api

this is a tag===UCS dossiers 8/15http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdfthat these scientists’ financial ties to the fossil fuel industry

remained hidden from the public—precisely the arrangement

they ultimately made with Dr. Wei-Hock Soon (Dossier #1,

p. 6). According to the leaked memo, “These will be individuals

who do not have a long history of visibility and/or

participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team

will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those

recognized scientists who are already vocal” (Walker 1998).

While the funding of the hand-selected scientists was

to remain secret, their intended mission was clear: Exxon,

Chevron, and the other fossil fuel industry representatives

needed these scientists to produce “peer-reviewed papers

that undercut the ‘conventional wisdom’ on climate science.”

They intended to fund and train the scientists to get their

crafted message of uncertainty out to print, radio, and TV

journalists (Walker 1998)Targeting Teachers and Students

Another section of the API roadmap memo outlines a plan

to target the National Science Teachers Association. Exxon,

Chevron, and the other Global Climate Science Communications

Team members recognized that the tide might turn

against fossil fuels unless they could reach the next generation.

So, under the guise of “present[ing] a credible, balanced

picture of climate science,” they opted to push out materials

for teachers and their students that directly countered the

scientific evidence. As the memo explains, their assumption

was that emphasizing “uncertainties in climate science will

begin to erect a barrier against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like

measures in the future” (Walker 1998).

The leaked memo also outlines a tactic of working

through grassroots organizations to promote debate about

climate science on campuses and in communities during the

period mid-August through October 1998 (Walker 1998). In

the years since this memo, many of the activities outlined in

the memo have been carried out, as evidenced by the API’s

online curriculum for elementary schools that presents nonrenewable

energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and coal, as

“more reliable, affordable, and convenient to use than most

renewable energy resources” (see, for example, API 2002).=<div><div class="timestamp" style="margin-top: 15px; font-weight: bold;">July 13, 2010</div><div class="kicker" style="font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; margin-top: 15px;"><h1 style="margin-top: 3px;"><nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Oil-Industry Group Hires New Leader for Media Team</nyt_headline></h1><nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "><div class="byline" style="font-weight: bold;">By ANNE C. MULKERN of <a href="http://www.greenwire.com/" target="_blank">Greenwire</a></div></nyt_byline><nyt_text><div id="articleBody">As it works to reshape the oil industry's image, American Petroleum Institute's media shop has nabbed a former spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Eric Wohlschlegel started work yesterday as API's director of media relations. Running the team that talks to reporters, Wohlschlegel said he is focused on communicating the oil and natural gas industry's importance. It is the latest move as trade group CEO Jack Gerard reorganizes API's work force."We're basically under new leadership at API," Wohlschlegel said. "This is sort of getting all hands on deck towards that goal."It's obvious that he's assembling a new team and sort of focusing his assets with a very clear goal of advocacy and communications on behalf of the industry," Wohlschlegel said of Gerard's plan.Wohlschlegel said his strategy is to "communicate to the general public how critical the oil and gas industry is to our economy and to jobs in America."Wohlschlegel's recruitment marks API's latest hire from the U.S. Chamber, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, D.C., and one with strong ties to the oil and natural gas industry. API in April recruited Linda Rozett, who previously worked as communications director for the Friends of Fred Thompson organization and as senior vice president of communications for the Chamber (<a href="http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/04/16/4">Greenwire</a>, April 16). Rozett is in charge of all communications.Earlier this year, API nabbed Deryck Spooner, who ran the Nature Conservancy's push to spur legislative action on climate change (<a href="http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/02/26/3">Greenwire</a>, Feb. 2). Spooner now heads API's grass-roots activism arm. He previously ran campaigns for labor group AFL-CIO and abortion rights organization NARAL Pro-Choice America.API in December cut 15 percent of its work force, but Gerard said at the time that he planned to bring on new hires to fill gaps. Gerard said that the organization had "not been as effective as we could be in educating public officials or the public about the critical role of oil and gas in our economy. ... You will see us evolve into a more nimble, more aggressive" organization. "We're going to be aggressive in our outreach to educate the public" (<a href="http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2009/12/11/2">E&ENews PM</a>, Dec. 11, 2009).Before working at the Chamber, Wohlschlegel worked at a small public relations firm, was the deputy press secretary at the House Energy and Commerce Committee under then-Chairman Tom Bliley (R-Va.), and worked for the National Petroleum Refiners Association.API clearly is seeking out "big guns," as it works to reshape its message, said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy project at Public Citizen."It seems that API is going on a new recruiting spree; they are clearly assembling an impressive team to go on the offensive," Slocum said.Key victories on HillThe work force restructuring is helping API achieve big wins in Congress, Slocum said. The oil and natural gas industry last month "handily beat back," Slocum said, a measure that would have repealed $35 billion worth of tax breaks for oil and gas producers over the next decade. The <a href="http://sanders.senate.gov/graphics/OTT10284.pdf">amendment</a> (pdf) would have cut oil and gas tax breaks related to amortization, depletion of oil wells and domestic production income(<a href="http://www.eenews.net/public/EEDaily/2010/06/16/4">E&E Daily</a>, June 16).While the petroleum industry is under pressure because of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Slocum said, "they're still able to muster an awfully lot of support" within Congress.API and the oil industry over the past year changed its approach toward the push for climate legislation in Congress, Slocum said. The industry largely opposed the House bill that passed in June 2009. That bill, <a href="http://www.eenews.net/features/bills/111/House/060709182643.pdf">H.R. 2454,</a> (pdf) capped carbon emissions and set up a program for buying and selling pollution permits. While it gave away a large number of free allowances to utilities and industries that rely on energy, it allocated almost none tooil refiners. The oil industry condemned that policy, calling it a redistribution of wealth.The oil industry then struck a deal with lead Senate Democrats as Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) crafted their climate bill, said Slocum, who said that he was part of an April conference call where Kerry talked about that arrangement. The industry agreed not to condemn the legislation and Kerry's "<a href="http://www.eenews.net/public/25/16580/features/documents/2010/05/19/document_daily_01.pdf">American Power Act</a> (pdf)" set up a special emissions trading program for the oil industry."That was part of the nonaggression pact that was essentially signed," Slocum said.Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.<nyt_author_id><div id="authorId" style="clear: both; font-style: italic;">For more news on energy and the environment, visit <a href="http://www.greenwire.com/">www.greenwire.com</a>.
Greenwire is published by Environment & Energy Publishing. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/supplemental-content.html">Read More »</a></div></nyt_author_id></div></nyt_text></div><div>
</div><div>=</div>==
smoking gun:

