Australia NZ

see australia Oz 2

capt 818

bak 120

see sep NZ esp shooter

NZ PM on colbert 9 25

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/radicalized-right-wingers-uniting-online-many-inspired-by-trump-threaten-democracy-overseas/

cmn dr

no twt pix lnx

australian researchers published a study this week mapping the online activity of right-wing extremists in New South Wales, concluding such individuals—many of them inspired by U.S. President Donald Trump—pose an "insidious" threat to the country's democracy.

The study, Mapping Networks and Narratives of Online Right-Wing Extremists in New South Wales, was conducted by researchers at Macquarie University and Victoria University, who analyzed the Facebook pages of 30 extreme right-wing groups and tens of thousands of tweets from over 3,300 users in the southeastern state.

The researchers found that on numerous social media platforms—including Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Gab, 4chan, and 8chan/kun—communities of mostly young men are uniting over "the theme of white identity under threat."

Anti-semitism, Islamophobia, and far-right conspiracy theories like QAnon are common narratives used to engage and recruit young men into extremist groups, the study found. Trump plays a significant role in the conversation, according to Macquarie University researcher Julian Droogan.

"Trump is really held up as an example of a defender of white identity by many in this extreme subculture," Droogan told The Guardian. "However, we also see it being presented in a distinctly Australian way."

The researchers found that right-wing extremism fueled by social media poses a serious threat to Australian democracy.

"The propagation of extremist narratives online serves to polarize political debate, and to undermine trust in institutions and democracy," the study asserts. "Social media is playing a key role in the rise of right-wing violent extremism."

As an example, the authors cite the Christchurch terror attack, in which a Trump-supporting Australian white supremacist livestreamed his massacre of 51 Muslims worshipping in a New Zealand mosque last March.

The researchers call on Australian leaders to work to safeguard the nation's political system "from these very insidious and ongoing threats."

[.@ASIOGovAu have repeatedly made clear the real, growing, and dangerous threat right-wing extremists pose in Australia.

In fact, almost half of ASIO’s counter-terrorism work is focussed on right-wing extremists (and COVID has played a role in that).]

The rise in right-wing extremism is reflected in statements from the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation, Australia's domestic spy agency, which recently revealed that up to 40% of its counter-terrorism cases now involve far-right extremism.

620?! guk

New Zealand / Beaches turn red as lobsters dig in to the death

cpac vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKET8Hs2aac

sky news aust murdoch

Self-proclaimed "climate realist" and "anti-Greta Thunberg sensation" Naomi Seibt says while she doesn’t deny the climate is warming, "the effect is absolutely insignificant”. Ms Seibt said the world "did benefit from some amount of warming” because it encouraged “better crop yields” which she said allowed the earth to sustain a growing population. According to Ms Seibt, Greta Thunberg’s rejection of the European Union’s proposal of zero net emissions by 2050 was “just another way to spread panic”. “I have never heard her talk about the science so how is she supposed to know anything about the perfect political measures to take when it comes to climate change,” Ms Seibt told Sky News host Chris Smith. “We need cheap and reliable energy” and "we cannot drive people into eco-depression, eco-anxiety and energy-poverty. “It’s fantastic if we invest in research on alternative energy sources” but we must be careful not to “demonize alternative sources like nuclear energy,” she said.

https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/australias-climate-carnage-is-an-urgent-warning-to-america-and-the-world/

icn 120

in Australia's Burning Forests, Signs We've Passed a Global Warming Tipping Point

BY: BOB BERWYN

"Nobody saw it coming this soon, even though it was like a freight train," one scientist said. "It’s likely the forests won’t be coming back as we know them.

As extreme wildfires burn across large swaths of Australia, scientists say we're witnessing how global warming can push forest ecosystems past a point of no return.

Some of those forests won't recover in today's warmer climate, scientists say. They expect the same in other regions scarred by flames in recent years; in semi-arid areas like parts of the American West, the Mediterranean Basin and Australia, some post-fire forest landscapes will shift to brush or grassland.

More than 17 million acres have burned in Australia over the last three months amid record heat that has dried vegetation and pulled moisture from the land. Hundreds of millions of animals, including a large number of koalas, are believed to have perished in the infernos. The survivors will face drastically changed habitats. Water flows and vegetation will change, and carbon emissions will rise as burning trees release carbon and fewer living trees are left to pull CO2 out of the air and store it.

In many ways, it's the definition of a tipping point, as ecosystems transform from one type into another.

The surge of large, destructive forest fires from the Arctic to the tropics just in the last few years has shocked even researchers who focus on forests and fires and who have warned of such tipping points for years.

The projections were seen as remote, "something that would happen much farther in the future," said University of Arizona climate scientist David Breashers. "But it's happening now. Nobody saw it coming this soon, even though it was like a freight train.

"It's likely the forests won't be coming back as we know them."...

https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/us-broadcast-news-coverage-australian-fires-largely-fails-connect-crisis-climate

corp news fail connect fires to age, plus

:{Amid raging bushfire, Rupert Murdoch's Australian media empire turns a blind eye to climate crisis:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:

:{:(style="box-sizing:border-box;display:flex;height:1.5em;margin-right:1em;width:1.5em"):}:01/06/20 3:32 PM EST

pm heckled

[talkies 2010 drought russia lost 1/3 wht crop --> arab spring?!]

jet stream oscillation dry out CA --> wildfire?

Australia welcomes in 2020 — and shows the world the devastating effects of the climate crisis

Mark Sumner / Daily Kos

Many times on New Year’s Eve, people in the United States are treated to pictures of revelry in Australia as the peculiarities of the International Date Line officially usher in the next year many hours in advance of the ball drop in Times Square.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/everything-is-burning-australian-inferno-continues-choking-access-to-cities-across-the-country/

abc has to do news outside b/c smoke alarms canberra, record hi temps, fires

Australia Protesters Pitch Tents Outside PM House over Climate Crisis

rhet media 2019

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1177083X.2018.1503605

11/21

https://time.com/5735660/sydney-bushfires/

TIME

As Smoke From Bush Fires Chokes Sydney, Australian

Prime Minister Dodges on Climate Change

Australia's Prime Minister refused to admit a direct link between the bushfires in Sydney and climate change. Here's what scientists say.

hazardous smoke from raging bushfires blanket Sydney’s landmarks on Thursday, the Australian Prime Minister refused to admit a direct link between the fires and the country’s carbon emissions, which are among the highest per capita in the world.

Health officials have issued warnings over “hazardous” air pollution levels as Sydney’s Opera House was shrouded with smoke. The smoke around Sydney and the north-coast is set to settle and remain in the area for the rest of Thursday, fire officials said. Members of the public, especially those with respiratory health issues, are advised to avoid all outdoor physical activities.

Fires have devastated large areas of the country since Oct. 20. New South Wales has seen the most severe and dangerous fires, with six people killed and around 1.7 million hectares burned. Climate Change has played a key role in the bushfires, Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has said. They said: “Climate change is influencing the frequency and severity of dangerous bushfire conditions in Australia and other regions of the world.”

However, amid the bushfire crisis, Scott Morrison, Australia’s Prime Minister has argued that there is no direct link between Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and the severity of the fires burning across the country. He told ABC AU during a radio interview on Thursday that there was no “credible scientific evidence” that cutting carbon emissions could reduce the severity of the fires.

https://www.ecowatch.com/sydney-water-shortage-2641353372.html

https://yyy.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/11/dear-michael-mccormack-the-only-raving-lunatics-are-those-not-worrying-about-climate-change

punked GUK then

https://yyy.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/24/bjrn-lomborg-centre-got-640000-for-report-saying-limiting-warming-rise-to-2c-not-worth-it

guk no lnx

Bjørn Lomborg centre got $640,000 for report saying limiting warming rise to 2C not worth it

This article is more than 3 years old

Exclusive: Revealed under freedom of information, cost came before Copenhagen Consensus Centre’s controversial $4m Australian program dropped

Paul Karp

@Paul_Karp

Fri 23 Sep 2016 18.03 EDTLast modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 12.09 EST

Bjørn Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre was paid $640,000 before its Australian program was dropped. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images

Australia’s education department paid Bjørn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre $640,000 to help produce a report that claimed limiting world temperature increases to 2C was a “poor” use of money.

The $640,000 cost, incurred before the CCC’s controversial $4m Australian program was junked, is revealed in the 2016 incoming ministerial brief published under freedom of information laws.

An education department spokeswoman told Guardian Australia the $640,000 represented the Australian government contribution to the CCC for the Smarter UN Post-2015 Development Goals project.

Bjørn Lomborg's $4m centre rejected by Flinders University academics

The project concluded that for every dollar spent on keeping global temperatures to the 2C target, less than $1 of social, economic or environmental benefit resulted, which it described as a “poor” result.

Other spending with “poor” returns included cutting outdoor air pollution, increasing protected biodiversity areas, better disaster resilience for the poor and reducing child marriages.

Projects with “phenomenal” returns included reducing world trade restrictions through the Doha trade round, which it said would produce $2,011 for every dollar spent, and universal access to contraception which would return $120 on the dollar.

Some environmental projects rated as good investments, with “more energy research” rating an $11 return, and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies likely to yield $15 or more.

The education department spokeswoman said the CCC had provided a comprehensive report on 169 funding possibilities across 22 core issues, which was published as the Nobel Laureates’ Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World, 2016-2030.

Australian taxpayers funding climate contrarian's methods with $4m Bjørn Lomborg centre

Graham Readfearn

The project explained its conclusions were “based on peer-reviewed analyses from 82 of the world’s top economists and 44 sector experts”.

Its brochure notes financial support was provided by the Australian government. A spokesman for the CCC said the $640,000 was for costs incurred and that the intended work of the Australian Consensus Centre, which included the development goal project, was a matter of public record.

In April 2015 Guardian Australia revealed the then Abbott government’s plan to spend $4m over four years to bring the Copenhagen Consensus Centre methodology to Australia at a new centre in the University of Western Australia’s business school.

UWA rejected the funds after a public backlash leading to a search for a new home for the Australian Consensus Centre.

The project was axed later in 2015 when Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister, which the brief explains was caused by the government’s conclusion it was “unlikely to enjoy success and that the funds could be better utilised elsewhere”.

Flinders University staff and students keep fighting Bjørn Lomborg centre

The brief notes the centre’s Australian program was to cost $4m to provide “policy information and advice on smart, cost-effective solutions to national and international challenges” before it was dropped in mid 2015.

“The department has negotiated a funding agreement which will provide a one-off payment to the CCC for a total of $640,000 to cover costs incurred in relation to the establishment of the Australian Consensus Centre prior to the decision to cancel this project,” it said.

The shadow innovation, industry, science and research minister, Kim Carr, questioned why the government had “felt the need to keep [the $640,000] secret”.

“The department of education needs to explain why in one document the secretary is told that this money was establishment costs around the centre, but now states that the $640,000 was for a specific research project,” he said.

The Liberals must explain their actions.

Kim Carr

“When government research money is in such sort supply for Australia’s best and brightest scientists and researchers, the Liberals must explain their actions here.”

Carr accused the Abbott and Turnbull governments of “using taxpayers’ money in an attempt to promote an anti-science conservative agenda”.

An education department spokeswoman refuted the suggestion it had sought to hide the payment, and cited the fact the $640,000 grant was also disclosed in a log of education grants created on 2 July 2015 and made public on 22 April 2016.

ew 919

While more than 130 wildfires are raging across two states in eastern Australia — Queensland and New South Wales — at an unusually early part of the spring, taxing the water supplies of the drought-stricken country, the country's federal appointee for handling disasters expressed doubts that humans are causing the climate crisis. Then, the next day he made a head scratching about face and said he believes in climate science and always has, according to guk

919

:{The Monthly /:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: How Australia's former Labor Party leader moved to the far-right

Australia Cuts Outlook for Great Barrier Reef to ‘Very Poor’ for First Time icn 919

Investigating the investigative reporters: Bad news from Down Under

Michael J. Socolow, University of Maine

An American media scholar studying in Australia looks at the protections offered by the two countries for investigative reporting, raising crucial questions about journalism's role in democracy.

:{NRA:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Advised Far-Right Australian Party on Overturning Gun Controls

This comes as an undercover investigation by Al Jazeera English found officials with the National Rifle Association gave advice to members of Australia’s far-right One Nation Party on their campaign to overturn Australia’s strict gun control laws, enacted after a mass shooting in 1996. This is an NRA media liaison speaking in Washington, D.C., to members of the One Nation Party in a secretly recorded video.

Lars Dalseide: “You have somebody who maybe leans to your side that worked at a newspaper, or maybe he was covering city hall or a crime reporter. We want to print up stories about people who were robbed, had their homes invaded, beaten, or whatever it might be, that could have been helped had they had a gun. And that’s going to be the angle on your stories. And that’s what he’s got to write. He’s got to put out two to five of those a week.”

nat'l leadership ping pongs?

Guns, Climate Denial and Conspiracies: Al Jazeera Captures Australian Far Right Political Figures Meeting Koch Industries

Sitting in the offices of Koch Industries in Washington D.C., far-right Australian politician Steve Dickson shows his hand in a request...

omg no lnx

https://yyy.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand

The long read

Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in New Zealand

How an extreme libertarian tract predicting the collapse of liberal democracies – written by Jacob Rees-Mogg’s father – inspired the likes of Peter Thiel to buy up property across the Pacific

by Mark O'Connell

australia cut bags 80% 3 mos

https://www.ecowatch.com/ipcc-report-2018-australia-2611176911.html

Australia's coal-loving lawmakers dismissed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) warningto phase out the polluting fossil fuel by 2050.

In a recent interview with SkyNews, deputy prime minister Michael McCormack said Australia will "absolutely" continue to use and exploit its coal reserves regardless of what the IPCC report says.

...

Australia is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, with relentless drought, deadly wildfires and devastating bleaching at the iconic Great Barrier Reef. At the same time, Australia is one of the world's largest coal exporters, accounting for 37 percent of global exports.

In the major United Nations report on Sunday, the world's top climate scientists said that limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C will stop catastrophic global warming and help prevent Australia's imperiled coral reefs from destruction.

However, McCormack insisted to SkyNews that the government will not change its policies "just because somebody might suggest that some sort of report is the way we need to follow and everything that we should do."

Coal mining, McCormack said, is very important to Australia because it provides 60 percent of the country's electricity, 50,000 workers and is its largest export.

He added that he has not "seen anything that's going to replace coal in the near future" and maintained that coal will be an important part of the energy mix for more than 10 years.

Environment minister Melissa Price, who used to work for the mining industry, further advocated for coal and suggested the 91 scientists behind the IPCC report were wrong in their findings.

...

bad news, denier

Australia Boots Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in Favor of Further-Right Leader Scott Morrison After Fight in Party

The Conversation

A fight in the center-right party resulted in Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull being ousted. READ MORE»

ecowatch

Australian Prime Minister Ousted Over Climate Policy

Conservative lawmaker Scott Morrison has forced out Malcolm Turnbull as Australian prime minister, the third time the country's leader has sunk over climate policy in the past decade, and the seventh since 1997, according to Australia's ABC News.

An internal Liberal party row started when Turnbull proposed modest emissions targets for the country's energy sector. He dropped the plans Monday after pressure from the party's right-wing faction, but that led to a narrowly defeated leadership challenge from Peter Dutton on Tuesday, then a final ousting from Morrison on Friday.

Keep reading...

Indigenous Australians Take Fight Against Giant Coal Mine to the United Nations

https://www.ecowatch.com/tesla-australia-power-plant-2572035489.html

Australia’s richest person, mining magnate Gina Rinehart, has been revealed as a key funder of the right wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) — a major pusher of climate science denial.

Rinehart’s company, Hancock Prospecting Proprietary Ltd (HPPL), donated $2.3 million to the IPA in 2016 and $2.2 million in 2017, according to disclosures made to the New South Wales Supreme Court.

As part of a long-running legal dispute over the use of company funds, Gina Rinehart’s daughter Bianca had served a subpoena to access documents that would have shed light on the two donations from HPPLto the IPA.

The IPA is an influential right wing think tank with close ties to Australia’s governing Liberal Party. IPA fellows regularly appear in the media. The payments suggest that more than a third of the IPA’s income in 2016 and 2017 was from HPPL — majority-owned privately by Gina Rinehart

aussie heard slam?

https://www.ecowatch.com/scientists-hit-back-another-paper-claims-100-renewables-is-possible-and-affordable-2569987338.html

Scientists Hit Back: Another Paper Claims 100% Renewables is Possible and Affordable

Is it possible for the world to run on 100 percent renewable energy? It's a noble goal, as the best science tells us we must significantly slash fossil fuel consumption or else the planet faces dangerous climate change.

A number of academics believe it's not only feasible to wean off coal, natural gas and other polluting fuels by transitioning to renewable sources such as solar and wind power, it's even cost-effective.

https://www.ecowatch.com/tesla-australia-battery-2568719032.html

Tesla's Giant Australian Battery Saved Consumers $35 Million in Four Months

Since switching on in December, Tesla's massive battery in South Australia has already drastically lowered prices in the region's frequency and ancillary services market (FCAS) and has taken a major share of that market, Renew Economy reported.

During Australian Energy Week, McKinsey and Co. partner Godart van Gendt boasted about the stunning efficiency of the 100-megawatt Powerpack system, which is connected to Neoen's Hornsdale wind farm....

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/07/fossil-fuel-interests-coached-conservatives-reject-climate-science-us-australia

a widely held belief that when it comes to human-caused climate change, you’re far less likely to accept the science if you lean toward the right of the political spectrum.

But a new study just published in the journal Nature Climate Change suggests that this link between conservative values and climate “skepticism” holds strongest in the U.S. and Australia, and less so in Canada, where fossil fuel vested interests are high.

The research, carried out at the University of Queensland in Australia, also found people who accepted conspiracy theories were more likely to reject climate science, but this effect is restricted to the U.S.

Psychology professor Matthew Hornsey, who led the study, told Guardian Australia: “I think it’s all about vested interests.”

Vested Interests

“When the vested interests are high, the fossil fuel industry and conservative thinktanks, media and politicians collaborate in an organized campaign of misinformation. In my data, the link between conservatism and skepticism is really only obvious in countries with high per capita carbon emissions.”

Hornsey’s study surveyed 5,300 people in 24 countries and measured their “worldview” across four different measures of political ideology.

Then Hornsey and colleagues asked people about their views on the causes of climate change.

