The self-proclaimed experts at the International Climate Science Coalition have today launched another fanciful flight into the realm of climate denialism and United Nations conspiracy theories.
The ICSC, headed by Tom Harris, a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant, is trying to grab media attention with a new report written by the who's who of the climate denier conspiracy bunch. The report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, is part of a series published by a Chicago-based front group for the oil and tobacco industries called the Heartland Institute.
I really hope mainstream media does not fall for their trickery again. After all, it is pretty well known by now that Fred Singer, the lead author on the International Climate Science Coalition's report, was an apologist for the tobacco industry long before he got into the business of denying the basic science of climate change. The other authors of the report, Bob Carter and Craig Idso, have equally shaky backgrounds when it comes to the science of climate change.
To give you an idea of just how shaky, look no further than Craig Idso. DeSmog discovered last year that Idso was getting paid a whopping $11,600 a month by the Heartland Institute - not exactly the most reputable source of information when it comes to a globally important issue like climate change.
Interestingly, the press release put out today by the ICSC makes no mention at all of the Heartland Institute's role in funding and publishing the report. Perhaps because of that nasty Unabomber billboard, even ICSC is afraid to be associated publicly with Heartland?
This report goes so far as to actually make the absurd claim that, "CO2 is 'the gas of life'. The more CO2, the more life." Yes, and water is also vital to life until you find yourself drowning in it.
In an effort to dupe reporters into trusting these "climate experts," this anti-science outfit even named itself the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), mirroring the official science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This is the same small group of people who claim a grand conspiracy by the United Nations to take over the world. This echo chamber of climate denial attempts to prop up non-experts in the hopes of grabbing a few headlines before journalists figure out they have been fooled by conmen.
The only story to be found in this latest salvo by the International Climate Science Coalition and the Heartland Institute is whether anyone in the press will actually fall for this nonsense again.
http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/17/international-climate-science-coalition-s-lacks-credibility
From left: Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast, lawyer James Taylor and contracted pseudo-scientist Craig Idso. Crossposted from ...
EE THE POSTS Now at 7,200+ articles. Use upper left search field (authors and keywords).
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Brendan DeMelle: International Climate Science Coalition Lacks Credibility, Launches Heartland Institute Anti-Science Report
by Brendan DeMelle, DeSmogBlog, September 17, 2013
The self-proclaimed experts at the International Climate Science Coalition have today launched another fanciful flight into the realm of climate denialism and United Nations conspiracy theories.
The ICSC, headed by Tom Harris, a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant, is trying to grab media attention with a new report written by the who's who of the climate denier conspiracy bunch. The report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, is part of a series published by a Chicago-based front group for the oil and tobacco industries called the Heartland Institute.
I really hope mainstream media does not fall for their trickery again. After all, it is pretty well known by now that Fred Singer, the lead author on the International Climate Science Coalition's report, was an apologist for the tobacco industry long before he got into the business of denying the basic science of climate change. The other authors of the report, Bob Carter and Craig Idso, have equally shaky backgrounds when it comes to the science of climate change.
To give you an idea of just how shaky, look no further than Craig Idso. DeSmog discovered last year that Idso was getting paid a whopping $11,600 a month by the Heartland Institute - not exactly the most reputable source of information when it comes to a globally important issue like climate change.
Interestingly, the press release put out today by the ICSC makes no mention at all of the Heartland Institute's role in funding and publishing the report. Perhaps because of that nasty Unabomber billboard, even ICSC is afraid to be associated publicly with Heartland?
This report goes so far as to actually make the absurd claim that, "CO2 is 'the gas of life'. The more CO2, the more life." Yes, and water is also vital to life until you find yourself drowning in it.
In an effort to dupe reporters into trusting these "climate experts," this anti-science outfit even named itself the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), mirroring the official science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This is the same small group of people who claim a grand conspiracy by the United Nations to take over the world. This echo chamber of climate denial attempts to prop up non-experts in the hopes of grabbing a few headlines before journalists figure out they have been fooled by conmen.
