Changes

{{#Show badges: | Climate change |Front groups}}

Following In the course of an internal review and audit and review begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change" and had returned unspent grant money on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement.[httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/4c/Science_Education_Fund_Update_2008.pdf] As a consequence, the University advised FoS "that it would no longer accept funds on the organization's behalf", according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007. [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a4/FOS_UofC_Email_3.pdf] On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that U of C officials had shut down Cooper's "'Research on Climate Change' trust account", and were about to advise Elections Canada of the University's ongoing review of the matter. [http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=b2307acc-cc2a-42dc-b562-3ed737847a4d&k=81087]

A report on various allegations concerning Barry Cooper's research accounts was issued by the University auditor on April 14, 2008, with some censored passages released in July. [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/4b/U_of_C_Auditor%27s_Report_April_14_2008.pdf][httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/e/e0/U_of_C_Auditor%27s_Report_April_14_2008_-_Update.pdf] The report examined allegations that research funds had been used as a conduit to fund Friends of Science projects, that funds had been used to support third-party election advertising, and that the funded projects did not constitute legitimate research or education. Although the report did not arrive at any definitive conclusions on the allegations, it did note that Barry Cooper (referred to as the "researcher" in the report) overstepped his signing authority in approving payments of $170,000 of payments to [[APCO Worldwide]], $54,000 to Morten Paulsen Consulting, and $43,000 to Paulsen's current employer, PR and lobbying firm [[Fleishman-Hillard]]. In an accompanying press release, the University noted that it had "advised Elections Canada and Canada Revenue Agency of its concerns regarding the accounts Friends of Science and the ongoing auditor’s review." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/3/3c/U_of_C_News_Release_-_Audit_report_released.pdf][httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/e/e0/U_of_C_Auditor%27s_Report_April_14_2008_-_Update.pdf]

"When asked who was in charge of running the anti-Kyoto group's advertising and selecting the target markets during the election campaign, Leahey said: 'I would imagine that would have been (decided by) our public relations consultant [Paulsen]. Certainly I did not decide. It's not my area of expertise.' ...…

"Conservative spokesperson [Ryan Sparrow] confirmed ... … that Paulsen had played a role in the Tory campaign as 'an unpaid spinner' to the media."

According to an e-mail from FoS spokesperson Albert Jacobs: "Morten Paulsen served as our PR man under contract for over a year. This contract ended in July 2006 when Morten became Vice-President of Hillard Fleischman [sic]." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/9/9b/FOS_Email.pdf] In response to further queries concerning Paulsen's lobbying activities, Jacobs wrote: "I know nothing about Morten being a registered lobbyist for FoS. As far as I know FoS does not employ any 'lobbyists'." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/c/ca/FOS_Email_3.pdf]

* '''April, 2006:''' According to the FoS newsletter of May, 2006, Tim Ball made "an eye opening presentation ... … to members of the Alberta PC Calgary Caucus... Caucus… The Calgary Caucus is an influential body, and we were pleased that several Ministers, including Energy Minister Greg Melchin, were in attendance. That presentation on the lack of science underlying Kyoto has lead to another presentation to be held this month in Edmonton to the Standing Policy Committee on Energy." [http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/2006%20May%20Newsletter%2010.pdf]

As detailed below, much of the Friends of Science funding has come from anonymous donations to research trust funds set up by University of Calgary professor Barry Cooper. However, following an internal audit by the University, the University has advised FoS "that it would no longer accept funds on the organization's behalf", according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler. [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a4/FOS_UofC_Email_3.pdf]

An older version of the FoS website news section featured an exchange between FoS and "an interested reader" . This exchange has been removed from the current news section, and replaced with a link to a Word document version of the exchange [http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=11]. However, the following question and answer have been removed from the Word document:

"FoS: We are funded through membership fees ($25/yr) and individual donations. Large projects - such as our video and radio ads - are funded through grants out of ... … [a research fund controlled by Barry Cooper], directed towards debate of climate science and which is also fed by the charitable Calgary Foundation." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/86/Google_FOS_Radio_Ads.pdf] The statement was repeated in an email from Friends of Science spokesperson Albert Jacobs to a SourceWatch contributor. [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/9/9b/FOS_Email.pdf]

