DeSmog founder hits the radio waves

Sat, 2007-02-24 11:48Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

DeSmog founder hits the radio waves

Check out DeSmog co-founder Jim Hoggan spreading the DeSmog message on CBC News In Depth special titled Spin Cycles. CBC veteran Ira Basen has been running this brilliant 6-part series all about the world of PR spin.

Check here for audio clips of the first five episodes.

UPDATE and here's the audio for the sixth episode featuring Jim.



Jim Hoggan, must of course participate. His spin machine, desmogblog, has done a very good job of desinformation.
Show me the disinformation Johan.
Some examples: - kyoto/ipcc skeptics are corrupt and bought by Big Oil - Lindzen is dishonest - kyoto/ipcc skepticism is basically the same as holocaust denial, hence it is perfectly ok to constantly repeat the "climate change denier" term - there is such a thing as scientific consensus - kyoto/ipcc skeptics does not think the climate is changing (another reason to use of the "climate change denier" term) - the spm is a scientific document, written by scientists - the criticism of the hockey stick has been found incorrect

Have been very outspoken on this issue, here , here etc... The only people making this link on a regular basis are the deniers themselves, it's a red herring.

As far as "skeptics" being paid by Big Oil, many are and we have always backed up such claims with solid evidence. 


It's posts like these that make me think less and less of your opinions, JIK. A lot of the skeptic machine is affiliated with big oil and demonstrates very little integrity. You're upset that someone points that out in cases like Tim Ball's, for example? I've dealt with the denier thing elsewhere. You haven't replied. The SPM is based on science and scientists were involved in its writing. Criticisms of the hockey stick have been found to be largely inconsequential.

"kyoto/ipcc skeptics are corrupt and bought by Big Oil"

True to some extent. Few actual climate scientists who do not concur with AGW are not funded directly or indirectly by the fossil fuel industry. (Few climate scientists also do not concur with AGW, but that's beside the point.) Others (non-climate scientists like Essex, McKitrick, McIntyre, Ebell, etc.) purport to have climate expertise, but in fact, do not, and also receive funding directly or indirectly from the fossil fuel industry.

"Lindzen is dishonest"

True. Case in point his repeated obfuscatory remarks confusing the terms "weather" and "climate."


Not quite the same in its repulsiveness, but the same type of intellectual dishonesty. Similar, as well, to the flat-earth belief of the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo and prior.

"there is such a thing as scientific consensus"

Indeed. As I said earlier, few climate scientists do not concur with AGW.


Not necessarily. Your friend Tim Ball said that since 1998, "the climate has cooled," which is completely unfounded. 2005 was the warmest year on record globally (beating out 1998) and 2007 is shaping up to beat 2005. Other "skeptics" acknowledge the climate is warming, but incorrectly say it is the result of solar fluctuations, cosmic rays, or other far-fetched ideas.

"the spm is a scientific document, written by scientists"

Correct. The IPCC is made up of 2500 SCIENTISTS!!! (Get it through your thick skull!) It is not a political body. Its task is to evaluate the sum of scientific knowledge regarding climate change, every bit being peer-reviewed. ABSOLUTELY NO RESEARCH WHICH DISMISSES OR DISCREDITS AGW HAS EVER PASSED THE PEER-REVIEW TEST!

"the criticism of the hockey stick has been found incorrect"

True. The findings of MBH have been endorsed by the IPCC. Also, the criticism of MBH by McIntyre and McKitrick has been discredited by Wahl and Ammann.

- Gore's film is scientifically correct and objective
Well, the world renowned climate-science experts at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography think pretty highly of Gore's movie. See for details. And, yes, I'll gladly take the word of the Scripps experts over that of a message-board troll any day...

J I K, you are the one who is always claiming that people who disagree with you use ad hominems and personal smear tactics. You are the worst offender of this type on this blog. Either give us some evidence and proof that AGW is not scientifically correct or give us all a break and go and play somewhere else.

By the way does your company have a take on AGW? Does it align with yours?

I know you people never answer quations but I asked a few anyway.

if you claim not to know that Gore's film is not propagandistic. Do some research, perhaps even venturing outside of your normal sources of information. If you want of have some sort of balanced view (of any topic), you have review and evaluate many different arguments. I don't know if my company has a take on AGW. I hope not, because it is not its business. Finally, I think we both answer the same fraction of the questions to us on this blog.

J I K, it's truth that counts and you do not seem to know what truth is. Whether you consider Gore's movie to be propaganda or not is irrelevant. It is the scientific accuracy that counts and by all reports it gets a passing grade (well more than just passing since I give it a B+) in that department.

Science is about truth, not opinions not backed up by facts as you AGW deniers like to think. That just proves that you know nothing about the scientific method.

I think you are wrong when you say that your company does not have an opinion on global warming. It seems to me that it is of the opinion that AGW is real and should be controlled and they also seem to be in favour of Kyoto.

Now that is rather naughty of you taking this AGW denier viewpoint so publicly, don't you think? Of course, I forgot, you use a nome de net so I can't really know the company you work for (or do I?).

ever increasing knowledge about how the material world works, it is not about defending some official, UN sanctioned, "truth". Ian, you should really try to be less religious in your outlook on life. As stated before, I'm pretty sure I know quite a bit about the scientific method, probably more that you do (considering your seemingly non-skeptical approach to science), but, on the other hand, whether that is correct or not, we will never know, and it also has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Finally, is your recurring comments regarding my company some sort of veiled threat to 'out' me? That's really pathetic, don't you think?

"I'm pretty sure I know quite a bit about the scientific method"

I'm pretty sure you don't. How about this: when you state a so-called "fact" like the polar bear population being up by 200%, provide a proper scientific citation so that the scientists and others reading this website can check your "facts" and your sources.

nothing to do with the scientific method. For you reading pleasure, see e.g. "" And I said 150%, not 200%, and a source was provided.

When the scientific method was formulated long ago it made one assumption which you and others completely ignore.

That assumption is honesty, honesty in reporting observations, honesty in reviewing other scientific reports. One of the types of honesty which you are showing complete disregard for in your critique of the work on the drowning polar bears is cherry picking of information which supports your viewpoint and ignoring aspects which argue against it.

Thus you make a completely erroneous conclusion that polar bear populations are not presently decreasing in a number of locations by quoting the fact that they increased 40 years ago. You make no mention of why the populations increased back then (hunting was banned). This is called cherry picking of data and obfuscation of the science.

As such it would completely fail the standard peer review process.

Try reading actual reports, all of the reports, not just the highlighted portions forwarded to you by your AGW denier associates.

By the way J I K, what is more pathetic, you hiding your incompetence in scientific matters behind a nome de net, or me being able to find out more about you than you would like?

is what we all do in this debate. If you were honest you would agree. Re: peer review, desmogblog does not constitite scientific writing, and is obviously not subject to peer review. You may think I am dishonest and incompetent, that's ok, because I know I am neither. Btw, how do we know Ian Forrester is your real name?

J I K, cherry picking may be all that the AGW deniers do in this debate (by the way, there is really no debate on the basic findings on AGW) but honest scientists consider screeds and screeds of data, reports, personal observations etc. before reaching conclusions.

In science you have to show honesty and competence it will not be granted willy-nilly. Up to now, nothing in what you have written on this blog gives us any reason to believe that you are either honest or competent. Show us that you are honest and competent and people may even start having reasonable discussions with you.

then that you are honest and competent, and that I am neither! You keep repeating this mantra, without any substance, so I am starting to worry about you. Is it a Freud/complex thing, or what?

Ian Forrester provides substantive information and arguments; JIK does not.

It is obvious that Ian puts some thought into his posts. JIK is just a troll, attacking people in order to disrupt discussions.

thought to repeat words and phrases such as "deniers", "dishonest", "incompetent", "you don't know any thing about the scientific method" etc etc. Ian, why are you so angry?

I am a scientist and I get extremely annoyed at the anti-science attitude expressed by you and others like you. This anti-science is shown not only in the field of climate change but in many other fields as well, such as evolutionary biology, the effects of GMO's (the science shows that they are of no benefit to anyone except the suppliers of GM seeds), environmental science (tobacco, asbestos, effects of numerous chemicals) etc..

There is a political move by the extreme right wing to attack science because science is showing that their financial backers (i.e. big business) are harming the environment and peoples' health. These companies are using propaganda and other disreputable techniques to try and silence the scientists who dare to speak up about this misuse of science.

By your actions and comments you are squarely in this anti-science group, though I suspect that you will deny it.

another unsubstantiated tirade from Ian. According Ian's infinite wisdom (he is, after all, a scientist), I and my corrupted co-conspirators deny evolution, deny the bad effects of tobacco and asbestos, blindly promotes anything new and profitable that Big Business comes up with, we want to pollute as much as possible (especially if we can get rich from it), we are extreme right (probably fascists), we want to silence all scientists who doesn't think like we do. Right. Ian, you really need help.
Apropos scientifc consensus, see this site for more non-conformist commentary on various "mass-delusions":

Scientific consensus is not an oxymoron. A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of scientists working on a problem come to an agreement on the science of the problem. This is reached through the replication of numerous experiments, interpretation of data and when no other options are possible at that time.

Consensus does not mean “cast in stone”. The consensus is based on results and technology available at that time. If newer technology becomes available and it leads to repeatable results that disagree with the previous consensus then the consensus is changed.

A good example of this is the recent acceptance of certain strains of bacteria as being the cause of stomach ulcers. Previously, it had been thought that excess acid production had been the cause (I should add that one of the things that bacteria can do is produce various organic acids as the end point in their metabolism). Thus the new consensus is accepted but notice that the old consensus is not that far off the mark since acid is still involved.

Thus scientific consensus is a normal part of science. There are still many areas where no consensus has yet been reached. A good example is the health effects of aspartame.

that you figured out that ulcer thing. But it doesn't imply in any way that consensus thinking is an integral part of science. If you are a scientist, you constantly try to test, pick apart, disprove, falsify... It is scientific evidence, not consensus opinion, that proves or disproves a scientific claim. The very moment you start thinking in consensus terms, reach for common ground, smooth over disagreements, silence and/or slander opponents, then you are no longer a scientist. To say that "we know", when it is merely majority opinion, is, to paraphrase Gore, "a convenient lie". Perhaps Russell puts it best: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
"Btw, how do we know Ian Forrester is your real name?"

This coming from a guy calling himself Johan I Kanada, is that your real name?
indeed. Hmmm, is Johan i Kanada my real name or not? My guess is not, what do you think?

Johan may be his first name, but "I Kanada" means "in Canada" in Swedish.


Jim Hoggan sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation and operates a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates, funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvreclient.

His client list includes or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells.

Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.

A small-town PR guy who makes disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science. "If you look in the scientific literature, there is no debate."

Well I'd like a debate Mr Hoggan. I don't think you're up to the true scientific basis of climate nor is 'geneticist' David Suzuki.