Greenpeace Report Exposes Fossil Fuel Funded Climate Denial Machine

greenpeace-logo2Ben Jervey writes at DeSmogBlog:

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepares to release its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) — the latest installment of its comprehensive assessment of climate science — early next year, the science is already under attack. As the U.S. Global Change Research Program puts the final draft of the third National Climate Assessment together, also due out in early 2014, its conclusions are already under siege.

In an updated report released today, Greenpeace explains how these attacks on the science of climate change — on the reports, on the scientists themselves, and on the rigorous scientific process itself — are part of a decades-old, well-organized, and richly-funded campaign to discredit the science of climate change and to intentionally pollute public discourse on climate change.

In Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science, an update of their 2010 report, Greenpeace exhaustively describes the fossil fuel funded climate denial machine, tracing its Exxon-funded, tobacco industry-inspired roots in the 1990s to the intricate and secretive web of disinformation that exists today.

Three years ago, Jim Hoggan wrote about the first release of Dealing in Doubt here on DeSmogBlog: “The new report succinctly explains how fossil fuel interests used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” for hire in order to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.”

The new edition updates that original content — the Koch Brothers, for instance, weren’t a household name in early 2010, nor was their integral involvement in climate denial then well understood — and adds new sections and case studies to the already thorough evaluation. According to the report’s introduction:

With this new edition of Dealing In Doubt we:

  • detail the ongoing attempts to attack the integrity of individual climate scientists and their work.
  • look beyond the strategic parallels between the tobacco industry’s campaign for  “Sound Science” (where they labeled mainstream science as “junk”) to the current climate denial campaign, to new research that has come to light revealing the deeper connections: the funding, personnel and institutions between the two policy fights.
  • detail how some scientists are now fighting back and taking legal action.
  • showcase the Heartland Institute as an example of how tobacco-friendly free market think tanks use a wide range of tactics to wage a campaign against the climate science.
  • reveal the range of tricks used by the denier campaign, from “pal review” instead of peer review, to personal attacks on scientists through Freedom of Information requests, self-publishing books, and the general conspiratorial noise from the denial machine in the blogosphere.

Read more here.

, , ,

  • echar

    Damn rich bastards got us coming and going! :P

  • emperorreagan

    Greenpeace and evil scientists are working together to trick us!

  • VaudeVillain

    Thanks Greenpeace! Having recently had my entire brain fall out of my head and board a bus to Detroit, I’ve been left rather incapable of basic thought or fundamental logic. Without this deep and insightful analysis, it never would have occurred to me that the most likely group to fund and spread anti-AGCC propaganda is the group with the most to lose financially if anyone gets around to addressing it. Likewise, I would never have expected them to use tactics devised in a previous attempt to blatantly undermine basic science for reasons of pure greed and economic gain. That’s brilliant, clearly discovering such an improbable circumstance is the work of wizards able to pierce the very nature of intellect to extract divine wisdom.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go wipe the drool off of my chest, as it seems to have pooled there while I wrote the above paragraph.

    • bobbiethejean

      Normally I would agree but in this case, I’d say your sarcasm is a little off the mark. ;) There remains a great deal of people who do not believe in GCC, let alone that a denial movement is being funded by deep-pocketed Captain Planet villains with extreme conflicts of interest.

      • VaudeVillain

        I maintain that there are many people incapable of basic thought or fundamental logic.

        Why this is the case is up for debate, and I myself hold several theories on the subject, but in this context it is essentially irrelevant.

        More importantly, the people who do not believe in what is happening won’t be convinced just because Greenpeace said so. They just won’t. Far more credible and less controversial sources have been telling people this for years to no avail, so the idea that this report will magically get through to them is just somewhat silly.

        • bobbiethejean

          Fair enough. :)

  • Charlie Primero

    The constant Disinfo promotion of this nonsense is too tedious.

    A’dios.

    • Rhoid Rager

      Is it the proposed carbon tax that makes you oppose the climate change model? Do you see it as a statist power grab?

