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 believe today a massive amount of PR money is being funded by various oil interests.”
Vinod Khosla, venture capitalist, interviewee 28 September 2007 Interviews - Vinod Khosla (Frontline Heat) (PBS Frontline)
Khosla said he believed a massive amount of PR money was being funded by various oil interests, including oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
Judged as of 2007-09-28. True: documented evidence (e.g. lobbying and advertising spending records, investigative reporting, academic studies) shows that oil companies and/or the American Petroleum Institute were spending large sums (tens of millions of dollars or more a year) on PR, advertising or messaging campaigns around 2007. Mostly true: large oil-funded PR spending is documented, but the scale is somewhat smaller than 'massive' implies, or it is mainly by one actor. Mixed: some oil-funded PR spending is documented, but the evidence is modest or ambiguous about its scale. Mostly false: spending existed but was small, or mainly occurred well before 2007. False: the evidence shows no significant oil-industry PR funding at that time. The speaker's hedge ('I believe') does not lower the bar on the factual part.
Evidence
- Decades of Deceit Union of Concerned Scientists · May 2025
“Fossil fuel industry trade associations alone spent more than $1.4 billion on PR and advertising between 2008 and 2018. Nearly half of that came from API (Climate Investigations Center 2018).”
- Exxon's Snake Oil Columbia Journalism Review · 31 October 2019
“Over the same time span, ExxonMobil gave tens of millions of dollars to think tanks and researchers who denied the science of climate change.”
- Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming ABC News · 3 January 2007
“The UCS report found that between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil has funnelled about $16 million to 43 advocacy groups and 16 individuals in an effort to”
- Exxon's Snake Oil Columbia Journalism Review · 31 October 2019
“Exxon pledges to stop funding climate denialist public policy groups; however, a 2015 Guardian investigation showed funding did not stop.”
Reasoning
E1 reports that fossil fuel trade associations spent more than $1.4 billion on PR and advertising between 2008 and 2018, nearly half of it from API. That averages well over tens of millions of dollars a year, starting just after the September 2007 claim date. E3 (January 2007) documents that ExxonMobil funnelled about $16 million to advocacy groups between 1998 and 2005, and E2 notes tens of millions to climate-denial think tanks. Large oil-funded messaging spending is documented in the years before and after 2007: more than $1.4 billion by fossil fuel trade associations, nearly half from API, between 2008 and 2018 [E1], and about $16 million from ExxonMobil to advocacy groups between 1998 and 2005 [E3]. However, the biggest figure (E1) begins in 2008 and is a multi-year total, and the pre-2007 Exxon figures are smaller and are funding for groups rather than direct PR. So the evidence supports the claim strongly, though somewhat indirectly for 2007 itself.
Cite this claim
Vinod Khosla, “Khosla said he believed a massive amount of PR money was being funded by various oil interests, including oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute.” (said 28 September 2007). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_a5aa75fb0a8c, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_a5aa75fb0a8c
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.