CONFERENCES

---

CFACT co-sponsors 'Land and Liberty' gathering in Texas

Around 150 property rights leaders convened in Fort Worth to discuss strategies and listen to speakers like former Trump Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

Published on Feb. 16, 2026

Got story updates?Submit your updates here. ›

The 'Land and Liberty Conference' held on February 13-14 in Fort Worth, Texas brought together around 150 property rights activists from across the country. The event, co-sponsored by CFACT, featured panels, workshops, and Texas hospitality including barbecue and a rodeo. Speakers included former Trump Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Congressman Harriett Hageman, and Texas Agriculture Secretary Sid Miller.

Why it matters

The conference highlighted the growing movement of property rights advocates who are pushing back against what they see as an overreach of environmental regulations and a 'far-Left political agenda that is decidedly anti-human and anti-freedom.' The gathering aimed to reclaim the mantle of 'wise stewardship' of natural resources.

The details

The two-day conference covered topics such as energy security, financial exploitation of natural resources, reopening federal lands, and defending landowner rights. CFACT, a prominent co-sponsor, hosted a panel featuring its president Craig Rucker and communications director Marc Morano, as well as representatives from the Heartland Institute.

The 'Land and Liberty Conference' took place on February 13-14, 2026 in Fort Worth, Texas.
This was the third time in recent years the event has been held.

The players

CFACT

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a nonprofit organization that promotes free market environmentalism and opposes what it sees as excessive environmental regulation.

Craig Rucker

The president of CFACT.

Marc Morano

The director of communications for CFACT.

Brooke Rollins

The former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture under President Trump.

Harriett Hageman

A U.S. Congressman.

Sid Miller

The Texas Secretary of Agriculture.

Got photos?Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The Green movement has undergone a transition, one that moved from wise conservation and stewardship of the land, a position held by everyone a 100 years ago, to one that now promotes a far-Left political agenda that is decidedly anti-human and anti-freedom. We need to reclaim the mantle of 'wise stewardship' and save the environmental movement from itself.”

— Craig Rucker, President, CFACT (CFACT.org)

“I can feel the momentum building since our first gathering in Lincoln, Nebraska. President Trump's influence is clearly energizing the movement. I can't wait for next year!”

— Marc Morano, Director of Communications, CFACT (CFACT.org)

What’s next

The organizers plan to host the 'Land and Liberty Conference' again next year, building on the momentum from this year's event.

The takeaway

The 'Land and Liberty Conference' highlights the growing influence of property rights advocates who are pushing back against what they view as excessive environmental regulations and a political agenda that is 'anti-human and anti-freedom.' The conference aimed to reclaim the mantle of 'wise stewardship' of natural resources.

---

an 2 24

it isn't hard to understand why Republican National Committee Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel quit using "Romney" in RNC correspondence.

Her uncle is Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), whose outspoken criticism of former President Donald Trump has infuriated far-right MAGA Republicans. And McDaniel obviously didn't want to remind fellow Republicans that she is a member of the Romney family — especially in light of "War Room" host Steve Bannon, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and other prominent MAGA figures pushing for her to be ousted as RNC chair.

In an opinion column published on January 31, MSNBC's Ja'han Jones describes the "MAGA mutiny" that is "causing chaos" for McDaniel at the RNC.

The right-wing Washington Times, on January 26, published an article on the RNC's fundraising woes — and Jones finds the article's timing "curious" in light of the fact that it came "just ahead" of a Turning Point USA gathering in Las Vegas that was billed as a chance to "hold the RNC accountable."

"Charlie Kirk, one of the founders of Turning Point, was among those who opposed McDaniel's reelection in 2023, and his group's conference seemed to have a similar goal of making her life difficult," Jones explains. "It certainly platformed people, like Lindell and Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who have been deeply critical of her."

Jones continues, "McDaniel even theorized, back in 2022, that Kirk and Turning Point want to 'take over the RNC.' By the look of things, it's hard to disagree. But this week, the MAGA movement's pressure on McDaniel hasn't been confined to Kirk's conference."

The MSNBC columnist notes that far-right MAGA Republican Laura Loomer tweeted, on January 29, that a "grassroots ambush" was awaiting McDaniel at the RNC's winter meeting in Las Vegas.

"Loomer is a conspiracy theorist and self-described Islamophobe, so take her statements with a grain of salt," Jones argues. "But she does seem to be part of a growing chorus of criticism that McDaniel is facing — the MAGA mutiny lives on, evidently. That's not ideal for a political party under any circumstance, and certainly not in an election year."

*Ja'han Jones' full MSNBC column is available at this link.

---

rww 921

several Republican members of Congress, North Carolina state legislators, various candidates for office, and radical religious-right activists gathered at Temple Baptist Church in Mount Airy, North Carolina, last weekend for the North Carolina Faith & Freedom Coalition’s “Salt & Light Conference.”

Among the politicians in attendance was Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who used his time in front of his home state crowd to declare that he is waging a “spiritual battle” in the supposedly “evil and vile” Washington, D.C., against people like Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her “cold, evil eyes.”

“I believe that the power of prayer will save this country in the coming decades,” Cawthorn. “When I’m in Washington, D.C., I know a lot of you consider the place to be evil and vile, and I am here to tell you with first-hand knowledge, it is evil and vile. But I will tell you when I’m there, I don’t feel an overwhelming sense ofdarkness as if the devilhas complete dominion of that area because I feel a spiritual battle going on on Capitol Hill. And patriots like all of you in this room, on your knees, praying that we have the cover within the spiritual fight is what it will take to save this country.”

“I have to look Nancy Pelosi in her cold, evil eyes every single day,” he continued. “She just passed a bill yesterday trying to say that we can abort babies on demand all the way up until right before the day of birth. When we hear this, when we hear the fact that if a baby comes through a botched abortion alive, sitting there on the table, they then still have the right to murder that child, we realize that when I quip and say, ‘I look her in her cold, evil eyes,’ it’s not a joke. These people hate us.”

“I will tell you, the only way that we take our country back is when strong, God-fearing patriots decide it is time for us to stand up and say, ‘No’ to your tyranny,”Cawthorn declared. “It is time for the American Christian church to come out of the shadows, to say no longer are we going to allow our culture to be determined by people who hate the things that we believe in. We are going to stand valiantly for God’s incredible, inerrant truths that predate any version of government. Because my friends, if we lose this country today, if we bend the knee to the Democrats today, our country will be lost forever, and our children will never know what freedom is. It’s our duty to stand up. I encourage you—let us stand united as men and women of faith to fight for our country!”

---

r ww 6 23

former President Donald Trump received a rapturous hero’s welcome Saturday night as he delivered the closing keynote address to a room packed with religious-right activists in Washington, D.C. for the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s annual Road to Majority conference.

Trump knew his audience. “We are warriors in a righteous crusade to stop the arsonists, atheists, globalists, and the Marxists,and we will restore our republic as one nation under God with liberty and justice for all,” Trump said. As part of his typically long and rambling speech, he denounced his recent indictments, bragged about his administration’s accomplishments–including his Supreme Court justices cementing the right-wing majority to overturn Roe v. Wade—and declared that Democrats have become “monsters.”

Trump thrilled the crowd with promises about what he would do as the 47th president, saying, “When I get back in the Oval Office,I will totally obliterate the Deep State.”And he vowed to push “school choice” plans—which divert public education dollars into private and religious schools and homeschooling—and, oddly, called for public school principals to be chosen by direct election by parents.

