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.

My wife of 33 years agrees with me in that ugly women form a foundation of any modern tyranny, including bureaucratic and politically correct tyranny.
Does this make me a misogynist?
Cut it out already. You seem to have entirely forgotten or misunderstood what WUWT is about.
Who are you to define for me, what WUWT is about?
Or, maybe, there is some truth that you don’t like to read about?
Truth hurts sometimes. Learn to live with it.
This is truly getting embarrassing. WUWT is about climate related issues NOT about your views on politics, gender etc. Mods are the ones defining the WUWT, not me. By the way, who are you to determine the truth on gender related issues?
There’s more than enough to talk about when it comes to the role and behaviour of Oreskes as a scientist…
WUWT where pretty lies perish
Whether or not your wife agrees with you is immaterial. It is a defense along the lines of “some of my best friends are (minority of your choice)”.
Does this make you a misogynist? Also immaterial. By focusing on her looks you are failing to engage the real danger, which is her message.
Nonsense. Looks tell volumes about a person. Much more than her incoherent lies.
Message? An excessively honorable term, in her case. I’ve been arguing against Oreskes’ “message” back in the 90s, when WUWT didn’t exist yet, and the only place to find some rational views was Steve Milloy’s junkscience site. Arguing with robbers doesn’t get you anywhere.
What good does it do, repeating again and again the same arguments in the face of people who are having fun at your expense? They know they are liars, arguments are futile. What they are afraid of is being a laughing stock, being ridiculed, emotionally rejected, publicly despised.
Not to mention that my wife’s agreement with my views is very material to me.
We are trying to win the hearts and minds of all kinds of people. If you are demeaning the way Oreskes looks, your target ends up being many more people who might otherwise be sympathetic to us.
Naomi Oreskes
It follows logically
is, ergo [INV]
for hire, also.
“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.”
My gratitude to Dr. Fred Singer, for working in these directions for decades. It would be incredible to bring up the banning of harmless, effective CFCs – and how as soon as the ozone holes were discovered at the poles, they were said to be increasing in size because of human activity. In reality they fluctuate constantly. This is a really important topic.
The generation following him will try to do the same scientific hatchet work on every single chemical we use, in agriculture, energy, and manufacturing.
Perhaps the poor woman has simply gone mad. Many people are too polite to tell a mad person they are mad, to their face, but word gets around.
When more and more people walk out on a sermon, the church will soon echo.
She may have some weird opinions, but you’ve got to admit she’s hot.
Pervert.
I think (I hope) he was making a play on words, global “warming” etc.
I’m pretty sure that is a picture of either Bob Dylan or Howie Mandell…
Again.
A Simple Sailor, me.
Some of this thread seems to be ad hominem concern [I put it no stronger].
I am not – hitherto – aware of the Lady Oreskes.
Basis above – I’m glad – but is that ad hominem [Or female equivalent, which my Latin does not manage . . . . . . . .] or evidence based?
[Bit late for me to read the entire thread. Sorry if I’ve skipped bits.]
Auto
The main post “Slimed by Naomi Oreskes” brings up a ‘chicken-or-the egg’ question.
Is it Oreskes excreting slime or is it climate changed slime oozing into Oreskes? Hmmm, both seem plausible. Maybe there is a symbiotic relationship.
John
Alexander Feht October 21, 2014 at 1:07 am
Nonsense. Looks tell volumes about a person. Much more than her incoherent lies.
Very disappointing to see such a comment in this day and age.
What good does it do, repeating again and again the same arguments in the face of people who are having fun at your expense? They know they are liars, arguments are futile.
So you resort to calling them ugly instead? If the same argument were made by an attractive person, how then would you refute them? Do you really think that all people who spout Oreskes nonsense are ugly? If your arguments are futile, then the fault lies with your arguments. Work on them instead.
Agreed. It is very distressing to see such thinly veiled (or not) hatred for women. I thought WUWT was better than this
Any one who pursues policies which make water, electricity, crops, and cattle more expensive and less available hates women. That includes the huge environmentalist NGOs and Naomi Oreskes. You could not hate women more than by inflicting these endless, unnavigable, impossible environmental restrictions on local people.
Geesh, really ?! The guy (Feht, and others, including myself)) is venting and having a little fun at an evil persons expense, who happens to be reportedly female. Seems to be a lot of thin skin around here lately.
Lighten up some, more serious subjects are right around the corner, then we can all get back to harrumphing, wagging fingers, and the usual ego driven pissing contests.
Laugh now and then … the joke might just be you, or me. 🙂
Wow- reading the comments leaves me in no doubt regarding the biases and intellect of the typical reader of WUWT.
Perhaps you should also mention Singer’s views on the health effects of smoking and his relationship with the Tobacco industry? This man has zero credibility on scientific matters.
Well- The highly Connellized Wikipedia has quite a glowing and impressive account of Dr. Singers Scientific credibility, briefly interrupted by some poorly sited and unproven allegations by known agendists.
Perhaps you know something beyond mere allegations that Connepedia has left out ?
I suspect you found the biases you were looking for and were offended prior to arrival.
How about you spend 10 seconds searching with “the google”? Some time spent learning how to spell and use basic punctuation might also help.
So YOU have no sources or referrals or sites to back up your ugly allegations of another persons “zero credibility” ?
Well heck Husky, at least you’ve got the spelin and puncturation down to a “science”. That’s certainly much more convincing than, you know, actually backing up your words with facts, isn’t it ?
But then, why change tactics now and start using proven facts and data and logical debate when vitriol and BS have worked so well for your “cause” ?
Anthony,
I can’t imagine that many intelligent women would want to come back to this site given the amount of misogyny that’s been tolerated here. Why would they bother? For shame.
I know you have a thankless task moderating all your posts, but this is your house and you set the rules.
.
– – – – – – – – –
Ian,
You should be able to get some useful info to address your question with a little easy quick research on your part. You could take, for instance, the 12 WUWT articles before this ‘Slimed by Naomi Oreskes’ article and compare it to the 12 articles since. Look at the number of comments by women in pre-‘Slimed by Naomi Oreskes’ articles to the number in post-‘Slimed by Naomi Oreskes’ articles. I picked ’12’ as the number of articles pre and post because there have only been ~12 articles since the ‘Slimed by Naomi Oreskes’ article. If you wait a week or two you could do a similar analysis on many more articles.
I wish you good hunting on any efforts you make to get an answer to your question.
John
John,
That’s the thing about rhetorical questions they…
… sometimes have an agenda behind them rather than actual curiosity ?
Some time ago Rosie O’Donnell said something stupid. I better qualify that. She said something stupid about global warming. (I think it had something to do with polar bears and fur coats. I don’t remember now.) It was the subject of a post here.
I made a crack about her appearance.
I later apologized for it saying something to the effect that hot air and balloons just seemed to go together.
Some here have made cracks connecting Oreskes’s words and actions with her appearance. The word “evil” has been used.
Some have said things implying that her appearance are the cause of the evil. Those are off the mark.
I think the intelligent people who come here can tell the difference between the two. Give the former a brake. And, unless you want Anthony to go “Politically Correct” on us, give him a brake too.
BTW Some years ago one of the ugliest women I ever met was also one of the most loving people I ever met. What did she look like? Think of a cross between Rosie and Naomi. Now replace the hot air and the vile with the love of God.
I haven’t seen her for a few decades but I’m a better person for having known her.
Gunga Din,
I am not much into late 20th century PC-ness. Yet, as always, when generalizations are attempted about the nature of male humans versus the nature of female humans, the discourse is going to be viewed as potentially sexist by various people. Such conversations normally show a lot about that aspect of the human condition but they can be rough going.
I think describing a person’s (for instance Naomi Oreske’s) appearance in detail will always contain poetic license; it is verbally making a cartoon. It is universally seen in public discourse / comment to make such entertaining verbal caricatures. On this thread it was done with vigorous imagination.
There are some well-articulated reasonable concerns by some commenters on this thread about there being no plausible relationship between:
a) what critics say about the verbal caricatures of Naomi Oreskes
as opposed to
b) what critics say is the critical intellectual ammunition used to destroy the hate filled intellectual stuff seen in Naomi Oreskes’ PR, in her book, and now (apparently) in the documentary based her book.
I think a verbal caricature does tend to often embody some element of parody of the intellectual ideas of the person being caricaturized. N’est ce pas?
John
I don’t think we are in disagreement.
(Can’t you picture Oreskes saying to Dr. Singer, “….and your little dog too!”8-)
@Gunga Din
October 22, 2014 at 1:34 pm “…”
Cheers. Only one thought can be added.
Vive la difference!
Ian says: October 22, 2014 at 11:55 am
&
lawrence Cornell says: October 22, 2014 at 1:20 pm
– – – – – – – –
Ian / lawrence Cornell,
. . . . nice tag team commenting . . . . .
John
John Whitman,
Ironically, I was actually implying that Ian’s comment and question was not one of actual curiosity or offense, but was actually intended to disparage and disrupt the WUWT forum by invoking the misogyny accusation. Further I read into your response to Ian a similar attitude of sarcasm, (as in : ” If you REALLY wanted to find out the answer to your question you might … with the implication : “but you REALLY don’t…”) and in fact I was in essence “tag teaming” on his cryptic … non response in support of that theme. I was speaking of Ian’s agenda behind his question.
Thought I was being clever playing off of the … am I now accused of being a troll ?
lawrence Cornell on October 22, 2014 at 4:30 pm
– – – – – – – –
lawrence Cornell,
My comment was not intended to be negative about your comment. I am sorry if it appears so. ‘Tag team’ was not meant as a pejorative.
I rather liked your way of completing, in a wonderfully ironic way, what Ian’s apparent initial thrust was. Your comment seemed to artfully go against his thrust. : )
John
Lawrence,
It’s interesting how people can read different intents into comments made in writing than were intended.
My original comment wasn’t made to disrupt or disparage WUWT, as I think it is an excellent site which must be a labour of love for Anthony. My comment did reflect my genuine outrage at the number of misogynist comments being made, and that they were being tolerated.
I have no other agenda. I rarely comment here but come often to read and learn – which may mean I agree or disagree, as I see fit.
I have opinions on Naomi Oreskes opinions but they have nothing to do with her sex.
Thanks John,
“reading in” too much. Time for meds and a nap. LOL