Look who’s paying global warming’s top bloggers

My nominee for climate hypocrite of the year is, strangely enough, not Al Gore.

Instead Canadian PR man James Hoggan of DeSmogBlog takes line honours.

This man has just published a new book, favourably reviewed by the sycophants at Hot Topic.

I'm not holding that against him. What irks me is this – his book (and his blogsite) allege climate skeptics are in the pay or control of big oil. The possibility of genuinely held belief based on genuine science appears to have escaped him. Hoggan is the master of this conspiracy theory.

"Unfortunately, a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign is poisoning the climate change debate. Using tricks and stunts that unsavory PR firms invented for the tobacco lobby, energy-industry contrarians are trying to confuse the public, to forestall individual and political actions that might cut into exorbitant coal, oil and gas industry profits. DeSmogBlog is here to cry foul - to shine the light on techniques and tactics that reflect badly on the PR industry and are, ultimately, bad for the planet."

This would be the same James Hoggan, PR man, who got paid $300,000 to set up a website attacking critics of global warming. That's right, DeSmogBlog is bought and paid for, and the irony is that its founding donor John Lefebvre, although a greenie, is now a convicted criminal done on money-laundering conspiracy charges. His company reportedly was also dabbling in carbon trading allowances as an offshoot from its online gambling business.

One wonders what Hoggan needed $300,000 for. The fee for a blogsite is around $10 a month. The only other investment is your time.

Hoggan's client list, meanwhile, reads like a who's-who of alternative energy, as Canada's Financial Post noted:

"There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science."

Expressed another way, PR hack Jim Hoggan's DeSmogBlog is a godsend for Hoggan's paying PR clients, spinning everything that could help them get a financial edge in the new carbon emissions markets.

Interestingly, the DeSmogBlog founder also has Air New Zealand as a client, which may explain that airline's mad rush to fly its jets on mung beans and lentil emissions.

Hoggan throws down the gauntlet in his new book urging people to check sourcewatch for the dodgy connections of various players:

"Whatever you do, you must keep a wary eye. By all means, read the sites that deny the reality of climate change. But then check on www.sourcewatch.org to see who paid for those opinions. Read the DeSmogBlog. Don't accept the word of people who pass themselves off as "skeptics."

And yet. And yet. When you go to sourcewatch, strangely there is no mention of James Hoggan's alternative energy clients or that pesky $300,000 payment to fund his website from felon John Lefebvre.

So who's who at DeSmogBlog? Apart from paid shill James Hoggan, there's former Boston Globe editor Ross Gelbspan who I pinged in Air Con. Gelbspan wants the UN given the power to tax all international currency transactions (anything you buy and sell from overseas):

"I think we need to use a tax on international currency transactions to finance the transfer of climate-friendly technologies to the developing world…the currency transaction tax was conceived by Dr James Tobin."

The UN, as noted in Air Con, estimates it could earn US$1.5 trillion a year from imposing the Tobin Tax on everyone.

Gelbspan apparently doesn't believe in free speech, either, or balance. He only wants you to hear his (and DeSmogBlog's) point of view:

"[Journalists] have a responsibility not to report what [skeptical] scientists say!"

Then there's Kevin Grandia, Hoggan's right-hand man at DeSmogBlog, and we know he doesn't have an agenda, right?

"Kevin Grandia has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change."

And get this, as an employee of the Hoggan Public Relations firm, Grandia should know how to manipulate the poor simple fools who read DeSmogBlog and believe it, because he is a trained psychologist.

Who else is DeSmogBlog in bed with? Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network, and Hoggan sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation, a radical environmental group.

Hoggan donated money to the British Columbia Liberal Party, and also happened to receive lucrative BC government contracts.

The B.C. Liberal Party received six donations totaling $8,943 from James Hoggan and Associates from 2005 to 2008. Hoggan's company was paid $353,855 by the B.C. government from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, according to Public Accounts. Contracts included the Sea-to-Sky Highway expansion project and Canada Line.

Let's turn now to RealClimate, spiritual home of global warming belief because of its association with climate scientists Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. Turns out RealClimate is being financially supported with its website provided by a company called Environmental Media Services, who are in turn a front for another PR company, Fenton, and also intricately hooked up to The Tides Foundation.

