Extracts from Ofcom Complaint, by Category

Unsubstantiated Allegations of
Corruption Against Scientific
Funding Bodies

Table of Contents:

Click any of the following links to go to that bookmark. You can then return the top of the page (e.g. by pressing <Alt> + <Left Arrow> or <Ctrl> + <Home>), and select a different section, thus allowing you to use this list as a Table of Contents:

1. Extracts from from Complete Transcript and Rebuttal

Comment 71: Allegation of corruption against Thatcher and science funding bodies / Comment 82: Claim that scientific research funding is primarily media-driven / Comment 83: Misrepresentation of what motivates scientists to study science / Comment 84: Failure to disclose Lindzen’s conflicts of interest / Comment 85: Failure to disclose Singer’s conflicts of interest / Comment 116: Misleading claims about amount of funding for climate science / Comment 117: Unsupported allegation of corruption against scientific funding bodies

Extracts from Appendix C: Backgrounds of the Contributors to the Programme

Appendix C.1.5: ISI WoS / Appendix C.10: Frederick Singer / Appendix C.17: Richard Lindzen / Appendix C.19: John Christy and Roy Spencer

Extracts from Appendix D: Corporate-funded Organisations Linked to Contributors to the Programme

American Council on Science and Health / Atlas Economic Research Foundation / Cato Institute / Centre for the New Europe / Competitive Enterprise Institute / Congress of Racial Equality / Environmental Conservation Organization / Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies / Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation / George C. Marshall Institute / Heartland Institute / Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace / Independent Institute / Interfaith Stewardship Alliance / National Center for Policy Analysis / Science and Environmental Policy Project / Tech Central Science Foundation / The Advancement of Sound Science Center/Coalition / The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy

Key to colour-coded commentary text

Bright red text: Actual falsification of data, and/or misrepresentation of the views of a contributor to the programme

Dark red text: Narration, or on-screen graphics, or an accumulation of consecutive interviewee statements that taken together amount to narration; which are either factually inaccurate, or apparently intentionally misleading, or are an attempt to give the impression that a contentious opinion is a fact.

Blue text: Interviewee is either factually inaccurate, apparently intentionally misleading, or expresses an opinion as if it were a fact without context being provided to make it clear that it’s an opinion.

[Because no individuals or organisations were specifically named in this section of the film, it was considered by the Standards Division of Ofcom, and not by the Fairness Division.]

1.

Extracts from Complete Transcript and Rebuttal

[Narrator]

First, temperatures started to rise; and second, the miners went on strike.

To Margaret Thatcher, energy was a political problem. In the early 70s, the oil crisis had plunged the world into recession. The miners had brought down Ted Heath’s conservative government. Mrs Thatcher was determined the same would not happen to her. She set out to break their power.

[Cut to film clip of Margaret Thatcher giving a speech]

What we have seen in this country is the emergence of an organised revolutionary minority who are prepared to exploit industrial disputes, but whose real aim is the breakdown of law and order and the destruction of democratic parliamentary government.

[Nigel Calder]

The politicisation of the subject started with Margaret Thatcher.

[Nigel Lawson]

She was very concerned, always – I remember when I was Secretary of State for Energy – to promote nuclear power, long before the issue of climate change came up, because she was concerned about energy security; and she didn’t trust the Middle East, and she didn’t trust the National Union of Mineworkers: so she didn’t trust oil, and she didn’t trust coal. Therefore she felt we really had to push ahead with nuclear power. And then when the climate change/global warming thing came up, she felt: “well this is great: this is another argument – because it doesn’t have any carbon dioxide emissions – this is another argument why you should go for nuclear. And that is what she was really, largely, saying. It’s been misrepresented since then.

[Nigel Calder]

And so she said to the scientists – she went to the Royal Society and she said: “there’s money on the table for you to prove this stuff”. So of course they went away and did that

[Comment 71: There are two speeches by Mrs. Thatcher’s to the Royal Society that mention climate change (http://tinyurl.com/2kvovo, http://tinyurl.com/2n5n5a), neither of which contain anything that could be construed as meaning “there’s money on the table for you to prove this stuff,” or even mention the funding of climate science.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7, 5.10)

[Narrator]

By the early 1990s, man-made global warming was no longer a slightly eccentric theory about climate – it was a full-blown political campaign. It was attracting media attention; and as a result, more government funding.

[Comment 82: The great majority of the diverse research communities that have been drawn to research climate change have had no direct engagement with either media or politics: indeed many have sought to clearly mark out the distance between their research and popular and political debate. This has been seen as a factor in delaying widespread public understanding and engagement with climate change as an issue (see Smith 2005, http://tinyurl.com/2cm7qt).

It is right and proper that if a scientific problem is identified and judged by peer review committees to be serious, it should attract more funding; but to suggest that media attention necessarily yields funds is wholly incorrect. Not all potential problems that have been identified by scientists and which have received a great deal of media attention go on to attract large amounts of funding (for example, MMR vaccine, and the health effects of mobile phones); because many of them are judged by peer review funding committees to be either insufficiently credible or insufficiently serious.

In addition, the cumulative effect of this collation of statements and images is to implant in the viewer’s mind the idea that almost all of the world’s climatologists have reached the scientific conclusions that they have reached, in many thousands of peer reviewed research papers, in support of environmentalist agendas. This comment fails to reflect the fact that the institutions and individuals engaged in the IPCC process are all well established in their fields of research. They have not been needy of funding. It gives an entirely false impression of the nature of academic research funding, and damages public understanding of the IPCC process: a process that was purposefully designed to be transparent, accountable and working to the highest standards of academic rigour. The editorial point driving the editing of this sequence lacks all credibility and no evidence was provided to support this idea.

Finally, the programme’s wording denies the scientific consensus on climate change that has existed since the mid-1990s by not acknowledging this and instead presenting its supposed movement from an ‘eccentric theory’ into a ‘political campaign’. This is inaccurate and misleading. Spencer R. Weart, 2003, The discovery of Global Warming (http://tinyurl.com/368wk) tracks the long history of scientists’ attempts to explain global warming and the institutional underfunding of global warming scientists throughout the 20th century.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12)

[Prof Richard Lindzen]

Prior to Bush the elder, I think the level of funding for climate and climate-related sciences was somewhere around the order of 170 million dollars a year, which was reasonable for the size of the field. It jumped to 2 billion a year – more than a factor of 10 – and, yeah that changed a lot. A lot of jobs, it brought a lot of new people into it who otherwise were not interested; so you developed whole cadres of people whose only interest in the field was that there was global warming.

[Comment 83: Richard Lindzen’s implied suggestion that it is in climate scientists’ interest in terms of preserving their jobs to hype up man-made global warming has been fully rebutted by one of his own colleagues, at http://tinyurl.com/pb9fx.

Regarding Lindzen’s highly inaccurate and misleading statement about funding, see Comment 116 [below].

Finally there is no evidence that there are any climatologists whose only interest in climatology is global warming, and it is not credible that scientists would enter a highly complex and extremely intellectually demanding profession unless they have a passionate and genuine curiosity about the science that they are studying. As a scientist himself, Lindzen must be fully aware of this, and his assertion to the contrary was again a clear attempt to deceive those members of the public who aren’t aware of how science actually works.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.12, 7.11)

[Comment 84: In addition, at this point, given that funding is being discussed, it should have been made clear by the narrator that Richard Lindzen works for five organisations that are funded by ExxonMobile – see also Appendix C.17 [below].]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.8)

[Nigel Calder]

If I wanted to do research on, shall we say, the squirrels of Sussex, what I would do – and this is any time from 1990 onwards – I would write my grant application saying: “I want to investigate the nut-gathering behaviour of squirrels with special reference to the effects of global warming – and that way I get my money. If I forget to mention global warming, I might not get the money.

[Dr Frederick Singer]

There’s really no question in my mind that the large amounts of money that have been fed into this particular, rather small area of science have distorted the overall scientific effort.

[Comment 85: Again, given that funding is being discussed, it should have been made clear at this point that Frederick Singer has worked for fourteen ExxonMobile-funded lobby groups – see Appendix C.10 [below].]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.8)

[Narrator]

Research relating to man-made global warming is now one of the best funded areas of science. The US government alone spends more than 4 billion dollars a year. According to NASA climatologist Roy Spencer, scientists who speak out against man-made global warming have a lot to lose.

