This email in December 2003 shows what appears to be the genesis of the idea of setting up the RealClimate.org website.
There a BBC (impartiality – ho ho) connection. Roger Harrabin at this meeting at Tyndall (why was he there in the first place?) of the BBC apparently “…wanted something more pro-active.” according to the email.
#2974 is an email from Prof John Shepherd, a Tyndall advisory board member, to RealClimate’s Stefan Rahmstorf. Dated December 2003, it is a response to an email in which Rahmstorf has suggested setting up a website to counter sceptic arguments (perhaps the germ of the idea for RealClimate itself?). That’s not the point though. The point will be clear when you read Shepherd’s report of a meeting of Tyndall’s advisory board.
Many thanks for your very helpful comments. Essentially I agree on all counts, and indeed the “sceptics ask, scientists answer” web-page that you have set up is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind as a possible minimal response that we (Tyndall et al, and even maybe the Royal Society if it wants to get involved) might undrertake. Wherever possible this could/should refer to other reputable sites (incl IPCC, Hadley Centre, the ones you mention, etc etc) rather than duplicating the material. I would envisage that such a site could be maintained by a consortium of the willing, in this case involving (say) Tyndall, Hadley & PIK. We could then asked the RS (et al) to mention it and link to it on some sort of “sound science” page on their own web-site(s) (Rachel, do you think that this might fly ?).
We had an interesting debate on this at the Tyndall Advisory Board last week, and the consensus was very much in line with your views, except for the journalist present (Roger Horobin), who wanted something more pro-active. I am more sympathetic to his view than most of you, I think, but the question is what more would be useful, effective, and not too burdensome ? So far I don’t think I have identified anything, but I do think that the sort of web-page mentioned above would be a start, and so I am copying this to Asher Minns, for him to consider and discuss with John & Mike at Tyndall Central.
The date of this email is Wed, 03 Dec 2003
Academia moves slowly in most things. They had to build consensus and then search for money to do it, perhaps money that couldn’t be from NASA or other publicly funded research due to the conflicts of interest that would have created with such an outreach. They found money in the form of Fenton Communications, now Environmental Media Services.
According to whois RealClimate.org was registered as a domain almost a year later 19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Domain ID:D105219760-LROR Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC Last Updated On:13-Jan-2011 00:25:24 UTC Expiration Date:19-Nov-2015 16:39:03 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Active Registrar, Inc. (R1709-LROR) Status:OK Registrant ID:ACTR1011142017 Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW Registrant Street2:5th Floor Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Washington Registrant State/Province:DC Registrant Postal Code:20036 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:betsy@ems.org Admin ID:ACTR1011149427 Admin Name:Betsy Ensley Admin Organization:Environmental Media Services Admin Street1:1320 18th St, NW Admin Street2:5th Floor Admin Street3: Admin City:Washington Admin State/Province:DC Admin Postal Code:20036 Admin Country:US Admin Phone:+1.2024636670 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email:betsy@ems.org Tech ID:ACTR1011143071 Tech Name:Betsy Ensley Tech Organization:Environmental Media Services Tech Street1:1320 18th St, NW Tech Street2:5th Floor Tech Street3: Tech City:Washington Tech State/Province:DC Tech Postal Code:20036 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.2024636670 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email:betsy@ems.org Name Server:NS1.WEBFACTION.COM Name Server:NS2.WEBFACTION.COM Name Server:NS3.WEBFACTION.COM Name Server:NS4.WEBFACTION.COM
journolist – Climate style.
Someone clever needs to coin a phrase for “astroturfing” in this realm, which is what RealClimate seems to be, Gastroturfing (CO2 is a gas)? Nah, something more clever is possible….
Where better to get funding than from the Environmental Defence Fund? Lots of cash and lots of fingers in the carbon trading pie.
The nefarious conspiring that they try to pin on us climate realists
is in fact their very own practice.
Typical Leftie projections.
Which side has all the money and spreads gigaTons of disinformation?
Which side is it that seeks to force dangerous policies on the world?
Which side is it that squelches debate and ignores counterveiling data?
Which side is it that rails against CO2
while 14,000+ of its adherents trek 15,000-mile round trips by jet?
Which side is it that emulates the Inquisition, or sells indulgences?
I can understand academia wanting to do this, ditto research organizations.. but for the media to ‘want something more pro-active’… I get sick to my stomach. I would not ever have thought the BBC would stoop that low. This guy needs to be fired NOW, along with his bosses!
RealClimate tied to George Soros?
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080322221036AAFFd8a
Does the name Betsy Ensley show up in any of the Emails? That might be interesting.
Shill Climate?
Fenton Communications?
well for all who may be interested in the “watermelon” nature of much radical environmentalism (green on the outside, pink/red on the inside), there is quite a backstory to the activities of Fenton Communications. I wonder how they and the Tyndall/CRU people found each other and worked out the Real Climate website? That would be an interesting tale — here’s something on David Fenton and his development of Fenton Communications:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=814
For those who have not read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, in it she points out that for the parasites on the left, it is essential to their self esteem to think that they are getting away with their deceits. When we point out the intellectual dishonesty and the patently obvious fraud which is being committed, we are attacking their “souls”, such as they are. The Warmbies respond accordingly.