Trump’s speech and others at the conference signaled the issues and strategies around which the MAGA movement is mobilizing to try to take power in the 2024 elections: waging war on “wokeness,” demeaning transgender people and calling for institutionalized discrimination against them, mocking corporate support for diversity, equity, and environmental protection, and, in the name of parents’ rights,purging schools and libraries of materials that do not align with MAGA activists’ political and religious worldviews.

Trump’s speech was preceded by awards given to right-wing movement fundraising godfather Richard Viguerie and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Viguerie declared that the nation is in “a spiritual civil war” that “the left has launched against Western civilization, America, our Constitution, Judeo-Christian moral values, and much else we value at home.” Viguerie encouraged activists to get more involved in any way they can, signing off with, “Good night, ladies and gentlemen. See you on the battlefield of the spiritual civil war, and don’t be late!”

Viguerie was not the only speaker equating American politics with spiritual warfare. Huckabee said that “the battle that we’re facing in this country is not a political battle. And it’s not an economic fight. And it’s not a sociological fight. It is a spiritual battle between the forces of evil and good.” Huckabee concluded with, “Let’s not give up, because the battle is not over, folks. It’s just getting started.”

Earlier in the conference, Christian nationalist and anti-LGBTQ North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson drew cheers when he declared, “This nation is at war, and we need a warrior at the helm,” and endorsed Trump’s bid to return to the White House. Robinson noted his own campaign for governor, and compared himself to the Union soldiers at Gettysburg, the Marines on Iwo Jima, and civil rights marchers, and insisted that he only looks “crazy” to people who are “insane.”

Before Saturday night’s gala, activists heard from nearly all the Republican presidential candidates, hard-right Republican elected officials, and MAGA movement activists likeKari Lake, the defeated-but-still-refusing-to-admit-it candidate for Arizona governor in 2022.

Trump’s major contender for the Republican nomination, Florida’s authoritarian Gov. Ron DeSantis, was greeted enthusiastically on Friday—giving a stump speech attacking “the woke mind virus” and declaring “We did not start this fire, but as president of the United States, I will lead the effort to extinguish the fire of cultural Marxism once and for all.”DeSantis pledged to “discipline” the federal bureaucracy, “impose our will on it,” and turn the Justice Department “inside out.”

At the beginning of Road to Majority, Reed urged participants to treat all speakers respectfully, which most did until former New JerseyGov. Chris Christie had the audacity to question Trump’s character and tell activists that Trump had let them down—eliciting a chorus of boos.

The conference kicked off at a Thursday afternoon “town hall” on Capitol Hill, where Faith and Freedom founder Ralph Reed told the audience that God told him to create the organization because Christians who love this country and love God “should be the head and not the tail, and at the top and not the bottom of our political system.” Among the members of Congress who spoke were Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty and Reps. Jim Banks, Patrick McHenry, Burgess Owens, Alex Mooney, and Tom Emmer—who spent much of his speech attacking the government of his own state of Minnesota.

Other speakers sounded Christian nationalist themes, including former Trump faith advisor Paula White, who declared, “We were established as a nation under God,” and Lake, who said, “With God on our side, nothing can stop us from taking back this government.”

At a panel featuring African American speakers representing the seven “mountains” in Seven Mountains Dominionism, Florida congressional candidate Carla Spalding declared that public officials must “write laws that are going to be according to the Bible” and if they don’t, “one by one we get them out.” Other speakers on the panel include anti-abortion activist Alveda King and failed congressional candidates Kim Klacik and Mark Burns. Burns is a Trump-promoting Christian nationalist pastor fond of warfare rhetoric; he spoke at a “Stop the Steal” rally on the eve of the Capitol insurrection, where he declared that the attempt to deny Trump a second term was “a demonic attack from the gates of Hell” and insisted that Joe Biden would “never” become president.

In addition to the relentless invocations of “wokeness” and its variants—Indiana representative and Senate candidate Jim Banks bragged about creating an “Anti-Woke Caucus” among House Republicans—speakers frequently denounced transgender people and their supporters, the “deep state,” and corporations that consider diversity and environmental consequences in their investment decision-making.

Another theme running through the conference—which fell on the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade—was the need for Republican candidates to deflect focus from their unpopular abortion ban laws by portraying pro-choice Democrats as the “real extremists”—complete with lies from Trump and others that Democrats support killing babies after they are born.

Feminism itself—now “woke feminism”—continues to be a target of the religious-right movement. Nick Adams, a right-wing activist who immigrated to the U.S. from Australia, claimed that men are the most persecuted and maligned demographic in the world. “Every single problem in America today can be traced back to the absence of strength, strength that can come only from real men, genuine masculinity, and an alpha male mindset,” he said.

Also on display was the right-wing political strategy of “parents’ rights” as a rallying cry and voter mobilization tool. Moms for Liberty, a group founded to resist mask requirements that moved quickly into promoting book bans, school board takeovers, anti-LGBTQ smears, and authoritarian politics in general, had a significant presence at Road to Majority, which was held just a week beforetheir own national summit in Philadelphia. During Q&A at a panel on school choice, M4L’s national director Catalina Stubbe calledteachers unions “enemies” and claimed that public schools are “abusing” and “indoctrinating” children.From the main stage, M4L cofounder Tiffany Justice claimed that “our parental rights are being obliterated by our government every single day.” She said that the group’s 135,000 members in close to 300 chapters spread out over 45 states are “unifying” their communities, a laughable assertion given the anger and chaos they have created at school board meetings and after they take over school boards.

In its speakers and panels, the Faith and Freedom Coalition made an effort to highlight its outreach to conservative Black and Hispanic Christians, a group that the Republican Party hopes to win over in greater numbers in 2024 and beyond. The 2024 elections were a major focus of conference speakers, and not just the presidential candidates. Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Adam Pipkin described the organization’s turnout strategies, including its use of postal change of address data to track targeted voters and make sure they update their registrations, and evangelical church-based ballot harvesting operations in Californiaand other states where permitted by law.

While Reed and the Faith and Freedom Coalition gave a platform to major, minor and relatively unheard of Republican presidential candidates,Road to Majority made it utterly clear that it is Donald Trump who has won the hearts of these activists, and that they will do everything they can to once again put him in the White House so that he can wage merciless war against the Americans they view as their common enemies.

Tags: Alex Mooney Bill Hagerty Burgess Owens Carla Spalding Catalina Stubbe Donald Trump Jim Banks Kari Lake Kimberly Klacik Mark Burns Mark Robinson Marsha Blackburn Mike Huckabee Patrick McHenry Paula White Ralph Reed Richard Viguerie Ron DeSantis Tiffany Justice Tom Emmer Anti-Abortion Anti-Choice Anti-LGBTQ Christian Nationalist Civil War Election 2024 Road to Majority Conference Spiritual Warfare Faith and Freedom Coalition Moms for Liberty Republican Party

---

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01042020/cop-26-glasgow-delay-coronavirus-covid-united-nations

---

heartland and others have this fake mirror conferences? shadow?

FROM MODERATION WEB:

CONFERENCES

who is poster boy? what are hooks?

:{:{}:

Conferences:

:{:{}:

One may be tempted to think in the age of the Internet and Skype videoconferencing (or even mass ones/social media) that conferences are passé, but there’s still something to be said for face to face interaction. In addition, being invited to an exclusive event such as Koch conclaves or Davos has prestige (being seen literally, to be a player; see also Heartland’s ICCC as mirror/crypto IPCC [might double as support group/meat market/ cheerleaders for Flat Earthers and/or Merchants of Death). Moreover, particularly in terms of ALEC there’s a junket aspect when a poorly paid state representative can go to a posh resort to be wined and dined by corporations (not to mention the cigar bar and shooting range).

Another advantage, at least until rather recently is secrecy: the public does not know who is there, much less what is said. This has broken down somewhat: historically, the Battle for Seattle showed that important meetings of the elite could be disrupted if not shut down (a subsequent Davos was so remote participants had to fly in via helicopter to avoid wolves?). Essentially there’s the big arms race, between RWI money/plutocrats/fronts and transparency/99%, but this plays out in the smaller arena/aspect of conferences, each side evolving tactics to deal with the last round.

we’ll look at Koch:ALEC, ICCC, as they are someone different in composition and aims.

:{:{}:

See also sep node:

IPCC background: established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. …[mission]

:{:{The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}:7]}:

:{:{Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}:]}:

:{The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change,[10] producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate scientists and the consensus of participating governments:{. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the IPCC and Al Gore.[:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}:11] wiki}:

2500 sci from 130 countries

Exxon lobbyist Randol, bush2 CEQ (Connaughton?) got UK atmos chemist Watson out (East Anglia, knighted 2012), replaced by Paruchuri, India (economist/engr). Lindzen attacks IPCC (Exxon wanted him and Christy on “ U.S. National Assessment on Climate Change, an EPA document that the White House would seek to eviscerate in the spring of 2003”

Assessment reports

First (1990): The executive summary of the WG I Summary for Policymakers report says they are certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface.

Second (1995):

Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase

Anthropogenic aerosols tend to produce negative radiative forcings

Climate has changed over the past century (air temperature has increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 °C since the late 19th century; this estimate has not significantly changed since the 1990 report).

The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies)

Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections)

There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies)

Third (2001)

"Robust findings" of the TAR Synthesis Report include:

"Observations show Earth's surface is warming. Globally, 1990s very likely warmest decade in instrumental record".[29] Atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic (i.e., human-emitted) greenhouse gases have increased substantially.[29]

Since the mid-20th century, most of the observed warming is "likely" (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement)[26] due to human activities.[29]

Projections based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st century at a more rapid rate than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years.[29]

"Projected climate change will have beneficial and adverse effects on both environmental and socio-economic systems, but the larger the changes and the rate of change in climate, the more the adverse effects predominate."[29]

"Ecosystems and species are vulnerable to climate change and other stresses (as illustrated by observed impacts of recent regional temperature changes) and some will be irreversibly damaged or lost."[29]

"Greenhouse gas emission reduction (mitigation) actions would lessen the pressures on natural and human systems from climate change."[29]

"Adaptation [to the effects of climate change] has the potential to reduce adverse effects of climate change and can often produce immediate ancillary benefits, but will not prevent all damages."[29] An example of adaptation to climate change is building levees in response to sea level rise.[30]

Fourth (2007):

"Robust findings" of the Synthesis report include:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level".[44]

Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement)[45] due to human activities.[44]

"Impacts [of climate change] will very likely increase due to increased frequencies and intensities of some extreme weather events".[46]

"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries even if GHG emissions were to be reduced sufficiently for GHG concentrations to stabilise, due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks".[46] Stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is discussed in climate change mitigation.

"Some planned adaptation (of human activities) is occurring now; more extensive adaptation is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change".[47]

"Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt".[47]

"Many impacts [of climate change] can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation".[47]

Fifth (2014):

conclusions:

Working Group I

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".[64]

"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".[65]

Human influence on the climate system is clear.[66] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[67] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[66]

Working Group II

"Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"[68]

"A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"[69]

"The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"[68]

Working Group III

Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[70]

The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[71] Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements Are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[72]all wiki

COP

:{:{}:

:{:{:{}:

}:}:

1 1995: COP 1, The Berlin Mandate

2 1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland

3 1997: COP 3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

VP Gore flew in though failing (opposite of normal summit strategy); US pressured world to take ___approach, then Senate killed with Hagel-Byrd.Accidentally hit targets because of Great Recession? Canada reneged on Kyoto because of tar sands.

4 1998: COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina

5 1999: COP 5, Bonn, Germany

6 2000: COP 6, The Hague, Netherlands

7 2001: COP 6, Bonn, Germany

8 2001: COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco

9 2002: COP 8, New Delhi, India

10 2003: COP 9, Milan, Italy

11 2004: COP 10, Buenos Aires, Argentina

12 2005: COP 11/CMP 1, Montreal, Canada

13 2006: COP 12/CMP 2, Nairobi, Kenya

14 2007: COP 13/CMP 3, Bali, Indonesia

15 2008: COP 14/CMP 4, Poznan, Poland

16 2009: COP 15/CMP 5, Copenhagen, Denmark

Do or die; Obama attended, crashed meeting with Chinese who had been ducking him (Bi-lateral 2014?); US? Danish Text, strategy memo leaked, killed talks on Rich-Poor responsibility? NSA spied

17 2010: COP 16/CMP 6, Cancún, Mexico

18 2011: COP 17/CMP 7, Durban, South Africa (Monckton parachutes in)

19 2012: COP 18/CMP 8, Doha, Qatar

20 2013: COP 19/CMP 9, Warsaw, Poland (fake coal shadow conf?)

20 2013: COP 19/CMP 9, Warsaw, Poland

At COP 19, the Corporate Europe Observatory reported [4] that the conference was sponsored by “major car manufacturers, oil companies, steel manufacturers and coal firms.” In addition “the Polish Ministry of Economy has teamed up with the World Coal Association to put on a parallel ‘International Coal & Climate Summit,’ also in Warsaw... Chris Williams, long-time environmental activist and eco-socialist reports [8] they were stopped at the border, even though the EU has open borders, met by SWAT teams at the train station and quickly saw the corporate-insignia dominated COP 19 as unwelcoming to activists. ...

; 132 countries walked out [10], orchestrated by the G77 and the China bloc of 132 countries.

Amy Goodman reported [11] that this walkout was followed by hundreds of environmental activists also leaving over the absence of a binding agreement. In an interview with Goodman, Kumi Naidoo, the head of Greenpeace International said the “COP is a complete betrayal to the sense of urgency that is needed . . .

21 2014: COP 20/CMP 10, Lima, Peru working on finances for Paris?

22 2015: COP 21/CMP 11, Paris, France

===

Chronology:

LBJ Science Advisory Commission said CO2 would affect climate (even acidification) and Keeling Curve helps us track.

1970 first Earth Day (Powell Memo reaction), droughts

1973 oil embargo, 1977 consensus on global warming, ozone concerns

1980 asteroid killed dinosaurs understood; 1983 Sagan nuclear winter

1987 Montreal Protocolban CFC's, signed by Reagan: In 1973 three UC Irvine scientists began study, Chairman of the board at Du Pont calls science fiction, inventor/ CEO of aerosol can complains to Irvine.1974 Congressional testimony led to funding, 1976 NAS confirms. 1985 Vienna Convention, twenty countries voluntary; after discovery of ozone hole, only eighteen months to binding agreements in Montreal. First international agreement to take on regulations, based on science and precautionary principle, allowed for economic differences, equal representation. South Sudan the newest signer.

1988 IPCC first report 1990

1990 IPCC first report , Clean Air Act had cap and trade to reduce sulfur, Senate 89-10, House 401-25, including McConnell, Thurmond, Gingrich, Barton, Upton and Inhofe. Signed by Bush 41; reduced sulfur 40% at a quarter of EPA predicted cost, utility rates declined 5 percent and the US economy added 16 million jobs in the decade following passage.