[Comment 116: In fact, the US spends around $1.1 billion on climate science research (not $4 billion); with an additional $570 million on satellite monitoring of the climate (see the “Supplement to the President’s Fiscal Year 2007 Budget”, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, at http://tinyurl.com/2ok5nq).

The “over 4 billion dollars” quoted by the programme includes energy technology research, tax incentives, etc. (see the US Department of State website at http://tinyurl.com/24tmvc, which do not benefit climatologists.

Moreover, much of the climate research funding does not relate directly or exclusively to man-made global warming (see: http://tinyurl.com/35cnj6 [U.S. Climate Change Science Program]), but is also are devoted to understanding natural factors and fundamental climatic processes such as “feedbacks”.

Finally, to place this funding into context, the US Government spends $28 billion on medical research (http://tinyurl.com/yr9q7u [NIH]), and $73 billion on military research (http://tinyurl.com/2bftxb [Department of Defense]).

Thus by quoting incorrect figures and by failing to put them into context, the film maker misled the audience.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12)

[Dr Roy Spencer]

It’s generally harder to get research proposals funded, because of the stands that we’ve taken publicly; and you’ll find very few of us that are willing to take a public stand, because it does cut into the research funding.

[Comment 117: The programme makes a serious allegation, involving the misappropriation of public funds, in saying that scientists critical of man-made global warming are unfairly denied funding. It is therefore disappointing that the only supporting evidence offered by the programme is the unsubstantiated opinion of a single, highly partisan, interviewee (see Appendix C.19 [below]), and no solid, documentary evidence is offered. Moreover, given that the allegation raises questions about their impartiality, integrity, and competence, it is clearly a breach of the Ofcom rules, that the views of scientific funding bodies such as the National Science Foundation (US) or the Natural Environment Research Council (UK) were not represented at all in the documentary.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.5, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11)

Extracts from Appendix C: Backgrounds of the Contributors to the Programme

C.1.5

ISI WoS

The ISI Web of Science (WoS) is a database of almost 9000 peer-reviewed journals – see: http://scientific.thomson.com/products/wos/. The database covers publications between 1970 and the present day.

All references to “ISI WoS” in the following section mean that the source of the information being cited was this database.

C.10

Dr Frederick Singer

Contrary to his billing in the programme, Singer was never a director of the US National Weather Service. In fact, he was Director of the US National Weather Satellite Center, and only between 1962 and 1964 (see http://tinyurl.com/yqbmjl).

He is also no longer a Professor, having retired as Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, in 1994.

He has published 43 articles since 1970 (ISI WoS). However few of these papers have presented original scientific research, and even fewer concerned climate: most have concerned policy.

Two papers on climate that he co-authored in 2004 have been found to have used cherry-picked data and to have been seriously flawed on a number of other counts (see http://tinyurl.com/2jf7l4).

As well as global warming, he also expresses scepticism about the link between CFCs and the ozone hole (see http://tinyurl.com/26guvf); and between second- hand smoke and cancer (see http://tinyurl.com/3by65a).

He has also oscillated rapidly between claiming in 2005 that there is no evidence that global warming is happening (see http://tinyurl.com/2jqe6y), to claiming in 2006 that it’s happening and it’s unstoppable (see http://tinyurl.com/33bk2t) to claiming in 2007 that “climate is not warming significantly” (see http://tinyurl.com/383tk5).

Dr Singer cannot therefore be objectively regarded as a leading scientist, nor as an expert on climate.

C.10.1

Direct Corporate Funding

1.

He founded and is currently President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (see http://tinyurl.com/2tqgp2, and the entry on SEPP [below]).

2.

In a September 24, 1993 sworn affidavit (which is at http://tinyurl.com/2rrqz7, PDF), Dr. Singer admitted to conducting climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years (http://tinyurl.com/39nm8b).

C.10.2

Links to Corporate-funded Lobby Groups

(For information about the following organisations and the funding they receive, see Appendix D: Corporate-funded Organisations Linked to Contributors to the Programme).

1.

He is a Scientific Advisor to the American Council on Science and Health (see http://tinyurl.com/2wtdvp).

2.

He has been a Science Adviser to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (see http://tinyurl.com/359hf3).

3.

He is on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Cato Institute (see http://tinyurl.com/3xnmpa).

