International Climate Science Coalition Bets that a Lie, Repeated Often Enough ...

In the public relations version of waterboarding, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has re-released a six-week-old petition claiming once again that the science academies of every country in the developing world are all wrong about global warming.

The petition features a familiar cast of characters - tobacco apologists and energy industry regulars - and is being plumped up by an energy industry lobbyist who has moved full-time into climate change denial.

The force behind the ICSC is public relations consultant and lobbyist Tom Harris, the person who organized the coming-out party for the now-discredited Friends of Science. Harris later abandoned the “Friends” and “quit” his job at the Toronto-based energy industry lobby firm The High Park Group to set up the High Park-supported Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).

Consistent through all these groups have been the “scientists” who continue to lend their name to the denial effort. Check the Friends Scientific Advisory Board, the NRSP Science Advisory Committee and the ICSC Science Advisory Board and you pretty soon start recognizing names. You have people like Fred Singer, who has long been willing to lend his name to big tobacco, to the DDT industry, to the ozone destroying CFC industry and, recently, to the energy industry, but who has a bad habit of trying to deny it after the fact.

You have the guileful Tim Ball, who found that making up details about his own (unspectacular) academic career was just as easy as freehanding graphs that purport to tell us something relevant about climate change. Only the name of the organization seems to change, as well as the current Chair, now Tim Patterson instead of Tim Ball. The good news about Patterson taking the position is that it might give him less time to peddle his silliness to impressionable young students at Carleton University in Ottawa.

The people in this group have argued repeatedly that science is not a popularity event, that the scientific consensus that is evident in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is no consensus at all, because some scientists disagree.

But the IPCC actually assembles, reviews and presents for analysis the latest science on global warming. But Harris's ever morphing mob just keeps coming up with goofy petitions, the Oregon Petition, the Slick 60, and now the “Manhattan Declaration.” There is nothing of science in this. It's purest PR - and not very good PR at that.

I suppose it's nice for the Harris family that Tom can continue to charge different (oily?) people money for this work. But it's still a mystery how the guy sleeps at night.


“International Climate Science Coalition Bets that a Lie, Repeated Often Enough …”

Jealous that someone may be horning in on your territory? –

“So, when communicating new information: repeat, repeat, repeat […] Your “new” truth may also require many repetitions.”
– James “Jim” Hoggan, President, Hoggan and Associates Inc. Public Relations Firm, publisher of “”

Rob, are you the only one who thinks “new information” is synonymous with “lies”?

When this “information” comes from a firm of public relations hucksters, I’d say the odds are pretty good.

But I’m kinda whacky like that.

Do you visit websites of all of the other PR groups (ABEC, NRSP, etc) and tell them their ‘information’ constitutes lies? How evenly do you apply your probabilistic approach? Did Grandia ‘twist the truth’ in discussing advancing treelines in Sweden? No, but you didn’t let that stop you. You just keep repeating insults and falsehoods, regardless of realities. I look forward to your next repetition of “Little-more” – yeah, that shows maturity and credibility.

It seems like setting up these groups is pretty easy, as is populating the advisory boards, etc. Can anybody do it? I bet that would be an education!

A couple new names on the list. Charles E. Murray, the guy who runs Crandell Canyon mine (which collapsed last summer) had his whole family sign up. Joe Bastardi looks like he got his brother to sign up.

I’ve written about them back at BCLSB.

Wow. Desmog has outdone itself.
SMear, smear, smear with nearly no actual truth anywhere.
Friends Of Science Discredited????
By who? For what?
The only attempts I have ever seen to Discredit them were from Desmog.
Which means approximately nothing.

It must be getting difficult to keep pumping out the popoganda with so many others now telling the truth every day.

Keep trying though. Some Sheeple still buy the nonsense.

Here’s a Gem:
“But the IPCC actually assembles, reviews and presents for analysis the latest science on global warming.”

The IPCC report is years out of date.
The cutoff for submission was May 2006.

Keep the lies flowing.

Too bad troll is incapable of using the search function on this website to find the many articles about Friends of Science, NRSP, Harris, etc.

Apparently everyone including bush must have missed out on all the revolutionary science in the last 2 years, that has totally changed the face of climate understanding. I mean surely if its 2 years old and its content has totally and completely been replaced with new understanding, some ground breaking and head turning stuff has happened in the last 2 years to change everything!…Wow, I must have missed those publications…..damn netdoc why are you excluding all this shattering research from my literature searches.

Actually a lot of the Up To Date information has been posted here.
But as usual, the local Denial and smear team jumps on each and every item with made up “debunk” statements or some character assination attempt and then completely ignors the facts and pretends that all is right in AGW land.
It has been VERY amusing to watch.

Soon enough, even you hard core cultists will have to notice that the Planet has not been playing by the AGW industry rules.

Noen of you will ever admit it though. You will simply not show up anymore. Common.

The problem with what you say that desmog goes after PR related firms/think tanks. They don’t go after journal articles or scientific publications. The way I see it folks like Dr. Tim Ball have 0 publications on climate change of any kind in the last 20 years, who take money from energy and corporate interests, i.e. doing PR work, makes it fair game to call their claims and statements into question. If Dr.Ball were to publish these claims in a scientific journal backed up by evidence, well then that’s another story, but he doesn’t, he puts them into newspapers and online publications because, quite honesty, there is no basis to much of what he claims and would never be published in a credible journal. While that might seem dismissive, perhaps hes right and everyone including all the major scientific academies are wrong.

So while you call it smearing the individuals, I call it calling them out on their statements and who’s paying them to say them. Desmog is a good site for that purpose, but I also know who pays their bills, so really if I wanted to read literature related to global warming this isn’t the place. So while that is said, I’ve never seen them attack any scientific publications in a credible journal. That would be because the vast majority of the people you claim they are smearing don’t publish any science on climate topics or have long histories of being deniers for hire, ala Dr Singer (whos denied everything from smoking causes cancer, CFS destroying the ozone, and taken money each time from corporate interests to act as a denier)

So while you post about how the understanding of climate has changed significantly in the last 2 years, using internet ramblings from catholic bishop X in Australia I dont believe this is going to shake the foundation of climate understanding that arrives in academic journals. Having been a student of science for 10 years and now practicing it, I accept science as the best explanations at any given time and am more than willing to change based on evidence to new ideas. Even in the past 2 years I’ve accepted that ABA receptor mutants cause root emergence while seeds at still in the fruits, an important botanical concept as ABA was not known to act as such an important germination inhibitor. Much the same because science is in flux ever increasing in detail, I have no problems changing my outlook based on scientific work.

Still waiting for all your publications totally changing, no revolutionizing, the understanding of climate though

Here is a short list of peer reviewed papers that refute AGW:

Now I know you will immediately point out that none of these are valid because the person that compiled the list is an evil denier, but…. your opinion on that is irrelevant.

As I have stated sooooooo many times.
The basic science behind the hypothysis is ok.
It is the assumptions and biases that set the weighting of the factors that is way out of wack.
Start adding up all the unknowns and not sure ofs and not accounted fors and then add in:
The obvious bias from UHI
The clear adjustment bias of GISS
The Rediculous palcement of instrements
The historical record
The current 10 year non trend
The emerging understanding of oceanic osscellations
The recent findings of the effect of dust and soot
The emerging understanding of the regulating effect of the oceans on CO2


I just find it impossible to explain the tenacious hold the AGW industry has on its CO2 cause myth without factoring in either religeon or conspiracy.
I just can’t accept that all of you are that stupid or that blind.

Funny stuff. “Current 10 year trend” is a key word for the group that denies not only AGW, butg also El Nino. “Rediculous palcement of instrements” is another favorite (well, if we can guess the actual meaning). Fortunately, students in introductory geography classes have heard about the urban heat island effect for around 40 years now, so the tiny percentage of the weather stations that are in affected urban centres are compared to those outside, in the atmosphere, etc. Unfortunately, some people who are self-taught in meteorology are only recently discovering this phenomonon, misunderstanding the principle, and assuming it explains everything, despite the fact that the rural stations do not show cooling. You can find examples with google. Here is one that has the added treat of informing us that Antarctica is “rural”.


FC: Could you summarize the evidence that suggests the world is cooling slightly, not warming up?

TB: Yes, since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record. When you look at rural stations – if you look at the Antarctic, for example – the South Pole shows cooling since 1957 and the satellite data which has been up since 1978 shows a slight cooling trend as well.”