The genesis of RealClimate.org appears in the Climategate emails, and surprise, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems connected

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.

Bishop Hill writes:

#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
About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to The genesis of RealClimate.org appears in the Climategate emails, and surprise, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems connected

  1. PhilJourdan says:

    journolist – Climate style.

  2. Steven Rosenberg says:

    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….

  3. John A says:

    Where better to get funding than from the Environmental Defence Fund? Lots of cash and lots of fingers in the carbon trading pie.

  4. Interstellar Bill says:

    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?

  5. Ed_B says:

    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!

  6. Brian Cooper says:

    Does the name Betsy Ensley show up in any of the Emails? That might be interesting.

  7. Scott Covert says:

    Shill Climate?

  8. Skiphil says:

    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

  9. wsbriggs says:

    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.

  10. crosspatch says:

    Anthony, this is going to get real political. The thing here is that “Environmental Media Services” is actually

    EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications (where they shared the same office space and personnel),[3][4] “the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]“[5] which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues.

    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.

  11. TomRude says:

    ..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

  12. crosspatch says:

    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.

  13. Skiphil says:

    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/

  14. Michael Eiseman says:

    “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.

  15. Charles.U.Farley. says:

    The plot sickens…..

  16. Richard Lawson says:

    ‘Roger Horobin’

    Brilliant. That could stick!

  17. crosspatch says:

    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.

  18. Coke says:

    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 ;)

  19. tallbloke says:

    Weren’t fenton communications linked to Pachauri by Richard North?
    I think they may be connected with thinkprogress too

  20. crosspatch says:

    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

  21. Brian says:

    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.

  22. ZT says:

    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.

  23. Skiphil says:

    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).”

  24. Mike Davis says:

    Tip of the ICEBERG! There is much more beneath!

  25. Charles.U.Farley. says:

    #4959, they really are just basing this codswallop on faith… one of thems even a “christian” and a scientist, talk about an internal conflict.

  26. crosspatch says:

    And lo and behold, a great deal of the contributions to EMS comes from: (drum roll) … Tides Foundation!

    Oh, my goodness. We basically have the number one financial organ of activist “progressive” causes. You have to be in pretty good standing with all the right people to get money from Tides. No way they are going to give money to anyone who is actually objective. They ONLY provide money for activist organizations that further their agenda.

    Actually, in a web search I see this link being made in 2010 in a thread called “Catholicism and Climate Change” on a religious website.

  27. Skiphil says:

    gosh, Betsy Ensley was a busy bee in 2004, and of course her work for the RealClimate project had nothing whatsoever to do with her work for EMS and MoveOn.org

    “Betsy previously managed advocacy websites for Environmental Media Services and MoveOn.org in the build up to the 2004 election cycle.”

    http://chicago2011.drupal.org/user/betsy-ensley

  28. to Steve Rosenberg: How about this term: RealClimate and James Hansen practice CLIMASTROLOGY.

  29. TomT says:

    “and the consensus was very much in line with your views,”
    ————————————————————————————————————————————
    What is it with these guys and consensus? Why does everything have to be a consensus?
    I was in an organization once that tried to do everything by consensus, a majority vote wasn’t enough, a super majority might be, but only if every effort to get everyone on board had failed. Needless to say almost nothing got done and the organization fell apart. Furthermore there was no proof that decisions made by consensus were any better than decisions made by one person or a majority vote. I wonder if it is this love affair with consensus that is driving these people to try to force everyone to believe their view on global warming.

  30. LazyTeenager says:

    Crosshatch says
    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.
    —————
    How convenient. A bunch of made up stuff you can’t possibly know is correct is an excuse so you can justify closing your eyes to evidence.

  31. TerryMN says:

    Anthony, after looking at the “Copyright legal eagles” thread over at Lucia’s you may want to preemptively hot-link or otherwise figure a workaround for the post image. Seems like a snit the team would love to engage in (probably because they’d have a chance of prevailing for a change :) )

  32. clipe says:

    Tides Canada

    Over the past year, I have been going through the tax returns of American charitable foundations in order to figure out who is funding the environmental movement in Canada, and why. So far, I’ve traced about $300-million over the past decade that has been paid to various green groups, mostly in B.C. By far, the largest B.C.-based recipient organization is Tides Canada which has been paid nearly $60-million by U.S. foundations, tax returns say.

    http://www.financialpost.com/news/funding+Mayor+Robertson/5723451/story.html

  33. crosspatch says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 30, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Not a single bit of “made up stuff” went into my decision. That Real Climate is affiliated with SCN or ESN is all I need to know. That organization exists for one single purpose: to further a political agenda. They themselves are affiliated with FC which exists for one purpose: to further a political agenda. A significant amount of funding comes from Tides which exists for one purpose: to further a political agenda.

    One can not be a Fenton client if they don’t share the correct political agenda nor can they get funding from Tides. There is absolutely no way they would allow a balanced discussion to happen on that web site any more than a balanced discussion would be allowed on MoveOn. If they tried to allow balance, SCN would cut off their support because Fenton would withdraw THEIR support because Tides would cut off the money.

    I am not basing my decision on one thing that is “made up”. Find me a right wing organization that is a Fenton client and gets funding from Tides. There isn’t one. Often the organizations are CREATED by Fenton for a specific agenda.

    This is nothing more than left-wing political games on an international scale. I think “Real” Climate has lost any credibility it ever had as a “science” site and this explains why they actively suppress opposing points of view on their site. It’s an activist (or should I say, more “proactive”) website. It is its purpose, it is that way by design. There is nothing scientific at all about RC.

  34. crosspatch says:

    On “consensus”:

    You only need “consensus” where it is explicitly desired not to have a “leader” or an executive in charge. It is a way for attempting to do things where all stakeholders are treated equally without having any one of them actually having a say. That does not allow things to get done and it causes drama. You often see the group breaking into factions and lobbying for various solutions with more time spent on the arguing about the “consensus” than in actually doing whatever they are arguing about.

    “Consensus” also leads to bullying. It puts an extremely large amount of pressure on a minority opinion that might actually be correct. An executive would possibly be able to see this and make a decision that could be unpopular but the correct course. This is impossible with “consensus” . One holdout member eventually begins to get abuse/pressure for holding everyone else up and eventually gives in or is afraid to speak out when something goes wrong.

    Actually, one place where I have seen this first hand is in a social/artistic activity I engage in. There are several groups who engage in this activity and many of them attempt to operate on a consensus model. They factionalize, lobby, have constant drama, and eventually don’t meet their goals and often break up. Our group operates differently. We have a designated “decider” and state quite clearly at the outset that we are not a democracy, if you don’t like the decision, there is another group for you. We have a “benevolent dictatrix” as we like to call her, whose word is the final say and she is actually quite talented in very lovingly allowing other people to own their own crap without making it everyone else’s problem.

    Consensus is great for a place like the UN. It has absolutely no use whatsoever in deciding where to spend a country’s money when they are broke.

  35. James Sexton says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 30, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Crosshatch says
    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.
    —————
    How convenient. A bunch of made up stuff you can’t possibly know is correct is an excuse so you can justify closing your eyes to evidence.
    ======================================
    LT, it bothers people when they are told one thing and then find out the sole purpose for existence is to propagate propaganda, not science. Personally, I don’t have anything against, privately funded and supported advocacy sites. As long as they’re honest about what they are. For instance, if you click on my blog, I’m very upfront about where I stand on various issues. Here, we see this wasn’t the case for RC. There is no more impetus for Crosspatch to go to see RC than there is for anyone else to come to mine. Well, except I’m not supported by anyone. And I don’t delete/edit comments.

  36. pat says:

    PIC: 2011-2012 Knight-Wallace Fellows at Michigan
    Roger Harrabin, environmental analyst, BBC (London); Scarcity: How many rich people can the Earth take?

    http://www.mjfellows.org/fellows/

  37. …the “sceptics ask, scientists answer” web-page that you have set up is exactly the sort of thing…

    The Team realized how important information is. We know how important truth is. They’re inspiring me with more wiki ideas. Why not a “scientists claim, fraudbusters answer” website? – if Soon & Baliunas and all the rest arising from FOIA 2011 don’t precipitate the real Watergate-type exposure and “impeachments” in the near future.

    I think the Soon and Baliunas story deserves to fly. This is where I hear commenters feeling physically sick at the corruption (the de Freitas story, and the “right kind of people on board” story. The spaghetti graph exposure at Climate Audit seriously amplifies “Hide The Decline” and I think there’s more slime to discover there. Soon and Baliunas’ paper is good, important, and deserves rehabilitation, quite apart from using their story as key evidence in future enquiries.

  38. pat says:

    29 Nov: BBC Ariel Mag: Roger Harrabin: A controversial conversationThe flak’s been flying again over BBC coverage of climate change
    Roger Harrabin is taking unpaid leave on a Knight Wallace Media Fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/15937222

  39. Skiphil says:

    re: the RealClimate “disclaimer” quoted above,

    As a matter of logic, it is a very carefully constructed disclaimer leaving open (even if one can take RC at their word) vast areas unaddressed. As I mentioned above, it says nothing about any person(s) or organization(s) in the background who may have brought these entities together, influenced their partnership, and/or funded them for their shared purposes, and it does not actually exclude various kinds of possible non-cash “support” from EMS and/or FC to RC:

    “neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content.”

    ["initial planning" might only exclude one or a few early meeetings, and excluding "control" over content leaves open myriad possible influences, content supplied, etc. Yes, perhaps RC has "final control" in editorial terms, but notice that nothing has been said to exclude a multitude of potential interactions between RC and EMS/FC and their unnamed benefactor(s), supporters, string-pullers, etc.]

  40. The RC header is one of the best Freudian slips I’ve seen:

    (1) “It’s the sun, stoopid” especially those magnetic loops

    (2) You’ve got to take note of the huge modulating effect of Earth’s oceans (temp inertia, 800-year CO2 lag, COI2 exchange, El Nino etc)

    (3) The important modulating effect of clouds

  41. “sceptics ask, scientists answer”

    Skepticism is what science is. If they’re not skeptics they’re not scientists period!

  42. Skiphil says:

    @pat

    The project statement for Harribin at your link says so much about his left-wing “progressive” agenda in news reporting:

    “Roger Harrabin, environmental analyst, BBC (London); Scarcity: How many rich people can the Earth take?”

    It requires a truly bizarre view of science and economics to think that the earth is in danger from “How many rich people” — oh well, of course, if one assumes CAGW then maybe something must be done about “How many rich people”

  43. crosspatch says:

    Well, except I’m not supported by anyone. And I don’t delete/edit comments.

    And I have no problems with someone who arrives at a different conclusion and no problems in asking them how they arrived there or explaining how I arrived at mine. I am not interested in “echo chambers”, really. What interests me in the “Global Warming” debate is that the whole hypothesis goes against both history and physics. We know from recorded history that what much of these people say isn’t true. We know from physics that much of what these people say can’t be true. We also know from how they act that something strange is going on. For example, how they “lose” data, obstruct inquiry, accuse anyone questing them of being stupid, political, vexatious, etc. When we ask them to explain or point out something we believe is incorrect, we are called names or our questions are erased as if they never existed.

    This is not a matter of “belief”. It should be provable without “models”, without “adjustments”, that this is actually happening if it is as extreme as has been claimed. If one says that AGW will warm the atmosphere and create a “hot spot” that radiates heat back to Earth, then we should be able to find it. It should be there. It isn’t. In fact the contrary is the case. If the warming is the hottest in the past 1000 years, we should be able to go back in 1000 years of chronicles and see that to be the case. We can’t. In fact we find the contrary.

    I am not asking what someone “believes”. I am asking them to present the reasons they reached that conclusion. I see no EVIDENCE that climate today is warming at a rate greater than we have seen at other times in history. I see no EVIDENCE that this is the warmest time in the last 1000 years. I do see EVIDENCE of the contrary.

  44. crosspatch says:

    The AGW issue is not about climate and it is not about “saving” the planet. It is about finding an issue that can be used as a lever to implement a global political agenda and today’s revelation simply added one more piece of supporting evidence to validate that hypothesis.

  45. Justa Joe says:

    Joe Romm formely a Clinton administration energy official – He must have tons of left wing connections. Are there actually people that honestly believe this guy coulld/would present a strictly scientific case regarding AGW?

  46. cui bono says:

    Re: Steve Rosenberg

    They practice ‘Cargo Cult Science’, but one of the letters may need changing.

    Erm…I don’t expect this to get through moderation…

  47. crosspatch says:

    “Is Fenton Communications named after an out-of-control dog?”

    Is Tyndall Centre really named after an out of control rugby player who plays the position of “outside centre”?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8923674/Mike-Tindall-hits-out-at-RFU-for-making-him-a-scapegoat-over-handling-of-World-Cup-PR-disaster.html

  48. Yaz says:

    Recall in Climategate 1.0, the obsequious e-mails from Seth Borenstein to the team? “Science” journalists in the bag, being fed stories from their masters?

  49. AJB says:

    And in the UK we have Futerra who produced the infamous <a href="http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf"'rules of the game'. Or was Futerra created for the purpose and by whom?

    Here’s its masterclass in snake oil peddling from shortly after ClimateGate-I broke.

  50. Babsy says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 30, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Jig’s up on this, I’m afraid. They have all been outed as left wing political shills.

    But, but, but, but they care so deeply! Oh, the HUMANITY!!

    /sarc.

  51. jono says:

    I like the term coined some time above by interstella bill..
    `CLIMATE REALIST` it has a solid consumer type feel to it.
    its merchandizeable..

  52. crosspatch says:

    The British answer to Fenton Communications would be a group called Futerra, by the way. Six emails appear to reference Futerra in one way or another.

    Also interesting is an email from EMS.org to Mike Hulme. It is interesting because it is a forwarded email from the WWF but the email is forwarded including full headers. Apparently the email went through Fenton Communications’ mail servers: 3384.txt

  53. crosspatch says:

    Might also want to give this a read. It isn’t about AGW, it is about the strategies used by Fenton Communications to create fear about things and then profit from them.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/54170138/4/Fenton-Communications

    THE FEAR PROFITEERS:
    Do ‘Socially Responsible’Businesses Sow Health Scares to Reap Monetary Rewards?

    Edited by
    Bonner Cohen,Ph.D.
    John Carlisle
    Michael Fumento
    Michael Gough,Ph.D.
    Henry Miller, M.D.
    Steven Milloy
    Kenneth Smith
    Elizabeth Whelan,Sc.D., M.P.H.

  54. crosspatch says:

    Sound familiar?

    Hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from smoking is old hat, but possible death by toxic waste, now that’s exciting. The problem is, such presentations distort the ability of viewers to engage in accurate risk assessment. The average viewer who watches story after story on the latest alleged environmental terror can hardly be blamed for coming to the conclusion that cigarettes are a small problem compared with the hazards of parts per quadrillion of dioxin in the air, or for concluding that the drinking of alcohol, a known cause of birth weight and cancer, is a small problem compared with the possibility of eating quantities of Alar almost too small to measure. This in turn results in pressure on the bureaucrats and politicians to wage war against tiny or nonexistent threats. The “war” gets more coverage as these politicians and bureaucrats thunder that the planet could not possibly survive without their intervention, and the vicious cycle goes on.

    From the link referenced in my previous comment. This is exactly how these people work and this is exactly what AGW is. This is the absolutely the MOST PROFITABLE scare that these people have manged to come up with to date.

  55. Jim Owen says:

    crosspatch – In early 2005 there were questions re: RealClimate funding. FC/EMS came to light quickly – and both of those were, at the time, Soros creatures and probably still are. RC, of course, denied the connection, but as shown above, sweet Betsy (and her history) provided the final connection. I didn’t keep those emails (and other documents) – meybe I should have. And, unfortunately, I no longer have the access to reconstruct the chain.

  56. Russell C says:

    Same Fenton Communications that introduced Ross Gelbspan http://web.archive.org/web/19970528143546/http://www.fenton.com/archive/ma_970520.html and his then-new 1997 anti-skeptic book, by saying the guy was a “Pulitzer” winner – something he is not.

    Gelbspan comes up at least three times in this new batch of ClimateGate emails. For those who aren’t aware of Gelbspan’s overall role in the smear of skeptic scientists, click on my name above.

    I’m scratching my head over the May 20, 2003 ClimateGate email #0277 http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0277.txt , where a bit past halfway down its page we see Hans Verolme note how “Jeff Nesmith of the Cox Newspapers group is working on a piece exposing the sceptics.” – meaning Soon & Baliunas.

    Gelbspan reproduces the whole June 2, 2003 Nesmith piece at his website, “Industry Promotes Skeptical View Of Global Warming”: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4309&method=full . The Nesmith piece also goes after the Idsos, and conveniently refers to Gelbspan’s ’97 book.

  57. Jarrett Jones says:

    Some more dots:

    Google “Fenton Communications” and “Van Jones”. They are tight.

    Van Jones was Obama’s “green jobs” czar who was responsible for doling out 60 Billion dollars of “green” stimulus money. He brags about it here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/the-stimulus-a-down-payme_b_167681.html

    Michael Mann received over 2 million dollars of that stimulus money.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575010931344004278.html

  58. crosspatch says:

    Look, anytime you see the NRDC involved in ANYTHING, Fenton is behind it. Fenton is their PR agency. All of their press releases, press conference, appearances on the media, etc. are the work of Fenton. Same with WWF (Word Wildlife Foundation). Their PR is handled by Fenton Communications. Fenton *is* the public face of AGW. That “Real” Climate is a Fenton front should be no surprise. That anyone believed they were actually about science should be.

    The entire game is about scaring people to the extent that they will allow billions of their tax money to be diverted to the “right” people.

  59. crosspatch says:

    Er. World Wildlife Fund

  60. DesertYote says:

    Skiphil says:
    November 30, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Fenton Communications?
    ###

    When I read that, I almost hurled :(

  61. juanslayton says:

    Steven Rosenberg:

    Disastroturf?

  62. davidmhoffer says:

    And here I thought a “free press” meant freedom to report the facts.

    Turns out, a “free press” means the freedom to make up the facts.

    Ah well, it is, nonetheless “free”. You get what you pay for….

    Oh wait… Harrabin is with the BBC?

    OK, now I am confused. I can’t say you get what you pay for because you poor b***ards in the UK have to pay for the BBC through your taxes. Them, I learned in another thread, that you have to pay a license fee in order to WATCH the BBC programs you ALREADY PAID FOR.

    Suddenly that British skit with the guy who pays to have an argument with someone makes SO much more sense….

  63. Dr. Dave says:

    crosspatch has done a phenomenal job digging this stuff up. I first heard of Fenton Communications a couple years ago in a blog piece or two at American Thinker. I think perhaps crosspatch has been too kind to the Fenton group in his comments. Read more…

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/a_new_study_on_bisphenol_a_bpa.html

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/a_chemical_scare_campaign_is_g.html

  64. Justa Joe says:

    “Roger Harrabin, environmental analyst, BBC (London); Scarcity: How many rich people can the Earth take?”

    Let me guess. Roger is among the few rich people that the Earth can handle miraculously.

  65. Pelicanman says:

    @Crosspatch:

    It should be known that, whilst Cindy Sheehan began her anti-war campaign as a typical no-brain lefty, she has woken up entirely to the hypocrisy, spitefulness, arrogance, and totalitarian nature of the Left. At the same time, she knows the Right is another tool of division and she hasn’t swung to either wing of the same bird of destruction and filth that the majority of people keep alive with their ignorance and emotional attachments. Although I don’t listen to it, I’m aware that she hosts her own show (on radio or Internet radio, not sure) called Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox. Listen for yourself. I have no doubt she’s long parted ways with the “progressive” PR sorcerers at Fenton.

  66. crosspatch says:

    Fenton Communications is a subject that goes WAY back with me. It had to do with the Valerie Plame story and it had to do with some Washington Post stories on Afghanistan. It had to do with Dana Priest and her husband’s connection with the whole Fenton thing. I started noticing that all of the players in all of this stuff seemed to connect back to Fenton Communications in some way.

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/2-reporters-behind-the-wps-latest-leak

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/dana-priests-husband-gets-joe-wilson-media-gigs

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-leftist-world-of-dana-priest-and-william-goodfellow

    I began to notice Fenton’s hand in various anti-war activist groups

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/anti-war-group-never-validated-soldier-names

    I started to see Fenton as the “invisible hand” in just about EVERY issue that gained national media attention

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/alar-scare-radicals-sue-to-stop-oil-refinery

    And I am sure you will find Fenton Communications behind the latest efforts to stop an oil pipeline from Canada to the US.

    So when it dawned on me that AGW was being used to further the political agenda of the left, I knew Fenton would be in there somehow but I either missed or forgot about the Fenton link to Real Climate.

    The links between Real Climate and Fenton first surfaced here at WUWT in this thread in 2009

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/a-telling-omission-by-real-climate/

  67. kim2ooo says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 30, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    And lo and behold, a great deal of the contributions to EMS comes from: (drum roll) … Tides Foundation!

    Oh, my goodness. We basically have the number one financial organ of activist “progressive” causes. You have to be in pretty good standing with all the right people to get money from Tides. No way they are going to give money to anyone who is actually objective. They ONLY provide money for activist organizations that further their agenda.

    Actually, in a web search I see this link being made in 2010 in a thread called “Catholicism and Climate Change” on a religious website. “]

    :) I feel special…Thank you :)

  68. richard verney says:

    James Sexton says:
    November 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    ///////////////////////////////
    James

    I have just had a quick look at your site. I have not been on it before. There were some interesting posts well worth a read.

  69. crosspatch says:

    And sure enough …. Center for Biological Diversity is a Fenton Communications client, is in the news, and sued the State Department over the pipeline. “Bold Nebraska” is another one and Fenton apparently “Likes” that organization on their facebook page.

  70. MAC says:

    Mike Mann put the”we” in this email on helping out RealClimate:

    On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Tim Osborn wrote:

    Hi Mike and Gavin,
    Keith’s temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely
    outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data
    selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc.
    in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
    Keith may post them on the CRU website, but presumably they could be linked to from a
    RealClimate page or, if Keith agrees, be reproduced on RealClimate?
    Cheers
    Tim

    At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

    Hi Tim,
    Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from
    either Tom or Keith. Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by later today. thanks in advance for any help you can offer,
    mike

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6326

  71. crosspatch says:

    I have no doubt she’s long parted ways with the “progressive” PR sorcerers at Fenton.

    Well, the would have dropped her like a hot potato once she was no longer “useful” just like Real Climate would be dropped if it didn’t remain “useful”. The point being the other side of the debate has no such coordination. There is nobody coordinating the posting frequencies and message of the various blogs attempting to expose the AGW mess for what it is. There is nobody organizing press packets to “sympathetic journalists” (Fenton’s words) in various news organizations for the stuff Anthony posts. There is nobody rounding up grass roots organizations in the various states, giving them all different names and coordinating their press activity the way it is being done on the left.

    If you look at the donors of the Tides Foundation, it is the who’s who of “the 1%”. Kind of ironic, isn’t it? The other side has nobody with hundreds of millions of dollars to pour into huge organized international efforts. Our only weapon is sunshine. But those “sympathetic journalists” aren’t going to take it up on their own. Fenton makes it easy. They put together a press packet, coach people for interviews, if you have a protest, they arrange to meet the media and escort them to the place with the most impact for pictures and live shots, etc. That is what they do, they are a PR agency. WUWT, No Consensus, Climate Audit, et. al. don’t have that kind of money or coordination. These are sites where you have individuals doing what they think is right.

    The trouble is that in many cases they have tried to keep the debate at a scientific level when it really isn’t about the science. That is why no journalist that I know of has never asked Mann or Jones to their face on an interview “Where’s the atmospheric hot spot?”. It is never going to happen unless someone “tricks” them into what they believe is a “friendly” interview and turns the tables but that doesn’t happen.

  72. papiertigre says:

    http://chicago2011.drupal.org/user/betsy-ensley

    “Betsy also spent time as a Business Services Consultant for EJF Real Estate working closely with area restaurateurs to facilitate the sale of their existing businesses…”

    Is that an intersection between Betsy Ensley and Herman Cain’s “bimbo eruption”, which originated with the National Restaurant Association?

  73. Russell C says:

    BTW, Fenton Communications also had Kalee Kreider http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/news2005/0516-10.htm as one of their top people back in the early- mid-2000s. Ms Kreider currently serves as Al Gore’s spokesperson – Gore says on pg 411 of his “Our Choice” book that Ms Kreider “has been of invaluable assistance in all of my climate work”. She also worked at Ozone Action, the enviro-activist group I describe in my online articles as the epicenter of the smear of skeptic scientists, and she went from there straight to Greenpeace in mid ’96, AND she is also found in the IPCC’s 1997 “Authors, Contributors, and Expert Reviewers of the Regional Impacts Special Report” Annex H page (scroll down to the USA section http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=329 )

  74. Russell C says:

    A-ha, here ya go to tie this together: “Top Scientists Launch RealClimate.org, 10.12.2004…. For more information contact Kalee Kreider… kalee@fenton.com

    http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news94097

  75. crosspatch says:

    Russell C: If its PR is being handled by Fenton, then it is absolutely an activist “progressive” operation because Fenton handles nothing else. It’s what they do, it’s what their very existence is about.

  76. davidmhoffer says:

    crosspatch;
    The other side has nobody with hundreds of millions of dollars to pour into huge organized international efforts. Our only weapon is sunshine.>>>

    Despite which…. we’re winning. Oh we’ve lost a lot of battles along the way, but we’re winning the war. Of course, mommy nature is pitching in by refusing to warm on command, which will be the ultimate arbiter in any even… or more likely… non event.

    Anyway, I am gobsmacked by what you’ve put together on Fenton. Keep up the great work!

  77. crosspatch says:

    Despite which…. we’re winning.

    REALLY? I don’t think so. Look at the amount of money spent on this stuff from all governments and corporations over the past 10 years. It keeps climbing every year. Look at the books in your local elementary school that our kids are given to read. Kids graduating from High School today have been indoctrinated in this stuff since they were in kindergarten. This isn’t hypothesis to them, this is FACT to those kids. Explain how we are winning? Take a poll of all citizens under 20. I’ll bet the number you find who are skeptical of AGW is pretty close to zero. But I’ll also bet that the number who can tell you how AGW works is close to zero, too. They have just had it driven into their heads for their entire life that it is a fact and so it becomes a fact.

    Making up facts is much easier than telling lies.

  78. David Ball says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 30, 2011 at 9:59 pm
    I dunno crosspatch. My friend had one of Al’s acolytes speak at their daughter’s school. The next days discussion was predominately about the term “hypocrite”. There is hope.

  79. davidmhoffer says:

    crosspatch;
    REALLY? I don’t think so. Look at the amount of money spent on this stuff from all governments and corporations over the past 10 years.>>>

    Really. Might not feel like it a lot of the time, but we are. Like I said, we’ve lost a lot of battles along the way, but we’re winning the war. Really.

    Copenhagen was a bust. Nothing happend.

    Durban started with low expectations, and after CG2, they went lower still.

    Japan is out of Kyoto unless everyone else like China, Russia, India are in. They’re not. So Japan is out.

    Rumours are flying that Canada will be getting out before end of this calendar year.
    US and Canada have both said zero $ for the $100 Billion climate fund everyone promised to donate to in Copenhagen. That pretty much leaves Europe and Australia to fund it alone. Europe is broke. That leaves Australia. Fat chance they’ll pony up $100 billion in their own.

    Nature (yes, Nature!) just published an article saying “let kyoto die” and is it being picked up by major media:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/let-kyoto-die-prominent-scientific-journal-says/

    the big financial rags like Forbes are crying foul, and their readers are financial heavy weights with the ear of politicians.

    The FOIA requests as a result of the info in CG2 are just starting to emerge (see the thread on it on WUWT). Is the MSM paying attention? Not particularly. But FOIA laws in the US are way tougher than the ones in Britain. When someone winds up going to jail (and they will) the MSM will report it.

    Michael Mann is so desperate to kleep his emails a secret that he applied for intervenor status and argued that only he can “interpret” the emails he wrote. One can only wonder why he wrote them since sending them to other people would then have been pointless. The judge ain’t buying, and those emails are going to come out.

    The IPCC is now saying that we should expect no further warming for the next 20 to 30 years. They can justify it by blaming aerosols from little green spaceships from Juptier’s moon if they want, but the average person is going to say…. 20 to 30 years? I’m going to lose my job over this global warming bullarky that nothing is going to happen because of for 30 years? My kids are hungry, screw that.

    Oh, we’re a long ways from having “won”, I’ll grant you that. In fact, we’re not even ahead. But think of it like a baseball game. We were behind 10 to nothing in the sixth inning. In the 7th, CG1 got us 7 runs to their 1, so we’re still behind, 11 to 7. CG2 is too soon to count how many runs, heck, CG1 hasn’t even played itself out yet. It is the bottom of the 8th inning, it is 12 to 10, the bases are loaded, and we’ve got nobody out.

    That doesn’t mean we let up and relax. No way, stay focused, don’t take your eye off the ball, keep scoring points. It won’t be long before a lot of their “team” is on the sidelines if we keep pushing it hard. The disorganizaed rable tends to win these kinds of wars because we really do believe in our positions. The warmist ship is full of pretenders and hangers on. When they figure the wind has started blowing the other way (and it has) they will start abandoning ship. that’s what rats do when the ship starts to sink.

  80. Corey S. says:

    “According to whois RealClimate.org was registered as a domain almost a year later 19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC”

    That is also the date the emails were released. Possible another reason for the date of the release from FOIA besides the POTUS/Chinese connection.

    “Nov, 15-18, 2009 US presidente BO visits China
    Nov, 19, 2009 Climategate I
    Dec, COP-15

    Nov, 19, 2011 US president BO visits China
    Nov, 22, 2011 Climategate II
    Dec, COP-17″

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/foia2011-and-climategate-a-chinese-potus-connection/

  81. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    So even with the BBC’s Roger Harrabin directly involved in blatant advocacy of the warming scam, the bulk of the MSM continues in it’s state of deep slumber “move along, nothing to see here”:

    CG II #2974 – 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), [sic] who wanted something more pro-active.

    But then, few of us would have predicted the fall of the Berlin wall two weeks before it actually happened. When the collapse of the scam eventuates it may cascade much more quickly than most would expect.

  82. Dave Baker says:

    Apologies – this should really go in Tips & Notes, but I had problems accessing the page. Anyway the relevance here is the BBC’s ‘impartiality ho-ho’.

    There was a programme on BBC Radio 4 on Tues 29 Nov (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc), an episode in the ‘science’ series called The Infinite Monkey Cage. It’s hosted by Prof Brian Cox, a particle physicist involved in the ATLAS project at CERN, media regular & ex-keyboardist with pop group ‘D-Ream'; and a comedian whose name I forget. The topic was ‘how science is portrayed in the media & the issue of scientific balance’. The guests were Sir Paul Nurse, Prof Steve Jones & a token non-scientist (a comedienne in this case). Of course Nurse is president of the warmista Royal Society, & Jones wrote the infamous report for the BBC that the sceptic view of AGW should not be aired (or at least given balance). Guess how the conversation went.

    I was disappointed that Cox fell into line with the warmista view, until I saw on his website (www.appoloschildren.com/brian) that he is a ‘Royal Society Research Fellow’ in particle physics at University of Manchester. Nuff said.

  83. Charles.U.Farley says:

    pat says:
    November 30, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    29 Nov: BBC Ariel Mag: Roger Harrabin: A controversial conversationThe flak’s been flying again over BBC coverage of climate change
    Roger Harrabin is taking unpaid leave on a Knight Wallace Media Fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/15937222

    Hmmm, harrabin says “I said the balance of the science suggested that we should not always feature sceptics but that we should continue to represent their views on a case-by-case basis because many legitimate science debates remain and because of the politicised nature of the policy debate.”

    I take it the BBc broadcasts “songs of praise” because theres a consensus view that their little invisifriend in the sky is real then?
    Wheres the scientific debate on the “god” question?
    I wanna see the proof!!
    Not taking it on faith are we Rog?
    Just like “mann made up global warming” then…..

  84. Josualdo says:

    crosspatch says: November 30, 2011 at 2:34 pm – And lo and behold, a great deal of the contributions to EMS comes from: (drum roll) … Tides Foundation!

    Wow. Which is related to the Rockefeller Foundation, see my network graph at:

    http://falardotempo.blogspot.com/2010/05/redes-sociais-uma-historia-de-encantar.html

    In Portuguese, but it’s amenable I guess.

  85. David Eyles says:

    davidmhoffer @

    “Oh wait… Harrabin is with the BBC?

    OK, now I am confused. I can’t say you get what you pay for because you poor b***ards in the UK have to pay for the BBC through your taxes. Them, I learned in another thread, that you have to pay a license fee in order to WATCH the BBC programs you ALREADY PAID FOR.”

    Just a quickie about how the BBC is funded:
    1. All of the BBC and a small amount for Channel 4 is funded from what is called euphemistically called the TV licence fee. This is currently £145 for colour and £65 per annum for black and white (yes, I know, I know, but there are still people who use black and white TV – the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother used to watch the horse racing on her original black and white set bought, I think, in the 1950s).
    2. The licence fee entitles the holder to have as many televisions as you like in your household, but it applies whether you watch the BBC or not. So, even if you only watch commercial terrestrial, cable or satellite TV, you still have to pay the licence fee. In theory, if you don’t have a TV but watch TV programmes on your computer, then you are still liable to pay the fee.
    3. BBC radio is also funded from the TV licence fee income, except for a large chunk of funding for BBC World Service which is provided by the UK Foreign Office (i.e. this is from direct taxation).
    4. But, you don’t need to pay the licence fee if you only listen to the radio.

    Effectively, the whole lot is a tax, even though most of the commercial channels have to pay their own way with advertising revenue.

    So, yes, we are all poor b***ards. But more and more of us are getting fed up with being over taxed.

    Hope that helps.

  86. John Marshall says:

    Keep after Harrabin! My taxes, sorry licence fee to operate a TV, pays his inflated salary and I object most strongly.

  87. James Sexton says:

    richard verney says:
    November 30, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    James Sexton says:
    November 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    ///////////////////////////////
    James

    I have just had a quick look at your site. I have not been on it before. There were some interesting posts well worth a read.
    =====================================================
    Thanks! Its just a different perspective and doesn’t have some of the constraints other sites have. It isn’t exclusively a climate blog, but I do try to tie in some issues (economical/political) with what’s going on in the climate discussion.

  88. More Soylent Green! says:

    I always thought the name “Real Climate” was quite surreal given that everything they promulgate as facts is based upon computer models.

    But “Virtual Climate” and “Unreal Climate” just don’t have that compelling ring to them, do they?

  89. More Soylent Green! says:

    PhilJourdan says:
    November 30, 2011 at 1:20 pm
    journolist – Climate style.

    Absolutely. Modern journalism is now synonymous with advocacy. Just like science. Both are now post-normal.

  90. Peter says:

    I guess Harrabin is taking leave so no questions can be put to him.

  91. Barbara Munsey says:

    Fenton Communications as professional astroturf is only perhaps the most successful of a new genre; see The Saint Group, which sells itself as a political and land use astroturfing business.

    tscg.biz

    They craft message, do opposition research, handle the press, create groups, discredit the other side, and so on.

    They are for sale to either side, so in one county they may be a bunch of fake citizen groups opposing a department store, and in the next might be a bunch of fake citizen groups supporting a grocery store of the same size and “environmental” impact.

    We had them here in 2007 in our county (and some of them are still here), where they worked through PACs to hide the large company with a significant land use application (a for-profit hospital with a track record of targeting community hospitals and siphoning off the patients with insurance and/or money–they were trying to build withing less than 5 miles of the only existing hospital in a county of over 500 square miles, on the grounds that we NEEDED more health care for our growing population, but they could only serve it right next door to the one existing not-for-profit).

    They also fronted money and resources for citizen groups, and some of their employees appeared under a variety of names at public hearings.

    The most interesting thing I found before it went memory hole (I LOVE printers and discs!) was a supposed zoning company headed by an employee of the group who specialized in healthcare (he has since, on their website, become a green energy specialist), each of whose employees contributed as individuals to the candidates running who were backed by the PACs laundering the healthcare PAC money.

    The fact that they donated as individuals did not ping as a corporate donation–we found the company almost by accident because we were researching the employee’s donations, and we never found that it did any zoning work, and lo and behold it disappeared after the election cycle.

    Unfortunately, this kind of “PR” is a growth industry.

  92. Barbara Munsey says:

    See http://tscg.biz/what-we-do for a primer on the astroturf PR genre:

    “Strategic planning
    ■Develop and execute targeted campaign strategies and action plans directed at politicians, community groups, the media, special interest groups, and opponents.

    Identify key pressure points.
    ■Grassroots coalition building Organize local campaign groups, create advocacy, build coalitions, and identify and neutralize opposition.

    Orchestrate public events
    ■Devise appearances at public gatherings, community meetings, public hearings, and local and regional government meetings.”

    And so on.

    Fenton appears to be truly global.

  93. mkelly says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 30, 2011 at 2:43 pm
    Crosshatch says
    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.
    —————
    How convenient. A bunch of made up stuff you can’t possibly know is correct is an excuse so you can justify closing your eyes to evidence.

    Mr. Lazy please identify the “bunch of made up stuff” (emails etc) that you are talking about. Examples please inquiring minds want to know.

  94. More Soylent Green! says:

    Barbara Munsey says:
    December 1, 2011 at 7:42 am
    See http://tscg.biz/what-we-do for a primer on the astroturf PR genre:

    “Strategic planning
    ■Develop and execute targeted campaign strategies and action plans directed at politicians, community groups, the media, special interest groups, and opponents.

    Identify key pressure points.
    ■Grassroots coalition building Organize local campaign groups, create advocacy, build coalitions, and identify and neutralize opposition.

    Orchestrate public events
    ■Devise appearances at public gatherings, community meetings, public hearings, and local and regional government meetings.”

    And so on.

    Fenton appears to be truly global.

    Just like OAGB (Occupy Al Gore’s Brain) I mean OWS was astroturfed, but I think that creation has gotten away from them.

  95. Blade says:

    This is an EXCELLENT thread. I suggest everyone bookmark this beauty for reference, get it out there. Pull quotes for enterprising journalists: RC aka RealClimate, funded by Fenton Communications, registered by a weasel affiliated with Moveon.org and George Soros, currently a playground for many climate Science Fictionists, including a NASA employee Gavin Schmidt who is suspected of working on this propaganda website while on company (TaxPayers) time, whenever he can pry himself away from smooching the bottoms of Hansen and Mann.

    What a tangled web of progressive leftist socialist swine. As usual with so many propaganda organizations, scrape away the spit and polished painted finish for public consumption and we find the red-green primer coat. Watermelon Central. Perhaps AGW also means Affiliation of Global Watermelons. Many kudos to crosspatch for yeoman’s work!

    Corey S. [December 1, 2011 at 12:41 am] says:

    ““According to whois RealClimate.org was registered as a domain almost a year later 19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC”

    That is also the date the emails were released. Possible another reason for the date of the release from FOIA besides the POTUS/Chinese connection.”

    Good eye! What a wonderful 5th anniversary they must have had ;-) Happy 7th Gavin.

  96. David Ball says:

    Arstroturfing?

  97. More Soylent Green! says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 30, 2011 at 2:43 pm
    Crosshatch says
    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.
    —————
    How convenient. A bunch of made up stuff you can’t possibly know is correct is an excuse so you can justify closing your eyes to evidence.

    Are you talking about RealClimate just being a bunch of made up stuff that nobody can possibly show to be correct?

    I agree. It’s junk science. How so many people have been duped by the IPCC, the Hockey Stick, etc., is beyond me.

  98. crosspatch says:

    David Ball says:
    December 1, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Arstroturfing?

    I am assuming you are asking what that phrase means? It is a reference to the phrase “grass roots” meaning organizations made up of ordinary citizens who rise up with a strong position on an issue. Fenton specializes in “astroturfing” which is CREATING groups by actively recruiting people. And rather than create a single large group, they create several. That way each individual group can release press releases and hold various activities in rotation to create a constant drumbeat of news on an issue. Fenton keeps the message of them all coordinated. They are fake “grass roots” organizations and so are called “astroturf” organizations.

  99. More Soylent Green! says:

    crosspatch says:
    December 1, 2011 at 9:29 am
    David Ball says:
    December 1, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Arstroturfing?

    I am assuming you are asking what that phrase means? It is a reference to the phrase “grass roots” meaning organizations made up of ordinary citizens who rise up with a strong position on an issue. Fenton specializes in “astroturfing” which is CREATING groups by actively recruiting people. And rather than create a single large group, they create several. That way each individual group can release press releases and hold various activities in rotation to create a constant drumbeat of news on an issue. Fenton keeps the message of them all coordinated. They are fake “grass roots” organizations and so are called “astroturf” organizations.

    I believe he wrote Arstroturfing, as in arse-troturfing.

  100. crosspatch says:

    The Occupy Wall Street internet domain was purchased last May by the Canadian Adbusters group (funded by Tides and often collaborating with Greenpeace on issues). Adbusters drove the support for the movement.

    http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/36-adbusters

    http://activistcash.com/organization_connections.cfm/o/36-adbusters

    But as far as I know, they are not a Fenton client. If they HAD been a Fenton client, the entire operation would have been more organized. One reason why they might not be is because OWS tends to go against the very people who donate to Tides Foundation. In other words, OWS is really about biting the very hand that feeds them.

    Adbusters is a very anarchist group that favors riots over press releases.

  101. crosspatch says:

    I believe he wrote Arstroturfing

    Face meet palm. So he did. I missed it.

  102. David Ball says:

    Tried arse-troturfing, didn’t look right. Settled on arstroturfing.

  103. David Ball says:

    I know that crosspatch has been working really hard since the release of the new batch. It was also easy to miss the “r” in there. It isn’t that funny anyway. I prefer “disastroturf over mine.

  104. Josualdo says:

    David Ball says: December 1, 2011 at 10:25 am: I know that crosspatch has been working really hard since the release of the new batch.

    Crosspatch has been quick, wide ranging, relentless and very much to the jugular. In other words, I’m impressed.

  105. gator69 says:

    “Fenton Communications was founded in 1982 by David Fenton, an activist who served as a photographer for Bill Ayers’ domestic Weather Underground terror group.

    Fenton Communications works in conjunction with the Soros-funded Tides Center that funded Adbusters, which was reported to have started the concept of Occupy Wall Street.

    Fenton used the Tides Center to set up its Environmental Media Services in 1994. Tides reportedly originally ran EMS’ daily operations.”

  106. John Whitman says:

    RC, like the self-contradicting Skeptical Science website, has achieved what it deserves. Those two sites have the adoration of the convinced and also those two sites have the sincere thankfulness of many of us on the skeptical path. RC gave a venue for showcasing so clearly all the problems and red flags of their myopic so-called concensus/ settled science. RC was a one stop shop for launching independent thinkers on the skeptic path.

    Thank you RC, because in your censored/manipulative/restrictive behavior was the nourishment that caused the growth of the open climate science sites.

    John

  107. Dave Wendt says:

    TomRude says:
    November 30, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    ..UN scientist: fighting climate change saves costs
    By ARTHUR MAX

    Given that pretty much the entire basis of the CAGW conjecture is that the increased radiative forcing from rising CO2 will drive ever increasing amounts of H2O into the atmosphere to greatly amplify the warming of the planet, I find it puzzling that, whenever they venture forth to weave their cataclysmic vision of the future it is always portrayed with desertification nipping at everyone’s heels. I realize that a warmer atmosphere can retain more H2O, but unless they are suggesting that in a warming planet convection will disappear, eventually that extra H2O will be coming down somewhere. If their notion of a strong positive H2O feedback were correct, it would at least be logical to suggest that the future will be subject to increased rainfall and possible flooding. Of course for most of the world’s population the notion of a little more rain wouldn’t be seen as much of a negative.
    Similarly, when they are out ballyhooing the rising trends of global temperatures, they don’t spend a lot of ink on the fact that a very significant portion of those trends is the result of warmer overnight lows in northern latitudes. Of course, if that information was more widely circulated, it would not likely lead to an increasing level of climate panic among my neighbors here in Minnesota, or Canada, or Siberia, or…
    Another point against their projections of our desert nomad future is that not that many years ago the weather panic of the day was that increasing desertification was eventually going to drive the southern boundary of the Sahara all the way to Mt Kilimanjaro. Well, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea. Instead, as the CO2 level has risen, there is solid evidence that the southern expansion has halted and not insignificant evidence that it has actually reversed.
    My POV has always been that the state of climate science is so dismal that an at least semi-plausible argument can be made for any number of suggestions about what, if anything, is driving our climate and where it will be at he end of the century. As to the notion that there is more than a lottery winner’s probability that the future will be ridden with climate related catastrophes and, in particular, catastrophes more damaging than what has already been inflicted on the world to avoid them and the even more damaging “solutions” still being pursued, is unsupportable.

  108. Kent Clizbe says:

    Betsy Ensley: Computer gal for MoveOn.org:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/42789-realclimate-org-solid-source-pr-firm-fear.html

    “Betsy Ensley, Web Editor/Program Coordinator: Betsy joined the staff of EMS in April 2002 as a program assistant for EMS’s toxics program.Presently, she manages BushGreenwatch.org, a joint EMS-MoveOn.org public awareness website, and coordinates environmental community media efforts to protect and improve environmental and public health safeguards.Before coming to EMS, Betsy interned at the U.S. Department of State in the office of the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.Betsy graduated with honors from the University of Iowa in 2000, where she majored in Global Studies with thematic focus on war, peace and security.She minored in Asian languages.”

    If you hear PC-Progressives squealing about “conspiracy theories,” you know it’s because they’re looking in the mirror.
    They’ve had the covert influence tactics of front organizations down for more than 80 years. Big difference now is that it’s easier to break their cover, with AlGore’s amazing internet.

    Full details at: http://www.willingaccomplices.com

  109. Kent Clizbe says:

    It’s great that many are seeing, commenting on, and feeling the PC-Progressives’ influence tactics–front organizations (Fenton set-up groups, websites, etc), creation of an all-knowing elitist clique, constant repetition of agreed-upon messages, admit-nothing-deny-everything-make-counteraccusations tactics when exposed, and recruitment of agents of influence in academia/education, the media, and Hollywood.

    You may be interested to know that these tactics are nothing new. PC-Progressives have used these tactics since about 1920. Lenin’s right-hand man, covert influence expert, Willi Muenzenberg, ran the original operation against capitalism and the United States.

    Muenzenberg’s diabolical genius is clearly demonstrated by the PC-Progressives’ continuing adherence to his playbook.

    He was the first to use a flurry of front groups. He was the first to use influence agents to insert his anti-American payloads via education/academia, the media and Hollywood.

    Compare his work to the activities of the anti-America, anti-capitalist Global Warming clique. It’s a carbon copy.

    Full details at: http://www.willingaccomplices.com.

    Kent Clizbe
    kent@kentclizbe.com
    http://www.willingaccomplices.com

  110. Brian H says:

    Bastroturfing?
    >:)

  111. EEB says:

    Catastroturfing…

  112. Skiphil says:

    re: Harrabin and the BBC

    Harrabin has apparently offered an ‘official’ response at Bishop Hill which pretends that he was simply interested in quality ‘debate’ and timely information:

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/2/harrabin-an-official-response.html

    Doesn’t begin to address why we have been told continually that there is no room for “debate” etc. because “the science is settled.”

    There are some interesting comments on that thread linked above.

  113. Robin Hewitt says:

    THE BBC ARE CHANGING COURSE.

    Since ClimateGate 2 their news reporting has gone from rabid Warmist to undecided, which is exactly where they should be. They haven’t annoyed me with propaganda for days, my blood pressure is coming down.

    Their latest piece, “The reality of adapting to uncertain climate forecasts”, says plan for the worst but don’t panic, it may never happen. This is a significant improvement over their usual CO2 doom and gloom.

  114. Skiphil says:

    ahhh, I’d forgotten why I was so attuned to Fenton and EMS, those names leaped from my screen because long ago I’d read Richard Lindzen (2008) discussing their role with RealClimate.org (he says “created a website”). So as of 2008 this background was available to Lindzen when he published this paper — it would be most interesting to know where he obtained this info and whether it was correct to use the phrase “created a website” in relation to EMS and Fenton in their work on RealClimate.org

    [LINDZEN]:

    “Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) created a website, realclimate.org, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce their worrying.”

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

    btw, this Lindzen article is superb and I highly recommend it to all

  115. John Parsons says:

    You guys are hilarious. JP

Comments are closed.