The Connolley Problem, pt 6: Lahsen’s Spice Girls

Posted on by

Even though this series of blog posts concerns a prominent complaint filed in 2007 against the UK Channel Four Television Corporation video “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” my objective is to show how a thorough analysis of any given accusation about skeptic climate scientists being ‘paid industry money to lie’ shatters the accusation to bits no matter where the hammer strikes. Meaning, current efforts to use racketeering laws as a means to prosecute “climate change deniers.”

Today, an examination of a single-sentence claim within the complaint about fabricated names in the Oregon Petition Project (a claim widely repeated to this day, including a minor ‘supporting actor role’ in Naomi Oreskes’ documentary movie). The sentence should be devastating proof of how the petition is discredited …… Continue reading →

The Connolley Problem, pt 5: The Redundant Gelbspan/Lancaster Reference

Posted on by

Citing irrelevant material as a means to question the credibility of an global warming expert’s science viewpoints is fundamentally unwise, particularly when the individual making the citation commits an inexcusable error in the process. But the credibility problem worsens when that person takes on the appearance of trying to inflate the number of sources for the irrelevant material, with a pair of ‘corroborations’ where one of them only cites the identical original source while the other only opens up a Pandora’s Box about the entire situation surrounding the – let me emphasize – irrelevant material. Continue reading →

The Connolley Problem, pt 4: The Wunsch/RealClimate Thing

Posted on by

If there is one overriding trait among believers of catastrophic man-caused global warming, it is how their narratives to keep the issue alive depend on the public accepting everything surrounding their assertions without question. The science is settled, no need to listen to skeptic scientists because those scientists are corrupt industry shills. Problem is, when these narratives are examined in fine detail, they unravel. In this “Connolley Problem” series of posts, I’ve already pointed out suspect detail omissions (parts 1 and 2) and the suspect time span (part 3), of a supposed concerned citizen’s official complaint over a 2007 UK global warming video featuring skeptic climate scientists. Today, one more post about the suspect appearance surrounding this concerned citizen’s email to a person appearing in the video – and its tie-in to William Connolley. Continue reading →

The Connolley Problem, pt 2: Connolley who?

Posted on by

In part 1 of this series, I pointed out how self-described ‘concerned citizen‘ Dave Rado left out a fairly important detail in telling the story of his consultation with William Connolley about filing an complaint concerning alleged bias in the 2007 UK Channel Four Television Corporation video “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Rest assured, Rado’s enslavement to Ross Gelbspan’s ‘industry-funded skeptic climate scientists’ accusation will come up in a later post, but today’s post is a necessary setup for it. Continue reading →

The Connolley Problem, pt 1: Call in the Cavalry

Posted on by

Back in the early spring of 2007, believers of catastrophic man-caused global warming were no doubt quite happy with Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” movie, Ross Gelbspan’s books, prominent pro-global warming blogs, mainstream media outlets, and others who gave essentially no fair play to the presentation of detailed climate assessments from skeptic climate scientists. But then came the announcement in the UK about a video to be broadcast March 8, 2007 on their Channel 4 called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which was met with UK media scorn before it was seen, not once (full text here) but twice in the same manner (full text here). But unlike the arenas where the other material was presented (Gore’s movie encountered a UK lawsuit), the opportunity to inflict a major hit against the video existed via the UK’s communications regulator (Ofcom), but only if you called in the cavalry to do so. Not to inflict a scientific wound, however, but one via character assassination. One that ends up being a case study of how any given corruption accusation lodged against skeptic climate scientists is separated from Ross Gelbspan by three degrees or less. Continue reading →

The Repeaters vs the Pushers

Posted on by

I’ve said it many times, the entire global warming crisis can be boiled down to a three point mantra, “the science is settled” / “skeptics are industry-corrupted” / “everyone may ignore skeptic material because of points 1 & 2.” With the latest fixation on using racketeering laws to persecute companies and organization siding with skeptic climate scientists, a fourth talking point could be added, “when deniers persist with their industry-bought and orchestrated lies, they should be charged with crimes against humanity.” But the entire notion hinges on the insinuation that scientists who had even the most tenuous financial tie to industry donations were corrupted – paid to lie in a manner no different than shill ‘experts’ working for the tobacco industry who said smoking didn’t cause lung cancer. An insinuation so memorably compelling that ordinary citizen enviro-activists can regurgitate it with ease. Continue reading →

Bill Gray on Personal Attacks, at realclimatescience.com

Posted on by

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 —–>

Small Funding-related Update

Posted on by

One person has already called me “a paid propagandist working for the fossil-fuel-industry-financed Heartland Institute”. At a climate alarmist site I sometimes comment at, another person has said (full context here) Heartland pays me to “side-step, deflect, distract, obfuscate, and deny the truth” (that person being someone who – unless I’ve missed it somewhere – who has yet to dispute a solitary detail I have here at GelbspanFiles or in any of my online articles). However, no less than a large arm of the U.S. Government has admitted, in not so few words, that I am not employed in any way by Heartland. Continue reading →