In The sad demise of ‘On Line Opinion’ Clive Hamilton writes:

“What readers were not told is that Harris is a paid lobbyist for energy companies, that he has tried to change his Wikipedia entry to conceal the fact that he is or has been employed by the PR company High Park Group, and that at least one other website has pulled his articles because he is a paid political lobbyist.”

The purpose of this post is to explain the editor’s note that I have added to the end of the paragraph which reads:

“Harris contacted us compaining about this paragraph. Our investigations indicate that there is no evidence he has ever been employed as a lobbyist, but that High Park Group does act as a lobbyist from time to time. The claim about a website pulling his articles is false. This blog post explains in more detail.”

Harris contacted us to complain about the paragraph because of its accuracy. I looked at his claims and came to the conclusion they were most likely true. I contacted Hamilton and told him that we would probably be publishing a retraction and asking for his feedback.
Hamilton sent me an email asking what the case was, and I put him directly in touch with Harris. I was copied into their email exchange which you can read below. You can also read my much briefer exchange with Hamilton just above it.
Hamilton thinks that acting on a complaint from an author “confirms how obsessive [I] have become in pursuing the denialist agenda”. In fact, what the exchange indicates is that Hamilton is so reckless with the truth that he is not prepared to even make minor adjustments to correct what he has written. The paragraph could have been fixed from my point of view by noting that Harris worked for a company that did engage in lobbying activities, omitting the claim that he was trying to change his wikipedia entry to “conceal” his employment by High Park, and by removing the totally false allegation that an article had been pulled because of his lobbying activities.
Hamilton and Young Exchange

Graham
This whole exchange only confirms how obsessive you have become in pursuing the denialist agenda, and reinforces everything I said about the sad decline of Online Opinion. Publish what you like. I couldn’t be bothered trying to respond to your hair-splitting. We all know what Tom Harris is and no one is going to be persuaded by any of the denials. It only reminds everyone of Harris’ previous associations with lobbying and PR companies.
Clive
> Clive,
>
>
>
> Let’s get back to basics.
>
>
>
> You stipulate that Tom “is” a paid lobbyist, when there is no evidence
> that he is, although you argue that he “was” in the past.
>
>
>
> Your evidence on this is sparse and depends on an idiosyncratic
> interpretation of “strategic communication and media relations” which
> is not lobbying otherwise every communications professional would need
> to be registered as a lobbyist, and they aren’t. On this definition
> you are a lobbyist.
>
>
>
> He appears to have worked for a company which has lobbied for two
> companies (according to Source Watch). Again, that doesn’t make him
> currently a lobbyist, or a lobbyist in the past. It also notes he
> isn’t registered as one.
>
>
>
> You claim that he has tried to change his Wikipedia entry to “conceal”
> the fact that he worked for High Park. It’s true he tried to change
> his entry, but unclear that this was to “conceal” anything. If his
> work for High Park was being used to obscure his true qualifications
> and role then he might think that is a reasonable thing to do in the interests of clarity.
>
>
>
> You also claim that another site “pulled his articles because he is a
> paid political lobbyist”. The site in question “Technocrat” is a minor
> league player based in California and it didn’t “pull” his article, it
> removed a link to an article by him which still exists on Canada Free Press.
>
>
>
> So, you have made a number of accusations which appear to me to be false:
>
>
>
> 1. Tom is not a lobbyist now, and there is no evidence that he was in
> the
> past
>
> 2. Another website did not “pull” his article.
>
>
>
> Your third contention may or may not be correct because it depends on
> his intention.
>
>
>
> This is all on the way to the totally false suggestion that OLO has
> “failed [our] readers” by “breaking another tenet of journalistic
> ethics”, a tenet which is un-named. Undoubtedly this tenet is un-named
> because it doesn’t exist. The only rule that I can infer might have
> been broken according to you is a duty to transparency, but if this
> duty extended to declaring someone a lobbyist, then it would encompass
> your tagline. Using your definition of a lobbyist, your tagline should
> include the fact that you are a lobbyist for global warming and social
> welfare interests and probably that you were instrumental in setting
> up front groups like the Climate Institute.
>
>
>
> I intend to publish a correction after your comments in your article
> unless you can give me something persuasive as to why I shouldn’t.
>
>
>
> Graham
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chief Editor & Founder
>
> On Line Opinion
>
> www.onlineopinion.com.au
>
> +61 7 3252 1470 W
>
> +61 7 3252 9818 F
>
> +61 4 1110 4801 M
>
>
>
> On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what’s best for
> Australia’s future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded
> from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors.
> Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
> obligations. By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be
> bound by the conditions.
>
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Clive Hamilton [mailto:clive@clivehamilton.net.au]
> Sent: 29 October 2008 21:04
> To: ‘Tom Harris’
> Cc: ‘Graham Young’
> Subject: RE: Tom Harris
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Harris
>
>
>
> It is not I who has trouble with what your former employers wrote
> about
>
> your duties; but what they wrote continues to cause trouble for you. I
>
> cannot myself imagine working for an organisation over an extended
>
> period and allowing it to mislead its customers about my duties and
>
> responsibilities with the company.
>
>
>
> I find it hard to believe that you allowed misleading information to
> be
>
> published, which implies that you did indeed “specialize in strategic
>
> communication and media relations” while employed by both APCO and
> High
>
> Park Group. I think most people would regard it as splitting hairs for
>
> you to claim that you were not a lobbyist while occupying senior
>
> positions in two firms engaged in lobbying, positions requiring you to
>
> advise clients on communications and media relations. I can understand
>
> that the gardener or the receptionist could not be said to be engaged
> in
>
> lobbying but you held positions with the titles “Senior Associate” and
>
> “Director of Operations”.
>
>
>
> It is bizarre that you should continue to try to “correct the record”.
>
> If you want to claim in print that I — along with a dozen others who
>
> have responded to your misleading articles on climate change — have
>
> misrepresented your employment history, I am very willing to present
> the
>
> facts as they are reported and which you have confirmed in your emails
>
> to me.
>
>
>
> Sincerely
>
>
>
> Clive Hamilton
>
>
>
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
>
> From: Tom Harris [mailto:tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2008 1:42 PM
>
> To: clive@clivehamilton.net.au
>
> Cc: ‘Graham Young’
>
> Subject: RE: Tom Harris
>
>
>
>
>
> “Ethics” demands that one ask these questions BEFORE writing in
> public,
>
> Clive, not simply writing them and then trying to fight back the
>
> complaints later – I would have thought you would see the wisdom and
>
> common sense in this, especially as a “Professor of Ethics”.
>
>
>
> There are no veiled threats in my letter. I am sure you know this but
> I
>
> apologize nevertheless if you took my statements as a threat in any way.
>
> I would simply like to convince you to stop publicizing information
> that
>
> I am telling you point blank is untrue so that I do not have to
> consider
>
> what other routes are available to me (such as writing articles
>
> correcting your
>
> attacks) to counter your assertions. I find the tone of your letter
>
> offensive and arrogant – an apology, not further attack, is in order,
>
> while the situation is being clarified.
>
>
>
> To answer your questions:
>
>
>
> The fact that an employer engages in lobbying does not mean all (or
> even
>
> most of) its employees engage in lobbying any more than everyone
>
> employed in a newspaper are journalists. The fact that I was Director
>
> of High Park Group’s Ottawa office (which consisted of me alone
> working
>
> out of my
>
> basement) in no way made me a lobbyist.
>
>
>
> How APCO and High Park Group advertise their employees is up to them.
>
> Suffice it to say that I never was engaged in lobbying and I am not
>
> going to comment on old advertising material from organizations I am
> no
>
> longer associated with and which is only visible on the Web through
> the
>
> use of archiving tools. If you have trouble with what they wrote
> years
>
> ago, in light of what I tell you, I suggest you contact those companies.
