Pay No Attention to those Words Behind the Curtain

The title of today’s blog is a paraphrase of the famous quote out of the 1938 film, The Wizard of Oz. Watch the global warming issue zooming by in a superficial manner and all the horrific claims – increasingly extreme weather events, imperiled polar bear populations, skeptics who are paid to lie about the truth of all of this – sound like they are true. But turn any variety of those claims sideways by examining them carefully, and an edge digs in, and it soon becomes apparent that the number of disingenuous situations in the global warming issue is breathtaking. Today, a wipeout from an older version of Ross Gelbspan’s own website that’ll make anyone cringe. Continue reading

Dr David Legates Guest Post: “A badge I wear with honor”

One more in the series of occasional guest posts written by skeptics of catastrophic man-caused global warming people who encountered character assassination efforts from critics rather than reasonable science-based debate. Today, a brief post by Dr David Legates, current Geography professor at the University of Delaware and its former Director of the Center for Climatic Research, who tells about a 2005 interview situation with a reporter at Science magazine who appeared to be pursuing anti-science answers for an unflattering article about Dr Legates. Continue reading

‘Just mention his name in a casual way’

In my December 31, 2014 post, I hinted at how an utterly casual drop-in of Ross Gelbspan’s central bit of evidence indicting skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption ends up looking like a pre-scripted propaganda tactic. In my just-prior post, I hinted at how fluff pieces which only casually dropped his name and book title arguably take on the same appearance. Today, from my mega-pile of notes on the overall smear of skeptic climate scientists and anybody connected to the effort, a situation involving a seemingly casual mention of Ross Gelbspan instead makes better-informed readers go “hmmmmm.” Continue reading

To be Credible, you must Keep Your Story Straight, Pt 2: “Oreskes’ timeline problem”

I’ll repeat with what I concluded in Part 1, but more succinctly: for an authoritative storyteller to mesmerize an audience, the story must never contain an element where the audience blurts out, “wait a minute, what you just said can’t be right,” otherwise whatever point there was to the story disappears at the exact same moment when the storyteller’s credibility implodes. Now, see how Harvard History of Science professor Naomi Oreskes’ inadvertently elicits that exact response from her audience, via her tale of the events which led her to explore the notion that skeptic climate scientists operate in a manner parallel to what ‘expert shills’ did for the tobacco industry. Continue reading

To be Credible, you must Keep Your Story Straight, Pt 1

My prior blog post detailed a particular set of ‘narrative derailment’ problems surrounding Naomi Oreskes, who was in the news a few weeks ago regarding her consultation with New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman about the “Exxon Knew” story before a climate news outlet broke out the story. That’s a troublesome situation. But her overall situation worsens through an apparent inability to keep her stories straight on what led her to discover skeptic climate scientists were ‘industry-corrupted.’ Today, part 1 on her being attacked by US Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). Continue reading