<h1 style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 26px; font-weight: normal;">INDUSTRIAL GROUP PLANS TO BATTLE CLIMATE TREATY</h1>

</div>

<div id="mod-article-byline" class="mod-nytimesarticlebyline mod-articlebyline" style="padding: 0px; margin: 15px 0px 10px; border: 0px; color: rgb(128, 128, 128); line-height: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr

Published: April 26, 1998</div>

Correction Appended

</div>

Industry opponents of a treaty to fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science.

Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's heat near Earth.

An informal group of people working for big oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations that oppose the treaty have been meeting recently at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute to put the plan together.

Joe Walker, a public relations representative of the petroleum institute who is leading the project, said in an interview that the plan had been under consideration for about two months and was ''very, very tentative.'' Mr. Walker said no industry executives had yet been approached to pay for it.

</div>

But an eight-page memorandum that he wrote shows in detail how some industry lobbyists are going about opposing the climate treaty.

It is a daunting public relations task. Whenever the treaty's advocates, including the Clinton Administration, discuss global warming, they present the science as essentially settled and unchallengeable, and they compare dissenting scientists to discredited apologists for the tobacco companies. That view has become widely accepted among reporters and the public.

Although mainstream scientists do identify considerable uncertainties in their climate predictions, which are based on computer models, they are increasingly confident that global warming is a serious problem and often say that the uncertainties do not justify inaction.

Based on the latest science, most of the world's nations agreed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 that industrial nations should cut emissions of greenhouse gases, and the treaty was modified last year to require further reductions in emissions to levels well below those of 1990, over the next 10 to 15 years. But the United States Senate has not yet agreed to that treaty provision, which could require deep reductions in American consumption of fossil fuels.

Documents describing the proposal to undermine the mainstream view were given to The New York Times by the National Environmental Trust, whose work in support of the global-warming treaty is financed by philanthropic organizations, including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the biggest of the nation's pro-environment grant makers.

Phil Clapp, the president of the environmental trust, said he obtained the papers from an industry official. Exposing the plan at this stage, Mr. Clapp said, would probably ruin the effort to raise money to carry out the plan.

Industry representatives confirmed that the documents were authentic, but emphasized that the plans had not been formally approved by participating organizations. The document listed representatives of the Exxon Corporation, the Chevron Corporation and the Southern Company as being involved. Representatives of Chevron and Southern acknowledged attending meetings on the project; the Exxon representative could not be reached for comment.

The draft plan calls for recruiting scientists to argue against the Administration, and suggests that they include ''individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate.''

But among the plan's advocates are groups already linked to the best-known critics of global-warming science.

They include the Science and Environment Policy Project, founded by Fred Singer, a physicist noted for opposing the mainstream view of climate science. Frederick Seitz, another prominent skeptic on global warming, is involved with two other groups mentioned in the plan: the George C. Marshall Institute, where Dr. Seitz is chairman, and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, where he is on the science advisory board.

On Monday, the National Academy of Sciences disassociated itself from the most recent effort to drum up support among skeptical scientists. That effort came in the form of a statement and petition on global warming circulated by Dr. Seitz, a physicist who was president of the academy in the 1960's.

