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
I’ve been privileged to have guest posts by Lord Monckton, Drs Willie Soon and Patrick Michaels and Jonathan DuHamel here at GelbspanFiles regarding character assassination efforts against people who dare to question the certainty of man-caused global warming. Today I link to “The Practice of Personal Attacking Global Warming Skeptics – Rather than Responding to Their Scientific Criticisms”, a guest post at Tony Heller’s blog by Dr William Gray, where Dr Gray offered this bit in a longer story: “Why are the warmers so afraid to have open and honest discussion about the basic nitty-gritty assumptions of their AGW hypothesis? I think it is because they well know (but will not admit) that the science behind the AGW hypothesis is ripe with conceptual errors and, in the long run, be proven to be wrong.” Continue reading at RealClimateScience.com —–>
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
Although I am no more than an ordinary citizen, my email address book reads like a “Who’s Who” list of skeptic scientists and speakers. Among them, I’ve had the privilege to exchange emails with Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Do just a basic internet search for nothing more than his name and you see why he is disgusted by those saying his work is tainted by industry funding. Here, rather than having a written-out guest post, Dr Soon suggested I could place two videos featuring him, followed by a specific comment question he wants to pose to his accusers, along with a statement from a fellow skeptic scientist, Dr Richard Lindzen. He felt this would collectively encapsulate the fatal weakness accusers show when they resort to charter assassination in order to avoid debate on the science of global warming. Continue reading
As I noted at the top of Lord Monckton’s 5/30 piece, it is my goal to have guest posts here about how enviro-activists are enslaved to character assassination as a first-resort tactic for avoiding genuine debate on the science of global warming. Jonathan’s is the second in what I hope will be an ongoing series. I’ve had my own fun with the ‘ignorant’ commenters he speaks briefly about in this guest post. Continue reading
Besides detailing myriad instances of how Ross Gelbspan’s ‘big coal & oil funding’ accusation of skeptic scientists unravels, it is also my goal to have guest blogs here about how enviro-activists are enslaved to character assassination as a first-resort tactic for avoiding genuine debate on the science of global warming. This short excerpt from Lord Monckton’s encounter with an accuser encapsulates the problem (mild profanity warning in the main essay, typifying what’s heard from some global warming promoters):
Why had he been so reluctant to talk about climate science or economics? The answer is that he knew – knew with a dreadful, raging certainty – that he would lose the argument.