Canadian conservative commentator and climate science denialist Ezra Levant has won his battle with the United Nations to have staff from his media outlet accredited  to cover climate talks starting next week in Morocco.

Three staffers from Levant’s online outlet, The Rebel, were initially denied media accreditation for the COP22 talks in Marrakesh, after the UN described Rebel as “advocacy media”. The Financial Post is reporting that the UN has granted Rebel two spots, but Rebel is pushing back for a third.

Since hearing from the UN in early October, Levant has been campaigning furiously to force the UN to change its mind.  He gained support from three journalism groups, gathered 10,000 names on a petition and won the backing of Canada's environment minister, Catherine McKenna.

Levant even travelled to New York to hand the petition to Canada’s permanent mission to the United Nations.

But along the way, Levant has repeatedly shown footage from the last major climate change talks in Paris to bolster his case. Levant says the footage shows journalists in the Paris media room “jumping for joy”. This, according to Levant, shows their lack of objectivity and just why his "real journalists" should be allowed inside the COP22 talks as media. 

But DeSmog has investigated the origins of the clip and can confirm that the footage does not show journalists and was not filmed in “the media room”, as Levant has repeatedly claimed.

The clip was originally filmed and shared on Twitter by a passing journalist  — Miranda Johnson, of The Economist — who has confirmed Rebel did not seek permission to use her footage and, if it had, it would have been refused. 

WE HAVE A #ParisAgreement pic.twitter.com/Xh7HSPWXSD

— Miranda Johnson (@MSLJeconomist) December 12, 2015

Instead, the clip shows a side room, well away from the media centre, where civil society groups who had campaigned for action on climate change for years had gathered to watch the final moments of the Paris talks.

Levant has told viewers: “Here’s a clip from the UN global warming convention last year showing journalists in the press room cheering.”

In another Rebel video, Levant says: “The most striking video clip of the entire Paris conference last year was when an international agreement was finally announced and the media room burst into applause and cheering. Some actually jumping for joy – you know, the way objective reporters do.”

DeSmog can also confirm the person seen “jumping for joy” was not a journalist either, but a media liaison officer for a climate action group.

Other media outlets have asked for permission to use Johnson's footage, including US outlet Fox News, but all have been refused.

Levant has used the footage at least five times in at least four different videos posted on YouTube and his Rebel media website. Each time, Levant says it shows journalists in the media room.

In a segment with one of his formerly “banned” staff members, Sheila Gunn Reid, Levant says the UN is “terrified that we will turn the camera on the UN approved journalists… the pets.”

He adds:  “We can’t show this enough.  I want to show the clip of the official approved accredited journalists, who are more objective than you Sheila, jumping for joy at some climate announcement…. That’s the media filing room. That’s the press room. Every person in that room was a journalist that met [the UN officer] Nick Nuttall’s standards.”

As well as using the footage to gain support from the public, Levant also uses the clip to support a crowdfunding campaign to send Rebel staff to cover a different UN conference in India later this month. In that video, Levant again describes the “reporters” in the footage as “squealing like teenagers at a Justin Bieber concert.”

DeSmog has approached Levant for comment.

Rebel is currently crowfunding its trip to Marrakech.

Rebel writes: "One thing we won’t scrimp on is security, though — especially in a place like Morocco. So we need a driver/handler to make sure we get to and from the conference site each day safely." This, despite visitors to COP22 having access to official shuttle buses running 12 routes, each route covered from 6am until midnight and, in peak hours, running every 15 minutes.

Levant is trying to raise more than CA$27,000 for the India trip, including $14,000 to hire a private security firm. And The Rebel is crowdfunding for Morocco as well.

DeSmog has reported that Rebel’s intentions in Morocco were not to mainly report on the proceedings, but instead to film journalists.

Levant told an audience that Rebel had joined with climate science denier Marc Morano, of the US-based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), who Levant appointed an “honorary Rebel” at the talks.

CFACT, which has received funding from fossil fuel interests, has been accredited as a non-governmental organisation at several UN climate summits.

According to a CFACT Facebook post, “Rebel wanted to join CFACT at the UN climate conference in Marrakech."

One of the three Rebel staff members heading to Morocco, Sheila Gunn Reid, told an Edmonton audience in September 2016 that “people who believe in global warming really seem like a doomsday cult.”  

Main image: Ezra Levant. Credit: University of Saskatchewan/Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Conservative Canadian broadcaster Ezra Levant is appealing to the public and his prime minister to intervene in a row with organisers of the upcoming United Nations climate conference.

Levant wanted to send three staff members from his “The Rebel” media company to the COP22 talks taking place next month in Marrakech, Morocco.

The Rebel had applied to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for media accreditation but, according to screenshots shared by Levant, the UN has declined the application because “advocacy media outlets do not qualify for media accreditation.”

DeSmog can reveal that Levant’s crew intended to film other journalists at press conferences and outside the venue, in an apparent attempt to expose what Levant thinks is a hypocritical media.

At a Rebel event in Edmonton in September, U.S.-based climate science denialist Marc Morano, who would be an "honorary Rebel journalist" in Morocco, told an audience member he intends to “put on a disguise” at the conference.

Levant has appealed for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to intervene in the “ban” and has support from three Canadian journalism associations, which may not agree with Levant’s politics, but also don’t condone the UN’s decision. Levant has also started an online petition and had his lawyers send a legal letter to the UN.

The three journalists whose applications were declined are reportedly Rebel’s Alberta bureau chief Sheila Gunn Reid, producer Meaghan MacSween and cameraman Alex Jones.

But what was The Rebel going to do in Morocco?  Was it there to report the proceedings, or something else?

In September, Levant’s The Rebel hosted a public screening of Marc Morano's climate science denial film “Climate Hustle” in Edmonton.

In audio recorded by a DeSmog researcher in attendance, Levant tells the audience that “we will be asking questions and turning the camera around to show the other journalists,” in an apparent attempt to ridicule reporters who he describes as “cheerleaders” for the UN.

During a Q&A session following the Climate Hustle screening, Levant says that Marc Morano will be an “honorary Rebel journalist” in Morocco. Morano is Communications Director of the US “think tank” Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from Exxon in the past. (Morano has received official credentials alongside CFACT colleagues for several UN climate conferences, including Paris, Lima and Warsaw.)

Answering questions later, Morano told one audience member that he would “put on a disguise” to avoid being recognised in Morocco.

"We're just going there to expose them … They're not gonna expect us to be there … They might recognize me, but … I'll put on a disguise," Morano says. 

He also tells the audience member that "we could still film them and I could give a lot of questions for them to ask as well, so … there will be a lot of opportunities at this thing," although it is not clear if he is referring directly to Rebel staff.

Fascist Science Guy?

Ezra Levant tells the audience in Edmonton: “[inaudible].. to show the contrast of how they say ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ while their limos idle outside. While they say ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ while dining in five-star restaurants.”

When answering questions, Rebel’s Gunn Reid referred to US science broadcaster Bill Nye as “Bill Nye the fascist science guy.” 

Later, she told the audience: “These people who believe in global warming really seem like a doomsday cult and I think that’s what’s driving the urgency for them.”

“Eventually, after all the predictions fail, the people in the white pajamas waiting for the comet to come are going to figure out that the comet is never coming.”

DeSmog has asked the UNFCCC for a response to The Rebel's protest. DeSmog has also approached Marc Morano and Ezra Levant for comment.

In a legal letter sent to the UN, Rebel Media's lawyers write: "The denial of accreditation to representatives from The Rebel fundamentally denies not only The Rebel from following facts and opinions on the subject of climate change to be expressed, but it also denies the opportunity of Canadians and others to receive those views through the media."

Main image: Ezra Levant. Credit: Flickr/University of Saskatchewan CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Almost 3000 scientists from more than 60 countries have condemned Australia’s key government science agency over plans that would “decimate” its climate change research capabilities.

The open letter, delivered to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his ministers on Thursday evening, warns the cuts would leave the Southern Hemisphere “with no sustainable, world-class climate modelling capability.”

Since news of the cuts at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) emerged last week, leading scientists and institutions from across the world have attacked the plans.

CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall told staff in an email that the agency wanted to shift the focus of its Oceans and Atmosphere division away from climate change monitoring and modelling because the science of climate change was now “proved.”

His claimed justification for the cuts have been roundly criticised by current and former staff CSIRO staff members. 

On Thursday, Marshall joined senior CSIRO bosses in a scheduled appearance before an Australian Senate Committee, where he was grilled over the plans. Climate scientists attending a major conference in Melbourne broke off from proceedings to crowd around a televsion to watch Marshall give evidence.

During the hearing, CSIRO clarified that as well as a shift in focus the oceans division would see a net loss of 65 jobs, although the plans and the cuts had not been finalized.

Australian Dr Paul Durack, a leading climate scientist who works at the US government-funded Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and who helped co-ordinate the open letter, said:

The response by the global climate community has been a very prompt and very consistent condemnation of the proposed CSIRO/Australian actions to slash the climate research capability. It has been an overwhelming, but on reflection unsurprising international response.   The climate community deeply cares about the future, and knows better than most what we need to do as a global community to get there in good shape.

The proposed cuts undermine Australia's primary climate capability that is required more now than ever to best frame the climate change problem. You can't plan for and adapt to what you don't know and understand, and turning the lights out is really not a step in a forward-thinking direction.

The letter, also sent to other key Australian ministers, politicians and members of the CSIRO board, says:

The decision to decimate a vibrant and world-leading research program shows a lack of insight, and a misunderstanding of the importance of the depth and significance of Australian contributions to global and regional climate research.

The capacity of Australia to assess future risks and plan for climate change adaptation crucially depends on maintaining and augmenting this research capacity.

At Thursday’s Senate hearing, Marshall said he had been “very surprised” by the international reaction to the plans. Marshall, who spent 25 years working on tech start-up companies and as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, also apologised for an earlier comment he made comparing climate science to religion.

“I think there's a lot of emotion in this debate,” Marshall told the ABC. “In fact, it almost sounds more like religion than science to me.”

The open letter also questions whether the moves break promises made at the Paris climate change talks, where Australia joined more than 190 other countries in agreeing that global warming should be kept "well below 2C".

As part of that agreement, nations promised to continue to strengthen scientific knowledge on climate change "in a manner that informs climate services and supports decision-making." The letter says the planned CSIRO cuts would "severely curtail" Australia's ability to meet its Paris promises.

The World Meteorological Association (WMO) said earlier this week the CSIRO cuts had sent “shockwaves” through the global climate science community.

David Carlson, Director of the WMO’s World Climate Research Programme, wrote:

These cuts will sever vital linkages with Australian colleagues and to essential Southern Hemisphere data sources, linkages that connect Australia to the UK, the USA, New Zealand, Japan, China and beyond. Australia will find itself isolated from the community of nations and researchers devoting serious attention to climate change.

The CSIRO agency, which employs more than 5000 people, has been the target of funding cuts in recent years from the conservative-led government.  Marshall took up the role as CSIRO’s new boss in January 2015 and has said he wants the agency to focus more on innovation.

When the latest round of cuts was announced in April 2014, the CSIRO’s staff association said one-in-ten jobs had gone since 2013.

To try and recoup costs, CSIRO’s marine research vessel the RV Investigator has been hired out to oil companies BP and Chevron.

Both firms are prospecting for oil and gas in the “frontier” waters of the Great Australian Bight.

Image: Larry Marshall gives evidence to a Seante committee over planned cuts to the CSIRO's climate research

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

An undercover investigation by environment group Greenpeace has found some of the world’s most vocal climate science denial groups were willing to accept cash from fossil fuel interests in return for writing articles and reports that reject the impacts of greenhouses gases.

Greenpeace operatives posing as representatives of coal and oil companies were told that while the reports could be produced, there were ways that the sources of funding could be hidden.

Academics affiliated with leading US academic institutions Princeton and Penn State universities are implicated in the Greenpeace research.

According to a report on the investigation at Greenpeace's EnergyDesk website, Princeton's Professor William Happer had revealed he had accepted cash from coal company Peabody Energy in return for providing testimony to US congress but had routed the cash through a climate denial group. Happer also offered his services but said that a new climate science denial group, CO2 Coalition, should be used to channel the funds.

Groups including the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Donors Trust are also alleged to have been complicit in providing "peer review" services for fossil fuel clients and, in the case of Donors Trust, in providing an untraceable route for the fossil fuel payments. 

The story comes as Happer is preparing to give evidence to a congressional hearing of the Senate Subcomittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, chaired by Republican and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz. That hearing is scheduled for Tuesday December 8 and also calls fellow "sceptics" Dr John Christy, of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Dr Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology and conservative commentator Mark Steyn.