>
> I will say that I assisted my supervisors on technical and
>
> communications issues related to files they were handling, some of
> which
>
> may have involved them in lobbying activities but I cannot think of a
>
> single file on which I personally engaged in lobbying, which is not
>
> surprising since I do not know how to lobby, although I can guess how
>
> people would do it. The secretary and other support staff also
> assisted
>
> those in the office who were presumably lobbying – does that make them
>
> lobbyists as well?
>
>
>
> As Graham said, you owe it to the person you are attacking to contact
>
> them before taking the assertions of third parties at face value. You
>
> didn’t do that and went public with your charges, which I think most
>
> people would consider unethical and something you should be ashamed
> of,
>
> especially considering your position.
>
>
>
> And, do stop the miserable “climate change denier” stuff – you know it
>
> is misleading and just an ad hominem attack.
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
>
> From: Clive Hamilton [mailto:clive@clivehamilton.net.au]
>
> Sent: October 28, 2008 9:55 PM
>
> To: Tom Harris
>
> Cc: clive@clivehamilton.net.au; ‘Graham Young’
>
> Subject: RE: Tom Harris
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Harris
>
>
>
> The claim that you have been a lobbyist is based solely on statements
>
> about your activities made by you or your employers.
>
>
>
> APCO, a “public affairs and strategic communications firm”, included
> the
>
> following on its website: “Tom Harris, senior associate in APCO
>
> Worldwide’s Ottawa office, specializes in strategic communication and
>
> media relations and has 25 years experience in science and technology,
>
> specifically in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech
>
> sectors. Mr. Harris has worked with private companies and trade
>
> associations to successfully position these entities and their
> interests
>
> with media and before various government committees and regulatory
>
> bodies.”
>
>
>
> Are you saying a) this did not appear on APCO’s website, or b) it
>
> appeared but is inaccurate, or c) it appeared but does not mean that
> you
>
> specialise in strategic communications and media relations (a good
>
> definition of lobbying)?
>
>
>
> Sourcewatch claims: “Harris was, until approximately late October
> 2006,
>
> listed as a Director of Operations of the Ottawa office of the High
> Park
>
> Group (HPG), a Canadian PR and lobbying firm. His biographical note
>
> states that he “specializes in strategic communication and media
>
> relations and has 28 years experience in science and technology in the
>
> energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. He has worked
>
> with private companies and trade associations to successfully position
>
> these entities and their interests with media and before government
>
> committees and regulatory bodies.”
>
>
>
> This last quote is from the HPG website.
>
>
>
> Are you claiming that a) this never appeared on HPG’s website, or b)
> it
>
> appeared and is inaccurate, or c) it appeared but it does not mean
> that
>
> you specialise in strategic communication and media relations and have
>
> helped position companies with the media and before government
>
> committees?
>
>
>
> Sourcewatch claims: “During the same period, Harris’s byline for a
> June
>
> 5, 2006, The Windsor Star article, a June 8, 2006, Vancouver Sun
>
> article, a June 14, 2006, Hawaii Reporter article, and a June 15,
> 2006,
>
> Canada Free Press article all read “Tom Harris is a mechanical
> engineer
>
> and Ottawa director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public
>
> policy company.”
>
>
>
> Are you claiming that you have never been a director of HPG and have
>
> never described yourself as a director of HPG?
>
>
>
> I am hoping you will spare me the veiled threats and confected outrage
>
> and just respond to my questions simply, directly and honestly.
>
>
>
>
>
> Clive Hamilton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Dear Professor Hamilton,
>
>>
>
>> I have had dealings with SourceWatch in the past and I have found
>> they
>
>
>
>> simply make up material to suit their purposes. I used to try to get
>
>> them to correct the nonsense about me having been a lobbyist but they
>
>> will not and so I gave up trying. Graham is right, you should have
>
>> spoken with me if you wanted to ensure your statements about me are
>
>> correct. Since you did not, but instead staked your reputation on
>
>> someone else with a clear agenda
>
>> being right, you have made a serious mistake, one for which I request
>
> that
>
>> you sincerely apologize and make appropriate public clarification.
