The Oreskes documentary calling Dr. Fred Singer a “Liar for Hire” is a repeat of a nearly identical attack on him twenty years ago. An honorable newsman at that time debunked the attack and my research subsequently uncovered a genuine conspiracy of Big Green money and malice. While we consider legal action against the present vicious attack on Dr. Singer, I submit this short section from my book EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature for your information along with the advice of DeepThroat: Follow The Money.
The excerpt is found in Chapter 5, “Radicals” in the middle of page 183 forward for about 3 pages.
-Ron Arnold
On February 24, 1994, ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel ran a report titled, “Environmental Science For Sale,” produced by Jay Weiss. It was an investigation of the wise use movement, probing my activities and those of scientist Fred Singer of the Washington, D.C.-based Science and Environmental Policy Project, among others.[1]
Koppel opened this edition of Nightline with a stunning revelation: Vice President Al Gore had given him the story. Koppel explained that he and Gore had met by chance waiting for an airplane, and, over coffee, Gore urged him to investigate connections between the wise use movement and such elements as big industry, Lyndon LaRouche and the Unification Church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
Koppel had first covered the wise use movement almost exactly two years earlier, on February 4, 1992.[2] On that date, after a five-minute introductory segment interviewing me and a number of other wise use advocates, the program switched back to the studio and a face-off between conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and then-Senator Al Gore. Koppel was the first broadcaster to note that environmentalism was no longer a motherhood and apple pie issue, but now had serious challengers for the moral high ground.
Gore was deeply upset by the rise of wise use. By 1994 he was Vice President of the United States, and the time had come to strike back.
So, on the night of February 24, Koppel told Gore’s story—but notified his viewers exactly where it had come from, a highly unusual move in a medium that normally goes to extremes protecting sources. And he sounded annoyed.
While Koppel explained that Gore’s office had sent him a stack of documents, an image of fanned-out papers filled the TV screen. If you’ve seen such graphics, you know that the top document is always totally illegible so that a certain amount of anonymity is preserved for the source. However, peeking out from behind the first sheet was a letterhead just beyond legibility—unless you knew what it said to begin with. I did. It said, MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider.
So—Vice President Al Gore was keeping a dossier on us, courtesy the Green Cartel: MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider, a political strategy firm, hired by The Wilderness Society, using a grant from the W. Alton Jones Foundation (the CitGo oil money) authorized by Director John Peterson “Pete” Meyers, who has given away hundreds of thousands of dollars to smear the wise use movement. Knowing that Al Gore has been secretly keeping tabs on me, do I need to call Psychic Hotline to know why the Winthrop Foundation gave money so that Sheila O’Donnell of Ace Investigations could gather intelligence on me? Could it be because Wren Winthrop Wirth is the wife of Clinton administration official Tim Wirth who was given his State Department slot with the help of Vice President Al Gore?
Vice President Gore, Koppel told his viewers, was particularly concerned about Dr. Fred Singer of the Washington, D.C.-based Science and Environmental Policy Project, well known for debunking the ozone depletion and global warming scares.
Laws have been passed against important industrial chemicals because computer models predict them to deplete ozone or cause global warming. Dr. Singer points out flaws in computer models, noting that realistic risk assessments rather than computerized guesswork or emotional scare tactics are needed for sound public policy.
Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund told Koppel he was so worried about the wise use movement because, “If they can get the public to believe that ozone wasn’t worth acting on, that they were led in the wrong direction by scientists, then there’s no reason for the public to believe anything about any environmental issue.”
What about those Moonie ties and big industry money? When asked by Nightline, Dr. Singer acknowledged having accepting free office space and science conference travel expenses in the past from the Unification Church, as well as funding from large industries. The Moon support lasted only a short time, but the industry funding continued. “Every environmental organization I know of gets funding from Exxon, Shell, Arco, Dow Chemical, and so on,” said Singer. “If it doesn’t taint their science, it doesn’t taint my science.”
