Good news? One denialist non-think-tank shuttered

Britain’s Independent reported on June 21 that the London version of the International Policy Network closed its doors.  The group was known for its anti-environmental protection, anti-science, pro-rapacious development stands.

Alas, the U.S. version clings on.

The International Policy Network, once the most persuasive and active think tanks campaigning against climate change science, has disbanded in the UK after what appears to be a spilt between its leading members.

A document released following a Freedom of Information request shows that the charity’ s chairwoman Linda Whetstone and her brother Michael Fisher held a private meeting in which they agreed to abandon the name of IPN UK after more than a decade. The meeting, held by telephone in November 2010, was perfectly within the charity’s rules.

The minutes of the meeting, which cover a single side of an A4 sheet of paper, were obtained by The Independent this week and reveal that Whetstone also resigned from the board of the International Policy Network in the United States, despite being a leading member of the organisation.

This newspaper has also confirmed that Professor Julian Morris, the founding director of the IPN in the UK and then president, is no longer working for the sister organisation in the US where he was earning $137,000. He is now vice president for research at a rival think tank, the Reason Foundation.

Professor Morris, after speaking at a meeting on Wednesday, June 15 being held by a new think tank called the Legatum Institute, said: “The IPN is scaling down. There were two organisations, the IPN US Inc and IPN UK and now the two organisations are pursuing independent paths.”

Asked whether the IPN had split over climate change, he added: “It is a long and complex story. It is what it is. I can see where you’re going with this.”

I wish I were so omniscient.  I wonder where Morris thought that line of questioning was going?

The Independent  summarized some of the less savory parts of the funding issues for the organization (John Mashey surely knows all this):

The closure of the free market IPN follows years of controversy about Exxon funding, alleged links to the tobacco industry and contested claims about AIDs and the pesticide DDT.

It is possible, however, that the closure may be linked to family connections involving David Cameron that meant IPN could no longer exist as a major force of climate denial.

Whetstone is the mother-in-law of Steve Hilton, who is the director of strategy for the prime minister and was godfather to his son Ivan. Hilton is the man who persuaded the Conservative leader to adopt a robust stance on climate change and hug Huskies on the Norwegian glacier to illustrate his commitment.

Hilton’s wife, Rachel Whetstone, is a vice president at Google for communications, which has donated millions to climate change causes, including creating 21 Google Science Communication Fellows.

Linda Whetstone and her brother Michael, the trustees present at the private meeting, are the children of Sir Anthony Fisher who was an ideological disciple and former student of the father of neoliberalism, Friedrich Hayek. Fisher senior masterminded the global network of neoliberal think tanks, including setting up more than 150 organisations himself.

IPN was home to unlikely and highly-questionable science claims, and a refuge for cranks like Roger Bate, whom readers of this blog will recognize from the DDT and Rachel Carson hoax propaganda.

The launch of the International Policy Network’s first publication Adapt or Die was reported in November 2004. The charity claimed climate change was a myth, that sea levels were not rising and that global warming would benefit humans by increasing fish stocks.

At that time Dr Roger Bate was also a director of the IPN. Morris and Bate were both named in a letter asking the tobacco company RJ Reynolds for £50,000 in funding for a book about the “myth of scientific risk assessment” which would deny the effects of passive smoking.

Morris denied involvement, but a book titled What Risk? edited by Bate was later produced in which Bate acknowledged Morris for his support.

The IPN name soon became associated with ExxonMobil after the American oil giant revealed in its own publications that it granted almost £250,000 ($400,000) to the IPN in the US between 2003 and 2006. An examination of IPN UK accounts registered at Companies House revealed that from 2003 to 2005 the US think tank in turn granted £204,379 to the IPN in London.

Exxon stopped funding the IPN following a letter in 2006 from Bob Ward who was then at the Royal Society calling on the world’ s largest seller of fossil fuel to stop funding organisations that were actively spreading misinformation about the science of human forced climate change. Ward is now at the Grantham Institute at the LSE in London.

An IPN statement at the time said: “The implication that IPN is somehow being funded by Exxon to promote ‘climate change denial’ (per the Guardian’s salacious headline) is preposterous nonsense. IPN’s founder and executive director, Julian Morris, has personally been involved in the climate change debate since writing his undergraduate thesis on the subject in 1992 and neither his views nor those of IPN have ever been influenced by any financial contributor.”

It is nothing but good news when such a cloud over the bright sunshine of good science, good information, and good policy, goes out of business.  One may wish there were more good news in store, or that more of the denialist groups would follow the example.

The good a non-profit may do oft dies with its disincorporation papers and is buried in some musty, dusty archive.  The evil such groups do lives on long after — sometimes propogated, zombie-like, in other organizations.

Until its dissolution the IPN has been central to the climate change denial machine. While receiving funding from Exxon, the organisation launched Adapt or Die in Washington in 2004 and published two further climate change books in time for the COP-10 meeting held that year in Argentina.

The IPN also attended the inquiry into the economics of climate change held by the House of Lords economic affairs committee, which was attended by Lord Lawson. Lawson claims in his book, Memoirs of a Tory Radical, that he began to question the science of climate change during the hearings. He would then go on to form the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The think tank also established and launched the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change which, it claims, included 40 other organisations around the world. The IPN then “ coordinated participation of CSCCC members” at the UN climate meeting in Bali in 2008, distributing hundreds of copies of its report to delegates, participants and journalists for free.

The IPN was launched when the UK charity Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which was founded in July 1971, became part of the international network. During its existence the London office of the think tank raised more than £2.5million from donors. The organisation will continue in some form under the name Network for a Free Society.

Despite repeated attempts to contact her Linda Whetstone was unavailable for comment.

Against damaging climate change, we needed to start major pollution clean-up efforts two or three years ago.  IPN’s legacy may yet lie in the destruction yet to be done to to the human race by the harmful effects of uncontrolled, and perhaps, now uncontrollable climate change.  IPN shares some of the blame for the lack of anti-pollution action at the Copenhagen conference at the end of 2009, and for the lack of other coordinated international work to control pollution since then.


5 Responses to Good news? One denialist non-think-tank shuttered

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Pro-DDT-in-Africa is, all by itself, a pro-rapacious development stand — “just poison the hell out of Africa, if anyone survives they’ll be friendly to oil companies.”

    Do you have evidence to the contrary? By all means, show us.


  2. Grassy Knollington says:

    The IPN was “pro-rapacious development”? Where do you buy your pot? It’s clearly very good stuff.


  3. James Kessler says:

    David writes:
    Are you serious ….How can we control climate change?

    Gee…lower the amount of pollution going into the environment, among other things?

    Which would have the added benefit of improving everyone’s health, lowering health costs, making the people more economically productive and in the case of oil…strengthening our national security by getting us the **** off oil.

    You can sit there and say “the climate always changes” but that’s very much like Michele Bachmann saying that carbon dioxide isn’t a threat to human life because it’s a natural substance.

    Somehow I very much doubt that the Congresswoman would think that way if we stuck her in a room filled with nothing but CO2 so perhaps the idea that yes…there is such a thing as too much pollution and too much CO2 should pass the thoughts of your side, yes?

    Or do you want the United States to end up like the countries of the former Soviet Union? Because they also paid no attention to the environmental damage they were causing and one of the results, among others, was the drying up of the aral sea.

    But I do have a question for you, David. If your sides position on climate change is wrong and its really going on and we could have prevented it and we don’t…then what?

    This is one of those things that if the skeptics are wrong, David, then a whole lot of people are going to die. We should risk that for what reason?


  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Are you serious ….How can we control climate change?

    In the past 5,000 years, we (meaning humans) have controlled climate change in a wide variety of ways — irrigation of crops, aqueducts that move water long distances, damming rivers to control flooding, building in flood plains, agricultural expansion, deforestation, grazing, over grazing, transplantation of exotic life, etc. Deforestation of Europe produced dramatic climate shifts in the past thousand years; deforestation of North America east of the Mississippi and south of the St. Lawrence, especially coupled with poor soil conservation practices, shifted climate dramatically in retrospect. The overplowing and stupid plowing of the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma and surrounding territory nearly created a massive desert . Air pollution, especially with particulates, held off global warming for at least a century. Acid rain-producing pollution wiped out millions of acres of forest, producing dramatic change in many local climates; world effects are more difficult to pin down, but not contested by anyone, seriously.

    Generally, I think it’s a good idea to control the dumping of garbage, especially garbage into the air. If we dump millions of tons of garbage into the air, how can we fail to cause deleterious climate change?

    The earth’s climate always changes.

    And mountains always erode, but that’s not justification for mountain-top removal mining, nor any form of strip mining, nor for failing to practice soil conservation principles. Climate rarely changes so rapidly as it appears to be changing now, with such long-term, almost always detrimental effects. People age, too — that’s not justification for doing things that increase cancers and cause premature deaths.

    Yes, climate changes. Why should we substitute human-caused, unintentional climate change for those changes nature does to preserve various equilibria? You think Man is smarter than Mother Nature?

    Though….the global temperature has risen by under than 1 degree celsius in the previous 150 years. As someone said …that sounds to me like we live in an era of exceptional climate stability.

    Why does that sound like stability to you? How does it compare to other times?

    How about the pending greater temperature increases? If the previous 150 years were okay for you, don’t you think we might want to preserve that? Why are you for abandoning that stability, now?


  5. david xavier says:

    Are you serious ….How can we control climate change? The earth’s climate always changes . Though….the global temperature has risen by under than 1 degree celsius in the previous 150 years. As someone said …that sounds to me like we live in an era of exceptional climate stability.


Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: