The Misinformation Machine: The piper of the right-wing deniers

As some may know, Marc Morano (he of swiftboating fame) is the mouthpiece of Sen Inhofe in the US. He is also the pied piper of a particular group of rodents and the source of such fine deceptive screeds like the 'Inhofe 650'.

Marc Morano, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)’s environmental communications director, sits at the center of the right-wing global warming denier propaganda machine — of fifty-two people.

...

Morano’s “entire job,” Gristmill’s David Roberts explains, “is to aggregate every misleading factoid, every attack on climate science or scientists, every crank skeptical statement from anyone in the world and send it all out periodically in email blasts” to the right-wing echo chamber. The Wonk Room has acquired Morano’s email list, and we can now reveal the pack of climate skeptics, conservative bloggers, and corporate hacks who feed the misinformation machine.

Promoted on the Drudge Report and Fox News, Morano’s moronic misinformation enters mainstream discourse through columns by Barnes, George Will, Robert Samuelson, and others. Many in the Morano gang are funded by right-wing think tanks, though a few are committed activists, conspiracy theorists who believe their homebrew interpretations of climate data. Others are aging scientists with strong conservative beliefs, motivating them to challenge action on global warming not because they disbelieve its existence, but because they are ideologically opposed to regulation of pollution

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...

It names the people who are on Morano's e-mail list and it is made up of all the usual suspects. From scientists (Bob Carter, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, John Christy etc) to bloggers (Anthony Watts, Steven Milloy etc), to think-tankers (Monckton, Avery etc) to weatherman (Courtney, D'Aleo etc).

Outlets like Drudge push the deniers garbage into the general public:

Drudge is a masterful editor, countering real headlines of the climate crisis with tales of “global cooling” and scientific skepticism.

As it turns out, practically every single one the Drudge Report’s headlines of climate misinformation uses a story constructed by Morano’s minions, as the following review of recent Drudge Report headlines reveals

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...

Some, like George Will, spread the BS through the mainstream media. Hopefully his recent actions will see him fall from grace at WaPo. And the results eventually crystalise on forums like this one.

But Morano is now leaving Inhofe's side. This could well be the result of his recent (lol) nefarious and deceptive actions. He will now be blogging for CFACT:

Both CNS — a subsidiary of Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center — and CFACT are part of the Scaife network of conservative front groups, supported by the Richard Mellon Scaife family fortune and corporations like Exxon Mobil. CFACT and the Media Research Center are co-sponsors of the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change, a global warming denier extravaganza that begins Sunday, March 8.

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...

This dude was funded by US tax dollars to muddy the waters and spread uncertainty and doubt into the public sphere. These deniers are no different than the industry-funded deniers that circulated during the tobacco wars. Same MO, same aims.

May I be the first here to say good riddance.

I have seen this but it is not PC to mention this stuff lest one get labeled a sheep. See, it's always the opposite of what is said. Healthy forests, clean air ad nauseum ....

I don't see any proof of anything. Just a few sources with their own agenda. Are they taking part in a conspiracy? I don't see the point of this thread. How is this misinformation? Just because you say so?



[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I don't see any proof of anything. Just a few sources with their own agenda. Are they taking part in a conspiracy? I don't see the point of this thread. How is this misinformation? Just because you say so?

Oh, hello. Thanks for bumping.

Yes, these people are taking part in a conspiracy. They are part of an effort to confuse the public and spread false doubt about real science. They are generally funded by right-wing think-tanks, other free market organisations, and industry - all motivated in the spreading of FUD in the effort to protect their own interests (ideological and financial).

They present and disseminate BS 'science', this has been shown over and over again. They depend on the rather silly notion the media has of providing faux 'balance' to minority positions - thus, some crank gets a similar chance to air their BS, as a scientist presenting well-supported inferences.

The funding and political motivation has been clearly uncovered from Exxon funding to political interference in rewriting and 'cleaning' reports and attempted gagging of scientists. We know the republicans were involved from the Luntz memo and their action when in power. Take one recent thread here about the website 'icecap', presented as some arbiter of unbiased industry and ideology free opinion - if we check the names:

www.exxonsecrets.org...