Koppel evidently felt used by Gore, saying, “In fairness, though, you should know that Fred Singer taught environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, that he was the deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon Administration, and from 1987 to 1989 was chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Transportation. You can see where this is going. If you agree with Fred Singer’s views on the environment, you point to his more impressive credentials. If you don’t, it’s Fred Singer and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.”
Koppel noted that Dr. Singer’s predictions about the low atmospheric impact of the Kuwait oil fires was accurate and the environmentalists’ forecast of doom, as voiced by the late astronomer Carl Sagan, was wrong.
Koppel handled the segment about me much the same way, saying that I had once served on a local board of the American Freedom Coalition, “a political organization, which, in the past, has received substantial funding from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.” There were no allegations that my Center had received Moonie money, or that I was a follower of Moon or his church, or that some nefarious Moon-influenced plot was afoot, unlike the Green Cartel’s version of the story. Somebody at ABC News had actually done some fact checking.
Then I remembered. Three months earlier, on Tuesday, November 9, 1993, ABC News producer Bob Aglow had called me on behalf of correspondent Bettina Gregory, asking for an interview for the “American Agenda” segment of World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. I had previously appeared in that segment and was treated fairly. I agreed. That Friday, November 12, Aglow and Gregory taped the interview in my office. Among other things, I gave them a stack of my Center’s financial statements showing where our budget really came from: small donations from members, book sales and conferences, with less than 5% coming from foundations and corporate grants.
However, the segment never aired. But the film that Koppel used in his Nightline broadcast was the footage taken by Bob Aglow with correspondent Bettina Gregory. Someone on the Nightline staff had obtained it from the World News Tonight staff—evidently along with my financial data.
At the end of the Nightline feature, Koppel pointedly rebuked Gore’s recruitment to a hatchet job, concluding, “The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works.”
There was something odd about this edition of Nightline. Why did Koppel reveal the source of his story? And why did he take such pains at fairness that it repudiated Gore’s premise? I contacted the network to see what they knew about their source. Neither Koppel nor ABC News Nightline producer Jay Weiss knew that the Search and Destroy Strategy Guide existed because Gore did not provide it, only a stack of anti-wise use articles and news releases provided by MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider. So I sent them a copy.
A little poking around also led to an interesting discovery: Al Gore himself took $1,000 from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church to address their American Leadership Conference just before accepting the vice presidential nomination. Two high ranking environmentalists had also taken $1,000 from Moon’s Unification Church for speeches at a media conference: Marion Clawson of Resources for the Future and Donella Meadows, lead author of The Limits to Growth. What, if anything, did that mean?[3]
A little more poking around revealed that Jay Weiss was not the producer originally assigned to investigate Gore’s allegations. The original producer of the “Environmental Science for Sale” segment had been 12-year ABC News veteran Tara Sonenshine. Sonenshine had started her career as a booker, the person who finds newsmakers and makes appointments for interviews. She had a Rolodex® to kill for by the time she became an assistant producer. She knew just about every newsmaker in the world when she received the promotion to full producer, including Al Gore and Tim Wirth and his rich wife Wren.
Sonenshine took Gore’s story and ran with it as if she were Gore’s advocate. She scripted it as a truly vicious hit piece. Her original version had painted Lyndon LaRouche operative Rogelio Maduro as a crackpot with ties to the wise use movement, the culprit who allegedly sank the Biodiversity Treaty.[4] It also crucified University of Virginia Professor Patrick Michaels—who, like Fred Singer, challenged global warming computer models—for accepting research funding from industry.[5] It took every cheap shot in the book: sinister lighting to make Professor Michaels look unsavory, industry-sponsored film footage with no context, a one-sided slam against everyone it didn’t like. It was the perfect Green Cartel reprisal.
Sonenshine’s show was scheduled to air early in February, but a Nightline assistant producer told me Koppel didn’t like its tone and demanded changes. Sonenshine was chagrined. My source said that during an acrimonious staff meeting, she departed. Whether she was fired or resigned depends on who you ask.