4.

Until at least June 2004, he was an Adjunct Fellow of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation (see http://tinyurl.com/2xhdem and http://tinyurl.com/2orgp6).

5.

He is an E-Team Adjunct Scholar at the National Center for Policy Analysis (see http://tinyurl.com/26lp95).

6.

He is a Research Fellow of, and is sponsored by, the Independent Institute (source http://tinyurl.com/2f7t78). He has also written reports on behalf of The Independent Institute, e.g. New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us, July 28, 2003, http://tinyurl.com/34rp8y.

7.

He is on the Board of Advisors of the Environmental Conservation Organization (see http://tinyurl.com/2x68el). [Note: After this complaint was submitted, the ECO website appears to have been shut down. We originally linked to their “Who we are” page, which was then located at http://www.eco.freedom.org/whoweare.html. The new link is to an archive of their “Who we are” page, which was archived by the Wayback Machine on 15 April 2007.]

8.

He is a Featured Expert of the Centre for the New Europe (see Singer, S.F., Climate Policy – from Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000 and Beyond, Centre for the New Europe: PDF file at http://tinyurl.com/3atp5b).

9.

He is a Featured Expert of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (see Singer, S.F., 2000, The Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climate Science was Distorted to Support Ideological Objectives, published in Environmental Law and Property Rights, Washington, DC, http://tinyurl.com/2pjbf4, PDF).

10.

He was a Robert Wesson Endowment Fund Fellow and Featured Author of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace between 1997–99 and 2001–02 (source: Singer, S.F., Letter to the editor, Washington Post, February 12, 2001, http://tinyurl.com/39nm8b).

11.

Singer has also been involved in campaigns to promote the views of the tobacco industry (see http://tinyurl.com/yloyf2).

C.17

Professor Richard Lindzen

Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a well-regarded meteorologist with a distinguished publication record (see http://tinyurl.com/28wszg); however, his research is mostly in meteorology (the weather) rather than on climatology.

His last original research in climatology was published in 2001 (ISI WoS) and hypothesized an adaptive “Iris Effect” of clouds in the tropics that reduces the temperature change due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. However, this hypothesis has since been strongly disputed by other climate scientists (see http://tinyurl.com/23gwno).

Lindzen co-authored a 2001 report of the National Academy of Sciences http://tinyurl.com/yuswbu, which concluded that:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.”

He has since claimed that the summary did not accurately reflect the main report, and has made similar criticisms of the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers from its 2001 Third Assessment Report (see http://tinyurl.com/2ay5vj)  – although he has yet to demonstrate the basis of these claims.

Despite reportedly saying that he is “willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now”, he has refused to accept a bet with climatologist James Annan on this, unless the payout was 50:1 or better in his favour (see http://tinyurl.com/39e5ne).

Lindzen has also been accused by distinguished scientists of having said things in public testimony, in order to win an argument, that he knew were not supported by the scientific evidence – see: http://tinyurl.com/yo5and, http://tinyurl.com/ytb2g9, http://tinyurl.com/2a35a6 and http://tinyurl.com/yrbcju.

C.17.1

Direct Corporate Funding

In a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine, Ross Gelbspan asserted that Lindzen “charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels; and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC” (see http://tinyurl.com/2rpr7k, subscription required).

C.17.2

Links to Corporate-funded Lobby Groups

(For information about the following organisations and the funding they receive, see Appendix D: Corporate-funded Organisations Linked to Contributors to the Programme).

1.

He is a Member of the Science and Economic Advisory Council of The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy (see http://tinyurl.com/26rdf5).

2.

He is a Contributing Expert to the Cato Institute , and has also written reports for them. See, for example, Lindzen, R., 1992, Global warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus, Regulation Magazine, Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992: published by the Cato Institute, http://tinyurl.com/y9gk3j.

3.

He is a Contributing Expert to the George C. Marshall Institute (see http://tinyurl.com/2sq4pf).

4.

He has been a contributor to TCS Daily, the web-based magazine of the Tech Central Science Foundation (see http://tinyurl.com/2lbqad).

5.

He is a global warming expert with the Heartland Institute (see: http://tinyurl.com/33txc4).

