climate deniers

Interesting Events You Won’t Want to Miss At The Paris COP21 Climate Conference

The time has finally arrived. We're on the Eurostar heading to Paris for the COP21 climate conference kick-off.

On Monday, the world is meeting in Paris to (hopefully) agree a deal that will curb our carbon emissions and avert catastrophic climate change.

The stakes are high. Over the course of just two weeks, we’ll see leaders doing backroom negotiations, and countries from every corner of our planet will be working hard to have their voice heard. Meanwhile, others – be it green NGOs or climate deniers – will be doing their best to influence the decisions.

This is why DeSmog UK has put together a quick guide highlighting some on-the-ground events we're hoping to cover. You won’t want to miss it.

Climate Denying GWPF Wants ‘Objective Media Reporting’, Rejects UK Journalist From Annual Conference

This is a guest post by freelance journalist Victoria Seabrook, MA City Journalism graduate with work published in the Guardian and Evening Standard.

Climate change deniers assembled at a highly secretive meeting in London on Wednesday October 14 to discuss the celebration of carbon dioxide.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a think tank and charity set up by Lord Lawson, invited Canadian climate denier Dr Patrick Moore to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers at Westminster, to deliver this year’s annual GWPF lecture.

Unfortunately I was prevented from reporting what the climate change deniers discussed. Any chancers – including myself – hoping to attend were met with three officious representatives, who would only grant entrance to those already accredited.

Edelman Wins Cautious Praise For Ditching Climate Denier and Coal Clients

This is a guest post by Dan Zegart from the Climate Investigations Center.

The world's largest public relations firm said today it will no longer represent coal producers or climate change deniers.

Edelman's change of direction was reported today in a story in the Guardian newspaper that was based on a leaked internal email.

The email revealed that the company concluded a two-year long ethical review process by deciding to ban coal companies and deniers — including front groups that espouse climate denial on behalf of companies or other interests — but will continue to work for oil and gas firms and the rest of the fossil fuel industry.

On climate denial and coal those are where we just said this is absolutely a no-go area,” Michael Stewart, the president and chief executive for Europe, who led the review, told the Guardian.

Greenwashing, fake front groups, anything like that is completely inappropriate,” Stewart continued.

Who's Behind the Attack on the Pope's Climate Encyclical?

Pope Francis

It is an open secret now that Pope Francis will deliver a papal encyclical on June 18 focusing heavily on the issue of energy consumption, climate change and “the unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem.”  

And of course with any major public event on climate change, the same small and very vocal group of climate change science deniers and conspiracy theorists are trying to distort the message, and (of all things) discredit Pope Francis and his concern about climate change.

For those who regulalry read DeSmog and follow climate issues, this attack on the credibility of the Pope is not surprising, as it is the same people, rehashing the same tired talking points on behalf of the same organizations we have been outing for close to a decade for their lack of credentials in climate science and connections to fossil fuel companies looking to delay action on climate change. 

Climate Deniers Double Down on Doubt In Defense of Willie Soon

Willie Soon Heartland

This is a guest post by Peter Dykstra cross-posted from Environmental Health News/The Daily Climate

The most remarkable aspect of Willie Soon’s soiled science scandal is that in the light of damning evidence of a serious ethical lapse, the climate denial camp shows no interest in self-policing.

When documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act showed Soon was promising “deliverables” for climate research funded by fossil fuel affiliates, the judgment outside the climate denial sphere was swift, largely because the evidence was from Soon’s own hand.

But many who embrace climate denial not only saw nothing wrong with this, they circled the wagons around their embattled Man of Science.

Denial For Hire: Richard Lindzen Cites Debunked Science to Defend Willie Soon in Wall Street Journal

This is a guest post by Climate Nexus that originally appeared at Huffington Post

Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor and longtime climate contrarian, turned to the Wall Street Journal to rehash a series of oft-disproved claims that deny the growing and now unequivocal evidence of climate change, all in defense of a fellow “skeptic” whose ties to fossil fuels have called into question the impartiality of his science.

Lindzen's arguments are a greatest-hits of climate denial, repeatedly and effectively disproved for years. He uses these easily dismissed arguments to defend what's left of the academic integrity of Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon against questions raised by members of Congress, who heard testimony from Soon without disclosure that he was being paid by fossil-fuel interests.

Lindzen's writing contained multiple errors or omissions. He:

•  Ignored the accuracy of climate models over the long term

•  Confused the impact of the sun on observed warming, long studied and long ago disregarded

•  Dismissed multiple lines of evidence by claiming clouds would offset warming

•  Glossed over the egregious breach of ethics in Soon's lack of disclosure of over $1 million in funding from fossil fuel interests

•  Mischaracterized as threatening an attempt to identify improper industry influence on studies and Congressional testimony

Heartland Institute 58 Experts Poster Remixed by DeSmog

Richard Tol

Richard Tol


  • M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1992
  • Ph.D. Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1997

Source: [1]

Climate Scientist Andrew Weaver Wins $50,000 in Defamation Suit Against National Post, Terence Corcoran

The B.C. Supreme Court awarded $50,000 in damages to climate scientist Andrew Weaver in a ruling Friday that confirms articles published by the National Post defamed his character.

The ruling names Terence Corcoran, editor of the Financial Post, Peter Foster, a columnist at the National Post, Kevin Libin, a journalist that contributes to the Financial Post and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher.

Four articles published in 2009 and 2010 refer to Weaver, now MLA for Canada’s Green Party, as an “alarmist” who disseminates “agit-prop” and a “sensationalist” that “cherry-picked” data as “Canada’s warmest spinner-in-chief.” Weaver was previously a lead author on a number of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports.

In the damages section of the ruling (attached below), Madam Justice Emily Burke notes, “the defamation in this case was serious. It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction.”

Justice Burke concluded the defendants “have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts,” adding, “they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts.”

Weaver told DeSmog Canada he’s “thrilled” with the ruling.

MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages

Sen Inhofe shows an obsolete, false-cited graph

On January 21, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) again displayed the same deception/incompetence that pervaded his book, The Greatest Hoax (2012).
In this video segment (3:00-5:20), he presented a poster on the Senate floor that matches the image below from “Kyoto by Degrees,” an anonymous Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Opinion piece, June 21, 2005.  Both contained claims plausibly called academic or journalistic deception, created for public confusion.

Regardless of ancient temperatures, modern temperature rise is human-caused, not just natural variation: you damaged your furnace so it now ignores the thermostat.  Heat varies erratically, room by room, and day by day,  but each week the house  is overall wamer than the last. Your attic Arctic fridge's ice cubes are melting and even the basement freezer is starting to struggle. The furnace will take months to fix, and you need to start, whether or not you believe rumors that some previous owner experienced warmer weather.

MWP's ambiguity causes confusion, so will be qualified, as Lamb MWP, BigMWP and ScienceMWP, explained below. 

Following is the WSJ image Inhofe used without mentioning that source:

WSJ image from 2005.06.21Trend in average” : Deception.
The original curve was sketched in 1965 by Hubert Lamb, who grafted estimates of 900-1680AD with 1680-1961AD measurements compiled by Gordon Manley.   It covered  a 21x34-mile patch of England, no more, and most is an estimate, not a reconstruction.  Call that Lamb MWP, honest scientific effort, although estimates at left are known to be high.
It is false to imply this curve to be  global or even a reconstruction, as deniers have been doing since 1991.  Call that  over-claim BigMWP.

“exactly as shown”: Falsification. false citation. Real science uses captions and caveats,  ignored here by cherry-pickers who plucked the graph out of context and even altered the image.

“mean”: Fabrication to explain an unprovenanced image.
Someone just made it up. The IPCC wrote: The dotted line “nominally represents” the start of the 20th century.”  

Lamb MWP curve never global, real science improves

The real IPCC 7.1(c) with caption

The attached 4-page excerpt from IPCC(1990) includes the real p.202 image in context, shown below for easy comparison with this altered version.  Someone changed “Years before present” (sic) to “Year,” deleted (c), capitalized all words and  converted sans-serif to serif font. 

The resulting image was copied along murky paths, including onto p.33 of Inhofe's Greatest Hoax book, which cited it as “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, the IPCC Scientific Assessment 202 (1990).  His story is clearly refuted by IPCC's surrounding text pp.199-203. 

The real image was clearly captioned a schematic, i.e., a sketch. The 1990 scientists thought the LIA was global, and but they stated clear reservations about MWP (really BigMWP) as global and synchronous, while certainly accepting warmth in some areas.  IPCC(1992) had other curves, not this. 


Subscribe to climate deniers