>
>>
>
>> As I said to Graham, I don’t care at this point what SourceWatch or
>
>> others with clear bias make up about me, but you, as a Professor of
>
>> Ethics, have an ethical responsibility to stop lies being spread when
>
>> you can, not spread them further. The statement of yours that I am,
>
>> or ever was, a lobbyist, is
>
>> totally false and should be retracted now, please. I am trained (and
>
>> worked
>
>> for most of my career) as a mechanical engineer and, on the only
>
> energy
>
>> file
>
>> I worked on while with High Park Group, I contributed as an engineer
>
> since
>
>> I
>
>> had a knowledge of natural gas pipelines, on which that particular
>
> project
>
>> was based. I did no other energy work with them and certainly no
>
>> lobbying.
>
>> I do not even know how to lobby or how one goes about establishing
>
> oneself
>
>> as a lobbyist and I am not interested in learning. High Park Group
>
> may
>
>> lobby (I don’t know as I worked from my home for them and only once
>
> saw
>
>> the
>
>> inside of their office in Toronto, 400 miles away) but you might be
>
>> interested to hear that I do know that they list wind and solar
>
> companies
>
>> among their clients.
>
>>
>
>> Finally, your assertion “However I would not regard any assertion by
>
>> Harris as evidence in itself.” is illogical. If MY explanation of MY
>
>> background is
>
>> not evidence for MY background, then who’s is?
>
>>
>
>> Please correct this egregious situation and make it so I don’t have
>> to
>
>
>
>> take your smear further. I am not publically promoting falsehoods
>
>> about you even
>
>> though I disagree with your point of view on some issues. Please
>> give
>
> me
>
>> the same basic courtesy. Debate should be about the facts of the
>> case
>
> not
>
>> wrong, ad hominum attacks of the people presenting the case. And,
>
> while
>
>> your about it, please stop using the term climate change denier –
>
> besides
>
>> the fact that we do not deny climate change since we say it happens
>
> all
>
>> the
>
>> time, the denier word has a strong connotation with Holocaust Denial,
>
>> which
>
>> truly is hopelessly misguided and abhorrent. Questioning the causes
>
> of
>
>> climate change is neither but is something good scientists do all the
>
>> time.
>
>>
>
>> Sincerely,
>
>>
>
>> Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mechanical – thermofluids) Ottawa,
>
>> Canada
>
>>
>
>> —–Original Message—–
>
>> From: Graham Young [mailto:graham.young@onlineopinion.com.au]
>
>> Sent: October 28, 2008 7:49 PM
>
>> To: clive@clivehamilton.net.au
>
>> Cc: ‘Tom Harris’
>
>> Subject: RE: Tom Harris
>
>>
>
>> I suggest you talk to Harris yourself rather than relying on
>> secondary
>
>
>
>> sources. Sourcewatch is hardly a reliable source.
>
>>
>
>> He’s copied into this so you can correspond directly, something which
>
>> you should have done in the first place.
>
>>
>
>> Graham
>
>>
>
>> Chief Editor & Founder
>
>> On Line Opinion
>
>> www.onlineopinion.com.au
>
>> +61 7 3252 1470 W
>
>> +61 7 3252 9818 F
>
>> +61 4 1110 4801 M
>
>>
>
>> On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what’s best for
>
>> Australia’s future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded
>
>> from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors.
>
>> Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights
>> and
>
>
>
>> obligations. By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be
>
>> bound by the conditions.
>
>>
>
>> —–Original Message—–
>
>> From: Clive Hamilton [mailto:clive@clivehamilton.net.au]
>
>> Sent: 29 October 2008 09:40
>
>> To: Graham Young
>
>> Subject: Re: Tom Harris
>
>>
>
>> Graham
>
>>
>
>> Thanks for the opportunity to correct the record. However, you
>> provide
>
>
>
>> no evidence indicating that anything I wrote about Harris is
>
>> incorrect. My claims are well-sourced. Apart from the link I gave in
>
>> the article, Harris’s activities are well-documented by Sourcewatch
>
>> here
>
>>
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_%28Canadian_engi
> ne
>
> er/t
>
>> echnology_specialist%29.
>
>>
>
>> The claims by these sources appear to be credible and checkable. If
>
>> you can show that I am wrong I will happily correct the record.
>
>> However I would not regard any assertion by Harris as evidence in
>
>> itself.
>
>>
>
>> Clive
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Clive,
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> In this article
>
>>> < http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580&page=2 >
>>> you
>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> “What readers were not told is that Harris is a paid lobbyist for
>
>>> energy companies, that he has tried to change his Wikipedia entry to
>
>>> conceal the fact that he is or has been employed by the PR company
>
>>> High Park Group, and
>
>>> that at least one other website has pulled his articles because he
>>> is
>
> a
>
>>> paid
>
>>> political lobbyist.”
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> This is incorrect on our investigations. Tom Harris has worked for
>
>>> High Park, but never as a lobbyist. We have been asked to make a
>
>>> correction and we will, but I’m giving you the chance to make the
>
>>> correction yourself.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Graham
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Chief Editor & Founder
>
>>> On Line Opinion
>
>>> www.onlineopinion.com.au
>
>>> +61 7 3252 1470 W
>
>>> +61 7 3252 9818 F
>
>>> +61 4 1110 4801 M
>
>>>
>
>>> On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what’s best for
>
>>> Australia’s future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded
>
>>> from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors.
>
>>> Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights
>
>>> and obligations. By
>
>>> submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
>
>>> conditions.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Clive Hamilton
>
>> PO Box 4404
>
>> Manuka
>
>> ACT 2603
>
>>
>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>
>> signature database 3564 (20081028) __________
>
>>
>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>>
>
>> http://www.eset.com
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>
>> signature database 3564 (20081028) __________
>
>>
>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>>
>
>> http://www.eset.com
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Clive Hamilton
>
> PO Box 4404
>
> Manuka
>
> ACT 2603
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 3565 (20081029) __________
>
>
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
Clive Hamilton
PO Box 4404
Manuka
ACT 2603

Harris and Hamilton
You are not thinking, Clive. Many organizations, in PR, journalism, engineering and other fields have professionals working for them who are not performing the some of the core role done by the organization – take the CFO or other senior positions (and mine was not senior with APCO – I was an associate, as you know, having checked out my details I imagine) who do things other than engage in lobbying, write newspaper articles or make widgets. A PR/Communications firm does many things besides lobby and have many people at all levels who have no involvement at all in lobbying – check out the Web page of APCO for example. It is irresponsible, Clive, for you go public with something you obviously do not understand.
What my former employers wrote about my duties with them has not caused me trouble except from people such as SourceWatch who, had they not discovered what they believe is a nefarious connection (it isn’t), would have simply made one up as DeSmogBlog did when they issued a public statement that I was somehow involved in promoting tobacco in the 90’s. That you accept what groups like this say without question, even going public with their information, and then argue with me when I tell you the correct story shows you are either naïve or simply not interested in the facts and so I won’t waste any further time communicating with you and am now black listing your e-mail address.
Over to you Graham. I have presented the facts of the case and I hope you can either delete Clive’s nasty little piece or post a correction. Clive is either intentionally, or out of ignorance, making public statements about my background that are irresponsible and false. Either of you can contact my past bosses at APCO and HPG and ask them point blank whether I was engaged in lobbying or not – here are their contacts:
My boss at APCO: Evan Zelikovitz: ezelikovitz@apcoworldwide.com
My boss at HPG: Tim Egan: tegan@highparkgroup.com
I am not going to bother them as the question has already been answered, whether you chose to believe me or not.
