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

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

Five Major Problems in Four Paragraphs, prompting Eight Questions that beg to be Answered

Listen to or read a single version by itself of Ross Gelbspan’s various narratives about what led him to look into the ‘corruption’ of skeptic climate scientists, and it sounds quite compelling. Know some background information on what he’s talking about, and you wonder why he can’t keep his stories straight. Continue reading

The Company You Keep: Greenpeace USA (née Ozone Action) Executive Director Phil Radford; Vapor as Smoke

The about-to-retire Executive Director of Greenpeace USA, Phil Radford, unabashedly points to Ross Gelbspan as “the lone voice, the moral compass, the beacon that has inspired countless people, me included, to demand our country and our future back from the coal and oil interests behind global warming” (full text here). Gelbspan, as I’ve pointed out at this blog and in my prior online articles, has a rough time keeping any of his narratives straight about the ‘coal and oil interests behind global warming’, or more specifically, just how those ‘interests’ directed skeptic climate scientists to lie to the public. Is Radford any better at straight talk and full disclosure on this matter? Hardly. Continue reading

Climate Skeptics’ Corruption Exposed by Gelbspan! (er, Ward) In 1995! (er, 1992) Or Something!

Declarations that skeptic climate scientists knowingly lie about the certainty of man-caused global warming as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry appear devastating…… but dig deep into the details, and all those claims look more like a “Keystone Kops-style” farce. I’ve already covered how the endless repetitions never offer physical evidence proving a quid pro quo arrangement exists between skeptics and industry funders, they only repeat Ross Gelbspan’s 1995 paper-thin guilt-by-association narrative. But now, let’s examine how Gelbspan can’t even keep the story straight on when this so-called “corruption of skeptic scientists” was first revealed. Continue reading