Pages

Showing posts with label desmogblog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label desmogblog. Show all posts

Aug 11, 2012

In Andrea Saul's pliant hands , Romney denies climate like, er, an EXXON flack

DENIER-IN-CHIEF
Perhaps as a condition for seeing bribe-sized donations go to his fellow-travelling Super PACS, Willard-the-Wimp has had to accept Andrea Saul , former EXXON flack-in-charge-of-denial ,  as his new press-liaison-thingy.

And so Willard has changed his tune yet again on denying the need for any serious action on human-caused runaway global warming.

Perhaps his day's position on climate denial is pinned by Ms Saul* to the Wimp's underwear, because like his underwear, it does seem to be changed daily.

Better idea, Andrea, is to attach it to one of them there new-fangled wind powered windmills, and then let it change with the wind. if we have alternative energy, why not alternative policy positions too ?

EXXON meets in convention in Tampa at end of August to pick the new President


Ooops ! No more windmill, bosses' orders : Willard has been told, firmly, (as firmly as jello can be told anything) to tell everybody that under his government, wind subsidies are out and subsidies to Exxon, er, Oil are in.

After November, America will be headed by a two person government : Romney will be Denier-in-chief and Andrea will be the de-facto Commander-in-Chief.....

* And a big tip of the hat to DeSmogBlog for spreading the word on Damascus-bound Ms Saul.

Aug 8, 2012

Readfearn & DeSmogBlog pile on Galileo Deniers for "JEWISH" conspiracy talk

Wasn't it Disraeli who said the piccolo of his protest would  scarcely be audible next to the deep rumbles of the big pipes of that august organ of public opinion, The Times of London (editorial) leader ?

SkyGods vs earthings and Watching The Deniers don't even cut the weight of a piccolo,  in the climate-change-believing/ climate-denier-combating world.

But Vancouver's DeSmogBlog : oh my my !

True heavies : read and even quoted by the , ahem, real journalists on the soon-to-declare-bankruptcy metropolitan newspaper chains.

Graham Readfearn has a piece in DeSmogBlog on the dog whistle words coding for " Jewish Bankster World Domination Conspiracy " emanating out of MD Malcolm Roberts of Australia's leading climate denier group, The Galileo Movement.

Now perhaps we might expect the dinosaurs of the media world to engage on this juicy story , n'est pas ?

Non, mon ami .

The din-o-saurs fell over themselves to quote these Galileo Movement mavericks as "scientific experts" questioning the 97% global scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change.

The last refuge of a journalistic coward is "objectivity"


Its all down to that din-o-saur benchmark of objectivity : "unfair, old boy, to let the Jews have all the innings whenever we discuss Auschwitz - can't you round up a Neo-Nazi or two to offer a rebuttal, or are they all off busy killing Sikhs ?"

Embarrassing to publicly admit your scientific experts are advisors to a group with anti-semitic beliefs.

Still we might expect perhaps George Monbiot to run an article on the story in The Guardian Online in a week or so, and it might gradually - oh so gradually - find traction.

Or perhaps not  :  in which case it is back to Mike at WTD to do some more heavy lifting......

Jul 25, 2012

denier BLOGS ; read 'em, but don't write about 'em : focus on THINK TANK deniers

We are handing deniers a winning narrative - how can we be so dense ?


I love to read the blogs of the denier-fighters in the morning, none more so than Mike at Watching the Deniers, a denier-fighter from down under in Van Denier's Land  .

He's an ordinary guy like me, with a day job and all, trying to find out the time to peck out his assaults on the deniers and offer his support for the climate believers.

And I try and find time occasionally, very occasionally, to read the blogs of the deniers.

But I don't ever - EVER - write about the denier bloggers.

He does - I don't.  Mike & Mike : yes, we disagree.

But not on climate change, but rather on the tactics we bloggers might use if we really want the world to take some action on global warming as soon as possible.

I save my small poisoned penmanship to poke at the big guns of denial : those key hired hands of denial , aka the libertarian advocacy think tanks.

Here is why.

