<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Climate Cover-Up</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/</link>
	<description>Temporarily Torontonian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:08:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-116405</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-116405</guid>
		<description>“In the wake of the crash, environmentalists pointed their finger at the usual bogeymen. They claimed that the problem has been that fossil fuel interests have massively outspent underdog environmental groups, funding skeptics to mislead the public and duping the media into giving too much credence to skeptical views about climate change.
 
In reality, the environmental lobby massively outspent its opponents. In just the last two years, by our rough estimate environmental organizations and philanthropies spent somewhere north of $1 billion dollars advocating for climate action. In contrast, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Exxon-Mobil, the Koch Brothers, Big Coal, and the various other well publicized opponents of environmental action might have spent, when all was said and done, a small fraction of that. Indeed, much of the U.S. energy industry, including the largest utilities, helped write and lobbied for U.S. climate legislation.
 
Nonetheless, and despite the enormous resources spent on public communications about climate, some continue to accuse the media of &quot;false balance&quot; - by which they mean giving equal coverage to skeptical views about climate change. But the phenomenon of &quot;false balance,&quot; according to the best academic studies of the phenomena, disappeared after 2005. And even the very notion completely undermines the idea that media coverage has been biased against climate action. The complaint, after all, is that the media has reported the views of skeptics or opponents of climate action at all.”
 
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/the_long_death_of_environmenta.shtml</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“In the wake of the crash, environmentalists pointed their finger at the usual bogeymen. They claimed that the problem has been that fossil fuel interests have massively outspent underdog environmental groups, funding skeptics to mislead the public and duping the media into giving too much credence to skeptical views about climate change.<br />
 <br />
In reality, the environmental lobby massively outspent its opponents. In just the last two years, by our rough estimate environmental organizations and philanthropies spent somewhere north of $1 billion dollars advocating for climate action. In contrast, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Exxon-Mobil, the Koch Brothers, Big Coal, and the various other well publicized opponents of environmental action might have spent, when all was said and done, a small fraction of that. Indeed, much of the U.S. energy industry, including the largest utilities, helped write and lobbied for U.S. climate legislation.<br />
 <br />
Nonetheless, and despite the enormous resources spent on public communications about climate, some continue to accuse the media of &#8220;false balance&#8221; &#8211; by which they mean giving equal coverage to skeptical views about climate change. But the phenomenon of &#8220;false balance,&#8221; according to the best academic studies of the phenomena, disappeared after 2005. And even the very notion completely undermines the idea that media coverage has been biased against climate action. The complaint, after all, is that the media has reported the views of skeptics or opponents of climate action at all.”<br />
 <br />
<a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/the_long_death_of_environmenta.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/the_long_death_ of_environmenta.shtml</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Merchants of Doubt</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-98587</link>
		<dc:creator>Merchants of Doubt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 03:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-98587</guid>
		<description>[...] Jim Hoggan&#8217;s Climate Cover-Up: the Crusade to Deny Global Warming, Oreskes and Conway&#8217;s book makes for frustrating and uncomfortable reading. It is unnerving [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Jim Hoggan&#8217;s Climate Cover-Up: the Crusade to Deny Global Warming, Oreskes and Conway&#8217;s book makes for frustrating and uncomfortable reading. It is unnerving [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-98346</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 20:28:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-98346</guid>
		<description>&quot;Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desmogblog.com/about-climate-cover&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.&lt;/a&gt; There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts. Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

The world’s best-qualified scientists agree that climate is changing and that the burning of fossil fuels is mostly to blame. Although there is no debate in peer reviewed science journals, the well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign has left the impression – in mainstream media – of a lively and continuing scientific controversy.

Scientists from within the fossil fuel industries’ own organizations raised red flags about climate change as early as 30 years ago – and they specifically dismissed the credibility of deniers by 1995. Yet the fossil fuel industry has continued to support efforts to subvert the science, attacking real scientists and promoting a cast of “skeptics” in their place. DeSmogBlog looks behind these deniers to test their credentials and to search out their source of funding.

People have a right to know who is paying the deniers. It is difficult to deceive or confuse a well-informed person. DeSmogBlog exists to clear up the PR pollution around fossil fuels and climate change.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/about-climate-cover" rel="nofollow">In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.</a> There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.</p>
<p>Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts. Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.</p>
<p>The world’s best-qualified scientists agree that climate is changing and that the burning of fossil fuels is mostly to blame. Although there is no debate in peer reviewed science journals, the well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign has left the impression – in mainstream media – of a lively and continuing scientific controversy.</p>
<p>Scientists from within the fossil fuel industries’ own organizations raised red flags about climate change as early as 30 years ago – and they specifically dismissed the credibility of deniers by 1995. Yet the fossil fuel industry has continued to support efforts to subvert the science, attacking real scientists and promoting a cast of “skeptics” in their place. DeSmogBlog looks behind these deniers to test their credentials and to search out their source of funding.</p>
<p>People have a right to know who is paying the deniers. It is difficult to deceive or confuse a well-informed person. DeSmogBlog exists to clear up the PR pollution around fossil fuels and climate change.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-97951</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-97951</guid>
		<description>&quot;Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Greystone Books) was written by James Hoggan, owner of a successful Vancouver, B.C., public-relations firm, and his colleague Richard Littlemore. They are not radical environmentalists. They are businesspeople appalled at what other businesspeople have done to discredit global warming and help give the practice of public relations a bad name. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2010/08/10315/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;With insider knowledge of PR tactics, the authors explain how deniers, funded directly or indirectly by industry, use their powers of persuasion in advertising and in factoids and viewpoints planted in the media.&lt;/a&gt; Hoggan and Littlemore reach a stark conclusion: “Reputable newspapers and magazines are today acting in a confused and confusing manner because a great number of people have worked very hard and spent a great deal of money in an effort to establish and spread that confusion . . . We have lost two decades—two critical decades—during which we could have taken action on climate change but didn’t.”&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Greystone Books) was written by James Hoggan, owner of a successful Vancouver, B.C., public-relations firm, and his colleague Richard Littlemore. They are not radical environmentalists. They are businesspeople appalled at what other businesspeople have done to discredit global warming and help give the practice of public relations a bad name. <a href="http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2010/08/10315/" rel="nofollow">With insider knowledge of PR tactics, the authors explain how deniers, funded directly or indirectly by industry, use their powers of persuasion in advertising and in factoids and viewpoints planted in the media.</a> Hoggan and Littlemore reach a stark conclusion: “Reputable newspapers and magazines are today acting in a confused and confusing manner because a great number of people have worked very hard and spent a great deal of money in an effort to establish and spread that confusion . . . We have lost two decades—two critical decades—during which we could have taken action on climate change but didn’t.”&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The phony debate on climate science</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-97923</link>
		<dc:creator>The phony debate on climate science</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-97923</guid>
		<description>[...] of Doubt is not the first book to delve into all of this. Another example is James Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. That makes it especially pathetic that so many policy-makers and prominent individuals continue to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of Doubt is not the first book to delve into all of this. Another example is James Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. That makes it especially pathetic that so many policy-makers and prominent individuals continue to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-96744</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:19:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-96744</guid>
		<description>&quot;With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?printable=true&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups.&lt;/a&gt; Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

In a statement, Koch Industries said that the Greenpeace report “distorts the environmental record of our companies.” And David Koch, in a recent, admiring article about him in New York, protested that the “radical press” had turned his family into “whipping boys,” and had exaggerated its influence on American politics. But Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.</p>
<p>The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?printable=true" rel="nofollow">The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups.</a> Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.</p>
<p>In a statement, Koch Industries said that the Greenpeace report “distorts the environmental record of our companies.” And David Koch, in a recent, admiring article about him in New York, protested that the “radical press” had turned his family into “whipping boys,” and had exaggerated its influence on American politics. But Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Climate Cover-Up: Why I Downloaded It &#171; Green4u&#8217;s Weblog</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-96093</link>
		<dc:creator>Climate Cover-Up: Why I Downloaded It &#171; Green4u&#8217;s Weblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:50:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-96093</guid>
		<description>[...] “James Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self-interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the science&#8230;.Climate Cover-Up succeeds in its key purpose: revealing that not everyone is engaging in the climate debate in an honest or ethical manner.” A Sibilant Intake of Breath [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] “James Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self-interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the science&#8230;.Climate Cover-Up succeeds in its key purpose: revealing that not everyone is engaging in the climate debate in an honest or ethical manner.” A Sibilant Intake of Breath [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Media Books</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-95480</link>
		<dc:creator>Media Books</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:38:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-95480</guid>
		<description>I think this book is a good read for anyone interested in the role of public relations firms in redefining the debate on climate change. After reading this book I spotted some of the people mentioned in subsequent &#039;news&#039; stories on tv.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this book is a good read for anyone interested in the role of public relations firms in redefining the debate on climate change. After reading this book I spotted some of the people mentioned in subsequent &#8216;news&#8217; stories on tv.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meteorologists on climate</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-91044</link>
		<dc:creator>Meteorologists on climate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-91044</guid>
		<description>[...] It&#8217;s not surprising &#8211; though it is certainly regrettable &#8211; that this helps keep the general public confused about the issue. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] It&#8217;s not surprising &#8211; though it is certainly regrettable &#8211; that this helps keep the general public confused about the issue. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-90817</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-90817</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?full=true&quot; title=&quot;Sign in to read: Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth - opinion - 19 May 2010 - New Scientist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Many denialist movements originate as cynical efforts by corporations to cast doubt on findings that threaten their bottom line.&lt;/a&gt; Big Tobacco started it in the 1970s, recruiting scientists willing to produce favourable data and bankrolling ostensibly independent think tanks and bogus grass-roots movements (see &quot;Manufacturing doubt&quot;). One such think tank was The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), set up in 1993 by tobacco company Philip Morris (American Journal of Public Health, vol 91, p 1749). TASSC didn&#039;t confine itself to tobacco for long. After getting funds from Exxon, it started casting doubt on climate science.

Such links between denial movements are not unusual. A number of think tanks in the US and elsewhere have been funded by both the oil and tobacco industries and have taken denialist positions on smoking and warming.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?full=true" title="Sign in to read: Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth - opinion - 19 May 2010 - New Scientist" rel="nofollow">Many denialist movements originate as cynical efforts by corporations to cast doubt on findings that threaten their bottom line.</a> Big Tobacco started it in the 1970s, recruiting scientists willing to produce favourable data and bankrolling ostensibly independent think tanks and bogus grass-roots movements (see &#8220;Manufacturing doubt&#8221;). One such think tank was The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), set up in 1993 by tobacco company Philip Morris (American Journal of Public Health, vol 91, p 1749). TASSC didn&#8217;t confine itself to tobacco for long. After getting funds from Exxon, it started casting doubt on climate science.</p>
<p>Such links between denial movements are not unusual. A number of think tanks in the US and elsewhere have been funded by both the oil and tobacco industries and have taken denialist positions on smoking and warming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-87959</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-87959</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desmogblog.com/greenpeace-releases-20-year-history-climate-denial-industry&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greenpeace released a terrific report today on the 20-year campaign by polluters to mislead the public by creating the climate denial industry.&lt;/a&gt;  The new report succinctly explains how fossil fuel interests used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” for hire in order to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.

In the report, titled &quot;Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science,&quot; Greenpeace provides a brief history of the attacks waged by polluting industries against climate science, the IPCC and individual scientists.

ExxonMobil deservedly gets special attention for its role as the ringleader of the &quot;campaign of denial.&quot;  As Greenpeace has documented meticulously over the years with its ExxonSecrets website, ExxonMobil is known to have invested over $23 million since 1998 to bankroll an entire movement of climate confusionists, including over 35 anti-science and right wing nonprofits, to divert attention away from the critical threat of climate disruption caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels.

The report, authored by Greenpeace climate campaigner Cindy Baxter, calls out by name a number of key climate skeptics and deniers who have worked with industry front groups to confuse the public, including S. Fred Singer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, David Legates, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Tim Ball, Pat Michaels and many other figures familiar to DeSmog Blog readers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/greenpeace-releases-20-year-history-climate-denial-industry" rel="nofollow">Greenpeace released a terrific report today on the 20-year campaign by polluters to mislead the public by creating the climate denial industry.</a>  The new report succinctly explains how fossil fuel interests used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” for hire in order to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.</p>
<p>In the report, titled &#8220;Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science,&#8221; Greenpeace provides a brief history of the attacks waged by polluting industries against climate science, the IPCC and individual scientists.</p>
<p>ExxonMobil deservedly gets special attention for its role as the ringleader of the &#8220;campaign of denial.&#8221;  As Greenpeace has documented meticulously over the years with its ExxonSecrets website, ExxonMobil is known to have invested over $23 million since 1998 to bankroll an entire movement of climate confusionists, including over 35 anti-science and right wing nonprofits, to divert attention away from the critical threat of climate disruption caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels.</p>
<p>The report, authored by Greenpeace climate campaigner Cindy Baxter, calls out by name a number of key climate skeptics and deniers who have worked with industry front groups to confuse the public, including S. Fred Singer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, David Legates, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Tim Ball, Pat Michaels and many other figures familiar to DeSmog Blog readers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Best books of 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/12/01/climate-cover-up/#comment-87024</link>
		<dc:creator>Best books of 2009</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6741#comment-87024</guid>
		<description>[...] James. Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] James. Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