Readers of Air Con will know that the Tides Foundation is funded by drug liberalization billionaire and convicted crook George Soros, thus proving the point I made in Air Con about the little publicized PR network funding various Chicken Little bloggers. RealClimate's launch was handled by Fenton and EMS, although RealClimate denies any major funding or influence, Still, as Hot Topic's Gareth Renowden has said, "with friends like these…"

We're sitting here at Investigate magazine on video news footage from one of the agencies we are affiliated to, and a story about how 90 "opinion-setting" climate bloggers were brought on an all-expenses paid junket to Copenhagen so they could learn how to spin climate change on the internet and "save the planet" ahead of the conference proper next month.

"[23-Sep-2009] Ahead of COP15, the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December, 92 young climate bloggers from all over the world visited Denmark to get a perspective on the climate related efforts in the country. Bloggers from 40 countries visited, among other things the eco village of "Dyssekilde" in the north of Sealand. The future climate journalists are building up impressions for a web-debate leading up to the summit. Available material includes soundbites from the young bloggers..."

Who paid for it? Well, you'll read and see more on that in due course. There is also a plan to further indoctrinate youth leaders on global warming belief:

The contribution from the Netherlands enables 50 youthful delegates from developing countries to attend the Copenhagen climate summit in mid December. Ten children from what are known as the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) will head to Copenhagen. Rising sea levels directly threaten the very existence of these countries, including Fiji and Haiti. Five children from the developing countries will participate in the Children's Climate Forum. In addition, 25 young reporters from developing countries will have a workshop on climate change issues.

So next time Soros' paid minions at global warming websites take a poke a skeptics, remember that they are hypocrites funded or helped by cynical PR companies and UN agencies to brainwash the public and further the positions of "green" companies who, like Al Gore, stand to make (collectively) trillions of dollars if carbon trading becomes compulsory.

This is not about the fact that oil companies have funded some groups fighting carbon emissions. For what it's worth, those same oil companies have often funded the alarmists as well. Nonetheless, the issue is well known. But there is next to no coverage of the much bigger funding to global warming belief sites, so the purpose of this post is to shine a little light in those corners.

Hot Topic relies heavily on RealClimate, DeSmogBlog, Climate Progress (Soros-funded) and other tainted websites for its spin. Remember that.

And remember this: The Briefing Room, Howling At The Moon etc have not been paid a cent to write an opinion, article or book on climate change. Nor have the leading skeptic sites WattsUpWithThat or ClimateAudit.

It's a matter of trust, at the end of the day.

Comments

[Mack]

Excellent Ian.
What motivates sceptics? Why are all these people(scientists,bloggers,etc)banging the table saying the science is crap? They are doing so just because they know the science IS crap. They don't like crap science and they don't like science covered in political crap.
And havn't sceptics taken enough of crap excuses about tobacco and oil companies. Yes,we're fed up to the back teeth with that crap.

[Tim]

There was this story about glass houses and stone throwers...

So DeSmog blogger James Hoggan in his day job runs a PR company with international clients. There is a link to his blog on his company website. Who knows, perhaps a business partner or client of his company has an issue with the law in the US.

Of cause Ian here just operates his crusade on his spare time. Selling his books or subscriptions to the magazine are just coincidental but convenient. Its not at all a marketing exercise. No no, Ian is not at all cashing in on the GW debate (or the struggle of faith against science), all that's just really truly coincidental and any appearance of him warming his hands on the fires he is lighting is just delusion in the mind of the beholder.

And no, the carbon traders (Oil, Gas, Coal) are simply watching the debate that could make their life a lot harder from the sidelines. Their $Trillion annual market has no bearing whatsoever to on their PR expenditure.

[Thomas Everth]

Excellent Tim!

[John Boy]

Bollocks Tim!

[CM]

It all just underlines the importance of not relying on one (or even a couple) of blogs. These days there are no excuses for not checking the primary sources of information that these blogs rely on. 'Follow the money' is useful but only to a certain degree.

[Ian Wishart]

Like I said, the post is about restoring some balance. Personally, I have no problem with anyone spending money on lobbying.

I'd like it to be transparent, of course, and at the end of the day it's the merit of the argument, not who paid for it, that should be the ultimate determinant.

But for Hoggan to sit there and whinge smacks big time of the pot and kettle argument, and is highly relevant for everyone who quotes Climate Progress, RealClimate or DeSmog as authoritative saints.

[Ian Wishart]

Oh, and while I think about it Tim. I take a substantial commercial risk every time I publish a book or a magazine. I don't have a money laundering sugar daddy making my life easier or truckloads of government funding to keep me in white coats for the next five years.

I could have had that. I choose not to.

So excuse me if I lack a little sympathy for all those poor, kept little left wingers who know the cost of every lunch break, tea break and entitlement, and the value of nothing.