"We pay our running expenses mostly out of the membership fees and donations of the several hundred individual members we have and in the few cases, when we are initiating larger projects (such as our video, our website and the like), we try to raise money from wealthy individuals and private foundations in this city and elsewhere. Such funds are often channelled through charitable organisations for education purposes, which is what they are indeed used for. We are not political lobbyists. In the case of the video, the funds were obtained through the University of Calgary through a Trust Fund established at U of C to encourage debate on basic Climate Science (something Environment Canada never got around to). While some of the smaller oil and gas companies have occasionally contributed because their leaders are often earth scientists who are sympathetic to our fight on scientific grounds, so-called 'big oil' is generally absent in our list of donors. The large companies would not contribute if we asked them, because of their public image as marketers in a country where 70% of the population has been brainwashed in embracing 'Kyoto' ... … None of the funds we received from any source ever came with any strings attached. Most of us (including our Advisory Board) don't even know who the donors are. We are all registered professionals, bound by the ethics standards of our respective professional organisations and we don't sell our souls." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/c/ca/FOS_Email_4.pdf]

Calgary Foundation marketing director Kerry Longpré told Globe and Mail freelancer Charles Montgomery that she had never heard of the Friends of Science. "The foundation, she said, deals only with the [University of Calgary], which is left to administer donations as it sees fit." [http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html]. According to the Calgary Foundation's 2006 report, the Science Education Fund is a "flow-through", donor-directed fund. [http://thecalgaryfoundation.org/pdf/FG2006Final.pdf] In an email dated March 16, 2007, Longpré forwarded a statement "further clarification of the grant making process at The Calgary Foundation." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/ac/FOS_Calgary_Foundation_Email.pdf]

"The Science Education Fund is one of 364 Donor Advised Funds held at The Calgary Foundation. Its grant to the University of Calgary supports academic research in the science of global warming and the production of education modules, academic conferences and publications." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/b/b6/TCF_Science_Education_Fund_Statement.pdf]

"'We got talking to this person at the Calgary Foundation and they explained to us how they could, in fact, be an intermediary between us and projects,' said [FoS vice-president Eric] Loughead. 'It was kind of one of these mutual things. They were aware of us and we were aware of them. I think we learned of them from one of the other trusts in Calgary and they suggested to us that we talk to the Calgary Foundation. That's where the Science Education Fund was originated.' ... … According to Loughead, the Friends of Science administered the fund and when the Friends had projects they wanted to sponsor, they would instruct the Calgary Foundation where to direct the money."

In a statement released in April, 2007, the Foundation acknowledged that the University had returned an unspent SEF grant of $25,000 on September 10, 2007 "due to U of C investigation that found the funds supported a partisan viewpoint on climate change". [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/4c/Science_Education_Fund_Update_2008.pdf] The same statement revealed that the [[Frontier Centre for Public Policy]] received a grant from the SEF on November 15 for "support of science education." Canwest reported that the FCPP wanted "to produce a climate change video for children in schools". [http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=488e13be-893b-41dd-9405-9a75619074a1] The SEF also had a balance of $132,178 as of March 31, 2008, according to the Foundation's 2007-8 Annual Report. [http://www.thecalgaryfoundation.org/documents/TCFAR08FInal_000.pdf] It is not yet known if those funds have been allocated for FCPP projects in 2008-9.

In an [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/2/27/Uni_of_Calgary_email.pdf email dated February 15, 2007], External Vice-President Roman Cooney of the University of Calgary made the following public statements regarding the Friends of Science and Barry Cooper's climate change research fund.

"The University of Calgary does not provide funding for Friends of Science. There is no University of Calgary trust fund for Friends of Science. We do not endorse its work or its findings ... … The University of Calgary does not have a position on climate change, nor would it. As an independent, non-partisan research institution, the U of C insists on maintaining its neutrality.

"The fundamental principle is academic freedom ... … In this case, a group of scientists [i.e. the Friends of Science] holds a particular viewpoint and have advanced it publicly, with funding support from the external community. The fact that one of the scientists [i.e. political science professor Barry Cooper] is a faculty member here cannot be taken to conclude that the U of C supports that individual's research. The University of Calgary does not dictate to its professors the kind of research they will or will not do." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/2/27/Uni_of_Calgary_email.pdf ]

In response to persistent email queries concerning the Science Education Fund, Cooney referred questions concerning the details of Fund projects and spending to Barry Cooper, who is presumably the sole "funding applicant" and sole controller of the Science Education Fund and related "climate change research" funds. [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/af/FOS_UofC_Email_2.pdf]. Then, in a later email (page 4 of the same exchange), Cooney referred all questions concerning the matter to the University's counsel, Linda Barry-Hollowell. In turn, Ms. Barry-Hollowell has announced an internal audit of Barry Cooper's research fund, but still maintained that concerns about the matter are "without factual foundation."

"When the audit is complete ... … the full audit needs to be released and publicly available and there needs to be action and accountability for any university members involved.

"Any connection the U of C has with the Friends needs to be terminated ... … The university's credibility has already been damaged because of the Friends' unauthorized use of the U of C's logo and name ... … If Cooper is found culpable in this audit, the university needs to punish him accordingly." [http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/11843]

The $5000 5,000 Friends of Science Graduate Scholarship in Political Science was listed on the agenda of the November, 2006 meeting of the Council of the Faculty of Graduate Studies. [https://cor.ucalgary.ca/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=%2FDownLoads%2FCouncil+Meetings%2F345_fgs_council_pdf] Details given in an attachment (found at page 35) state that "the Graduate Coordinator, Department of Political Science, will submit a recommendation to the Graduate Scholarship Office."

"In my role as Graduate Coordinator in the Department of Political Science, in the fall of 2006, I contacted the Faculty of Graduate Studies to express my concern that FGS had accepted funds from Friends of Science. In response to this, FGS contacted the Development Office, which confirmed that the scholarship funding would be accepted. I was then obliged, as an officer of both the Department of Political Science and the Faculty of Graduate Studies, to administer the award. This is the full extent of my involvement with this issue. I am willing to confirm this publicly in order to protect my personal reputation. I am also willing to add that many faculty members in the Department of Political Science shared my concern regarding the decision to accept these funds." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/0/0e/U_of_C_Email_4_Young.pdf]

In an [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a4/FOS_UofC_Email_3.pdf email dated December 24, 2007], U of C Legal Counsel Elizabeth Osler stated that the University would no longer accept donations for FoS:

A report on various allegations concerning Barry Cooper's research accounts was issued by the University auditor on April 14, 2008. [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/4b/U_of_C_Auditor%27s_Report_April_14_2008.pdf](A later update restored dollar amounts that had previously been removed in the original report).[httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/e/e0/U_of_C_Auditor%27s_Report_April_14_2008_-_Update.pdf] The report examined three broad allegations:

The report confirmed that APCO Worldwide "produced, promoted and distributed" the 2005 FOS video, and was paid just over $170,000, and also noted that some invoices were addressed to FOS instead of the University: "There were payments from the Accounts to Apco Worldwide totaling $170,881.68. Two of the invoices from Apco were addressed to FOS and paid from the Accounts. Apco Worldwide was engaged by the U of C to provide strategic communications services relating to the U of C's project 'Research on Climate Change Debate'. This included advice regarding video production, promotion of the video, distribution of the video, media relations services and other services."  Other large payments and irregularities pertaining to them were also noted: "Payments were made to Fleishman Hillard of $43,537.43 in fiscal 2007, to Morten Paulsen Consulting $54,211.06 in fiscal 2006 and Directors Chair of $30,991.20 in fiscal 2005. Some of these invoices were addressed to FOS but were paid from the Accounts. Payments to these vendors exceeded $25,000 in total and therefore there should have been written quotes. No evidence of written quotes was found in Business Operations' files." In an accompanying press release, the University noted that it had "advised Elections Canada and Canada Revenue Agency of its concerns regarding the accounts, Friends of Science and the ongoing auditor’s review." [11]

* [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a9/Friends_of_Science_-_2004_Statement.pdf 2004] (also contains 2003 revenue and expenses)* [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/b/b7/Friends_of_Science_-_2005_Return_and_Statement.pdf 2005]

.... {| class="wikitable" border="1"|-! Year .. ! Revenue .. ! Expenses |-| 2003* 2003 .. |align="right" |$16,855 .. |align="right" |$ 7,424* |-| 2004 .. |align="right" |$81,768 .. |align="right" |$34,089 |-| 2005* 2005 .. |align="right" |$28,774 .. |align="right" |$61,274|}

Revenues include member fees totaling $3856 3,856 in 2005 and $2362 2,362 in 2004.

Before and during the 2006 Canadian federal election campaign, the Friends of Science ran a series of anti-Kyoto radio ads targeted at key Ontario ridings. The ads were funded through anonymous tax-deductible donations funneled through the Calgary Foundation and a University of Calgary "climate change research" trust fund controlled by professor Barry Cooper. Following an internal audit and review begun in March of 2007, the University determined that research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change" and cut off the FoS funding. [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a4/FOS_UofC_Email_3.pdf] On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service confirmed that U of C officials had shut down Cooper's "'Research on Climate Change' trust account", and were about to advise Elections Canada of the University's ongoing review of the matter. [http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=b2307acc-cc2a-42dc-b562-3ed737847a4d&k=81087]