1992 Rio Summit Bush 41, (see EO p 260-) catalyzed counter-movement. Systematic and precautionary approach, climate convention paved way for Kyoto, Convention on biological diversity, Agenda 21. Maurice Strong now seen as evil mastermind by wacko conservatives, but then head of Ontario hydro, a B-M client (Roundtable included Dow DuPont Royal Dutch-Shell. Dalai Lama spoke; Bush said American way of life is not negotiable.

C1993 Clinton BTU fiasco:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tax Koch's CSE took out 18 year veteran Dan Glickman. Sen. David Boren pounded by negative ads, rolled and voted against, killing bill, within days got more than twenty thousand from Kochs. (Sierra mag). BM ran pioneering sophisticated (Lloyd Bentsen) nearly two million dollars, 45 staff in twenty-three states, letter writing and phone calls, planted news/letters to the editor, media proxies. NAM/GCC API First legislative casualties. Recall Gore is VP.

1995 Second IPCC report, human caused, elicits aggressive industry pushback

1997 Kyoto, Prius

The norm for summits is that all the negotiations are done by staffers beforehand, and the meting itself is merely a nice backdrop for handshake photo op; so it is remarkable that Al Gore actually jumped on a plane when Kyoto was failing.

1998 API game plan, doubt, Super El Nino

2000 Bush 43 runs on pledge of climate action, Barbour Memo Cheney 180 (CTW)

2001 IPCC Third ends debate. Luntz memo, US bails of Kyoto

2002 Clear Skies actually rolls back progress; died in 9-9 committee vote; two end-runs shut down by DC District court.

2003 McCain-Lieberman bill; European heat wave deaths diverge public opinion with US

2004 Movies, books DiCaprio on Oprah

2005 Katrina

2007 IPCC Fourth report, Nobel Prize w/ Gore (Gore saves Kyoto and tries to save Bali) Waxman-Lieberman

Climategate, Kerry-Lieberman Graham fail undermines CopenhagenCOP15

https://correctiv.org/en/top-stories-en/2020/02/11/the-heartland-lobby/

ref

no lnx vid

A joint investigation from CORRECTIV and Frontal21 reveals how the American Heartland Institute is supporting climate change deniers in Germany with the goal of undermining climate protection measures. We went undercover to meet with the institute’s chief strategist. He told us how the network of climate change deniers works, how donations are disguised and how they intend to use a German YouTuber affiliated with the AfD to reach young people. In the end, he made us a concrete offer.

Shortly before the crucial conversation, shortly before Heartland’s chief strategist tells us how it’s all orchestrated, we sit together, some enjoying steaks. The German lobbyist and YouTuber, Heartland’s chief strategist from America, a British lord and Trump’s former security advisor are all present.

It’s the evening of Dec. 3, 2019. The location: Madrid, in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel. Gray marble flooring, expensive furniture high columns. A few kilometers away, heads of states and governments are negotiating at the World Climate Conference on how the global rise in temperature can be curbed.

We are tracking an international network of climate change deniers, ranging from conservative American billionaires to the German AfD. We want to understand their links and strategies. We tried to get the information by going through the normal channels, but we failed. There was only one way to get into the inner circle: We had to go undercover. That’s why we’re sitting at this table – and that’s why we’re nervous.

We keep checking the hidden cameras, one of them in Katarina’s pen, which she’s wearing on her conference blazer. We try to keep the cameras stable while acting naturally and making small talk.

The people around the table consider the negotiations at the Climate Conference nonsense – yet they have come to Madrid to meet in the shadows of the World Climate Conference with an international lobby of climate change deniers .

Their goal: to spread doubt about human responsibility for current global warming. Their opponents are anyone who recognize this responsibility: politicians, activists, journalists and climate researchers.

CORRECTIV reporters Jean and Katarina are not at the table. Instead, meet Mathias and Karina, two public relations consultants who work for a strategic communications agency in Berlin. We pretend to probe for potential donor opportunities for our clients in the automotive industry and energy sector, who want to anonymously support the work of climate deniers with money. Big money.

The New Right, particularly the AfD, put the fight against climate protection high on their agenda last year. They continue to fight against young activists like Greta Thunberg and present themselves as the defender of the diesel car. Former AfD leader Alexander Gauland recently proclaimed that climate change was a new key topic for his party: “Criticism of the so-called climate protection policy is the third major issue for the AfD after the Euro and Immigration”. It is a polarizing topic.

The AfD relies on an international network of climate change deniers. Here, in the hotel lobby, many of the key players have gathered. One of them is EIKE, aopaque German association that provides politicians with arguments against climate protection. We want to learn as much about them as possible, but we can’t be too pushy. We need to play our roles, discreetly and firmly. We can’t get busted.

At some point Mathias gets up and speaks to James Taylor, chief strategist and director of climate policy at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian thinktank based in the US. We suspect many of the threads that we’ve been following will convene at Taylor. If we want to learn how this network spreads doubts about human-induced climate change, we need to talk to him.

Mathias politely asks if he has a moment for a question.

Taylor understands: It’s time for business.

They get up and head to a seating area a few meters away. It’s not completely isolated, but sufficiently enough that nobody can eavesdrop. While walking, Mathias starts to explain:

“I have a client.”

Throughout the next half hour, Taylor shares the inner workings of his disinformation toolbox. He believes that Mathias, the PR agent sitting opposite him, wants to help his clients funnel cash into the intricate network of climate change deniers.

Taylor explains how he is able to raise awareness of topics in exchange for money, how people can make tax-deductible donations anonymously through a U.S. foundation, and how the Institute’s publications mimic the tone of the New York Times so obscure ideas are taken more seriously. He detailed how he intends to make a young YouTuber from Germany the star of climate denier, and how he works closely with German partners whose ideas are consistently cited by the AfD in the Bundestag.

Then a few weeks later, Taylor will send an offer in writing. It is something like a strategy document for a PR campaign in Germany: A campaign that the public will not recognize for what it really is, making it even more effective.

The goal: No more prohibitive climate laws. Diesel instead of electric cars, energy from coal instead of wind turbines, industry growth instead of environmental protection.

The document, a product of our joint investigation with ZDF Frontal21, gives exclusive insight into the million euro business of climate change deniers. It proves how disinformation is professionally scattered around society with the help of supposed experts, corrupt scientists, intentional spin and YouTube.

A Fight

Against Science

There is a worldwide consensus among climate researchers that climate change is largely caused by humans. Hundreds of climate researchers regularly evaluate the current state of scientific knowledge in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their forecasts are conservative, yet dramatic.

Climate change deniers are disputing the results of the IPCC – supposedly based on the same methods. They call themselves “climate skeptics” or “climate realists” and conduct scientific studies to cast doubt on human-induced climate change. They write papers and magazines, organize conferences and dedicate time to lobbying. They are waging an information war to disseminate doubts about human-induced climate change.

If it were up to them, then their self-proclaimed “science“ would be confronting science. Thus, the question of whether human-induced global warming actually exists would be a question of opinion – with good arguments on both sides.

However, hardly any climate researchers or scientists agree with them. The facts speak clearly.

“The communication practiced by the Heartland Institute has nothing to do with science. These are definitely politically motivated statements,” said Kathleen Mar, a scientist at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam.

Throughout the US there is a traditional belief that competition and continued growth are good for the economy. It is a mindset fundamentally intertwined with the rejection of state intervention in such economic matters. Libertarian think tanks like the Heartland Institute — financed by the foundations of wealthy entrepreneurs like the Mercer family and, until a few years ago, the Koch brothers – are founded in this tradition. In Germany, this current of opinion is relatively small. But it is getting louder when it comes to the topic of human-induced climate change.