They are the usual suspects in a new disguise. Just 'astroturf' fronts for right-wing, libertarian, free market, and industry interests.

Their techniques are tried and tested, and worked for a long while during the 'tobacco wars'.

For example, the results of the misinformation and lies these people spread is clearly shown in one thread today in the news forum - Christopher Brooker, a right-wing think-tank dude and a Morano minion, spreading BS about a psychology conference. People lap up such BS as it feeds their ideology, paranoia, and wishful thinking. Another is the recent George Will episode, where he spread clear and obvious BS through the WaPo. Even when exposed for the frauds they are, they carry on regardless.

I can understand how you, in particular, might have issues with the pursuit of fairness and honesty in the public arena. So, no worries.

Nice to know you're thinking about me, though

I have to sleep now. I might come out to play with you tomorrow.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Wow this theory sounds familiar. Someone feeding misinformation to the masses. Who would of thought of that?

Who say's there is evidence of this? A few sources you provide that are bias. Not very convincing at all. I mean you have no real proof at all, except for a few bias sources.

Ouch.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by melatonin

 

Wow this theory sounds familiar. Someone feeding misinformation to the masses. Who would of thought of that?

Yes, I'm sure you find it's like looking in a mirror.

Indeed, there is some overlap in climate change deniers and creationists - some call that sort of thing 'crank magnetism'. One well known example is Roy Spencer.

Who say's there is evidence of this? A few sources you provide that are bias. Not very convincing at all. I mean you have no real proof at all, except for a few bias sources.

Ouch.

Evidence of what? That there is a concerted effort by a group of politcally and ideologically motivated cranks to confuse the science funded by all the groups I outlined?

The associations of these people with right-wing, libertarian, free market, and industry funded think tanks is readily verified. I presented it above, and if you were interested in finding the veracity of this evidence, you would need to look no further than the websites of many of those think tanks, where you would find those people. Exxon has admitted it was funding such organisations, but now says they do no longer.

“…Exxon decided in late 2005 not to fund for 2006 Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and ‘five or six‘ other groups active in the global warming debate, Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president for public affairs, confirmed this week… He declined to identify the groups beyond CEI; their names are expected to become public in the spring, when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.”

www.exxposeexxon.com...
online.wsj.com...

If you don't understand why 'Big Oil' (and other industry, conservative, libertarians, free marketeers etc) would be interested in funding groups that present misinformation/disinformation about a science with clear public policy consequences, I can't help you

Instead of Exxon, they now get funding from similar places to CFACT (which was also funded by Exxon) - conservative and right wing libertarian and/or industry-related groups, such as the Scaife foundations.

The information about Scaife is readily available. It's a wicked web pursued by the gruesome twosome of Delay & Dolittle. And like it led to the sacrifice of many on the altar of tobacco profits and free market ideology, this has the clear potential to lead to negative outcomes.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by melatonin]

Ah, so the right wingers, are the only ones who are trying to misinform...
It doesn't matter that several of the IPCC scientists have warned people about the politization of Global Warming/climate Change. Of course, and according to this member, there is no proof that deny the claims of those who believe in the claim that mankind is the cause of Global Warming. Right, we got ya.....

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Ah, so the right wingers, are the only ones who are trying to misinform...
It doesn't matter that several of the IPCC scientists have warned people about the politization of Global Warming/climate Change. Of course, and according to this member, there is no proof that deny the claims of those who believe in the claim that mankind is the cause of Global Warming. Right, we got ya.....

If anyone is trying to misinform it is something to be concerned about. We aren't playing ping-pong here. Present the facts and the ideas and see if they have any merit. Regardless of the blame for global warming, it can be argued quite convinceingly that the Earth has in fact been warming. Witness the over all melting polar ice cap and overall melting glaciers around the world. We as a society are going to have to deal with some growing problems and changes that we have only just begun to grasp.

S&F for you Mel, good thread...

Definitely there is big conspiracy there, it always has been

reply to post by melatonin


Nice Mel, but this Creationist does believe in Global Warming. I can hop on Google Earth and look at the evidence.

Yes, I can see why BIG OIL would have a stake in negating Global Warming. Is this a conspiracy or just putting spin on things, like marketing?

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by melatonin

 

Nice Mel, but this Creationist does believe in Global Warming. I can hop on Google Earth and look at the evidence.

Cool. Of course, the denial tends to go a bit further than that - but there are still a few who deny, or attempt to cloud, the very fact of increasing temps.

Yes, I can see why BIG OIL would have a stake in negating Global Warming. Is this a conspiracy or just putting spin on things, like marketing?

I would think it is a conspiracy in that there are particular groups using particular tried and tested methods to muddy the waters. The Luntz memo and the actions of the 'Bush' republicans in the recent past are a good example.

But it's actually an interesting question when taken into a wider context. For example, Shell have been fisked recently in their rather disingenuous efforts to paint themelves as the Jolly Green Oil Company, lol. So from a different perspective there are certainly companies using environmentalism/greening as a marketing ploy.


[edit on 11-3-2009 by melatonin]

nicely put together post Mel, thanks for sharing. (bump bump)

i am amazed at the lengths people are going to to try to distort peoples perception of the known facts on climate change.

actually i find it rather disturbing.

thanks for trying ot open eyes.

reply to post by Animal


As noted earlier, the faux balance in the media is half the problem, and gives cranks and ideologues like Morano a soapbox.

Here’s your counter guest debater to Al Gore and Global Warming Climate change disinformation plus how Obama’s Policies are affecting our economy.

For your on-air expert contributor talent files: Credentialed “Counter Guest” to popular global warming ideology: Here’s your anti-Gore Global Warming Expert who offers the science to counteract artisan and ideologically driven Environmental entities and issues.

If you believe most, or all, of the global warming dogma, you may use Marc as your “counter guest” to offer a lively, fair and balanced discussion to your audience. If you are a skeptic of the current doctrine, Marc can aid your program by clearing up the deception with the facts.

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...

So, Morano is an 'expert' - a guy associated with CFACT, a conservative funded denialist think-tank, is an expert on climate science, and the expectation is to 'balance' discussion of an issue where the vast majority of scientists agree and the literature shows a clear consensus.

Might as well have flat-earther on to 'balance' discussion of the roundish nature of planets.

The projection in that blurb is fantastic.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by melatonin]

Some recent poll data from Pew::

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c535354722b6.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/41bca99346ce.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/899ea480b369.gif[/atsimg]

Republicans, evangelicals (even religious affiliation), and, generally, lack of education are important influences on acceptance of the science. One obvious outlier is that republicans with college education are less likely to accept the science than those without such education. Whereas for independents and dems, more education underpins acceptance.

One obvious explanation is that educated republicans are more likely to seek further information, but tend to accept duff denier sources as reliable (i.e., Morano et al.) rather than scientific sources.

ABE: And for reference:

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.

This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

...

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

tigger.uic.edu...

82% of all earth scientists who responded, increasing to 97% of experts in climate science, accept AGW. The earth science fields with the lowest acceptance were economic geologists (47%; as low as even the general public, lol) and meterologists (64%). Thus, as knowledge and expertise leaves the relevant Earth science fields acceptance declines to public levels.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by melatonin]

Morano and Media watch

So here's a good example of both the dishonesty of the media on this issue, and an appearance of Lemming Staff Officer, Mr Marc Morano.

Ingraham has been filling in on the O'Really factor on Fox (home of teabagging). Unsurprisingly, Fox News is a major outlet for the misinformation machine. As is obvious, Gorelax is a big bogeyman for these people, and he gave testimony at a recent congress shindig.

So lets get the Faux news viewpoint...

Introducing the segment, Ingraham stated: “It seems that being green does pay big time — just ask Al Gore. Mr. Global Warming was worth about $2 million or so when he left office in 2001, but after eight years of tirelessly working to save the world, the planet, he’s now reportedly — get this — worth a whopping $100 million. His financial windfall came up at last week’s Capitol Hill hearing.”

And this was presented on air:

REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): Is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?

[Ingraham's cut]

GORE: If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.

[Ingraham's cut]

GORE: I’ve been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there’s something wrong with being active in business in this country?

BLACKBURN: I am simply asking for clarification –

GORE: I’m proud of it.

BLACKBURN: — of the relationship.

GORE: I’m proud of it.

and she finshes with:

INGRAHAM: Did she get the question actually answered? With us now Marc Morano, who’s the executive editor of ClimateDepot.com. Marc, that was kind of a hot hearing with Al Gore and the congresswoman. And tell us what we need to know about Al Gore's relationship to a business that will seek to profit off of any kind of cap-and-trade legislation.

MORANO: Well, as you mentioned, Al Gore went from $2 million to $100 million, according to Bloomberg --

INGRAHAM: He did a lot of things, though, speaking --

MORANO: --speaking, other investments, yeah, absolutely, yes. And I think it's -- I also think Al Gore is motivated beyond money. I mean, he is an ideologue, he is a committed believer, so it's not fair to say he's doing it all for the money.

INGRAHAM: Sure.

MORANO: But this is big business in Washington. There's four lobbyists, four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress. That's how bad it's gotten. But Al Gore -- she mentioned the law firm Kleiner and Perkins -- Al Gore is a partner in that firm, which vested a billion dollars in 40 different firms. Now, when government mandates come down the road, this is going to increase these companies' business and portfolio, and the amount of profit Al Gore, according to [Harvard University atmospheric physicist and global warming skeptic] Dick Lindzen, one of his scientists from MIT who Al Gore has criticized -- Al Gore wants to become the first carbon billionaire, and he's poised to do it. He has the Alliance for Climate Protection, he has his other groups in the UK Generation Investment Management. Both of these groups -- one of them's pledged to spend $300 million to promote climate fears, promote government policy that's going to force carbon markets, carbon trading, where Al Gore has essentially either founded or partnered in a whole wide range of groups, including in Chicago and the UK stock market climate -- carbon trading where he is set poised to benefit incredibly. As much as he's made now is gonna be pikerly --

INGRAHAM: Wow.

Out of the fog comes Marc Morano. 'Expert' in swiftboating and climate science, and source of a Scaife foundation supported climate website.

Oh noes. Look the evidence! It's so clear, Gore is making bags of money and buying Lear jets and bathing in champagne. The rascal! It's all a scam for him to support his champagne lifestyle and trophy wife.

So what actually was said during the testimony?

BLACKBURN: So you’re a partner in Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now, they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation. So is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?

GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.

And Congresswoman, if you’re — if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.

BLACKBURN: Sir, I’m not making accusations, I’m asking questions that have been asked of me and individuals — constituents that were seeking a point of clarity, so I am asking you for that point of — point of clarity.

GORE: I understand exactly what you’re doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does.

BLACKBURN: And, well — you know, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit? Does all of it go to a not-for-profit that is an educational not-for-profit –

GORE: Every penny that I have made –

BLACKBURN: Every penny –

GORE: – has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy. I’ve been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there’s something wrong with being active in business in this country?

BLACKBURN: I am simply asking for clarification –

GORE: I’m proud of it.

BLACKBURN: – of the relationship.

GORE: I’m proud of it.

So every penny he invests in a non-profit organisation. But the dishonesty in cherrypicking and misrepresentation? Par for the course for these dudes. The media really does matter, and their dishonesty and faux balance is a joke.

More at the links below:

mediamatters
climateprogress

Also more on denier dishonesty this time Lord of the Dance, and statistical magician, Monckton.

ze linky

Enjoy.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Mel, once again an excellent post, thanks for not backing down and standing UP for the truth.

Gore has become a demonized ICON that those who fear the changes our society will have to make have branded into the minds of those who identify with the terrified vested interests.

It is nice to have someone shining some light on the truth of the matter and the hypocrisy that those towing the right-wing ideal.

It is all good to make money in the USA as long as you are a member of the entrenched oligarchy that currently runs our nation (and most of the world). But god forbid you be capitalistic and not a member of today's paradigm of economic slugs.

Anyway, again good post, and thanks for standing tall mate.

On one side you have anti-capitalists, leftists, enviromentalists, along with grant hungry scientists, topped off with a power hungry government, pushing Global Warning with no proof as a way to tax the people for more revenue.

On the other side you have people who know that the more developed a nation is the cleaner the enviroment is. Also you have the people that before they agree to be taxed would like a little proof. This side also believes that there were no people driving in SUV's at the time of the Ice Age that cause the Earth to warm to make the huge glaciers recede.

If you believe the UN and the US government is working on your interests in this Global Warming hoax. You need to step back and think for yourself. You are being set up for a huge global tax. The UN has been after this for decades, and now they have the propaganda tool they have been waiting for to make it happen. I mean really....who can oppose saving the Earth?

Originally posted by RRconservative
Also you have the people that before they agree to be taxed would like a little proof. This side also believes that there were no people driving in SUV's at the time of the Ice Age that cause the Earth to warm to make the huge glaciers recede.

Sounds like that side needs some basic work in logic and reasoning before it would even be worth bothering providing any evidence. No point teaching calculus if you can't do your times tables.

Until then, the more able side will act for them, the less able side will thank them in time.

Originally posted by RRconservative
pushing Global Warning with no proof ...

I mean what else CAN I say.

On the other side you have people who know that the more developed a nation is the cleaner the enviroment is.

And again, what does one say to something as wrong as this?

Perhaps you intended an expanded explanation of this to be plainly evident, which it is not.

To clarify what I am talking about my wayward friend, is that DEVELOPED does NOT equal cleaner.

To make such a statement is asinine.

Yes, after the BOOM of industrialization most of the worlds more developed nations have been making huge efforts to REDUCE our impacts on the environment (think ACC here mate); however, this in no way means we are cleaner.

Another aspect that must be paid attention to is the environmental 'shadow' of developed nations like the USA.

Yes, Mexico, China, and all the other nations we int he west exploit for resources and labor are MUCH dirtier than our countries, but THAT is exactly why OUR corporations produce goods there. Because they can rape and pillage the planet without any intervention. So because WE consume goods WE produced somewhere else making hometown USA more clean dies that really mean developed nations are cleaner? HELL NO, it means we pass our pollution off on those who choose not to regulated it. It is simply the developed nations taking the advice of Larry Toxic Waste Summers and selling our pollution to counties who can't fight off our economic might (WB, IMF, GATT, etc)

Your point is so POORLY thought out and does nothing to address the finer CONNECTIONS across a myriad of scales as to render your argument, moronic.

Also you have the people that before they agree to be taxed would like a little proof. This side also believes that there were no people driving in SUV's at the time of the Ice Age that cause the Earth to warm to make the huge glaciers recede.

OMG the pain. Ya so tell me PR what IS the result of going from NO humans to 6 BILLION humans?

If you believe the UN and the US government is working on your interests in this Global Warming hoax. You need to step back and think for yourself. You are being set up for a huge global tax.

Actually we WERE being set up for a huge jump in the advancement and evolution of the human species, unfortunately there are too many knuckle dragers left over demanding " WE WANT OUR THUMBS" and as a side note demanding responding the growing impacts of our species on the planet would only result in TAXES. FAILING to see this as an opportunity to not only save money but MAKE money.

The UN has been after this for decades, and now they have the propaganda tool they have been waiting for to make it happen. I mean really....who can oppose saving the Earth?

That would be you.

Originally posted by melatonin

Until then, the more able side will act for them, the less able side will thank them in time.

This is exactly how Democrats treat their constituents!

This is the best example of a Global Government movement. Let us do what we think is right, we don't need proof, we don't need facts. Just give us your money and we will protect you, and you will thank us later.

I'm not falling for the agenda. Wake up! Global Warming Hysteria is just a way to take your money and fund the UN utopia....a utopia of global control.