So, in part one of this series, I detailed just how valued Ross Gelbspan was and arguably still is to Green Corps. In part two, I detailed the blur of influential people across Ozone Action, Greenpeace and Green Corps. Now, let’s see what that combination is actually capable of influencing, by revisiting that pair of key sentences from the National Journal article I started parts 1 and 2 with: Continue reading
An Entertaining Interruption
[9/4 Author’s edit] My followers here saw this particular blog post as an explanation of why my Green Corps series Part 3 post was being interrupted, with the explanations that follow. Thought it would be worthwhile to save the material, with just a bit of a re-write. Continue reading
Green Corps, part 2: Ozone Action / Green Corps / Greenpeace blur
In my blog post last week, I used a bit of likely inadvertent misinformation from a National Journal article on outgoing Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford as an item to segue into an examination of how the Green Corps organization seems to place Ross Gelbspan in high regard despite easily found problems with his narratives about ‘industry-corrupted’ skeptic climate scientists. Now, let’s re-examine that same two-sentence bit from the NJ article to illustrate how just the most basic of looks into any aspect of the corrupt skeptics accusation runs headlong into inconsistent details. Continue reading
Is this the Face of Environmentalism Today? [8/10/15 Update]
I swear, I can’t make this stuff up. [8/10/15 Update at bottom] Continue reading
Three Degrees of Separation or Less, Part VII: To Green Corps… and Beyond
If the public saw scientists from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) engaged in heated debate with skeptic climate scientists, it would be deadly to the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming. They’d shrug their shoulders at complicated science terms, dismissing both sides with, “come back and tell us what you know when you really know what you’re talking about.” Do ordinary environmentalists with no climate science expertise kill that situation with carefully memorized citations of superior IPCC arguments? No, they say there are multi-thousands of scientists comprising a scientific consensus against a handful of skeptics who are ‘paid industry money to manufacture doubt’. But how exactly do you get that idea out to everybody? Continue reading
Small Funding Update … that drives my critics totally nuts
Click the image below, and notice what kind of response the comment is to what I said right below it:
The Hertsgaard Error, pt II: Not a Case of Poor Wording
In a curiosity venture to see if the Union of Concerned Scientists regurgitation of the “reposition global warming” accusation narrative was getting any media traction, I instead stumbled across an unexpected example of outright either deliberate misinformation, or one of otherwise incompetent reporting from someone who is supposed to be an authority on the topic of ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’. Continue reading
‘Story of organized denial has been well told and documented.’ No, it has NOT.
You could hardly ask for a better example of psychological projection than believers of man-caused global warming claiming their critics spread misinformation. I give you examples of the exact opposite, all of which point squarely to the core piece of misinformation at the political heart of the issue. Continue reading
If You are Unaware You are in a Hole…..
…. stop and look around. If discover you are in a hole, for goodness sake, stop digging. Such is the advice I would have given to the Union of Concerned Scientists before they plunged off a credibility cliff with this wipeout.
Association Taints! (ignore the man behind the curtain)
Mention the existence of skeptic climate scientists to any enviro-activist, and they dismiss anything those scientists say out-of-hand as an industry-corrupted conflict of interest. After all, hardcore believers in man-caused global warming have stacks of sources saying such skeptics are industry shills (clueless to how they only actually have one highly suspect source) But are enviro-activist groups shills of government regulators and/or government office-holders, or vice versa?
The Energy and Environment Legal Institute’s Chis Horner pointed to just such a situation yesterday in his WUWT guest post, complete with screencaptures of emails between an EPA official and the Sierra Club (shorter summary here). It is a situation apparently encompassing a government agency proceeding on Sierra Club approval in a manner neither organization is proud enough to share with the public. But I exposed a situation a bit rougher, in which an environmental organization was apparently working with a White House official to quash favorable opinion of skeptic scientists across the board. Continue reading