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?


Barry Woods says:
February 18, 2011 at 6:52 am
……….I see that this is still the case.
For goodness sake be fair!! The link to WUWT is on the website! We (sceptics) should engage with these people. As a European (English) taxpayer I want to know how much of my taxes is going to fund this project, and what, if any (other than computer modelling) evidence they have to support the hypothesis of CAGW.
Give them a chance!!
I think that many people here are grossly underestimating the money and power behind the alarmists efforts. The truth may come out eventually, but I may not be still around to see it.
I feel totally frustrated with fighting the Team supporters. I try in my small way to (gently) steer friends toward the light, but it’s a tough sell with the continuing barrage of nonsense.
An example was a short piece in the Weather Network stating that yesterday was a new high record, previously held by 1984 @ur momisugly 7.4C (unstated was the fact that this info was taken from records that begin in 1938).
I sent and eMail pointing out that the Environment Canada website (http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/almanac_e.html?timeframe=4&Prov=CA&StationID=5051&Year=2011&Month=2&Day=17) that begins in 1841 shows a high of 11.1C in both 1857 and 1921.
This morning a sentence was added saying that the high yesterday was 11.3C.
Now, whether it really was 11.3C yesterday or not is really not the point.
The important point is that yesterdays “record” temperature was essentially the same as it was more than 150 years ago. The message being propagated is the unnaturally warm temperatures, despite the facts stating otherwise.
How the H*LL can we fight such the MSM “machine”, apparently staffed by unaware and uncritical reporters?
Starting a propaganda campaign without hiding one’s motive and paymaster is about the dumbest move you can make – might i, as a European citizen, say : rather typical for anything that comes from Brussels.
Any doubts climate change is political and not science are proven by the purpose of the rapid response team.
The rapid response team has all the characteristics of rent a mob and the thug in the street. Having lost the scientific argument they now intend to overwhelm the truth by obscuring it with sheer volume and the dialogue of trained non scientific professionals. Is there corruption involved in this, it sure looks like it.
The rapid response team is an exercise in net neutrality in an attempt to force views on individuals depriving them of personal choice in getting information.
Oh very well done Josh,
This is your best cartoon yet, I especially like the wry comments,
” The elastic band of truth” “Hiding the decline”
I love it..
Ken
Roger Longstaff says:
February 18, 2011 at 7:29 am
“As a European (English) taxpayer I want to know how much of my taxes is going to fund this project, and what, if any (other than computer modelling) evidence they have to support the hypothesis of CAGW.
Give them a chance!!”
Why does EU climate alarmism need another propaganda outlet? The UK already has the Tyndall centre; Germany already has the PIK (where Rahmstorff runs a blog, kind of a mini RC called Klima-Lounge). I would not give them any chance, and if they only get one used harddisk for free from the taxpayer – they are unnecessary, and they surely don’t deserve it.
You really have to go to the Carbon Brief site and read it to appreciate what amazing amounts of spin are being applied to issues being considered. It is going to primarily appeal to the faithful believers. Someone in the middle who is being subjected to that level of selling is going to realize it soon enough, and journalists who are not shills are going to be hung out to dry all too soon. Slick, but slick BS is still BS.
I cvan’t remember the last time I felt so angry, so completely used and betrayed by these bloodsucking elitists. How to deal with Orwellian social-media propaganda campaigns backed by the super-rich? SYNflood, DDoS, Zombie Conscription, whatever it damnwell takes!
Lawrie Ayres says:
February 18, 2011 at 12:36 am
Pteradactyl says: February 18, 2011 at 1:02 am
We are being led like lambs to slaughter by the EU to further their agenda of a single European state. The fastidious way that the EU is making inroads to every aspect of our lives is becoming more and more apparent.
Lawrie Ayres says: February 18, 2011 at 1:04 am
Just a thought. The AGW problem will be solved when we (the West) have a bigger problem to solve.
——————————————————————————–
I agree with you guys. The bigger problem in Europe (and for that matter the US) is becoming apparent now. The collapse of the economy and the banking system is driving up the cost of all commodities. People’s savings are being eroded, old people cannot afford care, education is becoming unaffordable, the defence of the nation is unsustainable. In the UK the energy system seems to be near the point of collapse. It is becoming apparent even now that the breaking point in people’s patience is getting close.
If people cannot afford food or if they are freezing in their houses, they will not have any patience for governments that are forcing up the costs for these essentials to ‘save the world’. They will be more interested in the next meal.
The economic crisis in Ireland and Greece resulted in riots. This indicates to me at least that it wouldn’t take much for this level of anger to spread to other countries in Europe given right circumstances. It is also quite apparent that the popular revolutions recently seen in the Middle East demonstrates the real power of the populace even in the face of a powerful regime backed by the military.
Douglas
When taxpayers money kept flowing unquestioned in their direction and nobody questioned the cause they didn’t worry.
But now they’ve been faced with loosing members of the crowd and no new one to take their place. Less ears for them spells politicians and policy makers that are less eager to be overly generous with the treasure chest (since most aren’t carrier suicidal but pragmatic enough to go with the flow.)
So what do moral deficient people do when faced with loosing ever more battle ground but retort to up the ante in the PR department. Just like the leaders did in old soviet and nazi germany. Mr scud did the same in Iraq. Works very well in the beginning, it’s been tried tested by the most heinous of course, but in the end it always turns out to become a clown aptly named Bob starring the the great and last farce of a stand.