      I’m just uncertain of why there is so much emotional investment in opposing the model. The only clear (to me anyways) mitigating countermeasure to CO2 buildup is the dismantling/dismemberment of industrial society and the re-localization of energy/food production. Regardless of whether the climate change model reflects reality, the path of the solutions converge with the consequences of trying to maintain a complex centralized society with diminishing energy inputs.

      If the power consolidation implications of a carbon tax is a primary concern, then I would offer that further consolidation of power seems to be growing increasingly difficult. Tainter’s model for collapse hinges on the increasing difficulty of centralized societies to solve problems they have wrought themselves with increasingly complex means. All of these flights-of-fancy ‘solutions’ (mining asteroids, fusion, colonization of space, increased surveillance of behaviour, increased extraction of resources from people/ecosystems) never take into the concept of net energy. Or, as H.T. Odum termed ‘emergy’–the energetic basis for all technical solutions.

      • emperorreagan

        I’m always a bit perplexed in the emotional investment some people have in opposing CO2 models. Really, my objection with the science is that it’s a bit myopic, though there are things like this:
        http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ that begin to look at a variety of issues taken together.

    • bobbiethejean

      In other words “I don’t like facts, WAH!” Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

      • Andrew

        That or he’s a paid astroturfer making a face-saving exit before his cover is blown.

        • ishmael2009

          Really? Don’t you think you’re taking the conspiratorial paranoia a bit too far there?

          • VaudeVillain

            In honor of Charlie’s insistence on conspiracies everywhere all the time:

            There is no such thing as taking conspiratorial paranoia too far. TO THE TRIVIUM!

          • Andrew

            Not at all. I just proposed it as a possibility.

            Also, I may be a paid astroturfer who has worked with him previously, but we’re currently paid by opposing firms.

    • echar

      Translation: Time to make another sock puppet, or focus on my primary false identity.

    • Calypso_1

      Attrition?

  • Karl W. Braun

    This article certainly lives up to the name of this site!

    • bobbiethejean

      Entire planet’s worth of climate scientists’ consensus > your uninformed Faux “News” parroted opinions.

      • Karl W. Braun

        Fee Fi Faux Fum!

        • bobbiethejean

          Ya know, they went to court to uphold their right to LIE to people? No joke, no exaggeration, no strawman. They actually did that. Even if you don’t watch Faux “news,” shouldn’t you be asking yourself some questions if you happen to find yourself on the side of a debate alongside people who are pathological liars and sociopaths?

          • Kevin Leonard

            Putting Fox news as the only source of contention against the CAGW hypothesis IS a strawman fallacy.

          • bobbiethejean

            Claiming that I ever said Fox News was the only source of contention against GCC IS a strawman fallacy.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Fine. Fox as a source of information, period, is strawman fallacy. They are easy to knock down, ergo, strawman. Your rhetoric are contains appeal to ridicule and poisoning the well.

          • bobbiethejean

            Stop calling things strawmen, you obviously don’t know what the term means. I was not mischaracterizing his argument and my point about Fox News was obvious sarcasm.

            Secondly, I am not making my opponent’s argument look ridiculous. He is. “I don’t like facts so I’m going to accuse Green Peace of propagating disinformation! WAHHHH!” Now THAT is an appeal to ridicule.

            And finally, poisoning the well? NO. My initial argument pointed out that his opinion does not stand against the opinions of climate scientists all over the world. Fact: it doesn’t.

            Do you have like a list of fallacies hanging on your wall that you just randomly throw darts at? Stop.

          • Kevin Leonard

            lol
            Saying it ain’t so don’t make it not so

          • Andrew

            And saying saying it ain’t so don’t make it not so don’t make it so.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Sorry. I missed your comment yesterday.
            She never responded to the criticism that the article sounded like disinformation. And while Braun made no reasonable argument, himself, Bobbiethejean mischaracterized his statement as being parrotted from Fox News (Fox commented on this article? or is that just an assumption that he uses Fox as a source?) and proceeded to tear down Fox News. That sounds likea strawman to me. And not only that she did it with a Composition Fallacy. (entire planet full of climate scientists)

          • moremisinformation

            I’m pretty sure there are many politicians who share your view of climate change. I’d say that puts you right in the company of pathological liars and sociopaths.

