In my 6/6/14 blog post, I briefly mentioned that I had just “wrapped up a written piece relating to my work on the basic history of the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation.” It is now at this link, with my setup about it appearing there and a PDF link which will take you to the 17 page policy brief. [12/24/23 author’s note: The web link to the PDF file has subsequently gone inoperative nearly a decade later, but it is archived here. ]

Considering I’m now ‘on the radar’ of folks on the Al Gore side of the global warming issue, having earned a Desmogblog profile, maybe those folks will add this policy brief to that page, but more likely nobody on that side will want to mention it. In case they do, I can predict in advance that they will dismiss it unthinkingly as propaganda generated by the Heartland Institute. I can say right now, this is how such an assertion implodes:  Heartland did not have any hand in the creation of the content of my policy brief. I wrote nearly all of it almost four years ago, as a secondary version of a paper I wrote for the Science & Public Policy Institute, which also had absolutely no direction in the content of that paper. Naturally, my new policy brief has updated information, and I am grateful for the meticulous editing by Heartland’s Sam Karnick, as I tend to be a guy who writes sometimes in too much of a “throw the cow over the fence some hay” vernacular.

So, if any of you happen to see criticism of my policy brief as being material generated from a right-wing, politically driven, illicitly-funded think tank, then you have all the ammunition you need to shoot down that kind of unsupportable blather. Critics literally cannot point to evidence of my political leanings, not a dime of money from anyone had any influence on either of my two papers, and nobody told me what to write. Strip away all such superficial attempts to get readers to ignore my central material and all you have left is whether my material stands on its own merits. I have yet to see any critic actually make the proverbial “college try” to dispute my points about the baselessness of the smear of skeptic climate scientists or my points on where the smear originated.

Strip away all superficial smear attempts designed to get the general public to ignore skeptic climate scientists’ central science-based, peer-reviewed climate assessments and all you have left is material that enviro-activists, far-left liberals, and the mainstream media do not want the public to see. Does anyone not yet comprehend the giant problem there?