“Inside Climate News” Should be the RICO Target

global warmingPaul Driessen
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow


Inside Climate News is the news organ of a RICO conspiracy; the likes of which it accuses the oil and gas industry of being guilty.

Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become “common knowledge,” like the following?

Fracking is poisoning our air, water and climate. A clean renewable energy future is just around the corner.

It’s as if a chain of command, carefully coordinated process or alliance of ideological compatriots was operating behind the scenes to propagate these fables. This time, conspiracy theorists have gotten it right. 

A major player in this process and alliance is one that most citizens and even businessmen and politicians have never heard of. InsideClimate News (ICN) has been called “highly influential,” a “pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism,” the recipient of “prestigious awards” for “high-impact investigative stories” on important environmental issues.

The Washington Free Beacon, National Review and Energy in Depth offer detailed and far less charitable assessments. Less friendly observers, they note, call ICN a “mouthpiece” for extreme environmentalist groups, because it is run by and out of a deep-green public relations consultancy (Science First) and is funded almost exclusively by wealthy foundations that share its and the PR firm’s anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, Bigger Government agenda. ICN was founded by David Sasoon, a true believer who wants to do all he can “to usher in the clean energy economy.”

Even praise from its supporters underscores the dark side of this “influential” force in eco-journalism. Its approach is “advocacy,” not fairness, accuracy or balance. Its goal is to drive a monolithic, hard-line, environmentalist narrative and political agenda, with little suggestion that other perspectives even exist.

Some of its awards come from an organization that has itself become politicized and too closely allied with Big Green views and organizations: the Society of Environmental Journalists. They increasingly operate too much as mutual admiration societies and support groups, say outside observers.

ICN and its Science First alter ego received their 2007 startup grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, where Sasoon once served as a consultant. They now derive the bulk of their funding from the RBF, NEO Philanthropy (aka, Public Interest Projects), Marlisa Foundation and Park Foundation. These and other sugar daddies are covered in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff report, which describes a “Billionaire’s Club” of “left-wing millionaires and billionaires [which] directs and controls the far-left [US] environmental movement.”

The same foundations also give major tax-exempt donations to the Sierra Club, Earthworks, NRDC, EarthJustice, the climate crisis coalition 350.org, and many other anti-drilling, anti-fracking pressure groups that together form the $10-billion-a-year US environmentalist industry.

ICN has active partnerships with the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel, Bloomberg News and other media organizations that help coordinate and disperse stories. The Associated Press has likewise become a reliable purveyor of manmade climate chaos stories. The Weather Channel and ICN teamed up in 2014 on a series of “investigative reports” that claimed hydraulic fracturing was causing serious environmental and human health problems in Texas.

The partners team up and coordinate to “have one group write on an issue, another quote them or link to them, and so on,” Media Research Center VP Dan Gainor explains. “It keeps going until they create this perception that there’s real concern over an issue, and it bubbles up to top liberal sites like Huffington Post, and from there into the traditional media,” which itself is too predisposed to the green narrative.

The foundations “have incorporated ostensibly dispassionate news outlets into their grant-making portfolios,” says the Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay, “creating what some describe as self-sustaining environmentalist echo chambers.”

They make it look like widespread public concern and spontaneous grassroots action – when in reality it is loud but small Astroturf activism, orchestrated by the ICN brigade and the foundations behind it.

InsideClimate News now brags about its involvement in the extensive collusion among the leftist foundations, environmental pressure groups and state attorneys general that are devising, coordinating and advancing AG prosecutions of ExxonMobil, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other groups for alleged “racketeering” and “fraud.”

The efforts “stretch back at least to 2012,” ICN notes, when a meeting was held in California to develop legal strategies. In late 2015, letters from several Democrat members of Congress called for investigating and prosecuting climate skeptics; the letters cited independent journalism “investigations by the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News” to back up their request.

However, the intrepid Times and ICN investigators had conducted no investigation. They simply parroted and amplified “research” from a group of activist professors and students at the Columbia School of Journalism – without disclosing who had funded the CSJ studies. Transparency for thee, but not for me.

It was George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, along with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Foundation, Energy Foundation, Lorana Sullivan Foundation and Tellus Mater Foundation – all of which virulently oppose hydrocarbon production.

Emails subpoenaed by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute later revealed that many of the same environmentalist groups and lawyers met again in January 2016 at a secret meeting in the Rockefeller Family Fund’s Manhattan offices. Yet another secret meeting was held in March 2016, between activists and state attorneys general – hours before the AGs announced that they were launching RICO and other prosecutions of companies and think tanks.

The success of this campaign thus far, says ICN, has persuaded the activists to “step up efforts to pressure more attorneys general to investigate and sway public opinion, using op-eds, social media and rope-line questioning of presidential candidates at campaign stops.”

This collusion among activists, foundations and attorneys general seeks to silence, bankrupt and defund organizations that challenge their catechism . These conspirators want to deprive us of our constitutional rights to speak out, the coordinated echo-chamber news stories, and the pressure group-driven policies that impair our livelihoods, living standards, health, welfare and environmental quality. We will not be intimidated or silenced.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

11 thoughts on ““Inside Climate News” Should be the RICO Target

  1. This is what happens when the mainstream media attaches to a political party ideology (left-wing-nut) and then sells its soul to sell advertising space. It’s not that the media hates natural gas, oil, etc., it’s that they have stopped thinking – not about it – but about everything. There are the go-to sources like: Inside Climate News” and the go-to phrases: might, almost, could have, would have…” – you get the idea.

    For selling? Any controversy will do. Any spectacular thing will do. If it’s a slow news you day do this—-Take “Pat slipped and bruised a shin” to Pat slipped over what could have been a MAJOR OIL SPILL or might have been FRACK-TAILINGS almost BREAKING his Leg, almost surely INJURING his arm and upper chest”. See easy-peasy!

  2. http://www.cfact.org

    Perhaps mr driessen should have taken a moment to advertise this movie called “climate hustle”?

    Maybe mr driessen should write a letter to exxon Mobil explaining how his views on manmade climate change and science are different from Exxon’s if that’s what his main point is anyway?

  3. http://www.eco-imperialism.com/climate-hustle-demolishes-climate-alarmism/

    Perhaps Mr. Driessen should do posts for coal now not natural gas now since it appears he is so worried about coal plants closing?

    “The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect.” says? Exxon Mobil.


    Here is Exxon Mobil on natural gas. Probably a better fit for natural gas now than Mr. Driessen’s advocacy for coal and against climate science.


  4. “Or is “dangerous manmade climate change” merely the greatest overheated environmentalist con-job and shell game ever devised to advance the Big Green anti-energy agenda? -” Says Paul Driessen.

    “The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect.” says? Exxon Mobil.

    Perhaps the story about natural gas and the antifracking pipeline movement shenanigans with it isnt breaking because people like Paul Driessen think the greatest environmental con job is dangerous man made climate change?

  5. You’re entitled to your opinion regarding climate change.

    The point of Driessen’s piece is that you will no longer be able to express it- or may be jailed for it- if it does not conform to the radical left’s orthodoxy. That is extremely dangerous.

    • That’s correct. I deliberately avoided including Driessen’s climate change opinions in this edited version of his article because I wanted it to focus like a laser on that point, which should concern everyone.

    • Actually I don’t require anyone to tell me what the point of Mr driessen’s efforts are. I doubt very much driessen is actually afraid that he will actually go to jail for expressing anything.

      It’s not like the dufus writing below is actually gonna go to jail for being an awful reporter either.


      I noticed that though one of these exxon emails had a suggested agenda about casting doubt on climate benefits of fracking in regards to coal and not a single reporter has looked into that.

      I bet driessen won’t look into it either as it doesn’t suit his purposes.

  6. The “anti non-believer” culture they are trying to promote is analogous to the colonial days when it was treason to speak ill of the King and his Court, no matter how corrupt, overbearing and freedom-restricting it was.

    The King and Court of today is the whole environmental anti-carbon network and Anthropogenic Global Warming ‘religion’, and my thanks to Paul Driessen for his exposure of their networking!

  7. Given your voluminous commentary on this web site Karen, your interests would perhaps be better served by starting your own blog…

    The radical left has a proven track record of crooked totalitarianism around here, and now it’s AG’s are becoming shakedown artists and the thought police.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *