Inside climate propaganda

InsideClimate News excels at propagating environmentalist and Obama thinking and policies

inside-climate-news

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become “common knowledge,” like the following?

Global temperatures are the hottest ever recorded. Melting ice caps are raising seas to dangerous levels. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have never been more frequent or destructive. Planet Earth is at a tipping point because of carbon dioxide emissions. Fracking is poisoning our air, water and climate. 97% of scientists agree. A clean renewable energy future is just around the corner.

It’s as if a chain of command, carefully coordinated process or alliance of ideological compatriots was operating behind the scenes to propagate these fables. This time, conspiracy theorists have gotten it right.

A major player in this process and alliance is one that most citizens and even businessmen and politicians have never heard of. InsideClimate News (ICN) has been called “highly influential,” a “pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism,” the recipient of “prestigious awards” for “high-impact investigative stories” on important environmental issues.

The Washington Free Beacon, National Review and Energy in Depth offer detailed and far less charitable assessments. Less friendly observers, they note, call ICN a “mouthpiece” for extreme environmentalist groups, because it is run by and out of a deep-green public relations consultancy (Science First) and is funded almost exclusively by wealthy foundations that share its and the PR firm’s anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, Bigger Government agenda. ICN was founded by David Sasoon, a true believer in catastrophic manmade climate change who wants to do all he can “to usher in the clean energy economy.”

Even praise from its supporters underscores the dark side of this “influential” force in eco-journalism. Its approach is “advocacy,” not fairness, accuracy or balance. Its goal is to drive a monolithic, hard-line, environmentalist narrative and political agenda, with little suggestion that other perspectives even exist.

Some of its awards come from an organization that has itself become politicized and too closely allied with Big Green views and organizations: the Society of Environmental Journalists. They increasingly operate too much as mutual admiration societies and support groups, say outside observers.

ICN and its Science First alter ego received their 2007 startup grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, where Sasoon once served as a consultant. They now derive the bulk of their funding from the RBF, NEO Philanthropy (aka, Public Interest Projects), Marlisa Foundation and Park Foundation. These and other sugar daddies are covered in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff report, which describes a “Billionaire’s Club” of “left-wing millionaires and billionaires [which] directs and controls the far-left [US] environmental movement.”

The same foundations also give major tax-exempt donations to the Sierra Club, Earthworks, NRDC, EarthJustice, the climate crisis coalition 350.org, and many other anti-coal, anti-drilling, anti-fracking, anti-Keystone pressure groups that together form the $10-billion-a-year US environmentalist industry.

ICN has active partnerships with the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel, Bloomberg News and other media organizations that help coordinate and disperse stories. The Times promotes the “dangerous manmade climate change” meme and refuses to print letters that reflect skeptical views.

The Associated Press has likewise become a reliable purveyor of manmade climate chaos stories. The Weather Channel and ICN teamed up in 2014 on a series of “investigative reports” that claimed hydraulic fracturing was causing serious environmental and human health problems in Texas.

The partners team up and coordinate to “have one group write on an issue, another quote them or link to them, and so on,” Media Research Center VP Dan Gainor explains. “It keeps going until they create this perception that there’s real concern over an issue, and it bubbles up to top liberal sites like Huffington Post, and from there into the traditional media,” which itself is too predisposed to the green narrative.

The foundations “have incorporated ostensibly dispassionate news outlets into their grant-making portfolios,” says the Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay, “creating what some describe as self-sustaining environmentalist echo chambers.”

They make it look like widespread public concern and spontaneous grassroots action – when in reality it is loud but small Astroturf activism, orchestrated by the ICN brigade and the foundations behind it.

InsideClimate News now brags about its involvement in the extensive collusion among the leftist foundations, environmental pressure groups and state attorneys general that are devising, coordinating and advancing AG prosecutions of ExxonMobil, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other groups for alleged “racketeering” and “fraud,” to hold them “legally accountable for climate change denial.”

The efforts “stretch back at least to 2012,” ICN notes, when a meeting was held in California to develop legal strategies. In late 2015, letters from several Democrat members of Congress called for investigating and prosecuting climate skeptics; the letters cited independent journalism “investigations by the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News” to back up their request.

However, the intrepid Times and ICN investigators had conducted no investigation. They simply parroted and amplified “research” from a group of activist professors and students at the Columbia School of Journalism – without disclosing who had funded the CSJ studies. Transparency for thee, but not for me.

It was George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, along with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Foundation, Energy Foundation, Lorana Sullivan Foundation and Tellus Mater Foundation – all of which virulently oppose hydrocarbon production and actively promote climate change alarmism.

