Climate Change blog: realclimate.org
Rudy
warming) debate, the following blog created by a group of climatologists
is interesting and useful -- Rudy
http://www.realclimate.org/
Engineer
You picked a VERY interesting web page to cite. It was NOT
created by a group of climatologists. It was created by a
PR Firm who pays the climatologists to advange the agenda
of the PR firm's paying customers
Frst, let's do a bit of domain registration research and
find ouit who is behind RealClimate.org
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Environmental Media Services
1320 18th St NW #500 <------ Same Address
Washington DC 20036
Domain Name: FENTON.COM
Fenton Communications
1320 18th St. NW <------ Same Address
Washington, DC 20036
Domain Name:EMS.ORG
Environmental Media Services
1320 18th St NW #500 <------ Same Address
Washington DC 20036
Domain Name:BUSHGREENWATCH.ORG
Fenton Communications
1320 18th St, NW 5th Flr <--- Same Address
Washington, DC 20036
(But the website says "BushGreenwatch is a project
of Environmental Media Services, with support from
MoveOn.org")
BTW, the building in question isn't a bunch of office
suites as the #500 implies. It is the corporate
headquarters for Fenton Communications.
So, RealClimate.org is Environmental Media Services
is Fenton Communications. And Fenton Communications
advertises the following services:
"Strategic Research
Got a smart strategy? Fenton can help you prove it.
We design, organize and execute critical research to
enhance your message and target its delivery. From
background research on your issue to message testing
through focus groups and polling surveys, Fenton will
guide your efforts by helping you:
Understand your target audiences and what moves them
Make the strongest case for your cause using hard evidence
Identify and counter opposition arguments
Pre-test messages to ensure effectiveness"
Here is what the above means:
--------------------------------------------
Profile:
Environmental Media Services/Fenton Communications
Websites:
http://www.ems.org
http://www.fenton.com/
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.fenton.com/services/stratres.asp
If you've ever been advised to steer clear of a food, beverage, or other
consumer product based on the claims of a nonprofit organization, you've
likely been "spun" by Fenton's multi-million-dollar message machine -- and
Environmental Media Services (EMS) has probably been the messenger.
EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton
Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton,
EMS claims to be "providing journalists with the most current information
on environmental issues." A more accurate assessment might be that it
spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable
science, and featuring activist "experts," all designed to promote and
enrich David Fenton's paying clients, and build credibility for the
nonprofit ones. It's a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it
since 1994.
Tired of being nagged about which fish are politically correct to eat?
Fretting about choosing the "right" catch of the day? You just might be
under the influence of SeaWeb and the Natural Resources Defense Council
(both Fenton clients), and their "Give Swordfish a Break!" campaign,
communicated for over two years by the trusty flacks at EMS. Never mind
that Rebecca Lent of the National Marine Fisheries Service said that
Atlantic swordfish "are not considered endangered." The point was to make
SeaWeb and NRDC more believable and trusted when the next big enviro-agenda
came along.
Freaked out about so-called "Frankenfoods"? Worried that biotech corn will
make you glow in the dark? You've probably been exposed to something
harmful, all right -- EMS's anti-biotech message, approved and bankrolled
by the large segment of the "natural" and organic foods industry that
relies on Fenton Communications for its publicity. These include Whole
Foods Markets, Green Mountain Coffee, Honest Tea, Kashi Cereal, and Rodale
Press, a magazine publisher (Organic Style, Organic Gardening, and many
more) that makes millions off of the misguided notion that organic foods
are safer to eat than their conventional or biotech counterparts. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture's position, by the way, is crystal clear. Former
USDA Secretary Dan Glickman has said that "[j]ust because something is
labeled as ‘organic' does not mean it is superior, safer, or more healthy
than conventional food."
Afraid to eat dairy products from cows that have been treated with hormones
to produce extra milk? Scared that the hormone, which the FDA calls
"entirely safe," will make its way into your body and cause cancer or other
irreparable damage? Beginning with a huge press conference in 1998, EMS
pushed that very message relentlessly for over two years. And they did it
on behalf of Ben & Jerry's, a paying Fenton client. Why would Ben & Jerry's
care? Because their ice cream is made with hormone-free milk, and David
Fenton calculated that a little health hysteria would drive customers to
their "alternative" product quite nicely.
It's called "black marketing," and Environmental Media Services has become
the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an
air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as
fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged "story
ideas" for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and
even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying
clients. These "experts," though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of
them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which
have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It's
a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don't consider
do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous
"spin."
The first rule of this game is that it's strictly pay-for-play. For a
price, you too can promote your product by maligning the competition with
junk-science smear tactics. To Fenton Communications, you'll be a "client";
down the hall at EMS, though, you'll join the ranks of its "project
partners." And nobody will be the wiser.
Surely by now you know that money makes the world go ‘round, and the globe
doesn't stop spinning for Environmental Media Services just because it
calls itself "nonprofit." EMS exists to make money. It turns a profit for
Fenton Communications by improving the bottom lines of a wide variety of
Fenton clients. Understanding how the money changes hands, though, requires
a shift in focus from Washington to San Francisco, where the Tides
Foundation is based.
The Tides Foundation is an unusual philanthropy in many ways, not the least
of which is that it gives away other foundations' money. Corporations,
individuals, and other foundations can all use Tides as a pass-through
vehicle, "designating" that their cash be funneled to tax-exempt third
parties. Tides is also unusual in that it runs its own "incubator" for
these nonprofit entities, a subsidiary called the Tides Center that runs
the day-to-day operations of new activist groups so they can focus on
making life difficult for the rest of us. The end result is a "foundation"
that uses its own tax-exemption as a sort of blanket coverage for
newly-formed nonprofits (all of them left-of-center), while funding them
with money that originates somewhere else.
In this arrangement, startup activist groups don't have to risk being
turned down when they ask the IRS for tax-exempt status: they just ride
piggy-back on Tides's exemption, giving them the same privileges extended
to churches and universities without having to satisfy any real
requirements. And big-money donors with anti-corporate or anti-consumer
leanings can readily fund the lunatic fringe without having to disclose
where their money went. They only need mention in their tax returns that a
donation was made to the Tides Center, and their legal obligations are
fulfilled. One more curious side effect of this deal is that
newly-incubated activist groups (what Tides calls "projects") can appear to
have absolutely no expenses of their own for employees, lobbyists, or
fundraising contractors, as Tides officially cuts all the checks.
So while Environmental Media Services was started, and is still run, by
staffers of Fenton Communications, it was officially instituted as a
"project" of the Tides Center in 1994. This gave Fenton some plausible
deniability and initially shielded him from the suggestion that EMS was
just a shill for his clients. It has also provided a ready-made funding
mechanism for foundations, "progressive" companies, and other Fenton
clients who don't want their contributions to EMS noted for the public
record [Editor's note: despite the logistical roadblocks set up by Tides,
our research still has been able to reverse-engineer several million
dollars in foundation grants to EMS].
Of course, anyone ingenious enough to invent such a scheme is also probably
crafty enough to abuse it as well. Consider that the Tides Center paid EMS
president Arlie Schardt over $115,000 in 1998. Fair enough, since he was
technically a Tides employee, in addition to being the "Senior Counselor"
at Fenton Communications and a board member at Friends of the Earth. But
that doesn't explain the $583,727 that Tides paid to Fenton that same year,
which was designated as "public relations" expenses in Tides's tax return.
You see, Tides has never "officially" been a Fenton client, as that would
appear to be a huge conflict. The Fenton Communications web site doesn't
list Tides as a current or former client either. So what was the
half-million-dollar payout for?
We may never find out. But we do know that in the past three tax years
(1998-2000), the for-profit companies "eGrants," Seventh Generation, and
Working Assets (which sells long-distance phone service and brokers credit
cards), have each put over $1 million into Tides. They are all, by the way,
clients of Fenton Communications. So are big-money foundations like the Pew
Charitable Trusts, the David & Lucille Packard Foundation, and the John
Merck Fund. Together, they have contributed another $1.6 million (that we
know of) to EMS, using Tides as a money-funnel.
The big picture, then, is a quasi-money-laundering scheme worthy of a name
like "Tides" (apologies to Procter & Gamble). Fenton Communications'
for-profit and foundation clients put massive amounts of cash into Tides,
and enjoy a healthy tax write-off for their trouble. Tides turns around and
makes huge "grants" to Fenton's nonprofit clients, including the
Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and SeaWeb
(just to name a few). Tides also funds EMS, which David Fenton uses as a
mouthpiece in order to promote fear campaigns which benefit his other
for-profit clients. EMS makes good use of the "experts" who haunt the halls
of Fenton's nonprofit clients. Tides pays everyone's salary, and even sends
the odd half million dollars to Fenton Communication for its trouble.
The remarkable thing here is that this is all legal, and that it takes this
much concentrated duplicity to produce an effective food scare.
In December of 1998, Environmental Media Services (with several Fenton
Communications staffers in tow) held a press conference with guests
including activist representatives from the Center for Food Safety and the
Consumers Union. Before news cameras and dozens of reporters, this panel of
"experts" warned that "recombinant" Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) given to
cows would render milk harmful to humans, and even cancerous. The Boston
Globe, the New York Times, and ABC News (among others) all ran stories
based on this "breaking news" event suggesting that American consumers
should be suspicious of any dairy products associated with rBGH.
Not surprisingly, the press event produced by EMS made no mention of the
fact that Ben & Jerry's was both a Fenton client and a major stakeholder in
the debate. Just one year earlier, Ben & Jerry's had made headlines (again,
with a wind-assist from EMS) with a legal settlement in which it would be
permitted to use product labels touting its products' lack of rBGH as an
advantage for consumers. Back then, EMS was very open about its
relationship with Ben & Jerry's, sending out press releases touting the ice
cream maker's "legal victory." Fenton Communications knew full well that
its client was interested in painting rBGH-wielding competitors as cancer
conduits, and EMS was happy to oblige.
What they never told you was that Ben & Jerry's also had to agree to a
disclaimer, which still appears on some ice cream cartons today: "The FDA
has said no significant difference has been shown and no test can now
distinguish between milk from rBGH treated and untreated cows."
Source:
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/110
--
"If men are so wicked WITH religion, what would they be WITHOUT it?"
-Ben Franklin
Rudy
Engineer wrote:
> Rudy wrote:
>
>>For those in this newsgroup following the climate change (global
>>warming) debate, the following blog created by a group of climatologists
>>is interesting and useful -- Rudy
>>http://www.realclimate.org/
>
>
> You picked a VERY interesting web page to cite. It was NOT
> created by a group of climatologists. It was created by a
> PR Firm who pays the climatologists to advange the agenda
> of the PR firm's paying customers
>
[snip]
From the web site:
"The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their
spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the
organizations for which they work. The contributors are solely
responsible for the content of the site and *receive no remuneration for
their contributions*." [my emphasis]
So you seem to be wrong about that.
One of the most frequent contributors to that weblog has pretty
impressive credentials:
"Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present
and future climate...
"He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in
Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA
Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on
the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework
Advisory Panels. He was recently cited by Scientific American as one of
the 50 Research leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and
Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de
France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 30
peer-reviewed publications."
Other contributors also seem to have very reasonable, relevant credentials.
That the web site is maintained by a company that specializes
in working for liberal lobby groups doesn't seem especially sinister.
Perhaps they actually believe in what they do?
Rudy
David Samuel Myers
> created by a group of climatologists. It was created by a
> PR Firm who pays the climatologists to advange the agenda
> of the PR firm's paying customers
No. I am an environmental scientist and have specific training and
publications as a climatologist and climate researcher. I have met
some of those people, have been to the same conferences they go to,
etc. They are not paid. They have a blogspace that is paid for by
others. Gavin S. may come off as a bit of a media hound but he's
not a shill. Absolutely none of them are shills in the least.
Engineer
Rudy wrote:
> From the web site:
>"The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their
>spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the
>organizations for which they work. The contributors are solely
>responsible for the content of the site and *receive no remuneration for
>their contributions*." [my emphasis]
>
>So you seem to be wrong about that.
...or they are doing exactly what the reference I gave you said they
are doing; getting big bucks from a non-profit that is really a PR
firm for doing what they were already doing before, and then in their
spare time posting the results of that research on a website that
just happens to be directly owned by that same PR firm, and by an
amazing coincidence the postings just happen to help the clients who
pay the PR firm which pays the non-profit which pays the researchers.
>One of the most frequent contributors to that weblog has pretty
>impressive credentials:
I would expect that they would, given the amount of money that is
being spent to hire them. I also would expect that the PR firm hires
scientists on the basis of them already holding the desired position
rather than asking them to change positions for pay.
Nonetheless, it is a website owned and paid for by a PR firm that
advertises that it will set up websites with experts posting things
that benefit the PR firm's clients. The domain registrations prove
that.
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge
to rule."
-H. L.Mencken
Rudy
> Rudy wrote:
>
>
>>From the web site:
>>"The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their
>>spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the
>>organizations for which they work. The contributors are solely
>>responsible for the content of the site and *receive no remuneration for
>>their contributions*." [my emphasis]
>>
>>So you seem to be wrong about that.
>
>
> ...or they are doing exactly what the reference I gave you said they
> are doing; getting big bucks from a non-profit that is really a PR
> firm for doing what they were already doing before, and then in their
> spare time posting the results of that research on a website that
> just happens to be directly owned by that same PR firm, and by an
> amazing coincidence the postings just happen to help the clients who
> pay the PR firm which pays the non-profit which pays the researchers.
>
>
So, you think they are lying about remuneration. I think that's pretty
much a conversation stopper.
>>One of the most frequent contributors to that weblog has pretty
>>impressive credentials:
>
>
> I would expect that they would, given the amount of money that is
> being spent to hire them.
You repeat the same baseless smear.
Rudy
Engineer
I don't think they are shills. I do think that they are paid by
a non-profit that was created by Fenton Communications for the
purpose of advancing the causes of Fenton's customers. The most
effective way to do that is *not* to hire shills ("shill" meaning
someone who expresses an opinion because he is paid to do so).
Fenton gets a far more effective website by searching for people
who already have the opinions that serve the purposes of Fenton's
customers and hiring them. Thus Fenton gets honest, well-qualified
experts on the webpage with no possibility of embarassing reports
that the experts used to hold the opposite position.
The point is that if another customer had approached Fenton with
cash in hand, they would have been able to purchase a webpage
full of experts saying the opposite of what this webpage says.
And those other experts would also not be shills in the least.
Engineer
Rudy wrote:
>So, you think they are lying about remuneration. I think
>that's pretty much a conversation stopper.
I never wrote that. Did you even bother reading my post?
Let me lay it out for you again.
A customer comes to the PR firm, Fenton Communications, and
says that they want a web page full of respected experts that
express opinions that help the Fenton customer to make money.
Money goes from the customer to Fenton.
Next, Tides Foundation (so named because the do legal money
laundering?) a "non-profit incubator that is actually run by
Fenton, creates another non-profit called Environmental Media
Services, which is also run by Fenton.
Now the Fenton Customers can give money to Environmental Media
Services and get a tax write off. Environmental Media Services
uses this money to hire your buddies to do the exact sort of
environmental activism that they were doing anyway and to buy a
domain name and set up a website - RealClimate.org - that they
can use to further the environmental activism that they were
doing anyway.
>>>One of the most frequent contributors to that weblog has pretty
>>>impressive credentials:
>>
>> I would expect that they would, given the amount of money that is
>> being spent to hire them.
>
>You repeat the same baseless smear.
It's not a smear. Why would an environmental activist turn down
money from a non-profit that shares his agenda? Whole Foods
Markets and Green Mountain Coffee didn't directly pay the scientists
that ended up on the website trashing "frankenfoods." Ben and
Jerry's didn't directly pay the scientists that ended up on the
website trashing bovine growth hormones. And those scientists
were against those things before being hired by a nonprofit that,
to all appearances, had nothing to do with Ben and Jerry's or Whole
Foods Markets. But that's where the money came from.
Read about it here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Fenton_Communications
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/110
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pubs/fear_profiteers.pdf
Rudy
>
> It's not a smear. Why would an environmental activist turn down
> money from a non-profit that shares his agenda?
It's a smear because the web site says that the writers were *not*
paid.
If you agree that the writers (Dr. Schmidt, et. al.) are not being
paid to do the work, then we don't have any point of disagreement.
However you say in your reply to David Myers:
"I don't think they are shills. I do think that they are paid by
a non-profit that was created by Fenton Communications for the
purpose of advancing the causes of Fenton's customers."
Now, if you have evidence that Dr. Schmidt is being paid by such
an entity (not NASA Goddard, presumably), you haven't presented it.
Until you present such evidence, your charge is unfounded.
Rudy
Marshall Massey
> r: For those in this newsgroup following the climate change
> : (global warming) debate, the following blog created by a
> : group of climatologists is interesting and useful -- Rudy
> : http://www.realclimate.org/
Very fine indeed! Thank you for sharing it.
With all good wishes,
Marshall Massey <mma...@earthwitness.org>
Engineer
Rudy wrote:
>It's a smear because the web site says that the writers were *not*
>paid.
Cite?
>Now, if you have evidence that Dr. Schmidt is being paid by such
>an entity (not NASA Goddard, presumably), you haven't presented it.
>Until you present such evidence, your charge is unfounded.
Here is the press release. Please note Kalee Kreider's email address.
Top Scientists Launch RealClimate.org
Team of Renowned Climate Experts from Europe and the US Create
First-of-a-Kind Climate Weblog
Today, top climate scientists will launch a unique website to provide
commentary on the emerging new results from climate science. The site
is designed as a tool for journalists and members of the public, and
will provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the
context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion is
restricted solely to scientific topics and will not address political
issues.
"We are trying to ensure that science doesn't get trampled by
politics," said Gavin Schmidt.