The subjects were also asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with four known conspiracy theories around the death of President John F. Kennedy, the death of Princess Diana, the existence of a “New World Order,” and the 9/11 terror attacks in New York.

The only countries showing an association between climate science “skepticism” and conspiratorial beliefs were the U.S. and Singapore.

The study concluded there is “nothing inherent to conspiratorial ideation or conservative ideologies that predisposes people to reject climate science.”

Instead, the study argues: “The greater the vested interests in resisting change, the more incentive there is to engage — and believe — in ideologically driven campaigns of misinformation about the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

In other words, Hornsey said, vested interest campaigns had “trained and coached” conservatives to see climate change “through the lens of their worldviews.”

Jiujitsu Communications

Hornsey said: “When the vested interests are high (in terms of the fossil fuel industry, for example) then there is more of a motivation for big business to engage in an organized campaign of misinformation around climate change. These campaigns often develop as a collaboration between the fossil fuel industry and conservative thinktanks, media and politicians, and are designed to ‘coach’ conservatives to believe that the climate science is not yet settled.”

Hornsey and colleagues have developed what they call a “jiujitsu” model of persuasion, which they think could help focus the way climate change is communicated to conservatives.

This is a method, Hornsey added, which “aligns with people’s underlying ideologies rather than competing with them.”

Australia's $379M Plan to Save Great Barrier Reef Raises Skepticism

The Australian government announced Sunday its largest investment in the Great Barrier Reef to date. More than $500 million Australian dollars (US $379 million) will go towards helping the highly vulnerable site that's under threat from climate change.

However, some have criticized the move as a "band-aid plan" as the fossil fuel-friendly government promotes the building of new coal mines, which fuels global warming that harms the reef.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/21/climate-science-denial-promoters-queensland-energy-scare-election-headlines

In the final week before an election, the biggest-selling newspaper in the Australian state of Queensland screamed a front-page headline that cut into one of the poll’s most divisive issues.

“Nervous Energy” read the headline, claiming an “Exclusive” on a “Dire warning of power station closures, blackout.”

According to the Courier-Mail, a just-published report had warned that the center-left Labor Party’s target of 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 would cause “statewide blackouts” for “up to 15 percent of the year.”

According to the report, the policy would also cut dividends to the state’s treasury and push power prices up even further. Labor rejected the claims, saying the state owned the coal power stations and it had no plans to close any prematurely.

The report was from the Australian Institute for Progress (AiP) and provided a perfect echo of the center-right Liberal National Party’s (LNP) warnings to prospective voters in the state poll. But this is not surprising, when you learn who is behind the AiP.

We Did Not Model That

The Courier-Mail report gave only a hint — the report’s author, Jonathan Pavetto, was a “former LNP Federal candidate,” the newspaper briefly disclosed.

Pavetto ran in the Federal Queensland seat of Kennedy against Bob Katter in the 2016 election. But the AiP’s links to the LNPgo far deeper than that. The “institute” is stacked with current and former senior Liberal National Party members.

What’s more, the same institute has heavily promoted the rejection of the science linking fossil fuel burning to dangerous climate change.

But there also appears to be serious questions about the conclusions made in the AiP report.

The AiP report says: “The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), Australia’s independent energy markets and power systems operator, has modeled the impact of a proposed 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 plan on the state’s electricity generation sector. This analysis was conducted as part of AEMO’s annual National Transmission Network Development Plan (NTNDP) update.”

This claim has caused some head scratching in AEMO, and so it should. The NTNDP report makes it clear that the proposed Queensland target was not part of its modeling.

An AEMO spokesperson told me: “To date AEMO has not modeled a 50 percent renewable energy target in Queensland in our 2016 NTNDP or any other reports.”

How can a report make claims based on a set of modeling, when that modeling has not actually been done? An email and phone message to Pavetto have gone unanswered.

But the AiP report also comes to other questionable conclusions.

The report is based on one modeling scenario used by AEMO that assumes demand for electricity will drop by one third within 20 years — a scenario deemed highly unlikely.

Under this AEMO scenario, it is this drop in demand for electricity that could see coal plants closing earlier, not a 50 percent target for renewable energy.

The “blackouts” claim depended on a scenario where two interstate powergrid connections simultaneously failed — also highly unlikely and also undisclosed in either the AiP report or the Courier-Mail story.

Institute Pushes Climate Science Denial

But what is the Australian Institute for Progress and should anyone have expected it to be a non-partisan voice on energy policy during a heated election campaign?

Soon after launching in 2014, the AiP hosted Canada-based climate science denier Patrick Moore, who claims there is no evidence that human emissions of CO2 are warming the planet — a position at odds with all the world’s major scientific institutions.

In July 2017, the AiP hosted a Brisbane screening of Climate Hustle — a film produced by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a U.S.-based climate science denial group.

Several climate scientists reviewed the film for DeSmog and described it as “muddled,” “misleading,” and “the usual rubbish from the usual suspects.”

The AiP was also a “founding think tank partner” of the October 2017 LibertyFest conference in Brisbane that featured two prominent climate science deniers.

Political Allegiances

The AiP also has strong and enduring political ties to the LNP. Graham Young, AiP’s executive director, is a former campaign chairman of the state Liberals.

Young also rejects the evidence that human-caused climate change is a problem and, as publisher of the OnLine Opinion website, has given a platform to several climate science deniers.

AiP’s chairman, Bob Tucker, is a former Liberal Party president who ran as a federal candidate in the 2001 by-election in the seat of Ryan.

Practically all of the directors listed on the AiP website also have strong links to the LNP.

Barrister Amanda Stoker is on an LNP state policy committee, is a former editor of the party’s policy magazine Dialogue, and has appeared on the LNP Senate ticket in federal elections.

Fellow AiP director Carol Cashman is a former general secretary of the Queensland division of the Federal Liberal Party and was a Brisbane City Councillor for the Liberal party for 12 years.

Dan Ryan, another AiP director, is also on an LNP policy committee and appeared on the LNP’s Federal senate ticket in 2016. According to the LNP’s 2015 annual report, Glenn Ferguson was a member of the party’s Sunshine Coast regional executive.

That only leaves Gary Johns — former Labor Party MP who was defeated in 1996 and went on to serve almost a decade as a fellow at the climate science denial “think tank” the Institute of Public Affairs.

So the Courier-Mail promoted a report from a group with deep and current political ties to LNP and with a record of promoting pseudo-scientific climate science denial.

Energy Policy Debate

The Courier-Mail has been consistently negative towards Labor and its policies, according to citizen journalism site No Fibs, which has been tracking coverage from the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper.

...

UNFCCC status: The Business Council of Australia (BCA) member base is made up of 127 CEOs from Australia’s biggest and wealthiest companies.112-113

The council serves as a “way in” to the world of policy debate for its members.114 It is funded by bigtime polluters that also play a lead role in deciding its priorities, and its president is an executive of a major polluter. The BCA has given almost no nod to the severity of climate change, its causes, or the dire need for mitigation, and it supports the Paris Agreement only insofar as it does not burden businesses. Consistent with this stance, it has opposed climate policies and dismissed key targets of the Paris Agreement as far-fetched.

Links to the fossil fuel industry Polluters BHP Billiton, BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell, and RioTinto all pay to get access to BCA’s services.115 Senior staff from RioTinto and BP Australia sit on three of its committees and task forces.116-118 What it says about climate change and its causes Although the BCA participates in UNFCCC negotiations, its website makes no direct reference to the cause or extent of climate change. In fact, the only strong stance BCA has taken on climate change is to highlight short-term economic costs of climate policies and action.119-120 Public stance on the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement The BCA has asserted it supports Australia’s ratification of the Paris Agreement. However, it has couched this support by stressing the need to meet climate commitments “while maintaining its [BCA’s] international competitiveness and achieving sustainable economic growth.”121 Track record on climate policy ● BCA president on Big Oil’s payroll. As of March 2017, current BCA President Grant King was appointed as a director of BHP Billiton,122 a leading mining corporation with substantial interests in oil and gas, was one of a group of corporations accused last year of polluting the atmosphere to the point of violating human rights.123 Prior to his post at BCA, King also headed other gas and energy companies, including Origin Energy and AGL Gas.122 ● Opposed Australia’s carbon tax. The BCA lobbied against and supported the repeal of Australia’s carbon tax, calling it a “burden on business” and describing its removal as “essential as the first priority.”124 ● Has denounced curbing global warming as “unrealistic.” The BCA has opposed further reductions in Australia’s emissions targets. It argues that Australia should not prioritize decreasing its own emissions due to the fact that other countries have been slow to act.125 ● BCA members at the center of controversial Australian Bight project. BCA members, including oil giants BP and Chevron, have been under fire for their controversial plans to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight, a nature reserve off the coast of Australia.126 Although BP pulled back from its drilling plans in late 2016 after failing to meet regulatory requirements,127-128 Chevron is still pursuing its US$400 million scheme with BCA at its side.129 ● In BCA’s world, there are no climate risks or liabilities. BCA’s 2014-2015 “A Year in Review” hardly mentioned climate change or mitigating risk to the environment. Its 2015- 2016 annual review also fails to commit to climate change as a priority. It does, however, highlight the important role of gas moving forward.130-131 Its priorities for the year ahead suggest it is only willing to support energy and climate policies that protect industry interests and “support competitiveness.”

menzies?

[the beast files https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amd14Rznrc8 3 min 2011 australia

Menzies - School of Health Research.

www.menzies.edu.au/

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{:{Menzies:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: is the nation's leader in Indigenous and tropical health :{research:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. ... ways to improve the health and well-being of people living in :{Australia:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and beyond.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Menzies Research Centre - Public policy ideas with impact for a free ...

https://www.menziesrc.org/

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{The :{Menzies Research:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Centre works to promote the principles of individual liberty, ... of Opportunity: How labour mobility can help :{Australia:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and its neighbours ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Menzies Research Centre - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menzies_Research_Centre

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{The :{Menzies Research:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Centre Ltd is an :{Australian:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: public policy think tank. It was founded in 1994 and is named for Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Menzies Research Centre - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Menzies_Research_Centre

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{Dec 11, 2016 - The :{Menzies Research:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Centre (est. 1994) is a conservative think tank run by the:{Australian:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Liberal Party which "undertake[s] research into ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Think Tanks/Australia - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Think_Tanks/Australia

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{While there are only a handful of :{Australian:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: think tanks they have played a significant ... These include the :{Menzies Research:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Centre (Liberal Party), the Chifley ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Australian Taxpayers' Alliance | DeSmogBlog

https://www.desmogblog.com/australian-taxpayers-alliance

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{:{Australian:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Taxpayers' Alliance (ATA) Background The :{Australian:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Taxpayers' Alliance ... an intense year-long training program by the Charles :{Koch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Institute to train a ... executive director of the Liberal Party-affiliated :{Menzies Research:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Centre.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

===

aus tag 6/16

6/16 will incl NZ

war on the greens book?

The work of these groups also supported the Wise Use movement; radical property rights activists and corporate front groups that attacked environmental laws and regulations on behalf of landowners, ranchers and the oil industry (Helvarg, The War Against the Greens).]

**Note expansion of gop lie machine 1st into commonwealth**

===

Australia's Climate Denialist Senator Malcolm Roberts Fails High School Science in Maiden Speech

Climate science denialists will often fool people, and sometimes themselves, by cherry-picking the bits of evidence they think fit their argument.

At other times, they’ll construct elaborate conspiracy theories about human-caused climate change being a front for a New World Order, with the United Nations as the Illuminati.

But often, they just get things badly, horribly, terribly, and embarrassingly wrong. Read more.

Malcolm Roberts is a former Australian mining consultant who thinks the United Nations is using the “scam” of human-caused climate change as a cover story while it builds an all-powerful world government.

He’s also just been elected as an Australian Senator.

Roberts will sit in Australia’s upper house as a member of the far-right One Nation party that wants to ban Muslim immigration and investigate climate scientists for “fraud and corruption”.Read more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/nauru/

Australia has been forcibly transferring refugee and asylum-seeking men, women, and children to the remote Pacific island nation of Nauru since September 2012. About 1,200 people who sought refuge in Australia now languish on Nauru, facing severe abuse, inhumane treatment, and neglect.

Those transferred to Nauru initially spent a year or more housed in cramped vinyl tents in a nearly unlivable detention facility that many described as “prison-like.”

:{:{They routinely face neglect by health workers and other service providers hired by the Australian government – even for life-threatening conditions. They are frequently assaulted by local Nauruans, who go unpunished.

Many have dire mental health problems and suffer overwhelming despair – self-harm and suicide attempts are frequent.

Australia and Nauru impose strict secrecy on the processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and refuse most requests to visit from journalists or researchers. Nevertheless, an Amnesty International researcher and a Human Rights Watch researcher were able to enter Nauru legally and remain for a total of 12 days in July 2016.}:}:

The campaign countering non-profits goes global

The ripple effects of the U.S. campaign to 'defund the left' have been felt around the world. A U.S. mining company succeeded in having USAID funding for an Indonesian community group pulled. [2] A Fulbright scholarship to the U.S., helped the Senior Fellow at the Australian Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Gary Johns develop a good working relationship with the American Enterprise Institute and escalate their emphasis on curtailing the activities of public interest groups.

The IPA themselves have targeted public interest groups in Malaysia and those working on issues inIndonesia. In mid-June 2004 the conservative Australian government released a consultancy report by the IPA's Gary Johns and John Roskam proposing the first steps to reduce the access that non-government organisations have to government decision making. [3]

In May 2002 Canadian PR consultant Ross S. Irvine, who approvingly cites Johns views in his articles, was a keynote speaker at the annual conference of the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand. In his presentation Irvine identified "charitable organization legislation", now before parliament, as one of the key focal points to consider in New Zealand.

In August 2004, the New Zealand Greens Green MP Sue Bradford warned that the proposed charities legislation "poses a real threat to one of the cornerstones of our democracy - the ability of people to come together and advocate for all manner of social, economic and environmental causes. Freedom of speech would be clouded because organisations that speak out on political issues would risk being deregistered by the Charities Commission." [4]

In early September 2004, the Director General of the New Zealand Health Ministry, Karen Poutasi, sent a draft instruction to health and disability NGOs revealing that it was proposed that "the Ministry does not fund lobbying activity and such activity will not be included in any contracts". The instruction, however, did not propose that organisations would be excluded from government funding if funds raised from other sources were used for lobbying. See Intimidating democracy/New Zealand Health Ministry memo to NGOsfor the full text.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/02/11/scientists-60-countries-condemn-cuts-vital-climate-research-australia-s-csiro-agency

Almost 3000 scientists from more than 60 countries have condemned Australia’s key government science agency over plans that would “decimate” its climate change research capabilities.

The open letter, delivered to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his ministers on Thursday evening, warns the cuts would leave the Southern Hemisphere “with no sustainable, world-class climate modelling capability.”

Since news of the cuts at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) emerged last week, leading scientists and institutions from across the world have attacked the plans.

CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall told staff in an email that the agency wanted to shift the focus of its Oceans and Atmosphere division away from climate change monitoring and modelling because the science of climate change was now “proved.”

His claimed justification for the cuts have been roundly criticised by current and former staff CSIRO staff members.

On Thursday, Marshall joined senior CSIRO bosses in a scheduled appearance before an Australian Senate Committee, where he was grilled over the plans. Climate scientists attending a major conference in Melbourne broke off from proceedings to crowd around a televsion to watch Marshall give evidence.

During the hearing, CSIRO clarified that as well as a shift in focus the oceans division would see a net loss of 65 jobs, although the plans and the cuts had not been finalized.

Australian Dr Paul Durack, a leading climate scientist who works at the US government-funded Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Interco

indigenous

http://grist.org/grist-50/profile/murrawah-johnson/

http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/12/monsanto-lawsuit-gmo-contamination/

pnas

AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE SCIENCE COALITION,

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Australian_Climate_Science_Coalition

The Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC) is a climate change skeptics website created by the the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), a spin-off group created by the the corporate funded think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. In 2009-2010 the ACSC was almost exclusively funded by the Heartland Institute, via the American Climate Science Coalition ^[1]

ACSC states that it works "closely with the International Climate Science Coalition"^[2] and that it does "not believe that past and current climates are sufficiently well understood to enable projections of future climate changes to be accurately predicted."^[2]

[hide]

The role of the AEF

The postal address given on the group's website is the same address as for the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), a spin-off group created by the the corporate funded think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. The group also states that its Executive Director is Max Rheese, who is also the Executive Director of the AEF.^[3]

Following the AEF's 2008 annual conference, its chair Jennifer Marohasy wrote that the group had decided "that the best thing we could do as an organisation for the environment over the next year would be to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)."^[4]

"The internet is increasingly recognised as an important medium for networking and campaigning. It is a medium for getting an alternative message to a large audience. A dedicated and custom built campaigning website can make it easy for an online community to quickly find their local media and local member and send them a message – as well as encouraging their friends, colleagues and family to send a message. The AEF needs to build and run a dedicated campaigning website that will initially be used to campaign against the ETS," she wrote.^[4]

The ACSC's website was registered by Rheese in late June 2008 with the listed email contact address being the same as the general AEF email address.^[5]

Scientific Advisory Panel

Contact Details

Max Rheese

Executive Director

Australian Climate Science Coalition

PO Box 274 Deakin West ACT 2600

Australia

Phone: 03 5762 6883

Website: http://www.auscsc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

Articles and Resources

References

:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ [1], Webleak Shows Trail of Climate Sceptic Funding, Ben Cubby, The Sydney Morning Herald, accessed May 2012
↑ ^Jump ^up ^to:2.0 ^2.1 Australian Climate Science Coalition, "About Us", Australian Climate Science Coalition website, accessed December 2008.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ "The Team", Australian Environment Foundation website, accessed December 2008.
↑ ^Jump ^up ^to:4.0 ^4.1 "Save the Environment, Stop the Emissions Trading Scheme", Australian Environment Foundation website, accessed December 2008.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ "auscsc.org.au", Whois, accessed December 2008.

External Articles

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

Categories:

g20 infra plam

...

A tired, old saw: economy vs. environment

Although ostensibly an economic cooperation group, the G20 isn't always so blatantly ignorant about the environment. In November, G20 leaders, including President Obama, forced Australia to include stronger climate change language in the Brisbane Summit Communiqué, after Australian PM Tony Abbott told the summit that as the leader of one of the world's biggest coal producers, he would be "standing up for coal."

In a remarkable statement made before the Brisbane meeting, Abbott insisted that economic growth must take precedence over environmental concerns at the summit, conflicting with the U.S. position that climate change is a central issue for the global economy.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott meets with President Obama at the White House in June 2014. Abbott has been criticized by environmentalists for his defense of the coal industry. (image: White House)Among the major western nations, Australia is the worst carbon emitter per capita — a worrisome statistic that may not change any time soon, considering Abbott's head-scratching statement in October 2014 that "coal is good for humanity." Only two nations, coal-loving Australia and Saudi Arabia — the world's top petroleum exporter — opposed the inclusion of climate in the summit agenda.Notwithstanding those two outliers, the G20 affirmed its commitment to acting on climate change in the communiqué:http://www.alternet.org/environment/worlds-biggest-economies-have-devised-plan-spells-doom-planet-earth

srwch

In Australia draft legislation defining charities sought to disqualify groups involved in civil disobedience from qualifying for tax deductibility. The Executive Director of the corporate funded think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, Mike Nahan, was enthusiastic about the proposed changes, acknowledging that the disqualifying purposes "will threaten the charity status of several organisations".

"For example Greenpeace, which regularly engages in trespass and other breaches of the law, would have its charity status threatened by a requirement to not break the law," he wrote. [2] After an outcry from community groups the proposal has been shelved.

Government's have also used their broad discretionary powers in issung travel documents as a way of punishing advocates of civil disobedience. In September 2005 the Australian Government revoked the six-month visitors visa of Scott Parkin, an environmental and peace activist from the Houston Global Awareness Collective. Parkin was arrested, six weeks after he arrived in the country, on "character grounds" and imprisoned pending deportation. [3] Government officials refused to explain to Parkin or his lawyers the basis for re-assessing his status.

Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown suspects Parkin was arrested because of his campaigning against the military contractor Halliburton.[4] Two weeks ago Parkin spoke at a protest outside the Sydney office of KBR, a Halliburtonsubsidiary. [5] A barrister representing Parkin, Julian Burnside, has indicated he will lodge an appeal against his re-classification with the Migration Review Tribunal. "If all Mr Parkin has done to be assessed a security risk is to peacefully protest his opinions, then we are in serious trouble," Burnside said. [6]

http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/11082015/australia-weak-climate-pledge-draws-derision-tony-abbott

early BM

B-M's public front for Canada's forestry industry

In late 1990 B-M was hired to re-engineer the public image of Canada’s forest industries. The cornerstone of its campaign was a new front group, the British Columbia Forest Alliance. Launched in April 1991, the Alliance was headed Jack Munro, formerly the chairperson of the International Wood Workers of America Union. Gary Ley, of B-M, was appointed executive director. In its first year the alliance received $1m from corporate sponsors.

The Vancouver Sun, British Columbia's biggest newspaper, with a daily circulation of 260,000, drew visits from forest company officials and alliance members. Before the launch of the BC Forest Alliance, the Sun had had five full-time reporters covering forestry, native affairs, and other environment-related issues. Soon only one environment journalist remained. The rest were assigned to a category called "resources" in the business section. Reporters who wrote critically about the forest industry, and those who probed the workings of the Forest Alliance and Burson-Marsteller itself, say they were subjected to pressure. The Sun's forestry reporter, Ben Parfitt, was pulled from environmental issues after writing about Burson-Marsteller and the Forest Alliance. A logging company official and an industry consultant grilled reporter Mark Hume in the editor’s office, about columns he had written about a pro-logging coalition, while the editor, Hume says, stood by in silence. The BC Forest Alliance now claims a membership of 10,000 individuals and 300 companies and industry groups.

Forest Protection Society (Australia):{

Throughout the 1980s the Australian timber industry was targeted by ecological campaigns and direct action. In response, the industry spawned a new front group, the Forest Protection Society (FPS), with start-up money from the Forest Industry Campaign Association.}:

Employing Wise Use-style rhetoric, the FPS got itself listed as an environmental protection organization in the Directory of Australian Associations. The FPS promotes a “balanced use” of Australia’s forests, and claims that the best way to protect forests is to extract the wood and sell it. From the start the FPS aimed to build a large "grassroots" membership to suggest an independent standpoint. The FPS involves itself in numerous forest campaigns, fighting for the rights of local communities to exploit the forests, and supporting the interests of the timber industry. By April 1998 the FPS had 56 local branches across Australia.

Other tactics used by the FPS include taking over local environmentalist meetings, with the result that activists became distracted from their ongoing campaign. Like many groups associated with the American Wise Use movement, the FPS is a client of Burson-Marsteller.

Most people would probably hazard a guess at the U.S., what with its preponderance ofclimate-science-denying think tanks, conservative television and radio hosts, and politicianswho think it’s all a hoax.

But a new study that analyzed identical surveys carried out across 14 industrialized nations has found that when it comes to climate science denial, Australia tops the pile.

Published in the journal Global Environmental Change, the study found that 17 percent of Australians were “climate skeptics.”

Norwegians come in second at 15 percent, followed by New Zealanders at 13 percent and then Americans at 12 percent. The UK tied for fifth with Sweden and Finland, where 10 percent of people were skeptics. The lowest ranked country for climate skepticism was Spain, where only two percent of people were classified as climate skeptics.

“Climate skepticism persists despite overwhelming scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring,” say the authors. The study, authored by two scientists at the University of Tasmania, used data from surveys carried out in 14 countries in 2010 and 2011.

While the survey did not directly ask people if they accepted the science linking climate change to human activities, the respondents were asked how dangerous rising temperatures would be for the environment.

People who thought rising temperatures were “not very dangerous” or “not dangerous at all” and who also thought claims about environmental issues were exaggerated were classed as “climate skeptics.” While the authors accept in the paper that their approach was limited, they argue that the method enables them to do a valuable comparison of skepticism across countries.

Generally, the study found that climate skepticism tended to be associated with a lack of trust in governments and “positive attitudes” towards private enterprise. Skeptics also tended to be male and tended to vote conservative.

The researchers also tried to test the idea that climate skeptics tended to also be generally unconcerned about environmental issues, but found those two measures were only modestly linked with each other.

Across all countries, the authors wrote that only three factors—“political orientations (conservative), gender (male) and being unconcerned about environmental issues”—were “relatively consistent predictors” of climate change skepticism.

The findings tend to support other studies that have found that conservative ideologies and support for private enterprise are strong indicators of climate skepticism and denial. The authors of the Global Environmental Change study concluded:

Low levels of trust in ‘the people in government’ is associated with climate skepticism, as is valuing private enterprise to solve economic problems. Rejecting government intervention in the reduction of income inequality also reflects laissez-faire attitudes towards ‘big government’ among climate skeptics.

But the finding that Australians, Norwegians and New Zealanders are more skeptical the Americans is surprising.

Last year, a survey from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication found that only 66 percent of U.S. voters thought that climate change was happening.

Only 51 percent of registered voters thought that global warming was mostly caused by climate change. But like the Global Environmental Change study, the Yale survey also found that conservatives tended to reject the evidence of human-caused climate change. Among the most conservative Republicans, only 22 percent were willing to accept that climate change was mostly caused by human activities.

6/15

“STOP ACADEMIC CENSORSHIP” screamed the full caps headline on the half-page advert in the Murdoch-owned The Australian newspaper earlier this week.

Referring to the Danish climate change contrarian and US think tank boss Bjorn Lomborg, the advert claimed: “We stand for academic freedom. We stand with Dr Lomborg.”

For those playing catch-up, a research centre based on the methods ofLomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center think tank was to be established at the University of Western Australia (UWA).

After it emerged the centre was being funded with $4million of taxpayer cash, academics and students at UWAprotested at Lomborg’s apparent lack of academic credentials and the questionable methodology of his centre, particularly when it came to how it dismissed the urgency of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

In a statement, the university’s Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson said Lomborg’s centre was in an “untenable” position and so he would be handing back the $4 million. Lomborg would no longer take an adjunct professor role at the university.

This, as I wrote on The Guardian, was the cue for Australia’s conservative commentariat to lose the plot. Now the Australian Government has pledged to find a new home for Lomborg.

Placing the advert was the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance – a private company run from a Sydney apartment unit by its “executive director” Tim Andrews.

The ATA had been fundraising for just over a week on the GoFundMe website with a $22,500 target before the advert was placed in The Australian. The campaign came with a fundraising video voiced by Melbourne-based Christopher Field, who also directed a video project based on work by climate science denialist Lord Christopher Monckton (that included interviews with a who's who of climate science misinformers, included Marc Morano, Fred Singer, Donna Laframboise and blogger Anthony Watts).

According to one supporter of the ATA ad campaign, “these climate fascists need to confronted” while another reckoned “green religion bigots” had been exposed. Another suggested there should be more adverts “to challenge the climate hoax”.

Koch Ties Among Bjorn Lomborg's Fan Network

So what is the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance and who is Tim Andrews?

Andrews is a graduate of the Koch Associate Program in the US – an effort by the billionaire Republican activist Koch brothers to train activists to push their free market libertarian ideals.

The Koch’s and the foundations they control have pushed millions into organisation that push climate science denial and campaign to block laws cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Andrews also spent time as an intern at the Koch-linked Cato Institute. In a 2011 article in the right-wing The Spectator magazine, Andrews was described as one of the “masterminds” of Australia’s anti-carbon tax protests of that year.

When Andrews created the stopgillardscarbontax.com website to help drive the 2011 protests, he recruited Cato Institute climate science denialist Patrick Michaels as an advisor.

Michaels, who once admitted that about 40 per cent of the funding for his work came from the fossil fuel industry, is now a member of an academic advisory board at the ATA.

According to its website, the ATA is a “unique grassroots advocacy & activist organisation comprised of over 25,000 members dedicated to standing up for hardworking Australian taxpayers”. The site states:

We oppose the high taxes, wasteful spending, and crippling red tape that are hurting Aussie families and businesses, and provide a voice for everyone who opposes the big-government agenda.

The ATA is a private company registered to a unit address in Sydney. Records provided to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show two shareholders – Tim Andrews and his mother.

Free market activists

As the ATA was gathering support before its early 2012 launch, its business plan, written by Andrews, explained how the organisation was driven by a particular ideology, rather than what was necessarily good for “hardworking taxpayers”.

According to the business plan, ATA had a goal “to become Australia’s leading and most influential centre-right grassroots advocacy body in order to transform Australia to a new level of free market public policies by focusing on cutting tax, regulation and waste”.

For close watchers of the network of US think tanks backed by the Koch brothers, the language is glaringly familiar.

When the ATA launched its Perth chapter in November 2012, the special guests were climate science denialist bloggers JoNova and David Evans and fellow denier, David Archibald, who has a background in oil and mineral exploration.

The ATA is also listed as a sponsor of the Heartland Institute’s upcoming conference for climate science denialists to be held in Washington DC next month.

From the start, the ATA has engaged with climate science denialists while opposing any plans to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions. It seems to me inconsistent that a group supposedly there to stand up for taxpayers is barracking in favour of a $4million taxpayer-funded grant handed out secretively and arbitrarily with no competitive process and no consultation whatsoever.

Rather than representing “hard working taxpayers” it appears the ATA is instead representing climate science denial and the interests of free market activist billionaires like the Koch brothers.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/05/28/climate-science-deniers-and-free-market-activists-backing-bjorn-lomborg

Senior academics at an Australian university are asking their bosses to pull the plug on a $4 million taxpayer funded research centre fronted by climate science contrarian Bjorn Lomborg.

The University of Western Australia (UWA) was given $4 million to establish the Australia Consensus Centre — a new arm of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, the US-registered think tank headed by Lomborg.

The cash grant came after more than $400 million was slashed for sciencefunding in the government’s 2014 budget.

Bjorn Lomborg, a favourite among conservatives and climate science deniers for his contrarian views on climate change, has claimed that while global warming is a problem, it should be placed well down a list of global priorities for aid and development spending.

DeSmogBlog investigations have found that Lomborg’s US arm has received funding from foundations with links to the billionaire Koch brothers and to billionaire “vulture capitalist” and major Republican donor Paul Singer.

UWA announced on April 2 that Lomborg would be given an adjunct Professor role at the university, but did not disclose the $4 million of taxpayer funding.

While Lomborg told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that he had worked with UWA to prepare a proposal for the government, it has been reported that the idea came from the office of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who has said that “coal is good for humanity”.

UWA has also said it was approached by the government to house Lomborg’s centre, not the other way around.

Academics from UWA and elsewhere have expressed frustration that the $4 million was handed over without any apparent competitive process being carried out.

The university’s Student Guild launched a “Say NO to Bjørn Lomborg” campaign, saying the decision to offer the money toUWA was “politically motivated, and it is an insult to the staff and students” at the university.

The Copenhagen Consensus Center claims to do cost-benefit analysis of policies to tackle global problems and claims that targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions are too expensive and that climate change won’t begin to have negative impacts on the world’s economy until near the end of this century.

Dr Frank Jotzo, a leading climate economist at the Australian National University in Canberra, claimed in The Guardian that the Copenhagen Consensus Center methodology “has no academic credibility” and pointed to fundamental flaws in the way the CCC assessed the impacts of climate change.

On Friday, staff from across the University of Western Australia’s schools and departments packed out a lecture theatre for a special meeting in an attempt to get some answers from university administrators.

Professor Stuart Bunt, of the School of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, and vice president of the UWA Academic Staff Association, told DeSmogBlog:

Given the strength of feeling, many wanted to know if it was possible to cancel this. The question was rather ducked by the VC, Professor Paul Johnson. Our university prides itself on having high academic standards and selects staff very carefully. Some very young applicants, for example to our own school, have better publication records than Lomborg.

He said during the meeting, some were concerned how much academic freedom the Australia Consensus Centre might be able to have, given the reliance on government funding. “We were not reassured,” he said. “There’s a fear that people won’t be able to work without fear or favour.”

Bunt, who served 12 years on the university’s main decision-making Senate board, said academics were angry there had been a lack of consultation about the centre and Lomborg's appointment. He said it appeared the decision to appoint Lomborg and to establish the centre had been taken within a small group of university executives.

Bunt said he was also concerned that Lomborg’s work had been heavily criticised in the past. He said there appeared not to have been a risk analysis done on the impact that engaging with Lomborg might have on the university’s reputation.

Dr David Glance, the director of the Centre for Software Practice, told DeSmogBlog that some academics wanted to know if it was too late to cancel the centre entirely.

The main focus was staff wanting to know if there was an opportunity to reverse the decision. There was a lot of non-committal answers from Paul Johnson, the Vice Chancellor.

Glance said while the meeting started cordially, “it became less so towards the end” as frustrations began to rise. “People came out more depressed than when they went in,” he added.

DeSmogBlog was told by others in the meeting that academics expressed “shame and embarrassment” at the appointment of Lomborg and were “frustrated that they couldn’t get answers to their questions.”

In a highly critical letter released on the Conservation Bytes blog of Adelaide academic Corey Bradshaw, Professor Sarah Dunlop, Head of the School of Animal Biology at UWA, told university administrators that Lomborg’s academic record did not merit his appointment. The letter said:

Aside from the concerns expressed by others, the School is facing a difficult reputational challenge in terms of attracting high quality staff and students as well as establishing and maintaining national and international collaborations as a consequence of these events. As an example, an international Research Fellow has just informed us that, if Dr Lomborg’s adjunct appointment is confirmed, they will not bring their Fellowship to UWAbut, rather, transfer it to a more reputable University.

Additionally, existing PhD students in the School are concerned that this appointment will tarnish their accomplishments as graduates from this University. In addition, staff in the School have been inundated by correspondence from collaborators and stakeholders concerned about the University’s decision.

Professor Bunt said he was aware that other schools within UWA were considering drafting similar letters critical of the university’s decision.

UWA Adjunct Professor Paul Wills, of the School of Earth and Environment, told Fairfax media the appointment of Lomborg “tarnishes the reputation of the university.”

Dr Frank Jotzo, director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at ANU, told The Guardian:

Within the research community, particularly within the economics community, the Bjorn Lomborg enterprise has no academic credibility. It is seen as an outreach activity that is driven by specific set of objectives in terms of bringing particular messages into the public debate and in some cases making relatively extreme positions seem more acceptable in the public debate.

Jotzo also said he believed the Copenhagen Consensus Centre was guilty of filtering out dissenting voices from its final recommendations.

The CCC has defended its methods, saying that Nobel Laureates and top economists have been engaged in the work.

UWA has said it will look to raise further funds for the Australia Consensus Centre. The CCC has said it would not accept cash from the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/09/exclusive-bjorn-lomborg-think-tank-funder-revealed-billionaire-republican-vulture-capitalist-paul-singer

billionaire “vulture capitalist” and major backer of the US Republican Party is a major funder of the think tank of Danish climate science contrarian and fossil fuels advocateBjørn Lomborg, DeSmogBlog has found.

Canada-Australia 'Axis of Carbon' an Obstacle to Climate Pact

The prime ministers for Canada and Australia mince no words in their disdain for putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions to protect their fossil fuel exports.

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy

Day Job:Adjunct research fellow in the Centre for Plant and Water Science at Central Queensland University and former senior fellow at the conservative Australian think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), and adirector of the Australian Environment Foundation.

Climate Expertise: None

She said it: From her official bio: "Jennifer Marohasy is an Australian biologist and libertarian who holds unpopular opinions on a range of important environmental issues."

news from desmog:

http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/australia

9/14 eg

Global Fossil Fuel Companies Running Multiple PR Campaigns Targeting Australians

Both online and on television, one of the world’s biggest oil and gas producers is telling Australians that it cares more about the environment than energy.

How this message might go down with the shareholders of Chevron is anyone’s guess. But then those people are possibly not the target for Chevron’s “We Agree” campaign.

The targets of this and other campaigns are Australians who might be thinking twice about the social licence to operate that is currently afforded to major fossil fuel companies.

Chevron’s ongoing campaign has been seen on SBS television and on satellite cable channels as well as featured banner ads on popular websites and in print.

The ads ask readers to “agree” to statements like “Value the environment as much as the energy” and “Make Australian Gas Benefit All Australia.”

Chevron’s multi-billion-dollar gas projects are in the country’s sparsely populated north west where opposition has been weaker than elsewhere.

But the Chevron messaging is just one chunk of a steady barrage of fossil fuel-funded PR flack being fired at Australians by some of the world's biggest mining companies.

It appears the fossil fuel industry is feeling the pressure from repeated warnings in the scientific literature about the risks of continuing to exploit and burn fossil fuels.

Read more: Global Fossil Fuel Companies Running Multiple PR Campaigns Targeting Australians

Nick Minchin

Credentials

BEc (Economics), Australian National University

LLB (Law), Australian National University

Source: Parliamentary Biography.

Tags:

nick minchin

bob carter

taxing air

Liberal Party

Tony Abbott

Australia

climate change

climate denial

new york consul general

Australia's Tony Abbott Still Determined to Kill Renewable Energy Target

Aug 19, 2014

Source:

(RenewEconomy)

Tony Abbott's Renewable Energy Target review panel appears destined to do what it was created to do – to recommend closure of Australia's last significant climate and clean energy scheme to new entrants.

The Australian Financial Review, in a front page report, on Monday confirmed the worst fears of the renewable energy industry when it said that the panel had been "instructed" by Tony Abbott to look at ways for the scheme to be folded.

Read original story

The BBC is not the first outlet that has tried to weed out climate change deniers. In 2012, the **government of Australia**:{forced :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{conservative radio host Alan Jones:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: to take a fact-checking seminar after he repeatedly told his listeners that climate change was a farce, and that there was no sound science on the subject.

American media outlets, on the other hand, not only tolerate anti-science viewpoints, but embrace them. A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that cable news giants CNN and Fox News reported incorrect information about climate change in 33% and 72% of their coverage of the issue, respectively.

HOME>INTERNATIONAL

Australia Repeals Maligned 2-Year-Old Carbon Tax

SYDNEY — Jul 17,2014, 7:47 AM ET

By KRISTEN GELINEAU Associated Press

Associated Press

Australia's government repealed a much-maligned carbon tax on the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters on Thursday, ending years of contention over a measure that became political poison for the lawmakers who imposed it.

The Senate voted 39 to 32 to axe the 24.15 Australian dollar ($22.60) tax per metric ton of carbon dioxide that was introduced by the center-left Labor government in July 2012. Conservative lawmakers burst into applause as the final tally was announced.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's conservative coalition government rose to power last year on the promise of getting rid of the tax, assuring voters that removing it would reduce household electricity bills. He plans to replace the measure with a taxpayer-financed AU$2.55 billion fund to pay industry incentives to use cleaner energy.

"Today, the tax that you voted to get rid of is finally gone: a useless, destructive tax which damaged jobs, which hurt families' cost of living and which didn't actually help the environment," Abbott told reporters in Canberra.

Australia is one of the world's worst greenhouse gas emitters per capita, largely because of its heavy reliance on the nation's vast reserves of cheap coal for electricity.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten lashed out at Abbott after the vote, dubbing him an "environmental vandal."

"Today, Tony Abbott has made Australia the first country in the world to reverse action on climate change," Shorten told reporters. "History will judge Tony Abbott very harshly for refusing to believe in genuine action on climate change. Tony Abbott is sleepwalking Australia to an environmental and economic disaster."...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/australia-repeals-carbon-tax_n_5593843.html

loe.org

Australian coal companies sending spies to infiltrate environmentalist groups

Tom Allard of the Sydney Morning Herald says that big players in the Australian coal industry are hiring ex-intelligence officers to infiltrate the groups that are concerned about climate change and concerned about big new Australian coal mining proposals. He reports that there are several shadowy security firms who hire ex-spooks, give them fake identities and send them in to mostly volunteer organizations to gather information on protests and political activities. [black op data mining puns]

...A Fairfax Media investigation this week uncovered the fact Groves was part of an extraordinary undercover operation against the activists who are known as the Leard Forest Alliance or Front Line Action Against Coal.

For five months, former military and intelligence personnel took on assumed identities with elaborate backstories and rotated through the camp, taking notes, reporting back on any planned actions, profiling the leadership and trying to uncover whether the protesters themselves had spies inside the mines.

It failed. Several agents were identified, and at least one directly confronted.

Groves was a senior figure. His company - the Centre of Intelligence and Risk Management (CIRM) - wrangled the spies for the clandestine operation. He reported to Tyrone Clark, a former Australian Federal Police officer, whose company C5 Management Solutions received the intelligence, distilling it and passed it on to the mining companies via their security arms.

Following Fairfax's first report on the espionage on Monday, Idemitsu admitted it had contracted C5 Management Solutions and another firm understood to be involved, the mysterious Strongs Security Services. After years of suspicions among activists, it is the first time that such an operation has been verified.

These kinds of ''black ops'' may seem like something from a modern spy novel or a Hollywood blockbuster but have been long documented overseas and speculated about here.

And the exposure of the clandestine project raises important and uncomfortable questions about corporate power, privacy and the right to protest.

Such outright deception is widespread among a plethora of private security firms, intelligence firms and detective agencies.

It is almost certain there have been attempts to infiltrate protest groups and NGOs, but the practice of deception and false identities extends to other private investigation work, including spying on workplaces, people in legal disputes and even divorce.

Using a false identity to obtain information on a ''target'' is known as ''pretexting'', says Wayne Edwards, a 31-year surveillance veteran who runs Harjan Investigations.

''It's something that's commonly used within the industry,'' he said.

Mr Edwards describes an industry where regulation is weak and often flouted, and where ''manipulation, intimidation and bullying are rife''. It is a sector where big companies dominate and subcontract work to smaller firms.

''You're only as good as your last job and subcontractors are put under pressure by some companies to step outside the boundaries of the code of practice - including things like pretexting - to get results.''

New entrants to the industry are coming from the ranks of former soldiers, police and spies who took up lucrative private contracting work in Iraq and Afghanistan. People like Tony Groves, who worked for the international security giant Garda Global. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq winding down, work is more scarce and techniques used in the conflict zones are being deployed in Australia.

Companies like C5, CIRM and Strongs Security Services operate in the shadows. All refused to respond to calls from Fairfax Media and only C5 publicly lists its contact information.

Their corporate paymasters adopt a ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy that borders on laughable.

Asked about the security operation, Idemitsu's chief operating officer, Rod Bridges, said: ''How they found out all this information [about the protesters' activities] … Well we didn't ask questions.'' Mr Bridges said he had little knowledge about Strongs Security despite the lucrative contract it was awarded about six months ago, although he believed it was headed by an ''ex-French foreign legionnaire''.

Whitehaven Coal - already facing a public relations disaster as its former owner Nathan Tinkler is accused of illegal political donations during Independent Commission against Corruption hearings - insists it had no knowledge or involvement in the exercise.

But multiple sources indicate that its security staff, at least, were aware of the infiltration project and benefited from the information it uncovered.

''The protest at Maules Creek has been non-violent and open,'' wrote Phil Laird, a local farmer whose family has been in the district for 160 years. ''If the coal industry wants to know our plans, then perhaps they could engage with the protectors rather than send in undercover security agents to ingratiate themselves around the campfires.''

The activists' aim is to draw attention to the impact of Australia's $60 billion-a-year coal industry on climate change, build popular support to halt its expansion and eventually end it.

''It is an industry with rapidly diminishing social license and, in fact, only last week AMP Capital banned coal from its responsible range of investments, joining the likes of armaments, gambling and pornography,'' Solity says.

The companies retort that coal underpins economic prosperity and drastic security measures are required. It's a workplace safety issue, they say, as the protesters trespass on the mining site, threaten to sabotage equipment and thwart building works.

But there's something bigger at stake. It's no coincidence that the spying campaign at Maules Creek began as both Idemitsu and Whitehaven began construction of their new mines.

The exposure of the black ops at Maules Creek and Boggabri inevitably raises questions about any role of government intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

ASIO, the AFP and NSW police all denied they had engaged private firms to infiltrate activist networks, although they do use them to monitor ''open source'' material such as internet sites and social media.

As for deploying their own undercover officers to observe protesters, the situation becomes murkier.

ASIO director general David Irvine said the domestic spy organisation ''does not limit, or seek to limit, the right of persons to engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent''.

But in campaigns of civil disobedience, laws are often broken. Hundreds of protesters at Maules Creek have been arrested for offences such as trespass.

Does that mean protests like this qualify as ''unlawful'' and therefore a legitimate target of scrutiny for ASIO or the AFP?

It seems it very well might, especially if it involves ''energy security'', according to a letter written by then attorney-general Robert McClelland to his colleague, resources minister Martin Ferguson, in 2009.

''While I recognise the right to protest, when actions jeopardise energy security and the delivery of essential services, it is important that measures are taken to prevent and deter unlawful activity,'' McClelland says.

ASIO, he tells Ferguson, does monitor protest activity and provides intelligence reporting when there is ''actual, or potential, for violence''.

The AFP, he writes, ''continually monitors the activities of issues-motivated groups and individuals who may target establishments through direct action.''

Whether commercially funded or government endorsed, few doubt that the level of surveillance of activists, NGOs and whistleblowers has been as high, or more intrusive.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/coal-spies-the-secret-world-of-black-ops-20140606-39ofv.html#ixzz34f0VhEx4}:

huffpo

Former Vice President Al Gore (D) issued a sharp warning to lawmakers challenging the validity of global climate change in an interview with Australia’sFairfax Media this week. In the interview, Gore specifically targeted Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott for his anti-climate change record, ahead of Abbott’s meetingwith President Barack Obama on Thursday.

“I am not a citizen of Australia, and I don’t feel I have the privilege of entering your political debate,” Gore said. “But we have had deniers of the climate crisis in office in the U.S. as well. History will not be kind to those who looked away, much less those who sought to prevent [action on climate change].”

Earlier this week, Obama referred to international greenhouse gas reduction as probably “the most significant long-term challenge" facing the U.S. and the world, during an interview on Showtime's docu-series "Years of Living Dangerously," whichaired Monday.

Abbott dismissed the notion during a speech at the New York Stock Exchange on Tuesday, arguing that an emphasis on environmental regulations could “clobber” the Australian economy.

“Climate change is a significant global issue -- it is a very significant global issue. Is it the most important issue the world faces right now? I don’t believe so,” Abbott said.

Gore, who has repeatedly criticized Abbott’s refusal to link severe climate crises with global warming, warned the Australian leader that he does not "pretend to know what the basis of his thinking is, but Mother Nature has a louder voice.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also weighed in on Abbott’s resistance to climate change progress in an interview with ABC1's "7.30" program Wednesday.

"As I understand it, Australia will go from being one of the great leaders in the world in tackling this problem, to one of the great laggers in addressing efforts to reducing the pollution that is threatening the planet that we're living on," Waxman said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Thursday praised ally Australia as a trusted military partner whose cooperation is providing the U.S. with added reach in the Asia-Pacific, but questions lingered about their differences on climate change.

Obama spoke to reporters after a one-hour meeting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who thanked Obama for the deeper engagement by the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region. He said Australia will be "an utterly dependable ally of the United States."

It was Abbott's first White House visit since he was elected in September. The two leaders also discussed world security hotspots, their two countries' involvement in a proposed trans-Pacific free trade pact and maritime disputes between China and Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea.

"Obviously, both the United States and Australia have enormous trade relationships with China, and we both agree that it's important to continue to see China prosper and rise, but what's also important is that as China emerges as this great world power, that it also is helping to reinforce and abide by basic international law and norms," Obama said.

Australia is hosting a new deployment of U.S. Marines — a concrete outcome of the Obama administration's so-called Asia pivot. The two sides announced Thursday further defense cooperation and the possibility of Australian contributions to missile defense in the region.

Obama said he and Abbott were improving the military relationship between the two countries that is giving the United States "additional reach throughout this very important part of the world," and he noted that under Abbott, the Australian government has increased its defense budget.

Obama described Australia as one of a handful of countries that the U.S. can always count on. "And Aussies know how to fight, and I like having them in a foxhole if we're in trouble. So I can't think of a better partner," he said.

The two leaders appear less in step, however, on the issue of climate change.

Neither leader mentioned it in their brief comments to reporters. But White House spokesman Jay Carney said they did discuss climate change in their private session and that Obama emphasized the need for countries to adopt "ambitious domestic climate policies as the basis of a strong international response." He said Obama believes climate change should be discussed in November's meeting of the Group of 20 industrialized and developing countries. Australia, which currently chairs the group, will host the meeting.

Last week, Obama announced bold plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by nearly a third by 2030 from 2005 levels. The U.S. policy is intended to galvanize the response to global warming and spur emerging economies like China to take action.

Abbott has described those as sensible steps but has made clear that he doesn't view the fight against global warming as a top priority and is set against action that could crimp Australian business. He plans to scrap Australia's carbon tax on polluters and instead provide taxpayer-funded incentives for polluters to reduce their emissions.

In remarks to reporters Tuesday after visiting the New York Stock Exchange, Abbott said: "Is it (climate change) the most important issue the world faces right now? I don't believe so. It is one of a number of significant issues that the world faces, and we will do our bit."

Australian media have reported that Abbott is seeking to forge an alliance among right-leaning governments such as Britain and Canada— where he visited before arriving in the U.S. — and push against global moves to introduce raising costs of carbon emissions.

Australia is one of the world's worst pollution emitters per capita, largely because it relies heavily on abundant reserves of cheap coal for electricity. The U.S. is the biggest source of global carbon dioxide emissions after China.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12/tony-abbott-climate-change_n_5487599.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Australian Supreme Court Rules Against Organic Farmer in GE Contamination Suit

The global fight to establish better protections from genetic contamination caused by genetically engineered ...

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/ocean-winds-put-heat-on-australia/

“There’s a hope that the problem will go away, that someone else in the world will actually fix it,” Dr Pearman said. “The approaches now are pretty mindless ... They’re not concerned about our children’s and grandchildren’s futures at all.”

Even the future of the government’s lynchpin policy aimed at replacing the carbon price – the Emissions Reduction Fund to pay polluters to cut emissions – appears in doubt. The budget committed only $1.14 billion over the coming four years, well shy of the $2.55 billion pledged by Environment Minister Greg Hunt three weeks ago.

The government also seems intent on increasing support for fossil fuels, particularly the coal-fired power sector, at the expense of renewable energy, said Greg Bourne, chair of the $2.5 billion Australian Renewable Energy

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/tony-abbotts-extreme-climate-stance-sets-back-policy-decades-critics-say-20140514-zrcpg.html#ixzz31huYqqKZ}:

NOTE 180 from carbon tax to

plan to dump coal sludge on gb reef

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/great-barrier-reefs-unprecedented-threat-from-dredging-dumping

The impact of dredging and dumping sediment on the Great Barrier Reef has been far greater than the mining industry has claimed, with nearly 150m tonnes of new dredging set to take place in the reef’s waters, a study shows.

The report collated by the Australian Marine Conservation Society states that the reef is under “unprecedented” threat from the proposed expansion of coastal ports and industrial development.

Planned expansion of ports, or the creation of new ones, at sites including Gladstone, the Fitzroy Delta, Abbot Point and Townsville, would involve dredging 149m tonnes of seabed to allow large ships to access ports.

The society’s report warns that the dredging process is dangerous to marine life. Worse, should this sediment be dumped within the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area, corals and seagrasses would be damaged, impacting animals such as dugongs and sea turtles.

The amount of damage caused to the reef by coastal development and dredging has proved highly contentious after the government’s decision to approve five million tonnes of sediment being dumped within the reef’s marine park, as part of the expansion of Abbot Point, near Bowen.

The mining industry has pointed to research showing the degradation of the reef is down to cyclones, bleaching and coral-eating starfish, rather than dredging. The Queensland Resource Council has branded groups such as WWF as dishonest, launching a series of TV ads to argue its case.

But in an assessment of the health of the Great Barrier Reef released last week, Unesco said it had “concern” over the dredging program, querying why work on ports had begun before a long-term strategic plan was in place.

The society’s report states that previous dredging, such as at Hay Point in 2006, damaged corals, contrary to industry claims....

5/14

The Great Barrier Reef: an obituary

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is gathering in Yokohama, Japan, to explore the array of impacts climate change is having on the natural world. For one of Earth's natural wonders, the Great Barrier Reef, the situation is stark – emissions must be cut radically, and quickly, if the ecosystem is to survive

aus climate skeptic video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCRafyV0zI

stephen s upload 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCRafyV0zI

Tony Abbott's climate change policy problematic

Tom Arup, Peter Hannam

Published: January 11, 2014 - 3:00AM

When Australia's new senators take their place in July they are likely to deliver Prime Minister Tony Abbott what he has promised for four years - the scrapping of the carbon tax.

But despite that looming victory the government is now finding out its other big climate promise - the development of a ''lasting and stable'' alternative - may not be as simple as it had first suggested.

That alternative, called direct action, has had a long gestation period with then-opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt devising its initial outline during the summer of 2009-10.

Back then Abbott had just taken over as opposition leader and declared the Coalition would oppose carbon pricing but still meet Australia's unconditional target to cut 2000 greenhouse gas emissions levels by 5 per cent by 2020.

Hunt emerged touting a scheme that has since been panned by many economists and environmentalists. Despite the doubters, Hunt is now preparing to implement it.

Direct action has two main elements. The first is a funding pool - called the emissions reduction fund - to pay companies and farmers to reduce emissions.

The projects will be selected by "reverse auction" where bidders sell proposed emissions reductions and the government buys the cheapest first, snapping up the next cheapest, and so on, until it meets its targets. Abbott has set aside $1.55 billion for the fund's first three years.

Secondly, the government will set a baseline for each major polluter determined by their historical emissions rate. If a company exceeds this level it will face some kind of penalty.

To start fleshing out the plan, Hunt released a "green paper" just days before Christmas.

But Tony Wood, energy program director at the Grattan Institute, says many questions about how direct action will work remain unanswered with less than six months to go before its scheduled launch on July 1.

They include whether money set aside to buy emissions cuts will suffice to meet promised targets. National emissions including from deforestation rose 1.5 per cent in the year to June 2013 to 571.4 million tonnes, the government said last month. Fugitive emissions from the energy sector - mainly the fast growing coal and gas industries - jumped 11.4 per cent.

Despite that, the government remains confident it can meet the ''cumulative abatement challenge" of 431 million tonnes by 2020. The task is less thanks to the use of 121 million tonnes of surplus carry-over emission rights from the first Kyoto commitment period (2008-12).

Also unclear after the green paper's release is what will happen after 2020. The government is considering contracts for emission reductions that have a maximum of five years' duration, a period that is likely to be too short for most projects to secure required finance, groups including the Clean Energy Council say.

The government plans a review of the fund "towards the end of 2015" - or around the time of a scheduled global climate summit in Paris - to "provide certainty about the policy".

Wood also points to another critical uncertainty - which is also suddenly looming as the main pressure point with business - the complexity of setting the industry baselines that underpin the whole policy.

If clear limits are not set down, the government risks spending money to cut emissions only to see the savings lost as industry expands.

But many early submissions from large companies have stressed the need to keep the baseline and penalty system "flexible".

Mining giant Rio Tinto warned the system should not restrict "growth industries". The gas industry wants exemptions for new LNG projects for five years - the length of the current plan. Some suggest baselines are voluntary unless a company wants to sell emissions cuts to the government's fund.

Matthew Warren, chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, which represents big fossil-fuel power generators, told Fairfax Media that "The biggest challenge for the government will be the design and application of baselines. There doesn't appear to be any one method that works across different sectors, and different stages of the business cycle."

In the green paper, the government is suggesting baselines will not come into effect until July 2015, while the purchasing of emission cuts would begin much sooner.....

hannam

Tony Abbott's 'extreme' climate stance sets back policy decades, critics say

May 14, 2014

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/tony-abbotts-extreme-climate-stance-sets-back-policy-decades-critics-say-20140514-zrcpg.html#ixzz31huEjDA0}:

Australia's climate change action has effectively ground to a halt with the budget revealing big cuts to research and renewable energy, moves that critics say sets policy back to the 1990s.

Budget papers show funds for climate change-related programs will shrink from $5.75 billion in the current fiscal year to $1.25 billion by 2014-15 and to $500 million by 2017-18. The government will spend more on its national blood program than climate change on all but the first of those four years.

Graeme Pearman, a scientist who led CSIRO’s atmospheric research team for a decade until his retirement in 2002, said the government had adopted an "extreme" ideological approach in all but rejecting global warming as an issue despite ever-mounting evidence of the threat posed by more frequent extreme weather....

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/tony-abbotts-extreme-climate-stance-sets-back-policy-decades-critics-say-20140514-zrcpg.html#ixzz31hu6UAtc}:

The Prime Minister of Australia is the highest minister of the Crown, leader of the Cabinet and head of government, holding office on commission from the Governor-General of Australia. The office of Prime Minister is, in practice, the most powerful political office in Australia. Despite being at the apex of executive government in the country, the office is not mentioned in the Constitution of Australia and it exists through an unwritten political convention.

Barring exceptional circumstances, the prime minister is always the leader of the political party or coalition with majority support in the House of Representatives. The only case where a senator was appointed prime minister was that of John Gorton, who subsequently resigned his Senate position and was elected as a member of the House of Representatives (Senator George Pearce was acting prime minister for seven months in 1916 while Billy Hughes was overseas).^[1]

As of November 2013 the Prime Minister is Tony Abbott, the leader of the Coalition and the Liberal Party of Australia, after the Coalition defeated the Australian Labor Party at the 2013 federal election.

Gillard/Rudd:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillard_Government

Both the incumbent Howard Government and the Rudd Labor opposition promised to implement an emissions trading scheme (ETS) before the 2007 federal election. Labor won the election, and the Rudd government began negotiating the passage of an ETS through the Parliament. The Coalition called for the vote on the government's ETS to be delayed until after the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen in December 2009.^[145] Prime Minister Rudd said in response that it would be "an act of absolute political cowardice, an absolute failure of leadership not to act on climate change until other nations had done so" and the government pursued the early introduction of the Scheme.^[146] Unable to secure the support of the Australian Greens for their preferred model, the government entered negotiations with the Malcolm Turnbull led Liberal opposition, and in the lead up to the Copenhagen Conference, developed an amended Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, with the support of Turnbull. Following a party revolt by Coalition members opposed to the Scheme, and shortly before the carbon vote, Tony Abbott challenged for the leadership of the Liberal Party and narrowly defeated Turnbull. Thereafter the Coalition opposed the ETS outright and the government was unable to secure the support of other Senators for its CPRS.

Following the Copenhagen Conference, Prime Minister Rudd announced the deferral of the Scheme and elected not to take the matter to a double dissolution election.^[146]

Gillard subsequently defeated Rudd in a leadership challenge and in the lead up to the 2010 election, Prime Minister Gillard and Treasurer Swan gave assurances that no carbon tax would be introduced by a Gillard led government, but that a "citizens' assembly" would be called to sound out public support for a price on carbon.^[147][148]

The 2010 election resulted in a hung parliament in which Gillard secured the support of the Greens and three independents in order to form a government. On 28 September, in a joint press conference with the Greens, Gillard announced that a citizens assembly would not be held and that instead a "multi-party climate change committee" consisting of Labor, Greens and Independent members, would examine the issues.^[149] On 24 February 2010, in a joint press conference of the "Climate Change Committee" Gillard announced a plan to legislate for the introduction of a fixed price to be imposed on "carbon pollution" from 1 July 2012^[150] The carbon tax would be placed for three to five years before a full emissions trading scheme is implemented, under a blueprint agreed by a multi-party parliamentary committee.^[151]

The government proposed the Clean Energy Bill in February 2011,^[152] which the opposition claimed to be a broken election promise.^[153] The Liberal Party vowed to overturn the bill if it is elected.^[154]

The legislation was approved by the Lower House in October 2011^[155] and by the Upper House in November 2011.^[156]

Kevin Michael Rudd (born 21 September 1957) is a former Australian politician who was twice Prime Minister of Australia, from 2007 to 2010, and again in 2013. He was the first former prime minister to return to the office since Robert Menzies in 1949.

Having previously served as a diplomat, and then as an official for the Queensland Government, Rudd was initially elected to the House of Representatives for Griffith in1998. He was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet in 2001 as Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. In December 2006, he successfully challenged Kim Beazley to become theLeader of the Labor Party, subsequently becoming the Leader of the Opposition. Under Rudd, Labor overtook the incumbent Liberal/National Coalition led by John Howardin the polls, making a number of policy announcements on areas such as industrial relations, health, climate change, education ("Building the Education Revolution", "Digital Education Revolution"), and the National Broadband Network.

Labor won the 2007 election by a landslide, with a 23-seat swing in its favour, and Rudd was sworn in as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia on 3 December. The Rudd Government's first acts included signing the Kyoto Protocol and delivering an apology to Indigenous Australians for the Stolen Generations. The previous government's industrial relations legislation, WorkChoices, was largely dismantled, Australia's remaining Iraq War combat personnel were withdrawn, and the "Australia 2020 Summit" was held. In response to the global financial crisis, the government provided economic stimulus packages, and Australia was one of the few developed countries to avoid the late-2000s recession.

Despite a long period of popularity in **opinion polls**, a significant fall in Rudd's personal ratings in the middle of 2010 was blamed on a proposed **Resource Super Profits Tax** and the deferral of the **Senate**-rejected **Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme**. With the next election drawing near, there was growing dissatisfaction with Rudd's leadership within the Labor Party. Eventually, Rudd's deputy, Julia Gillard, announced on 23 June 2010 that she would challenge him for the leadership the following day. Knowing he would be defeated if he contested the leadership, on the morning of the ballot Rudd resigned as Prime Minister. After his resignation, he successfully re-contested his seat at the 2010 election, after which Labor formed a minority government.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd

desmog

One of those authors is an Australia-based engineer called Alberto Boretti, who recently changed his name to Albert Parker. Dr Parker works on “green engines” at RMIT University in Melbourne. He is a member of a group known as Principia Scientific International [13] whose head claims carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and cannot warm the planet. PSI is on the very fringes of the climate science denial fringe.

Dr Parker has published several papers with another Australian, Thomas Watson, who believes CO2 cannot cause climate change [14] and instead has blamed “magnetism” – a theory sparked in Watson’s mind after seeing a UFO while backstage at a rock concert.

WHAT follows are some thoughts about coal from a report just published in Australia.

A longer-term concern relates to the environmental impacts of large-scale coal use, especially its climate consequences….

Now who might have written that? An environmental campaigner? An anti-coal activist in a less bombastic mood? Maybe they’re the words of an advocate for action on climate change?

Actually, these are the views of Ian Cronshaw, a long-standing advisor to the International Energy Agency who was commissioned by theEnergy Policy Institute of Australia [1] to write a report about coal and its future economic outlook.

The Energy Policy Institute of Australia’s board [2] includes a number of figures who have spent their careers in and around the fossil fuel industry.

The paper, The Current and Future Importance of Coal in the World Energy Economy [3], consists of just three pages, as well as a header page and a biography page at the back.

Most of the contents are drawn from the various reports put out by the International Energy Agency.

So how was this pamphlet greeted by Australia’s coal industry? The only media report of note came from The Australian newspaper, which ran the headline: "Coal will 'dominate global power sector for decades [4]'" on its front page.

Here are the first two lines of that story, to give you a flavor.

COAL will dominate the power sector globally for decades to come, according to a paper that miners say undermines campaigns by green activists to "demonise" coal.

The paper - written by an International Energy Agency consultant and to be sent to Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane - says coal will remain the dominant power-sector fuel for at least the next quarter of a century despite efforts to diversify power sources and concerns about slower economic growth.

The report in The Australian does not mention Cronshaw’s observations about coal and climate change.

In fact, the words climate change or global warming don’t appear anywhere in the story, even though it takes up almost a third of the three pages of Cronshaw’s analysis.The Australian also chose to quote two coal industry representatives, who took the report’s publication as an opportunity to criticise environmental campaigners.

Graham Bradley, who amongst other things is the chairman of the advisory board for coal company Anglo American Australian, was reported as saying:

Much of the green polemic is not grounded in the fundamental reality that the world needs the lowest-cost energy and at the end of the day the economics will prevail and investment will follow.

Brendan Pearson, chief executive of the industry lobbyists the Minerals Council of Australia which recently subsumed the lobbying work of the Australian Coal Association, said:

Activist campaigns seeking to demonise Australian coal fail to acknowledge that it will be the principal global energy source for decades - transforming economies and helping eliminate poverty.

Both commentators also touted how the report predicted a rosy future for the coal industry in long term. The report does do this, but with a number of large caveats. It is far from the slam dunk which the media report and the quotes might have you believe. For example, there’s this from the Cronshaw report:

The current economic outlook remains very clouded, with many regions either stagnant or seeing slower economic growth. This will naturally impact heavily on global power use and coal consumption. However, most forecasters remain confident that, over the longer term, energy demand growth in non-OECD countries, the key determinant of coal demand growth, will be strong.

The report does map out the strong growth in the use of coal in non-OECD countries, including India and China, and predicts this is where much of the future demand will come from.

In two sentences, the report also points out the benefits of electricity — which, remember, can and is generated from renewable sources as well as polluting coal. The report says:

Such access to electricity is crucial to economic growth; it means food can be stored in refrigerators, children can do their homework, small businesses can function. And overwhelmingly, this electricity has come from coal.

Cronshaw also makes it clear that under the policies currently in place, coal has a strong future. But this is precisely why climate change campaigners are pushing back hard on the mining and the use of coal, because they see these policies as being far too weak.

One analysis of current climate pledges by governments around the world, released during the recent Warsaw UN climate talks, suggested that pledges on the table will currently deliver about 4C of global warming [5] by the end of the century — a gaping chasm between stated ambitions and reality.

Cronshaw again:

It is worth observing that the IEA’s Current Policies Scenario, essentially a business as usual scenario, has global levels of coal demand more than 20% above the central scenario, in which a range of climate policies are cautiously implemented. The power sector is clearly the key coal market, but this sector must also be the focus of any successful climate change mitigation efforts.

That last line is worth reading twice. The coal sector "must also be the focus of any successful climate change mitigation efforts."

Cronshaw also says the industry could make early gains in cuts in emissions by improving efficiency, but says that, "In reality, the penetration of the most efficient coal-fired power generation technologies is constrained by technical considerations, additional costs and the absence of a global price on carbon."

The Australian government is in the process of trying to repeal the country’s carbon price, which would have linked to the European emissions trading scheme.

But again, Cronshaw is clear that coal's future does depend on environmental policy down the line.

Environmental policy will play a decisive role in future coal consumption. In some countries, coal use may be encouraged for economic, social or energy security reasons. If action were taken to provide electricity access by 2030 to the 1.3 billion people in the world without it today (almost all in non-OECD countries), coal could be expected to account for more than half of the fuel required to provide additional on-grid connections. In other countries, policies may encourage switching away from coal to more environmentally benign or lower carbon sources. While a global agreement on carbon pricing has been elusive, a growing number of countries are taking steps to put a price on carbon emissions, including in China where there are several pilot schemes underway, although current pricing levels seen for example in Europe, are too low to materially affect energy choices.

When Graham Bradley from Anglo American Australia says "at the end of the day the economics will prevail and investment will follow" he seems to be ignoring the view expressed in the report which he lauds, which says that in fact, "Environmental policy will play a decisive role in future coal consumption."

The paper also has a few words to say about so-called "clean coal" technologies – known as Carbon Capture and Storage. The paper points out that while some progress has been made "CCS has yet to be demonstrated on a large scale in an integrated fashion in the power and industrial sectors, and so costs remain uncertain."

Cronshaw adds that:

The success of governments globally in encouraging greater energy diversity, improved efficiency, and the development and deployment of clean coal technologies will have a profound bearing on the role of coal in the longer term.

This is an interesting observation, given that both the former and current Australian governments have continued to slash hundreds of millions of dollars [6] from CCS programs.

Despite what you might read in The Australian or through the mouths of vested interests, the future of coal is far from certain.

Just ask the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, who earlier this week [7] encouraged governments and institutional investors to take their money out of fossil fuels. Or maybe try one group of philanthropists with $1.8 billion [8] in their coffers, who also this week pledged to divest from fossil fuels.

Or how about the US Export-Import Bank [9] – a government institution that approved more than $35 billion in investments in 2012 - which has said it won’t invest in coal projects abroad unless they are fitted with CCS (which as yet, doesn’t really exist commercially).

Clearly coal will continue to be burned for energy, but as even this report the industry cites explains, emissions need to come down, environmental policies will dictate how quickly and that carbon pricing will drive early efficiency gains.

You can of course see this report two ways, depending upon which side you butter your bread. One way is that the report shows how the current suite of policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions are either too few or are not up to the job — probably both.

Another option is to use the three-page pamphlet as a way to instill confidence in potential investors in coal and to convince politicians that it's an industry worth supporting.

That second group of people just have to hope that policymakers either fail to actually read the report, or don't take the risks of climate change anywhere near seriously enough.

Tags:

coal [10]

Australia [11]

climate change [12]

ian cronshaw [13]

IEA [14]

Energy Policy Institute of Australia [15]

International Energy Agency [16]

Source URL: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/30/australian-report-trumpeted-coal-bosses-does-not-say-what-they-want-you-think-it-says

Links:

[1] http://www.energypolicyinstitute.com.au/index.php/publications/institute-papers

[2] http://www.energypolicyinstitute.com.au/index.php/board

[3] http://www.energypolicyinstitute.com.au/images/Policy_Paper_Jan2014_Ian_Cronshaw_5-2014.pdf

[4] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coal-will-dominate-global-power-sector-for-decades/story-fn59niix-1226813433077#

[5] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/nov/21/warsaw-climate-change-conference-global-warming

[6] http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/15/policy-politics/labor-gives-clean-coal

[7] http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/27/world-bank-chief-backs-fossil-fuel-divestment-drive/

[8] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/foundations-with-1-8-billion-vow-fossil-fuel-divestment.html

[9] http://www.exim.gov/newsandevents/releases/2013/EXPORT-IMPORT-BANK-BOARD-ADOPTS-REVISED-ENVIRONMENTAL-GUIDELINES-TO-REDUCE-GREENHOUSE-GAS-EMISSIONS.cfm

[10] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/662

[11] http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/australia

[12] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/939

[13] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/15161

[14] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/9331

[15] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/15162

[16] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1220

[17] http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/30/australian-report-trumpeted-coal-bosses-does-not-say-what-they-want-you-think-it-says

The government agency that oversees Australia's Great Barrier Reef on Friday approved a plan to dump vast swathes of sediment on the reef as part of a major coal port expansion — a decision that environmentalists say will endanger one of the world's most fragile ecosystems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/great-barrier-reef-sedime_n_4699624.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

This year’s Colossal Fossil goes to Australia. The new Australian Government has won its first major international award – the Colossal Fossil. The delegation came here with legislation in its back pocket to repeal the carbon price, failed to take independent advice to increase its carbon pollution reduction target and has been blocking progress in the loss and damage negotiations. Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi!

Canada is dishonored with a special Lifetime Unachievement Fossil Award for its long-standing efforts preventing this process from making a sufficient contribution to the fight against climate change. As long as Canada and the Harper Government puts their addiction to the tar sands first, Canada will continue to be a Fossil champion.

Canada’s record is in indeed unsurpassed – it is the only country in the world to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. And it did not event meet its pitifully lowered emissions reduction target announced in the lead-up to the Copenhagen COP. Canada’s stance is also rubbing off on other countries at the negotiations. Following Canada’s Kyoto “lead,” Japan abandoned its own 2020 target, and when Australia proposed to cut its carbon price, Canada cheered instead of staging an intervention. Canada you truly are a climate laggard... again... and again.

Singapore slinks to first Fossil for stingy stance on 2015 deal

The first place Fossil of the Day goes to Singaporefor strongly opposing the inclusion of the clear elements of a roadmap to the comprehensive global climate action planned that needs to be agreed in 2015. The island city-state is blocking the development of framework to fairly divide climate action between countries. Furthermore, Singapore is promoting weak language in the text on the post-2020 carbon pollution reduction commitments, preventing national actions being integrated in a rules-based multilateral system. Despite being a member of AOSIS, Singapore is blocking progress towards the 2015 deal because of their unwillingness accept they must contribute to the solution.

Second place Fossil goes to U.S.A. We have been hearing that the Americans came here with a mandate to play a constructive role in the negotiations, which is not currently being reflected. They are blocking progress on a Long Term Finance pathway as well as an agreement on the relationship between the COP and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which are critical issues for developing countries. The U.S. is also being difficult around the establishment of an international mechanism on loss and damage, which was agreed at COP 18 last year. This is complete backtracking and a betrayal to the millions of poor and vulnerable people around the world.

Saudi Arabia wins the third place Fossil of the Day. Saudi Arabia wants to introduce the issue of “Response Measures” into the 2015 agreement. Response Measures is the about how countries like Saudi Arabia would be compensated for any loss in oil sales if the world decides to reduce the use of fossils fuels to solve climate change. It would be surprising to many to see Saudi Arabia asking governments for financial compensation when they have one the highest GDPs in the world for selling the substance that caused climate change in the first place. But Saudi Arabia is not interested in financial compensation. They just want to poison the negotiations. They are not fooling anybody.

Ray of the Day goes to Chile.The Alliance of Independent Latin American and Caribbean States (AILAC) has proven itself to be the gold standard in civil society engagement, moral integrity and simple logic by championing youth in the ADP and putting forward Intergenerational Equity.

Tags:

Region:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Since the elections were announced,Rupert Murdoch has gone on the offensive, plastering his papers with outrageous attacks on Kevin Rudd and the ALP. But when independent advocacy group GetUp pushed back with its own ad critical of News Corp's blatant bias, all three commercial networks are refusing to air the anti-Murdoch ad, worried they will anger the billionaire mogul.

This is what media concentration in Australia has brought: a chummy corporate culture that protects its own. Rupert Murdoch has been able to get away with substituting editorials for news while critical voices are shut out of the discussion. It's time to push back against corporate censorship protecting its own.

Tell the big three channels to stop censoring critical voices.

Already, deregulation has led to Murdoch controlling 70% of the market for newspapers, and his agenda will seek even further concentration of power in Australian media. If Tony Abbott rolls into office, he will owe Murdoch a big debt, and News Corp has a big agenda it wants passed, including weakening the ABC, dismantling regulations, and ending laws regulating hate speech.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 22/08/2013

Reporter: Chris Uhlmann

Public support for climate change has diminished and as the election looms, the two parties have similar targets for reducing carbon emissions but totally different policies for how to get there.

Transcript

LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: It's six years since Kevin Rudd called climate change "the great moral challenge of our generation"....http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3831850.htm

...Such has been the position of folks like Viv Forbes, an Australian geologist and chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition -- a group of climate change denialists apparently set up to combat what it characterizes as the "unjustified vilification of carbon by politicians and the media." (Poor carbon.)

"[S]pecies extinction, like climate change, is the way of the world," Forbes wrote recently at the popular climate skeptic site Watts Up With That? He continues:

Sadly, history shows that it is the destiny of most species to be destroyed by periodic natural calamities or competition from other species. Earth's history is a moving picture, not a still life. No species has an assured place on Earth. Some species can adapt and survive -- those unable to adapt are removed from the gene pool. [...] Species extinction events are not new, are not caused by burning carbon fuels, and will probably occur again. We will need all of our freedom, ingenuity and technology to survive. Let us not hasten our own species extinction by starving ourselves of food and energy with foolish demonization of carbon, the building block of all life forms.

Viv Forbes

Credentials

Degree in Applied Science Geology, and Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. [1]

Background

Viv Forbes is the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, which was created to "defend the role of carbon on earth and in the atmosphere," and which describes Forbes as a "pasture manager, soil scientist and geologist from Rosevale in Queensland." [2]

Forbes has also had a long association with the coal industry. According to hisbiography at Stanmore Coalwhere he acts as director, Forbes has over 40 years of coal industry experience and has worked with Burton Coal, Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, South Blackwater Coal Mine, Tahmoor Coal Mine, Newlands/Collinsville Coal Mines, MIM, Utah Goonyella/Saraji and Gold Fields.

He is also associated with other skeptical organizations including the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC).

According to Forbes, the "Green Elite" has a "long-term agenda . . . to destroy human industry and reduce human population. Thus they are opposed to farming, mining, fishing, forestry, exploration and cheap power." [3]

Stance on Climate Change

"It is unbelievable that many in politics and the media are whipping up public hysteria about 'global warming' when the best evidence suggests that for the 100 years ending in the year 2000, the century of coal, steel, electricity, the internal combustion engine, jet planes, two world wars and a population explosion, the average surface temperature rose by only 0.6 deg, and there has been NO increase in temperature since 1998. In many areas, surface temperatures have been falling for decades." [2]

Key Quotes

"Queensland has wasted millions on the global warming industry. Residents would be better off had they spent it on water storage, flood gauges and flood-proofing of highways, railways and airports." [4]

"Even if the water vapour and carbon dioxide produced by man did cause some slight warming of the earth, is this a problem? Eons of geological history show that a warm, moist, carbon-rich atmosphere encourages all life on earth. These periods are referred to as 'Golden Ages'. The cold barren periods are those to be feared – they get called 'The Dark Ages'." [4]

"Carbon dioxide plays a wholly beneficial role in the atmosphere, and there is no evidence that this would change should carbon dioxide levels rise. It is being vilified because it is a so-called 'Greenhouse Gas'." [4]

"There is no evidence, no consensus among scientists, no clear benefits, no reliable projections but huge potential costs if Australia does indeed pursue a 'low Carbon Future'." [4]

Key Deeds

June, 2011

Forbes and the Carbon Sense Coalition supported climate change skeptic Christopher Monckton's Australian tour.

"We urge people to attend the Monckton functions because the opposition will try to frighten us away with smears and personal attacks on him and his associates. His cause is our cause,"Forbes said. [12]

June 13, 2009

Forbes released a statement where he opposes The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), claiming that it would "not change the climate, it will do nothing useful for the planet and it will destroy real jobs faster than green jobs can be created."

His hope was that Australia would refuse to pass "this dangerous legislation." [5]

October 9, 2008

Forbes authored an open letter (PDF) criticizing carbon trading on behalf of the Carbon Sense Coalition. The letter, addressed to the Premier and Members, describes carbon dioxide as "harmless . . . plant [food]."

Forbes also suggests that carbon trading would increase the price of petrol, grain, beef and other farm products, and that carbon trading would result in something "worse than the sub-prime crisis." It is interesting to note that the Carbon Sense Coalition's Advisory (PDF) Committee is filled with individuals representing the beef and mining industries. [6]

The letter concludes that "There is no consensus on the science of global warming, and no evidence beyond computer models that carbon dioxide is causing or will cause dangerous climate changes. Climate is always changing, and there is no evidence that man has or can affect world climate trends. Therefore there is no basis to embark on a massive dislocation of Queensland's backbone industries. There are zero proven benefits." [7]

February 11, 2008

Forbes, on behalf of the Carbon Sense Coalition, sent a submission (PDF) to the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change (DOCC), criticizing its proposal for a national greenhouse and energy reporting (NGER) system.

The NGER act would provide a national framework in Australia to report the greenhouse gas emissions by major corporations.

Forbes suggests that the NGER system (if implemented) should "minimize the data demanded, the people who must report and the matters reported on." His suggestions include to: [8]

"Delete all requirements to report all energy produced, transported and consumed..."

"Delete all reporting on guesses of carbon gases produced by the disposal, decay, composting or burning of organic waste, agricultural products, dead pasture, scrub re-growth, waste water, animal manure, human sewerage, land fill etc...

"Delete all references to 'Indirect Emissions'. . ."

The submissions's conclusion is that there should be an "Independent Enquiry" into climate change science before any de-carbonisation proposals are applied in Australia.

Forbes's reasoning is that the climate is "unusually benign," that carbon dioxide has "encouraged plant growth, causing a large increase in food production on earth since the 1850’s ('the green revolution')." He also believes that "a period of global cooling is likely."

Although he mentions "scientists who study the sun," he does not cite any scientific studies in his report.

Affiliations

**Carbon Sense Coalition**— Chairman. [6]
**International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)**— Member, Policy Advisory Board. [9]
**Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC)** — Member, Scientific Advisory Panel. [10]
Stanmore Coal— Director.[1]

Publications

According to a search of Google Scholar, Viv Forbes has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate.

Forbes has published a study (through the Carbon Sense Coalition) called "All Cows are Green" in the journal Australian Sugarcane. [11]

The study calls on farms in New Zealand and Australia to "raise their voices in opposition to the proposals of Australian and New Zealand governments to include emissions and motions from farm animals as a taxable carbon emission."

Resources

"Directors and Management," Stanmore Coal. Accessed January 2012.
"Climate Smart?" Media Statement, Sunday 1st July 2007. Published on Carbon-Sense.com.
"The New Dark (Green) Age by Viv Forbes," Just Grounds Community, June 27, 2011.
"Viv Forbes: adapting to climate is a better policy," Australian Conservative, January 4, 2011.
"The RAT Scheme will destroy jobs, jobs jobs," Canada Free Press, June 12, 2009.
"Introducing The Carbon Sense Coalition" (PDF), Carbon-Sense.com. Accessed January, 2012.
Viv Forbes. "An Open Letter to Premier Anna Bligh and All Elected Members in Queensland" (PDF), Carbon Sense Coalition, October 9, 2008.
"'Keep it Simple, Stupid': A Submission from The Carbon Sense Coalition to the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change (DOCC) on its proposal for a National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System" (PDF), February 11, 2008. Retrieved from Climatechange.gov.au.
"Who We Are," International Climate Science Coalition. Accessed January, 2012.
"About Us," Australian Climate Science Coalition. Accessed January, 2012.
Viv Forbes. "All Cows are Green," Australian Sugarcane, Vol. 12, No. 2, Apr/May 2008.
Viv Forbes. "Australian Tour by Christopher Monckton," Canada Free Press, June 27, 2011.
"Viv Forbes," SourceWatch Profile.
Graham Readfearn. "Australia's place in the global web of climate denial," The Drum, June 29, 2011.

Along with the U.K., Australia is another country seeing American-style climate denial in the press. A recent analysis from the Australian Center for Independent Journalism found that 73 percent of articles and opinion pieces published in 2011 on a proposed carbon price were negative.

"Some of Australia’s leading newspapers have been so negative in their reporting of the Gillard government’s carbon policy it’s fair to say they’ve campaigned against it rather than covered it,” concluded the author of the report.

Stephen Lacey is a reporter with Climate Progress covering clean energy issues. He formerly worked as a producer/editor atRenewableEnergyWorld.com.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/were-no-1-in-climate-denier-coverage/

Gina Rinehart ($17 bn)

If there is a hell for those who hate working people, Australian mining mogul Gina Rinehart occupies the innermost circle, right there in Satan’s maw. The richest woman in the Asia/Pacific region likes to share her obscene philosophy of wealth [7], and recently made a case for $2 dollar-a-day pay. She also instructed poor people to stop being jealous of the rich and to focus on working harder, and drinking and smoking less. She has blamed Australia’s economic problems [8] on a socialist anti-business agenda, but of course Rinehart, who inherited a $30 billion fortune, has never had a real job. She does have her own Facebook fanpage, “F*ck Gina Rinehart [9],” which boasts nearly 38,000 likes.

The campaign countering non-profits goes global

��

The IPA themselves have targeted public interest groups in Malaysia and those working on issues in Indonesia. In mid-June 2004 the conservative Australian government released a consultancy report by the IPA's Gary Johns and John Roskam proposing the first steps to reduce the access that non-government organisations have to government decision making. [3]

6 Oct 2012 8:07 AM

We’re No. 1! (In climate denier coverage)

By Stephen Lacey

Cross-posted from Climate Progress

America is unique when it comes to giving a platform to climate deniers and skeptics.

According to a new analysis of data released last year, American newspapers are far more likely to publish uncontested claims from climate deniers, many of whom challenge whether the planet is warming at all and are “almost exclusively found” in the U.S. media. The study was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The researchers were trying to answer three important questions: Is climate denial and disinformation as prevalent in the newspapers outside America? Is it mostly right-wing papers publishing these pieces? And what types of skeptics are being published in different countries?

In all three categories, the U.S. emerged as a unique leader in promoting climate denial in the press.

The newspapers surveyed were Folha de S��o Paulo and Estado de São Paulo in Brazil; People’s Daily��and Beijing Evening News in China; Le Monde and Le Figaro in France; The Hindu and Times of India in India; the Guardian/Observer and the Daily/Sunday Telegraph in the United Kingdom; and the New York Times and Wall Street Journal in America. The researchers looked at stories between 2009 and 2010, when the so-called ��climategate” story was unfolding. They also compared their findings to coverage in 2007, when the IPCC released its assessment of climate science.

In both periods, the percentage of articles containing voices questioning human-made global warming in the U.S. were dramatically higher than other countries. Here’s a chart illustrating 2009 coverage:

The US newspapers had the largest number of articles in percentage terms (34%) which contained skeptical voices over the period examined, and nearly double the next country which was the UK at 19%. The Chinese newspapers came next with 7% of all articles, although the figures were taken from a low base. India and France followed with roughly 6%, with Brazil last at 3%. So, despite the high number of articles in the Indian and Brazilian press covering the issue, a very low percentage of these included skeptical voices.

So did the political leaning of a newspaper influence its coverage? It’s actually a very mixed picture. When factoring in non-opinion articles, the researchers actually found slightly more articles quoting climate skeptics or deniers in left-leaning newspapers than in right-leaning papers. But when looking at opinion pages, the articles tend to fall within traditional ideological camps — with far more right-leaning publications featuring “uncontested” skeptical voices than left-leaning ones. While France and the U.K. experienced a similar trend, the U.S. was the leader in this area as well:

In conclusion, we can say that from our sample, there is little evidence for much difference in the percentage of articles containing skeptical voices between left-leaning and right-leaning or centrist newspapers in Brazil, France and India. However, in the USA and the UK, where skeptical voices generally appear in much higher numbers, the differences are more marked. The strongest evidence for a distinction between left-leaning and right-leaning newspapers can be found in the opinion pages in France, the UK and the USA, where right-leaning newspapers are much more likely to include uncontested skeptical voices.

So what kind of voices are being published in these papers? The findings here are also mixed. The researchers break down skeptics into three categories: Those who completely deny the planet is warming (trend skeptics); those who accept that the planet is warming, but question if it’s caused by humans (attribution skeptics); and those who falsely claim that increasing CO2 emissions and a warming planet will be a good thing (impact skeptics).

In Brazil, China, France, India, and the U.K., we see a mix of skeptics in the second and third categories who accept that the planet is warming, but question the cause and impact. In the U.S., we see a different trend: a much greater number of deniers who believe that there is no evidence that the planet is warming. (The researchers attribute this to the prominence of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the most outspoken climate denier in Congress, who often appears in news stories).

Such results would support the view that the USA is particularly notable for the presence of skeptics who question the need for strong climate change policy proposals.

The study, while only covering newspapers and only looking at two short time periods, shows that American climate denial is unique and more prevalent than in other countries, and that ideology does influence how the topic is covered. From the report’s conclusion:

There is some evidence for arguing that there is a strong correspondence between the political leaning of a newspaper and its willingness to quote or use uncontested skeptical voices in opinion pieces. The distinction between news pages and opinion pages is important as much of the skepticism in found in the latter category. In right-leaning newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and the Telegraph, there is very little uncontested skepticism in their news reporting.

There is also evidence for seeing a greater presence in the US media of the sort of skepticism which strongly attacks the scientific legitimacy of climate change policy proposals compared to all the other five countries (with the notable exception of the U.K.).

Along with the U.K., Australiais another country seeing American-style climate denial in the press. A recent analysis from the Australian Center for Independent Journalism found that 73 percent of articles and opinion pieces published in 2011 on a proposed carbon price were negative.

When a tree-planting advocate receives threats of sexual assault and violence against her children, it is perhaps a red flag that the practice of healthy discussion has gone terribly awry.

In the heat of a carbon pollution tax debate, Australia’s top climate change scientists are facing an attack that has led some to go into hiding.

Over 30 researchers across Australia told The Canberra Times that they are being harassed with abusive emails. The violent threats haven't just targeted the scientists, but their families as well.

Why are people so angry? AFP explains that a debate is raging over Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plans to reduce pollution through a tax on carbon emissions. The goal is to tax polluters with a fixed price levy, and then move to an emissions trading scheme within the next five years. Reuters reports that Australia is the highest emitter per capita due to its reliance on coal (providing 80 percent of the nation’s power.)

The seemingly excessive anger towards scientists was fueled a few weeks ago when a new ad campaign featuring Cate Blanchett launched, advocating for the carbon tax. The ad suggests that big companies should pay for their pollution. The carbon tax proposal would result in more jobs, better health for children, and, as Blanchett says, “finally do something about climate change.” The ad appears to be rather understated (there is literally a singing birds sound cue), and yet the clip further enraged some people. As Grist writes, “Positivity + babies + gorgeous actresses seems like a pretty good recipe for getting people to, if not agree with you, at least not want to KILL YOU.”

The Guardian reports that Tony Abbott, the conservative opposition leader who once described man-made climate change as “crap,” critiqued the advertisement and actor, stating, "People who are worth $53m have a right to be heard �� but their voice should not be heard ahead of the ordinary working people of this country.”

One recent poll found that 58 percent of the 500 voters questioned were against the tax. The proposal’s opposition argues that the carbon tax would damage the economy.

Meanwhile, Treasurer Wayne Swan argues "Our economy will continue to grow solidly while making deep cuts in carbon pollution," according to a speech excerpt provided by Reuters. According to Australia's ABC News, the debate comes on the heels of a new report commissioned by the Federal Government, predicting that by the end of the century, thousands of buildings could be destroyed with $226 billion worth of assets at risk due to climate change.

The problem is that this debate has in some cases materialized into serious anger.

According to *The Canberra Times*, The Australian National University moved high-profile climate scientists into secure buildings after they received explicit threats.

Scientists from other universities have been threatened as well. One scientist told The Canberra Times, ''If you want to find me, it's impossible unless you make an appointment, sign in with some form of photo identification, and are personally escorted to my door… That's directly as a result of threats made against me.''

One researcher told the paper of an instance where her photo appeared in an article promoting a community tree-planting day -- she then received threats of sexual assault and violence against her children. Another scientist received death threats and was advised by police to install a ''panic button'' in his office.

Many have changed their home security systems, deleted social media accounts, and switched to unlisted phone numbers after receiving threats to their homes.

Australia's new chief scientist, former ANU vice-chancellor Professor Ian Chubb, denounced the threats, stating, ''These hurtful attacks are intended to intimidate scientists, to scare them off and stop them from participating in public discussions on climate change. They are the antithesis of democratic debate.”

Christine Milne, Australian Greens deputy leader, said the emails were ''an orchestrated, extremist anti-science campaign attempting to threaten and intimidate people into silence.''

Professor David Koroly from the University of Melbourne tells Australia's ABC News that he receives threats every time the media interview him. Yet, he argues, "It is still very important that climate scientists present the best available information to the community, to the business community and to politicians and that we seek to protect our individual safety, but that we still provide the best available climate science."

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-06/witness-protection-scientists-australian-climate-researchers-moved-secure-location-after-threats

Australian climate scientists receive death threats

Universities move staff into safer accommodation after a large number of threatening emails and phone calls

Oliver Milman
The Guardian, Monday 6 June 2011 10.09 EDT

Australian marine scientists examine coral cores at Clerke Reef, Western Australia. Climate scientists have recently received death threats, universities say. Photograph: Ho/Reuters

A number of Australia's leading climate scientists have been moved into safer accommodation after receiving death threats, in a further escalation of the country's increasingly febrile carbon price debate.

The revelation of the death threats follows a week of bitter exchanges between the government and the opposition in the wake of a pro-carbon price TV advert featuring actor Cate Blanchett.

The Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra said that it has moved a number of its climate scientists to a secure facility after they received a large number of threatening emails and phone calls.

Ian Young, ANU's vice-chancellor, told ABC national radio that the threats had worsened in recent weeks.

"Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time," he said.

24 February 2010

clive hamilton more: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/clive-hamilton-27800.html

Think tanks, oil money and black ops

The army of denialist bloggers and cyber-bullies is sometimes accused of being the tool of fossil fuel companies. Although there is certainly a concordance of interests, that is as far as the relationship goes. The bloggers are motivated not by financial gain (indeed, their activities may have a financial cost) but by political grievances and an anti-elite worldview at odds with the mainstream.

Nevertheless, it is true that the raw material that feeds their anger is generated overwhelmingly by a network of right-wing think tanks and websites in part funded by Big Carbon. These links, which have been heavily documented, are close enough to provoke the Royal Society to take the unprecedented step of writing to Exxon Mobil asking the company to desist from funding anti-science groups.

Yet the funding continues, often through foundations that in effect launder oil and coal money to make it more difficult to trace to its sources. One of the more important conduits is the Washington-based Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Atlas supports financially a network of some 200 libertarian think tanks around the world, including (according to an investigation by US magazine *Mother Jones*) the Institute of Public Affairs and the Centre for Independent Studies in Australia.

Atlas co-sponsored the Heartland Institute's climate sceptic conference in Washington last June attended by a number of prominent Australian skeptics. The Heartland Institute has received funding from Exxon Mobil and earlier received funding from Philip Morris to campaign against smoking restrictions. It has superseded Frontiers of Freedom and the Competitive Enterprise Institute as the foremost US "think tank" working to discredit climate science and stop action on climate change.

Black ops

The deployment of think tanks and sceptic websites to attack climate science has been a carefully planned strategy that was developed in the United States in the mid-1990s. It was refined with the advice of political consultant Frank Luntz who in 2002 urged the Republican Party to undermine the credibility of climate science by commissioning "independent" experts to "make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate". The strategy is comprehensively exposed by former PR insider Jim Hoggan in his recent book *Climate Cover-Up*.

The strategy's use of operations that fall into the "grey area" of political campaigning - such as the creation of fake citizens groups to advance the interests of fossil fuel companies - is well-known and continuing. Only now is light being shone on a far more sinister campaign of black operations.

The hacking into computers at the Climatic Research Centre at the University of East Anglia is only part of a more extensive campaign of black ops organised by elements of the denial industry in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting. Others include break-ins to the offices of climate scientists, an attempt to infiltrate the computer system at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria by two people posing as technicians, and industrial espionage directed at US green groups.

The think tanks

Although Australia does not have the proliferation of well-funded conservative think tanks that have been so influential in US politics, local counterparts have served effectively as conduits for the stream of anti-science pouring out of their kindred organisations in the United States. They have also been instrumental in publicising and promoting the work of Australian sceptics such as Ian Plimer and Bob Carter. There are three established think tanks and a new one emerging.

Lavoisier Group:Perhaps better described as an advocacy group than a think tank, the Lavoisier Group was founded in 1999 by Hugh Morgan, then CEO of Western Mining Corporation and a former president of the Mining Industry Council, and his long-time political operative Ray Evans. Its board consists mostly of mining industry figures. Evans has close links with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for some years the most active denialist think tank in the United States.

Evans, with Morgan's backing, had created a string of organisations promoting conservative causes, including the anti-union H.R Nicholls Society (with which the Lavoisier Group shares a postal address) and the Samuel Griffiths Society, committed to defending states' rights

��

The Lavoisier Group brings together leading sceptics at its conferences, promotes sceptics' books, and publishes material such as "Nine Lies About Global Warming", penned by Evans and parroted by sceptical columnists in the newspapers. A book edited by Evans was last year launched by Senator Barnaby Joyce, now the shadow finance minister.

Institute of Public Affairs: The oldest think tank in Australia, and with close links to the Liberal Party, the IPA took up the denialist cause early. The IPA is coy about its funding sources, but is known to have received the bulk of its income from mining, resource and tobacco companies. In addition to promoting the work of Australian sceptics like Ian Plimer, the IPA has hosted international visitors such as Bjorn Lomborg and Mark Steyn, events attended by Liberal Party heavyweights.

The IPA also sponsored the visit to Australia of President Putin's former adviser Andrei Illarianov who fulminated against "fraudulent science" and described the Kyoto Protocol as a "death pact", "an interstate Auschwitz", "a sort of international Gosplan, a system to rival the former Soviet Union's", an argument bizarre even in the world of climate denial, but reasonable enough to be reproduced by *The Australian*.

Centre for Independent Studies: The CIS projects itself as a more moderate conservative think tank, but has not been able to resist promoting climate scepticism. After struggling in its early years, it was reprieved by a major funding boost from six mining companies, a rescue facilitated by Hugh Morgan. Among its board members is Sir Rod Eddington, a senior business adviser to the Labor Government. It has hosted a string of climate sceptics from overseas and Australia.

��

Brisbane Institute: The Brisbane Institute has for some years been a middle-of-the-road think tank but appears to have been taken over by climate sceptics. Some of its followers were shocked to hear that the Institute would host the Brisbane leg of Christopher Monckton's Australian tour.

Last year the Brisbane Institute hosted a public lecture by Dr Jay Lehr, Science Director of the Heartland Institute. As we saw, the Heartland Institute is now the most active climate denialist organisation in the United States. Lehr was presented by the Brisbane Institute as an "internationally renowned" scientist, which is simply untrue; he has been heavily criticised for distorting and misrepresenting climate science. He is better known for spending three months in jail for defrauding the US Environmental Protection Authority in 1991.

The Brisbane Institute is perfectly entitled to take the denialist road. The puzzle is why the University of Queensland, the Institute's primary sponsor, would support an organisation that promotes anti-science. Paying for Monckton and Fehr to trash climate science in Brisbane does not seem compatible with the University's aim "to achieve internationally-acknowledged excellence in all forms of research".

Several scientists from the University serve as authors or reviewers for the IPCC, a body attacked as fraudulent by Monckton and Lehr. The University of Queensland appears unconcerned about linking itself with climate denial. In 2008 it accepted a donation of $350,000 from a climate change sceptic, channeled through the IPA, who wanted it to be spent on funding doctoral research on climate change. Of course, the University said there would be no strings attached.

These think tanks are at the heart of the denial movement in this country. They provide funding and organisational capacity, they convene conferences and private meetings, they commission sceptical scientists to write papers, they publish and promote sceptical papers and books, they supply "experts" to the media and they lobby at every opportunity.

Every sceptical scientist, no matter how independent he starts out, is sooner or later drawn into the web formed by these think tanks. In Australia, Bob Carter is a favourite of the Heartland Institute and the Lavoisier Group, Ian Plimer is an associate of the Institute for Public Affairs and an adviser to Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation, and William Kinninmonth (the Australian sceptic with perhaps the strongest claims to being a climate scientist) allowed his book to be launched by the Lavoisier Group.

The links of these sceptics to political organisations with strong ideological agendas stands in sharp contrast to the vast assemblage of legitimate climate scientists who have no political connections. Yet it is the latter who are accused of being politicised.

Backlash against the 60s

Despite their financial support from Big Carbon, it would be wrong to believe that the conservative think tanks operate solely at the behest of the fossil fuel industries. Their objectives are principally ideological and they would still be campaigning against climate science without funding from Exxon Mobil and others; they would just be less effective. In the United States and Australia, it is probably true that they have received more funding from right-wing foundations with no links to Big Carbon than from oil and coal companies (although some, like the Scaife Foundations, owe their wealth to oil).

So, in the end, their motives are political rather than commercial. The arms of the denialist war on climate science - the bloggers and letter writers; the right wing columnists like Andrew Bolt, Christopher Pearson and Miranda Devine; the Murdoch broadsheets; and the conservative think tanks - are united by one factor, a hatred of environmentalism. Environmentalism is variously seen to be the enemy of individual freedom, an ideology of smug elites, an attack on capitalism and consumerism, and the vanguard of world government.

This antagonism towards the real or assumed ideas of environmentalism is spiced with a loathing for "green culture" represented by the image of the long-haired tree-huggers who want to impose their ascetic lifestyle on others.

Politically, climate denialism represents a backlash against the advances begun by the social movements of the 1960s and their destabilisation of traditional social structures and beliefs, including those of the right of humans to exploit the natural world, which helps explain why its activists are overwhelmingly older. Raging against climate science fits perfectly with the worldview, style and audience demographic of populist shock-jocks like Alan Jones, Australia's answer to Rush Limbaugh.

To turn back the tide of denialism, perhaps the most significant step would be for those conservative leaders who accept the science to speak out loudly and clearly about the need to take action. It is in their hands to break down the belief that global warming is somehow a left-wing cause.

Tomorrow: How to manufacture a scientific scandal.

>Part 1: Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial

Two years ago the Labor Party won a decisive election victory in part by riding a public mood demanding action on climate change after years of stonewalling.

The new Government promised to spearhead world efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Today it's on the run, retreating from a surge of militant anti-climate activism that believes climate science is a left-wing plot aimed at promoting elites, wrecking the economy and screwing the little man. What happened?

insert: [Julia Gillard faces the challenge of holding together Australia's first minority Labor government in nearly 70 years after she won the support yesterday of two independent MPs to become the country's first elected female prime minister.]

Part 1: Climate cyber-bullying

Australia's most distinguished climate scientists have become the target of a new form of cyber-bullying aimed at driving them out of the public debate.

In recent months, each time they enter the public debate through a newspaper article or radio interview these scientists are immediately subjected to a torrent of aggressive, abusive and, at times, threatening emails. Apart from the volume and viciousness of the emails, the campaign has two features - it is mostly anonymous and it appears to be orchestrated.

The messages are typically peppered with insults. One scientist was called a "Loudmouth, arrogant, conceited, ignorant wanker".

The emails frequently accuse the scientists of being frauds who manipulate their research in order to receive funding, such as this one to Ben McNeil at the UNSW:

"It's so obvious you are an activist going along with the climate change lie to protect your very lucrative employment contract."

They often blame the recipients of being guilty of crimes, as in this one received by Professor David Karoly at the University of Melbourne:

"It is probably not to (sic) extreme to suggest that your actions (deceitful) were so criminal to be compared with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. It is called treason and genocide.

"Oh, as a scientist, you have destroyed peoples trust in my profession. You are a criminal . Lest we forget."

Receiving emails like these is unsettling and at times disturbing, which of course is the point. They become worrying when they cross the line to personal threats, such as these sent to Professor Andy Pitman at the UNSW:

"There will be a day of facing the music for the Pitman type frauds... Pitman you are a f**king fool!"

And this one:

"If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you."

When Pitman politely replied to the last, the response was more aggressive:

"F**k off mate, stop the personal attacks. Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT."

All threats have to be taken seriously, and at times warrant calling in the police. The police are able to trace anonymous emails to their sources and take action against those who send them. The police are now advising those who received abusive and threatening emails to resist the immediate urge to delete them and keep them in a separate folder for future reference.

Climate campaigners have also noticed a surge in the frequency and virulence of this new form of cyber-bullying. The following was received by a young woman (who asked that her name not be used):

"Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?

"Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you."

Another campaigner opened her inbox to read this:

"F**k off!!!

"Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!

"F**k you little pieces of sh*t, show youselves in public!!!"

Greens Senator Christine Milne told me that senators' inboxes are bombarded every day by climate deniers and extremists, so that now they are running at least10 to one againstthose who call for action on climate change.

She describes it as a "well-organised campaign of strident, offensive and insulting emails that go well beyond the bounds of the normal cut and thrust of politics".

It was widely reported that in the days before the Liberal Party leadership challenge last November, MPs were blitzed with emails from climate deniers. Some MPs were spooked into voting for Tony Abbott, the only one of the three contenders who had repudiated climate science. Australia's alternative government is now led by climate deniers.

Journalists hit

Journalists too have become the victims of cyber-bullying. I have spoken to several, off the record, who have told of torrents of abusive emails when they report on climate change, including some sufficiently threatening for them to consult their supervisors and consider police action.

One was particularly disturbed at references to his wife. Another received the following from someone who gave his name and identified himself as medical representative at major pharmaceutical's company:

"You sad sack of s**t. It's ok to trash climate change sceptics yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, you become a vindictive, nasty piece of s**t not able to face the fact that you're wrong about climate change and you're reputation is now trash."

Anonymous emails are usually more graphic.

"Your mother was a goat f**ker!!!!!! Your father was a turd!!!!!!! You will be one of the first taken out in the revolution!!!!!!!! Your head will be on a stake!! C**t!"

Few of those on the receiving end of this hatred doubt that the emails are being orchestrated. Scores of abusive emails over a few hours are unlikely to be the product of a large number of individuals spontaneously making the effort to track down an email address and pour forth their rage.

While some individuals act alone, increasingly the attacks are arranged by one or more denialist organisations. It's fair to assume operatives in these organisations constantly monitor the media and, when a story or interview they don't like appears, send messages out to lists of supporters, linking to the comments, providing the scientist's email address and urging them to let him or her know what they think.

One or two of the cyber-bullies have hinted at the level of organisation, with one following an abusive rant with the comment:"Copies of my e-mails to you are also being passed out to a huge network for future reference."

��

Net rage and free speech

The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets, making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate or to change what they say. While the internet is often held up as the instrument of free speech, it is often used for the opposite purpose, to drive people out of the public debate.

Unlike the letters pages of newspapers, on the internet anonymity is accepted and the gate-keepers, where they exist, are more lax, so the normal constraints on social discourse do not apply. On the internet, the demons of the human psyche find a play-ground.

��

If a group attempts to have a considered discussion about climate science on an open forum it is very soon deluged with enraged attacks on climate science, sometimes linking for authority to well-known denialist websites. Most scientists long ago stopped attempting to correct the mish-mash of absurd misrepresentations and lies in web "discussions".

Is the new campaign of cyber-bullying working? Receiving a large number of offensive emails certainly wears most people down. Some scientists and journalists probably do change what they say or withdraw from debate. Others have strategies for dealing with the abuse-never replying, deleting without reading or swapping loony emails with colleagues, and cultivating a thick skin.

The effect of the cyber-bullying campaign on some scientists-including those I have mentioned-is quite opposite to the intended one. The attempts at intimidation have only made them more resolved to keep talking to the public about their research. Their courage under fire stands in contrast to the cowardice of the anonymous emailers.

Tomorrow: Who is behind the cyber-bullying campaign?

>Part 2: Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying?

The floods of offensive and threatening emails aimed at intimidating climate scientists have all the signs of an orchestrated campaign by sceptics groups. The links are well-hidden because mobilizing people to send abuse and threats is well outside the accepted bounds of democratic participation; indeed, some of it is illegal. And an apparently spontaneous expression of citizen concern carries more weight than an organised operation by a zealous group.

Without access to ISP logs, it is difficult to trace the emails to a source. However, it is clear that hard-line denialists congregate electronically at a number of internet nodes where they engage in mutual reinforcement of their opinions and stoke the rage that lies behind them.

Those who operate these sites retail the "information" that reinforces the assertions made by their followers. They often post highly personal attacks on individuals who speak in favour of mainstream science and measures to combat global warming, knowing from experience that they will stimulate a stream of vituperation from their supporters.

The posts on these sites often provoke an outpouring of the most outlandish conspiracy theories and vilification of individuals. There is no restraining influence and, in the middle of one of these frenzies, it would be a brave sceptic who called for caution and moderation in the ideas expressed or the language used.

In Australia, a handful of denialist websites stand out. They include the blog of Herald-Suncommentator Andrew Bolt, Bolt's stable mate Tim Blair at the Daily Telegraph, the website operated by sceptic Joanne Nova (a pseudonym for Joanne Codling), and the community forum site operated by the Queensland farmers' organisation��Agmates. Denialists also flock to the e-journal Online Opinion.

On these sites discussion of the "global warming conspiracy" seamlessly segues into a hodge-podge of right-wing populist grievances and causes, including defending rural property rights, the martyrdom of farming hunger-striker Peter Spencer, the errors of the Club of Rome, blood on the hands of Rachel Carson for causing DDT to be banned, the evils of Al Gore, the plan by the United Nations to dominate the world, and the need to defend freedom and democracy from these threats. Sceptics are explicitly or implicitly portrayed as freedom fighters battling attempts by scheming elites to shore up their power or impose a world government.

Recently, this stew of paranoia has been given a boost by the media exposure granted to Christopher Monckton in his recent Australian tour. Monckton propounded his extraordinary theory about climate change being a conspiracy by communists - assisted by the Hitler Youth and a craven scientific establishment - to seize power through a world government hidden in a climate treaty. A few months ago a fantasist like Monckton would have attracted only eye-rolling from news editors.

I am not suggesting that the individuals and organisations I have mentioned are responsible for organising the cyber-bullying attacks on scientists and others. However, they do create an environment that encourages them. The effect of these sites is three-fold.

They supply the ammunition that confirms and elaborates on climate deniers' beliefs.
They provide a forum in which deniers can participate in a like-minded community that reinforces their views.
And they identify the individuals responsible for promoting climate lies, stimulating participants to make direct contacts with "warmists".

Andrew Bolt's blog deserves special mention both because it has become the most popular meeting place for deniers in Australia and because it is sponsored by a mainstream media outlet, Melbourne's Herald-Sun, a Murdoch tabloid.

Bolt specialises in posts of angry ridicule directed at climate scientists and any others who publicly accept the science. Recent targets have included Ove Hoegh-Guldburg, Andy Pitman, and the CSIRO as a whole.

Bolt has admitted that his posts bad-mouthing climate scientists have incited his readers to send abusive emails to them.

Mainstreaming denial

It might be thought that vilification of climate scientists and others engaged in the climate debate is confined to the nether-world of the Internet. In truth, the most influential source of misrepresentation and ridicule resides in the "heritage media" in the form of the Murdoch broadsheet, The Australian. I will consider its long-running war on science later, but here it is important to draw attention to its role in identifying hate figures for deniers and fueling their aggression.

As an illustration of the newspaper's tactic, at the Copenhagen conference in December an Australian named Ian Fry, representing the Government of Tuvalu, made an impassioned intervention from the plenary floor that captured the mood and made headlines around the world. Fry is a shy man who has for many years devoted himself to representing the tiny island state for minimal financial or reputational reward.

The day after his intervention The Australian published a story ridiculing his "tear-jerking performance" and suggesting he is a self-seeking hypocrite because he lives a long way from the sea. The story appeared on the front page alongside a photograph of Fry's house.

At a time when climate campaigners were receiving grisly death threats, the editors of the national daily decided to expose Ian Fry and his family to danger by publishing information about where he lives that enabled people to work out his address. When challenged, the journalist responsible for the story showed no understanding or remorse.

In 2005 The Australian��used the same tactic on Indigenous leader Mick Dodson, publishing a photo of his house under a headline claiming he lived comfortably in the suburbs while depriving other Indigenous people of the opportunity to own a house. Dodson, already the subject of death threats, said he feared for the safety of his family.

The Australian's grubby tactic was unwillingly revealed by one of its journalists, Caroline Overington. During the last election campaign, a Labor candidate decided he did not want to be interviewed and photographed, so she threatened to send a photographer around to stake out his house. She sent the following text message

"Either you say yes to a photograph smiling and happy and out campaigning, or we stake you out at ... Bondi Junction, and get you looking like a cat caught in a trap, in your PJs. Your choice."

What drives denial?

What motivates the legion of climate deniers to send hate-mail? In recent years a great deal of evidence has come to light linking fossil fuel corporations with organisations that promote climate denial, but it would be a mistake to believe that the army of sceptical bloggers is in any sense in the pay of, or directly influenced by, the fossil fuel lobby.

Climate denialism has been absorbed by an older and wider political movement, sometimes called right-wing populism. Emanating from the United States, and defined more by what it fears than by what it proposes, the movement's enemies were helpfully listed in a 2004 TV ad attacking Democrat Howard Dean, whose supporters were characterised as a:

"tax hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show."

Although the targets are adapted to Australian conditions, in both countries the movement is driven by feelings of angry grievance. Those who identify with it see themselves as anti-liberal, anti-elitist and anti-intellectual. They are resentful of their exclusion from the mainstream and at the same time proud of their outsider status.

Since the mid-1990s, anti-climate forces associated with the Republic Party and oil-funded conservative think tanks have successfully linked acceptance of global warming and the need for greenhouse policies with those groups despised by right-wing populism.

In more recent years, the denial movement has been joined by some hard-line conservative Christian groups, including the notorious Catch the Fire Ministries and its witch-hunting pastor Danny Nalliah. According to��Paul Colgan, these groups were heavily involved in the lobbying to have Tony Abbott elected as Liberal Party leader.

As this suggests, becoming a denialist does not follow from carefully weighing up the evidence (that is, true scepticism) but from associating oneself with a cultural outlook, taking on an identity defined in opposition to a caricature of those who support action on climate change. It is the energy in this wider movement that has seen climate denialism morphing into a new form of political extremism.

Some active climate deniers possess a distinct "mindset" comprised of a certain worldview, including a narrative centered on secretive forces - variously encompassing elected leaders, scientists, scientific organisations, environmental groups and the United Nations - that are using climate science and climate policies as a cover to accumulate power with the objective of creating a world government that overrides national sovereignty and deprives citizens of their rights.

Those who hold to this worldview often feel marginalised and persecuted. It attracts the unstable and fanatical as well as those with more legitimate political grievances. For political leaders so inclined, the energy being mobilised by climate denial is a golden opportunity. Although it remains necessary for these leaders to evince a concern for the environment, and even to pretend to accept climate science, they can speak to the denialist minority using dog-whistling techniques to signal that they are really on their side.

This explains the decision by new Opposition leader Tony Abbott to meet Monckton when even one of the country's most conservative columnists wrote of the dangers of associating with his extreme views. Although he had been forced to repudiate his pre-leadership claim that climate science is "absolute crap", in meeting Monckton Abbott sent the message that his real views have not changed. Of course, he can respond to accusations of giving succour to denialism with the dog-whistler's device of "plausible deniability" - he is happy to hear all views.

A more subtle message was sent by Abbott earlier this month when he gloated over the recent recall of the Toyota Prius; for him and others hostile to environmentalism, the tarnishing of a green icon is a reason for celebration.

Tomorrow: The Exxon-funded think tanks that feed climate denial.

Kesten C. Green is a Senior Research Fellow with the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University, Australia. He began his master's studies in Management Science at Victoria University, and received a doctoral degree from Victoria Management School at Victoria University of Wellington. ^[1] A 2004 announcement of his joining Monash staff described Green's research as "challeng[ing] conventional methods of predicting outcomes of conflict situations including industrial disputes, boardroom battles and war with terrorists." ^[2]

Green is a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. ^[3]

Contents [hide]

On global warming

"Forecasts of global warming and of the extinction of polar bears are not derived from scientific forecasting methods and are not credible," Green's CV states. ^[1]

According to his Heartland Institute profile, "Green became interested in climate forecasting when he realized the dire predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others might result in policies that would cause great harm to people." ^[4]

Contact information

Website: http://www.kestencgreen.com/

Articles and resources

References

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 "Curriculum Vitae (pdf)," Dr Kesten C Green website, accessed March 2009.
↑ Press release, "Conflict forecaster joins faculty," Monash University, August 18, 2004.
↑ "Speakers," Heartland Institute website, accessed January 2009.
�� "Personnel details: Kesten Green," Heartland Institute website, accessed March 2009.

External resources

External articles

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

Categories:

Sharon Beder, Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, Green Books, Devon, UK, 1997

Sharon Beder, 'The Big Bucks of Business Back Attack on Greens', The Age, 3rd November 1997, p. A15.

Sharon Beder, A SLAPP in the face of democracy, Democratic Audit of Australia, December 2004 (pdf).

Sharon Beder, 'Corporate Discourse on Climate Change', in The Propaganda Society: Promotional Culture and Politics in Global Context, edited by Gerald Sussman, Peter Lang, New York, 2011, pp. 113-29.
Sharon Beder, Drowning in Greenwash, alive Australia, Spring 2009, pp. 58-61.

what was that book I read from ucsc on attacks on greens in aus and NZ

One particularly nasty outcome of the front-group-led denial campaign has been the abuse of climate scientists.

The Scientific American191, George Monbiot in the Guardian192 and Clive Hamilton blogging on Australia’s

ABC website193 have all written recently about the storm of abuse climate scientists are getting.

The target of sceptic attacks for some years, Kevin Trenberth, told Scientific American, ��In science there's a

whole lot of facts and basic information on the nature of climate change, but it's not being treated that way.

It's being treated as opinion.’194

‘In recent months, each time they enter the public debate through a newspaper article or radio interview these

scientists are immediately subjected to a torrent of aggressive, abusive and, at times, threatening emails.

Apart from the volume and viciousness of the emails, the campaign has two features - it is mostly anonymous

and it appears to be orchestrated,’ writes Clive Hamilton195.

Hamilton authored ‘Scorcher – the dirty politics of climate change’196, a book where he outlines the decade-long,

coal-industry funded campaign in Australia to deny climate science and its close relationship with then Prime

Minister and climate sceptic John Howard who refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

He tells of a respected climate scientist, Professor David Karoly at the University of Melbourne, who received

these emails. ‘It is probably not to [sic] extreme to suggest that your actions (deceitful) were so criminal to be

compared with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. It is called treason and genocide’ and ‘Oh, as a scientist, you have

destroyed peoples trust in my profession. You are a criminal. Lest we forget.’197

Comments across the blogosphere follow a similar vein, such as this, posted on a Chicago Tribune blog

explaining the robustness of the climate science conclusions:

‘Global warming is a genocidalist scam to kill us all by 2050. There is no scientific basis for climate science,

there is no such thing as radiative forcing. This hoax is bringing down the US government and the rest because

we see by their going along with this $45 trillion scam, they are just lining their own pockets. Both the Clintons

and Obamas are personally involved in this mass murder ring worse than Hitler's Nazi Germany, in fact this plan

is Nazi in origin, like the original Green Movement.’198

Stan_Lippmann (03/03/2010, 4:30 AM)

Woodard, Colin "After Death Threats to Climate Researchers, Australian Universities Take Tough Protection Measures" Chronicle of Higher Education June 9, 2011 http://chronicle.com/article/After-Death-Threats-to-Climate/127870/

In Australia, the climate for climate-science researchers has deteriorated to an alarming state.

At least a dozen university climate scientists have in recent months received messages threatening death or violence against themselves and, in some cases, their families. The threats—which came as Australian lawmakers prepared to debate imposing carbon taxes in an effort to discourage the emission of climate-altering greenhouse gases—appear considerably more serious than those against researchers at American universities, and Australian authorities have reacted accordingly.

Scientists at several Australian universities have been moved to secure buildings after security personnel concluded the threats were credible enough to warrant heightened protection. Their names have been removed from telephone and online directories, as well as from signs outside their office doors. They reportedly can meet only students and visitors who have made appointments, shown photo identification to security guards on the premises, and been escorted through the building door to door.

Australian National University "takes the safety and well-being of staff very seriously," Vice Chancellor Ian Young said in a written statement, adding that climate research had become "an emotive issue" recently. "It's completely intolerable that people be subjected to threats like this."

��

The affected researchers work at four universities spread across the country: Canberra-based Australian National, the University of Melbourne, the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, and the University of Queensland, in Brisbane. Faculty and administrators were reluctant to provide many details, and it is unclear if they believe the threats are being made as part of an orchestrated campaign or if they might come from a single source.

��

A public-affairs officer at Australian National said the death threats there had occurred over the course of three years and had escalated in recent months. As a result, nine scientists were "moved to a more secure location that requires card access." The added security, the officer continued, "means students may have to plan ahead to make an appointment to see these researchers and general staff."

Australian media accounts suggested these robust security measures had been taken recently, and that the threats had escalated in response to the continuing parliamentary debate on carbon taxes and a television advertisement in support of them featuring the Australian actress Cate Blanchett, which was broadcast last week. Online publications in the United States—including The Atlantic Wire and Grist—have framed the threats to researchers as coming in response to Ms. Blanchett's ad, which itself has been the subject of heated criticism from climate-change deniers in the Australian Parliament and punditocracy.

But university sources say they took the actions earlier this year, long before the ad existed.

'Offensive and Abusive'

One of the scientists who received death threats is David J. Karoly, a professor of meteorology at the University of Melbourne and a lead author of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who has appeared regularly in the Australian media to convey the current scientific consensus on the issue. He says he started receiving "an increased number of offensive and abusive e-mails" following media appearances in connection with the release of the panel's 2007 report, escalating to a death threat "in the last 12 months." The intensity and volume of the threats appeared to him to be "closely related to scientists like myself appearing on the media."...

The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic organisation, based in Australia. It argues that the evidence for global warming is based on inexact science and that any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry.

The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech.

WISE USE COINTELPRO

��

Forest Protection Society (Australia)

��

Throughout the 1980s the Australian timber industry was targeted by ecological campaigns and direct action. In response the industry spawned a new front group,the Forest Protection Society, with start-up money from the Forest Industry Campaign Association[47].

Employing Wise Use-style rhetoric, the FPS got itself listed as an environmental protection organisation in the Directory of Australian Associations. It promotes a ��balanced useâ of Australiaâs forests and claims that the best way to protect forests is to extract the wood and sell it. From the start the FPS aimed to build a large âgrass-rootsâ membership to suggest an independent standpoint[48]. The FPS involves itself in as many forest campaigns as it can, fighting for the rights of local communities to exploit the forests, and of course the for the timber industry. By April 1998 the FPS had 56 local branches across Australia[49].

Amongst other tactics the FPS has used include taking over local environmentalist meetings, with the result that they became distracted from their ongoing campaign[50]. Like many groups associated with the American Wise Use movement, the FPS is a client of Burson-Marsteller.

The ripple effects of the U.S. campaign to 'defund the left' have been felt around the world. A U.S. mining company succeeded in having USAID funding for an Indonesian community group pulled. [2] A Fulbright scholarship to the U.S., helped the Senior Fellow at the Australian Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Gary Johns develop a good working relationship with the American Enterprise Institute and escalate their emphasis on curtailing the activities of public interest groups.

The IPA themselves have targeted public interest groups in Malaysia and those working on issues in Indonesia. In mid-June 2004 the conservative Australian government released a consultancy report by the IPA's Gary Johns and John Roskam proposing the first steps to reduce the access that non-government organisations have to government decision making. [3]

mashey 2012

p 64

H.4 Funny foreign grants -NZ, CA, AU, IN?

On the previous page, H55a-H55e listed 4 foreign 2007 recipients:

NRSP – National Resources Stewardship Project - $25,000 IRS-10F

APCO’s PR professional Tom Harris305 was the Executive Director of this

front group, whose website disappeared by December 2008.306

He was behind the Bali petition, so this money might have helped pay for that.307

FCPP – Frontier Center for Public Policy308

$25,000

This Manitoba-based think tank included Research Advisors in 2006:309

Alex Avery Hudson Institute, has written for E&CN, §X.2.

Tim Ball Chairman of Scientific Advisory Committee for NRSC. 310

He spoke at ICCC-1, was on Heartland “experts” lists.

Wendell Cox Wendell Cox Consultancy, has written often for E&CN.

NZCSC – New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - $25,000 IRS-10F

Started in 2006,

311 founders included Vincent Gray, Bob Carter, Warwick

Hughes, Roger Dewhurst, and Owen McShane (the receiver of money).

ICSC – International Climate Science Coalition - $40,000 IRS-10F

Started in 2007, Tom Harris is Executive Director.312 Terry Dunleavy (NZ)

and Bryan Leyland (NZ) are officers, and Heartland’s Jay Lehr is a

Director. The address was Terry Dunleavy’s.

NZCSC, ICSC and the NZ ACT party involved NZ’s Alan Gibbs. 313

Hot Topic details Heartland funding of NZCSC and ICSC.314 Harris,

Leyland and Dewhurst commented there, offering credibility calibration.

Gray, Leyland and McShane attended the IPCC Bali 2007 meeting, in

support of CFACT, but paid for at least in part by Heartland.315

Of these 4 organizations, 3 were not registered as charities in their home

countries. Some of the money helped send to Bali some people with strong

opinions, whose climate expertise was doubtful at best. Unless they had

IRS “determination letters,” Heartland is required to show that they used

the money to further exempt purposes. IRS-10F

Of course, NZ might want to inquire of McShane and Dunleavy, and CA of

Harris as to whether these grants were reported as taxable income.

As for 2008-2009, I can only guess: IRS-7F, IRS-10F.

 More money to NZCSC or ICSC?

 Money to IPA316 to get ready for 2010 ICCC-5 in Sydney?

317

 Money toJoanne Novafor Skeptic’s Handbook?318

It has been

translated into many languages (H57f?) and sent to 14,000 US school

board presidents by Heartland., Z.2009.08.11, §N.2.

 Money to India, possibly Barun M. Mitra, §G.4.? See 2010 Bradley

grant to India, Fig. H.1.5. Mitra is not a climate researcher,

319 and advisors to his think tank include Tibor Machan, §X.2

314 hot-topic.co.nz/puppets-on-a-string-us-think-tank-funds-nz-sceptics

hot-topic.co.nz/niwa-v-cranks-3-the-economics-of-truthiness/

315 www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/ecologic/some-like-it-hot-3

316 www.desmogblog.com/study-tracks-australian-climate-denial-echo-chamberback-think-tank; www.climateshifts.org/?p=4643

www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/bid-to-out-the-money-behind-the-voiceagainst-climate-change-20120126-1qjfp.html

317 scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/heartlands_denialist_conferenc.php

318www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook

www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change

www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbookglobal-warming-real-and-happening

www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-part-3-

climate-models-have-it-right

scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/skeptics_handbook_not_novel_no.php

www.skepticalscience.com/A-Scientif

305 www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris

306 wayback.archive.org/web/20080801000000*/nrsp.com

307 LTDLdeepclimate.org/2009/12/10/bali-2007-revisited

308 www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/lstngs/menu-eng.html charity

309 www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontier_Institute_for_Public_Policy

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontier_Centre_for_Public_Policy

310 www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball Formal training was geography.

311www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Zealand_Climate_Science_Coalition

312www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition

313 deepclimate.org/2009/08/01/meet-alan-gibbs-builder-of-amphibious-humveesand-climate-science-coalitions Useful background, read comments as well.

Australia NZ

Australia Cuts Outlook for Great Barrier Reef to ‘Very Poor’ for First Time icn 919

Tesla's Giant Australian Battery Saved Consumers $35 Million in Four Months

Vested Interests

Jiujitsu Communications

We Did Not Model That

Institute Pushes Climate Science Denial

Political Allegiances

Energy Policy Debate

The campaign countering non-profits goes global

Contents

The role of the AEF

Scientific Advisory Panel

Contact Details

Articles and Resources

Related SourceWatch Articles

References

External Articles

Koch Ties Among Bjorn Lomborg's Fan Network

Free market activists

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy

Australia's Tony Abbott Still Determined to Kill Renewable Energy Target

Tony Abbott's climate change policy problematic

Tony Abbott's 'extreme' climate stance sets back policy decades, critics say

Transcript

Viv Forbes

Credentials

Background

Stance on Climate Change

Key Quotes

Key Deeds

Affiliations

Publications

Resources

The campaign countering non-profits goes global

We’re No. 1! (In climate denier coverage)

Australian climate scientists receive death threats

24 February 2010

Think tanks, oil money and black ops

On global warming

Contact information

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External resources

External articles

'Offensive and Abusive'