The transparency of this blog is there for all to see. The book is pictured top left. I have no secret or semi-secret clients paying me whose interests might be served by the blogging I push.

And when one sets oneself up as a crusader on such issues, a la Hoggan, a gentle reminder of his situation is worth having.

[CM]

>>>>So excuse me if I lack a little sympathy for all those poor, kept little left wingers who know the cost of every lunch break, tea break and entitlement, and the value of nothing.<<<<

What?

[Hoarfrost]

"the value of nothing"
the great failing of Marxists.

[CM]

Ah, of course, only the market knows the true value of something.

Oh, except carbon. That doesn't have a value. Apparently that's perfectly acceptable gross market failure.

I'm certainly no Marxist but I'm yet to hear any sort of defence for the hypocrisy of staunchly defending gross market failure....

[Ian Wishart]

CO2 trading is an artificial market. Left to its own devices there wouldn't be a CO2 market.

It exists to make gullible greenies feel good, and Al Gore rich.

[AcidComments]

"CO2 trading is an artificial market. Left to its own devices there wouldn't be a CO2 market.

It exists to make gullible greenies feel good, and Al Gore rich.'

What's more laughable.

It appears even the Friends of the Earth have come out against CO2 trading.

Friends of the Earth attacks carbon trading

An FoE report says 'cap and trade' carbon markets have done little to reduce emissions but have been plagued by corruption and inefficiency

http://www.guardian.co.uk/
environment/2009/nov/05/
friends-of-the-earth-attacks-carbon-trading

[CM]

>>>>CO2 trading is an artificial market. Left to its own devices there wouldn't be a CO2 market.<<<<

A true market factors in ALL costs and allocates them where they are incurred. However we all know there are negative externalities (e.g. pollution) that the 'natural' market doesn't include. So in most cases there is market failure. So as a society we often articifically impose additional costs in an attempt to correct for market failure. Obviously it makes no sense for a company to obtain a superior market position by taking an easier polluting route and selling at a subsequent cheaper price than a competitor. But this essentially is what you guys advocate across the board - that the true costs should not be incurred.

Again, can you provide a defence for staunchly defending market failure?

[Thomas Everth]

"CO2 trading is an artificial market. Left to its own devices there wouldn't be a CO2 market."

Correct, left to its own devices the market would consume the last quench of Oil and Coal and bugger the consequences even if it means future generations are condemned o live in a Mad Max world.

Left to its own devices the market invents dept collateralization and all sorts of wired concepts to wring today's bonuses and rip-off-profits out of tomorrows misery.

Shareholders do not see beyond the rise of their shares past a horizon to short to register on the scale of history.

Yet humanity, in just a brief 100 years, has gobbled up and expelled as CO2 about half of our once-only endowment in liquid hydrocarbons with coal to follow soon.

Unless we collectively learn to think and act in terms of millenia when it comes to the consequences of our actions we will be wiped from this globe.

Civilization is now stuck past the door of the ultimate success-trap of all times: The discovery of fossil carbon as an energy store. Now we depend on the copious amounts of the stuff for the mere continuation of our existence in the numbers we now are. Unless we go forward towards a future that weans itself off this stuff and onto sustainable energy sources, its curtains and within a couple of generations most likely already.

Especially as a Christian you Ian should go back and think what it is that you are doing here. Unless of cause you wish to hasten some wet dreams of "Apocalypse Come"...

[Ian Wishart]

Thomas, for someone professing a physics degree your spelling could use some work and your last sentence is beneath you.

You seem to forget a judge has ruled that global warming belief is now officially "a religion".

And your entire comment is predicated on the belief that CO2 is definitely the cause of global warming. Got a cite that establishes this unequivocally, as opposed to "is consistent with the theory"?

After all, if I theorised that sparrows were able to fly by generating quantum puffs of antigravity waves from under their wings as they flapped them, that would be generally consistent with the observed phenomenon of flight, would it not?

[AcidComments]

"Yet humanity, in just a brief 100 years, has gobbled up and expelled as CO2 about half of our once-only endowment in liquid hydrocarbons with coal to follow soon.

Unless we collectively learn to think and act in terms of millenia when it comes to the consequences of our actions we will be wiped from this globe.

Civilization is now stuck past the door of the ultimate success-trap of all times: The discovery of fossil carbon as an energy store. Now we depend on the copious amounts of the stuff for the mere continuation of our existence in the numbers we now are. Unless we go forward towards a future that weans itself off this stuff and onto sustainable energy sources, its curtains and within a couple of generations most likely already."

Sounds somewhatlike a nonsense prediction from a Climate Change Alarmist predicting the last pair of humans would be living in Antarctica.