"We hope this site will serve as a resource that can challenge
mis-representations or mis-understandings of the science as they occur
in real time," said Michael Mann.
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rasmus Benestad, Caspar
Ammann, Ray Bradley, William Connolley, Eric Steig, and Amy Clement
are all contributors to the site. This group includes two "Scientific
American 50 Research Leader" award winners and recipients of
prestigious fellowship awards from the McDonnell and Comer
foundations.
Information on the site includes commentary on breaking news such as
the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment as well as the latest scientific
findings on greenhouse gases, the paleoclimatic record, climate
modeling, and connections between the sun's variability and climate.
The scientific contributors work in their personal capacity, and
receive no financial compensation for this work. Journalists may also
read their biographies, request more information, or reach the
scientists through the site www.realclimate.org or contact the
scientists directly:
Gavin Schmidt, phone +1 212-678-5627, email gsch...@giss.nasa.gov
Michael Mann, phone +1 434-924-7770, email ma...@virginia.edu
Eric Steig, phone +1 206-543-6327, email st...@ess.washington.edu
Stefan Rahmstorf, phone +49 331-288-2688, email
rahm...@pik-potsdam.de
Rasmus Benestad, phone +47 2296-3377, email rasmus.benestad-at-met.no
More information:
Kalee Kreider, phone +1 202-463-6670, email ka...@fenton.com
Engineer
Engineer wrote:
>The scientific contributors work in their personal capacity, and
>receive no financial compensation for this work.
Please note that the above does not say that they receive no
financial compensation from Fenton for other work. That is how
Fenton works; they don't pay the scientists to run the web page,
they pay them to do research.
Fenton might even have been able to get this group of scientists
to work for expenses only, but the pay for research is how Fenton
ran the swordfish scare, the Alar in Apples Scare, the Geneticly
modified food scare, and the bovine growth hormone scare.
The key point here is that these are websites for hire. They exist
or do not exist purely on wheether a corporation pays Fenton to make
them exist. Fenon buys the domain. Fenton buys the server. A Fenton
staff member wrote the press release. The webmaster works for Fenton.
And in all of the other cases, the experts were paid by Fenton - not
paid to put information on the website, but rather paid for doing
research. Maybe this time it is different, but I doubt it.
Rudy
> The key point here is that these are websites for hire. They exist
> or do not exist purely on wheether a corporation pays Fenton to make
> them exist. Fenon buys the domain. Fenton buys the server. A Fenton
> staff member wrote the press release. The webmaster works for Fenton.
> And in all of the other cases, the experts were paid by Fenton - not
> paid to put information on the website, but rather paid for doing
> research. Maybe this time it is different, but I doubt it.
>
>
>
It does not seem particularly sinister that you can hire someone to
run your web site. Publishing in print works the same way. That is
how services in a free market work.
There is a link to conttibutors' bios on the realclimate.org site.
(Linked to by the front page of that site, if you look).
All but one are full
time climate researchers at institutions like NASA, UVA, UMass Amherst,
U. of Potsdam, etc. (the other is a 1/2 time researcher, 1/2 time
housedad). That Fenton is paying for them to do their research is
extremely unlikely.
On top of that, the only evidence you have that the experts in "all the
other cases" were paid for their research by Fenton is a right-wing
web site - financed by whom, I wonder?
Rudy
Rudy
> Rudy wrote:
>
>
>>It's a smear because the web site says that the writers were *not*
>>paid.
>
>
> Cite?
>
>
>>Now, if you have evidence that Dr. Schmidt is being paid by such
>>an entity (not NASA Goddard, presumably), you haven't presented it.
>>Until you present such evidence, your charge is unfounded.
>
>
> Here is the press release. Please note Kalee Kreider's email address.
>
[snip]
And your point is...? I don't see any mention of Fenton paying
the climate researchers.
Rudy
Rudy
>>
>> Here is the press release. Please note Kalee Kreider's email address.
>>
>
Note that Kalee Kreider is *not* one of the climate researchers who
provide content for realclimate.org (presumably Kalee writes press
releases or is a webmaster for Fenton).
Rudy
Gavin
paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at
any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us
to do research. Definitive enough for you?
When we were discussing starting this effort, the website domain was
offered to us by EMS and we accepted that offer. Fenton organised the
initial press release. They have no editorial or other control over
what we post or who we ask to post contributions. This was made clear
to everyone who asked (see for instance:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5705/netwatch.shtml).
Hope that is now clear.
Gavin Schmidt
Engineer
Gavin wrote:
>Just to make this absolutely clear. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever
>paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at
>any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us
>to do research.
That's good enough for me.