The only story to be found in this latest salvo by the International Climate Science Coalition and the Heartland Institute is whether anyone in the press will actually fall for this nonsense again.
http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/17/international-climate-science-coalition-s-lacks-credibility
From left: Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast, lawyer James Taylor and contracted pseudo-scientist Craig Idso. Crossposted from ...
The self-proclaimed experts at the International Climate Science Coalition have today launched another fanciful flight into the realm of climate denialism and United Nations conspiracy theories.
The ICSC, headed by Tom Harris, a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant, is trying to grab media attention with a new report written by the who's who of the climate denier conspiracy bunch. The report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, is part of a series published by a Chicago-based front group for the oil and tobacco industries called the Heartland Institute.
I really hope mainstream media does not fall for their trickery again. After all, it is pretty well known by now that Fred Singer, the lead author on the International Climate Science Coalition's report, was an apologist for the tobacco industry long before he got into the business of denying the basic science of climate change. The other authors of the report, Bob Carter and Craig Idso, have equally shaky backgrounds when it comes to the science of climate change.
To give you an idea of just how shaky, look no further than Craig Idso. DeSmog discovered last year that Idso was getting paid a whopping $11,600 a month by the Heartland Institute - not exactly the most reputable source of information when it comes to a globally important issue like climate change.
Interestingly, the press release put out today by the ICSC makes no mention at all of the Heartland Institute's role in funding and publishing the report. Perhaps because of that nasty Unabomber billboard, even ICSC is afraid to be associated publicly with Heartland?
This report goes so far as to actually make the absurd claim that, "CO2 is 'the gas of life'. The more CO2, the more life." Yes, and water is also vital to life until you find yourself drowning in it.
In an effort to dupe reporters into trusting these "climate experts," this anti-science outfit even named itself the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), mirroring the official science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This is the same small group of people who claim a grand conspiracy by the United Nations to take over the world. This echo chamber of climate denial attempts to prop up non-experts in the hopes of grabbing a few headlines before journalists figure out they have been fooled by conmen.
The only story to be found in this latest salvo by the International Climate Science Coalition and the Heartland Institute is whether anyone in the press will actually fall for this nonsense again.
http://desmogblog.com/2013/09/17/international-climate-science-coalition-s-lacks-credibility
From left: Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast, lawyer James Taylor and contracted pseudo-scientist Craig Idso. Crossposted from ...
2 comments:
-
Tom Harris said...
-
I worked for High Park Group for 5 months in 2006 and yes, that company
provided (I don’t know if they still do) public relations advice to
energy companies, including some in the wind and solar sector. I was
never engaged in lobbying then or at any time in my career - check the
federal government Lobby Registration if you like. I also worked as a
science and technology communications specialist for APCO Worldwide for
four years before that (the rest of my 36 year career being in
engineering, primarily with the Canadian government). Yet that brief
period working for PR firms apparently gets me the label "a former
Canadian energy company public relations consultant" in the eyes of
whoever wrote the above piece.
Not that it should matter, of course. All that matters in the eyes of intelligent observers is whether what we are saying is scientifically justified or not, and we are convinced that it is. It is revealing that almost none of the above piece even addresses the science of the new report. Instead they employ logical fallacy attacks: guilt by association, ad hominem, motive intent, etc. Smart people are not swayed by such rhetorical tricks.
It is humorous that the writer calls the report just issued "the International Climate Science Coalition's report" when it was no such thing. I wish it were. It is a massive, heavily referenced and impressive document - see http://climatechangereconsidered.org/. We are simply helping the publishers (there are three, of which one is Heartland) of this fine book to promote the publication. And no, the funding for the book did not come from industry.
No one involved in this report is a climate change denier. They, the publishers and ICSC know that climate changes all the time and so we must prepare for these changes. We simply question the causes of climate change and do not agree with the politically correct version boosted by the UN IPCC, etc. So we deny that we deny climate change. We are denial deniers, if you want a label.
Although he is not a member of our group, ICSC, I must tell you that Professor Singer is anything but a tobacco industry apologist. In fact, I understand that he has been a member of various anti-smoking groups (as have I). Dr. Singer had the courage, however, to show that some of the research on the effect of side stream was scientifically flawed.
Getting the facts right when you are supposedly “on the side of the angles” apparently doesn't matter for some people.
Happily for society, especially those of us who want to use the best in science to engage in fact-based environmental protection, the press is indeed paying attention to the NIPCC report—see some of the coverage at the top of our Web site here: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org.
All questions—well, sensible questions—are welcome at tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net.
Tom Harris
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
-
September 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM
-
EliRabett said...
-
Well, let us start with Uncle Fred
S. Fred Singer played a key role in the attempts to deny the harm from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)
A FAX to Bill Orzechowski, Chief Economist of the Tobacco Institute from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI) with S. Fred Singer’s resume. Notation in the margin is a note to Sam, probably Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr, President of the Tobacco Institute, from W. Woodson probably Walter Woodson, Vice President-Public Affairs of the Tobacco Institute. It says (about Singer)
---------------------
Here is the man who will handle the EPA/ETS (illegible) work Brennon wants for us on the “social costs". Very impressive resume. I think the project is worth the 20K we discussed. Agree?.
I worked for High Park Group for 5 months in 2006 and yes, that company provided (I don’t know if they still do) public relations advice to energy companies, including some in the wind and solar sector. I was never engaged in lobbying then or at any time in my career - check the federal government Lobby Registration if you like. I also worked as a science and technology communications specialist for APCO Worldwide for four years before that (the rest of my 36 year career being in engineering, primarily with the Canadian government). Yet that brief period working for PR firms apparently gets me the label "a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant" in the eyes of whoever wrote the above piece.
ReplyDeleteNot that it should matter, of course. All that matters in the eyes of intelligent observers is whether what we are saying is scientifically justified or not, and we are convinced that it is. It is revealing that almost none of the above piece even addresses the science of the new report. Instead they employ logical fallacy attacks: guilt by association, ad hominem, motive intent, etc. Smart people are not swayed by such rhetorical tricks.
It is humorous that the writer calls the report just issued "the International Climate Science Coalition's report" when it was no such thing. I wish it were. It is a massive, heavily referenced and impressive document - see http://climatechangereconsidered.org/. We are simply helping the publishers (there are three, of which one is Heartland) of this fine book to promote the publication. And no, the funding for the book did not come from industry.
No one involved in this report is a climate change denier. They, the publishers and ICSC know that climate changes all the time and so we must prepare for these changes. We simply question the causes of climate change and do not agree with the politically correct version boosted by the UN IPCC, etc. So we deny that we deny climate change. We are denial deniers, if you want a label.
Although he is not a member of our group, ICSC, I must tell you that Professor Singer is anything but a tobacco industry apologist. In fact, I understand that he has been a member of various anti-smoking groups (as have I). Dr. Singer had the courage, however, to show that some of the research on the effect of side stream was scientifically flawed.
Getting the facts right when you are supposedly “on the side of the angles” apparently doesn't matter for some people.
Happily for society, especially those of us who want to use the best in science to engage in fact-based environmental protection, the press is indeed paying attention to the NIPCC report—see some of the coverage at the top of our Web site here: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org.
All questions—well, sensible questions—are welcome at tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net.
Tom Harris
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
Well, let us start with Uncle Fred
ReplyDeleteS. Fred Singer played a key role in the attempts to deny the harm from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)
A FAX to Bill Orzechowski, Chief Economist of the Tobacco Institute from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI) with S. Fred Singer’s resume. Notation in the margin is a note to Sam, probably Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr, President of the Tobacco Institute, from W. Woodson probably Walter Woodson, Vice President-Public Affairs of the Tobacco Institute. It says (about Singer)
---------------------
Here is the man who will handle the EPA/ETS (illegible) work Brennon wants for us on the “social costs". Very impressive resume. I think the project is worth the 20K we discussed. Agree?.