amendment to repeal the ethanol blender’s tax credit Office of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley · 13 June 2011
“Refiners enjoy a cozy monopoly on our nation’s transportation fuel. They opposed the Renewable Fuels Standard because it cuts into their monopoly.”
Reasoning
E11, an agricultural trade outlet writing in December 2007, says the petroleum industry was running a "negative campaign" against ethanol and E85, and in the 2007 Senate record (E4) a senator says refiners were blaming ethanol. Neither gives figures showing that this effort was large. The multi-million dollar anti-ethanol campaign described in E3 and E7 is attributed to a food-industry association and livestock groups; E6 describes an anti-ethanol coalition that hired a Washington PR firm but does not name its members, and E2 and E8 describe a well-funded campaign without naming its funders. Oil money is mentioned only "according to reports" (E1), and the American Petroleum Institute's $30 million PR campaign (E9) is not shown to target ethanol. Some oil-industry messaging against ethanol is documented, but its size is not shown and it is hard to separate from other industries' campaigns, which fits the criteria for "mixed".
Cite this claim
Vinod Khosla, “Oil interests are running massive PR campaigns against ethanol.” (said 28 September 2007). Verdict: mixed. Reliability API, claim c_85e4ebda2f4b, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_85e4ebda2f4b
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Vinod Khosla? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.