Define Sustainable. Even socalled sustainable forms of energy are technically unsustainable in the long run anyway.

Some of these socalled sustainable alternative energy sources require manufacturing processes involving socalled unsustainable manufacturing components and natural resources to make them!

[Thomas Everth]

So what you are saying then Acid? No hope? No chance of a sustainable high tech civilization? Seems you have resigned yourself to that.
Thankfully some are a bit more optimistic than you.

Sorry Ian, my spelling sucks ... ;-) and English is my second language. So I apologize for that.

Other than that I shall ask you: What is your plan then for the future? How will your grand children live? Where will their energy supply come from?

This is not just about GW but a very general question indeed. GW is just one side of the coin of our dependence on fossil fuels.

And the "Apocalypse" thinking is actually a documented reasoning in the US among parts of the Republican Christians who publicly state that there is little point in environmentalism as there is no reason to conserve the planet which will soon be consumed by the "Rapture" anyway.

[AcidComments]

"So what you are saying then Acid? No hope? No chance of a sustainable high tech civilization? Seems you have resigned yourself to that.
Thankfully some are a bit more optimistic than you."

Actually No.

Just making a point. What's considered sustainable isn't really sustainable. Earth's natural resources still have to be used just to process and manufacture many of these socalled sustainable alternative energy sources anyway. Just like many other things we take for granted everyday.

So if you're concerned about fossil fuels and sustainability the same applies to the manufacture of alternative energy in the immediate future.

Even the New Scientist pointed some of that out in one of its Climate Change articles.

Why sustainable power is unsustainable

Although scientists are agreed that we must cut carbon emissions from transport and electricity generation to prevent the globe's climate becoming hotter, and more unpredictable, the most advanced "renewable" technologies are too often based upon non-renewable resources, attendees heard.

Supratik Guha of IBM told the conference that sales of silicon solar cells are booming, with 2008 being the first year that the silicon wafers for solar cells outstripped those used for microelectronic devices.

But although silicon is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust after oxygen, it makes relatively inefficient cells that struggle to compete with electricity generated from fossil fuels. And the most advanced solar-cell technologies rely on much rarer materials than silicon.

Rare metal
The efficiency of solar cells is measured as a percentage of light energy they convert to electricity. Silicon solar cells finally reached 25% in late December. But multi-junction solar cells can achieve efficiencies greater than 40%.

Although touted as the future of solar power, those and most other multiple-junction cells owe their performance to the rare metal indium, which is far from abundant. There are fewer than 10 indium-containing minerals, and none present in significant deposits – in total the metal accounts for a paltry 0.25 parts per million of the Earth's crust.

Most of the rare and expensive element is used to manufacture LCD screens, an industry that has driven indium prices to $1000 per kilogram in recent years. Estimates that did not factor in an explosion in indium-containing solar panels reckon we have only a 10 year supply of it left.

If power from the Sun is to become a major source of electricity, solar panels would have to cover huge areas, making an alternative to indium essential.

Renewable energy technologies remain the great hope for the future, and are guaranteed research funds in the short term. But unless a second generation of sustainable energy ideas based on truly sustainable resources is established, the renewable light could be in danger of dimming.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16550-why-sustainable-power-is-unsustainable.html

[Thomas Everth]

Acid: The NS article has misled you as it talks only about a small part of the solar technology spectrum. The coming shortages of Indium will only affect certain types of solar cell technologies (thin film cells or multi junction cells) which for that reason will likely not have a bright future as a staple of our energy production.

Over 90% of our PV in the market is of the standard Silicon cells. No material shortages there as SI is one of the most abundant elements on earth.
SI cells have come down in price dramatically do to mature manufacturing. The efficiency of these cells has advanced to over 20%, expected life times are around 25 to 40 years and the energy payback times have come down to a couple of years.
For technologies that were dependent on Indium new materials are being developed as we speak.

There is a bright future in solar energy and we won't need indium.

[AcidComments]

"Acid: The NS article has misled you as it talks only about a small part of the solar technology spectrum. The coming shortages of Indium will only affect certain types of solar cell technologies (thin film cells or multi junction cells) which for that reason will likely not have a bright future as a staple of our energy production."

Thomas,

Actually I was just using that article as an example.

The point is.

Much of what is considered sustainable isn't really technically sustainable.

If you're so concerned about the environment. Earth's natural resources still have to be used during the manufacturing process.

What about the wonderful Not so green Toyota Prius and the Nickel issue?

Some of this Green technology isn't any better. It has environmental issues associated with it anyway.