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
Continuing a new feature at GelbspanFiles: Blog posts occupying small spaces like this one will be teases about the upcoming full content. Regarding my Green Corps series, part 3 is about 3/4 finished, but the delay last week and this week is largely due to the ‘deleted EPA Gold King Mine Release Incident photos’ situation that I can contribute to that larger story. Paul Driessen’s WUWT guest post mentions my material in his intro, as well as Michael Patrick Leahy’s Breitbart article, about halfway into it. My familiarity with this mining area comes from it being basically in my ‘vacation back yard’ every summer.
[8/27 Update] The pair of EPA photos below that I screencaptured on 8/12/15 (along with the three above and many others) which subsequently vanished from their site on 8/16 have now reappeared in EPA’s redacted documents release today, starting at page 5 of EPA’s “Draft Technical Memorandum [Weston Solutions to EPA]” PDF file, with the particular pair here seen on pg 25 (click to enlarge).
In my blog post last week, I used a bit of likely inadvertent misinformation from a National Journal article on outgoing Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford as an item to segue into an examination of how the Green Corps organization seems to place Ross Gelbspan in high regard despite easily found problems with his narratives about ‘industry-corrupted’ skeptic climate scientists. Now, let’s re-examine that same two-sentence bit from the NJ article to illustrate how just the most basic of looks into any aspect of the corrupt skeptics accusation runs headlong into inconsistent details. Continue reading
I swear, I can’t make this stuff up. [8/10/15 Update at bottom] 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