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

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels Guest Comments on his 1995 Encounter with Ross Gelbspan: “An Amusing Scene

I’ve already detailed critical problems with Gelbspan’s narratives about his ‘discovery of skeptic corruption odyssey’ in my January 22, 2014 and May 9, 2014 blog posts, regarding the way he supposedly found out that skeptic climate scientists were ‘paid industry money to lie’, and regarding the questionably short time frame in which this took place. In a nutshell, his narratives about the situation surrounding his attendance at the 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities hearings where skeptic scientists testified are crippled with unexplained contradictions. Now, in a pair of guest comments intended for GelbspanFiles.com courtesy of Dr Michaels’ recollection of his encounter with Gelbspan at those hearings, we have a new major problem. Continue reading

What Dr S. Fred Singer said about Ross Gelbspan, circa 1997

Ever since Gelbspan’s “The Heat is On” book came out in 1997, he’s been lauded as a ‘journalist exposing the corruption of skeptic climate scientists’ in one form or another. But there’s a problem with that ‘journalist’ label itself, and there’s a bigger problem concerning the contradiction of what professional journalists should do, compared with what Gelbspan failed to do, a detail pointed out by atmospheric physicist Dr Singer back in 1997. Continue reading

Gelbspan’s Undisclosed Article Rewrite, and the Irony Therein

Back in my August 16 and November 18, 2013 blog posts, I described the manner in which elements of Ross Gelbspan’s 2010 article narratives about Dr Paul Epstein and a CNN editor did not line up right. On December 4, 2013 I had to write a blog post about how the Epstein / CNN references in his piece – a piece which had been otherwise basically unaltered since May of 2010 -  disappeared along with other material. All I could do at the time was speculate whether someone purposely deleted the material, or if it was just really clumsy handling of web content by him or an associate. Well, it’s most likely the latter now, but his latest rework of that piece only presents a new situation where he further undermines his own credibility. Continue reading

The Pile of Contradictions

Despite the mainstream media portraying the global warming issue as a settled science problem caused by human activity, the issue is essentially besieged with contradictions showing it to be anything but settled. The unexplained disappearance of the global cooling craze of the ’70s; the Arctic predicted to be ice-free, then utterly failing failing to do so; a blanket of CO2 holding all the heat in which apparently is not doing any such thing lately; global warming creates bigger and smaller lobsters at the same time; on and on. But that’s just the science end of the issue, which I leave to the skeptic climate scientists to point out. Since I’ve become something of an expert on how the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic scientists’ accusation falls apart, I figured it might be time to compile the contradictions found within that accusation in one spot using can’t-miss photo links. Keep an eye on this blog post, I’ll be periodically adding to the list. Continue reading

There’s always more – the Schneider/Hertsgaard error

Around halfway down the page at my previous blog post, I briefly noted that the late IPCC scientist Dr Stephen Schneider seemed to make an error about the Global Climate Coalition’s efforts to “reposition the debate onto the issue of uncertainty.” Much like any other examination into facets of the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid fossil fuel industry shills, a look into this error only reveals more problems with the basic overall accusation and the people who push the accusation. Continue reading

Naomi Oreskes’ Problems, pt 2

A brief set of questions and answers illustrates how any sort of examination of the ‘skeptic climate scientists are industry-corrupted’ accusation doesn’t reveal a nice, tidy, open-and-shut case against such skeptics, all that’s seen is something begging for a deeper investigation of why the accusation exists at all. Continue reading

Naomi Oreskes’ Problems, pt 1

Naomi Oreskes seems to be enjoying a bit of new publicity* as the result of the “Merchants of Doubt” movie premiere (*where some review outlets allow critical comments while others do not), which is based on the 2010 book she co-authored with Erik Conway. But let’s get one thing straight, Oreskes is little more than yet another “cog in the wheel” when it comes to accusing skeptic climate scientists of being paid shills of the fossil fuel industry, enslaved just like all the other cogs to the same single source for the accusation, Ross Gelbspan. In this Part 1 blog post, I’ll re-emphasize this enslavement, and explain the necessity for subsequent posts about Oreskes at the end. Continue reading

Personal item update

Back in mid-August, I was thinking I could get in at least two if not three more blog posts here. But, a family matter interrupted that, and some residual distractions resulting from it may briefly slow me down occasionally. For those who check into this blog periodically to see what’s new, rest assured, I most certainly have not run out of material. For any pro-global warming people who might happen to be following this blog, rest assured, the audio/visual analogy of my work that I offered in my January 28 post will not be something you can purge from your minds anytime soon.