The AfD is using the frustration over climate policy to gain momentum. It’s a good topic for populist politics, given that policies meant to halt climate change often involve placing restrictions that threaten personal comfort: less driving, less garbage production, less meat consumption, less travel. The AfD is increasingly using the arguments of climate change deniers at the EIKE association by inviting representatives to technical conferences and Bundestag committees. But the spin doctors are somewhere else.

There Is No Other Choice

But To Work Undercover

We wanted to understand the extent of the climate change denial network, exactly how it’s funded, and how it’s members think and work. So we started our investigation by looking into climate change deniers in Germany. We made the decision to go undercover because we believed it was the only way to get authentic insight. CORRECTIV is well known among the German EIKE association, as their publications regularly fail our fact checks– and they frequently publish furious counter-articles. In 2018, a journalist at CORRECTIV was banned from participating in one of EIKE’s conferences when she tried to obtain press credentials. Also that year, the head of EIKE violently threatened a reporter from the ARD magazine, Monitor. We carefully weighed our decision. In the end it was clear to us that we would not get very far following the typical path.

So we built our undercover identities: Karina and Mathias, two PR agents who, on behalf of a client from the automobile industry, wanted to learn how to send money to climate change deniers in Germany –discretely, without attracting attention.

We create a fictional agency called “Faidros”, printed business cards to reinforce our fake identities, got a second pair of cellphones with new numbers and set up a website. We pretended to be experienced consultants who increase public awareness of climate-skeptical arguments on behalf of industrial clients.

Our undercover journey started in Munich. To be able to participate in an EIKE conference as private individuals, we paid 220 euros each to the association. We used PayPal because it allows you to change your name without being immediately exposed by online searches. Then we received an email confirming that the money had arrived and the venue would soon be announced. A cumbersome way to organize a conference.

An Invitation

to Madrid

Munich, late November. The tables are organized in long rows. A desk and a large screen are in front. Roughly 250 people walk through the entrance hall of the closed Munich-Riem Airfield, the so-called Coat of Arms Hall. They are mostly older men, some with doctorates or professorships, many of them already retired. We stand among them, equipped with business cards, wearing conference clothing and hidden cameras. We are significantly younger than the average attendee. Karina is a woman under 30. We stand out.

EIKE’s annual conference had almost been canceled. After protests, the contract between the original hotel and EIKE was terminated. But shortly before the planned start, we received an email with the new venue.

EIKE stands for “Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie” (European Institute for Climate and Energy). Many channels of self-proclaimed “climate realists” meet at this association in Germany, which states on its website that human-induced climate change is a “hoax affecting the general public”.

Like Heartland, the non-profit organization claims to be a scientific think tank and advertises its online studies as “peer reviewed”.

“They take scientific terms and misuse them for political purposes. They are not interested in scientific work at all,” said Potsdam sustainability researcher Mar about the self-appointed climate experts. “I would immediately ask myself who these scientists are, what their qualifications are.”

:{:{}:

Holger Thuss, the chairman of EIKE who threatened the Monitor’s reporter last year, kicked off the Munich conference. He set the framework for the conference by sayingclimate protests have assumed “terrorist proportions”.

Then we saw James Taylor, the chief strategist of the Heartland Institute, for the first time. He went on stage in good spirits to give a lecture. He looks like a company manager, slightly stocky, black hair pulled back, ironed shirt, a smile on his lips. A smart man with a meaty American accent, and an engaging speaker. Standing on the stage, he congratulates everyone for making it to the conference and says that the original hotel’s cancellation is encroachment on freedom of expression.

Taylor is a successful lobbyist and spin doctor who says of himself that he is more libertarian than conservative. He considers hostility to be praise for his work. Taylor also appears frequently on American television, and for some time he wrote a column in Forbes magazine.

For the next two days, the group of almost exclusively white men present scientific-looking graphs, diagrams and tables. There are those who consider themselves to be on the side of science, presenting their methods, explaining, arguing and evaluating series of experiments.

:{:{}:

And then there are the conspiracy theorists, the esotericists and the ultra-religious. A man sitting next to us in the audience says it is contempt of God to judge whether something God created is good or bad. He was talking about CO2.

EIKE was founded in 2007 and has close ties to the AfD.Michael Limburg, the organization’s vice-president, is employed by the office of Karsten Hilse, a member of the German Parliament, the Bundestag. He confirmed this to CORRECTIV. Limburg is an AfD member himself, and he participated in drafting of the AfD’s party program on climate policy as well as ran for the Bundestag in 2017 on the Brandenburg state list.

[graf]

The Transatlantic Network Over the past 20 years, the Heartland Institute has received funds from various companies and wealthy families

in the United States for the purpose of denying the climate change. It has also helped EIKE to spread its ideas in Germany.

Police officer Karsten Hilse sits on the environmental committee of the Bundestag on behalf of the AfD. He gave a speech in the Bundestag in March 2018. At the time, while being laughed at by members of other government parties, he declared war on the “false doctrine of human-induced climate change”. A year later, he distributed leaflets that contained a quiz to demonstrators of “Fridays for Future”, who he intended to embarrass.

Hans-Joachim Lüdecke, EIKE’s press officer, wrote an expert statement for the environmental committee at the invitation of the AfD. Now, members of EIKE’s entourage are writing for a new wave of right publications such as “Freie Welt” (Free World). The blog is run by the right-wing association “Zivile Koalition” (Civil Coalition), which is led by the deputy federal spokeswoman for the AfD, Beatrix von Storch.

We asked members of EIKE what kind of relationship the association has with the Heartland Institute. Michael Limburg, EIKE’s Vice-President, answered in writing: “We maintain a good relationship based on similar interests.”

After the conference, we invited Heartland lobbyist Taylor to dinner. We talked about his Institute, which is based in Chicago with just 40 employees.

While making small talk, Taylor explains that he knows how to convince people: “I think I present the actual logic, but people aren’t motivated by an actual logic. So you have to go and argue emotions.”

Things are going smoothly and we indicate our reason for meeting with him without revealing too much. We are successful, too: At the end of the evening we receive an invitation. In 10 days, climate change deniers will meet once again on the sidelines of the World Climate Conference in Madrid. The organizer of the counter-conference is the Heartland Institute.

“Our event will take place on December 3,” said Taylor. “We have eight or nine speakers and a five-hour program.”

The next stop for these consultants from “Faidros”: Madrid.

The Denial Lobbyists

Among Themselves

The “Climate Reality Forum” takes place on the first floor of the Marriott Hotel in Madrid, a small room with suspended ceilings. There are about 20 people, half of whom will give lectures today. Water in tetra packs with an environmental seal are on the tables.

The conference is significantly smaller than the one in Munich. It is shorter, without journalists, and the Heartland Institute does the filming and online streaming itself with two large cameras. The World Climate Conference was originally scheduled to take place in Chile, but a month earlier the Chilean President cancelled it due to protests against social inequality that took place throughout the capital city, Santiago de Chile. Climate change deniers also had to reschedule, rebook flights and hastily organize a new conference.

We met some acquaintances from Munich and greeted each other amicably. “It’s nice to see you again,” said one of the few women in the room. She is a YouTube influencer, 19 years old and blonde. Later on we would learn that she is supposed to become the star of the scene.

One of the speakers is William Happer, professor emeritus of physics and former security advisor to US President Donald Trump. In 2015, a team from Greenpeace, disguised as an oil and gas company, asked Happer to write a scientific paper to prove the benefits of high CO2 emissions for plants. Happer, then a professor at Princeton University, agreed – for an hourly rate of $250.

“I don’t know how far this shrillness will get,” said Happer, visibly aged, in Madrid. “First global warming, then climate change and now climate crisis and climate emergency – what else?”

German climate change deniers are also present. Wolfgang Müller, Secretary General of EIKE, praised the Heartland Institute before his lecture: “Heartland is a paragon in the fight against this climate madness.”

Christopher Monckton, an English lord residing in the Scottish Highlands, speaks later. Monckton advised neoliberal British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s – and does the same today for the British right-wing populist party UKIP. His suggestions include asking to quarantine people who are HIV positive. Monckton is a dazzling character, always polite and eloquent, who happens to also represents some of the crudest beliefs.On stage he pretends to give a speech to country representatives at the World Climate Conference. The delegates, he says, promote a cult of death through their ignorance. “Everything on which this conference in Madrid is based is fundamentally wrong.”

A few hours later, when the conference is over, Lord Monckton sits contentedly at the grand piano in the hotel lobby, playing a few songs. The other speakers sit a few meters away, ordering drinks and snacks to their table.

We sit in between, asking questions, laughing, answering without getting too personal. Secretly, we check the undercover cameras we are carrying with us.

The YouTuber talks about studying economics in Münster: She stopped because the program was too socialist for her. She also says that she is going to work for the Heartland Institute soon.

The YouTuber did not respond to a request for comment after the conversation.

Later at the bar, Karina met Debbie, who introduces herself as a cattle rancher from the States. After a while Debbie pulls a pen out of her pocket and points to the hidden camera at the end. She says she intends to secretly film people at the official UN Climate Conference. “You have no idea about what people will tell you if they don’t know who you are.” The pen is the same model, even the same color as the pen tucked into Karina’s blazer pocket.

The Moment of Truth

Finally, Mathias asks Taylor for a private meeting. This is the moment we have been working for over the past few weeks. Taylor sits relaxed in the armchair, his white shirt unbuttoned at the top, with a glass of red wine in his hand.

Business talk.

From the start, Mathias directs the conversation towards the possibility of donating to groups that deny climate change anonymously. His client, he says, is interested in a long-term investment — but requires that under no circumstances can he be linked to the transactions.

If the donor does not want to be named, there are some groups in the US, Taylor says. “One is Donors Trust.” You can tell them which group the money should go to – Donors Trust will then channel the funds.

Donors Trust’s activities are not illegal, but they do bypass the otherwise quite extensive transparency regulations in the US. Both Donors Trust and Donors Capital Trust are tax-exempt foundations that redistribute corporate donations to conservative and market-liberal think tanks. US tax law requires them to disclose to whom the funds are given. However, they are allowed to keep the name of the donor undisclosed on the grounds of anonymous. In practice, this means oil and coal companies can support anti-climate campaigns via Donors Trust or Donors Capital without having to reveal their financial support.

In the past, big players in the fossil industry like Exxon Mobil and Koch brothers were among Heartland’s major donors — but they withdrew public support a few years ago. We checked this by looking at tax returns, which are largely public in the US.

Now, Donors Trust is now one of the association’s biggest donors. The American magazine “Mother Jones” described Donors Trust in 2013 as a “Black Box ATM”. You could say that the foundation lends its name to the actual donors. Taylor confirmed this during the conversation.

Donors Trust is now directing between two thirds and three quarters of its budget to Heartland to support its climate-skeptical positions, says Taylor. He sells this as his personal doing.

Soon after, Taylor starts to speak about the German YouTuber sitting at the table a few meters away.

“We’re looking to bring her on board,” says Taylor, pointing in her direction.

Mathias asks: “The young lady?”

“To do some videos for us. Presenting to young people.”

The young influencer is to start forming new groups. She should be a dropout from mainstream society, with whom as many as young people as possible should identify. According to a Facebook post by the Rhineland-Palatinate Association of “Junge Alternative” (Young Alternative), she is a member of the AfD’s youth organization. The AfD and its members regularly distribute her videos. Taylor says the fight against climate protection measures needs a better image, to move away from old white men and instead showcase a younger generation. The YouTuber is going be the new face of the movement. She is Taylor’s media strategy for the masses.

Taylor also knows how to reach those who are not on YouTube but do vote in parliament. For a long time, he published a monthly brochure that the Heartland Institute sent to politicians.

He says it was specifically written “We do it as if it were for The New York Times or any other leftist newspaper.”

He explains that the rule for their editors is to write it as if they were news stories. They cannot write anything that looks like it is opinion. “You present our angle on it, but you do it by who you decide to quote”, he says”.

Taylor’s team uses supposedly journalistic standards to raise doubts about human-induced climate change. What he is not interested is rigor and balance.

And he succeeds at that, or at least that’s what he says. There are people who will realise it is Heartland how is writing these articles, he explains, but others feel it is something they could use, and this is how they get to them.

Taylor repeatedly emphasizes the good work done by EIKE. He says it is amazing what they can do in a year with such a small budget, and claims that the organization has 200,000 euros available. They help each other, he says, by participating in each other’s conferences. Heartland also gave EIKE a small sum of money for the Munich conference in late November. When asked about EIKE’s budget, the organization’s representatives said that their “donation volume” per year is “significantly below the stated amount”.

But whenever Mathias steers the conversation toward our client’s possible investment, Taylor brings his own institution into play — even though Mathias emphasizes several times that the client wants to donate to EIKE because he is mostly concerned about the European market.

“Then he tries to convince me to give my client’s money directly to Heartland, instead of EIKE“, Mathias recalls. Taylor politely adds that EIKE could, of course, use it much better in Europe. Then, a few seconds later, he talks about the benefits of Heartland establishing and disseminating specific information at the request of the client in exchange for money.

A half hour has passed. Taylor and Mathias promise to stay in touch before returning to the other conference goers. Mathias writes down the conversation so he can jog his memory later.

This is far more than we had hoped for. Taylor has given us a deep insight into the business of climate change deniers. We now know about some of the strategies they use to disseminate disinformation.

But we want to have it in writing.

The Phone Call

A few weeks later, we call Taylor for a follow-up. How does Taylor intend to get into business in Germany? Would it even be possible to purchase content as a donor?

We mention our client from the auto industry and bring up the current diesel bans in Germany and the growing popularity of electric cars, which are hurting his business.

Again, Taylor advertises the 19-year-old YouTuber as a promising social media strategy in Germany.

:{:{}:

Mathias asks: Can his client decide what she says in her videos?

:{:{}:

Taylor hesitates, but doesn’t say no. Of course, she would have to agree with and feel comfortable with what is going to be said. And he’s pretty sure that everyone involved wants the same thing.

:{:{}:

Mathias: “Perhaps we could agree on certain buzzwords. Disseminate certain information.”

Taylor: “Absolutely. Key points, keywords, the way to present something.”

Content in exchange for money. It’s like a deal in the advertising industry. The only difference is that the content is political.

Taylor thinks he’s in business with Mathias. Shortly after our phone call, we text Taylor to send us a written offer to convince our client.

He agrees.

Two Hours Later:

The Offer

The document arrives via email, just two hours after our conversation. It’s three pages long, with the title: “Funding Proposal: Germany Environmental Issues”.

In the proposal, Taylor summarizes what we discussed over the phone – and goes into even more detail. He outlines a plan for a possible campaign against climate protection policies in Germany. It’s an immoral offer formulated in the advertising language of a pitch. Recognize the problem, present the solution.

He describes German climate policy as “unwise”.Conventional power plants could be closed and replaced by expensive, unreliable wind turbine systems. Diesel vehicles could be banned. “These restrictive environmental programs are largely unnecessary”, says the proposal. Even worse: Other countries would be negatively impacted by Germany, which is often viewed as a pioneer.

Taylor suggests that the Heartland Institute instead draws attention to projects that “raise German living standards through common-sense environmental stewardship.”

...

https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/02/07/dark-moneyed-denialists-fixing-science-symposium-doubt

The “Fixing Science” symposium, which is hosted by the National Association of Scholars and kicks off today in Oakland, California, includes credible speakers who want to improve some areas of science hurt by the use of poor statistical methods or making irreproducible claims.

Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by people who have often cast doubt on mainstream climate, environmental, and health sciences. For starters, who thinks that long-time fossil fuel–funded Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow with the climate science–denying Competitive Enterprise Institute, will “fix science”? UPDATE 02/10/20: NAS Brochure at Symposium.

I was first tipped off to the swarm of climate science deniers at this meeting by Lenny Teytelman on Twitter, who said he found seven climate deniers (an undercount), and by Oxford professor Dorothy Bishopin her January 12 blog post, “Should I stay or should I go?…” about this meeting and whether scientists should engage with those with dissenting views in a situation like this.

Both provided useful insight and information, which I've consolidated with other research here.

Professor Bishop summarized well:

“But, I reiterate, the main point is not whether NatAsSchlols is left- or right-wing. It's the weird structuring of the meeting, which juxtaposes a set of experts in the 'reproducibility crisis' with a set of individuals who promote scientific views that are far from mainstream … You know your arguments would not survive scrutiny by experts familiar with evidence in the area, so you don't invite those (and to be fair, it's unlikely that they'd come anyway, as there are diminishing returns in engaging with those whose minds are fixed). But what you can do is to cast doubt on all scientific evidence by inviting along those who are questioning the solidity and credibility of current scientific practices. That's what is happening here.” [emphasis added]

Many speakers at this meeting have been affiliated with groups known for anti-science efforts, either ideologically or financially, funded mostly by dark money. When their funding sources are accessible, they include the usual companies (fossil fuels, tobacco, and chemical) and private conservative foundations, which lines up with 2013 research by sociologist Robert Brulle, summarized in my post “Study Details Dark Money Flowing to Climate Science Denial.”

A few other speakers have often worked in “product defense,” an area covered well by David Michaels in *Triumph of Doubt*(2020) (review). I'm compiling here a list of the speakers and organizations who are more often denying science than trying to fix it. People should be very wary of those listed in red, and I've included links to more information for those who want to do their own research.

The Fixing Science symposium sponsors are the National Association of Scholars (NAS, which should not be confused with the reputable U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which also goes by NAS) and The Independent Institute (TII). The former is led by Peter Wood and the latter by David Theroux, both vocal (but non-technical) climate science deniers.

Anti-science Groups

I've scoured IRS Form 990 data (line 8) for the four organizations affiliated with the most symposium speakers, a search that yielded total grants received each year from 2003-2017, shown in Table A. But such 501(c)(3) “public charities” need not report the sources of those grants. Using the candid.org website, I've compiled the information in the spreadsheet, “Grants To Think Tanks,whose two sheets each contain a Table 1 that lists all 1,528 grants, and a Table 2 that summarizes them.

The first sheet sorts by Recipient-Donor-Year, the second by Donor-Recipient-Year. Donor Advised Funds (DAFs) like Donors Trust and Donors Capital Funddo report grants they make, but their legal structure makes it impossible to know the original sources of the funding. Perhaps that was not dark enough for some donors. The huge Fidelity Charitable DAF started making grants to the same four organizations in 2015. It is impossible to know who got the idea first, but by 2016, Charles Koch was routing millions of dollars through that DAF.

In Table A, the Miss % is the fraction of total grant money given directly by corporations or others, so not reported on 990PF forms, and therefore, invisible to the public. Adding DAF% and Miss % yields Dark %, which shows the extent of dark money. The Heartland Institute's DAF% is high, as it receives roughly a third of its money (32%) via Donors Trust/Capital Fund.

In the tables below, CD indicates promotion of Climate Denial and TD shows persistent Tobacco Defense, with lower case implying a lesser degree. Appearing in red shows clear, well-documented anti-science behavior, generally to create doubt about science that conflicts with business interests.

DeSmog readers are likely familiar with many of the better known groups, or can click on the profiles, so this section will focus on lesser known groups...much more charts, see bak

---

https://www.alternet.org/environment/could-be-moment-world-governments-chart-path-toward-tackling-climate-change

sf mtg and carbon tax

Killer floods and heat waves have made 2018 another record-setting year as the climate crisis intensifies. The UN climate negotiations in Bangkok (September 4-8), followed by the Global Climate Action Summit (GCAS) in San Francisco (September 12-14) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) in Katowice, Poland, (December) could make 2018 the year that world governments chart a path toward tackling climate change, enhanced ambition and implementation of the Paris Agreement. It could also be the time that global leaders fall dangerously short in reckoning with the climate crisis, condemning millions more to losing their lives and livelihoods.

Despite consensus that climate change is jeopardizing life on Earth, there is a massive chasm between the action needed and what the fossil fuel industry—with governments in the Global North in its pocket—is pushing. If polluting countries and corporations are successful, ineffectual interventions—like carbon markets and geo-engineering—become central to the global response to climate change. The result: soaring emissions, lives lost, hundreds of millions of people displaced and species extinction.

This is the path we are on. We are here because of decades of mass deception and political manipulation by big polluters that has allowed them to undermine international, national and subnational climate policy to guard their profits. This political interference is directly correlated with the emergence of carbon market schemes as a "solution" to today's crisis, despite their consistent failure.

Carbon pricing—putting a price on carbon and regulating it through markets including cap and trade and offsets (i.e., commodifying the air we breathe)—have been pushed by corporations and Global North countries as our fail-safe for the planet.

Carbon markets have not proven to be an effective way to reduce emissions. Instead of the Global North making emission reductions domestically, corporations located in the Global South can sell offset credits to corporations in the north to meet their emissions reduction limits. Human rights and environmental injustices are well-documented by communities who live near these so-called clean development projects in the Global South. Instead of holding northern economies accountable to change their production systems and consumption patterns, carbon markets allow for business as usual in the north, leaving the Global South to offset the Global North's emissions and endure the impacts.

Such schemes are criticized for being rooted in the colonialism and environmental racism that is at the core of fossil fuel extraction. Indigenous peoples, small-scale farmers, forest peoples, youth, communities of color and women are most impacted by these schemes. For example: Kenya Forest Service guards have violently evicted the Sengwer Indigenous people in the Embobut Forest due to pressures from voluntary international offset schemes that provide financial incentives for forest preservation. In Colombia, Indigenous Wayuu fight for the ancestral rights to land and water due to impacts from the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America, Cerrejon. Cerrejon has used the Clean Development Mechanism—which lets countries in the Global North purchase credits from Global South countries to continue polluting—to sell offset credits from a few wind power generators placed next to the looming mines.

In addition to the examples above, these schemes have failed in the very countries whose governments are pushing them, including the UK, the EU, Canada, Australia, and California in the US. Despite the documented global failures of carbon market schemes, big polluters are seeking to make these schemes the centerpiece of climate policy at upcoming milestones in Bangkok, San Francisco and Katowice. At GCAS, polluters are promoting an expansion of carbon pricing mechanisms that guarantee more fossil fuel extraction, despite needing to keep the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves in the ground to curb temperature rise. At COP24, the guidelines for Paris Agreement implementation are being used to link up international carbon markets. This creates an official space for polluters to continue polluting unregulated.