We already have the ordinary public (ie the unsophisticated), all be it weakly, on our side.

In Nova Scotia, even the most rural illiterate have heard about global warming and are always ready to half-seriously blame any heat or storm event upon it.

We have public science on our side - the peer-reviewable active climate scientists are 97% (or better) for us.

(True, weathermen-cum-climatologists are frequently against these newly visible basic research type of climate scientists, because until recently even an ugly guy could always get laid in a small town, if a woman recognized him from his TV weatherman job : he was a Star !

Sheer envy, over this transfer of status to new climate experts, lies behind 99% of the bile against climate change among the significant percentage of old fashioned weathermen who claim to disbelieve climate change.)

But this aside, we have public science as well as voters on our side.

We have TV on our side - here I disagree profoundly with Jim
Hoggan of DeSmogBlog. In his chapter , Manipulated Media in his great book Climate Cover-Up, Jim says the shift from a reading culture to an visual and oral culture has hurt us denier fighters.

I, by contrast, think that the relatively small percentage in the past who actually enjoyed reading are still around, still reading, still enjoying it.

The others prefer TV, yes, but we must recognize that TV in  2012 is not the TV of 1952.

The growth in cheap, light video camera equipment, satellite transmission, the internet's YouTube, the growth of national TV news networks in every third world nation - all this means any and every storm in the world is likely to flash before our eyes and ears rather than be something only an astute reader of the New York Times used to read on page 53 , paragraph 12.

We do have more and more powerful storms than we did 60 years ago - but we can only demonstrate this truthfully in some long complex journal article that only scientists in that area could understand and believe.

Lucky for our side, we don't have to.

Because those same denier-oriented TV networks we love to hate, in an increasingly competitive news market, hype any and every bit of dramatic news video ---- and storm disasters top that list.

So - ironically - the Murdochs of this world are converting voters into believers on their companies' TV news, regardless of how many unread OP ED columns in their newspapers claim its all baloney !

What we don't have on our side is popular science (and about half of the educated classes: the rich half.)

Only one group among the many people that makes up the denier
classes can provide credibility in that area of popular science for deniers.

Big corporations and the super rich have no credibility, nor do industry lobby groups, nor do denier politicians. Not on science, for sure.

Frankly, nor do denier bloggers.

Peer-reviewed scientists who blog are respected - as peer-reviewed scientists, academic historians who blog are respected - as academic historians, professional journalists who blog are respected - as professional journalists.

Blogging is something we all feel we can do and about half of us have seemed to have tried it at least once : it gets no respect.

Denier bloggers get no respect when they blog, either, even if they were once well known scientists before they went off the rails.

It is only when big money hand-delivers them a lot of cherry-picked snippets of facts and a bundle of money and asks them to write a book around those snippets and assuring them it will get a real publisher, a round-the-world book tour, guest speaker talks-at-seminars and interviews with the biggest media, do they become respected --- as "authors".

When we ordinary (non-expert) people with day jobs and no hidden funder become denier-fighter bloggers and then proceed to engage only other bloggers (who happen to be deniers), outsiders see us both as just typical hot-air-driven loudmouths.

We are momentarily equal to the much richer/full-time deniers - yes.

Yes, momentarily equals in outsiders' eyes - equal loudmouths: denier bloggers and their blogger opponents.

But our bun fight with the denier bloggers is irrelevant to our main aim.

 That main aim is taking down the only credible group the deniers have in the real war, which is always over popular science.

 (Popular Science I define as the whole world wrestling over the meaning of published science's results: in this case, the meaning of their results regarding global warming.)

That group is the libertarian advocacy think tanks.

Only they stand at the nexus between (A) the super rich foundations together with the big corporations and their industry lobby groups and (B) the individual bent scientists who happen to blog, but who are mainly useful when trotted out at think tank seminars and conferences - not as hand-to-hand bloggers fighting us out in the blogosphere.

We bloggers-cum-denier-fighters need new tactics.

We need to highlight, not hide, how unfunded we are, how we work elsewhere unrelated to climate change and only blog in our spare hours.

In our spare bedroom. That we are not experts. That we don't live inside the Beltway or inside the Triangle- that we are nobodies from nowhere.

And that we are davids, in a tremendously unequal fight with well funded, well connected, huge think tanks located in Snottyville and just filled with snotty Yale and Harvard grads.

But - but - despite that, in our spare time and in our spare bedroom we checked the math on their latest glossy report damning climate change - and the math is wrong .

Wrong, wrong, wrong - there on page 17 !

Because while bloggers are dissed as bloggers, we are respected as people who can sometimes scoop the world media on facts and stories.

Now we have a narrative the mainstream media reporters can run with, over the bodies of the people who actually own their outlets:

Little david brings down rich snotty GOLIATH with a tiny slingshot filled with inconvenient facts.....



















Jul 22, 2012

dear DONNA LAFRAMBOISE , if you are going to play 'little david' at least do it right

Dear Donna :

I feel that since you and I are in the same 'game' and because I am so much older than you, perhaps I might be permitted to offer you some fatherly advice.

If you are going to play at being little david to the great big bad Goliath (in this case, of the IPCC) at least try to do it right.

I too claim to be a solo blogger, albeit on the other side of the climate change debate.

But I have a real job, totally unconnected to my passion about climate change, that supports me and my passion modestly (my annual income is about $8,000) .

I do not accept any financial support, I do not copyright my climate change writings and I wouldn't cross promote my other money making ventures on my climate blog, even if I had any commercial ventures to promote.

My passion is entirely my own, not paid by others and not a loss leader cum CV/RESUME to promote my other money-making ventures.

I am a genuinely low income blogger from a genuine backwater , Nova Scotia, thousands of kilometres from the well-funded Libertarian-denier think tanks of Washington or London --- and so when I rail against them, I do so credibly.

But you, Donna : you are just astro-turf .......

Jul 21, 2012

DeSmogBlog : "the blog as a think tank or the think tank as a blog ?", worries CATO from KANSAS

Packaging Passion can take a dozen forms


Look, way up, up in the ether: is it a bird, a plane, a blog, a virtual think tank , a dog ?

A dog ?

How would you ever know who is or isn't a dog on the Internet?

Who is or isn't a blog or a virtual think tank on the Internet?

Enough virtual reality - let's get concrete - or better still, let's get solar.

You want passionately, as a single individual - to promote solar energy - NOW !!!!

But how ?

At first, there often appears to be many different ways to promote a vision.

But if you've done about all of them as I have, the differences between all the various choices can end up appearing more apparent than real.

So here is what you will do, for sure - in all of the different approaches :

you produce a mission statement, recruit supporters, seek out advisers and donations, co-sponsor conferences, publish a periodical, occasionally publish reports or even a 'book' , make submissions to public bodies in the world of politics, lobby politicians and the media directly and via press releases.

 you do some original field research, publish some review articles. Speak at some others' conferences, occasionally getting interviewed as an expert by Radio and TV.

And now for the real difficult issue :

picking a name.

 Because, right away, your name defines you and limits how you will be perceived, for ever and ever ---- despite the fact that your main purpose and most of your operating procedures will NOT fundamentally change regardless of which name you happen to pick.

You could call yourself  The Society for the Study of Solar Power Initiatives (SSSPI) and appear to be (quasi-) academic society in nature.

A bit more aggressive , you call yourself Solar Energy Now !  (SEN !) , an NGO cum environmental protest/action movement.

More aggressively still, you could form a single issue political party , the Solar Energy Now Party (SENP) .

Or maybe back off a good bit - become, or appear to become, an industry lobby group, Solar Energy Advancement Canada (SEAC).

Why not a think tank ? The Solar Energy Initiative Institute (SEII).

Or claim to be a business consultant ( that is what all the other middle class unemployed do - or sell real estate or insurance.)

Solar Energy Initiative Consulting (SEIC)  makes almost no money but it allows you to approach and appeal to business interests turned off by environmentally oriented movements and parties , as well as anything reeking of 'academia' .

Let's go back to the think tank idea and flesh it out - but the others' histories are not that dissimilar.

There are documented, fully credible, think tanks with the founder as executive director and only full time employee, with their friend cum lawyer advisor and friend cum accountant advisor filling the other two directors chairs to meet minimal legal requirements.

The Board meets briefly once a year, again to fulfill minimum legal requirements.

 No members with ownership & voting rights (and legal liabilities).

Instead only paid-up supporters who are glad to get the publications and  attend conferences at sharp discounts for a very minimal membership fee.

Supporters who are glad not have to bear legal and financial responsibilities for law suits against the controversial organization that being a member-owner would entail.

Two major donors and much of the director's joint family income fund the organization's annual $100,000 cost.

 All monies received from other donations and from publication and conference income is far less than the cost incurred.

 (because while think tanks typically espouse "user-payer" for others , none has ever been observed actually applying it to themselves -- no one would read their policy papers, if sold at their true cost !)

But here is the rub : the new digital rules greatly lower the cost of becoming a think tanks (or lobby group et al) and this as destroyed their major advantage for the forces of wealth and greed : high entry costs made them the domain of the rich.

True, successful think tanks of all political stripes usually set up in the major government , university and conference centres :  big metropolitan cities .

This applies equally to rich think tanks of the greedy 1% as to the poor think tanks trying to help the 99%.

The overall costs are rarely much higher than locating in a smaller big city.

The cost of being in Washington DC or New York  (or Canberra or Sydney) is rarely much higher than doing it all out of St Louis or Adelaide.

But the rent, the rent !

Yes, but consider that many prominent think tank directors can humbly walk from their office to their conference's meeting hall or to the legislature or to the opposition leaders' press conference - saving much time, airfares and hotel bills.

For the rich think tanks, the main consideration is the extra time they can have mingling with the powerful in informal settings , by living in the powerfuls' home town.

But think tanks used to require incomes of millions a year to be even minimally successful.

Everything they said or did involved printing and mailing out thousands of pieces of  impressive-looking, heavy, colorful paper : most of their costs were here - not in office space or salaries.

(Many of the think tank Fellows merely need a credible hitching post between real jobs, more than they needed a real big income right now : a Fellowship at a big think tank acted like a highly visible CV and Resume .)

But free email,  free YouTube access and tiny costs for video cameras and video editing software, free or nearly free static-free long distance phone calls, free blogs and websites has made for a totally virtual global presence at virtually no cost.

But you still need to be in the centre of the action in big capitol cities.

But I have personally seen recently, ( in cities like New York, London, Toronto and Ottawa)  some truly, ahem, modest accommodations, within walking distance of the powerful, and carrying relatively modest monthly rents .

Bachelor apartments, lofts and the like over shops --- probably occupied by student types and ethnic immigrants.

Now think tanks - even today in these digital times - still require impressive offices to appear and be impressive.

Receptionist in a visually attractive outer office with plenty of flashy, expensive, paper publications for take away, a nicely wood panelled executive director's sanctum ; you know the total look, even at its bare minimum.

True, other than the director and office manager-cum-receptionist , the fellows of the think tank can be mere 'adjunct scholars' , all  employed-for-money elsewhere, but glad to hang their intellectual hat at a credible institution to spread their individual take on the world and modestly self-promote themselves at the same time.

They stay in touch by phone and email and a few (free) video conferences.

This still keeps the very minimal costs for a credible think tanks to about $200,000 a year - and among the 99% there are not enough well to do to offer up cost-free large donations on that scale on an annual basis.

We all know - or should know - that it literally cost millions in set up work before seeking small donations becomes profitable - and this only applies to a few large organizations with a unique appeal to a large subset of the population.

Among the 99%, only a large collection of small foundations, bequests and labour unions can fund a credible think tank of the conventional sort - which is why they are so rare.

Some digital aggregators are well on their way to becoming highly effective quasi-think tanks cum lobby groups cum everything.