          • bobbiethejean

            You’ve missed my point rather fantastically for one thing and for another, you’re muddying the water. It’s this simple: They have Fox News and the Kochroaches on their side. I’ve got Nasa and an entire planet full of climate scientists. Do I really need to explain…. ya know what, I don’t care. I really don’t. I’m tired of arguing with people today. Have a nice night.

          • Kevin Leonard

            you care so little, you have the most comments on the page

          • bobbiethejean

            How dare you besmirch Inigo Montoya in this utterly stupid manner? You should be ashamed of yourself. That’s not even funny.

          • Kevin Leonard

            It’s funny to me.
            And you keep using those words, when, (how have I seen you phrase that before?) that has been thoroughly debunked.
            And how dare you try to shame me!

          • bobbiethejean

            You should be ashamed. I know exactly what those words mean. And you should too.

            Why do you arbitrarily pick and choose which scientists to trust? Eh? why do you get into your car assuming it won’t explode. You trust those scientists. Why do you get on your computer and surf the net? You trust those scientists. Why do you take medicine? You trust those scientists. Presumably you believe in gravity, germ theory, physics, and evolution. You trust those scientists. But because your freedom to fuck up the planet is being challeneged, you are going to look at a bunch fo scientists who are equally qualified to all the other scientists and say “nope, don’t believe you.”

            Pull your head out of your ass. These scientists aren’t making this shit up anymore than biologists are making up evolution.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Your attempts at shaming are having no effect, so you might as well stop wasting the words. And why do you automatically assume you know that my decisions are arbitrary? Why do you line up your composition fallacies (All scientists are trustworthy.)? Why do you think I am trying to defend my ability to fuck up the planet? You have nothing to comment on my longer post in this thread? You just want to berate me and pretend that I don’t use logic and don’t understand words?

          • moremisinformation

            Nothing you typed there refutes my point, what a shock. Have a nice night…down vote away…

          • bobbiethejean

            Yeah actually I did refute your point which wasn’t really a point anyway. The line is pretty clear here. You have the anti-climate side which is populated mostly by morons, ignorants, sociopaths, and moneyed interests. I’ve got the scientists on my side. Where politicians decide to cast their belief is irrelevant because “politician” is a word that encompasses a HUGE scope of people.

          • jnana

            why do you assume that because NASA and a bunch of climate scientists say something is true, that it means its true? and it ain’t just the data. cause data can be falsified or distorted. consensus doesn’t make truth. and neither does “data”. i’m sure there is lots of data that climate change deniers use to “prove” their claims, too.

          • bobbiethejean

            You’ll pick up a book written by cave-dwelling, bronze-age primitives who thought bats were birds, the Earth was flat, and selling one’s daughters into sex slavery to pay off debt was perfectly ok and you’ll just take it on faith that the book is true and good. Then you ask me why I trust NASA? You are just…. wow. There are no words. I can’t even. I don’t. FACK.

          • jnana

            weird, cause I never said I believe the bible is perfectly true and good. you seem to be making assumptions based on lack of understanding and information. which hardly surprises me from someone who takes the words of their gurus as the gospel truth without being able to directly verify them. for what its worth, I view the god of Israel, Yahweh, as an imperfect demiurge. I am a heretic by orthodox standards and don’t just believe something because “experts” declare it as truth.

          • bobbiethejean

            I don’t understand why you could believe in a god proposed by a badly written bronze-age fairytale scraped from the asses of cave-dwelling goat herders. I mean, why? That makes no sense to me. Einstein’s god makes sense to me but Yahweh? Even if he did exist, he is a horrible, horrible monster. Why would you worship that?

          • Kevin Leonard

            Have you revealed your limits in your ability to use logic and reason?

          • jnana

            I just told you, I don’t worship him. I believe the creator of the cosmos, sometimes identified as Yahweh, is an irrational and possibly malevolent deity. I don’t believe the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of Jesus Christ. I am not an orthodox Christian. I share the perspective of the ancient Gnostics/Manichaeans, which is considered a heresy by the orthodox.

          • DeepCough

            Would you happen to know the name of that case? I’d like to read up on it.

          • Andrew
          • DeepCough

            Damn, I can’t believe I missed that one. Thanks for the link, dude.

          • bobbiethejean

            Isn’t that amazing? They actually went to court to defend their right to make shit up and misinform people. If I were running shit, they would thereafter lose their right to call themselves a News Organization.

          • DeepCough

            See, you’ll never get into office with that attitude.

          • Karl W. Braun

            Greenpeace is not above such distortions of the truth. I don’t condone such behavior from whatever the source: disinformation is disinformation. Fact is, there are many who independently determined that “consensus climate science” is found to be wanting, and among them are scientists that do indeed publish in peer reviewed journals.

            Here’s an example of a Greenpeace advocate on BBC television, regarding Arctic ice extent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE

    • Calypso_1

      You are an exceptionally clever & original individual! Stick around!

  • BuzzCoastin

    I deny believing in weather, climate or anything that’s warming
    I do believe it will a cold day in hell
    before information about climate is in anyway useful to anyone
    who hasn’t the power to change entire social structuires

  • kowalityjesus

    I personally believe we are NOT using fossil fuels as God intended. Burning fossil fuels is a very wasteful thing to do, the products one can refine from this already-high-entropy-state natural resource are MUCH more valuable in the long run.

  • James Dandy

    We are so fucked.

    The richest scumbags on the planet are funding the disinfo and helping to create the governmental solutions currently being concocted to mitigate the problem.

    That my friends is a recipe for disaster.

  • Ted Heistman

    Greenpeace is a bunch of bullshit. I get so sick of these Kirby vaccuum cleaner salesmen they got working for them accosting me on the streets. This has that to be one of the most bullshit charities out there next to PETA.

    What makes it so disgusting is that I share a lot of the values these used car salesmen slang at me. Really what’s going on in my opinion is people jockeying for position to control energy descent in the way they want it to go.

    Its not the battle of good vs. evil that the Left paints it to be.

    • kowalityjesus

      I pay greenpeace every month. I think it is at least a highly visible organization around which a collective can rally to do battle with big bullies.

      • Ted Heistman

        Sounds like you got suckered. pretty girl?

      • Ted Heistman

        This founding member sums up some of my thoughts on it:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/dec/20/comment.activists

        they make a lot of money on whaling. If you feel bad about whaling, you can give them some money. Then you will feel better and they will too because they have your money. That’s how it works.

    • VaudeVillain

      “This has that to be one of the most bullshit charities out there next to PETA.”

      Well, yeah, neither is a charity. Greenpeace and PETA are both advocacy groups. There are some groups which are both (the ACLU, for example), but

      Charities do things like provide shelter or distribute food to the indigent, or build schools in underserved communities, or provide medical services to those without the resources to otherwise acquire them. This is far from a complete list list, of course, but I’m sure you get the idea. When you donate to a charity, your expectation is that the money/goods/services you give will be, mostly, used to directly further whatever charitable work the group does, though in general at least some goes into administrative costs (including advertising in order to garner more donations). Some examples include The Salvation Army, United Way, Habitat for Humanity, and pretty much every food bank or soup kitchen around.

      An advocacy group, by contrast, is almost exclusively engaged in publicity and/or lobbying efforts. Such groups typically do not engage in any sort of direct assistance for others. When you give to an advocacy group, the expectation is that it will directly lead to greater promotion of whatever agenda they advocate for. Some examples include PETA, Greenpeace, the NRA, the Chamber of Commerce, and political campaigns. There is not, by the way, anything inherently wrong with this: sometimes it really IS important just to have somebody out there stating the case.

      • Ted Heistman

        they seem to spend all their time “advocating” to get more donors. They make 360 million a year. They specialize in direct marketing. basically bugging the shit out of people.

      • Ted Heistman

        See here is the thing: I expect a car salesman to act a certain phony way but not a hippy. The most recent one I met was all like “Hey, I am just like you! We have the same value system. Now sign here. What you don’t want to save the Earth? Its no hassle we can have the payments taken directly out of your bank account.” It was high pressure sales. He kept rebutting me the way pushy salesmen do forcing you to be rude. The only reason I talked to him was because I thought he was a city ambassador to Seattle. I just wanted directions to a hostel. As soon as he realized I was almost completely broke, his eyes went dead and I seemed to become invisible to him, the way I often become invisible to panhandling crack heads who realize I’m broke. He seemed to have no human decency beyond reaching his sales quota.

        The one I encountered before him was a hippy chick I met on a college campus, that was almost like a whore in retrospect. She outright flirted with me to get me to sign up for it and gave me her phone number and set up a date for us to get together later and have drinks. The phone number turned out to be fake. She had left town most likely.

        You can laugh and say I was naive, but really I was naive to the fact that this organization is a bunch of greedy money grubbers. I think you could do a lot of good with 360 million dollars but the overarching goal seems to be making more next year.

  • Kevin Leonard

    This article is trying to poison the well. If the science is bad, the science is bad. It does not matter who is pointing this out. This article, which seems try and paint its cause as the only bastion of reason, and to target “climate deniers” as part of a “decades-old, well-organized, and richly-funded campaign to discredit the science of climate change” seems to forget that the proponents of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming are also part of a “decades-old, well-organized, and richly-funded campaign ” with an agenda.

    And let’s just point out this “climate deniers” crap. Those of us that are skeptics, now, are not even “climate CHANGE deniers” (in itself a strawman fallacy) but are now called “climate” deniers. As if we are suggesting that the climate, itself, is a nothing more than a conspiracy, and placing us, via an appeal to ridicule, into the category of “flat-earthers”. If any wells should be recognized as poisoned, it should be those which uses such rhetoric.

    Regarding the consensus:

    Why is the 97% consensus a huge lie?

    Because the report came from a student’s Master’s thesis (and she has back-tracked on it). And the 97% of the scientists were cherry-picked (clearly evident in the following link) and the only thing they agreed with was that , yes, the temperature is rising and yes, CO2 is a factor.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

    I know what you are going to say about the site, but the article has the words of the scientists, themselves, and the author of the document that came up with the 97% figure. If you will not listen to them, you are being willfulaly ignorant.

    If you are interested in a peer-reviewed article about statistics regarding what climate scientists actually believe… http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

    Here’s a summary of the conclusions:

    36% “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause”

    24% “believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth”

    10% “underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable”

    17% “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling

    And if you have not looked at this, which I doubt that you would if you are a” CO2 catastrophist” because it is counter to your confirmation bias, I encourage you to view The Corbett Report’s “IPCC Exposed” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOyBfihjQvI)

    If you don’t have all of the time, specifically these sections:

    Controversies — 5:35 – 9:00, 9:30 – 12:30

    On the science — 17:00 -21:00, 22:15-24:30

    Why the IPCC should not be trusted, by any measure — preface at 29:00, begins at 33:45, ends at 40:10

    In fact, the IPCC themselves, say explicitly, that “models tend to underestimate natural climate.” (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=336 under “Assessment/ evolving”.) So they think that natural climate variability is an evolving idea that does not need to figure prominantly in their conclusions and certaintly. Does this sound reasonable?

    If you are not willing to investigate this, you are not searching for truth.

    • jnana

      but that information is useless because it doesn’t confirm my bias.

  • ishmael2009

    Greenpeace should show their commitment to truth and objectivity by observing it in their own report, before attacking others. Lumping respected scientists like Richard Lindzen in with lunatics like Monckton is fundamentally dishonest. Their report claims to “unmask” the funding of scientists who question the IPCC line on climate change, but contains nothing – nothing – on Lindzen.

    The likes of Greenpeace are as much a problem in tackling Co2 emissions as so-called denier scientists, if not more as James Hansen has pointed out. Greenpeace makes much of the “deniers” of consensus, but is engaged in fostering denial of the scientific consensus itself on other matters, where it has an ideological difference. They’ve got a right to their opinion of course, but don’t pretend their concerned with the truth and what “science” says.

21