CFN – It should be no surprise that Ezra Levant would do anything he can to sabotage Ontario’s efforts to bring its economy into the twenty-first century. After all, it was Levant who invented the “Ethical Oil” myth, so he has an obligation to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and its members to look after their financial interests ahead of Ontario’s.

Realistic action against climate change and global warming is not in the best interests of CAPP and its members. Their basic business plan is to encourage everyone to ignore the consequences of Peak Oil and burn fossil fuels, especially theirs, without regard to the environment, the economic future of Canada, or the future and well-being of our children and grandchildren.

Denying climate change is therefore basic to Levant’s life, and, as a veteran propagandist, the ends justify the means. The fact that the means include barefaced lies is just a minor detail in Levant’s creed of laissez-faire capitalism and corporate libertarianism. It was Dave Padden, the founder of Joseph Bast’s Heartland Institute (recently disgraced in the Denialgate/Fakegate incident) who said: “…a lie can run around the world while the truth is still tying its shoestrings.”

Levant’s New Religion

In a recent article about Ontario’s proposed green economy, Levant gives wings to the Climate Science Denial Industry’s lies in a new, innovative way, and manages to mock Christianity at the same time.

“[McGuinty] intends to build massive three-armed crucifixes across rural Ontario. The famous statue of Christ the Redeemer that overlooks Rio de Janeiro is only 130 feet tall. McGuinty’s eco-idols will be three times that height, but will serve the same imposing purpose…. And, like the massive cathedrals of medieval times, McGuinty’s three-armed crosses are to be paid for with tithes, from the little people. The government itself estimates that electricity rates in Ontario will increase by 46% by 2015.”

Levant, of course, is no respecter of other people’s faith, and if making a mockery of Christianity or Islam adds to his income and notoriety, then it’s fair game. The timing of this attack on Ontario’s future generations is especially calculated and vindictive, coming as it does at the time when the Christian world is preparing to solemnise the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, as doubtless he is well aware.

Here is Levant worshipping at the altar of the High Priest of the Climate Science Denial Industry, the self-styled “Lord”, Christopher Monckton, in December 2011.

When Lies Become Truth

No religion countenances lies and false witness, and neither do most agnostics or atheists. Levant’s creed, however, would find an honored place in Animal Farm or 1984. In his latest testament, besides repeating the lies constantly put forward by the Climate Science Denial Industry, he writes that the Ontario government estimates that electricity rates will rise by 46%.

Unfortunately, it’s true about the increase, but this doesn’t stop Levant from continuing the lie. According to Ontario’s Energy Minister, Chris Bentley: “We’ve made a choice to eliminate dirty coal-fired generation because we know that coal makes people sick and pollutes the air we breathe. We’re replacing coal with cleaner sources of power like water, wind and solar. We’re also rebuilding 80% of our electricity system so that families and businesses have the power they need. We don’t ever again want to face brownouts and blackouts like we did less than a decade ago.”

Approximately half of that 46% increase can be attributed to non-hydro renewable energy. The remainder of the increase is due to the fact that Ontario is rebuilding almost 80% of its electricity system. Because of past government’s neglect in making necessary repairs and upgrades, the Ontario government has had to add over 9,000 megawatts of new generation (enough to power Toronto and Ottawa) and more than 5,000km of new transmission lines.

It’s almost funny how Levant ignores the fact that in Ontario, major power outages are now usually caused by extreme weather, rather than excessive demand. Conveniently, his Sun “newspaper” chain is guaranteed the power to run its presses daily, and his Fox News North can maintain its broadcasts without wondering if its devoted viewers can actually watch, or if they are going through a power blackout.  For Levant and his cohorts, it must be “an inconvenient truth.”

But it’s the little details, like telling all the truth, that seem to escape Levant and his new religion. And of course, any kind of renewable energy does not suit his masters at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and is therefore an unforgivable sin.

CFN

Very briefly, climate change (or global warming) is caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas (GHG), other important ones are methane, or natural gas (CH4), water vapour, ozone (O3), various nitrous oxides, and CFCs (chlorinated fluorocarbons) – however, CO2 is the major and controlling factor.

Unless the world starts to control, and eventually eliminate, carbon dioxide production from fossil fuels (i.e. stop burning coal, oil and natural gas), the atmospheric CO2 content will continue to increase, further warming the earth’s climate. If this is not done, then we risk a global climate and ecological catastrophe, which will make life virtually unbearable for future generations.

Climate Change Mitigation

By eliminating fossil fuel consumption in time, the world can avoid disastrous climate change. The problem facing society, governments and industry, however, is that it will cost money (a lot of money) to do so. Estimates of the cost vary – the Stern Report, commissioned by the UK government, at first estimated the cost would be 1% of the Gross World Product (GWP), or, in other words, 1% of the GDPs of all the world’s countries. Later, this estimate was raised to 2%, primarily because world governments are lagging behind, so it is becoming more costly to fix the problem.

According to Statistics Canada, the Canadian GDP is about $1.3 trillion dollars (in 2002 dollars). The Fraser Institute, a right wing libertarian “think tank”, estimates that for Canada, the cost will be about $60bn, which is about 3%. Due to the political biases of the Fraser Institute, this figure might be inflated – on the other hand, given that virtually any cost estimate is always on the low side, they might very well be right. The Heartland Institute estimates a figure of 1.7% of GWP, assuming a GWP of $65tn, and therefore a spending of $1.1tn per year.

Funding Climate Change Denial is Cheaper than Taking Responsible Action

The greenhouse properties of CO2 have been known since 1896. There is absolutely no valid scientific argument that can deny this fact without changing all the laws of chemistry and physics. “Scientists” who try to convince people otherwise are paid to do so. Take for example Fred Singer, who receives a $5000 monthly retainer from the Heartland Institute to promote fake science.

