Skeptic climate scientists and their associated organizations are accused of receiving fossil fuel industry money in exchange for lying about the issue. But is there any truth to the accusation? Continue reading
If the public saw scientists from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) engaged in heated debate with skeptic climate scientists, it would be deadly to the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming. They’d shrug their shoulders at complicated science terms, dismissing both sides with, “come back and tell us what you know when you really know what you’re talking about.” Do ordinary environmentalists with no climate science expertise kill that situation with carefully memorized citations of superior IPCC arguments? No, they say there are multi-thousands of scientists comprising a scientific consensus against a handful of skeptics who are ‘paid industry money to manufacture doubt’. But how exactly do you get that idea out to everybody? Continue reading
Click the image below, and notice what kind of response the comment is to what I said right below it:
In a curiosity venture to see if the Union of Concerned Scientists regurgitation of the “reposition global warming” accusation narrative was getting any media traction, I instead stumbled across an unexpected example of outright either deliberate misinformation, or one of otherwise incompetent reporting from someone who is supposed to be an authority on the topic of ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’. Continue reading
You could hardly ask for a better example of psychological projection than believers of man-caused global warming claiming their critics spread misinformation. I give you examples of the exact opposite, all of which point squarely to the core piece of misinformation at the political heart of the issue. Continue reading
Mention the existence of skeptic climate scientists to any enviro-activist, and they dismiss anything those scientists say out-of-hand as an industry-corrupted conflict of interest. After all, hardcore believers in man-caused global warming have stacks of sources saying such skeptics are industry shills (clueless to how they only actually have one highly suspect source) But are enviro-activist groups shills of government regulators and/or government office-holders, or vice versa?
The Energy and Environment Legal Institute’s Chis Horner pointed to just such a situation yesterday in his WUWT guest post, complete with screencaptures of emails between an EPA official and the Sierra Club (shorter summary here). It is a situation apparently encompassing a government agency proceeding on Sierra Club approval in a manner neither organization is proud enough to share with the public. But I exposed a situation a bit rougher, in which an environmental organization was apparently working with a White House official to quash favorable opinion of skeptic scientists across the board. Continue reading
While attending the 10th International Conference on Climate Change in Washington D.C. late last week, Dr S. Fred Singer asked me to send him material he could forward to New York Times reporter Justin Gillis, in response to Gillis contacting him about an article he was writing on Naomi Oreskes, ‘star’ of the “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie. Dr Singer was not only aware of my recent prominent review of the movie, I was one of the names seen in the leaked October 2014 email chain in which Dr Singer pondered suing Oreskes. Dr Singer values my work work because I do what reporters such as Justin Gillis do not do. Continue reading
What’s old is not new again, it is still old and literally unsupportable. Continue reading
Loyal readers here might have noticed some drop-off of material here in the last couple of months, as I’ve otherwise tried to put in 3 or 4 blog posts per month over the last year. That stems largely from a hobby pursuit of my which ate up a good chunk of April, and I’ve been having some fun just recently outside of my standard examination of the history of the smear of skeptics. Please see “Climate Change Free Speech Prohibited at DailyKos“, “Merchants of Doubt: A Climate Change Dud”, and my additional review of Oreskes’ film at the Internet Movie Database site. Plus, some amount of my time goes toward dropping into hard-core global warming believers’ sites, ultimately to live rent-free in those bloggers (plural, I should note) / commenters’ minds. So much to do, so little time to get everything done.
Rest assured, my dissection of the events and people involved in the smear of skeptics goes on. Stay tuned, my long-held educated guess that Ross Gelbspan did no ‘investigative journalism’ research into his claims that Western Fuels was out to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” is now something I can say (via interview results conducted by a renowned politics researcher), with absolute certainty. The most basic of interviewing of key people surrounding the leaked memo page containing that infamous phrase would have told Gelbspan it was never part of the public relations campaign he claims it was.
Global warming believers across the board trust that the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation has evidence to back it up, trusting in the notion that their leaders speak with authority about it being exposed by a ‘Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist.’ I’ve already shown the backpedaling surrounding Ross Gelbspan’s ‘Pulitzer winner’ label. I just wonder now what kind of spin will be applied to his ‘investigative journalist’ label.
If folks are attaching those kinds of labels to me, it means they probably interpret what little they read of my work on dissecting the smear of skeptics as something to shout down, the ol’ fingers in ears “la-la-la-la…” bit.