The first peer-reviewed publication to survey the industry’s messaging specifically” … showcases the worthlessness of “peer review”

[Author’s note: Unlike prior instances where WUWT reproduced some of my blog posts here as guest posts there, this one is the opposite – I submitted it straight to them first, and it now appears there as “Peer Reviewed Science Journal Report: ‘Electric Utility Industry’s Role in Promoting Climate Denial, Doubt, And Delay.’” I reproduce it here from WUWT.]

Enviro-activists who claim human-induced catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is happening, is harmful, and should be stopped, also say evidence to support their claim is found in peer reviewed, recognized science journals. It’s their gold standard for validating the credibility of scholarly papers on the topic. They admonish anyone offering criticism outside this system — if it is not peer reviewed and published in a science journal, it has no credibility and is likely corrupted by dubious outside influences.

They would say that another term for peer reviewers is “fact checkers,” outside experts not associated with the paper’s author(s) who ascertain whether there are errors in the paper prior to publication in a climate science journal, on any area related to the issue. Peer reviewed approval = no errors. Continue reading

“I really wanted in.”

What does it look like if a person says, “I want in to the world of ecological protection”? What does that even mean?

I know of someone who had that exact generic wish. As usual with any problem surrounding anyone involved in the promulgation of the “crooked skeptic climate scientists” accusation …… there’s always more problems. Continue reading

Data showed that the Minneapolis area had warmed 1.0–1.5 degrees in the twentieth century.” Oops.

This is probably something we all can agree on: when a person tells a story or explains a particular situation that he or she is very familiar with, the narrative should always be consistent and never look like it is somebody else’s narrative which the storyteller is now claiming as their own. And no matter what the narrative is, it should answer questions or resolve any ambiguities, period, end of discussion. The narrative is the end-all thing, it should not ever prompt the audience to say, “how do you know this, where did you get that specific claim from?Continue reading

What is old is not new again …

… it’s still old, when it comes to enviro-activists bending themselves into pretzel shapes trying to steer the public away from the idea that a complete science / political debate is needed on the global warming issue before drastic measures could or should not be taken. No doubt these activists anxiously hope they never have to answer for what they’ve done. Continue reading

We’re banning misinformation & conspiracy theories!!” Says a Company Citing Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories

If there is one irrefutable hallmark of the extreme far-left political community in the U.S., it is their seemingly endless propensity to psychologically project their beliefs, attitudes, and actions onto opponents as accusations of what their opponents are. I’ve covered this topic before, and I prominently mentioned the projection angle near at the top of my April 26 dissection of Frontline’s latest “Big Oil” program. At the top of my May 2nd Frontline follow-up post, I further emphasized the irony of wacko Department of Homeland Security “disinformation reduction” efforts coming from people who should really look in the mirror* about where actual disinformation is found. (* thankfully, one DHS person now has more free time to do so)

To illustrate just how insidiously pervasive the idiotic problem of the enviro-left projecting their own disinformation onto others, let’s have a look at one other news item that occurred back in early April, Continue reading

Dr Michael E. Mann & his Errant “reposition global warming as theory” Luntz Memo Oops

Dr Mann placed himself in a world of hurt on February 2 when he rather thoughtlessly hurled a very thinly veiled accusation on Twitter that a sitting U.S. Senator is an outright racist (hat tip to Tony Heller for that situation). Just that blunder alone might be a crippling credibility problem for Dr Mann to explain when he appears as a witness before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform on February 8, if the GOP Committee members are aware of it. But that’s not the only recent declaration that Dr Mann couldn’t prove to be true if his reputation depended on it. He might try deleting his Tweet and hope nobody notices, but his other declaration would require quite a large book burning effort …. of his own 2021 “The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet” book.

Continue reading

Pt. 3: Victory Will Be Achieved when …

… narratives about ‘Big Coal & Oil paying skeptic climate scientist shills to spread disinformation‘ are purged of all distracting details which prompts the public to take their eyes off the basic thrust of the accusation. If enviro-activists want to convince everyone that skeptic scientist villains have zero credibility after being caught working within ‘fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns,’ that’s the ultimate victory they must achieve, because they begin to look like sinister villains themselves if cancerous credibility holes are found in various parts of the accusation. Continue reading

Making Climate Denialism Illegal

Similar to the suggestion at the end of my prior blog post on Psychological Projection, the title of this post is another Texas-sized arrow pointing out where a form of criminal speech may actually be found — but there’s a bit of an ironic twist to this. First, however, let’s see where the wild suggestion to criminalize ‘climate denial’ comes from, and what justification the person has for proposing that. Continue reading

What Naomi Didn’t Say, Sharon & Sheldon Did

There are golden opportunities for GOP congressional representatives or energy company defendant lawyers to hammer ‘expert’ witness testimonies about the validity of the ‘corporate-funded global warming skeptic liars-for-hire’ accusation. I’m not kidding when I say these so-called witnesses are enslaved to only one set of supposedly viable ‘leaked memo evidence’ for their accusation. Continue reading

Naomi “no evidence” Oreskes – careful for what you wish for, Pt 2

Naomi Oreskes’ appearance at a 10/23/19 House hearing on the topic of “the oil industry’s climate denial campaign” wasn’t a one-time event. She reappeared six days later at a Senate “hearing,” where her Prepared Written Testimony contained the identical blunders I detailed in Part 1 of this two-part blog post. Unlike the House hearing, she and the others at this “hearing” offered truly bizarre and comically self-damaging statements without fear of anyone questioning them. Continue reading