Fixing climate change is going to be expensive, no matter whose figures are correct, and quite understandably, no one wants to spend this kind of money. If there is a shift from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy (e.g. hydro, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal) which produce negligible CO2, or nuclear (which is not, strictly speaking, renewable, but does have a negligible carbon footprint compared to any fossil fuel), then the big losers are going to be the fossil fuel industries. They need to worry on three fronts – being made to pay for their share of the problem caused by the greenhouse gasses their products emit, a declining market share as people and industry shift to renewables, and a declining availability of their natural resource (e.g. Peak Oil).

This is a critical problem for the fossil fuel industry, and other industries which depend directly on fossil fuels, such as automobile manufacturing, fertilisers and petro-chemicals, and utility providers. They are faced with two options – they can adapt, and start developing alternative energy solutions, or they can fight the very idea of climate change and global warming, hoping the problem will go away.

Unfortunately, it is cheaper and easier to spend millions of dollars to fund a climate science denial industry than to spend potentially billions of dollars to adapt their business practices towards the new global reality.

Record Breaking Year for Big Oil

To put this into context, the Big Five oil companies (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell) made a record $137bn profit during 2011, up 75% from 2010, as shown in Figure 1.

Note: the percentage profit increase is higher than it should really be, because BP actually suffered a $4bn loss in 2010, due to the Gulf Oil Spill.

Profits are OK. There’s nothing wrong with a company making a profit, because without profits they would be out of business. If all the oil and other energy companies suddenly went out of business and could no longer deliver their product or service, the results for humanity would be catastrophic. If the oil companies would actually invest a significant portion of their profit in researching and developing renewable, carbon free energy sources, then these profits would be reasonable. However, it costs far less to fund the climate science denial industry.

More Profits for Less Work

Another striking feature of the 2011 vs. 2010 figures for the Big Five is an almost across the board decline in actual oil production, as shown in Figure 2. Much of the increase in profit is due to the continually rising world price for oil, but given the decline in actual production, the profit margin per barrel has increased substantially, as shown in Figure 3. One of the reasons that the profits are increasing is that, despite propaganda that would have one believe otherwise, the actual number of jobs in the US Oil and Gas sector has declined. According to the (US) House Natural Resources Committee, dated September 2011: “Despite generating $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP combined to reduce their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that time. Just in 2010 alone, the big 5 oil companies reduced their global workforce by a combined 4,400 employees, while making a combined $73 billion in profits.”

Oil Companies Produce Oil and Doubt

“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.”

There is no way that even the fossil fuel industry can change the fact that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing global warming and climate change. It just can’t be done without changing all the laws of chemistry and physics. Instead, in order to continue their business model, rather than invest anything substantial in renewable technologies, taking a lesson from the tobacco industry, they invest in sowing doubt in climate science itself.

Some of the climate science denial industry’s self-proclaimed “experts” include so-called scientists who learned their trade denying the health effects of cigarettes. These include Fred Singer, who gets a $5000/month retainer from Heartland, and Frederick Seitz. Seitz is unique – according to Singer, Seitz was still active chairman of one of the denial industry’s key mouthpieces, the Science and Environmental  Policy Project (SEPP), for over two years after his death in 2008. Perhaps he rose from the dead for a while, but as there is no record of him ever walking on water, perhaps one should be skeptical, not only about him and Singer, but about the whole climate science denial industry in general.

Protecting the Profits

With their current business model and profits, it should come as no surprise that the oil industry spend huge amounts lobbying in Congress and the Senate, contributing to (mostly) Republican election campaigns, pretending there is no such thing as global warming, and therefore no need to change their business practices.

• Political campaign contributions to (mostly) Republicans: $1.6m
• Lobbying the US Federal Government: $67.5m
• Preventing effect action on climate change and global warming: Priceless

Heartland – Serving Big Tobacco and Big Oil

Bullying is one of the main weapons of the climate science denial industry – the other is the spread of lies and disinformation. The Heartland Institute, like many Libertarian “Think Tanks”, relies on these two weapons to serve the commercial interests of its sponsors.

Think tanks usually have charity or tax-free status, and publish numerous publications on government policy, taxation, healthcare, global warming etc. Typically they try to present themselves to the media as “universities without students,” claiming as faculty various people from different academic disciplines. While there are definitely some think tanks that produce relevant and accurate studies, which can pass an extensive peer review process, many of the libertarian groups produce output with as much attachment to reality as Jerry Springer, Rush Limbaugh or Ezra Levant. (Levant is, in fact, a product of Canada’s premier right-wing libertarian PR organisation, the Fraser Institute).

According to its website, “The mission of the Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

Heartland’s real issue (and many other so-called think tanks worldwide) is to undertake to fix the “social and economic” problems facing its sponsors. Its mission, more accurately stated, is to “discover, develop and promote free-market [i.e. Libertarian] solutions to the social and economic problems facing [mainly] the tobacco and fossil fuel industries.”

How has Heartland attempted to fix the problems that Big Oil is running up against? Instead of acknowledging the issues of climate change, and working to promote real solutions, it fosters and amplifies the Big Lie that there is no such thing as global warming – more precisely, that although there might be such a thing, it is not caused by human activity. Secondly, like a schoolyard bully, Heartland threatens anyone who gets in their way. Thirdly, like any legitimate PR or lobbying company (who, unlike Heartland, pay taxes on their profits), it tries to convince elected representatives to ignore climate change, and to continue “business as usual,” which includes subsidies to the fossil fuel interests.

Fakegate or Denialgate?

Heartland is describing the recent leak of their policy and budget details as “Fakegate”, alluding partly to “Climategate”, where documents were stolen from a University of East Anglia server, and partly due to one of the leaked documents being possibly a forgery. Heartland’s anger, indignation and reaction to the release of their documents, which, with the one exception, they concede are legitimate, has been one of the finest cases of corporate apoplexy in living memory.

Heartland, and especially its president, Joseph Bast, have long tried to bully people they perceive as standing in the way of their organisation and its customers. Commenting about the theft of documents from the UEA, Bast himself threatened genuine climate scientists and any journalist conscientious enough to expose the truth. “This incident, then, won’t be forgotten. Journalists who attempt to spin it away and politicians who try to ignore it will further damage their own credibility, and perhaps see their careers shortened as a result.”

This time, with the leakage of their own documents, which clearly expose their aims and methods in supporting and propagating fake science, they have escalated their threats and bullying. Immediately after publication of the leaked documents, their damage control shifted into high gear, threatening prosecution to anyone who even mentioned them. From the Heartland website (emphasis added):

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

Heartland, and its president Joseph Bast are obviously (and correctly) very frightened of the implications these documents will have on their credibility. Compare Tim Ball’s reaction to the original Climategate theft (emphasis added):

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.

Notice how Ball and Bast seem unable to agree about the source of the Climategate documents. Ball states clearly that they were hacked (i.e. stolen by someone breaking through the server’s security), whereas Bast continually pretends they were leaked (emphasis added). “Last week, someone (probably a whistle-blower at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England) released e-mails and other documents written by Phil Jones, Michael Mann and other leading scientists who edit and control the content of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Here is an organisation that purports to know everything about climate change, but they can’t even keep their own story straight. The word “Fakegate” is peculiarly apt. While Heartland wanted the public to believe that one of the leaked documents was a fake, what they have actually shown is that Heartland’s approach to climate science, when compared to the other 97% of genuine climate scientists and researchers, is the real fake.

The link Ball gives at the bottom of his article, which he states contain the original documents, is especially revealing.  http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94. It’s really worth following, and so far, as far as I can tell, no one at Heartland has commented on it – certainly they haven’t bothered to remove the link.

Bast Threatens 71-year-old Air Force Veteran

When 71-year-old USAF veteran Gary Wamsley first read about Denialgate, and in particular the plan to take over the entire K-12 science curriculum, he was “…so incensed at the thought of someone trying to ‘dumb down’ our already sinking science programs that I felt he was an enemy of the state. One of those domestic enemies that were part of my oath to defend against. Against that backdrop, I sent the same email to Bast and to every board member. The first response was from a board member. He defended his position, did not threaten me and I sent his email to the archive. Mr. Bast’s email turned out to be a different matter and I could not let him think that his bravado would deter me from speaking out. I therefore responded to him, and it was only when I received his snarky second email, with cc’s to the legal staff, that I thought their tactics needed to be exposed. I did not send the emails with the purpose in mind to publish the responses.”

Col. Wamsley’s initial email to the Heartland Institute was as follows:

You should be ashamed of yourself. The United States already has a problem in keeping up with the rest of the world in science education and now you want to play a role in further destroying our nation as well as our planet.

You are a traitor to your own country. I did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you.

Gary Wamsley

Colonel, USAF, Retired

Bast, however, was not impressed, as he replied as follows:

Mr. Wamsley,

I assume your intemperate comments are based on a forged memo that misrepresents our efforts in the area of global warming research education, so let me explain before demanding an apology. [Followed by a justification of their work].

He goes on to say (emphasis added):

The forged memo has been quoted in scores of articles and hundreds of blog posts. We are working to get those statements removed and retracted. Meanwhile, and regrettably, many people like you are being misled about our work and intentions.

Now that you know the truth, I ask that you apologize for your intemperate and very offensive letter. Since your letter is threatening, I’ve forwarded it to our legal counsel, forensics team, and the FBI. It is important that you not delete the email from your sent file, or any other emails you may have exchanged with other people while preparing it, since this could be evidence in criminal and civil cases.

Please write back to let me know if you will comply with my requests. [Joseph Bast]

Col. Wamsley had originally emailed Bast merely as a private citizen, and not as the editor of the Recorder Online. It was only after this threat that he decided to publish the entire exchange in his newspaper.

Fakegate Threatens Heartland’s Future

Now that their policies, methods and intentions are public, Heartland is running in full damage control to protect its future.

Heartland is no small business as revealed by its 2012 budget, which totals $7,698,385 – almost a million dollars of which was for promoting fake science on behalf of the climate science denial industry. This is not the first time Heartland has taken a major role in promoting fake science. Before climate change became an issue, the institute played a major part in trying to persuade the public that there was no proof that cigarettes caused major health problems. Following a US lawsuit, the tobacco industry and their PR companies, including Heartland, were forced to bring all their documents into the public domain. Now that Fakegate has become public knowledge and has revealed Bast’s role in the inner workings of the denial industry, he and his colleagues have to come up with some unprecedented spin to protect their business and interests.

Their tactic is to try to take the moral high ground, which is particularly hypocritical considering their role following the Climategate thefts. (N.B. There is no proof that Bast and Heartland were in any way involved in the actual theft from the UEA, so unless and until they are convicted in a court of law, we must assume they are innocent of this crime).

Heartland is a bully – the company has continually tried to discredit real scientists, using any number of unethical tactics. Now that one of the victims has struck back and knocked down the bully in front of his friends, Heartland has to go whining to all who will listen about how they are the victim.

This attempt at spin is vital to protect Heartland’s financial interests. In a new website they have set up specially for this purpose – fakegate.org – they claim they are the real victims, and continue with the lie that the Climate Research Unit scientists at the UEA are trying to fake the science (emphasis added).

Fakegate matters because it reveals the inner workings of the radical environmentalists who have turned climate science into a politically-driven movement. Peter Gleick is not the exception. He is not one man who made a poor choice. He is representative of the character of many of the leading voices in the global warming movement. The tactics he used to try to shut down debate – deception and outright lies – are common in the environmental movement.

In reality, the deception and outright lies that Bast complains about are simply the tactics of the climate science denial industry, so well represented by Heartland and its fellow ultra-right Libertarian think tanks.