Anthony, this is going to get real political. The thing here is that “Environmental Media Services” is actually
That is according to wikipedia. Might want to grab a screencap before it gets changed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services
Fenton Communications is basically the primary “Progressive” PR agency in the US. Their basic role is one of “astroturf” For example, they were responsible for the “Alar” apple scare many years ago. One thing they will do is create several different “grass roots” groups to make it appear as if there are several different organizations working on an issue when in fact it is all orchestrated by Fenton. Rather than creating different “chapters” of the same organization, they will create entirely separate organizations to make it look like an issue has more interest. For example during the Iraq war such groups as Veterans for Peace, Win Without War, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, etc. all shared one thing … Fenton Communications as their PR agency.
That EMS “shares office space and personnel” with EMS basically says that EMS (and Real Climate) are for all practical purposes part of the Fenton Communications PR machine. I don’t need to hear any more at this point, I already know the game now. NOTHING published at that site should be believed. It is a purely political propaganda site. That is all Fenton Communications does.
..UN scientist: fighting climate change saves costs
By ARTHUR MAX
“..DURBAN, South Africa (AP) — The U.N.’s top climate scientist cautioned climate negotiators Wednesday that global warming is leading to human dangers and soaring financial costs, but containing carbon emissions will have a host of benefits.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, summarized a litany of potential disasters at a U.N. climate conference in the South African city of Durban. Although he gave no explicit deadlines, the implication was that time is running out for greenhouse gas emissions to level off and begin to decline.”
Heat waves currently experienced once every 20 years will happen every other year by the end of this century, he said.
Coastal areas and islands are threatened with inundation by global warming, rain-reliant agriculture in Africa will shrink by half and many species will disappear. Within a decade, up to 250 million more people will face the stress of scarce water. (…)
AP and fact checking… LOL
I would say at this point “Real” Climate has lost any benefit of doubt I might have given it. It’s sole purpose in life is to present a very specific viewpoint. They will never allow a balanced discussion there because if they did, Fenton would kick them out. Fenton will not allow a real balanced serious discussion as it goes against their primary objective.
evidently the questions about RC working with EMS and Fenton Communications came up in 2005, and RC issued a flat denial there there is any kind of funding or editorial relationship at all:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/
still, looking at the kinds of stuff done by EMS and Fenton, I think any ‘reasonable’ person has to be at least a bit suspicious about how/why RC ended up linked with such activist left-wing partners if RC is truly only about the science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenton_Communications
http://www.ewg.org/
“Someone clever needs to coin a phrase for “astroturfing” in this realm, which is what RealClimate seems to be, Gastroturfing (CO2 is a gas)? Nah, something more clever is possible….”
Gasroots/Gasrooting = that propaganda which seeks to appear as a legitimate grassroots movement but which is in fact an orchestrated gas (CO2/bowel based) movement.
The plot sickens…..
‘Roger Horobin’
Brilliant. That could stick!
There is absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY that “The Cause” can claim political neutrality. This has exposed that they are absolutely politically driven. EVERYTHING that Fenton does is politically driven, it is the purpose of their existence. For Jones or Mann to claim that someone who disagrees with them is politically driven is simply an expression of them projecting their own motivations.
This is actually quite normal. A person likes to believe that they are “normal” and pretty much like other people. A person with a political agenda on an issue will likely see a person who doesn’t agree with that agenda as also politically motivated for the other side. So that the first thing out of the mouth of Mann would be that an opponent is political makes perfect sense when he himself is politically driven.
Jig’s up on this, I’m afraid. They have all been outed as left wing political shills.
Wow, and there I was, listening to the pro-AGW side of the argument, hearing how the 2nd round of emails should all be taken with a collective yawn because they contain nothing new! This particular slice of “nothing” was indeed most edifying 😉
Weren’t fenton communications linked to Pachauri by Richard North?
I think they may be connected with thinkprogress too
Interesting blog post in how Fenton sees ways to exploit the Internet for its agenda:
http://dis-engaged.blogspot.com/2009/03/enter-fenton-communications.html
Environmental Media Services isn’t even Environmental Media Services anymore.
Now, it’s Science Communication Network. Same front group, different name. Makes it harder to keep up with what they’re doing.
There are at least 24 BBC (impartiality – ho ho) people included in the UEA emails: http://climatologyplagiarism.blogspot.com/2011/11/shilling-for-living.html
Depressing stuff – when your broadcast monopoly is fused with corrupt charlatans – well, we now know what you get on TV.
Betsy Ensley, MoveOn.org
http://chicago2011.drupal.org/user/betsy-ensley
If I may quote (see below) in full the “disclaimer” I linked above, I think that the RealClimate statement may be a piece of artful mis-direction, since it only refers to denying (possible) specific funding or planning aspects of Fenton Communications and Environmental Media Services…. i.e., in denying that RC was a creation of or funded by FC or EMS, that does not begin to answer the questions about (1) how RC was in fact developed, and (2) who’s funding it, etc.
So even if the checks or editorial decisions don’t come from FC or EMS, that does not begin to explain how RC came to be using FC and EMS. A supposedly ‘neutral’ science-driven site (RC) linked at the hip with two of the most highly partisan left-wing (or “progressive” as David Fenton prefers to say) centers of propaganda and agitation.
Here’s the carefully worded RC disclaimer — think about all that it does not exclude, even if it *might* be accurate as so carefully stated:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/
“Readers of the Feb. 14th, 2005 Wall Street Journal may have gotten the impression that RealClimate is in some way affiliated with an environmental organisation. We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. All of these facts have always been made clear to everyone who asked (see for instance: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5705/netwatch.shtml).”