Background: The WORTHLESS “reposition global warming as theory” ‘leaked memos’

Al Gore and the people supporting and following him all but plead with the public to have total trust in this: the only opposition to the idea of harmful man-caused global warming is a handful of shill ‘experts’ who receive fossil fuel money in exchange for lies downplaying that harm. The industry corruption accusation sounds plausible enough all by itself, but if anyone innocently asks what evidence exists proving it true, they are often met with sweeping generalized references to reports of ‘Exxon knowing’ about the harm, or to books such as Naomi Oreskes’ “Merchants of Doubt.” But when inquisitive people point out that no such evidence of pay-for-performance arrangements are seen in those writings, Gore & crew might go one step further to say “journalists and academics” show how a deliberate sinister misinformation effort was exposed in leaked memos, where the strategy goal was to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,” which targetedolder less-educated men and young low-income women”. For the benefit of newly arriving readers here, and for those who haven’t yet comprehended just how damaging those worthless memos are to Al Gore and others who push them, allow me to explain: Continue reading

State of Rhode Island v. Chevron et al.

This latest global warming lawsuit has two major problems. First, it’s essentially pure “boilerplate copy ’n paste” from six other current California global warming lawsuits being run by the same Sher Edling law firm. I already covered that problem – their enslavement to Ross Gelbspan’s worthless ‘leaked memos’ accusation about ‘crooked skeptic climate scientists’ – in my dissections of the Santa Cruz City/County / City of Richmond v. Chevron trio, and the San Mateo / Marin Counties / City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron trio. But I found another problem I’d overlooked in those filings. Call it “The Fingerprints of Naomi Oreskes,” a situation which only further opens a window into just how disingenuous the overall “evidence” is that’s used to indict skeptic climate scientists of industry-paid corruption. Continue reading

Inconvenient Opportunity Gone Missing

I attended Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” movie last week (only one other person was in the audience; it’s already gone from that theater), for the express purpose of seeing how he chose to expand on an apparently hugely damaging accusation made within his 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth” movie; specifically that skeptic climate scientists were comparable to shills employed by the tobacco industry to spread lies, as implied from a pair of leaked memos from both industries. How did Gore do on that in his sequel? Continue reading

Repetitive Al Gore

Al Gore’s sequel to his 2006 movie is coming out today, and in his various promotions for it, he repeats basically the same standard message he’s had for years to whoever is listening, such as what we see in this weeks-old video. But one of his repetitions is not merely something he created for this current promotional tour. It is far older than that. Continue reading

When is a “Pulitzer Winner” not a Pulitzer Winner?

The March 26, 2006 ABC News quote I put in the main blog banner illustration above is a case study on how the news media repeats the basic accusation against skeptic climate scientists, and steers us to what is supposed to be devastating reporting by an unimpeachable source:

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan blames a 15-year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries. […] To redefine global warming as theory — not fact — the industry funded research by “friendly” scientists…”

Perish the thought of the news media actually giving skeptics a fair shot at defending their science assessments, such as the way the PBS NewsHour has demonstrably excluded them from its program for 17+ years. Otherwise viewers might perceive a significant flaw with the “misinformation” accusation. But since we are talking about journalists who must aspire to do reporting worthy of a Pulitzer Prize, we have to wonder how they let Gelbspan’s “Pulitzer winner” label go unquestioned. Surely, if an ex-editor/reporter gains fame as a Pulitzer winner, we have a giant problem if he never won a Pulitzer, don’t we? Continue reading

Tried to Directly Ask Al Gore a Question about Gelbspan today

Straight from an email I received from Al Gore (Steve Milloy’s reproduced an identical one to him): I’m pleased to invite you to join me for an interactive Google Hangout with my good friend Jeff Skoll tomorrow, June 11, at 2pm EDT …. Most importantly, I want to invite you to participate in shaping the conversation by submitting your questions and watching the Hangout here.  Well, I gave it a shot. Continue reading