A DeSmogBlog investigation into Donors Trust and its partner group Donors Capital Fund found that between 2005 and 2012, some $479 million of income to the two groups was untraceable. Of the amounts that were traceable, DeSmog found that $7.65 million had come from the Knowledge and Progress Fund (KPF). 

On the KPF board are oil billionaire and major Republican benefactor Charles Koch, his wife Liz and son Charles Chase Koch. Richard Fink, a Koch company director and long-standing aide to Charles Koch, is also a KPF director.

The Greenpeace investigation raises questions about the use of the Donors funds in financing climate science denial groups.  Donors Trust, together with oil giant Exxon, have also funded the work of Harvard-Smithsonian affiliated researcher Dr Willie Soon, who claims carbon dioxide cannot change the climate. 

Greenpeace also claims that CO2 Coalition board member William O'Keefe, a former Exxon lobbyist, had suggested in an email to Happer that Donors Trust be used as a route to conceal cash from a fictional Middle eastern oil and gas company.

The investigation also targeted Happer's work with the London-based contrarian group the Global Warming Policy Foundation, founded by former UK chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson. Greenpeace wrote: 

Professor Happer, who sits on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, was asked by undercover reporters if he could put the industry funded report through the same peer review process as previous GWPF reports they claimed to have been “thoroughly peer reviewed”. Happer explained that this process had consisted of members of the Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal. He added: “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”

Asked for comment by Greenpeace, the GWPF said in a statement that it rejected Greenpeace's investigation, saying any claims it had offered to put a fossil fuel commission report through its own version of peer review were a "fabrication".

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Professional climate science deniers and delayers have been busy playing the victim card here at the Paris climate change talks.

As we head into the guts of week two, negotiators at the vast Le Bourget venue are heading into the business end of agreeing a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

In The Australian, environment editor Graham Lloyd wrote under the headline “Greens want muzzle on ‘climate deniers’” how environment groups wanted “alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris.”

That’s an interesting choice of phrase – alternative view. Try, wrong. There are some people in the world with an “alternative view” on the age and the shape of the planet, or the theory of evolution and the safety of vaccines.

But you wouldn’t expect them to be taken seriously at a major medical conference or the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

Reuters also had a story where Heartland Institute communications director Jim Lakely complained that they had to “make their own space and time” to be heard in Paris.  Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow's Marc Morano complained to Politico that the UN saw the denialists as the "turd in the punch bowl".

The Heartland Institute, which received $736,000 from Exxon between 1998 and 2006, is ever keen to promote climate science denial, holding annual conferences in the US and abroad, launching “alternative” climate reports and comparing anyone who accepts climate science to tyrants and murderers.

So are climate science denialists and “sceptics” really excluded from the United Nations climate process? 

The Committee for Constructive Tomorrow has been granted official press conference time and space at previous climate talks in Lima, Warsaw, Durban, Doha and Bonn. 

CFACT communications director Marc Morano, who launched his Climate Hustle denialist documentary in Paris on Tuesday evening, told me they have a press conference planned within the Paris talks, in an official room, for later this week. CFACT has also had an official booth at the Paris talks.

The United Nations has also granted official delegate status to representatives from CFACT and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another US conservative think tank that refuses to accept the evidence of the severe implications of fossil fuel emissions.

Yet while the likes of CFACT and Heartland cry wolf over their victim status, there’s an apparent hypocrisy in their claims.

When CFACT joined other groups in a room at the aptly-titled Hotel California (as the Eagles sang, ‘what a nice surprise, bring your alibis’) for a day of denialist speeches, the event was initially advertised as being public.

But when journalists from DeSmog turned up, the event suddenly became private and the journalists were excluded.

I had initially been granted a seat for the premiere of the Climate Hustle documentary, but was later declined.  At the screening event last night (more information about that quite bizarre experience to come), I asked again to be allowed in, but was told it was full. 

Dr John Cook, a climate communication fellow at the University of Queensland and founder of the SkepticalScience website, was also told he wouldn’t be allowed to actually watch the film, after initially expecting to be allowed in.

The ideologically-motivated climate science denial that Heartland and CFACT promotes cuts no ice here inside the Paris talks. But that’s not to say it has no impact.

Writing in the New Republic, Jonathan Katz points out how the Republican party’s denial of the science in the US could impact on the negotiations. Negotiators, Katz argues, “know better than anyone that the Republican Congress will not approve any climate change deal President Barack Obama puts in front of them.”  

Blog Image: Professional climate science denialists in Paris at the premiere of Climate Hustle. From left to right, Marc Morano, Tom Harris, Craig Rucker, Christopher Monckton, [Teddy Bear?], Bob Carter, Christopher Essex, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Patrick Moore.  Photo Credit: Brendan Montague

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Marc Morano is never short of a superlative or two, but when it has come to promoting his long-gestating documentary Climate Hustle, the climate science denialist extraordinaire has been outdoing himself.

"We are putting together what I think is the most comprehensive, unique, entertaining and humorous climate documentary that has ever been done or attempted,” Morano has said.

His documentary Climate Hustle will get its “big red carpet premiere,” as Morano has described it, on 7 December in the Cinéma du Panthéon in Paris at the beginning of the second week of major United Nations climate talks taking place in the French capital. 

"The reason that this is a unique film,” Morano has said, “is that we are going for a pop culture-friendly… sarcastic approach and we actually give both sides in this movie.”

Morano is the head of communications at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and runs the Climate Depot blog. 

CFACT, credited as the film's producer, has accepted cash from fossil fuel interests including ExxonMobil and Chevron, as well as more than $7million from Donors Trust – a slush fund of rich conservatives which acts to conceal the identities of donors to projects.

As DeSmog explains, Morano has no expertise in climate science. He has been called “the Matt Drudge of climate denial,” the “King of the skeptics,” and a “central cell of the climate-denial machine.”

He was also listed as one of 17 top “climate killers” by Rolling Stone Magazine. Before joining CFACT, Morano was a communications adviser to Republican Senator James Inhofe, who called climate change science “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

That Morano is not a climate scientist or that actual experts regularly debunk his talking points seems not to matter to the numerous conservative news outlets that regularly seek his views.

Same old myths

But while Morano is promising viewers of Climate Hustle something new, pre-publicity material and statements elsewhere suggest the movie will be a rehash of old climate science denialist myths from the usual suspects. 

One high-profile scientist attacked in Climate Hustle has told DeSmog that the documentary should be seen as “propaganda” and that Morano was “digging around in the trash to look for old news.”

Morano seems to have been promising the imminent release of his documentary for almost as long as climate science deniers have been promising global cooling.

CFACT executive director Craig Rucker first announced the plan for the film in July last year at the Heartland Institute’s Las Vegas conference for climate science deniers. Then, Morano said the movie would be out “in the fall” but it never appeared.

Morano, who ran a crowdfunding campaign to help finance the film, has been promising in interviews that he will be bringing new voices to the documentary. In an interview with Canadian conservative TV host Ezra Levant, who thinks climate change is a “multi-billion dollar scam,” Morano said:

I am not interviewing a lot of the main climate sceptical scientists because I feel like they have been interviewed by many other people and their stories have been told. I am trying to find another layer of scientist whose stories have not been out there yet. You will see a lot of new names in this.

But if Morano really was looking for new faces for his documentary, he does not seem to have tried very hard. During Morano’s Heartland presentation, he told the audience he would carrying out interviews during the conference. 

The Heartland Institute conferences have been a mainstay of climate science denial for years, where presenters, most of which have no genuine expertise in climate science, will claim that either global warming is not happening, that its not caused by fossil fuel emissions, or that impacts will be minor or beneficial.

Who's featured in Climate Hustle?

Pre-publicity material and blogposts suggest that among the climate sceptics and contrarians featured in the film will be Professor Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology, Professor Richard Tol of the University of Sussex, Ivar Giaever a retired physicist, the statistician William Briggs, geologist Dr Robert Giegengack and Canadian climate science denier Patrick Moore.

Moore has said that human-caused climate change is largely a hoax and that “we should celebrate CO2 as the giver of life that it is.”

Tol claims the economic impacts of climate change will be minor and has attacked studies showing the vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of climate change.

Briggs recently co-wrote a paper with Lord Christopher Monckton, who believes that climate change is a United Nations plot to install world government. Briggs’ paper argued that global warming would be much less than other studies had predicted, but a response in the same journal pointed to fundamental errors in the work of Monckton and Briggs, which was “riddled with errors.”

Earlier this month Curry wrote a column for Fox News questioning if government scientists may have been part of a political conspiracy to deliberately adjust temperature data upwards – a long-running theme from climate science denialists.

Blunt attack on Michael Oppenheimer

In several interviews about the movie, Morano has bragged of a section of the movie where he confronts scientist and climate change expert Professor Michael Oppenheimer.

In a speech to a Heartland Institute conference, Morano said he “had a quote” from Oppenheimer where the Princeton University scientist had said that “sceptics were quite literally motivated financially to be sceptics.”

Morano was referring to a quote from a 2006 Tom Brokaw documentary, where Oppenheimer said that “there are some people who have a financial interest in not believing” in climate change. Oppenheimer did not actually refer to sceptics.

Morano accused Oppenheimer of having a conflict of interest because he had accepted a grant from a foundation led by actress Barbara Streisand. He also challenged Oppenheimer over an award from the Heinz Foundation.

Oppenheimer told DeSmog the Streisand grant was received in 1989 while he worked at the Environmental Defence Fund. The Heinz Award was from 2010. 

He said he was “proud” and “honoured” to have received both awards which had always been fully disclosed. He said it was “ludicrous” for Morano to suggest he had been influenced by the grants, especially because his work on climate change and his advocacy for cuts to human emissions pre-dated both the awards. He told DeSmog:

I imagine the only reason [Morano] is doing it is because he can’t find a better example and I happen to be salient in the press and I’m a good whipping boy. But that’s fine. I don’t mind. 

I think it’s all fair to demand disclosure from people in the public arena and to ask where their support is coming from.

But I have met that criteria and now it’s up to people themselves to judge whether they think that the relationships that Morano has presented means that I can’t be objective about climate change. I think it’s a ridiculous notion but for people who don’t know me I think it’s perfectly fair to ask.

When asked about his 2006 quote, Oppenheimer said:

That was some years ago now. [Morano] is sort of digging around in the trash to look for old news because he has nothing currently available to talk about.

Marc is a propagandist and let him do more of his propaganda. If the strongest thing he has to say about me is that sentence then… bring it on… who cares?

Global cooling myth

So what else should people expect from Morano’s movie, besides non-scandals over a grant made to a scientist 25 years ago and the same old climate contrarian spokespeople?

In August, Morano told former Alaska Governor Sara Palin, who also rejects climate change science, that he would uncover the true agenda, saying: “Centrally planning economies. They want to go after the energy sector.”

Morano has also said the film will include clips of newsreaders in the 1970s warning of “global cooling” as if to suggest that scientists had changed their mind. But despite some news outlets warning of global cooling in the 70s, a review of the scientific literature has found that even then most scientific studies were actually saying the world would warm because of greenhouse gas emissions.

In an interview with Alex Epstein, author of the book Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Morano claimed his movie would “present essentially both sides and let the viewer make up their mind” and how "this film is set to rock the climate debate."

Rather than “rock the debate,” Climate Hustle is just another attempt to spread doubt and confusion about climate change science.

Morano’s well-worn myths are almost as old as the 1907 Paris theatre where Climate Hustle will get its premiere. 

Watch the trailer for Morano's film: 

Continue to Part 2: The Evangelical Christian Climate Deniers Behind Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Documentary

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It's not necessarily a competition you should be particularly keen to win, but which country in the world has the most climate change “sceptics”?

Most people would probably hazard a guess at the United States, what with its preponderance of climate science denialist think tanks, conservative television and radio hosts and politicians who think it’s all a hoax.

But a new study that analysed identical surveys carried out across 14 industrialised nations has found that when it comes to climate science denial, Australia tops the pile.

Published in the journal Global Environmental Change, the study found that 17 per cent of Australians were “climate sceptics”. 

Norwegians come in second at 15 per cent, followed by New Zealanders at 13 per cent and then Americans at 12 per cent. The UK was ranked joint fifth, together with Sweden and Finland, where 10 per cent of people were sceptics. The lowest ranked country for climate scepticism was Spain, where only two per cent of people were classified as climate sceptics. The authors wrote: 

Climate scepticism persists despite overwhelming scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.

The study, authored by two scientists at the University of Tasmania, used data from surveys carried out in 14 countries in 2010 and 2011.

While the survey did not directly ask people if they accepted the science linking climate change to human activities, the respondents were asked how dangerous rising temperatures would be for the environment.

People who thought rising temperatures were “not very dangerous” or “not dangerous at all” and who also thought claims about environmental issues were exaggerated were classed as “climate sceptics”. While the authors accept in the paper that their approach was limited, they argue that the method enables them to do a valuable comparison of scepticism across countries.

Generally, the study found that climate scepticism tended to be associated with a lack of trust in governments and “positive attitudes” towards private enterprise.  Sceptics also tended to be male and tended to vote conservative.

The researchers also tried to test the idea that climate sceptics tended to also be generally unconcerned about environmental issues, but found those two measures were only modestly linked with each other.

Across all countries, the authors wrote that only three factors — “political orientations (conservative), gender (male) and being unconcerned about environmental issues” — were “relatively consistent predictors” climate change scepticism.

The findings tend to support other studies that have found that conservative ideologies and support for private enterprise are strong indicators of climate scepticism and denial. The authors of the Global Environmental Change study concluded:

Low levels of trust in ‘the people in government’ is associated with climate scepticism, as is valuing private enterprise to solve economic problems. Rejecting government intervention in the reduction of income inequality also reflects laissez-faire attitudes towards ‘big government’ among climate sceptics.

But the finding that Australians, Norwegians and New Zealanders are more sceptical the Americans is surprising.

Last year, a survey from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication found that only 66 per cent of US voters thought that climate change was happening. 

Only 51 per cent of registered voters thought that global warming was mostly caused by climate change. But like the Global Environmental Change study, the Yale survey also found that conservatives tended to reject the evidence of human caused climate change. Among the most conservative Republicans, only 22 per cent were willing to accept that climate change was mostly caused by human activities.  

Image credit: Flickr/Jo Christian Oterhals

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

More than 10,000 people from 150 countries have signed up for a free online university course that aims to explain the science of climate science denial and give the public the best tools to fight misinformation.

The course, from the University of Queensland in Australia, has recruited some of the world’s leading climate scientists, along with psychologists, science historians and even world famous natural history presenter Sir David Attenborough, who all gave interviews for Denial101x.  Course instructors include scientists and contributors to the Skeptical Science website.

John Cook, course developer, instructor and Climate Communication Fellow at the university’s Global Change Institute, told DeSmogBlog the seven-week course would explain everything from the fundamentals of climate change science, to the techniques used by climate science deniers and the psychologies of denial.

He hopes the course will help to “close the consensus gap” – the chasm between the 97 per cent of expert scientists who accept that humans are causing climate change and members of the public, politicians and media commentators who still reject the science. 

Cook, the founder of the Skeptical Science climate myth debunking site, told DeSmogBlog:

Our course isn't about specific individuals because climate misinformation is like a renewable resource, recycled repeatedly by many individuals – it's a pity we can't harness energy from climate science denial.

We're countering any misinformation that distorts the science of climate change. We debunk a number of myths that downplay the existence of global warming, that deny humans are causing climate change and that seek to downplay the severity of climate impacts.

So our approach is to look at the empirical scientific research into the psychology of denial, and address general myths and misconceptions.

The course is recommended for anyone with a high school science qualification or higher and should take between one and two hours per week to complete. The Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) looks at what drives the rejection of climate science (spoiler alert, says Cook, “it’s political ideology”), then debunks some of the most common climate science myths, before looking at the psychology of denial and, finally, how to most effectively counter misinformation.

One section of the course contains first hand accounts of personal attacks faced by climate scientists, with contributions from Professor Michael Mann, of Penn State University, Harvard’s Professor Naomi Oreskes and Texas Tech University’s Professor Katherine Hayhoe. 

Summarising these tactics of climate science deniers who go on the attack, Dr Ben Santer, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, says: “Go after the scientist. Go after their integrity. Go after their funding… make life miserable for them.”

