Guest post by Christopher Horner
Tonight, PBS’s axe-grinding vehicle “Frontline” is running what promises to be a tantrum against people who seek debate over the global warming agenda, and scrutiny of claims underpinning it. It appears that you have me to thank for it or, to paraphrase a politician, I did build that. How this occurred is itself a story.
Tonight’s program is promoted as centering on Prof. Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University. It is part of an effort to fight back against a series of requests for email on Dessler’s taxpayer-funded account, one of several I made under the federal and state freedom of information laws, seeking how publicly funded academics use their positions and resources.
Part of a coordinated effort to stop exposure of the larger coordinated effort, it is a component of what I call in my new book, The Liberal War on Transparency.
Our objective in these FOIA requests was to compile the context to the “Climategate” scandal, which, activist academics central to its revelations assured us, was really an out-of-context misrepresentation. In so doing, I merely replicated an invention of the global warming industry. Which makes it even more strange that the same people think obtaining the supposed “exoneration” is a very bad idea.
Among them are the media and environmentalist establishments, including the Union of Concerned Scientists which became particularly exercised, mobilizing left-wing groups to urge universities not to satisfy our requests for public documents. I learned one reason: UCS is coordinating publicly funded activist academics and bureaucrats, activist media, and media consultants (indeed, it also seems they were likely behind tonight’s show).
This revelation came in records I obtained from Texas A&M. These exposed a sophisticated UCS operation to assist activist academics and other government employees as authorities for promoting UCS’s agenda. This includes “moot-courting” congressional hearings with a team of UCS staff, and directing the taxpayers’ servants to outside PR consultants — apparently pro bono or else on UCS’s dime. Keep this last point in mind.
As I recently exposed, they also show the New York Times reporter who covers the environment, science and specifically the global warming issue, Justin Gillis, as an activist in the shared cause.
Gillis’s front-page item laboring to undermine MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen prompted my request to A&M for information reflecting how Dessler and activist whom Gillis quoted was using his taxpayer-funded position.
Our requests caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth among academia and its affiliated societies, the Washington Post, and the American Constitution Society. They joined UCS to attest that these sacrosanct exchanges of ideas would be fatally chilled if not granted an unlegislated exemption from freedom of information laws.
Now, recall that the Texas A&M email production shows the academics actually forwarding their email discussions outside their circle, for example to New York Times reporters, whom they also copied on the very exchanges they otherwise insist represent an intellectual circle that must remain free from violation by prying, nonacademic eyes.
Agitated Guardian scribe Suzanne Goldenberg emailed me within hours of Texas A&M receiving a request for Dessler email to or from her, suggesting that my use of FOIA to obtain public records was illegitimate and abusive because I am not unbiased. Seriously.
Also following my Texas A&M request, a “Frontline” producer contacted me claiming to want to discuss our FOIA litigation. She declined to send me whatever questions she might have; the obsession was to get tape of me to edit for tonight’s outburst. Being currently involved in only the seeking University of Virginia’s Climategate records, I referred her to lead counsel.
It turned out she actually wanted to complain about the Texas A&M requests, and one of Texas Tech University seeking a professor and climate activist’s correspondence about a chapter she was writing for Newt Gingrich’s boook (emails the professor who opposed providing me the emails had already provided to a Los Angeles Times reporter; but please, these are top-secret scientific discussions release of which would chill academic discourse!)
How two otherwise fairly obscure Texas activists would become the subject of interest to “Frontline” brings us back to UCS.
One of the emails produced by Texas A&M shows the activist Dessler contacting a D.C. media consultant for advice, Richard Ades of Prism Public Affairs, “a strategic communications firm that operates at the intersection of public policy and the media” according to its website. Dessler informs Ades he was referred by Aaron Huertas of UCS.
UCSs role is clear but the role of public resources in their program now must be elaborated upon. These records we seek are public records. They are precisely the sort that “Frontline”, the Guardian, UCS, Dessler, and the whole host of this week’s wailers had no problem with being sought by Greenpeace. They will reveal how taxpayer-funded academic activists use public resources to advance their agendas. And that is what frightens them.
Christopher Horner is author of The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information “Criminal” (Threshold, October 2012).
“UCSs role is clear but the role of public resources in their program now must be elaborated upon. These records we seek are public records. They are precisely the sort that “Frontline”, the Guardian, UCS, Dessler, and the whole host of this week’s wailers had no problem with being sought by Greenpeace.”
There must be a very big background feeding group of leftists who obviously get together to decide what they will support and oppose on a regular basis. It would be interesting to tap into that obviously well resourced propaganda machine. It must be in touch with every one of those journalists and media outlets that promote the same level of hypocrisy while claiming to be doing the opposite.
The endless claims by leftists has always been to promote “Free Speech”, which is ofcourse a blatant lie and has been exposed as being one of the biggest lies ever told. Their only interest is to push their own society destroying propaganda and policies, regardless of the harm it causes, the jobs it costs or the death and misery that creates. Under the guise of helping, they demonstrate regularly that they are doing the exact opposite.
One wonders what if feels like to be that individual, where life is irrelevant as long as they are “seen” to be doing the “Feel Good about themselves” activity, regardless of the cost. Greater hypocrites cannot be found.
Excellent research: I always wondered how some alarmist scientific papers could suddenly receive world wide media coverage on the very day of publication…
I have to say this.
My father has been criticized for not sticking to the science and engaging the political aspect of AGW. Well, after seeing this pBS program, do you not see how wrong you were for criticizing him? They are using every tool in the political propagandist arsenal to discredit and smear those who seek honesty in science. The propagandists have destroyed any chance we have of our voice being heard by the masses, instead of what they claim we are saying. Our side has been mis-represented. Does anyone think this is unintentional?
If you were on the fence, and did not understand much of the detail or players in this game, the pBS program would convince you that the skeptics have an “evil” agenda and are looney.
This has NEVER been about science. Attribution and Sensitivity (for example) are merely distractions for us to fuss over while their real intentions are being fulfilled.
It has ALWAYS been about politics and it may be too late to stop their juggernaut.
Didn’t anyone wonder why they had to attack my father using the legal system and political propaganda (think Desmog)? It was because he knows through his education what they are doing, how wrong they are, and that they have been doing this for a long time now. I hope that you now see that you have stood by and let them win.
It is high time that all skeptics push back politically. Push hard. We know they don’t have the science behind them (made clear by the pBS program or they would have shown this). Get off your frakking asses and DO SOMETHING! Before we are all straightjacketed and hauled off for “re-education”. You are all bright enough to see where this is going. History is written by the victors and no one will ever know what we were saying if we stand by watching as those who are on the front lines fighting for us are destroyed.
Make no mistake, the attempt to crush dissent is far from over. They are just getting started.
The show was just about as I expected it to be, a full out editorial, offering up a “correct” and an “incorrect” POV to your normal, pledge-giving PBS viewer.
But the one thing I didn’t expect was that the images and clips of the skeptics showed them to be quite reasonable, thoughtful, and credible. I’m sure Hockenberry didn’t intend this, but it came through, anyway. Whereas Gavin Schmidt looked downright scarey in his brief appearance, Hansen was nowhere to be seen, Al Gore came across as silly and hypocritical, and the Texas evangelical climate scientist seemed an obvious bit of tokenism.
hello Mr. Watts and friends, please enlighten me once more on who comes first chicken or egg? thanks
Well said, and with passion…thanks.
Mark Gates (@nerdilicum) says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:08 am
The chicken littles came first. The eggheads who know better are too meek to stand up to the chicken littles crap. Clear?
Mark Gates (@nerdilicum):
I write to ask for clarification of your post at October 24, 2012 at 10:08 am. It says in total
I genuinely do not know how to “enlighten” you.
If your question is meant literally then the answer is neither. For explanation of this I refer you to
Darwin C ‘On the Origin of Species’, first published on 24 November 1859 but still in print.
However, if you want some other information then please make your question more specific because I – and I am sure others – would be pleased to try and answer it..
Richard
@ur momisugly David Ball, indeed as “Death by Stoat” illustrated so vividly…
1. David Ball says:
October 24, 2012 at 8:39 am
I have to say this.
My father has been criticized for not sticking to the science and engaging the political aspect of AGW. Well, after seeing this pBS program, do you not see how wrong you were for criticizing him? They are using every tool in the political propagandist arsenal to discredit and smear those who seek honesty in science. The propagandists have destroyed any chance we have of our voice being heard by the masses, instead of what they claim we are saying. Our side has been mis-represented. Does anyone think this is unintentional?
If you were on the fence, and did not understand much of the detail or players in this game, the pBS program would convince you that the skeptics have an “evil” agenda and are looney.
This has NEVER been about science. Attribution and Sensitivity (for example) are merely distractions for us to fuss over while their real intentions are being fulfilled.
It has ALWAYS been about politics and it may be too late to stop their juggernaut.
Didn’t anyone wonder why they had to attack my father using the legal system and political propaganda (think Desmog)? It was because he knows through his education what they are doing, how wrong they are, and that they have been doing this for a long time now. I hope that you now see that you have stood by and let them win.
It is high time that all skeptics push back politically. Push hard. We know they don’t have the science behind them (made clear by the pBS program or they would have shown this). Get off your frakking asses and DO SOMETHING! Before we are all straightjacketed and hauled off for “re-education”. You are all bright enough to see where this is going. History is written by the victors and no one will ever know what we were saying if we stand by watching as those who are on the front lines fighting for us are destroyed.
Make no mistake, the attempt to crush dissent is far from over. They are just getting started.
=========================================================================
I’ve always had an interest in science. If it wasn’t for how the “hockey stick” has been used as a lever to promote a political agenda I may not have even noticed all the talk about the possibility of AGW happening.
I made this comment a few months ago:
“I remember reading something in Readers’ Digest a decade or so ago.
A man was recalling how when he was younger his family hosted a Rabbi visiting from the then Soviet Union. It was the holiday season. Wanting to treat him to something he probably wouldn’t have back in the USSR, his Dad deciding to take them all out to eat at a Chinese restaurant. After the meal, the waiter presented them all with their fortune cookie and a cheap, stamped brass ornament. His father, being in a Chinese restaurant, expected it to say “Made in China”. He was highly amused when it said “Made in India”. He pointed that out and they all laughed. That is, until his father noticed that the Rabbi was quietly sobbing. Concerned, he asked the Rabbi if he was insulted, being a Jew, at being given a gift commemorating a Christian Holiday. He answered was, “No! No! These are tears of joy at being in such a wonderful country where a Buddhist can give a Jew a Christmas present made by a Hindu.”
We have a great country founded upon the idea that government is there to protect and defend the freedoms of the individual. We’re losing that. This time the attack is wearing green instead of red.”
I want to be free to tell you that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. I want you to be free to tell me that you think he was just a nice Jewish boy that went into his Father’s business. Niether of us would be able to call upon the government to punish or silence the other. There has never been a totalitarian civil government that has tolerated opposing views of any kind.
Unaccountable beauracracies are one of the tools of totalitarians. Whether the “hockey stick” pointed up or down doesn’t matter to those who would use it as a lever to political authority.
If CAGW was still about the science and not politics, then the scientist involved would be working to refute or validate those they think might be wrong, not to silence them.
My hat’s off to your Dad.
Gunga Din:
Your post at October 24, 2012 at 12:33 pm is beautiful and true in all its statements. Thankyou.
Sometimes a gem shines on the ground of WUWT. Your post is one such gem.
Richard
Thank you for the responses, stevenlibby, TomRude, Gunga Din. I am humbled.
I also want to second richardscoutrtney’s response to Gunga Din’s post. Truly a gem.
Didn’t watch the show, huh? Nice talking points… Did someone send them to you?
No history was covered. Otherwise there are several excellent books published whose authors could clarify much of the details.