Graham has pointed out to me in the past that it is really a moot point as to whether a person was a lobbyist or whether they worked for an energy company, unless you, as a Professor of Ethics, believe that such individuals should not have the same right to freedom of speech as you enjoy. I think your attacks, and these ridiculous and offensive e-mails, are simply designed to divert people from thinking about the immense controversy in the science of climate change on their own since, were they to do that they would come to realize the obvious: THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY SETTLED AND IS STILL IMMATURE. SPENDING BILLIONS BASED ON THE OPPOSITE ASSUMPTION IS IRRESPONSIBLE IN THE EXTREME WHEN SO MANY REAL, WELL-UNDERSTOOD PROBLEMS EXIST IN THE WORLD.
Much of what climate activists are saying is juvenile and, sadly, you do it as well in the pieces I see you write about the topic. You need take a year off to actually read something scientific about the topic before you speak in public again, Clive.
Over and out and no longer receiving your e-mails.
Tom Harris
—–Original Message—–
From: Clive Hamilton [mailto:clive@clivehamilton.net.au]
Sent: October 29, 2008 7:04 AM
To: ‘Tom Harris’
Cc: ‘Graham Young’
Subject: RE: Tom Harris
Dear Mr Harris
It is not I who has trouble with what your former employers wrote about your duties; but what they wrote continues to cause trouble for you. I cannot myself imagine working for an organisation over an extended period and allowing it to mislead its customers about my duties and responsibilities with the company.
I find it hard to believe that you allowed misleading information to be published, which implies that you did indeed “specialize in strategic communication and media relations” while employed by both APCO and High Park Group. I think most people would regard it as splitting hairs for you to claim that you were not a lobbyist while occupying senior positions in two firms engaged in lobbying, positions requiring you to advise clients on communications and media relations. I can understand that the gardener or the receptionist could not be said to be engaged in lobbying but you held positions with the titles “Senior Associate” and “Director of Operations”.
It is bizarre that you should continue to try to “correct the record”.
If you want to claim in print that I — along with a dozen others who have responded to your misleading articles on climate change — have misrepresented your employment history, I am very willing to present the facts as they are reported and which you have confirmed in your emails to me.
Sincerely
Clive Hamilton
—–Original Message—–
From: Tom Harris [mailto:tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2008 1:42 PM
To: clive@clivehamilton.net.au
Cc: ‘Graham Young’
Subject: RE: Tom Harris
“Ethics” demands that one ask these questions BEFORE writing in public,
Clive, not simply writing them and then trying to fight back the
complaints later – I would have thought you would see the wisdom and
common sense in this, especially as a “Professor of Ethics”.
There are no veiled threats in my letter. I am sure you know this but I
apologize nevertheless if you took my statements as a threat in any way.
I would simply like to convince you to stop publicizing information that
I am telling you point blank is untrue so that I do not have to consider
what other routes are available to me (such as writing articles
correcting your
attacks) to counter your assertions. I find the tone of your letter
offensive and arrogant – an apology, not further attack, is in order,
while the situation is being clarified.
To answer your questions:
The fact that an employer engages in lobbying does not mean all (or even
most of) its employees engage in lobbying any more than everyone
employed in a newspaper are journalists. The fact that I was Director
of High Park Group’s Ottawa office (which consisted of me alone working
out of my
basement) in no way made me a lobbyist.
How APCO and High Park Group advertise their employees is up to them.
Suffice it to say that I never was engaged in lobbying and I am not
going to comment on old advertising material from organizations I am no
longer associated with and which is only visible on the Web through the
use of archiving tools. If you have trouble with what they wrote years
ago, in light of what I tell you, I suggest you contact those companies.
I will say that I assisted my supervisors on technical and
communications issues related to files they were handling, some of which
may have involved them in lobbying activities but I cannot think of a
single file on which I personally engaged in lobbying, which is not
surprising since I do not know how to lobby, although I can guess how
people would do it. The secretary and other support staff also assisted
those in the office who were presumably lobbying – does that make them
lobbyists as well?
As Graham said, you owe it to the person you are attacking to contact
them before taking the assertions of third parties at face value. You
didn’t do that and went public with your charges, which I think most
people would consider unethical and something you should be ashamed of,
especially considering your position.
And, do stop the miserable “climate change denier” stuff – you know it
is misleading and just an ad hominem attack.
Tom
—–Original Message—–
From: Clive Hamilton [mailto:clive@clivehamilton.net.au]
Sent: October 28, 2008 9:55 PM
To: Tom Harris
Cc: clive@clivehamilton.net.au; ‘Graham Young’
Subject: RE: Tom Harris
Dear Mr Harris
The claim that you have been a lobbyist is based solely on statements
about your activities made by you or your employers.
APCO, a “public affairs and strategic communications firm”, included the
following on its website: “Tom Harris, senior associate in APCO
Worldwide’s Ottawa office, specializes in strategic communication and
media relations and has 25 years experience in science and technology,
specifically in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech
sectors. Mr. Harris has worked with private companies and trade
associations to successfully position these entities and their interests
with media and before various government committees and regulatory
bodies.”
Are you saying a) this did not appear on APCO’s website, or b) it
appeared but is inaccurate, or c) it appeared but does not mean that you
specialise in strategic communications and media relations (a good
definition of lobbying)?
Sourcewatch claims: “Harris was, until approximately late October 2006,
listed as a Director of Operations of the Ottawa office of the High Park
Group (HPG), a Canadian PR and lobbying firm. His biographical note
states that he “specializes in strategic communication and media
relations and has 28 years experience in science and technology in the
energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. He has worked
with private companies and trade associations to successfully position
these entities and their interests with media and before government
committees and regulatory bodies.”
This last quote is from the HPG website.
Are you claiming that a) this never appeared on HPG’s website, or b) it
appeared and is inaccurate, or c) it appeared but it does not mean that
you specialise in strategic communication and media relations and have
helped position companies with the media and before government
committees?
Sourcewatch claims: “During the same period, Harris’s byline for a June
5, 2006, The Windsor Star article, a June 8, 2006, Vancouver Sun
article, a June 14, 2006, Hawaii Reporter article, and a June 15, 2006,
Canada Free Press article all read “Tom Harris is a mechanical engineer
and Ottawa director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public
policy company.”
Are you claiming that you have never been a director of HPG and have
never described yourself as a director of HPG?
I am hoping you will spare me the veiled threats and confected outrage
and just respond to my questions simply, directly and honestly.
Clive Hamilton
> Dear Professor Hamilton,
>
> I have had dealings with SourceWatch in the past and I have found they
> simply make up material to suit their purposes. I used to try to get
> them to correct the nonsense about me having been a lobbyist but they
> will not and so I gave up trying. Graham is right, you should have
> spoken with me if you wanted to ensure your statements about me are
> correct. Since you did not, but instead staked your reputation on
> someone else with a clear agenda
> being right, you have made a serious mistake, one for which I request
that
> you sincerely apologize and make appropriate public clarification.
>
> As I said to Graham, I don’t care at this point what SourceWatch or
> others with clear bias make up about me, but you, as a Professor of
> Ethics, have an ethical responsibility to stop lies being spread when
> you can, not spread them further. The statement of yours that I am,
> or ever was, a lobbyist, is
> totally false and should be retracted now, please. I am trained (and
> worked
> for most of my career) as a mechanical engineer and, on the only
energy
> file
> I worked on while with High Park Group, I contributed as an engineer
since
> I
> had a knowledge of natural gas pipelines, on which that particular
project
> was based. I did no other energy work with them and certainly no
> lobbying.
> I do not even know how to lobby or how one goes about establishing
oneself
> as a lobbyist and I am not interested in learning. High Park Group
may
> lobby (I don’t know as I worked from my home for them and only once
saw
> the
> inside of their office in Toronto, 400 miles away) but you might be
> interested to hear that I do know that they list wind and solar
companies
> among their clients.
>
> Finally, your assertion “However I would not regard any assertion by
> Harris as evidence in itself.” is illogical. If MY explanation of MY
> background is
> not evidence for MY background, then who’s is?
>
> Please correct this egregious situation and make it so I don’t have to
> take your smear further. I am not publically promoting falsehoods
> about you even
> though I disagree with your point of view on some issues. Please give
me
> the same basic courtesy. Debate should be about the facts of the case
not
> wrong, ad hominum attacks of the people presenting the case. And,
while
> your about it, please stop using the term climate change denier –
besides
> the fact that we do not deny climate change since we say it happens
all
> the
> time, the denier word has a strong connotation with Holocaust Denial,
> which
> truly is hopelessly misguided and abhorrent. Questioning the causes
of
> climate change is neither but is something good scientists do all the
> time.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mechanical – thermofluids) Ottawa,
> Canada
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Graham Young [mailto:graham.young@onlineopinion.com.au]
> Sent: October 28, 2008 7:49 PM
> To: clive@clivehamilton.net.au
> Cc: ‘Tom Harris’
> Subject: RE: Tom Harris
>
> I suggest you talk to Harris yourself rather than relying on secondary
> sources. Sourcewatch is hardly a reliable source.
>
> He’s copied into this so you can correspond directly, something which
> you should have done in the first place.
>
> Graham
>
> Chief Editor & Founder
> On Line Opinion
> www.onlineopinion.com.au
> +61 7 3252 1470 W
> +61 7 3252 9818 F
> +61 4 1110 4801 M
>
> On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what’s best for
> Australia’s future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded
> from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors.
> Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights and
> obligations. By submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be
> bound by the conditions.
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Clive Hamilton [mailto:clive@clivehamilton.net.au]
> Sent: 29 October 2008 09:40
> To: Graham Young
> Subject: Re: Tom Harris
>
> Graham
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to correct the record. However, you provide
> no evidence indicating that anything I wrote about Harris is
> incorrect. My claims are well-sourced. Apart from the link I gave in
> the article, Harris’s activities are well-documented by Sourcewatch
> here
>
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_%28Canadian_engine
er/t
> echnology_specialist%29.
>
> The claims by these sources appear to be credible and checkable. If
> you can show that I am wrong I will happily correct the record.
> However I would not regard any assertion by Harris as evidence in
> itself.
>
> Clive
>
>
>
>> Clive,
>>
>>
>>
>> In this article
>> < http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580&page=2 > you
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> “What readers were not told is that Harris is a paid lobbyist for
>> energy companies, that he has tried to change his Wikipedia entry to
>> conceal the fact that he is or has been employed by the PR company
>> High Park Group, and
>> that at least one other website has pulled his articles because he is
a
>> paid
>> political lobbyist.”
>>
>>
>>
>> This is incorrect on our investigations. Tom Harris has worked for
>> High Park, but never as a lobbyist. We have been asked to make a
>> correction and we will, but I’m giving you the chance to make the
>> correction yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Graham
>>
>>
>>
>> Chief Editor & Founder
>> On Line Opinion
>> www.onlineopinion.com.au
>> +61 7 3252 1470 W
>> +61 7 3252 9818 F
>> +61 4 1110 4801 M
>>
>> On Line Opinion publishes informed opinions about what’s best for
>> Australia’s future. Our conditions of publication can be downloaded
>> from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=contributors.
>> Please read these conditions carefully as they create legal rights
>> and obligations. By
>> submitting articles to us, contributors agree to be bound by the
>> conditions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Clive Hamilton
> PO Box 4404
> Manuka
> ACT 2603
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 3564 (20081028) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 3564 (20081028) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
>
Clive Hamilton
PO Box 4404
Manuka
ACT 2603