The Fractivist Echo Chamber at InsideClimate News

delaware riverkeeper - Tom ShepstoneTom Shepstone
Natural Gas NOW


InsideClimate News is a Rockefeller shill organization and the way it operates offers a window into the fractivist echo chamber created with their money.

InsideClimate News published a story the other day that, despite being pure bunk, serves to demonstrate exactly how the fractivist echo chamber, as my friends at Energy In Depth call it, really works. The on-line publication known as InsideClimate News, is really just an fractivist blog, of course, not a news outfit, yet they adorn the header of their blog site with this:

Inside Climate News

No doubt, this offers a bit of reassuring credibility for the true believers and the occasional unsuspecting naive individuals looking to educate themselves on global warming, fracking and all that but, like nearly everything else InsideClimate News offers, it’s just more Rockefeller and friends financed propaganda.

A recent story in InsideClimate News entitled “Fracking Studies Overwhelmingly Indicate Threats to Public Health,” serves to show how the echo chamber works. Like most of what one can read on the site, it is pure sophistry. The post is about the release of the 3rd edition of the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking by a group called Physicians for Social Responsibility and another known as Concerned Health Professionals of New York. Our friend Vic Furman demolished an earlier edition in two must read guest posts here and here, so we already now what the 3rd edition is – more anecdotes, more junk science and more hysterical propaganda.

InsideClimate News

David Sassoon, the Rockefeller shill who runs InsideClimate News

What is interesting, though, is how this all comes about. The 2014 Annual Report by Physicians for Social Responsibility provides the first clue. Page 15 lists institutional supporters and we see the Energy Foundation, the Heinz Endowments and the Rockefeller Family Fund – three of the most prominent special interest funders of fractivism.

Next, let’s take a look at Concerned Health Professionals of New York, which is an apparently unincorporated handful of individuals also in the service of the same special interests. There is “Look at me, I’m Sandra Dee” Steingraber, for example, who has been funded by the Heinz Endowments and seems to go wherever the Park Foundation and friends need her. They, too, fund her, of course.

There is also Dr. David Carpenter, who is not only not a medical doctor but also not much appreciated by the courts as an expert. He has a history of opposing everything from electrical substations to salmon farming to electric blankets and works off money supplied by such fractivist special interests as the Pew Charitable Trusts and the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, which is closely associated with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Then, there is Kathleen Nolan, the Research Director for Catskill Mountainkeeper. The Mountainkeeper, of course, is a spin-off of the Open Space Institute , which is a spin-off of the NRDC and part of what I refer to as the Rockefeller-dominated NRDC gang. They are all integrally related to one another and serve the interests of the Rockefeller family, which include large land holdings in the Catskills. The Mountainkeeper is blue blood activism personified in Ramsay Adams, the son of John Adams, the Rockefeller lackey who found all three organizations with Rockefeller dough.

Looking at the content of the Compendium and the InsideClimate News story on it, we see further evidence of the echo chamber effects. First, there is this quote from the Catskill Mountainkeeper’s Kathleen Nolan:

“For years we heard stories. … Now that anecdotal evidence is being confirmed by scientific evidence,” Kathleen Nolan, a pediatrician and bioethicist in New York and one of the authors of the report, said in a conference call. “There’s just no justification to exposing people to these risks.”

As if a quote from an advocate funded by the Mountainkeeper and ultimately by the same people as the funders of the junk science itself counted for anything. This is Pulitzer Prize winning journalism?

There’s also an astounding quote from David Carpenter who says this:

Brown said it was “disingenuous” to require that researchers conclusively prove that a specific pollutant from a well site was causing a particular illness. That level of detail is unimportant in making policy decisions, he said.

This, of course, is exactly the approach taken with respect to the entire compendium; throwing a shovelful of manure against the wall and hoping some of it will stick is all that is required. Perhaps that’s why the State of Washington Supreme Court found the following with regard to some of his expert witness testimony (emphasis added):

¶26 The trial court possessed the discretion to find that Carpenter’s failure to follow proper methodology rendered his epidemiological conclusions unreliable and unhelpful to the jury as a matter of law. Carpenter’s admission that he selectively used data created the appearance that he attempted to reach a desired result, rather than allow the evidence to dictate his conclusions. The trial court did not act in a manifestly unreasonable manner in excluding his testimony, and we will not disturb its decision.

Regardless, we see what the Compendium is all about – selectively using data to create the appearance of the desired result but the problem is exacerbated in this instance by the fact many the original studies analyzed in the Compendium (e.g., studies by Duke University, which is funded by the Park Foundation), the Compendium itself and the reporting on the Compendium are all funded the same small group of special interests by the name of Heinz, Park and Rockefeller. Yes, InsideClimate News itself is also a special interest enterprise as we noted in this story; funded by the Energy Foundation (the hedge-fund Simons family), the Park Foundation and the Rockefellers.

These same people have also made a mockery of peer-review with Sandra Steingraber peer-reviewing New York State health studies “analyzed” in the Compendium and David Carpenter being quoted as one of the independent experts with regard to another analysis made in the report.

InsideClimate News

Sandra Steingraber being interviewed by Bill Moyers on a program financed by the Park Foundation, which also funds some of her efforts.

The final insult to the intelligence of any objective observer, though, is the corruption of the Pulitzer Prize process.  InsideClimate News did get a Pulitzer Prize in 2013 but who awards the prizes? None other than Columbia University’s School of Journalism, through a supposedly independent board stacked with a combination of Columbia University staff and like-minded folks in the media, including a representative of the fractivist ProPublica blog.

ProPublica is financed by, among others, the George Soros Open Society Foundation, Jeff Skoll, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund and the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation run by Rockefeller descendant Kim Elliman (with the help of John Adams’ daughter) – every one of these organizations being a fractivist special interest funder. ProPublica also just happened to have also won have a Pulitzer Prize for itself before it obviously helped steer one to InsideClimate News. On top of that, does anyone need reminding of the close relationship of the Rockefellers with Columbia University, which owned the land on which Rockefeller Center was built?

InsideClimate News

Rip Van Winkle bowling up thunder in the Catskills

The whole thing is a corrupt enterprise from top to bottom; not just an echo chamber but one amplified by big money. Wealthy fractivist special interests fund the research. They place their people on the inside of governments referring to the research. They fund the analysis of the research. They fund the reporting on the analysis. Then, they fund the prizes for the reporting on the analysis, so as to generate an endless echo throughout the media and  well beyond Rip Van Winkle’s Catskills.

It is the sound of an immoral cronyism, the noise of an elitist empire’s army tromping through the forests hoping to scare away the natives before the troops arrive and take over everything. The natives may be scared but that doesn’t mean they won’t fight. There is a changed mood in America these days and con games like the ones at InsideClimate News no longer work like they once did. We now know the enemy.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 thoughts on “The Fractivist Echo Chamber at InsideClimate News

  1. This is getting a bit tiring to have to point this sort of thing out yet again, but your last post accused fracktivists of being Marxists, yet here you are waging class warfare a la Marx against the Rockefellers.

    Spinning like a weathervane. Oy!

      • I think you got it upside down: if it is true, … actually, what you said is a non-sequitur.

        What you practice is class warfare: you whip up feelings of disenfranchisement on the part of rural landowners and working people against the Old Money, whom you characterize as entitled. You demonize the ruling class. Your slogan could easily be “Workers and landowners of The Southern Tier, unite! You have nothing to lose but your royalty checks!”

        As my colleague and friend – who has built a career writing for Harper Collins and Prentice Hall about the blue-bloods of the northeast, and the DuPonts and the Rockefellers in particular – has said from the beginning: nothing to worry about, the “Central Faction” will never allow fracking in their own backyard. So far, he has that right. I am sure I have told you this before.

  2. These are the most important articles you write – the stupidity of idealogy as it relates to – especailly – the middle class.
    Thanks and please keep at it.

  3. The pulitzer prize winning news org also repeated misinformation created by the antifracking movement and allies on the Port Ambrose LNG import project which is refuted by the notice on the recently released Final environmental impact statement written by two federal agencies. The “pulitzer prize” winning news org links to the Capital New York reporter who also likes to “echo” and amplify the voices of the antfifrack movement above all others to the detriment of the truth.

    What is extremely sad and disturbing is that I have written to the journalism professor at Columbia who was featured in the news with the Rolling Stone Virginia rape story debacle many many many times asking that he investigate the complete failure of all reporting basics as it relates to multiple papers and both the rockaway and port ambrose projects due to reporters possibly relying too much on antifracking activists as sources and likely a lack of understanding what they were covering. The rolling stone article after all was just one poorly written, researched, and fact-checked story. I had watched the news get less and less accurate over time for years and had personally even received ridiculous excuses from an editor (the non profit “investigative news” org City Journal) when asking for corrections to a multitude of errors on a really incoherent article on the draft EIS that had then been released on the rockaway northeast connector projects or a retraction. I thought surely this professor would be interested as these were failures across many publications, from alternative news to mainstream media. I also contacted the NY Post and…nothing.

    A pulitzer prize winning news org has just published a press release by the antifracking movement, called this “news” and blindly repeated what is actually a conspiracy theory created by the anti-fracking movement. There is no import/export project currently proposed in NY state. Catskill Mountainkeeper in fact employs Jessica Roff a woman who has of course been all over the news saying Port Ambrose will likely be for export.

    There is a profound problem both with the antifracking movement and with the reporting on the rockaway project and port ambrose. There is a real problem with politicians associated with this movement as well or under its thumb. Since the activists involved are the same ones and some of the same groups claiming responsibility for the NY state ban and driving the news on this issue both in other states and countries, the implications one could draw from this are huge.

  4. I see no contradictions in the two posts; I think there are at least two groups opposed to fracking. There should be no ‘class’ system in the US, but the likes of the Rockefellers, Kennedys, etc., with their small liberal minds, believe they know better than the rest of us how we should live, and therefore believe they need to take care of us. This, in their minds, makes them the ruling class who ‘knows’ that fracking is bad. The second group is more Marxist; look at the remarks by the odious Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change. According to her, the the goal of environmental activists (at least as far as she is concerned) is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism and redistribute wealth. .Check this link:

  5. unreceiveddogma- no, what’s really tiring, and offensive, is your chicken-sh*t anonymous pompous belittling of anyone you mistakenly believe yourself superior to.

    fractivists are all fossil fuel consuming polluters- posers- who killed opportunity for the Southern Tier with a campaign of lies from the sanctity of Manhattan, which happens to be one of the most artificial energy guzzling places on the planet.

    no one ever wanted to drill for NG there, or in the Rockefeller’s backyard in the Catskills. it’s OUR backyards, and those s.o.b. Standard Oil descendants ripped us off via their man Cuomo- the only place in the nation to be so egregiously abused . you think that’s funny. i don’t.

Leave a Reply

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