First, a brief word on my Dec19th post – no appearance yet of the actual lawsuit document for Casquejo v. Shell filed in the UK; stay tuned here to find out whether it regurgitates/plagiarizes U.S. “ExxonKnew” lawsuits content or if it blazes its own new ‘global warming damages’ path. Meanwhile, let’s examine another angle of the incessant psychological projection problem besieging proponents of ClimaChange™. Hat tip to my Facebook climate issue Friend Kurt Womack (a common citizen who I saw years ago fearlessly setting one wayward other common citizen straight on a particular angle of the climate issue). Kurt alerted me to this amazing example he spotted at the Heartland Institute’s “The Climate Realism Community” Facebook group discussion area, where the wayward enviro-commenter there inadvertently pointed out how fundamentally disingenuous the collective climate issue can be at several levels. My blog post title substitutes one word in the title for the load that the wayward enviro-poster dumped on Dec 29th into Heartland’s discussion thread, screencapture for posterity below in case the guy deletes it. From that starting point, let’s then see where it all falls apart at a minimum of three different levels.

Any astute, critical thinker on our side of the issue can see the multiple faceplants there, many commenters pointed that out within the 360+ replies to the original wayward poster. My FB Friend Kurt did so himself way deep into the comments by pointing the guy to my blog. Rather than personally dispute anything I say, it looks like the wayward poster guy embarrassed himself in his ‘rebuttal’ to Kurt by dumping just the link to my blog into some “A.I.” sub-intelligent program, which then spit out spectacularly wrong assessments:

• I never said “there was no fossil‑fuel–funded climate denial campaign”, I point out that the one actual PR campaign never operated under the “Western Fuels memo directive” which the promulgators of that false accusation say it did.
• I never said “Journalists invented the story of organized denial.” I can’t even guess where that implication comes from. But no such ‘independent investigations, court filings, archival releases confirm‘ any industry disinfo campaign ever declared “victory will be achieved if we can reposition global warming as theory.” Quite the contrary, the court filings in particular (none of which have entered the courtroom yet and thus have proven nothing) blindly regurgitate the same accusation elements without ever fact-checking them. It is those highly suspect repetitions of the baseless accusations that may torpedo the entire climate lawfare effort, which in turn may imperil the entire climate issue.
• I never said “Climate scientists fabricated the idea of industry influence,” can’t guess where that comes from, either. Climate scientist Dr Michael Mann, however, did indeed fabricate the idea of political pollster influence.
• at least his rebuttal item 4 initially starts out right, but I don’t insinuate conspiracies. I detail the irrefutably true efforts that used utterly out-of-context never-implemented (never implemented!) industry memos to impugn the credibility of skeptic climate scientists.
• I never said “There’s no coordinated messaging in denial circles,” meaning the skeptic side of the issue which clearly does not deny climate change. But he does technically have that right in the 180° other direction concerning the only actual deniers in the climate issue, those demanding an unchanging climate set permanently at a level arbitrarily chosen from 150 years ago. It’s their same talking points appear appear across the board, including his very own 6-point initial “Why climate disinformation is so persistent” post topic – hold that sheer irony thought for a few moments ….
• I never said “Pointing out industry influence is a smear.” Again, that’s happening 180° in the other direction, with a core clique of enviro-activists influencing journalists, policymakers, and the general public into thinking worthless ‘industry memos’ is evidence proving skeptic climate scientists were paid industry money to deceive everyone. The smear is saying that happened when it demonstratively never did.

When a person like that relies on A. [sub-] I. to do his thinking for him, the person drives straight into a self-created brick wall.

Meanwhile, when I first read the original 6 points from this enviro-poster guy at Heartland’s FB page discussion, I immediately saw how I’d covered his errors in each of the 6 points already, in one area or another at my GelbspanFiles blog:

• his “movement shifts narratives constantly” talking point traces right back to Ross Gelbspan circa 2000 … and as I pointed out in 2014, Gelbspan’s talking points were a fabrication. Those talking points now are every bit as lame as they were two decades ago.
• his “bankroll the content” is provably false, and is the main talking point used in the smear of skeptic climate scientist Dr Willie Soon – for 15+ years now.
• his point #3 is inexplicable – he’s pointing out the exact tactics his own side uses. Why this point is framed as an accusation of what our side supposedly does makes no sense. Witness Al Gore’s attack of Dr S Fred Singer at the outset back in 1994. Dr Michael Mann has portrayed himself as a victim from Day 1.
• true, it’s never been about science — it’s about protecting enviro-activists’ economic interests. The ex-head of Greenpeace USA would never have gotten as far as he has in wealth, nor would his longtime administrative subordinate have ever even been able to get a job in the smear business, if the whole climate issue had collapsed in the 1990s.
• yes, “for many enviro-activists, rejecting climate science assessments from skeptic scientists is tied to defending a carbon‑absent lifestyle.
• the ‘over three decades of misinformation’ has indeed exploited distrust – of skeptic climate scientists. True, the false narrative about “crooked skeptic climate scientists” spread faster than the truth and eroded public trust in them. Who brought that about? Al Gore/Ross Gelbspan / Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action / Naomi Oreskes / supposedly ‘objective’ news reporters.

So, all of that is the first level where this FB discussion poster guy’s whole narrative implodes. But his problems don’t end there by any means. The disingenuous manner that he posted it is the second level where this falls apart.

It would be understandable if readers simply assumed this individual wrote all of those 6 discussion points on his own. My Facebook Friend (who I identify because I have his permission to do so), has encountered this sort of thing quite a bit lately on Facebook, and he smelled a rat here. I myself would not likely be in any trouble here identifying this ‘rat’ FB discussion poster via his FB account because …. he does not appear to be a real person. There’s literally nothing in his account. No posts, no header photo, nothing remotely being what a real person uses Facebook for. It’s a completely empty shell of an account.

What’s one more indicator that this is a fake account and/or is a person tasked with pretending to be real? The 6 point discussion topic was not written by this person. It is word-for-word identical to this same-day Dec 29th comment posted over at the CO2Coalition’s Facebook account, placed there by the “Disinfo Busters – Climate Edition” Facebook account.

The poster initiating the ‘disinformation’ discussion at Heartland’s Facebook page could have more honestly said, “here’s a link to analysis of industry-led disinformation from the “Disinfo Busters” Facebook account.”

Did the “Disinfo Busters” people have the smarts to come up with this entirely on their own, however?

No. Apparently not at all. The indicator for their own appearance of disingenuousness is seen at their own Facebook account post – again on Dec 29th – for this 6-point. There, they note at the end that their material supposedly comes from this American Sociological Association (ASA) “The Structure and Culture of Climate Change Denial” article.

If readers unfamiliar with the ASA organization followed the link to that article page and then thought it was a current December 2025 piece because the “Current Issue” words were blue-highlighted, that’s a mistake. The article actually dates from their Summer 2021 magazine issue, and the blue-highlighted rectangle merely means the page a reader is ‘currently’ viewing. When “Disinfo Busters” doesn’t say outright they’ve summarized 4½-old material, it could be argued that this is a form of deception.

The article itself is the disingenuous third level where the ‘industry-orchestrated disinformation’ narrative crumbles to dust.

It’s simply the long version of the above 6-point summary, and it would be redundant for me to rebut its points. What I’ll do is point to the article’s faulty sources:

• the first two clickable links in it are for the work of sociologists Riley Dunlap and Robert Brulle. Over a decade ago, I described them and others in their field as ‘scholars’ who – when they weren’t embarrassingly engaging in circular citations citing each other’s lengthy papers as sources for the accusation about ‘industry-led disinfo campaigns’ – were relying on Ross Gelbspan for some form or other of his meritless accusations. No disputing Brulle did exactly that. These sociologists’ dozens of collective papers could be boiled down to just two talking points, of which they have no science authority or investigative evidence expertise to confirm: “the science is settled (by IPCC climate assessments / a ‘scientific consensus), thus no need to examine material from skeptic scientists who are on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry.”
• the article’s next clickable link goes to …….. wait for it …… Naomi Oreskes. That Oreskes, whose second career starting around 2007-’08 was built on false disinformation about ‘industry-led PR campaigns’ being proven by the existence of specific meritless, never-implemented industry memos. She’s been enslaved to that ever since, including in her Friends of the Court briefs. Where – I’ll add – there is a direct association with Robert Brulle.
• the article’s next clickable link goes to a paper by Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright. That sociologists duo.
• the next clickable link is for sociologist Justin Farrell’s paper. Another sociologist who …. embarrassingly cites other sociologists’ lengthy papers, along with citing Naomi Oreskes. He also has a direct association with Oreskes’ Friends of the Court briefs.

One final thing here: who is the author of this article? He’s a Climate Social Science Network (CSSN) ‘scholar’ whose work includes “studies of organized climate change denial.” His PhD thesis cites Naomi Oreskes 10 times, including one outright false claim coming from her. Who is CSSN? They give grants to ‘scholars’ like the above article author while supplying disinformation to journalists. Who’s their two top leaders? One is Timmons Roberts – who I detailed in my April 2020 blog post as being outright enslaved to Kert Davies’ (that Kert Davies) disinformation about industry disinfo campaigns. Who’s the other leader of CSSN? Wait for it ……. Robert Brulle.

The problem there is almost painful to look at; a whole range of people using outright disinformation to tell the world the fossil fuel industry engaged in ‘disinformation campaigns.’

Funny thing how the meteorology guest who I featured in my 12/30/25 post was moaning about the Trump Administrations dismantling of a science agency, saying it was ‘an attack on science and academia’ – if there is one particular angle of academia that needs to be defunded and dismantled and have its members go out and get real jobs, it’s the realm of environmental sociologists.

If there is one particular angle we should never overlook when it comes to rhetoric from the political liberal Left – either in the climate issue or elsewhere – it’s their incredible degree of psychological projection. Call this out at every available opportunity by shaming them with it, and they might begin to self-censor their utterly embarrassingly irrational assertions – to everyone’s benefit, including their own.