Guest post by Barry Woods
The Carbon Brief is a new website designed to provide a rapid response to any climate change related stories in the media.
It is also appears to be intended as a resource for articles and it claims to be an independent mediator between journalists and climate scientists.
The Carbon Brief’s twitter followers seem to have different expectations.
Andrew SimmsNef Bio: 10:10 Campaign Board Member, New Economic Foundation (NEF), Greenpeace UK board member, co-author of The Green Deal Report, founder of the 100 Month initiative, Trustee of TERI Europe(alongside Rajendra Pachauri, Sir John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell)
The Carbon Brief seems particularly concerned about how sceptical stories in UK media and blogs are being received by people in India and China and reported in non-EU countries media and blogs. (my bold).
“The media has a huge impact on the way that the climate debate has taken shape in the UK, as it has in the US, Australia and around the world. Comment articles in newspapers and blogs here are often copied and published thousands of times around the globe. The arguments fomented in the pages of The Guardian or the Daily Telegraph can have a significant impact on how climate change is reported in India and China.” – The Carbon Brief
On further investigation, the website demonstrates that they appear to be nothing but advocates of consensus climate change policy. A look at their further resources page gives the first two links as the Climate Science Rapid Response Team and RealClimate and it also include Climate Progress. There are no sceptical or even lukewarm website or blog links of any kind.
“Our team of researchers will provide a rapid response service for climate science stories. We go straight to peer-reviewed science and the relevant scientists to get their opinions” – The Carbon Brief
The Carbon Brief appears to have been set up for the specific purpose of countering sceptical stories relating to ‘climate change’ by going to AGW consensus scientific sources for an instant rebuttal. 
It is a project of the Energy and Strategy Centre, funded and supported by the European Climate Foundation (ECF)
ECF describes itself as “the largest philanthropic organisation in Europe focused on influencing government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. –The Carbon Brief
“…. To meet that challenge, six funding partners joined forces in 2007 to create a new multi-million euro philanthropic entity called the European Climate Foundation.” – About Us – ECF
On the The Carbon Brief website they say they are just getting started.
I am concerned about this new apparent big Green EU AGW PR and media machine swamping any sceptical voices with instant rebuttals and twitter mobs. They would appear to have very experienced PR, Media and Communications professionals at work now, with all the tools of modern media management, all the funding they need and briefed to follow the European Climate Foundations’ agenda.
If you take a look for example at the Carbon Brief’s Twitter profile, followers already include The Guardian’s environment team and editors, The Times’ science editor, Greenpeace, the Green Party, 10:10, 350, Transitions Towns, left leaning think tanks like the NEF and IPPR. Basically the whole ‘consensus’ media, NGO, politicians and lobby groups seem to know about it.
And they will twitter and retweet the Carbon Brief’s tweets and links propagating the ‘message’ to their thousands of twitter followers (remember key media people) and the ‘climate change’ activists will no doubt descend on the sceptical blogs and comments section to ‘troll’ the articles.
In the future will every sceptical article have an instant twitter response, links and a full PR professional paid media crafted response. I have seen tweets for Watts Up, Bishop Hill, Bjorn Lomborg, Jo Nova, Christopher Booker, GWPF and others already. How can independent unpaid, unfunded bloggers possibly fend off professional PR of this nature from an organisation with multi-million Euro funded backers with the agenda described above.
Nobody seems to have told the Telegraph, James Delingpole (I asked), Christopher Booker about the Carbon Brief, all those journalists organisations and lobby groups. I wonder why?
James Delingpole (Telegraph) had a nasty twitter mob experience himself, just recently, courtesy of an abusive tweet by Ben Goldacre (Bad Science – Ben is the second follower of the Carbon Brief, in the graphic above, he has 85,000 followers alone)
I expect James will get some more soon, as they twitter about every story he writes that they take exception to.
Who is running the Carbon Brief
From the website, the key team members are: Carbon Brief’s Director, Tom Brookes, is director of the Energy Strategy Centre (ESC) the communications unit funded by the European Climate Foundation (ECF). Editor Christian Hunt has worked as a researcher and web editor for Greenpeace and the Public Interest Research Centre.
We believe accuracy should be the key value in discussing climate change, and we aim to act as an independent mediator between the media and scientists.
Our aim is to increase social and political understanding of the risks of climate change so that we can make more informed decisions as a society. – The Carbon Brief
Tom Brookes is a very senior experienced communications professional, drafted in to counter sceptics?
Tom Brookes, Director, ESC – bio ECF
Tom is the head of Energy Strategy Center (ESC), the communications unit of the European Climate Foundation. He has held senior corporate and consultancy posts in government relations and communications.
Christian Hunt is still on the Board of Trustees of the Public Interest Research Centre which describes it’s work below:
Our work examines the connections between climate, energy and economics.
Our team is accomplished at presenting science to non-scientists, including policy makers. With the knowledge and experience to interpret cutting-edge research, and the skills to build it into effective communications tools, we provide a bridge between those at the forefront of climate science research and wider audiences.
I might ask how independent of thought on the Climate Change issue are they really, given the people, organisation and funding partners involved?
Profiles of Commentators
The Carbon Brief separates profiles into those who are commentators and scientists, these profiles appear to be designed as a resource to be used by any media organisation, journalist or blogger as an instant profile on that person, or of an event, or about an organisation. Compare the profiles of Rajendra Pachauri, George Monbiot and Phil Jones, with those of James Delingpole, Christopher Booker, Christopher Moncton, Benny Peiser and Bjorn Lomborg, to witness a mastercraft example of PR and Media management at work, to promote an European Union AGW consensus media brief.
The intent appears to be that any media looking at a sceptical climate change story, ( Chinese and Indian particularly? ) will use The Carbon Brief as a resource, without actually seriously getting into the detail of any of the issues or ask any further questions.
An extract from The Carbon Brief’s – ‘Climategate’ profile
The message was interpreted by sceptics as suggesting scientists wanted to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. This interpretation was offered despite the email being sent in 1999, when temperatures had been rising for some decades.
The process referred to by the word “trick” was characterized by the Russell Report as a legitimate and peer reviewed method of dealing with the fact that a set of proxy temperature data from tree rings had diverged from temperature measurements – the proxy temperatures had declined while real temperatures continued to increase. This problem had been widely discussed in the scientific literature, prior to the UEA email hack.
Personally, I think that proxies for historic temperatures that don’t actually follow thermometers are a little unreliable and not to much faith should be be given to them. Particularly when they have been used to reconstruct a historic temperature record, which has been used inform us that temperatures are now unprecedented, proof of AGW and that we must do something now!
An extract from The Carbon Brief’s – ‘Hockey Stick’ Profile
“…Mann published a list of rebuttals to myths around the hockey stick graph on the Realclimate.org website in 2004.
Sceptic commentator Andrew Montford published the book The Hockey Stick Illusion in 2010. The central claim of The Hockey Stick Illusion is that the iconic graphic has survived only because a conspiracy amongst scientists sought to undermine the peer review process and bully journals into suppressing dissenting views.
Richard Joyner, emeritus professor of physical chemistry at Nottingham Trent University reviewed the book in Prospect magazine, suggesting that “Montford’s book is not an honest contribution” because he “consistently and without evidence…queries the actions and motives of those with whom he disagrees.”
Now I wonder why The Carbon Brief choose that particular review, was it really being independent and balanced, as Matt Ridley (author The Rational Optimist) gave a VERY positive review, which was ALSO in the Prospect Magazine! I wonder what Steve Mcintyre and Andrew Montford will make of those two profiles above (please read in full). Andrew Montford has lots of very positive reviews of his book, some other reviews here.
Andrew Montford had a response to – ‘without evidence’
“This is most peculiar. I mean, there are 270 references in the book. That’s really quite a lot of evidence. And Prof Joyner may have heard of the Climategate emails, heavily sourced in Chapter 17. What are these if not evidence?
What else is there? Well, he says I should have referred to Steve M’s failure to publish his tree ring research. In a book in which one of the themes is the difficulty sceptics have in getting published, this seems a rather bizarre position for Prof Joyner to take.” – Bishop Hill
Well funded with political influence
The Carbon Brief is backed by the European Climate Foundation and it appears to me to be a PR machine specifically designed to counter any scepticism and it has the funding, resources, political backing and contacts to do just that.
“European Climate Foundation aims to promote climate and energy policies that greatly reduce Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions and help Europe play an even stronger international leadership role in mitigating climate change.” –
“…. To meet that challenge, six funding partners joined forces in 2007 to create a new multi-million euro philanthropic entity called the European Climate Foundation.” – About Us – ECF
The activities of the Carbon Brief seems to me to be at odds with the other stated commitment of the European Climate Foundation, which made me laugh in disbelief at their apparent ‘doublethink’.
“We seek to maintain a reputation for objective, high-quality work that is neither ideological nor politically biased.” – About Us ECF
The European Climate Foundation (ECF) is well funded by its partners and even more importantly is very well connected politically in Europe for the clear aim of 80-95 % reduction in CHG’s by 2050. The Energy Strategy Centre is the European Climate Centre’s communications and media arm, which would indicate that The Carbon Brief far from being non-ideological and not politically biased, has as its sole purpose the promotion of the ECF’s agenda, which is to lobby hard for European Union climate and economic policy change.
“The majority of the European Climate Foundation’s fund is re-granted to NGOs engaged in trying to bring about meaningful policy change. When we see an unfulfilled need we also engage in direct initiatives, such as commission papers, convene meetings or launch a new organisation. We seek no public attention for our efforts and instead prefer to highlight the success of those who are actually doing the work.
We have identified four major areas for immediate intervention within Europe:
• Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Industry
• Low-Carbon Power Generation
• Transportation
• EU Climate Policies and Diplomacy
The European Climate Foundation describes the members of the Advisory Board
This international body consists of distinguished professionals who draw on their individual and collective experiences in politics, business, academia and civil society. Members of the Advisory Council actively engage in advancing ECF’s mission both by providing strategic advice and through advocacy.
They represent the elite of European business people, NGO’s, politicians and lobbyists. Including, a Co-editor of the IPCC, Chair of WWF, Chair of Globe EU, VP Club of Rome, former MEP’s, Tony Blairs former Chief of Staff, CEO’s, Directors and Senior partners of corporations and consultancies, including BP and Unilever. Truly the European elite.
I have had a brief look at some of their funding grants (see here), these include, Club of Rome, Greenpeace, WWF, Globe International, Centre for European Policy, in fact over 500 grants in less than 4 years. One organisation called Sandbag, which lobbies for improved emissions trading in the European Union, struck a chord with me. Sandbag has received funding and written significant reports in the area of lobbying for Carbon Emission policy in Europe, backed by the European Climate Foundation.
The founder of Sandbag is Bryony Worthington, she is now Baroness Worthington as she was made a life peer in the House of Lords last year by the Labour party leader Ed Milliband, as she was ‘instrumental in the writing’ of the UK Climate Change Act. Unlike Viscount Christopher Monckton she now a full voting member of the House of Lords for the rest of her life and will no doubt continue her climate change work there (she studied English by the way).
Bryony Worthington is also a board member of the 10:10 Campaign, who were behind the ‘No Pressure’ video nasty. Fellow 10:10 board members are the environmental campaigner Andrew Simms and Tony Juniper. Other Sandbag board member colleagues include Ed Gillespie founder of Futerra and Mike Mason the founder of Climate Care which will sell you carbon offsets (I have one!, but I’ll write another time about that) which is now owned by JP Morgan Chase . When Mike Mason from Climate Care debated Christopher Monckton at the Oxford Union last year he was listed as part of the JMorgan Climate Care organisation (he seems to have since left)
This one organisation alone provides ample evidence to me that there are significant interests and representation by media, politicians, banking and consensus AGW lobby groups at the heart of the EU policy formation.
What next for sceptical websites?
If I get the time, I will follow this post up with an article about the Green Social Network, and how perhaps to engage with it.
It is still very, very early days for The Carbon Brief, it has only just got started. They say they are independent and claim climate science is distorted by vested interests.
“Carbon Brief fact-checks stories about climate science online and in the press. We provide briefings on the people and organisations talking about climate change, and we produce background materials on science issues and news stories.
Distortions of climate science occur regularly, partly because climate science is a complex area, and partly because various interests, motivated by finance or ideology, have sought to confuse the issue.
We are a service for journalists and the online climate community. Our team of researchers will provide a rapid response service for climate science stories. We go straight to peer-reviewed science and the relevant scientists to get their opinions.
Right now we are in the early stages of developing the site.” – About Us – The Carbon Brief
What to expect from for The Carbon Brief because expectations seem to be very high?
Andrew Simms Bio: 10:10 Campaign Board Member, New Economic Foundation (NEF), Greenpeace UK board member, co-author of The Green Deal Report, founder of the 100 Month initiative, Trustee of TERI Europe(alongside Rajendra Pachauri, Sir John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell)
What next indeed?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Christpher Hanley says:
February 18, 2011 at 12:59 am
Why don’t they simply present the empirical evidence that would justify dismantling the world economy beyond a guess that maybe over 50% of the alleged warming since ~1950 (i.e. 0.35°C) was very probably due to human CO2 emissions?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Why indeed?
Could it just be that there is no such empirical data?
Hence, nothing but spin.
I think this proves that swarms of sites like 10:10, armies of troll blog-mercenaries, lapdog global governments, departments and agencies and their propagandising MSM can’t put Humpty together again. And the growing ‘mandatory’ effort is starting to upset the taxpayers. This seems like a desperate move to bring in the big-gun propaganda money in from the very top.
Don’t they realise the jig’s up?
Obviously it will fail, we know it will fail because we sceptics are right and they are wrong. However long it takes to be proven right we will be proven right in the end, this is the iron hard immutable law of history.
In the mean time falsehoods and the purveyors of these falsehoods will fight harder and harder to prevail, all the tricks and the cunning deceptions and generous funding and closed networks and the insults and smears will only serve to highlight their moral bankruptcy. They betray themselves with every move.
They are trying the age old trick of attempting to respond to the truth with lies, it really does not matter how loud they shout and the insults they hurl, every move they make assists their own demise and the further they sink the more desperate they become and the more people realise their game, its an ever decreasing circle for them, its just another immutable law, that of diminishing returns.
Know this though my friends, we will triumph because we are right and our cause is righteous, as long as we stay on the path of truth we will win, as long as we do not follow their example however desperate things may appear we will win through in the end. Lies are easy to beat with the simple truth.
Considering the title, I’d speculate Carbon Briefs was for environmental and/or energy-related and/or agricultural lawyers. Jurisprudence reigns!
Carbon Brief = frantically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I am now carbonbrEif.org I will be assisting the spelling impaired warmists. Stay tuned.
malcolm:”I’m very much looking forward to the day when I perceive a decoupling of science and politics in our study of the climate”
Something far more important is in the process of happening. The decoupling of Finance.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0217/1224290024749.html
Just about every Bank in Europe is broke. The ECB is broke. The EU is broke. Even Axel Weber has now walked away from the whole corrupt, criminal mess.
The dinosaur is dead but the message hasn’t reached the brain yet (the first bit of the brain to get the message, might well have been Axel Weber).
This is a big monster that’s going down, and it can do a lot of damage before it finally stops twitching.
Looks like they are in line with Mike Hulme’s new look democratic woolly science:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/mike-hulme-expertise-and-the-ipcc/
This entity’s function appears to be similar to those created for US presidential campaigns. The product is fast political “spin” to support an agenda within a news cycle. Of course I could be wrong.
The really, really, really funny bit is that this will alert more and more people to the sceptical viewpoints.
1. Gun to foot.
2. Pull trigger…..
Also, this ECF and Carbon Brief are strongly reminiscent of Common Purpose type strategy and tactics.
This self damaging move will shed further light on similar organisations that like to work in the shadows.
More people every day are seeing these people for the scum of the Earth they really are.
Hello! Thanks for profiling us so comprehensively. This information is also on our website – http://www.carbonbrief.org/about
As you can see from the above post, we’re open about our what the project is, who’s behind it, and where our funding comes from.
I’m sure that we’re going to differ in viewpoint, and obviously we have quite different ideas of what it is that our project is trying to achieve. But I would say that our genuine interest is in trying to improve the quality of communication around this issue, and I’d welcome constructive comments on what we’re doing.
(It’s also worth noting that we do link to WUWT, along with a range of other commentary sites on climate, from our commentators page.)
If you have comments, please send them to me – info [at] carbonbrief.org – I will read them all. This is a complicated and contentious area – all (polite) feedback is welcome.
If there are errors in fact on the site, we will correct them, so again, please drop us an email.
All the best,
Christian
This tactic is a political one, bred in the Clinton administration, and will be used as a means of attacking and demonizing anyone that does not buy the consensus.
The Carbon Brief is a “spin” organisation.
A sure sign of desperation amongst the AGW High Priests to keep the Public “on message” and above all to “Keep the Faith”
Congratulations. Well done. To have so many AGW proponents in the open and huddled in one place is good news. Tactically, they have made a mistake.
Why is this issue so important to people? All these resources could be applied directly to eliminating hunger, poverty, diseases, etc. Yet the obsession is focused on reducing CO2 which is a direct result of the worlds economic success, which in itself is required to fund things such as eliminating world hunger, poverty, and disease. It’s a race to “cut off our noses to spite our faces”. A race to drive us back to the dark ages. Why?
The resources these guys have at their disposal is just incredible and just blows apart that old idea of the the few “scientists” against the might of the “fossil fuel funded sceptics”.
I hardly have time just to read WUWT and post a few inane comments – in contrast these warmists seem to be at their “job” 24/7/365 – moreover they seem to be professional advertisers constantly sending out Press releases, coming up with the latest marketing “in” idea to spread their religion.
And to think I once thought this was “little-guys” trying to save the world against “big-guy” oil funded denialists!
Barry,
Thanks for the post. It had a lot of great info but might have been more effective if it was shorter, a bit more condensed. The big picture is that this is an example of lefty top down command and control of messaging. How pathetic to be told what to think and then to actually think what you are told to think. I will never understand the left. We all agree that politicians are the scum of the earth, yet the left is always wanting to give politicians almost limitless power to push us citizens around.
As far as messaging goes, the great mass of people in the middle are not detail oriented and are influenced more by things like stories of old people freezing to death because they could not afford to heat their homes or stories pointing out that such and such a famous alarmist (Al Gore is number 1 on this list) is a huge hypocrite or the fact that raising the price of energy is going to make the economy even worse, etc, etc.
What you need to do in the UK is to select a political party and take it over Tea Party style. Until you do that, the UK is going to continue to go the wrong way very fast. A good approach might be to exploit UK class distrust by convincing the lower class that the upper class is perpetrating a fraud to exploit the common man. Shouldn’t be too hard to do since it is true.
Anyway, here in the states we have the alarmists on the run. Majorities in both the House and the Senate (at least 54 senators: 47 R and >= 7 D) are against the EPA regulating CO2. The cap and trade legislation was defeated last year. The Republicans are having a lot of fun in defining exactly how they plan to defund lefty projects (including big chunks of the EPA). The great thing about a budget crisis is that the federal budget absolutely has to be reduced and everybody knows it.
Well, if some cAGW proponents want to waste their time and money on yet another propaganda site, let them.
In passing, I notice that those who put up this site have pretty old-fashioned ideas: propaganda following the communist play-books telling others how and what to think doesn’t work any longer. More people have the resources to check up for themselves – and they are getting fed up with being told what to think and what to do by those who are not exactly shining examples of a green, austere, planet-saving life style.
You know, those pesky media types might inadvertantly ask one of the “wrong” scientists their opinion on climate stories. This way they can be directed to only the scientists who will give the correct answers.
Meanwhile Chris Hulne – UK Secretary of State..
is agressively trying to persuade the rest of europ for 30% carbon reduction in Europe..by 2020. No new coal power stations allowed in the UK..
(nor Nuclear – greens don’t like those)
The ECF want 80-95% by 2050.
Just billions to be wasted on windfarms in the UK..
With many more old age pensioners dying because they can’t afford energy bills, because of the Green energy the energy companies are forced to buy.
So yes it does matter…the CAGW delusion may be dying,
the politicians haven’t noticed and will destroy the EU/UK economies… whilst China laughs every time they build another coal power station or nuclear stations.
The article got a bit long (so I left a lot out)
I always hear about big oil fossil funded deniar machine.. Well big oil, knows it can’t fight big business, big politicians and big lobby groups, and becane ‘big energy’ a decade ago….
The European Climate Foundations’ advisory board are a who’s who, of the political, environmental and business classes dominating in Europe…
I’m actually SURE ALL the people involved they have nothing but GOOD intentions, they are just suffering from a popular cultural delusion. (CAGW – AGW would not support the almost end of world cult like behvaiour, of some of the extreme activists)
In the same way Enron happened, Mdhoff, dot com bubble, and finacial risk implosion, (or even how big corporates fail – a culture of ‘groupthink’ gets a hold, and reinforces itself against critics – think IBM, about PC’s, or even MIcrosoft – a quickish recovery, when they dismissed the internet, early on, just before Browser wars)
http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=63Advisory Board
This international body consists of distinguished professionals who draw on their individual and collective experiences in politics, business, academia and civil society. Members of the Advisory Council actively engage in advancing ECF’s mission both by providing strategic advice and through advocacy.
John Schellnhuber (Chair)
Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; External Professor at Santa Fe University; Advisor on Energy and Climate Change to EU Commission President Manuel Barroso
Antony Burgmans
Former Chairman and CEO of Unilever; Director of BP; Member of the Supervisory Boards of Aegon and Akzo Nobel; Chairman of WWF – the Netherlands; Board Member of the World Resources Institute
Bert Metz
Former Co-Chair of the Working Group on Mitigation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the Nobel Prize in 2007
Jeremy Oppenheim
Senior Partner of McKinsey & Company and Global Director of their Sustainability & Resource Productivity Initiative
Jonathan Powell
Former Chief of Staff to British Prime Minister Tony Blair; Former Chief Negotiator on Northern Ireland
Laurence Tubiana
Director of the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI); Director of the Sustainable Development Centre at Sciences Po’
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz
Professor and Director of the Centre for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy at Budapest’s Central European University
Anders Wijkman
Former Member of the European Parliament and Chairman of Globe EU; Vice-President of the Club of Rome; Vice Chair of the Tällberg Foundation
Mark Woodall
Founder, former CEO and Senior Advisor, Climate Change Capital; also a non-executive director of a number of clean tech companies
They should just go ahead and name the site “Pravda” and let the brainwashing begin. It will certainly have an impact on the clueless masses who, like sheep, will obediently spout the party line to make themselves appear intelligent.
These sites get so few hits, one more site is just going to dilute their audience even more.
..but one more site saying it’s the hottest year – when people are freezing and buried in snow
one more site saying the cost of heating your house has to go up
I’m all for one more of those sites….
…nothing hurts their cause more than getting the word out
James has written on it now http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100076821/how-the-green-lobby-smears-its-enemies/