This is not the first time the global warming movement has been exposed by a scandal. In 2009 and again in 2011, a whistle blower inside the University of East Anglia leaked emails showing the loudest “roosters” of the global warming movement conspiring to limit debate, hide uncertainty, and destroy data. The scandal has been called “Climategate.”

Bast and his colleagues cannot get it into their heads that no one leaked any emails from the CRU. The documents were stolen by a hacker. Even Tim Ball admits this truth.

Fakegate is worse than Climategate. Climategate showed scientists violating the law as well as basic ethical standards of science, but they avoided prosecution due to a technicality. In Fakegate, Peter Gleick has already confessed to assuming a false identity to steal documents. Soon, he or someone close to him will be unveiled as the author of the fraudulent memo. No one was punished for the misconduct exposed by Climategate. Peter Gleick will be punished.

Bast conveniently forgets to mention that eight separate and independent inquiries absolved the scientists involved of any wrongdoing, and not only that, they ascertained that their research and conclusions regarding climate change were valid. This is not, however, what some of the clients of Bast’s climate science denial company want people to hear, as they might start demanding real action from the politicians to do something about global warming. The real purpose and achievement of Climategate was to sabotage the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, and those that followed.

The site finishes with a plea to all the followers of the climate science denial industry to help pick up and support the fallen bully:

You can help us catch the crooks by reading the articles that appear in other sections of this Web site and by following the investigation underway by hundreds of professional and amateur forensic scientists who are on the trail of the Fakegate Gang. Link to this feature on your Facebook page or at your own blogs and Web sites, tweet about #fakegate, and visit the sites linked.

Hundreds of professional and amateur forensic scientists? Really? Just how far does Bast think he can stretch his credibility? Perhaps, if he were so concerned about the truth, he would let slip his “hundreds of professional and amateur forensic scientists” to track down the person or group who stole the University of East Anglia documents?

Plus, you can make your comments heard at the Web sites of DesmogBlog, ThinkProgress, the Huffington Post, and other Web sites that have joined the Fakegate Gang, condemning their conduct.

In other words, you too have the opportunity to become blog fodder for the climate science denial industry and spread our message and rationalisations.

So who is correct – the denial industry blog fodder posters with no facts, no research, and bad science, who post (often anonymous) rants that provide no information, just insults, or almost 100% of the world’s professional and qualified climate scientists, whose research passes the test of scientific scrutiny? Keep in mind too that these honest and qualified scientists would love to have research budgets matching those of the climate science denial industry.

Another approach Heartland is attempting is to persuade its followers to take some ownership of the company’s new problems and to come to their aid. Professional and national sports teams are experts in these tactics – fan and booster clubs, sale of merchandise, publicity events etc., all designed to boost revenue. Likewise, political parties use similar psychology in soliciting donations, telling people that they and everything they hold dear will be at risk if they don’t contribute. Heartland, with its annual sales of over seven and a half million dollars (tax free), is appealing for donations to its legal fund.

Obviously, they have no need of these donations because prosecuting Peter Gleick, who obtained the incriminating documents exposing their Fakegate operation would be up to the federal government, who prosecute alleged felons at no charge to the victim. However, it does allow their followers to feel a part of the whole process, subliminally persuading them that they too are potentially threatened by the exposure. Their other motive, of course, is to make up for the potential lost revenue if their clients feel threatened by their exposure and pull out of Heartland.

Tax Evasion

A by-product of the leaked documents has been to put Heartland’s very existence and future in doubt, as parts of their budget show that they might not meet the IRS’s definition of a charity non-profit organisation. There seem to be too many big donations from major corporations and trusts compared to individual donations, and their areas of spending raises doubts.

Parts of the leaked documents demonstrate that much of Heartland’s business has nothing to do with “discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” Heartland appears to be more of a lobbying and PR company, prepared to act on behalf of the highest bidder. Should the US government decide to prosecute, it would mean the end of Heartland, Joseph and Diane Bast, and would put severe pressure on other Libertarian think tanks, which might also become targets of government audits.

The consequences of this would be severe on all the stakeholders – Heartland and other Libertarian think tanks stand to lose their tax-free charitable status, and would no doubt have to pay back taxes and penalties. Their clients, besides receiving unwelcome exposure, might also have to pay tax on their “donations,” as these would no longer be tax deductible. Not only that, the businesses that have to promote climate change denial in order to prosper would no longer have anonymous front groups to shield their commercial interests.

With their seven and a half million dollar tax free business at stake, the Basts have much to lose.

The “Fake” Document

One of the documents allegedly released by Heartland includes one titled Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy, which is reproduced in its entirety below (emphasis added).

January 2012

Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

Given the increasingly important role the Heartland Institute is playing in leading the fight to prevent the implementation of dangerous policy actions to address the supposed risks of global warming, it is useful to set priorities for our efforts in 2012. This document offers such a set of priorities. I propose that at this point it be kept confidential and only be distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff. More details can be found in our 2012 Proposed Budget document and 2012 Fundraising Strategy memo. In 2012 our efforts will focus in the following areas:

Increased climate project fundraising

Our climate work is attractive to flinders (sic), especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 – about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012 – see the 2011 Fourth Quarter Financial Report. We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.

Development of our “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project.

Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.

Funding for parallel organizations.

Heartland is part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which we support financially. We will seek additional partnerships in 2012. At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports and paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered. Expenses will be about the same in 2012. NIPCC is currently funded by two gifts a year from two foundations, both of them requesting anonymity. Another $88,000 is earmarked this year for Heartland staff, incremental expenses, and overhead for editing, expense reimbursement for the authors, and marketing.

Funding for selected individuals outside of Heartland.

Our current budget includes funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.

Expanded climate communications

Heartland plays an important role in climate communications, especially through our in-house experts (e.g., Taylor) through his Forbes blog and related high profile outlets, our conferences, and through coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts).

Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own.

This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out. Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Rornm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters). AVe have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.

Finally, we will consider expanding these efforts further, or developing new ones, if funding can be obtained.

Is the Document a Fake?

Heartland and the climate science denial industry maintain this document is a fake, written solely to discredit them. The truth will probably never be found without a forensic examination of Heartland’s computer systems, and even then, maybe not.

James Delingpole, of the UK Daily Telegraph, and a prominent communicator for the climate science denial industry, is the one responsible for coining the term “Fakegate,” alluding to Heartland’s contention that the leaked document quoted above is a fake. Unfortunately for Mr. Delingpole, Fakegate describes perfectly Heartland’s activities in the field of climate change. This was a very poor choice of words, which the author no doubt wishes he could take back.

Many observers contend that the document is in fact a fake. One of the most powerful and illustrative arguments for it being fake is presented by Megan McArdle, a senior editor for the Atlantic. What gives her view good credibility is that she declares her interests up front.

Full disclosure: One of the donors in the apparently authenticated documents is Charles Koch, and my husband did a year-long fellowship with the Koch Foundation. However, nothing I’m going to write either defends or indicts Mr. Koch, who’s actually pretty incidental to both Heartland’s funding, and this story.

I should also probably note that I disagree pretty strenuously with Heartland’s position on global warming.  I not only believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening, but also support stiff carbon or source fuels taxes in order to combat it.  While I’ve expressed some dismay at the behavior revealed in the leaked Climategate memos, they haven’t changed my mind about the reality, or the danger, of global warming.  I’m not defending Heartland’s stance on climate science; I’m mostly interested in this because I have a longstanding fascination with fake quotes and documents.

Given this disclosure, and looking at the evidence she presents, it is quite clear that her argument is sincere and well researched, unlike the general verbiage currently put forward by the denial industry. Rather than trying to summarise her very convincing reasoning and taking up even more space, I recommend reading her article in its entirety.

The format of the document is also different from the others – it appears to be a paper document that was photocopied on a machine able to make the copy into a PDF file. In addition, it bears a Pacific time stamp, rather than the Central time zone stamp it should have if it originated in Heartland’s Chicago office.

There are equally logical reasons for considering the document is genuine. First of all, the document could have been considered too sensitive to keep in any Heartland server, and existed on paper only. It could have been emailed via a photocopier, although this doesn’t explain the time zone difference. However, times on machines can be changed.

The so-called fake document does not contain any information that cannot be found in the documents that Heartland has grudgingly admitted are true, which would be the case if Heartland only meant the document to have a very limited distribution. On the other hand, however, as Megan McArdle points out, the fact that the document says nothing not found elsewhere in the leaked documents is an indication that the strategy document might have been written after the fact by a Heartland outsider.

Heartland may have written the document with the express intention of “leaking” it to Gleick as a form of entrapment – it even mentions him by name. It would have been merely a printout, composed and printed elsewhere so it would not appear in any Heartland computer or server.  Then it would have been easy to mail it to a Heartland agent on the West Coast. This would also explain the Pacific time zone stamp and the different format of the PDF compared to other Heartland documents. Had Gleick immediately published it, Heartland could then have convincingly denied it as a fraud, thus legitimising the climate science denial industry. As it happened, Gleick outsmarted them with one of the oldest tricks in the book, and got hold of the truth Heartland needed to protect.

A third, and quite compelling reason why the document might be genuine is because the recipient, Gleick, says it is. Gleick’s primary purpose in obtaining and releasing the information was to reveal, once and for all, the true workings of the Heartland Fakegate machine, and their funding. The other seven documents, which Heartland concedes are genuine, do a brilliant job at doing just this, humiliating the company, Bast and his associates. Why would Gleick, aware that he might face prosecution over his actions, intentionally go to the trouble of creating a fake document with the potential to save Heartland and the denial industry from having to face the truth and the consequences of their own actions, and also increase his own chances and consequences of being convicted? If the document was created by Gleick or another Heartland Outsider, why not simply label it for what it is: an “executive summary” of the other documents? At the moment, Gleick has credibility as a scientist, regardless of the alleged criminality of his deed in obtaining the legitimate documents. The information in these other seven documents is, in itself, more than sufficient to blow Heartland’s fake science out of the water. To risk damaging the reliability of these documents, and potentially damaging his own credibility, by creating a fake document makes no sense.

Denialgate or Fakegate? Both. Denialgate in the sense that the inner workings and motives of the climate science denial industry have been fully exposed from the inside, and Fakegate, in that the inner workings of the Heartland Institute and their propagation of fake science are now no longer speculation, but public knowledge.

CFN – Climategate is back in the news again, but not in the way the climate science denial industry would like. It appears that one of the denial industry’s main companies, the Heartland Institute, has had some embarrassing email and document leaks, and is in heavy damage control mode.

When Climategate first broke the news in November, 2009, the Toronto Sun was one of many media voices to echo the allegations of wrong-doing by genuine scientists who were engaged in climate research. Lorrie Goldstein, one of the Sun’s wannabe Ezra Levants, wrote that he’d “been poring over one of many leaked computer files from the ‘climategate’ scandal.” He then goes on, quoting isolated fragments, all designed to promote the myth that man is not causing climate change.

The main “scandal” about Climategate, however, was not the leaked documents and emails, but the hacking of a University of East Anglia server. The truth is that none of these documents were leaked, they were *stolen.* Goldstein, with his allegation that the documents were “leaked” is just adding to the Climategate lie. The documents and emails, which have been massively edited for public consumption, received massive publicity thanks to the fossil fuel industry and Libertarian “think tanks.”

Joseph Bast, President of the Heartland Institute, an extreme-right Libertarian think tank, PR and Lobbying organisation, had this to say about the theft:

“Last week, someone (probably a whistle-blower at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England) released e-mails and other documents written by Phil Jones, Michael Mann and other leading scientists who edit and control the content of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The e-mails appear to show a conspiracy to falsify data and suppress academic debate in order to exaggerate the possible threat of man-made global warming.

“The misconduct exposed by the e-mails is so apparent that one scientist, Tim Ball, said it marked ‘the death blow to climate science.’ Another, Patrick Michaels, told the New York Times: ‘This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.’”

Bast then continued with threats:
“This incident, then, won’t be forgotten. Journalists who attempt to spin it away and politicians who try to ignore it will further damage their own credibility, and perhaps see their careers shortened as a result.”

The Mushroom Cloud

One of the key fragments from the stolen documents that the global warming denial industry has been pushing is the following, from an email written by legitimate climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Taken by itself, the way the science deniers intend it to be, it is indeed a travesty.  A single sentence from an acknowledged expert topples the whole science. The real travesty of justice, however, has been the way the denial industry has taken one sentence, isolated it, and twisted it so completely out of context that even an OJ Simpson defence lawyer would be green with envy.

The truth is that Trenberth was commenting about a recent paper he had published, in which he was trying to balance the world’s energy budget, the same way an accountant would balance a set of books. In an ideal situation, heat absorbed by the earth would equal the heat the earth radiates back into space. If this happened, there would be no long term global warming (or cooling). However, the earth reradiates less heat than it absorbs, because rising CO2 levels are acting exactly like a greenhouse, and holding some of the heat back. Trenberth is attempting to correlate a short period in which Earth’s surface temperatures have been marginally lower with the excess of heat the planet is receiving from the sun. His complaint is that we don’t have observation systems accurate enough so that we can work out where the excess heat is going. In other words, global warming is real – it can be measured and it corresponds with the increase of atmospheric CO2, but we still don’t have all the fine details. That’s the travesty.

Clearly, the “mushroom cloud” is nothing more than a puff of stage smoke.

A Terrorist Act

The hacking of the UEA server was more than simple theft. The whole point of hacking the UEA server, and releasing the edited versions of the documents, was to sabotage the Copenhagen climate change conference.

The theft of the UEA documents had nothing whatever to do with exposing “corrupt science”; the motivations were political and financial, in common with terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda. If the world’s governments took climate change seriously, and took genuine steps to try to avert a (not too distant) ecological disaster, many huge stakeholders (particularly the fossil fuel industry) would stand to lose a lot of money. In addition, the actual climate change denial industry, organisations such as the Heartland Institute, and individuals like Fred Singer, would also lose money and credibility. Singer, before becoming a professional climate science denier, worked for the tobacco industry, manufacturing junk science reports stating that cigarette smoke was harmless. Singer is paid $60,000 per year by the Heartland Institute. (Note: this is not to say that Heartland or Singer were involved in the theft in any way, although British and US police forces are ramping up their investigations).

Terrorists typically use violence, or at least the threat of violence, to achieve their aims. Many of the scientists whose emails were stolen did receive physical threats of violence to themselves or their families. Note, too, the implied threat from Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast himself (quoted above), against politicians and journalists who do not agree with his views.

The goal of 9/11 was not specifically to demolish the World Trade Center. The true goals were to terrorise Americans (and the western world in general), to destroy any sense of security, to instill fear and cause suspicion of anything and everything, and to show America and the West who in fact was boss. In short, they tried to destroy American society, and unfortunately, they seem to have succeeded rather well.

Terrorists require publicity to succeed. Climategate received exceptional publicity in both the press and on TV. Most of the coverage supported the denial industry, reporting that climate change is a fake, and in some cases a conspiracy to control the world.

Controlling the Media

Dr. Steve Easterbrook, an IT professor at the University of Toronto, has made extensive studies of the software behind the climate models. He states that the coverage of Climategate by the mass media has been its greatest failure, whereas the climate science denial industry has waged the most successful disinformation campaign ever. These people are “ideologically-driven, pathological liars, who will say almost anything in order to score political points, and will smear anyone they regard as an opponent.”

This industry lives in a world of paranoid fantasies, believing that climate science is some Communist plot to take over the world. They completely ignore the fact that every single credible scientific body in the world (e.g. the Royal Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many others) acknowledge that global warming is happening as predicted, and will get worse. They can’t attack the science, so they try to kill the messengers with a devastating and successful smear campaign. Then they get upset and righteous when the scientists they attack “tell them to piss off.”

Incredibly, some “journalists” (e.g. Fox News, both the North and South versions, and Lawrence Solomon of the National Post) are still trying to convince the world that global warming is a fraud. The only fraud is the climate science denial industry, who will do almost anything to discredit the truth.

Dr. Easterbrook continues: “And the result is that, faced with one of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced, the media got the story completely backwards. Few journalists and few scientists seem to have any conception of how this misinformation campaign works, how nasty these people are, and how dirty they play. They have completely owned the story for the last few months, [note, this was written in 2010, but is still true today], with their framing of “scientists making mistakes” and “scientists distorting their data”. They’ve successfully portrayed the scientists as being at fault, when it is the scientists who are the victims of one of the nastiest public bullying campaigns ever conducted. History will have to judge how it compares to other such episodes (McCarthyism would make a fascinating comparison). And the stakes are high: at risk is our ability to make sensible policy choices and international agreements based on good scientific evidence, to ensure that our children and grandchildren can flourish as we do.”

Dr. Phil Jones, one of the principle climate scientists targeted by the hackers, summed it up all too well in an article written at that time in the UK’s Daily Telegraph. “There were death threats. People said I should go and kill myself. They said they knew where I lived. I did think about it, yes. About suicide. I thought about it several times, but I think I’ve got past that stage now.”

A Willing Media

Research described in the Washington Post has shown that people who are bombarded by lies and misinformation tend to accept them as truth, even though they have been told the truth.

This fact is useful for people who try to mould opinions and public policy, a task the climate science denial industry and politicians understand well. An example would be the constant bombardment of Harper attack ads on Dion and Ignatieff. Although little, if anything in these ads was true, people eventually started to believe them, despite all the evidence they were lies. Unfortunately, a rebuttal of these lies usually strengthens the belief in the actual lie.

People, even when they have learned the truth, still tend to recall the lies when asked about them some days later, thinking the false information is true. These are the people that clever manipulators such as the climate science denial industry are all too ready to exploit.

Typical of the push to exploit the UEA document theft is this article, which appeared on the Canada Free Press website. The byline is Judi McLeod, a former Toronto Sun columnist, who has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

The piece quotes extensively from Dr. Tim Ball, one of the Heartland Institution’s “experts.” In it, he says: “The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time to put it all in context. However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature.  It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge.  Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

This is an interesting comment. At the time this article was published (November 24, 2009), had he actually read the documents in their entirety? Had he at least read enough of them that he could, as a self-proclaimed climate expert, come to his conclusions? If he had, in fact, read the documents (or a substantial part of them), then his own scientific credibility comes under question, given that eight different and independent enquiries have examined the whole situation, agreeing that the science and reporting were all accurate, and there was no attempt to falsify data and conclusions. On the other hand, if he hadn’t at that time read all the documents, what is he doing commenting on them? Not even the most brainless first year undergrad would think of citing a source without at least checking it first.

Ball’s own scientific credentials are, to say the least, confusing. He does indeed have a Ph.D degree, which entitles him to use the title “Doctor”, but he does not have the Doctor of Science degree he claims, otherwise he would be referred to as Dr. Timothy Ball, D.Sc. (Note: very few scientists have this D.Sc. degree, which would put them in the realms of scientific royalty). Nor is he, as he claims, the first Canadian to earn a Ph.D in climatology. His degree is actually in geography. And he has never taught at the University of Winnipeg’s Department of Climatology, as he claims, because the university has no such office.

Denialgate – Revenge of the Nerds

Unfortunately for Joseph Bast, the Heartland Institute, and the climate science denial industry in general, the real science got its own back last week, albeit through some unorthodox means. A number of sensitive Heartland documents were “leaked” to a leading climate scientist, Peter Gleick, detailing Heartland’s budget and many of its activities, including climate science denial and attempts to force K-12 science teachers to teach climate science from their perspective, and lobbying the US Government and elected US officials.

This will be next week’s article.

If you wish to contact or sponsor Mr. Komorowski email us at info@cornwallfreenews.com or call our hotline at 613 361 1755

CFN

In return for its guaranteed freedom, however, the media has obligations, one of which is to investigate and report honestly. This isn’t always easy. A paper that features the dangers and abuses of infant formula in third world countries might lose advertising contracts from the makers of infant formula. An online journal that probes too deeply into the affairs of city council also runs the risk of losing legitimate advertising revenue.

The Washington Post, in what was probably history’s best example of investigative journalism, brought down Richard Nixon and the Republicans over Watergate. Freedom to post on Facebook or Twitter helped fuel the Arab Spring, and the overthrow of some dictatorships and, perhaps, the birth of democracy there. However, some of these dictatorships want Facebook and Twitter not to carry any pro-democracy messages – Twitter, at least, is considering bowing down to these threats.

Democracy cannot function if the electorate cannot be adequately informed through an unbiased media. Free speech and free expression of ideas are good – deliberate deception is the opposite. The oil industry and its allies, in their promotion of climate change denial, damage more than the environment – they are stealing the very foundation of democracy and freedom.

Censorship in Canada?

CFN – With the Harper Government now proceeding at full throttle to push through the Northern Gateway oil pipeline to supply China, an unexpected crack has appeared within the governing party’s ranks. Calgary West Ultra-Right Conservative MP Rob Anders is publicly questioning the proposal to sell Canadian “Ethical Oil” resources to non-ethical Communist China, despite Ezra Levant’s invention of the ethical oil mantra becoming official government policy.

Earlier this month Sun News Network reported Anders as speaking out against the Chinese takeover of the MacKay River Tar Sands project. Anders condemned the sale of project to China, whom he describes as “the world’s worst human rights abuser.” However, in keeping with government policy, he still considers Tar Sands oil as “ethical”, but describes the Chinese as being an “unethical client.”

Anders, a staunch anti-Communist, vetoed an all-party resolution in the House of Commons to grant Nelson Mandela Honorary Canadian Citizenship, claiming that the South African leader was a Communist and terrorist. He has claimed that the Chinese Government has tried to set up “unattractive male Conservative MPs with hookers”, and has compared the 2010 Beijing Olympics to the 1936 Berlin Olympics. However, despite his anti-Communist, pro-human rights feelings, Anders stopped short of condemning the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which will export unrefined Tar Sands bitumen crude to China.

In 1994, Anders worked for Far Right Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe as a professional heckler(!) and was labelled a “foreign political saboteur” by CNN. Inhofe is a prominent science denier, who benefits from major campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, and the electric utilities.

Tar Sands Crude Vital for Chinese Economy

The Chinese, as part of their shopping list for worldwide natural resources and energy sources to fuel their economy, recently closed a deal with the Athabasca Oil Sands Corporation. The MacKay River plant currently produces 35,000 bbl of crude bitumen per day, but this is scheduled to increase to 150,000 bbl per day in a four-phase expansion project. As part of the same deal, PetroChina will also be taking over Dover Oil Corporation’s Tar Sands operations at the end of 2012, which will bring the total production under Chinese control to approximately 400,000 bbl per day when the MacKay River expansion reaches completion.

The pipeline, from the Alberta Tar Sands, will cross the Rocky Mountains and Northern BC to a proposed super tanker facility at Kitimat, BC. The pipeline has provoked major criticism from Canadians and people worldwide because of its potential for ecological damage to the area through which it will pass, that it is “dirty oil” insofar has it has an even greater global warming impact than regular crude oil, and for the long-term economic damage it will do to Canada.

Given that the pipeline will have a maximum capacity of 525,000 bbl/day, it will easily be able to transport the entire Chinese portion of total Tar Sands production to China. This will give the Chinese economy a major boost compared to the West – as the Chinese government will take all the profits from the MacKay River and Dover projects, they are, in effect, buying the oil for the cost of production, and not the much higher world price, giving them a major competitive advantage. However, what is not well known is that the Northern Gateway pipeline will be two parallel lines – one transporting the bitumen to Kitimat, the second (with a capacity of 325,000 bbl/day) carrying light natural gas condensates from the coast to the Tar Sands.

Normal Tar Sands bitumen cannot be pumped through a pipeline as it is simply too thick. To make it economically transportable, it must either be upgraded into a lighter, less viscous synthetic crude, which would require refining facilities in Alberta, or it must be thinned out with a much lighter hydrocarbon fluid (a diluent) – hence the second pipeline.

The light natural gas condensates will be imported from Mexico or OPEC sources, and would therefore not fit under Levant’s category of “ethical oil.” Although the Chinese will be paying for the product out of their profits, it further undermines the Canadian economy – profits are reduced, and therefore the already low taxation revenue from PetroChina will also be correspondingly reduced. In addition, the cost of the diluent will reflect in Canada’s overall balance of trade – the difference in the value of what the country sells abroad, compared to what it imports. The pipeline scheme will do nothing to reduce the influence of “non-ethical” OPEC countries on the world’s energy markets.

Stephen Harper announced to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he will make it a “national priority” to export our “energy products” (i.e. Tar Sands Bitumen) to China, and make sure there are no regulatory delays. The Northern Gateway Pipeline is now official government policy regardless of the environmental, economic or human rights consequences.

Anders May Face Consequences for Criticising Government Policy

Ezra Levant

Richard Komorowski

CFN- Like last century’s master of propaganda, Josef Goebbels, Sun Media columnist and “Ethical Oil” creator Ezra Levant is no idiot. Goebbels had a Doctorate degree in German literature – Levant graduated from the University of Alberta Law School. Both these gentlemen used the press effectively and to their advantage (Goebbels in Der Angriff and Volkischer Beobachter, Levant in the Toronto Sun and, among others, the Cornwall Standard Freeholder). Both these people were brilliant speakers – Goebbels in front of a live crowd, where he rivalled his Führer in oratorical brilliance, Levant on Fox News North, where he has the brains to argue a point far better than his own leader, Harper.

Both Goebbels and Levant are masters of the art of propaganda, i.e. changing or concealing reality. This manipulation of the truth has always been the main weapon of extremists, whether the Nazi Party in Germany, the Communist Party, the Tea Party/Republicans in the US, or the extreme right in the British and Canadian Conservative Parties.

The Media is the Key

Promoting the Canadian State Propaganda Apparatus

Quebecor, owned by Pierre Karl Péladeau, has almost a stranglehold on the popular media in Canada. Among other assets, through Sun Media the company owns 43 paid or free dailies in Canada’s major cities, as well as 200 local papers (including the Cornwall Standard Freeholder). For what it’s worth, they are also the world’s largest commercial printer. In addition, they have a major stake in Canada’s broadcasting industry. They own Videotron (cable TV and Internet Service Provider), Osprey Media (newspapers, especially in Ontario), Quebec’s TVA television network, and Quebec’s largest book and magazine distributors. Most notably for Canada as a whole, they own and control Fox News North (aka Sun News Network, Pravda Canada), one of Levant’s two principal propaganda platforms.

Quebecor, although its home is a province that has proved it wants nothing to do with the Harper Government, is basically run by the Conservative Party. Among its board of directors is former Prime Minister Brian Mulrony, who perhaps bears more responsibility than anyone for the success of the Reform Party. Another concrete link between Sun Media and the Conservative Party is Kory Teneycke, a former Director of Communications for Stephen Harper. After two years running Harper’s official propaganda machine, he worked briefly for Sun Media as a “strategic communications advisor.” Later, in July 2010 he accepted an appointment as Sun Media’s Vice-President for Development.

Although he soon resigned in disgrace, for allegedly spamming an on-line petition against Sun Media, he was rehired about three months later, once the furore had died down.

A good question is why the Harper Government didn’t hire the Master himself to replace Teneycke as the government’s official Propaganda Chief. One possibility is that Harper fears the highly intelligent and wily Levant, and to give him too good a view of the inside workings of the Prime Minister’s Office might eventually come back to haunt him. The other possibility is that Levant was passed over because of his past year working for Phillip Morris International, owners of Rothman’s. Although Levant’s stint as an official tobacco lobbyist is not well known, were it to have become common knowledge, it would have been embarrassing to the government. Among other things, he lobbied (successfully) against Health Canada’s plans to increase and intensify the warning labels on cigarettes, and against smuggling (which costs the tobacco industry money) rather than funding Health Canada’s anti-smoking programs. One of his self-admitted lobbying targets was, in fact, the very Prime Minister’s Office that passed him over.

Another possibility is that he makes more money with his show on Sun News Network and his propaganda columns in the Toronto Sun, along with his royalties from books such as Ethical Oil and “Fight Kyoto – the plan to protect our economy.” Being involved at less than arm’s length with the government might also have put crimps on his latest publishing endeavour – “The Enemy Within – Terror, Lies, and the Whitewashing of Omar Khadr.” Given the general conviction of Canadians towards this Toronto-born terrorist, it seems strange that Levant would bother writing a book about him, unless financial gain were a motive.

The Politics of Fear

Putting the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers above Canada

CFN - There are many economic gains to be made in exploiting the Tar Sands, and limited production could actually benefit Canada and go a little towards assuring our future in an increasingly uncertain world. But there are also many major short term gains to be made from exporting this oil to Asia, especially China.

Exporting Western Jobs to Communist China

Wishful Thinking