Talk:Natural Resources Stewardship Project

I have trimmed a bit of the polemic out and removed some of the duplicated material. As far as possible it is also better to have the detail on individuals on their own page rather than duplicate it on the group's page. I also have corrected the date of the letter to the editor and deleted an unsupported statement re Ball. A little other material re climatologist claim is best dealt with on the page for Ball. --Bob Burton 20:30, 24 October 2006 (EDT)

too much conjecture and leading information in previous description of NRSP

... so I replaced it with the simple facts, free of bias or leading statements. If you disagree with anything I have posted, please let me know where. As the ED of this group, I know more about it that anyone else.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (thermofluids) Executive Director Natural Resources Stewardship Project P.O. Box 23013 Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2

Phone: 613-234-4487 Fax: 613-234-3325

e-mail: tom.harris AT nrsp.com Web: www.nrsp.com

Revert

A small part of some of Tom's latest changes can be incorporated in part but simply deleting links because they aren't 'mainstream' is not the standard we operate by. Given the number of times Tom has sought to rewrite a page on a group he is intimately involved with and failure to stick to basic SW policies and protocols, I'm inclined to protect the page so only sysops can edit it. --Bob Burton 18:50, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Reasons for major edits in this entry

I have made major edits in this entry for the following reasons:

1 - to correct provably false info - giving confirmation contacts to check-out, if desired

2 - to remove reference to most (but not all) of the attacks of a entity that is paid specifically to discredit us.

3 - removed the reference to the Tylee article since they are speaking about a letter to the Prime Minister which was not related to NRSP (the topic of this entry) and was published one half year before we launched.

4 - provided more details in areas where details were lacking.

5 - removed speculation about NRSP

Concerning the last two items, I provide the following two letters to the editor that we sent to the Vancouver Sun folloiwng the piece by Pater O'Neil. Neither of these letters were published or acknowldged in any fashion by the letters editor but it was important they be written for purposes such as this discussion. Here are the two letters:

On 10/16/06 5:23 PM, "Tom Harris" <tom.harris@nrsp.com> wrote:

To the editor (Vancouver Sun):

Concerning the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (see www.nrsp.com), Peter O’Neal wrote that I “said a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him to say whether energy companies are funding his group.”

In fact, I never referenced any category of potential supporters, including “energy companies”, in communications with O’Neil. I also made no reference to “a confidentiality agreement” as no such document exists.

It is normal for non-profit entities like NRSP to protect the privacy of supporters by not publicizing contributions. I explained to O’Neal that an exception to this policy is “NRSP Patrons”, high profile Canadians who, besides contributing generously, allow their support to be highlighted. I told O’Neal our Patrons’ identities, their contribution levels, and included Web links to these Toronto-based philanthropists.

O’Neal e-mailed back, “If I write anything, I will write: "Harris refused to say if oil and gas companies are providing some of the funding for his new group."”

Explaining that this was an unnecessarily leading statement, I suggested a correction. O’Neal did not respond.

When I tried to explain NRSP’s science communications objectives, O’Neil cut me off indicating he wasn’t interested. Contrary to O’Neal’s assertion, www.nrsp.com reveals our real objective is to “inform Canadians about responsible, science-based environmental stewardship.”

Sincerely,

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. Executive Director Natural Resources Stewardship Project P.O. Box 23013 – please let me know if you need a street address. Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2 Phone: 613-234-4487 Fax: 613-234-3325

From: Tim Ball [1] Sent: October 16, 2006 7:41 PM To: sunletters@png.canwest.com"sunletters@png.canwest.com Subject: Re - “Climate-change "skeptics hopeful Harper accepts their view”, Oct 16

To the editor (Vancouver Sun):

Peter O’Neil never spoke with me so, not surprisingly, he made many mistakes:

- I have not “regularly briefed Tory MPs and party members.” The only MP climate briefing I have delivered was in May 2006 and MPs from all parties were invited. My only Alberta MLA briefing was an all-party event also in May. Of the hundreds of presentations I have given over the years, only once did I speak to an all conservative audience.

- Only once, a few years ago in Calgary, did Friends of Science (FOS) sponsor a presentation of mine.

- FOS’ mandate is not as O’Neil describes but is (www.friendsofscience.org), “To encourage … [the] Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol by engaging in a national public debate on the scientific merit of … the Global Warming issue, and to educate the public…

O’Neil’s diatribe is an ad hominem attack against those who disagree with the UN’s view on climate change. The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), the new group I chair, encourages Canadians to ignore political correctness, weigh the facts and make up their own minds about environmental issues.

Timothy F. Ball, PhD Chairman, Natural Resources Stewardship Project

All my edits referred to above seem to have been deleted

I have sent Bob an e-mail requesting guidance on which of my corrections are not welcomed on Sourcewatch. I await his response so as to be able to make important corrections in the future but also to still fall within Sourcewatch guidelines.

Response to Tom

Tom, I have had a look through the page as is and your proposed changes and I will post a note to your own page on SourceWatch protocol when I get a moment.

A few comments and a few questions:

1. I can see no merit in your proposed deletion to a number of references to articles on DeSmogBlog. You have offered no compelling reason for this, beyond complaining about something written on that site which is not even included in the SW page or linked to. (Even if the article about some junior reporter being 'sucker-punched' by you was included as a link, I could still see no reason to delete it - it is clearly the opinion of the author and readers can take it, leave it or comment - as some have).

2. Simarly, you propose deleting the reference to the mention of the Canwest article re funding and confidentiality agreements. I can see no reason to do that. The article is still on the web and, at best, you contest its claims. That is no reason to delete it as you proposed to do.

There are a couple of points where I think the existing article can be tightened up, such as removing a little duplication. And it would be worth adding in the full list of advisers. But I'd prefer not to do that until I have some further information from you.

a) as I have asked on two previous occasions, do you still work in any way for the High Park Group? If so, what is your role?

b) does NRSP get financial support from corporations? If so, what percentage of the budget is that? What is the total budget for the current financial year?

c)You claim that the justification for secrecy about who specifically funds NRSP is to avoid "harassment". Can you point me to any specific example where disclosure has led to what you term "harassment"? And what exactly do you mean by "harassment"?

d) Why should corporate donations be kept secret? After all, don't the funds belong to shareholders and not the executives?

I look forward to your response,

With thanks --Bob Burton 04:31, 20 November 2006 (EST)

will address your points if you can answer this ...

In my e-mail to Mr. Burton I asked him why he allowed so many links from de Smog Blog when they admit to being a project of one of Canada's major PR firms and are paid by clients to take a strong stance in the debate. If Sourcewatch is neutral in the climate change debate and not working with de Smog Blog et al, then one is left to wonder why the prominence is given to that side (8 of the 10 external links listed) and the fact that neither de Smog Blog, the big PR firm running it or their funders are listed as entries on Sourcewatch.

This is an important point that, left unaddress makes one wonder whether you are are indeed actively working with one side in the debate which would render any further discussion pointless of course. --User:Tom Harris, November 20, 2006.

Dear Tom, You complained that "...neither de Smog Blog, the big PR firm running it or their funders are listed as entries on Sourcewatch." You have been perfectly free to create those articles all along, indeed this might have been a better use of your time on SW. To get you started, I have created a stub article on DeSmogBlog, and provided a link to it on the NRSP page. The stub also contains handy links to possible articles on Jim Hoggan and his PR company, which if you click you can create. I would note that at a first glance, Hoggan's outfit seems considerably more open about its corporate funding than yours does. But that's just my opinion. Anyway, I suggest you get writing, and actually contribute something to SW rather than trying to delete information. Regards, --Neoconned 23:44, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Tom, You asked why many of the links to articles on the NRSP profile page are links to DeSmogBlog posts. The answer is pretty simple: a) NRSP is a new organisation, so relatively little has been written about it. Not surprisingly, the links largely reflect that. b) Where conventional articles are published when completed, wiki articles are iterative and evolve from a small start. The NRSP profile is jsut the start. I look forward to your responses. --Bob Burton 04:34, 21 November 2006 (EST)

THIS IS SUCH A MESS, CLEARLY FALSE INFORMATION AND EVEN CONTRADICTING WITH OTHER SOURCEWATCH ENTRIES (AND EVEN WITHIN THIS ENTRY), THAT IT IS NOT EVEN WORTH CORRECTING

SOUREWATCH APPEARS TO BE HIGHLY BIASED IN FAVOUR OF CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM (AND ALLOW COMPLETELY MIXED-UP ENTRIES TO STAND ON THIS AND OTHER PAGES DESCRIBING THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL OPPONENTS) AND SO IT IS SIMPLY NOT WORTH THE TIME TO COMMENT ON FURTHER.

Tom Harris www.nrsp.com

Bali open letter and "heat deniers"

I've added a section on the Bali open letter. I have also removed the "Heat deniers" first section, as there seems to be no relevance to the NRSP.

I am also considering posting my January 2 letter to the National Post, when I first brought the NRSP connection 1to their attention. I could use guidance on that. --Deep Climate 16:00, 5 February 2008 (EST)