I am thinking of digital efforts like Canada's Rabble.ca , potentially more effective than all of the other of Canada's Left-leaning organizations, baring only a few big unions, the NDP social democratic party itself, and one or two of the conventional (having an Ottawa office)  think tanks that are of the Left.

(I am here deliberately excluding the environmental type organizations from this description of the Canadian Left.)

It suggests another model for a successful modern day think tank : the personal blog.

Yes, the personal blog !

The personal blog suggests several highly attractive attributes that don't actually have to be true ---- to remain highly attractive.

If I tell you that I am typing this blog post on my bed in only my PJ bottoms because Halifax this July is unusually hot and muggy, you wouldn't likely be surprised.

Aren't all blogs - or most all blogs - done that way ?

No they are not . Take the example of James Hoggan, titular head of the blog deSmogBlog.

In the world, on the subject of climate change, this blog is very very powerful - far more listened to than anything else Canada can produce on the subject with the exception of the Fraser Institute think tank, the two national papers and a few Canadian climate change deniers' own blog efforts .

Yes I am saying that no one in the rest of the world listens to the current Canadian Government or the Official Opposition on this subject : their views are known around the world but seen as static.

In his book, Climate Cover-Up, Hoggan explains he had very humble intentions at first : merely to add a community service element to the website of his small Vancouver PR firm.

He stumbled upon climate change as the subject of that community service section: because it seemed so polarized, he thought he could offer the community an objective look at both sides.

As he researched he found no scientific controversy, only a scientific consensus combating a secretive PR  assault against it.

PR being his bread and butter, he was now hooked ; he's show how PR should be done and remain honest, versus how how bad , evil, PR was done.

He found his senior writer at his small PR firm had made a similar discovery when called upon to do just another freelance writing assignment - for David Suziki.

 A well to do friend had money and that rarity among the wealthy, a healthy conscience.

A blog was born, a blog with a difference.

Most blogs - most think tanks - most political parties - most newspapers spend most of their time reporting upon, reviewing, collating and assessing others' original date collecting.

DeSmogBlog would be different : Jim's senior writer/employee/friend Richard Littlemore would be mostly a researcher, collecting hard data the old fashioned hard way using elbow grease, contact lists and brains.

Soon other employees came on board, along with a raft of semi paid researchers and writers and a pile of pure volunteers, all driven by a passionate concern for the state of the planet.

"Greedy" think tanks, oriented to defending the right to be greedy and wealthy find far fewer staffers willing to take vows of poverty to write about becoming wealthy : these think tanks have large incomes because - frankly - they need large incomes to pay to hold credible "greed-oriented" staffers.

Now what, in fact, is a blog ?

Look at most blogs today and you will see a very cluttered Home Page, like any other active website's Home Page, (once beyond the dignified Splash Page that sometime still exists on some sites).

Yes, the centre will usually be a single column news story - so separating a blog right away from the internet newspaper or magazine's multi new column format.

But the sides are cluttered with other colums filled with gadgets or widgets : each acting as portals to dozens or hundreds of other web pages.

Join, donate, comment, read archival material, join a supporter forum, find out the purpose of this website and who is behind it, sign up for a conference, buy a paper-copy book, download a lengthy PDF ebook position paper. Find who else supports this website and who else the website itself supports.

On and on and on.

Almost anything a political party, think tank, academic society, lobby group or NGO does today (except hold face to face conferences) can be hung off a blog - in beautiful fonts and vivid color - free.

Yet because it is a blog (ie proverbially produced in a bedroom in PJs) it has no need for an expensive office and in fact I believe the large office suite HQ greatly harms the street cred of any blog that is stupid enough to show off them off.

When James Fallows and The Atlantic were permitted by GAWKER to do a long cover story on the inside operation of this blog empire in April 2011, I don't think GAWKER-the-blogger ever recovered.

Blogs that aim to be big, best look to the successful models of the past where a single individual became the public face and personality of the brand but the superstructure of editors and researchers and office managers who kept them afloat remained largely hidden.

Canada's Pierre Berton was a hard working, clever writer and researcher but he upped even his prodigious output once he added a lot of fact checkers, researchers and TV show producers etc.