Emails subpoenaed by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute later revealed that many of the same environmentalist groups and lawyers met again in January 2016 at a secret meeting in the Rockefeller Family Fund’s Manhattan offices. Yet another secret meeting was held in March 2016, between climate activists and state attorneys general – hours before the AGs announced that they were launching RICO and other prosecutions of “climate skeptic” companies and think tanks.

The success of this campaign thus far, says ICN, has persuaded the activists to “step up efforts to pressure more attorneys general to investigate [more climate crisis skeptics] and sway public opinion, using op-eds, social media and rope-line questioning of [Republican] presidential candidates at campaign stops.”

This collusion among activists, foundations and attorneys general seeks to silence, bankrupt and defund organizations that challenge their catechism of climate cataclysm. These conspirators want to deprive us of our constitutional rights to speak out on the exaggerated and fabricated science, the coordinated echo- chamber news stories, and the pressure group-driven policies that impair our livelihoods, living standards, health, welfare and environmental quality. We will not be intimidated or silenced.

As CFACT’s new Climate Hustle film notes, man-made plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide has not replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven Earth’s temperature, climate and weather.

The problem is not climate change. It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change.

That’s why Climate Crisis, Inc. wants to silence and jail us. Just imagine how much more they’ll be foaming at the mouth after throngs go to ClimateHustle.com and buy tickets for its May 2 one-night-only showing in hundreds of theaters across the United States.


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
162 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 1, 2016 8:10 pm

The “Climate Hustle” one-day showing is preaching to the choir. I got plenty of emails asking me to come. I’m not; I know the CAGW hoax is a scam. The people who need to see this aren’t going to, unless some way is found to get it into the same mainstream conduits that Algore’s scare-mongering film got into. I don’t know how to do this, but I sure hope CFACT does.
/Mr Lynn

Reply to  L. E. Joiner
May 2, 2016 1:15 am

The conduits would be school classrooms using state and state-approved curricula and solar and wind farms’ education centers for use during field trips by schools, which show fire-and-brimstone materials to hapless local kids. Unlikely those will be useable.

Barbara
Reply to  jamesbbkk
May 2, 2016 6:22 pm

I would question taking any children near industrial size wind turbines!

Reply to  Barbara
May 2, 2016 6:36 pm

Learnining center annex near the administration and operations buildings if any, not too close. Anyway they are just windmills – turbines have features not present – usually of high materials quality and integrity. That’s why they are so expensive and because, jobs! What’s so risky to kids other than the terrifying Sunday school type indoctrination?

Reply to  L. E. Joiner
May 2, 2016 12:27 pm

The distribution of Al Gore’s scare-mongering film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was funded by Eric Schmidt’s (chairman of Google) 11th Hour Project. They targeted mainly churches. It’s no coincidence that today, The Unitarian Universalist church is essentially a conveyor belt for all things climate change propaganda.
It is also no coincidence that, in 2007, 1 year after the release of Gore’s flick- he was hired on as partner of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers… Eric Schmidt’s Google benefactors.

indefatigablefrog
May 1, 2016 8:48 pm

Today, I discovered this troubling prediction made in 1969.
“Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content will rise 25 per cent by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York”
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/releases/jul10/56.pdf
Now, we clearly must not be skeptical about the claims in that letter. Since skepticism regarding the hypothesis of CO2 induced warming is anti-science. (sarc)
So, what we learn from that letter is that sea level “could” rise at New York by 3 metres in 2000.
The time and the place and the amount of SLR are quite specific.
Unfortunately, for the letter writer — it is now 2016 and the sea level at New York has been accurately recorded throughout the entirety of the last century.
And the deviation from the pre-1969 trend has been zero. The rise in the 30 years before the letter was about 10cm, and the rise in the 30 years afterwards – was about 10cm.
And yet, after all these years we are still being fed the same recycled bullcrap. (And from many of the same people).
Surely there must be some point at which people will look at this graph (link below) and notice that nothing has changed in 150 years of industrialization. Nothing. No change to the rate of SLR
Then, where is the accelerating rise that we were promised and are continually promised, again and again and again? And why do people keep falling for the same old alarmist predictions when clear evidence refutes them with the passing of decades?
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=169814&page=3

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 1, 2016 9:52 pm

Apologies, the last link should have directed to the specific graph. (The familiar N.Y. Battery SLR).
I should have tested the url. My mistake. I only meant to link to this one graph.comment image