"Yesterday, Friends of Science launched an ad campaign in vote-rich and Liberal-ruled central Ontario to bust a few global warming myths. ... … There are many other global-warming myths being debunked, and many can be found at the Friends of Science website -- which is funded mostly by a University of Calgary trust fund [i.e. Barry Cooper's climate change research fund]." [http://www.kiowapilots.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6874.html]

"Our campaign is working. Before and during the election, Friends bought radio advertising in 5 major Ontario markets. Our message was that voters have not been given the facts on climate change, and that candidates need to be questioned on their intentions to spend billions on global warming theories ...theories…

The [http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/ad1.mp3 first ad] outlines three supposed myths about global warming and urges listeners to "get the real answers at friendsofscience.org and then ask your MPs why they want to spend billions on global warming theories." The [http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/fos15.mp3 second ad] refers to Canadian government policies such as the "One Ton Challenge". The ad concludes: "Have you been told the truth? ... … Find out - watch our video at friendsofscience.org."

The Friends of Science has repeatedly stated that "large projects, such as our video and radio ads" were funded by Barry Cooper's research fund, partially supported by the Science Education Fund. [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/86/Google_FOS_Radio_Ads.pdf] [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/9/9b/FOS_Email.pdf] In an email dated February 28, 2007, Roman Cooney of the University of Calgary stated: "I specifically asked Dr. [Barry] Cooper last week whether any of the funds received by the Friends of Science, the Science Education Fund, or any related organizations or funds for which a tax deduction for receipt of a donation was issued by the University of Calgary, were used in any election-related advertising or communication or activities not related to education or research. The answer was an unequivocal no." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/af/FOS_UofC_Email_2.pdf] However, this denial does not specifically address donations for which tax receipts were issued by the Calgary Foundation. It also rests on Barry Cooper's own definition of "activities not related to education or research", which may not correspond to an accepted objective or reasonable definition. Indeed, since then, the U of C has severed FoS funding and Barry Cooper's "Research on Climate Change" account was shut down, following a determination by the University "that some of the program funds had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a4/FOS_UofC_Email_3.pdf][http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=b2307acc-cc2a-42dc-b562-3ed737847a4d&k=81087]

#The earth is warmer today than in the last 1000 thousand years.

[http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=ec90512&dir=ref&lang=e&textonly=false Elections Canada rules on third party advertising] cover any advertising message "that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated" and requires such advertisers to register with the Chief Electoral Officer. The rules also impose strict spending limits of $3000 3,000 per riding, ban the issuance of tax receipts for supporting contributions, and require the filing of detailed, audited financial reports. The Friends of Science Society does not appear on the [http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=thirdparties39&dir=thi/tie&lang=e&textonly=false list of registered third-party advertisers for the 2006 election] and to all appearances has not met any of the obligations of third party advertisers.

In an email dated May 9, 2007, Albert Jacobs of the Friends of Science stated: "The radio ads (instead of TV which we can't afford) were also paid that way [i.e. from Barry Cooper's research fund] as an educational outreach. Their sole goal was to get people to look at our website. Since we have been accused by some that we were making political propaganda during an election campaign, I would like to point out, that the ads were contracted and started before any election call. They ran their course and were non-political to the extent that Kyoto is a scientific environmental matter. In any case, they were not partisan. That an election was called was not our doing." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/c/ca/FOS_Email_4.pdf]

However, in the [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/2/22/FOS_2005_Q2_Newsletter_7.pdf FoS July, 2005 newsletter] (at the time of initial planning and fundraising efforts for the ad campaign), FoS made its ultimate goal very clear :

In a [http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=stat11&dir=rep/sta&lang=e&textonly=false 2000 report to Parliament], the Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, explained that four questions need be answered in the affirmative to obtain a finding of "third party election advertising". Assuming the relatively straightforward determination that a given message is an advertising message transmitted to the public during an election period, the crucial question would be: "[I]s the message one that a reasonable person would understand ... … as taking a position on an issue with which a candidate or party is associated?"

In the [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a0/FoS_2005_Q3_Newsletter_8.pdf October, 2005 FoS newsletter] (no longer available on the FoS website, but now uploaded to SourceWatch), Douglas Leahey stated the ad campaign was part of FoS's response to the Liberal government's proposal to regulate greenhouse gases as "toxic substances under Canada's Environmental Protection Act."