The petition, attacking the scientific conclusions underlying the treaty on climate change, was accompanied by an article that was formatted to resemble one that might have been published in the academy's prestigious peer-reviewed journal. It was not.

The draft plan, recently discussed at the oil industry offices, calls for giving such dissenters on climate science ''the logistical and moral support they have been lacking.''

It also calls for spending $5 million over two years to ''maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences.''

It would measure progress by counting, among other things, the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing views.

The document says that industry's polling, conducted by Charlton Research, has found that while Americans see climate change as a serious threat, ''public opinion is open to change on climate science.''

Supporters of the plan want to raise money quickly to spend much of it between now and the November negotiating session in Buenos Aires, where important details of the international treaty are to be decided.

A proposed media-relations budget of $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 ''respected climate scientists'' recruited expressly ''to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.' ''

Among the tasks, the petroleum institute's memorandum said, would be to ''identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach.''

What the industry group wanted to provide, the memorandum said, was ''a one-stop resource on climate science for members of Congress, the media, industry and all others concerned.''

The industry group said it wanted to develop ''a sound scientific alternative'' to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a large group of scientists advising the United Nations that has published the most authoritative scientific assessments of global warming. That panel has predicted that the next century will bring widespread climatic disruptions if actions are not taken to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The draft plan suggests that despite industry efforts to convince the public that the climate treaty would be costly to carry out and unfair to the United States, the treaty remains popular partly because environmentalists are winning the debate on the science.

''Indeed, the public has been highly receptive to the Clinton Administration's plans,'' the memorandum said. ''There has been little, if any, public resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by those 'inside the Beltway' with vested interests.''

</div>

Correction: May 15, 1998, Friday An article on April 26 about a proposal to promote skeptical scientific views of the theory of global warming included an organization incorrectly among the proposal's advocates. The Science and Environmental Policy Project was invited to participate but declined, according to its spokeswoman, Candace Crandall. A spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute confirms that a memorandum by an employee, on which the article was based, identified Ms. Crandall incorrectly as a member of the committee that drafted the proposal.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm">http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm</a>

===

</div>

===

Moral high ground and strength in numbers are going to have to when the day Keystone opponents, because there is no way -- no way-- that they could compete financially. In addition to the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000057745&year=2011" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 119, 187) !important; text-decoration: none;">millions of dollars</a>TransCanada has spent <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/09/surge-of-lobbying-fuels-keystone-xl.html" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 119, 187) !important; text-decoration: none;">lobbying</a> for the KXL project, the American Petroleum Institute (API) has spent <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/06/27/api-22-million-keystone-xl-lobbying-erm" target="_blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 119, 187) !important; text-decoration: none;">millions more</a>.

That kind of spending carries a lot of clout.

"You cannot move a piece of legislations through Congress in the year 2013 unless the American Petroleum Institute proposes it," says Public Citizen Energy Program director Tyson Slocum. "You cannot move legislation without their consent. They are a de factofourth branch of government."

"They are one of the most profitable industries in the world, and they're throwing that money into Washington, DC," says Kate Colarulli of the Sierra Club. "They're buying politicians. When we see politicians that vote the oil the agenda, we see 500 times as much contributions coming from oil companies than we see going to politicians who don't vote the oil agenda."

For example, look to South Carolina, where Republican Senator Tim Scott, who sits on the Energy and Natural resources Committee, gave the GOP's weekly address and offered his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUP55-EMTdY&feature=share&list=UUOKW-o3oYdFmrMNcTLVuaoA" target="_blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 119, 187) !important; text-decoration: none;">full-throated support</a> to KXL. Of course, he also decried opponents of the pipeline for killing jobs in favor of the environment.

Why was a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/17/nikki-haley-to-appoint-rep-tim-scott-to-senate/" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 119, 187) !important; text-decoration: none;">newly appointed</a> senator from South Carolina, a state not known for its thriving petroleum industry, stumping to build a foreign corporation's pipeline that doesn't come anywhere near his home state? Possibly because the oil and gas industry is among his <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00031782&type=C" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 119, 187) !important; text-decoration: none;">largest sources</a> of campaign contributions.

The $153,000 Scott has received from oil and gas contributors is a comparatively low take for a legislator willing to do the industry's bidding. In Washington, DC, a city where climate denial is something of a cottage industry, those who are willing to toe the corporate line can make out very well indeed.

The list of <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/" target="blank" style="border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 119, 187) !important;">climate deniers in Congress</a> is not a short one, but looking at the <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/08/14/unicorn_trophies_presented_to_congressional_climate_deniers/" target="blank" style="border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 119, 187) !important;">top achievers</a> in the field shows a strong correlation between vehemence and campaign cash, just as Colarulli describes.

</div>