Drew Pearson, an American muckraking syndicated columnist from the 1950s era, also had his back room helpers.

I am guessing that Drew Pearson-the-journalist had to have a formal office but Berton, once he more or less left regular journalism and became a writer did not.

We suspect and dislike writers with formal, public office suites and a public business plan of writing 3000 words a day without fail.

We call this sort of writer "genre" writers or "hacks".

This means we expect writers to be untutored geniuses of the sort the Romantic Era so admired - and I suspect blogger writers, to be fully successful, need to appear to be the same.

Bedroom offices, PJs, may be just the louche image required.

Yet off that tiny 'bedsit' , one can- and maybe should - hang an entire institutional empire.

Don't hire employees to write - ask fellow bloggers who bring a lot of expertise in areas you don't have, to write guest blog posts for free - because they need the visibility your blog has, that their blog does not, yet.

If you aren't making any money and don't plan to, they will not get paid either - in money - yet feel it is a fair exchange.

They could guest blog about the long research paper they just wrote and link to the entire PDF - who wants to work a year on something and watch it die virtually unread ?

Step by step, you could become a quasi-think tank - without needing millions in annual revenue - and finally we the 99% would be able to match the greedy 1%'s think tanks in quantity of  institutions and written output.

I welcome your comments and suggestions on these thoughts....

Jun 13, 2012

"Within a year, you WILL have read Ozzie Zehner's 'Green Illusions' " - SVE

Ozzie Zehner
      I am practically salivating , waiting to get my hands on Ozzie Zehner's latest book, GREEN ILLUSIONS.
     In it he makes clear that we don't now, never have and never will face an energy crisis - as in 'too little energy'.
   Rather we face the effects of excessive energy use and adding solar panels and windmills, alone, will only make it worse - by expanding the energy supply and thus, in effect, lowering the cost of all energy - all energy as in coal and oil.

    So we can afford to use more and more and more - till the greenhouse gases kill us all.
   Rather like improving gas mileage in the 1980s, only to discover we let ourselves spent just as much as ever on gas per year - but got to drive a lot more miles out of our improved ,energy-efficient, new cars !
    So our real crisis is a consumption crisis - more particularly a urban planning-induced consumption crisis.
   Until we de-urban-plan our cities, towns (and yes even villages) so they look as they did 200 years ago or more (in fact, back into the mists of time) we will be forced to use too much energy - by design.
    Urban design.
    But yesterday's biggest cities were small and walkable (& bike-friendly) and we needed far less energy to live.
   Shops, work, school was much closer at hand. We rented our home and simply moved when we changed jobs - rather than just staying put and buying another car or a bigger car to deal with the change.
   I can assure you that you will be hearing a lot about Ozzie's book - from both the bad guys (Cato Institute and ad nauseum) and from the good guys, sites like Desmogblog - over the next year or so....

Apr 22, 2012

why aren't there more FEMALE deniers ?

Michael Marshall
Heavens knows the entry level to mint good coin 'denying' is absurdly low.

I very carefully checked the database that desmogblog  maintains of people prominent in the climate denying industry, looking for female deniers.


I found but four female deniers and then noticed that one of them, Joanne Nova, only had a BSc.

 Despite this, the denier industry obviously found her credentials (or her telegenic face) sufficient to let her be both well-quoted and well paid.

Her face just may be it - that and the relative lack of any sort of female deniers generally.

I am not alone in feeling that many of right wing's female TV-ready pundits definitely have a consistent look about them : in their thirties or forties, good looking in a countryclub set sort of way , attractive (but yet non-threatening) for conservative males over the age of 50.

Sarah Palin or Danielle Smith : yes it is the haircut !

But back down here in realityland, relatively few women, even in right wing circles, are truly active in climate denial ,even at a political level.

They'll stick up for the team, if pushed, but they have no bile to their bite.

It's men who are the most strident in the claim that Man has 'no limits' to what he can do.

I can help but feel that for women, even just the potential to bear and raise children, really does reduce this mania to
play God with Nature.....