"Friends of Science has, of course, challenged the government’s proposed regulation by going directly to the Environment Ministry, but we’ve also undertaken a campaign to foil the stealth strategy by letting Canadians know what’s going on. Every MLA in Canada has been a mailed a letter on the issue, with a copy of our video. Recently, an advertising campaign was kicked off in the province of Ontario to educate Canadians about the myths of Kyoto, and asking voters to demand answers from their MPs... MPs… Friends of Science will ensure that domestic pressure to walk away from Kyoto gets stronger and stronger." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a0/FoS_2005_Q3_Newsletter_8.pdf]

This is a reference to the finding in the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) Third Assesment Report (2001) that current global temperatures are "likely" warmer than at any time in the last thousand years. This finding was famously illustrated by the "hockey stick" graph taken from the landmark study by [[Michael Mann]] et al (1999). The graph shows gradually descending Northern Hemisphere temperatures since 1000 AD, followed by a sharp rise since 1900. Previously, it had been thought that during the so-called Medieval Warm Period, the earth was significantly warmer than today (and of course the graph of temperature trends looked much different). This position concerning global temperature is elaborated in an FoS web article entitled [http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=102 "The destruction of the hockey stick"]. In that article, FoS criticizes the "hockey stick", stating that "the well-documented Medieval Warm Period (approx. 1000-1400)... … [does] not register on Mann’s chart."

The [http://www.conservative.ca/media/20060113-Platform.pdf full election platform], only released on January 13, 2006 [http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2590/], ten days before the election, contains an attack on Liberal Kyoto policies, saying: "[The Liberals] sign ambitious international treaties and send money to foreign governments for hot air credit but can’t seem to get anything done to help people here at home." The platform also contains the following vague and ambiguous promise: "A Conservative government will ... … address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), with a made-in-Canada plan, emphasising new technologies, developed in concert with the provinces and in coordination with other major industrial countries." However the platform does not directly mention climate change or global warming, and does not acknowledge the clear scientific consensus on both the degree of human attribution and the urgency of action on the issue of climate change. No targets for greenhouse gas reduction, even long term, are mentioned. The Conservatives' [http://www.bobmillsmp.com/admn/editor/assets/our%20green%20brochure.pdf Green Brochure], released during the campaign, calls for development of "scientific monitoring of climate change", which would appear to question the scientific consensus at the time.

The Friends of Science are involved with a climate change conference, as detailed in the January, 2007 newsletter: "[[Barry Cooper]] of the University of Calgary and [[Tim Patterson]] of Carleton University are arranging a conference in Ottawa on the science of global climate change. The date will be April 19 & 20th. Friends of Science is providing backup support for the event... event… It is anticipated the conference will result in a well-publicised discussion demonstrating that the science of global warming is far from settled, in spite of what the Kyoto supporters would have us believe." [http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/2007%20Jan%20Newsletter%2012(version%202).pdf]

The conference was first proposed by Friends of Science in their September, 2006 newsletter: "[W]e are focusing on a major conference to kick start the debate on climate science in Canada ...…" [http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/2006%20Sept%20Newsletter%2011.pdf]

In February, 2007, Roman Cooney issued the following statement in an e-mail: "The University of Calgary has long-standing and publicly-stated concerns about Friends of Science using the University of Calgary's name to infer that it has the University's endorsement. Our response has included cease-and-desist directives to the Friends of Science from the University's legal counsel. Most recently, following a reference to the University of Calgary in a newsletter from the head of Friends of Science ... … and under caution of legal action, I insisted that the Friends of Science provide the attached letter to clarify its relationship to the University of Calgary." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/2/27/Uni_of_Calgary_email.pdf]

The letter is dated January 23, 2007 and was sent to Roman Cooney and is signed by FoS president Douglas Leahey. The letter states in its entirety: "I wish to confirm that Friends of Science is not and has never been affiliated with the University of Calgary, nor does it receive, or has ever received, funding or support from the University of Calgary." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/8b/Friends_of_Science_letter.pdf]

FoS Board as of May 1st 2007: [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/images/c/ca/FOS_Email_4.pdf]

==External linksArticles and resources==

===ProfilesExternal resources===*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science Friends of Science] in the ''Wikipedia''.

===FoS website past versions===http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://friendsofscience.org* [http://web.archivedeepclimate.org/web2009/2002101608210612/http:02//www.friendsofscience.org/ The initial Friends in-the-beginning-friends-of Science website was launched in October, 2002.] Archive.org, October, 2002.* [http:/-science-talisman-energy-and-the-de-freitas-brothers/web.archive.org/web/20021208180844/www.friendsofscience.org/who_we_are.htm Who We Are (initial listing of In the beginning: Friends of Science Executive Officers , Talisman Energy and Professional contacts)the de Freitas brothers] Archive.org(Deep Climate, October, 2002.December 2009) ===ArticlesExternal articles===