Welcome!

Featured

Skeptic climate scientists and their associated organizations are accused of receiving fossil fuel industry money in exchange for lying about the issue, in a manner supposedly no different than “big tobacco’s expert shills” who lied to the public about the risks of smoking. But is there any truth to the accusation? Continue reading

James Hoggan’s Monster Error of Assumption

Climate Cover-Up” book author James Hoggan offers a bold pair of statements on pages 164 and 230, “If someone tells you to be skeptical, be skeptical of them. For that matter, be skeptical of me,” and “… survey a variety of sources just to help confirm – or challenge – what you have read in this book. I am confident that it will stand up to scrutiny…” However, such bravado is odd, Continue reading

Does the Disappearance of Phil Radford’s, John Passacantando’s and Kert Davies’ Facebook Friends Mean Anything?

Just askin’. Key points to remember: global warming alarmists always spiral back to a single bit of evidence to support their notion that skeptic climate scientists are ‘paid industry shills’, namely the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” phrase that garnered Ross Gelbspan a second career (a phrase he never established to be a top-down industry directive), and that phrase was ‘obtained by Ozone Action and by Ross Gelbspan’ – Ozone Action being manned back then by the two most recently departed executive directors of Greenpeace USA, Radford and Passacantando, and by Greenpeace’s recently departed head of its ExxonSecrets wing, Davies. Continue reading

Why are non-tobacco documents in The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library?

Just askin’. But perhaps part of the answer is found in the critical necessity of the man-caused global warming issue to say a parallel exists between the paid tobacco industry expert shills who said there was no cigarette smoking / lung cancer tie, and alleged ‘industry-paid shill scientists’ who supposedly lie about the harm of man-caused global warming. Imagine what happens if the larger public has no faith that any such parallel exists. Continue reading

My Funding Update… but what happens if Billionaire Tom Steyer Tops It??

First and foremost, I’m a full disclosure guy, and since my blog here concentrates on how everything surrounding the faulty notion that illicit funding ‘corrupts’ skeptic climate scientists, I’m compelled to mention the recent change to my own funding. However, this is also a can’t-miss opportunity to put that entire enviro-activist notion to the ultimate test, with an outright challenge to billionaire Tom Steyer to consider a far more chancy gamble than the $100 million he’s pledged toward Senate and gubernatorial races that “attack climate-change deniers” – a gamble that either makes or totally busts the two decade-old accusation that skeptics are paid to lie and spread misinformation. Continue reading

How to (not exactly) Speak at ICCC9

For those of you who are first-time readers of my blog here as a result of somehow seeing my presentation at the ICCC9 Climate Change Conference, either in person, or by viewing the video (my part begins at the 19:10 point* see below for different YouTube link), or simply meeting me there, welcome! I’m glad you are here. As anyone can see just a short time into my talk, I’m not a trained speaker. However……. Continue reading

Skeptic Climate Scientists Do Not Deserve Fair Media Balance.’ Spread This Line Widely; NEVER Check its Veracity and Don’t Examine its History.

When a topic is soundly settled, it is egregiously stupid to consider long-debunked counterclaims, and Ross Gelbspan was among the first to see the stupidity of anyone doing exactly that in discussions about global warming.’ This would be a devastating statement if either of the two premises within it were demonstratively true. So, why would anyone make such a statement if either premise cannot stand on its merits? Continue reading

Who put the “ICE” and its “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)” phrase in Wikipedia?

As ever, the fatal problem with enviro-activists’ enslavement to the “reposition global warming as theory” phrase as proof that skeptics are paid illicit money to lie about certainty of global warming is that there is no evidence of it being a top-down fossil fuel industry directive of any kind. Nevertheless, it has been in place at one of the top-most viewed web sites in the world, put there in a questionable way begging for harder scrutiny. Continue reading

Small News Update

For those who might have bookmarked this blog but otherwise don’t follow my news at my Twitter pages or my Facebook page, I have been invited to participate as a panel speaker at the upcoming July 7-9 Ninth International Conference on Climate Change.  I’ve also wrapped up a written piece relating to my work on the basic history of the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation, I’ll place a link to it in my Archive section when it becomes available. Now, just past the one-year anniversary of this blog, I can get back to concentrating on placing more posts here. Entertaining what can be found, when a person goes digging.

What is Ross Gelbspan’s Raison d’être?

Quite unlikely that I have readers in Rio Linda and Port St Lucie, but in case I do, “raison d’être” means “the most important reason or purpose for someone’s existence.” Speaking personally, my concern is not about what motivates Gelbspan to do what he does, I focus on what he has said and compare it to material which contradicts him, with the basic objective being to ask why these contradictions exist. But it is fair to ask if I’ve encountered narratives where he appears to offer base-level reasons for the actions he has taken. Continue reading

Wait. She said What? (Gelbspan may have dug his hole deeper)

It’s bad enough that Columbia Journalism Review article writer Robert S. Eshelman made the mistake of labeling Ross Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner (which the CJR later deleted initially without explanation) in his May 1, 2014 piece, but when Eshelman dutifully recited an oft-repeated narrative of how Gelbspan dived into an investigation of ‘corrupt funding of skeptic climate scientists’ – the narrative itself being one plagued with highly questionable contradictions – he basically handed Gelbspan a shovel to dig a deeper credibility hole. Continue reading