Cook says the course's approach is based on research in a field of psychology known as “inoculation theory”.  He says:

This research finds that to stop misinformation from spreading, we need to expose people to a weak form of the misinformation – in the same way that we stop viruses from spreading by giving people flu shots: a weak form of the virus. This process of inoculation has been adopted in some university classes by professors in the US  – three of those professors are part of our course team. But a Massive Online Open Course with the ability to reach thousands of students all over the world offers a powerful opportunity to scale up inoculation against science denial to a much wider scale. 

So why a course on climate denial? Cook says it comes down to the right of the public to be well informed, but too many are currently confused by misinformation.

This confusion has significant societal consequences. For example, much of the public think there's an ongoing scientific debate about the basic fact that humans are causing global warming – despite the fact that there's 97% agreement among climate scientists. But when people aren't aware of the scientific consensus, they're less likely to support action to mitigate climate change. This is a key example of the damaging impact of misinformation, and why we need a course that counters misinformation and reduces the influence of climate science denial. Climate change affects everyone, and everyone can have a voice on what we can do to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

 Enrollments for Denial101x are still open. 

Image credit: University of Queensland

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

With his thumbs pointing almost permanently skywards, the copyrighted mascot Hector the Lump of Coal wants to talk to kids about the arts, dental hygiene, bullying, sun safety and pretty much anything else the PR people at one of the world’s biggest coal export facilities can think of.

In one segment of his own mini-TV series, Hector’s sidekick presenter tells kids* how to save energy at home to “save the environment” and how you shouldn’t leave the tap running when you’re cleaning your teeth because “water is precious.”

His TV slots are screened on the popular Seven free-to-air Australian television network in the Mackay region of Queensland where kids have been served The Hector Show sandwiched between segments of Saturday Disney.

There is not a sliver of irony or sarcasm in sight but, then again, this is the state of Queensland that — according to its Premier Campbell Newman — is “in the coal business.”

Hector is the property of Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal (DBCT) which last year enabled the export of more than 60 million tonnes of coal used for energy and making steel.

DBCT is one of two facilities at Hay Point, one of the world’s biggest coal ports. Coal combustion, as if this needs pointing out, is the world’s biggest single contributor to climate change.

Not only did the state export 192 million tonnes of coal last year, but it has been revealed that a coal company employee is actually writing the environment policy for Newman’s Liberal National party.

Perhaps this is why Hector sports a permanent grin on his Facebook page where he is pictured at community events, sports games, schools, libraries and inside any building with a door wide enough to fit his considerable girth. It seems wherever there are children and families, there's a grinning six foot lump of coal in a high-visibility vest. 

DBCT would likely say Hector is just a part of them being a good corporate community citizen. No doubt too, that getting kids to feel good about coal by getting them to literally dance and play sports with a piece of it could help form a small legion of fossil fuel fans more willing to defend it in the future.

Hector also has his own “fun zone” on the DBCT website where kids can download and colour in pictures of the bituminous mascot juggling fruit and playing guitar (a healthy supply of black crayon is required).

Yet while Hector gives advice on everything from “making friends” to “making emergency calls” there is, not surprisingly, no mention of coal’s contribution to climate change and ocean acidification.

No doubt these subjects will be taboo when judging commences on Hector’s latest venture — a competition just launched for kids and adults to write a book about his adventures with a pool of prizes worth $4000.

Presumably, there are few chances for children’s authors to make a few grand, given that competition has been promoted by the New South Wales Writers’ Centre, which is more than 1000 miles away in Sydney.

“Tell a tale about Hector the Lump of Coal,” the centre wrote in its newsletter.

The competition was also held last year, when a writer from Melbourne (more than 1400 miles away) won the second prize.

Hector’s exploits have shades of Talisman Terry, the allegedly friendly “Fracosaurus” depicted in a colouring book showing the apparently benign impacts of hydraulic fracturing equipment in Pennsylvania surrounded by flowers and rainbows.

The book got into the hands of the comedy writers at “The Colbert Report.”

Days later, Terry went the way of the dinosaurs.

No doubt that Hector’s advice on teeth cleaning, road safety and anti-bullying is all very well received, as are the colouring pages.

But I have to wonder for how much longer it will be seen as acceptable to allow an icon of the deleterious effects of climate change to frolic around kids with impunity? Is there a more inappropriate children’s mascot anywhere in the world?

 *Remember children, once Hector has helped you improve your dental hygiene and road safety skills he is then sent overseas to be burned alive.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.