Bishop Hill Brendan Montague
Feb 18, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other FOI I had an email from Don Keiller the other day. He had been contacted by a “freelance journalist”, Brendan Montague, who wanted to know about his connections with GWPF and what he knew about their funding sources. Don seems to have sent him on his way fairly quickly, advising him that his time would be better spent looking at WWF and Greenpeace.
Strangely, Montague's name has come up in conversation a few times in recent weeks, although in fact I've known of him since 2010. Near the first anniversary of Climategate, I got an email from him, again claiming to be a freelance journalist, and saying he wanted to interview me about a story about the anniversary for the Sunday Times.
I picked him up a the station and took him back to my home, gave him lunch, and we chewed the fat over Climategate. It was all very amicable. Afterwards, there were a series of emails asking for new angles, but no story ever appeared. I remember feeling sorry for the poor chap, having funded a trip up to Edinburgh out of his own pocket for no benefit.
We now know that Montague is not exactly a freelance journalist. Although he seems to write something once a year, his main role is actually the "CEO" of Request Initiative, which is kind of an FOI bureau for green organisations. Montague seems to have been doing quite well at convincing people that he is useful - someone has been paying him to spend the last couple of years sniffing around anybody and everybody in the sceptic movement. There have been a series of unsuccessful FOI requests to universities for the emails of people associated with GWPF and even a dirt-digging trip to Benny Peiser's sister in Germany. Many readers will remember his attempts to get details of GWPF donors from the Charities Commission, an occasion on which he claimed, hilariously, to be paying for his legal team out of his own pocket. The fact that his brief also worked for Greenpeace led some to draw conclusions about exactly who was bankrolling all these speculative, conspiracy-fuelled wild-goose chases. Whoever they are they appear to have deep pockets and to be relatively unconcerned about whether Montague achieved anything.
Anyway, I think the message is that there are some pretty unscrupulous people out there, so be careful who you talk to.
Reader Comments (73)
Foxgoose reports BM as saying:
"We have become alienated from our environment, both social and agricultural. It is an incarceration."
He got that bit right. I'm guessing he lives in an environment that is mainly composed of concrete and plastic. I do hope that he works out what us country folk should be doing as he sits on his depilated ass in front of his organically produced laptop.
From Andrew:
"Brendan is among a handful of professionally trained journalists on the radical left: all he needs is a revolution."
There is a revolution going on. Unfortunately, he's on the wrong side of it. I'm sure the Stasi were utterly convinced that they were part of a revolution, as they crushed dissent.
It's a truism that spies (of various types) have always used the useful cover of 'journalism' for their dirty business. Perhaps the problem for this unimpressive specimen is that he has to deal with sceptics who aren't easily fooled, misled or open to deception and lies any more.
Feb 19, 2013 at 12:22 AM | RichieP: "Perhaps the problem for this unimpressive specimen is that he has to deal with sceptics who aren't easily fooled, misled or open to deception and lies any more."
The problem is Richie that there is no well-funded. well-organised misinformation machine. So all the subterfuge in the world won't find one. Pointman has it right, they made up the mysteriously well-funded, well-organised, misinformation machine, just like they made up the hockeystick, and now spend their time, like the hockeyteam, trying to prove the unprovable.
If Lewandowsky was a proper physchologist he'd be looking into this phenomonen. Becasue although their lunatic policies are being adopted they aren't being adopted fast enough, or with enough enthusiasm, and bizzarely they put this down to the "deniers", when, in fact, it's down to practical reality, something none of them would recognise if it came to them dressed as Donald McDonald and singing ",Dixie"
I think that Brendan Montague ought to be grateful to us for more attention than he's had in a long time, or ever..... if/when he reads this thread, does he care to make an appearance here and discuss some of his questions? I'm sure he could get plenty of helpful information for his book, if only he proves able to engage in a candid and free flowing discussion. He probably won't find any secret donor info here but he might actually learn something worthwhile.
Its the dimness of people like Montague which is so depressing. I publish Energy & Environment, a journal which has occasionally published papers that don't suit the warmist cause. Montague phoned me a few weeks ago, I had no idea who he was. It soon became plain that Montague embodies the idees fixes of the public sector left - that a journal must be 'funded' by someone, "come on now, own up, what fascist racketeer is paying for this stuff?" (he didn't quite say). Ideas that individuals, organisations, pay for stuff if they want it and don;t if they don't, survival in the market place, seem hard for the progressives to understand. And, as the publisher, I must be madly committed to fighting the sceptics corner, be a full-blown denier myself, is the Montaguesque interpretation. It took some little while for Montague to grasp that its possible to publish any number of journals without necessarily being emotionally committed to, or even expertly informed on, the subject matter. Even then I don't think he was convinced.
The longer these fools waste their energies tracking down their mythical opponents, the better for us. Their REAL enemies are public apathy, the reality of weather and climate, folk common sense, the slowly shifting of real science towards a more realistic position.
Let them waste time, money and energy looking for their Beast. After all, they invented the crisis, it's only ironic and fitting they ruin themselves on another invention.
Re: Feb 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterdeepthroat
The following has been published before but I seek your indulgence to republish for those who have come along since. From Deutsche bank 2009 Annual Report, Climate Change Advisory Board listed. The members are in the thick of global warming to the extent that one could write a book about each one. This list just before Climategate 1 broke.
Members of the Climate Change Advisory Board
Lord Browne, Managing Director and Managing Partner (Europe), Riverstone Holdings LLC and former CEO of BP (Resigned in tears over unusual love life), possible Big Oil funder of Skeptic Groups?
John Coomber, Member of the Board of Directors, Swiss Re and Chairman, The Climate Group (n.b. Google Climate Group history)
Fabio Feldmann, CEO, Fabio Feldmann Consultores and former Executive Secretary, Brazilian Forum on Climate Change
Amory B. Lovins, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute (partly fossilised into the mountain, so old and constant)
Lord Oxburgh, Member of the Advisory Board, Climate Change Capital and Former Chairman of Shell, investigative inquirer and provider of Big Oil funds to skeptics?
Dr. R. K. Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, railroad engineer with a calendar that reads 2035 for 2350.
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, CBE, Founding Director of Potsdam Institut for Climate Impact Research (study well, also director Tyndall Inst at UEA 2001-09).
Professor Robert Socolow, Co-Director, The Carbon Mitigation Initiative and Professor, Princeton University, the USA end that does not keep getting arrested at protests.
Professor Klaus Töpfer, Former Minister for Environment, Germany
Professor Hongren Zhang, Former President, International Union of Geological Science and former Vice Minister of Geology and Mineral Resources, China. Never met him.
....................................
Feb 18, 2013 at 11:53 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil
IMHO, there was a network of operatives trained to infiltrate organisations in countries even as far away as new Zealand maybe 30 years ago. There is more sytem than accident in a lot of the activism. There are many more people who show a similar modus. One of the above names at least has hints of being a mastermind for this.
...................................
Greed usually trumps altruism. Most people have a price.
I had a call from said Mr. Montague recently. How he got my name and number, I would very much like to know! I too sent him on his way, refusing to fall for any attempt by him to solicit any information - he tried various methods, including saying he had a document from Nigel Lawson saying donors could reveal themselves. What a ruse!
I looked at his web site straight after the call, and could immediately see that I was right to not say/confirm/deny anything.
I notice Montague's attempt to get the details of the GWPF donor list cites Clive Hamilton, an Ethics Professor, who last year publicly called Christopher Monckton a "rat bag", in a written review of "The Heretic" play when performed in Australia, a review labelled with his academic title and status. So much for 'ethics'!!
This person called me up today and did not say who he was working for. He asked me about a recent GWPF event that I had planned to attend - but did not. He asked me if I donated to it. I haven't.
I suggest this guy takes a more transparent approach in future. Or, to coin a phrase, doctor, heal thyself.
Tom B,
I wouldn't have even said here that you haven't donated to the GWPF, it only allows such hacks to eliminate people rather than keeping them guessing and wasting their time. Best policy is to neither confirm nor deny anything.
Is it me, or is this a total delusion on the part of the enemy that they think the GWPF is having any influence at all? Outside of here, has anybody you know ever mentioned it? If you brought up the subject, how many of your friends and acquaintances do you think would have heard of it? Does it get mentioned on the telly, do its spokesmen have a high profile as guests? Same counts for Bishop Hill, or WUWT. We the sceptics have no impact at all. And yet we are still worrying the other side, and we will eventually win. but only because their cause is counter-reality. When the scare ends, it will just fade away. You won't find anybody who took it seriously. It will be no good saying I told you so.
It isn't Nigella's dad or his funding that will finish it, it is nasty old reality.
Which it turns out is a paraphrase of something Barry Woods said at the last Oxford pub meet, for which a hat-tip.
This creep also phoned up my wife, and she has no idea how he got her number. He called her mobile phone.
What a blessing, Rhoda; I've been worried about the onset of schadenfreude.
============
Feb 19, 2013 at 5:51 PM | rhoda
I think it more that they, our alarmist thought leaders and their followers, need to imagine a powerful opponent up to no good with our minds. This is to prevent a little niggle which I hope is at the back of their minds growing stronger and stronger: 'you've got it all wrong, your logic is faulty, your premises weak, your allies are potty, the data says nope to your every prediction, your sermons sound like dramatised fiction'
Three cheers for Mother Nature! She is the really powerful opponent of the alarmists.
Thanks rhoda
All I would like is for some of those that ranted about 'deniers' to say sorry, publically
Feb 19, 2013 at 5:51 PM Rhoda
I think GWPF and the Heartland etc have more effect on the political sphere than we see but I agree, publicly nobody is having much impression. On the up side, there isn't much success from the other side either and they've got David Attenborough, Brian Cox and Holywood. When you look at all the advantages they've got they must be pretty depressed with their progress. They've invented a shadowy oil funded enemy to try and explain their unmitigated failure.
All I can say is if there's Exxon or Koch money out there, I'd like to know what they've done with it cause all my heroes seem to be being short changed.
In fairness to Montague, he was an active working journalist up until sometime in 2009 and had over 70 articles published, between 2007 and 2009, mostly in the Sunday Times. I missed that the first time around looking at this link provided by the Bish.
Just below the list of his five most recent articles is a link that says "all previous articles." He published quite a few back in 07 and 08.
theDuke: His 21 June 2011 article in the Independent uses language that places Montague heavily in the Alarmist/pro-CAGW camp. For example, he uses the "denial" word 3 times.
Interesting to note that the footer contains quite a few corrections to the article, and there are zero comments - no-one was interested!
He also has a total misconception about sceptics when he says "think tanks campaigning against climate change science", where it's the exact opposite. We campaign FOR science, correct science, true science, testable/falsifiable science, evidential science, not the pseudo-science that is the staple diet of the climate non-science community.
Hired gun shooting blanks.
=======
Hello Bishop Hill readers. You may be interested to know this is what I do for a living these days. Would be great to have you come visit the site. Thanks Andrew Montford for not censoring this comment. ift.tt/1vQG5F9. All the best! Brendan
I had a phone call from BM over a year ago. I suspected something was amiss by the type of questions he was asking, so I refused to confirm or deny anything, basically "no comment". The fact that a 'journalist' had called me in the first place was very suspicious. He was definitely trying to dig up dirt though. Be very careful of him!
Generally people that earn a living have a job. You fail on both counts BM.