Scottish Sceptic
May 2, 2016 1:02 am

It’s called “copy n’paste journalism” – something that grew as a direct result of the massive loss of earnings to the internet. So, basically almost no journalists these days do any real investigative journalism – instead they just grab a press release from any organisation that they think doesn’t need checking and print it almost verbatim.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
May 2, 2016 6:59 am

Knowing journalists trying to make it in the world–the non-investigation is pushed by their bosses more often than not. If they don’t have something on the page when it breaks–regardless of whether or not it is accurate they get reprimanded or fired. Investigative journalism has taken to blog writing because of the push for views that has overtaken many a previous news source. It has more to do with the business model than anything else and it is sad because there are marketing strategies that work online–unfortunately it is the opinion of most journalists I know that the news organizations of the past are still clinging to the paper business model.
My problem is the editing and proofreading (my comments are excluded from this…LOL). More and more I come across an article that makes absolutely no sense. Or I come across articles that have c/p’d tweets instead of actually writing the piece. The editors and proofreaders (especially proofreaders) have gone the way of the dodo I am afraid and not only are there misplaced and often completely wrong words used but the over/under use of the Oxford comma drives me nuts.

May 2, 2016 1:42 am

You’re right: too much propaganda and too many extremes used when talking about climate. Unfortunately, politicians and media create a different image about climate and climate change, and the voice of scientists is not always heard. More than that, there are so much money wasted on propaganda (even on the one referring to the greenhouse effect), instead on spending them on real studies about climate and about the oceans, in order to understand the facts that lead to climate change…

Denis
May 2, 2016 5:01 am

How organizations such as ICN, WWF, Greenpeace, whatever can be classed as Not for Profit absolutely inverts Income Taxation laws and regulations.
They are selling a service.

Reply to  Denis
May 2, 2016 6:50 am

Not for profit is a tax status—not a business model. There is a vast difference. 🙂

May 2, 2016 7:26 am

See, I knew I wasn’t crazy.

rw
May 2, 2016 8:09 am

Anyway, what I intended to say before being sidetracked by agwisreal is that that I greatly appreciate this post. It adds another important piece to the puzzle.

May 2, 2016 9:24 am

Citation of “investigation” sources for…
#ExxonPapers – Columbia University and The Open Society Foundations.
#PanamaPapers – Columbia University and The Open Society Foundations.
One cannot discuss the genesis of Open Society Foundations without discussing Morton Halperin (Columbia alumnus, Brookings fellow, Clinton Admin. advisor).
#PentagonPapers – Morton Halperin, Brookings Institution, Daniel Ellsberg, etc.
Even Daniel Ellsberg has a hand in the Exxon papers – http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15112015/daniel-ellsberg-exxonknew-best-thank-you-pentagon-papers
There’s a trend here.

Sam The First
May 2, 2016 12:02 pm

I wish people would stop assuming that because AGW is a crock of nonsense, so is opposition to fracking, just because lefties support both premises.
Fracking is extremely dangerous both in causing a load of earth tremors and in poisoning water sources. It’s totally unsustainable. If you have friends – as I do – in the areas where fracking is widespread, eg Oklahoma and North Dakota, then you will have first hand reports of the damage being done to the environment.
Poisoning of water sources is no small thing: local communities depend on these sources for all their water needs. It’s not just a matter of a few careless incidents either: such contamination is endemic to the process
One example, which is badly affecting Native American friends in ND – and it’s not hard to find many more:
http://drcinfo.org/2016/04/27/widespread-contamination-nd-linked-fracking-spills/

Reply to  Sam The First
May 2, 2016 12:23 pm

You’re on the wrong thread AND need to do some research. Or is this meant as a distraction from this article?

May 2, 2016 2:06 pm

I notice that agwisreal3000 is very vocal on this thread but no other. My take from this is that he has a direct connection with “Inside Climate”. He shows no interest in any other article or WUWT (apart from slamming it). There might also be more than one name used or more than one person from that site looking to disrupt this thread. I guess they don’t like exposure.

May 2, 2016 2:35 pm

AP and Reuters are owned by the Rothschild family. IPCC founder Maurice Strong introduced Edmond de Rothschild as the “founder of the environmental movement” at the 1992 UNCED meeting. He sold shares in his formerly private Swiss bank to finance the Environmental Conservation Fund at the 4th World Wilderness Conference in 1987. (attendee George Hunt’s videos and transcripts)
The Rothschilds also own the Weather Channel and weather.com.
Lynne de Forest Rothschild owns a geoengineering company (forgot the name).
Biased climate reporting is good business.
RICO?

May 6, 2016 3:01 am


I don’t need credentials because I don’t make claims here based on falsely pretending to be a scientist. I ONLY rely on data and evidence from credentialed, peer reviewed scientists, not hacks posting here, or scientist-posers taking money from obviously entrenched power brokers (Big Oil –via various convoluted “pipelines” like the Heritage Foundation).
Is every one of you so desperate to find a contrarian, anti-science audience of religious believers in the nonsense and nonscience of global warming “skepticism?” Which now even the venerable New York Times uses the D-word for, probably banned here out of sheer guilty embarrassment about the truth.
Science is real. Science DESCRIBES reality itself. Until it unequivocally disproves the settled science of AGW, it DOES fully support it.
“‘Nuf said” indeed. They did. On Realclimate.org. On Skepticalscience.com.
No amount of Palinesque foreign policy expertise (“I can see Russia from my porch!”), armchair analysis, talking down to me without knowing what I know or don’t, or (rampant here) arrogance born of wishful thinking or ignorance, can refute reality itself.
Earth is OBVIOUSLY a sinking, fragile, bending, heaving, breaking ship, due almost SOLELY to human activities. Multiple scientific disciplines confirm it.
Ostrich-like head-burying gets you only kudos from the similarly deaf, dumb (unintelligent, in this sense) and wilfully blind.
Finally, testament to the power of the points I made, NONE have been refuted by actual peer reviewed science. Get it? NO REAL SCIENCE posted in response here.
Says a lot about the abilities of those posting.
The lip service–umpteen rhetorical devices slung by as many desperately defensive, nonanalytical, anti-science authors, evading the obvious conclusions made by EXPERTS ONLY– is a mighty poor substitute for reality.
WOW. What a waste of brainpower this site is. Mine and yours.
Again–WHICH of you exactly, is investing in a climate science degree to PROVE your armchair anti-AGW nonsense? The science stands firm, and its massive body of evidence is growing. Ripe for refutation, if possible, by QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS. Science is immune to geezers drinking in every Fox News lie or arrogant, unqualified nonexperts who THINK they’re experts.
Virtually all of you are in effect saying “Gee listen to ME, ma–I got me an enn-guh-eer degree”–so I know more than a REAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST!
Yup. Your mama’s proud. Alrighty then. Break out the cornbread, Elmer, and SELLYBRATE!
But no, ignorance and arrogance does NOT outweigh the mountains of data stacked against your “my hero walks on water–because a respected book AND my priest said so”-style beliefs.
It’s both humorous and pathetic that you and so many like-minded believe it does.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  agwisreal3000
May 6, 2016 3:25 am

agwisreal3000

not hacks posting here, or scientist-posers taking money from obviously entrenched power brokers (Big Oil –via various convoluted “pipelines” like the Heritage Foundation).

Gee.
How many self-selected, government-paid so-called “climate scientists” can you buy for 92 billion dollars in government bribes (er, grants and vacations and research labs and billion-dollar supercomputer campuses in Colorado and Virginia and NY and California and staffs and trips and conferences and permanent tenure positions) … if 25,000.00 in a one-time grant from one conservative think tank is enough to qualify for condemnation and corruption as a “Big Oil” pipeline.
No. There is NO EVIDENCE for man’s influence on global warming trends that began 250 years before the Industrial Revolution was able to save lives and improve people worldwide, and the global warming that continues today at the same rates with effects in the same places. Your usual litany of “evidence” is merely evidence of a naturally warmer world, a naturally healthier and more productive world, with more people living better lives through intelligence use of power and energy.
Your favored policies to restrict energy and limit beneficial CO2 release kill people, harm lives, hurt people. For no effect other than hurting people and harming lives. Well, other than 31 trillion to the bankers in Enron-invented carbon trading schemes. And 1.3 trillion in new taxes for your politician’s voters. And 92 billion to your favored self-called scientists.
CO2 was steady. Global average temperatures went up.
CO2 was steady. Global average temperatures were steady.
CO2 was steady. Global average temperatures went down.
CO2 increased. Global average temperatures went down.
CO2 increased. Global average temperatures were steady.
CO2 increased. Global average temperatures went up.
CO2 increased. Global average temperatures were steady.
CO2-induced CAGW hysteria increased. Global money spent on CO2 hysteria-supporters went up.
CO2-induced CAGW hysteria increased even more. Global money spent on CO2 hysteria-supporters went up even faster.
CO2-induced CAGW hysteria increased. Global control placed in the hands of CO2 hysteria-supporters went up.
CO2-induced CAGW hysteria increased even more. Global control placed in the hands of CO2 hysteria-supporters went up even faster.
Now, just what is the relationship between global CO2 hysteria and the power yielded to hysterical global CO2 activists and self-selected “scientists” and their politicians?

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  agwisreal3000
May 6, 2016 3:32 am

What a fatuous, and sad, response.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  agwisreal3000
May 6, 2016 3:56 am

agwisreal3000

Is every one of you so desperate to find a contrarian, anti-science audience of religious believers in the nonsense and nonscience of global warming “skepticism?” Which now even the venerable New York Times uses the D-word for, probably banned here out of sheer guilty embarrassment about the truth.

When your “venerable” Ny Times acknowledges its role in supporting Stalin’s murder of millions of Ukranian and Russian innocents by “denying” the Communist starvation tactics (but earning a Pulitzer Prize!) used in the 1930’s, when your venerable NY Times becomes anything more than a socialist propaganda tool for democrats and racists worldwide, then I will read any single comment written in the NY Times with some bit of belief. It, like you, have no credibility.

No amount of Palinesque foreign policy expertise (“I can see Russia from my porch!”), armchair analysis, talking down to me without knowing what I know or don’t, or (rampant here) arrogance born of wishful thinking or ignorance, can refute reality itself.

Oh, by the way, on your attempts to condemn Palin’s comment. You do know that your supposed “foreign policy” quote ridiculing her was made BY a comedian ON a comedy show written BY other comedians FOR just such well-informed scientific “NY Times-quoting-experts” as your self to quote in public. Your knowledge of CAGW policies and background knowledge appears as equally biased and incorrect as your knowledge of geology and geometry.

Reply to  agwisreal3000
May 6, 2016 8:58 am

agwisreal3000,
I asked you: Your exact climate science education is…? From what accredited university? Your published, peer review papers are posted and published where exactly?
You dodged answering by saying you don’t need credentials.
Translation: You’ve got nothin’. Which figures, because your comments are nothing but the same anti-science pablum emitted by the alarmist crowd. You have no credible science, only your baseless assertions, plus the typical poisoning of the well with your mindless, juvenile insults.
You claim to only rely on data from credentialed, peer reviewed scientists, not “hacks posting here”.
FYI, my views, and most others here, are identical to those of MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen — the author of twenty dozen published, peer reviewed papers on atmospheric science. Therefore, either you’re blowing smoke, or you’re flat wrong. I think both. You have no credibility.
Next, whatever the NY Times writes is irrelevant to science. They are a pseudo-science propaganda source that also poisons the well. What, exactly, is a “denialist”? You have no clue, and neither does the NYT. Give us a definition, and I will easily rip it to shreds.
Next, you drift off into the typical head-nodding, mouth breathing, alarmist attack on Gov Palin. Eco-lemmings do that because they have no credible science to back their beliefs. Palin was never mentioned, except by you. That’s because, again, you’ve got nothin’.
Next, you baselessly assert:
Earth is OBVIOUSLY a sinking, fragile, bending, heaving, breaking ship, due almost SOLELY to human activities. Multiple scientific disciplines confirm it.
You’ve got nothin’. Otherwise, you would post links to papers using those terms. More poisoning of the well, plus appealing to corrupted ‘authorities’. You lose there, too, because that’s a logical fallacy. But it’s all you’ve got, so you think you have to use it. You certainly lack any credible science.
Next, you say:
Finally, testament to the power of the points I made…
Your “points” are baseless assertions. They mean nothing, therefore they’re powerless and impotent. You say, “NO REAL SCIENCE posted in response here.” Responding to your deluded fantasies is not what skeptics are required to do. But skeptics have absolutely demolished the CO2=cAGW nonsense. There isn’t a single measurement of AGW. If you think you can produce one, go ahead and try — you will be the first. So go ahead, I’ll wait here. But I won’t hold my breath.
Next, you say:
WOW. What a waste of brainpower this site is. Mine and yours.
Leave skeptics out of it. That comment applies exclusively to you. Your problem is that you have exhibited no brainpower.
Next:
WHICH of you exactly, is investing in a climate science degree…
Plenty of commenters here have advanced degrees in the hard sciences, and many climatologists have written articles and comments here — and they all disagree with you. Wake me when you get any kind of degree in the hard sciences. Your only degree is in mouth-breathing, and head-nodding along with NYT articles. Thus, you fail.
The rest of your immature, childish rant takes the place of any scientific knowledge, which you lack completely. You have not posted one verifiable scientific fact that supports your eco-religious belief system. So trot along now, back to John Cook’s eo-Nazi blog, or hotwhopper, or wherever you get your misinformation and talking points from. Here, you’re a total fraud.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 6, 2016 10:55 am

Ah. That means there are two total frauds here: the impostor, and agwisreal3000.