C.19

Professor John Christy and Dr Roy Spencer

Professor John Christy and Dr Roy Spencer pioneered the use of satellites to monitor temperature trends in the atmosphere. For several years this data appeared to show more warming at the surface than higher in the atmosphere, which, as discussed in the programme, was used to argue against the accuracy of the climate models.

However the programme failed to disclose that Christy and Spencer’s early satellite data has been found to be in error (see http://tinyurl.com/g2quv). As concluded in a 2006 report of the US Climate Change Science Program (see http://tinyurl.com/logfl), resolving these errors resolved the apparent discrepancy between the models and data; and in fact, John Christy was a co-author of this report. See also the 2005 New York Times article, Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data: http://tinyurl.com/35egf3.

It is therefore deeply misleading for the programme to use the outdated data to imply problems with the climate models or the theory of greenhouse gas-driven warming, without revealing recent developments in the science which have discredited this view.

C.19.1

Links to Corporate-funded Lobby Groups

(For information about the following organisations and the funding they receive, see Appendix D: Corporate-funded Organisations Linked to Contributors to the Programme).

1.

Christy is a member of the Independent Institute’s Panel on Global Warming (see http://tinyurl.com/yp6hh2). He has also written reports for the Independent Institute, e.g. New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us, July 28, 2003, http://tinyurl.com/34rp8y.

2.

Spencer is a Science Roundtable Member (see http://tinyurl.com/yuf3ld) and contributing author (see http://tinyurl.com/3au28u) of the Tech Central Science Foundation.

3.

Spencer is a Scientific Advisor to the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (see ISA web page at http://tinyurl.com/yss5dy). In July 2006, Spencer and three other noted global warming critics co-authored a report published by the ISA, criticising another religious organization for its support for action to reduce CO2 emissions. For more details, see the ISA entry [below].

4.

Spencer is a regular contributor to TCS Daily, the web-based magazine of the Tech Central Science Foundation (see: http://tinyurl.com/3au28u).

5.

Spencer is a contributing author to the Heartland Institute (see http://tinyurl.com/2payzk).

6.

Spencer is a Contributing Expert to the George C. Marshall Institute (see http://tinyurl.com/238m72).

Extracts from Appendix D: Corporate-funded Organisations Linked to Contributors to the Programme
 

The information in the table below was obtained from the websites that it cites and links to throughout. The authors of this complaint carried out this research with the help of many others, whose contributions are acknowledged in section 1.13, page 12 [of the full complaint].

Organisation

Details

American Council on Science and Health or ACSH
www.acsh.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the ACSH:
Dr Frederick Singer
Professor Patrick Michaels]

A lobby group that takes the position on most health and environmental issues that the threat in question is not a serious risk. ACSH has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/26qodt).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/26qodt [ExxonSecrets].]

Atlas Economic Research Foundation, or AERF www.atlasusa.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the AERF: Paul Driessen]

An anti-regulation lobby group which has received $925,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/3bnrjh).

[Note: The above amount was the total ExxonMobil donations figure received from ExxonSecrets researchers at the time that this complaint was submitted in June 2007. Subsequently, new data has been uploaded and data entry and programming errors have been corrected, causing the total figures for some organizations, including the AERF, to be somewhat overstated or understated in this complaint. For the accurate updated figures and links to Exxon source documents, see: http://tinyurl.com/3bnrjh [ExxonSecrets].]

Cato Institute
www.cato.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the Cato Institute:
Dr Frederick Singer
Professor Patrick Michaels
Professor Richard Lindzen]

A libertarian “think tank” and lobby group that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/32428h), as well receiving substantial funding from energy industry-money–backed charitable foundations such as the Charles G Koch Foundation (see Media Transparency: http://tinyurl.com/2qgy4j).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/32428h [ExxonSecrets].]

Centre for the New Europe
www.cne.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the Centre for the New Europe:
Dr Frederick Singer]

A “think tank” and lobby group that promotes “pro-market” and “European liberal” policies for the European Union, and which regularly collaborates with members of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation

CNE has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/yty46r).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/yty46r [ExxonSecrets].]

Competitive Enterprise Institute or CEI
www.cei.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the CEI:
Professor Patrick Michaels
Professor Paul Reiter]

An anti-regulation lobby group at the centre of the global warming misinformation campaign.

In May 2006 it ran a television advertising campaign in 14 US states featuring two 60 second films which claimed that increasing the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide is good for us, and included the statement: “carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life!” See www.cei.org/pages/co2.cfm, http://tinyurl.com/ltb9w and http://tinyurl.com/j45yg. The campaign was the subject of a complaint by Professor Curt Davis, whose studies one of the films had quoted. He said the advertisement had intentionally misrepresented his research, and called it a “deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public” – see http://tinyurl.com/r62fk.

In August 2003, the CEI sued the US Federal Government (see http://tinyurl.com/38w8e3) in order to suppress two major scientific reports concerning the current state of scientific knowledge about global warming. The CEI action failed, and the report was published to worldwide headlines focussing on the fact that the Bush administration was now admitting the science of climate change.

Subsequently a copy of an email was obtained by Greenpeace under the Freedom of Information Act (see analysis at http://tinyurl.com/34vsoa and the email itself at: http://tinyurl.com/2m5sku), which was sent on June 03, 2002 by Myron Ebell, a Director of the CEI, to Phil Cooney, who at the time was the Chief of Staff for President George W. Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality. Despite holding a position that one might assume would require scientific training, Cooney is a lawyer and holds a bachelors degree in economics, with no known scientific qualifications (see Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/2l9cz6).

Before taking that position, Cooney was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, the main US trade association for the oil and natural gas industries (see page 145 [of the full complaint], and Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/39gllu and http://tinyurl.com/2l9cz6).

The email from Ebell to Cooney appeared to show Federal Government collusion with the CEI over trying to dampen down the headlines over the report’s publication. It also appeared to show collusion over trying to force the resignation of the then head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman. (She subsequently did resign in May 2003: see news report at http://tinyurl.com/yqtgzz).

Disclosure of this email led the Attorneys General of Maine and Connecticut to write to US Attorney General John Ashcroft calling for an investigation (see http://tinyurl.com/2erpof).

In late 2003, the CEI withdrew its lawsuit, but only after the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) added a caveat to the website hosting one of the reports, stating that it had not been subjected to the OSTP’s Information Quality Act Guidelines – without mentioning that these guidelines did not exist when the report was written, and that had they existed at that time, the report would have met them. The CEI then distorted the meaning of this caveat in a press release – see http://tinyurl.com/3cjokm and http://tinyurl.com/34v5n2 (PDF).

In 2005, after media attention on the whole affair, and leaking of documents, Phil Cooney resigned from the White House and went to work for ExxonMobil.

On March 19, 2006, The Washington Post reported: “The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming … because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a ‘major donor’ largely as a result of its effort to push that position.” (see http://tinyurl.com/mvod4).

The CEI has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/yvbmtz) as well as receiving funding from Ford and General Motors (see DeSmogBlog: http://tinyurl.com/j45yg).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/yvbmtz [ExxonSecrets].]

Congress of Racial Equality or CORE
www.core-online.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with CORE:
Paul Driessen]

A right-leaning civil rights and minority issues organization. Chairman and CEO Roy Innis is an active gun rights activist and has been critical of environmental groups. CORE has received $260,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/3ceww7).

[Note: The above amount was the total ExxonMobil donations figure received from ExxonSecrets researchers at the time that this complaint was submitted in June 2007. Subsequently, new data has been uploaded and data entry and programming errors have been corrected, causing the total figures for some organizations, including CORE, to be somewhat overstated or understated in this complaint. For the accurate updated figures and links to Exxon source documents, see: http://tinyurl.com/3ceww7 [ExxonSecrets].]

Environmental Conservation Organization or ECO
http://tinyurl.com/33efbt

[Note 1: Contributors to the film who have links with the ECO:
Dr Frederick Singer]

[Note 2: After this complaint was submitted, the ECO website appears to have been shut down. The above link is to an archive of its home page, which was archived by the Wayback Machine on 15 April 2007.]

An anti-regulation lobby group set up to “to protect private property rights from erosion by excessive environmental regulations” (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/2yr55s).

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
www.fed-soc.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the Federalist Society: Dr Frederick Singer]

An influential anti-regulation lobby group which The Washington Monthly called “the best-organized, best-funded, and most effective legal network operating in this country” and added, “what gets less attention, however, is that the Society is accomplishing in the courts what Republicans can’t achieve politically” (Jerry Landay: The Federalist Society: The Conservative Cabal That’s Transforming American Law, March 2000).

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/yu2aj6).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/yu2aj6 [ExxonSecrets].]

Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation or FoF
www.ff.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the FoF:
Paul Driessen
Dr Frederick Singer]

A lobby group set up to fight environmental regulations, particularly the Endangered Species Act and any law seen as infringing on “property rights.” It has received $1,182,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/ysyp49).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/ysyp49 [ExxonSecrets].]

George C. Marshall Institute, or GMI
www.marshall.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the GMI:
Dr Willie Soon
Professor Richard Lindzen
Dr Roy Spencer]

GMI lobbies on civic environmentalism, climate change and national defence, and has received $745,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/26xkau).

[Note: The above amount was the total ExxonMobil donations figure received from ExxonSecrets researchers at the time that this complaint was submitted in June 2007. Subsequently, new data has been uploaded and data entry and programming errors have been corrected, causing the total figures for some organizations, including the GMI, to be somewhat overstated or understated in this complaint. For the accurate updated figures and links to Exxon source documents, see: http://tinyurl.com/26xkau [ExxonSecrets].]

For a revealing look at the views of the GMI, see their May 2005 Policy Outlook at http://tinyurl.com/yw8blj (PDF).

Heartland Institute
www.heartland.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the Heartland Institute:
Dr Willie Soon
Professor Richard Lindzen
Dr Roy Spencer]

The Heartland Institute is a libertarian lobby group, which, according to its web site is “a non-profit organization devoted to discovering and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

It claims to be fighting a war against “junk science” (see Google: http://tinyurl.com/28sjro), by which it appears to mean any scientific research into potentially harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities that does not set out to minimise the effects of such activities (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science). It also promotes what it calls “common-sense environmentalism”, by which it appears to mean denial that there are any problems arising from passive smoking, and being anti-Kyoto and pro-GM. In this it is using the tactics pioneered by The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.

On its website it claims to be a “genuinely independent source of research and commentary”. However, the Heartland Institute has received $830,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/33hllf), as well as being funded by the tobacco companies Philip Morris and Brown & Williamson Tobacco, and by a wide range of libertarian and fossil fuel industry–funded foundations (see Center for Media and Democracy: http://tinyurl.com/23ho7n and Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights: http://tinyurl.com/2nwnbh).

[Note: The above amount was the total ExxonMobil donations figure received from ExxonSecrets researchers at the time that this complaint was submitted in June 2007. Subsequently, new data has been uploaded and data entry and programming errors have been corrected, causing the total figures for some organizations, including the Heartland Institute, to be somewhat overstated or understated in this complaint. For the accurate updated figures and links to Exxon source documents, see: http://tinyurl.com/33hllf [ExxonSecrets].]

Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace
www-hoover.stanford.edu

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the Hoover Institution: Dr Frederick Singer]

A conservative think tank that campaigns against any regulation of greenhouse gasses, and which has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/3cwue9).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/3cwue9 [ExxonSecrets].]

Independent Institute
www.independent.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the Independent Institute:
Dr Frederick Singer
Professor John Christy]

A lobby group that has sponsored global warming critic Frederick Singer, and which has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/yuk854).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/yuk854 [ExxonSecrets].]

Interfaith Stewardship Alliance or ISA
www.interfaithstewardship.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the ISA:
Dr Roy Spencer]

According to its website, the ISA is “ a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development.”

In July 2006, the ISA published a report criticising another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative or ECI (whose website is at http://tinyurl.com/je9ca) for its support for action to reduce CO2 emissions.

The ISA report was entitled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming (downloadable from http://tinyurl.com/2z9zfe). The authors of the ISA report were Roy Spencer, Calvin Beisner, Paul Driessen and Ross McKitrick, all of whom are well known global warming critics, all of whom have worked for fossil fuel industry–funded lobby groups (see ExxonSecrets:http://tinyurl.com/28n384), and only one of whom is a scientist (Roy Spencer). The report has had extensive press and blog coverage (see http://tinyurl.com/24qw48 and http://tinyurl.com/39kb7q).

A letter of endorsement (at http://tinyurl.com/2jc7oc, PDF) of the ISA report was signed by representatives of various organizations, including six that are funded by ExxonMobil, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Congress of Racial Equality (see Ethics Daily: http://tinyurl.com/2goge4).

National Center for Policy Analysis, or NCPA
www.ncpa.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the NCPA:
Dr Frederick Singer]

A lobby group which opposes the Kyoto Protocol and any regulation of greenhouse gasses, and which has received $545,900 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/ydbza3).

[Note: The above amount was the total ExxonMobil donations figure received from ExxonSecrets researchers at the time that this complaint was submitted in June 2007. Subsequently, new data has been uploaded and data entry and programming errors have been corrected, causing the total figures for some organizations, including the NCPA, to be somewhat overstated or understated in this complaint. For the accurate updated figures and links to Exxon source documents, see: http://tinyurl.com/ydbza3 [ExxonSecrets].]

Science and Environmental Policy Project, or SEPP
http://tinyurl.com/2tqgp2

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with SEPP:
Dr Frederick Singer]

An anti-Kyoto, Anti-IPCC, anti-regulation lobby group founded and run by Frederick Singer, that has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since 2000 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/2awexa), as well as having received substantial funds from several other fossil-fuel industry sources including Shell, Unocal, Texaco, Arco, and the American Gas Association (see his sworn affidavit at http://tinyurl.com/2rrqz7; HeatIsOnline at: http://tinyurl.com/yqvozw; and Center for Media and Democracy: http://tinyurl.com/yloyf2).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/2awexa [ExxonSecrets].]

SEPP has also received funding from the tobacco industry in return for writing papers challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke (see http://tinyurl.com/3by65a).

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central.com
www.techcentralstation.com

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with the Tech Central Science Foundation:
Paul Driessen
Dr Tim Ball
Professor Patrick Michaels
Dr Willie Soon
Professor Ian Clark
Professor Richard Lindzen
Professor Paul Reiter
Dr Roy Spencer]

An anti-regulation lobby group and website that has received $95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/2ffueo) and has also been funded by General Motors (see DeSmogBlog: http://tinyurl.com/35ee9v).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/2ffueo [ExxonSecrets].]

The Advancement of Sound Science Center, or TASSC

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with TASSC:
Dr Frederick Singer
Professor Patrick Michaels]

The Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC), formerly The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, is an industry-funded lobby group which promotes the idea that environmental science is “junk science”, which should be replaced by “sound science” more favourable to corporate interests (see Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/2rgkr8).

It runs well-funded campaigns to cast doubt on a variety of environmental and public health issues, including global warming and second hand smoke.

It was founded primarily by the tobacco company Philip Morris in 1993 and changed its name after receiving negative exposure in an April 26, 1998 New York Times article: John H. Cushman, Jr., “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”, http://tinyurl.com/2x86n5.

TASSC is headed by Steven Milloy, who also runs the junkscience.com website.

See also the following articles, by the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://tinyurl.com/v8u2d (PDF), the University of Maryland: http://tinyurl.com/2hdzbf, the Center for Media and Democracy: http://tinyurl.com/yho43j, Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/2rgkr8 and Tim Lambert: http://timlambert.org/2004/02/milloy.

TASSC has received $50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/ysmsk9). It also receives substantial funding from the mining company 3M, the oil company Chevron, the car firm General Motors and the oil company Occidental Petroleum (see Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/2h477f).

[Note: The above figure was accurate when this complaint was submitted. For the up-to-date figure, see: http://tinyurl.com/ysmsk9 [ExxonSecrets].]

The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
www.annapoliscenter.org

[Note: Contributors to the film who have links with The Annapolis Center:
Professor Richard Lindzen
Professor Paul Reiter]

A lobby group that argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels, and which has received $841,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (see ExxonSecrets: http://tinyurl.com/ywptzr).

[ Note: The above amount was the total ExxonMobil donations figure received from ExxonSecrets researchers at the time that this complaint was submitted in June 2007. Subsequently, new data has been uploaded and data entry and programming errors have been corrected, causing the total figures for some organizations, including The Annapolis Center, to be somewhat overstated or understated in this complaint. For the accurate updated figures and links to Exxon source documents, see: http://tinyurl.com/ywptzr [ExxonSecrets].]
 

Go to top of page