These upcoming meetings will chart the immediate future of climate action. Real, just solutions must receive the priority they deserve. We call on governments to listen to the people without delay at COP24, reject false solutions stemming from GCAS and to take urgent steps to protect our lives. Instead of permitting the very actors that fuelled the climate crisis to advance their own agenda, it is time governments embody true climate championship by embracing the meaningful solutions communities on the front lines of climate change already have. They are feasible and affordable, and they work. They include a managed decline of fossil fuel production; pacts to keep fossil fuels in the ground in the Global North immediately, with a phaseout for the Global South; finance and technology transfer; a total and just transition to community-led renewable energy; and a singular focus on keeping big polluters out of climate policymaking.

This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute, and originally published by Buzzflash at Truthout.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/05/31/wmo-eu-reject-omics-conference-hijacked-climate-science-deniers

On the face of it, the climate science conference scheduled for the romantic Italian city of Rome looks like any other.

The organizers, India-based ConferenceSeries, promise their “4th World Conference on Climate Change” will attract “world class experts” from across the planet.

Anticipating “more than 500 participants,” the event claimed to have an organizing committee with representatives from the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the European Space Agency, and the European Environment Agency (EEA).

But a DeSmog investigation reveals the event is being hijacked by a group of climate science deniers who have previously claimed they want to investigate climate scientists for fraud and have dismissed human-caused climate change as a hoax.

Since being contacted by DeSmog, both the WMO and the EEA have issued statements distancing themselves from the three-day conference, scheduled to start on October 19.

ConferenceSeries, also known as OMICS, promotes hundreds of meetings around the world and is behind the logistics and promotion for the Italy conference. In August 2016 the U.S. government’s Federal Trade Commission launched court action against the company, alleging deceptive marketing practices. The case is ongoing.

Two members of the Italy conference “organizing committee” — Nils-Axel Mörner and Franco Maranzana — were also organizers of a meeting for climate science deniers in London in September 2016.

Both are also founding members of a self-styled Independent Committee on Geoethics (ICG) — a group that, according to another founder Lord Christopher Monckton, was established to investigate climate scientists for fraud.

Seven presenters, including Monckton and Mörner, and one organizer of that London meeting, Maranzana, are also scheduled to speak at the Rome event.

Some scientists listed as attending — or even organizing — the Italy conference have told DeSmog their names “should not be on the program.”

After being contacted by DeSmog, OMICS said it would “investigate” the line-up for its conference and if it found “unnecessary science,” it would contact attendees to inform them “about the real faces of those who are looking to make a platform for spreading the nonsense through our forum.”

In 2016, Australia Nobel science winner Professor Peter Doherty pulled out of a conference after discovering OMICSwas the organizer, saying: “I will not speak at this, or any future meeting that you organize.”

Dawn of Truth?

Mörner and Maranzana's London meeting of deniers, subtitled the “Dawn of Truth,” was forced to move venues when University College London canceled the booking after discovering who was behind the event.

ICG’s founding statement declares that “personal attacks have no place in science.” Yet, Lord Monckton, who has called young climate change campaigners “the Hitler youth,” described British physicist Professor Brian Cox as a “sad and contemptible figure,” “incompetent,” and a “fashionable pseudo-scientist.”

At the London conference, Mörner gave a presentation claiming a one meter (roughly one yard) rise in sea levels by the end of this century was “impossible” and that sea levels may only rise by 15 centimeters (5.9 inches).

However, many scientists now fear that a one meter rise in global sea level, which would put trillions of dollars of coastal infrastructure at risk, could be an underestimate.

On multiple occasions on the ConferenceSeries website, Mörner’s affiliation is given as Stockholm University, and he is described as an Emeritus Professor.

But a spokesperson for Stockholm University told DeSmog that Mörner had “no affiliation of Emeritus Professor” and that Mörner had retired from the university in March 2005.

Mörner is known for dismissing the science linking rising sea levels to greenhouse gas emissions, but his methods and claims have been debunked.

Dr. John Church of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Center told DeSmog Mörner’s work was “totally discredited” and that he had no record “of publishing high quality papers.”

Church is a world-leading expert on sea level rise, with his research appearing in the globe's top scientific journals. He has been a co-convening lead author on chapters covering sea level rise in two UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

Maranzana’s affiliation is given as “Stratex Djibouti” — a mining company based in the UK.

NASA Speaker?

Also a speaker at the London event and scheduled to appear in Italy is Thomas Wysmuller, a member of the ICGadvisory committee.

On the Italy conference program, Wysmuller’s affiliation is listed as “NASA TRCS Climate Group,” which could be easily mistaken as a legitimate group at the U.S. space agency.

In fact, the letters “TRCS” stand for The Real Climate Stuff and is a group of retired NASA employees who reject the risk of human-caused climate change.

Other speakers linked to 2016's London conference and also listed to appear in Rome are Nicola Scafetta of Italy, Albrecht Glatzle of Paraguay, Jan-Erik Solheim of Norway, and Fabio Pistella of Italy.

Mörner, Solheim, and Glatzle also attended the 2016 UN climate talks in Marrakech as a group. One climate science denial website quoted Glatzle as supporting President Donald Trump’s plans to withdraw from the UN Paris climate agreement.

That trio, plus Monckton, are also founders of a group known as Clexit, which claims: “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.”

WMO “Not Involved”

Some participants listed for the Italy event this fall and contacted by DeSmog said they never confirmed their attendance despite their names and photographs being used on the conference website.

Other participants were unaware of the Federal Trade Commission case against OMICS, the conference managers.

Several people listed as participants and contacted by DeSmog were also unaware they would be sharing a platform with climate science deniers.

Dr. Alexander Baklanov is a scientific officer at the WMO and, for at least a year, was listed as a member of the upcoming Italy conference's organizing committee as well as that of the previous “3rd World Conference on Climate Change,” held in Valencia, Spain.

After being contacted by DeSmog, WMO issued a statement saying it “is not involved in any way with the so-called Fourth World Conference on Climate Change and wishes to disassociate itself from the conference organizers.”

The statement said Dr. Baklanov had once been contacted by the conference organizers and “in good faith, suggested some possible topics for it to outline.”

“The WMO scientist is not on the organizing committee of the conference as is implied by the organizers. No representative of WMO will attend the conference,” the statement added.

Dr. Baklanov’s name was removed from the conference website late last week at the request of the WMO, after DeSmog had made contact.

The Italy conference website also named an official from the European Environment Agency (EEA), Annemarie Bastrup-Birk, as a member of the organizing committee.

But Katja Rosenbohm, EEA head of communications, told DeSmog: “The EEA has no affiliation or role whatsoever with OMICSor the conference they are organizing in Rome. One of our experts' names was incorrectly posted on their organizing website and it has now been removed.

“Conference organizers did contact an EEA expert last year about potentially participating in a conference on climate change, however, the expert’s participation was never confirmed and there was never any follow-up.”

“My Name Should Not Be on the Program”

One of the highest profile individuals, still listed as a speaker for the Italy conference, is veteran climate scientist Professor Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois.

Schlesinger told DeSmog he had received an email invitation and had initially offered only to give a lecture by video, but he had heard nothing from the conference organizers since. He had never agreed to appear.

“My name should not be on the program,” he said.

[docs] more on OMICS

alec

ALEC Assembles "Most Wanted" List, and Oklahomans Say "ALEC Is Not OK"

by Brendan Fischer — May 6, 2013 - 7:44am

:{- Topics: :{Corporations}:, :{Democracy}:, :{Politics}:

:{- Projects: :{ALEC Exposed}: