Hans Labohm bereikt een absoluut nieuw dieptepunt: muilkorf de wetenschap.

Onlangs postte Hans Labohm, die zichzelf de officieuze coördinator van de Nederlandse klimaatpseudoskeptici noemt, een stukje over de tropische hotspot.

Een onderwerp waarvan al veel mensen hebben aangetoond dat ze niet begrijpen waar het over gaat. Uiteraard vormt de econoom Labohm hierop geen uitzondering, en getuigt zijn blogpost van een stuitend gebrek aan kennis (terwijl het onderwerp basiskennis is… en de man toch altijd verklaart dat hij al tien jààr bezig is met het onderwerp klimaat)

Hans Custers postte een aardig antwoord op Labohm’s stukje op de blog Klimaatverandering van Bart Verheggen.

Uiteraard (duh) had Hans Labohm hierop geen énkel inhoudelijk verweer. En na enkele wel erg opzichtige pogingen van onderwerp te veranderen, haalde hij er dan maar Arthür Rörsch bij. Die ook van toeten of blazen kent, eveneens onmiddellijk van onderwerp trachtte te veranderen en bovenal weer maar eens aantoonde welke gekke conclusies pseudoskeptici soms trekken.

Het onderwerp van Custers’ blogstukje: de tropische hotspot. Rörsch: “Dit blog begon met een discussie over de wetenschappelijke integriteit van Santer en Mann.”

Nou nee. Het gaat over de tropische hotspot.

Maar ik heb al wel eerder vastgesteld dat zelfs gewoon  maar lezen wat er staat voor Arthur Rörsch soms een onoverkomelijk probleem is. 

Kortom: Athur Rörsch kon Labohm ook niet helpen om op zijn minst te doen uitschijnen dat de heren ook maar een flauw benul hebben waarover ze spreken.

Labohm gooide dan ook de handdoek met de woorden: Als econoom/publicist concentreer ik mij vooral op de politieke, economische en sociale aspecten van de klimaatdiscussie.

(dit klopt overigens niet, in minstens de helft van zijn posts stelt hij dat de klimaatwetenschap incorrect is, maar Labohm’s zelfkennis is even groot als zijn natuurkundige kennis: onbestaande)

Uit de discussie blijkt duidelijk dat Hans Labohm met de woorden ‘ik ben een econoom/publicist” vooral bedoelde: “ik heb geen flauw idee waarover ik het heb”.

Waarop enkele commentors de vraag stelden of hij dan niet beter gewoon zou zwijgen ?

Het antwoord hierop van Hans Labohm moet zowat het laagste zijn dat ooit in de Nederlandstalige blogosfeer is gepubliceerd.

Labohm postte een stuk op de Dagelijkse Standaard dat begint met een lange jeremiade waarin hij mekkert dat “ze” hem willen muilkorven met een Nuerenberg-proces. Wat incorrect is. De enige die over Nuerenberg-processen spreekt is Labohm zelf

Om vervolgens – want zo consequent is hij dan weer wel- de vrije meningsuiting te willen smoren door het volgende schrijven:

Als ik Maarten Hajer (directeur van het PBL) (de werkgever van Verheggen) was, zou ik medewerker Bart Verheggen maar eens uitnodigen voor een openhartig gesprek.

Yep, als je in een discussie inhoudelijk belachelijk gemaakt wordt, vraag dan aan de broodheer van iemand die zijn vrije tijd blogt (en die niet eens de comments maakte) om hem te muilkorven.

Hans Labohm, die eerder al intellectuele fraude pleegde door wetens en willens  een misleidende halve waarheid te presenteren, die eerder al wetens en willens loog over de financiering van S. Fred Singer is er toch nog in geslaagd een nieuw dieptepunt te bereiken.

Faut le faire.

Marco de Baar heeft ook een stukje over het onderwerp geschreven: De hutspot van de hotspot 

The Edmund Burke Foundation vs. Big Pharma.

Roots of Dutch climate skepticism series, part 4

As every sailorman knows, sometimes it is necessary to go sideways to move forward. Therefore, in my series on the roots of Dutch climate skepticism, i want to take a stop first at a conservative think thank called the Edmund Burke Foundation (EBF).

While being climate skeptics alright, the main reason for taking a closer look at it is that omerta was broken in Burke : due to fights between members within the foundation, some things came to surface which never were meant to.

Joshua Livestro

Having a stop at EBF will give us a much better insight in how think-thanks and can industry can help each other. Or break eachother.


The origine of the Edmund Burke Foundation
In 2000, the organsation was found by Andreas Kinneging, Bart Jan Spruyt and Joshua Livestro
Livestro would leave Burke in 2003 after a conflict and is working as a freelancer ever since. Until 2005, Bart-Jan Spruyt (see picture) would be the most important person in EBF.

The Edmund Burke foundation was set up with something like the Heritage Foundation in mind. Another early contact is the American Enterprise Institute.

About its activities, Wiki learns us that in first era, before 2005 :

the Burke Foundation regularly published reports and studies on a variety of topics, including the Dutch health care sector, privatization, wasteful government spending and conservative philosophy and thought.

Financial Resources. While getting some revenues from private donations, and getting a starting bonus from a Dutch company, the biggest resource would become multinationals.

The Burke Foundation has some political visions which suitd some companies, and this is how they became one the European groups receiving money from Microsoft (for the views on IP).

The jackpot though was hit with the cheques of Big Pharma company Pfizer, which would donate $431,000 between 2000 and 2005.


Geert Wilders
In 2005, president Bart-Jan Spruyt left the original mission of EBF to group conservaties from different Dutch directions. Spruyt openly flirted with the new movement of politician Geert Wilders who in that time was starting a new political party.

Not everyone of the board did share Spruyts' ideas, causing friction. Somewhere along the route, four of the five people of EBF's directive board resigned.
Wilders indeed is a man who is very controversial and who raises much resist by other people, even amongst other conservatives.

In 2006 Spruyt would ultimately end up joining Wilders Party, but only 6 months later he departed the party already, stating Wilders simply is too extremist.

On his weblog Bart-Jan spruyt wrote Wilders' party PVV is "the personification of conservatism based on fear", with "a natural tendency towards fascism"


For a commercial company, any association with Geert Wilders would cause bad publicity. The ties between Burke & Wilders were one of the reasons Pfizer in 2005 decided to stop funding EBF. The other reason is Pfizer started funding another thinkthank which pleased them better.

This left the Burke Foundation as the unbeloved ugly duckling. As said the majority of the Leading board resigned somewhere along the route. And started talking.


Pfizer explains its policy
In October 2005, the influential Dutch weekly magazine De Groene Amsterdammer ran an excellent article (in Dutch) on the events going on at Burke, and the magazine spoke with a lot of parties involved in this story.

One of the people the magazine spoke with is someone of the corporate affairs division of Pfizer, who had to say :

Indeed, last year we donated money to the Burke Foundation. But we haven't agreed on anything with them for the upcoming year. Nor did the Burke foundation approach us.
In every country where our company is active, we try to feed the public health debate and if the Burke Foundation for the next years has some more promising plans, we will have a serious look a them and take them into consideration.
As we would do with any plan of any thinkthank. But we do are aware of the current events at the Foundation [so funding for the moment isn't very likely].

Do notice the way this corporate man is talking : Pfizer is not just donating money to a thinkthank which has a view which suits them.

What their spokesman says cannot be misunderstood : if you have a plan to "feed the health debate" and tell us how much effort you will put into it, we can see how much money you get.

The story this man is telling is the industry is not just donating money to thinkthanks having a bias that suits them. What he describes is a nothing but an ordinary bussiness deal.



You Loose
Pfizer ultimately stopped funding the Burke foundation, to fund a new thinkthank which suited them better than EBF. The consequences were dire :

• Bart-Jan Spruyt's salary dropped from 75.000 € yearly to zero euro

• His number of employees dropped to zero

• thanks to the European Independent Institute (the Burke offshoot which Pfizer started funding after Burke) they were able to keep their office, which they could not offard to pay for themselves anymore.

It shows what every thinkthank accepting corporate money, and every skeptic entering the thinkthank world (which all the best known climate skeptics have done so) has to face: play the corporate game, or get kicked out, with all the consequences involved.

And while for some sort of backgrounds, getting kicked from a thinkthank isn't the end of you, for others it is, especially the scientists, it is more problematic : people like climate skeptics cannot return to regular science, that door is shot. I think that makes it very difficult to leave the lobbyworld.


About the influence of companies on thinkthanks, Bart-Jan Spruyt had the following to say :

Companies nowadays are only willing to donate if they are allowed to decide what our agenda is. An example is a pharmaceutical company which only wanted to support us if in return we'd attack the new plan of minister Hoogervorst of Public Health.
This way, the Burke Foundation would risk to loose its credibility and independency. It is terrible. I had the choise : continue with this way of funding the foundation, or return to the basics EBF was set up for.

The Burke foundation took a restart and became a small unimportant group, without much media attention.


The bargain Pfizer did
But in the times before that restart, the influence of the corporate money on EBF was substancial : the Burke foundation was meant to be a conservative thinkthank where people thinking alike could gather and debate the big things in life.

The reality after five years accepting money from Pfizer : Nearly half of all the brochures Burke published were dealing with Health care related subjects, instead of dealing with theoretical conservatism.


Diplomat Jess L. Baily, at the time the number two in rank at the US-embassy in Amsterstam concluded :

Pfizer did a great bargain with that Spruyt-guy : for just a little bit of money they gave him, that man manifested himself excellently the way they wanted. The time it lasted, he was in the newspapers everywhere

The lesson we've learnt is clear : while a thinkthank itself may presume that, for a little favor in return, with corporate money they have the chance to promote their own political worldview; the reality is different : by accepting corporate money, a thinkthank automatically partially becomes a tool of its financers.

It's an important lesson for understanding the climate change debate, where nearly all climate skeptics seem to have close connections with free-market thinkthanks. Thinkthanks who in their turn depend on corporate money, like Exxon money.


And at the end, some climate skepticism before bedtime
Even though it never was their core bussiness, the Burke Foundation expressed climate skeptical views. And in 2003, the Dutch anti-environmentalism organisation De Groene Rekenkamer published a "greenbook" in which a lot of environmental issues were labelled 'non-existent' or 'exaggerated'.

Even though nearly everything involving the book was done by the Stichting-HAN (they will appear later in the series) and Kouffeld's Nuclear Energy Foundation, the Burke foundation is mentioned as one the four co-authoring organisations.

How they ended up being involved with a greenbook ? Nescio.

Freedom of speech, Joshua Livestro style

As could be expected, the Rob Kouffeld video I commented on yesterday is spreading and was copied on right wing sites like Vrijspreker and on Joshua Livestro's site De Dagelijkse Standaard where Hans Labohm wrote a post about it.

As a reminder, it was on this DDS site where Hans Labohm lied when claiming he was unware S. Fred Singer received money from the industry.

The very first reaction on todays post of Labohm was a comment by someone named Marco, and whoms post contained a link to my blogpost.

Contained, in the past tense.

Livestro clearly says on DDS that links to my blog are unwanted & therefore he erased Marco's entire comment...

If you can't win an argument, censor the opponent.

Freedom of speech, Joshua Livestro style...