The February 8 edition of The Washington Post carried “Rumour du jour: Tara Sonenshine, editorial producer at ABC News’s ‘Nightline,’ is headed for a policy job with national security adviser Anthony Lake. She has been with ‘Nightline’ for 12 years.”[6]
The Washington Post reported on February 14 that Tara Sonenshine had been appointed special assistant to the president and deputy director for communications at the National Security Council, “working on longer-term projects, which some uncharitably call an effort to make NSC chief Anthony Lake more TV-genic.”[7]
Did Al Gore give her that job as a weenie for doing a hatchet job on the wise use movement? Or as a getaway route when the hatchet broke?
Ten days later, “Environmental Science For Sale” was broadcast, much changed, a combination of clips from Sonenshine’s hit piece and the Weiss remake.
Sonenshine lasted less than a year at NSC before going to work covering national security for Newsweek.[8]
[1] “Environmental Science For Sale,” ABC News Nightline, Ted Koppel, Transcript No. 3329, February 24, 1994.
[2] “The Environmental Movement’s Latest Enemy,” ABC News Nightline, Ted Koppel, Transcript No. 2792, February 4, 1992..
[3] Telephone interview with Tom Ward of the Unification Church, New York, March 10, 1994.
[4] Telephone interview with Rogelio “Roger” Maduro, Leesburg, Virginia, February 25, 1994. The actual individuals behind the anti-treaty call-in campaign were Tom McDonnell, consultant Michael Coffman, Ph.D. and Kathleen Marquardt of Putting People First.
[5] Telephone interview with Prof. Patrick Michaels, Charlottesville, Virginia, February 25, 1994.
[6] “The TV Column,” The Washington Post, February 8, 1994, by John Carmody, p. C4.
[7] “The Federal Page – In The Loop,” The Washington Post, February 14, 1994, by Al Kamen, p. A13.
[8] “Media Notes,” The Washington Post, June 21, 1995, by Howard Kurtz, p. D1.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Met her once. At a Stanford AGW presentation. Gave me the creeps… Something set off all my “be aware and alert” reactions. (All just my opinion, FWIW). Highly partisan (to say the least) and with a tendency to radiate nastiness at topics / people who did not follow her lead / direction. Decided not to ask much, nor say much, and just leave her and those gathered to praise her in mutual ego massage…
I’m generally considered to have a pretty good “people reader”. I’d not trust her behind me in an elevator (and would assure my back was to the side-wall near the buttons and exit…) I’d preferably take the next car and cross the street to avoid walking the same way…
Yes, that creepy.
Never met her, but everything I’ve read about her leads me to be thankful for that fact.
I get a similar impression from looking at the above photo.
Selling hatred and lies dressed up as science will do strange things to a person.
I have been doing some googling on IPCC lads who have taken money from Big Tobacco. Interesting results – see http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/10/shooting-santa-save-world/
Incidentally, I couldn’t find info re whether the French Philip Morris Science Prize paid USD100,000 per winner as the German one does, or even whether the German one took in French nationals as well.
Help on this appreciated.
Also for those who missed it, Naomi Oreskes’ great puppy and kitten extinction see
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/09/doomed-kittens-puppies/
She sure delivers a slippery “deconstruction” in theis video from another member of the viscous organic fluid department:
Thanks for the link. I am sure that the video was edited and so the following is based on the clip presented.. What struck me about Oreskes little rant was that she only asked rhetorical questions, made numerous unsupported attributions about Minchin’s views and evinced a level of certainty about her position that was then and is now totally unjustified.
Togther with the late Schneider, Stanford have much to answer for.
Beauty may be only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.
How is that helpful?
Very.
Although should be obvious, good explanation here:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100725221602AAfIpfX
Quote is by Dorothy Parker:
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/beauty_is_only_skin_deep-but_ugly_goes_clean_to/196025.html
Perhaps the “Beauty” part was confusing , by obvious appearance.
Think about it.
Touche, Alexander.
BeautyorBeast on October 20, 2014 at 2:53 pm
– – – – – – –
BeautyorBeast,
That was a great Dorothy Parker quote.
Speaking of Dorothy Parker’s famous quotes.
Famously sharp tongued art critic Dorothy Parker said about the acting of Englishwoman Dame Edith Evans, “She looks like something that would eat its young”
John
TOP,
If you noticed, this post by Ron Arnold was stated to be a “guest opinion”.
In which case, it is not some piece of science for us to digest / comment on.
Ergo, I think it is legit for others to voice their “opinions”, so long as they keep it within house rules.
I’ve not met the person, or Ron. But I value E.M.’s opinion.
So I would have no desire to meet or converse with Miss/Ms/Mrs/whatever Oreskes.
I have a natural aversion to busybodies.
How about the cliff notes version. What is the take away lesson for those Add-types who only made it to the fourth paragraph?
[snip – I won’t tolerate that sort of stuff here – Anthony]
Is this kind of comment really necessary?
[snip per above – Anthony]
Ironic. I was attacking that fellow for his comment in my snarky way and picked up my first ship. Oh well, such is life.
I can’t spell tonight! “picked up my first snip“, not ship. Darn. (and yes, this is a Mac doing that)
I agree with Contrari. You can wipe out ten thoughtful comments with crap like that.
That’s not your mother, that’s a man, ba-by!
If the scientific evidence really did show that increased anthropogenic CO2 release was a problem, then there would be no need for the decades long slime campaign and the screaming that “the debate is over”.
We don’t really know how the sun works. We barely know how the earth’s weather machine works. We are still discovering how volcanoes and continental drift (yes, what the discoverer called it — not the renamed “plate tectonics) impact climate, and we don’t fully understand the role of water (in its various forms) in the weather engine. We don’t know if, when, or how many times the earth may have suffered large impacts from space objects and what that may have done to the climate. We don’t really know what natural cycles may be in play as the resolution and quality of past reconstructions is not all that great.
What we do know is that political activists (both inside and outside of science) will use underhanded tactics to marginalize those that question their agenda and their mythology. They will do this because they know the evidence is against them. They would be all nice and pleasant if they thought that the evidence was really n their favor.
“Contentinental Drift” is a nice popularization term, but “plate tectonics” is far more descriptive to a geologist. “Tectonics” has to do with the uplift of mountain ranges and other large scale features. Prior to the proof of spreading crust along the oceanic ridges, the best theory available for how mountains lifted themselves was called geosynclinal theory, which in the really short form simply argued that over time high places became low, and low places became elevated. There was lots of NON-computer modeling, thermodynamics, estimates of thermal output from radioactive isotopes in granite versus the rock’s conductivity, all directed to demonstrating a mathematically, physically and thermodynamically consistent model of how mountains formed. What Wegener offered was an hypothesis. The debate was not really of interest to him, though he did suggest that mid-oceans ridges might be tied in. Primarily he argued that centrifugal force was the driver.
Duster: Good reply. Continents DO drift – because of great density-related motions in the stuff they float on – and not because of the wind, or spin, or just because they have a footloose fancy.
Continental drift is not just nice, it is the original designation of what was happening to the continents. Plate tectonics is not an equivalent of continental drift, it is merely the explanation of how continental drift is possible. The opposition to Wegener came from old-timers who argued that there was no way continents could move because solid rock was in the way. When a way was found they had to put down that upstart Wegener so they decided to subsume his theory into the “more general” theory of how continental drift works. I took a geology class in my senior year in college and the professor actually ranted against Wegener. I had found some chain corals in the rocks on the eastern side of the Baltic Sea. At a class outing to the Catskills I found the same corals in the Kaaterskill limestone there. I was afraid to point it out to the professor because I wanted to pass the course.
Indeed one of the give a ways of how ‘unsettled ‘ the science really is , can be found in the massive use of smoke and mirrors in seen in trying to claim it is settled.
Legal action all the way!!
“If they can get the public to believe that ozone wasn’t worth acting on, that they were led in the wrong direction by scientists, then there’s no reason for the public to believe anything about any environmental issue.”
With modern environmentalism being largely a political and religious movement we DO have legitimate reasons to be skeptical about anything they say. It’s very hard for the average person to separate real environmental issues from activism.
Luboš Motl is not fond of Naomi.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/20/slimed-by-naomi-oreskes-in-defense-of-dr-fred-singer/
Or WUWT, or skeptics, generally.
nor cats or dogs, rabbits, hamsters, hedgehogs, etc etc etc
Lubos is on a very singular journey.
I don’t understand this comment. And the link is circular. No references to Lubosch
Sorry!
http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/10/who-is-bigger-hater-of-fundamental.html
You would think that left-wing progressives like Oreskes could make their points using logic and facts rather than slime and innuendo. Unfortunately, the modern CAGW climate science movement is so filled with vindictive political hacks and pseudo-scientists that it’s hard to sort the honest scientists from the flakes.
Folk in the US. Please remember that you can help end this madness by voting appropriately in November. Right now, I am optimistic that we are going to see a wave election, and that we stand a good chance of defunding the CAGW climate science machine once and for all. Please do your part. Thanks!
That would be , Frank, if they had points of logic and fact … lies and slime is all they have. Particularly in the government’s science, its ugliness “goes all the way to the bone”.
Isn’t the phrase “government’s science” somewhat of an oxymoron?
Logic and facts? ???? Serously?
NONOnonononononono…that is not the currency in which they trade 😉 This is about feelings, and marketing. If it were about facts, the tent would have folded decades ago.
I really laughed out loud when I read the part about creating doubt. Every piece I’ve read from the Team talks about “may”, “might”, “could”…not a statement of fact in anything we read from them.
Jim
Hate and lies are intrinsic to the CAGW movement; it’s not a climate science movement, it’s fundamentally a psyop to disguise a misanthropic and dishonest political and financial agenda, using the same perception manipulation techniques used by the same people to promote support for wars by ‘us’ against horribly evil ‘thems’. The emotional content of the AGW-alarmist campaign; the constant puerile name-calling and personal denigration of climate scientists by pro-AGW political scientists, seems blatant enough to distinguish the AGW movement from anything related to science. I’m surprised that the general public hasn’t questioned AGW-alarmism solely in response to the hostility of AGW supporters – it definitely exceeds any hostility I’m aware of based on religion or nationality.
I suppose my point is that under “normal” scientific debate (which DOES happen all the time), people make their points using evidence, logic, data, and coherent arguments. You can always agree to disagree if both arguments have valid points. Ultimately, answers will come in the form of more data and evidence, which can confirm one side or the other.
Unfortunately, CAGW climate science (which is just another branch of radical left-wing progressivism) is not about, nor has it ever been about science, but rather about **politics** and **control of the masses**. If you think about it, these people couldn’t care less about polar bears as long as they get to ban coal, oil and other things they don’t like.
I also believe we’ve reached a tipping point with these people. They now have lots of money and power and are wielding it at every opportunity. If we compromise or give in to any of their demands, they will NOT stop, but continue with their radical agenda and (as we can see in the case cited here in the OP) destroy people if they are deemed a threat to the cause. We therefore MUST defeat them politically, and we MUST try to stop their encroachment on our freedoms. If we don’t do it now, I’m afraid that our nation will become so radicalized that it will take generations to undo the damage. Therefore I urge everyone here in the US to please vote this November with these left-wing progressives in mind. “Climate change” is just the beginning…
If I click on the Oreskes documentary link it goes to “nothing found”. I’m on an iPhone.
Fixed – some issue with wordpress caused a link substitution…or it could be user error on my part, couldn’t tell
Thanks for fixing it.
As of the time I’m writing this there were about 8 comments there. 7 skeptics and one Oreskes supporter with his fingers in his ears basically saying, “Make them stop!”
I have a suspicion that Gunga Din’s “Oreskes supporter” is in fact the author of the Blog itself – Astray?
mikemUK, it was. I didn’t know it was his blog. But to his credit, he didn’t just delete them.
(Now it he’d just take his fingers out of his ears….8-)
The first link in the post leads to an empty page.
[Fixed, thx. ~mod.]
This may be a good story but the author is perhaps so exercised by the smears and the past hatchet work that he leaves me wondering about some central issues. eg.: Who, what, where, why is the “wise use movement”? I’m not usually that much of an outsider. It reads to me like everyone is supposed to know about this organization. Maybe comments will be more edifying.
I looked up the “wise use movement” and it sounds pretty wise to me, Gary. To socialists? Not so much.
At one time Naomi Oreskes made some sense. In 1994 she was first author on a paper discussing numerical models in earth sciences. The abstract starts with this sentence: “Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible.” http://www.likbez.com/AV/CS/Pre01-oreskes.pdf
I wonder what sent her down the ideologue track.
Money?
Ego and intellectual hubris
15 minutes of fame and fortune.
Gary: Thanks for the link. I read the Oreske, Shader-Frechette and Belitz paper from Science (1994). I don’t get it. How did this rather mundane, hair splitting article get into Science. Much of this semantic quibbling is undergraduate level stuff. I am astonished that it appeared in Science.
Same thing here, the first link doesn’t connect (I’m on a Toshiba laptop).
[Fixed, thx. ~mod.]
No, thx to you…you guys are always on-the job…
Throughout human history I would believe that it has always been the mean and nasty people who latch onto all “anti-movements” and lead those movements over the cliff. Unfortunately they usually take a lot of good people with them….DDT elimination, fossil fuel and GM restrictions causes huge suffering for the poor.
In this case the “CAGW mean and ugly crowd” are taking not only humanity down a dark path but science as well. I for one have no trust in any activist sponsored science anymore and the public no longer understands the difference between real science and activist tyrannical science so they mistrust all of it.
Unfortunately, I think only SOME of us mistrust all of it. Most people, sadly, love life in their echo chambers. It’s comfortable there.
I believe one of the biggest problems is that we no longer promote/teach critical thinking, and are now paying the price for that grave mistake.
These are indeed the dark days of science . No new great discoveries since the 60s.
The optimism in the 50s and 60s for all things science gave children hope for the future.
The science of today is based on fear of the future. It is no longer as much about discovery as it is about entertainment and distraction
That was when a certain generation decided they would have a paradigm shift to a scientific model that assumes every chemical is guilty of being a carcinogen or harmful to the atmosphere. No matter what the quantity, no matter what the chemical, no matter what the benefits, every chemical is studied for its harms. It follows that even carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide would be accused of crimes against the earth.
I just realized the full scope of the wool that was pulled over my eyes, by the 60’s generation.
Where does it end….
OK, I’m a bit slow and I have bad eyes, but for the life of me I couldn’t figure out why a picture of Howard Stern was accompanying this article. I’m not kidding.
Then I realized…
…he had a bad haircut.
I thought it was Bob Dylan.
Ms. Oreskes has been overtly writing fiction for sometime. When one considers the quality of her work, perhaps that time was from the start.
She’s a particularly nasty piece of work. ‘Nuff said about her.
I saw Naomi Oreskes talk at two AGU Fall Meetings in San Francisco. She was quite agitated as she spoke with some abrupt gestures and with some almost baleful facial expressions. She expressed vehement denouncement of any person or organization who is critical of her claims of knowing, with scientific certainty, that there will be total catastrophe from fossil fuels. She was making a case for a grand con$piracy against her climate change movement. Her vehement dislike included the IPCC who she accused of being too conservative because, she explained, the IPCC was being subverted by the fossil fuel industry.
John
One could only hope…
The Guardian regularly gives her space. ‘Nuff said.
Meanwhile, just heard on BBC radio that NOAA released September 2014 Land/Sea surface temperature update, says 2014 is “on course to set a new hottest year on record”, proof that “warming is accelerating at pace” (BBC’s words) so they’re doubling down, chaps.
Wunderground has a similar ‘hottest ever’ that cites NOAA data as well. Guess they missed the ‘no warming for 18 years’ sats and the 1998 spike up never been beaten and the 100 year records snows globally and….
I’m looking forward to the stage when they start fighting amongst themselves.
It always happens.
It’s Naomi’s favorite season, Halloween.
This year she’ll be optimistically dressing as “the princess”.
Fred Singer doesn’t need support from the fuel industry.
The links are to your local computer:
wattsupwiththat.com/Users/Anthony/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/UUE71G70/#_ftnref3_7425