But that doesn’t interest you does it? You’re just here to add safe innocuous sounding bites of incorrect information so that PBS’s allowing wrong information, ad-hominems, sinister attributions of intent from the team. My thinking is that Doctor Singer may have a case for slander and PBS is a part of it.
But that isn’t my take on your soft pedal misinformation. I have a suspicion you got the briefing before the show aired.
The whole process of gathering and sifting words from sceptics and scientists (the real ones) for the right takes. Then planning who rebuts in what order, interspersed with views of pity, words of disappointment about how this small meager well funded group has managed to block such worthy climate gag men and ladies. Frequently mentions of wrong information coupled with ad-hominems against that tiny group of anti-CAGW rogues. And so on…
This took weeks of planning with input from climate team members who were not part of the interviews. PBS is open to FOIA. Perhaps it is time for the public to request copies of all messages between certain climate team members and PBS, copies of all edit takes, copies of any dialog or notes about the process of this broadcast from the time it started.
I also find it suspicious that this sham of a frontline show occurred almost concurrent with Manniacal’s lawsuit filings. Where that frontline show could have researched those in context emails fully along with the background of Manny’s refusals to allow open replication of his findings; that would have gone a long way in establishing frontline as a news show with some value. Instead there were frequent dismissals of bad research by emphasizing both the sham replications and bogus exonerations.
A tiny group of “non-scientists”, (which I personally take to be an ad-hominem against the many scientists involved), do NOT dissuade Congress. Lots and lots and lots of voters dissuade Congress. After the house went all partisan type (with the exception of a tiny group of Republicans) and shoved cap and trade down everyone’s throats; then the local Town-Hall meetings got loud, noisy and borderline irate from all fo the voters who felt betrayed. The following November sent many of those Democrats back to the role of lobbyists or appointees.
I believe that the tide will sweep some more of those Democrats out of office this election. Hopefully the next Pres will immediately shut down the funds feeding these bad science practitioners and their parasites.
<blockquote" "I see some government experience on your resume. What was your position and duties at the EPA?" asks the HR job interviewer.
"My responsibilities included identifying, then penalizing CO2 emitting American energy sources while ensuring millions in taxpayer funds went to fund bad science and wrong headed green industry throughout the world." answers the interviewee; though perhaps with robust words that are gussied up with personal assumptions and far from accurate.
"Well, we have your resume and if anything comes up, maybe we'll call." Says the interviewer.
"I responded to an advertisement that said your were eager for applicants with Federal experience; did I say or do something wrong in my interview?" Requests the desperate applicant? "Please don't forget that 97% of the scientists and green industries I worked with loved my work".
"Not directly, but our ad did specify the ability to correctly assess and manage projects with national ramifications. The job is very intensive and requires reliable independent self management and an open mind. Your job experience is more in the line of a true believer drone who is good at cushy travel junkets in exotic places and "come to the Gore" meetings. We need a definitive and predictable return on our investments (ROI) in the short, medium and long term. At the moment we have a long list of applicants ahead of you from the previous election." Replies the interviewer.
As anticipated, the English Wikipedia page for Gerhard Kramm has been successfully deleted by the Connolley/Halpern gang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerhard_Kramm
A Halpern co-author Arthur Smith led the way once the Connolley/Halpern connection was exposed for all to see in “Death by Stoat”. Another editor fighting the deletion pointed out the following climateaudit link: http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/23/arthur-smiths-trick/
Kramm was defiant and shows how to beat the deletors and what to think of Wikipedia climate editing in a comment written in his now defunct talk page:
“I beg your pardon, folks, but I do not believe that having an Article in the WIKIPEDIA is a matter of honor. The discussion of climate and climate change is clearly occupied by eco-activists like Halpern. From this point of view I am feeling being honored if this Article will be deleted owing to the activities of eco-fascists. I have my professional homepage. For Halpern who speaks German I have a simple message: “Was stoert’s den Mond, wenn ein Hund ihn anbellt.”Gerhard kramm (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)”
Who’s next?
The Moon couldn’t care less when a dog howls at it.
–my colloquial translation.