They’re just making the same mistakes over and over. These climate hippies actually believe that what WWF and other environmental and animal protection organizations did when they were facing loosing members and a less willing to donate crowd, i.e. shrinking revenue, worked out very well, even though they’re being questioned more and more about the wisdom of having brought onboard hard core capitalist to start running the not for profit organizations (fundamentally based on grass root ideology) just like for profit business, less the tax, through and through where pragmatism is the rule so much so that the ideology not long ago was voted for to change by the boards alone and everyone else had to just suck it up, adapt or leave for the choice becomes getting the millions of euros and dollars extra or downsizing and firing lots of poor co-workers with families and kids.
In the beginning these tactics are rarely a problem if you got a solid core of die hard fanatics who, given the chance, will rationalize just about everything, genocide even, and a large base of kind hearted but very naïve people who’ll go along with a lot (just because everyone else is and people always fear alienation), at least for a time but if the “old guard” isn’t loosing faith in the new ways in the state of the union for too fast a whole new breed will have time to come onboard and replace the now new heretics. However, fanatics rarely has a dynamic mindset, you can only influence so much. And there’s never enough fanatic follower when you would truly have need them what with they have a tendency to get mushed in the front lines right at the start of every battle, and the ones your left with are the ones standing behind you, holding a knife trying not to drool and laugh (like they just had an epiphany) at the same time, thinking they’re obviously more competent ‘an you at your job, if only . . .
DirkH says:
February 18, 2011 at 8:19 am
Yes, but……………
I emailed the following to them:
“Dear Sir / Madam,
I would be very grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. How much funding does your project receive from European taxpayers?
2. What evidence (other than computer modelling) can you supply to support the hypothesis of catastrophic (or even harmful) anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)? (By CAGW I specifically refer to claims that carbon dioxide, consequent upon human activity, has altered, or will significantly alter, the climate of the planet). ”
No reply yet, but if/when it does – if it turns out that a single pound of my tax has been spent on this I will complain to HMG, copied to UK MSM. (The UK FOI act can force this). If they respond that there is no credible evidence for CAGW then I have no doubt that WUWT readers will give them all that they deserve!
What fascinates me is that these people always paint themselves into a corner with each of their various actions and stratagems, although they never seem to realise it. To carry on as if one were promoting science while refusing to debate a topic in a reasonable manner is simply to give the game away, which they do again and again. (This includes calling themselves a “rapid response team”, which hardly indicates a disinterested concern with working out the truth of the matter.)
It’s as if they were forced to demonstrate – through their actions – the same reductio ad absurdum argument, while never being able to give up the proposition that they have just effectively refuted. It’s like being under some kind of curse. This is why I don’t think the follow-the-money angle is the main element here.
I’ve been trying to get a bit of debate going over there this afternoon – with limited success.
They do appear to be allowing all comments (even a link to Josh’s cartoon!).
There’s no log-in required so I suggest everybody gets stuck in.
They seem to have more Twitterers than posters at present.
I think Twittering suits warmists – you only have to think for five seconds, no one argues with you and your mates can pass it on verbatim without having to think at all.
Consensus citizen science in action!
Roger Longstaff says:
February 18, 2011 at 7:29 am
Barry Woods says:
February 18, 2011 at 6:52 am
“……….I see that this is still the case.
For goodness sake be fair!! The link to WUWT is on the website!”
Really? Where exactly?
I would not worry Anthony. The modern elites have kept us under control with lots of dangling carrots. The recession is not over. All the signals have been flashing red for a couple of years now. Energy prices are going to go through the roof. The only people hearing their message will be themselves.
Christian Hunt says:
February 18, 2011 at 4:16 am
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.
No, thank you! It’s always good to see Climate “Science” done so openly. Especially its “method”!
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
This is the beginning of the end . Time is the enemy of all confidence gamers. Next we will see a panicked rush for the doors.
Dave Wendt says:
February 18, 2011 at 9:49 am : “Where exactly?”
You’ve got to search for it – follow “commentators” down to “show more links and resources”. WUWT is right at the bottom. (Or at least it was, an hour ago).
The author is right – we should be on the home page!
I emailed “The European rapid response team” three hours ago (see above). No response yet. It is a good job that they are not paramedics. I have now decided to self-medicate. Hic!
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
It’s a pretty feeble site, I wouldn’t worry too much.
1984 – Ministry of Truth – George Orwell
It IS worse than we thought
Listen to what this website writes on their “Profiles” page:
“Professor S. Fred Singer is a professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and one of the world’s most widely quoted climate change sceptics. Rolling Stone magazine has called Singer “the granddaddy of fake ‘science’ designed to debunk global warming.”
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/fred-singer
I tried to find one positive statement in any skeptic person’s profile, but so far I have not been able to…
Unbiased my sweet hinemann…
Wow! Read the inhofe one!
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/james-inhofe
“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.”
What rubbish, China and India could care less about The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, or what raving Warmists are spouting. I would be very surprise if more than .01% of the population even knows the names. Even less are likely to bother to read their articles.
This isn’t crafted to convince China and India, its designed to win younger and poorly informed viewers in the EC. The problem is, their just throwing away their money on hype instead of doing something meaningful with the funds they’re stolen from the average citizen.
Given the almost obsessive way the CAGW crowd harps on the “Climate deniers are all well funded by Big Oil” meme, the fact that their side of the blogosphere is almost completely dominated by sites which are at their roots the products of massive PR campaigns, while the skeptosphere is for the most part dominated by one man shops struggling to stay afloat with their own bucks and a PayPal button on the sidebar. The irony would be hilarious if the lie had not been successfully repeated so many times.