These windmills go really slowly, they don’t eat up a lot of birds

In my previous post, I detailed at length how an apparently hapless college student’s “Misinformation Campaigns Spread by the Fossil Fuel Industry” research paper fell apart under hard scrutiny. Today, let’s spend a shorter time on the elemental idea of ‘misinformation’ in the global warming issue, and where it seems to be more readily found. Continue reading

Corroborated vs. Uncorroborated Claims

Back in 2008-’09, I was perplexed that efforts to mitigate runaway global warming were occurring despite detailed opposition offered by skeptic climate scientists. Before my initial searches to find out why skeptic assessments were being ignored, I was unaware of how widespread the accusations were about skeptic scientists being paid industry money to lie to the public. Afterward, rather than finding multiple corroborations revealing massively damaging evidence of when, where and how the skeptics were paid to lie, all I found was one uncorroborated source for the accusation. Continue reading

The Rex-Exxon Problem, or the inverse thereof

Spend even the briefest effort doing a combined internet search of the words “Exxon” and “climate change”, and it becomes abundantly obvious that enviro-activists have long believed Exxon is a fundamental threat to the planet (full archived text here), and now that Exxon’s CEO – who supposedly has overseen a climate denial machine (full text here) over the last decade – has been tapped by President-elect Trump to be Secretary of State, we should be terrified of him. But just a under two months ago, a situation arose which may indicate that this giant Rex-Exxon survival problem facing the planet could instead be a massive survival problem for enviro-activists. Continue reading

Flipping Gore’s RICO-style Prosecution of Global Warming Skeptics

For new readers arriving at this blog, you probably already have a passing familiarity with the current news item about state-level Attorneys General efforts to prosecute “climate change deniers.” What you may not know is that, while this latest legal tactic is relatively new, the core accusation behind it is more than 20 years old. My article at American Thinker today will hopefully serve as a primer on that problem, and will hopefully also prompt many to go back through my blog here and my other online articles in order to see just how much more there is to this problem.

Those who push using RICO laws against “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change” (‘other organizations’ meaning conservative think tanks and any skeptic climate scientist having any association with such entities) are likely emboldened because they’ve never before encountered push-back on the very core of their accusation. But when increasing numbers of the public become aware of how NY state AG Schneiderman and Al Gore handed their heads on a silver platter two weeks ago to investigators, journalists, and wavering global warming believers, the more likely this entire witch hunt collapses.

Continue reading at American Thinker, “Gore’s RICO-style Prosecution of Global Warming Skeptics” ——->

Climate Skeptics’ Corruption Exposed by Gelbspan! (er, Ward) In 1995! (er, 1992) Or Something!

Declarations that skeptic climate scientists knowingly lie about the certainty of man-caused global warming as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry appear devastating…… but dig deep into the details, and all those claims look more like a “Keystone Kops-style” farce. I’ve already covered how the endless repetitions never offer physical evidence proving a quid pro quo arrangement exists between skeptics and industry funders, they only repeat Ross Gelbspan’s 1995 paper-thin guilt-by-association narrative. But now, let’s examine how Gelbspan can’t even keep the story straight on when this so-called “corruption of skeptic scientists” was first revealed. Continue reading

Timeline History and Inconvenient Truths of Ross Gelbspan’s and Al Gore’s “reposition global warming” Phrase

The idea of man-caused global warming is especially effective because it can be pounded into practically everybody’s head via an easily memorized 3-point mantra. Global warming believers need only to counter dry recitations of skeptic science material with assertions about the numbers of ‘IPCC scientists’, declare this to be the settled consensus opinion, then claim there is leaked memo evidence proving skeptics are paid industry money to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” – hoodwink the public, in other words. Obviously, reporters aren’t then obligated to give fair balance to skeptics. In a nutshell, settled science, crooked skeptics, reporters may ignore skeptics, bam, bam, bam.

A timeline of where, how and when that “reposition global warming” phrase first showed up is something global warming believers would hate, since it might prompt a total loss of faith in the validity of that central accusation point. The loss could cascade into questions of whether the science actually is settled in the face of skeptics’ science-based criticisms, and people may also start to wonder about the ‘fair media balance’ idea, since they might not readily recall instances where skeptics actually received that from mainstream media reporters. Continue reading

Greenpeace Loves Ross Gelbspan, Pt 2. Funny How They Don’t Mention his Name Early On

In Al Gore’s NY Times review of Gelbspan’s 2004 “Boiling Point” book, he saidGelbspan’s first book, ‘The Heat Is On’ (1997), remains the best, and virtually only, study of how the coal and oil industry has provided financing to a small group of contrarian scientists“. The executive director of Greenpeace said in 2009 that Gelbspan was a ‘lone voice who uncovered the corrupt influences of the fossil fuel industry. But in a 1996 midyear summary of their accomplishments, Greenpeace International claimed this particular accolade for themselves….. without a solitary mention of Gelbspan. Continue reading

When is a “Climate Change Expert” not an Expert? (a question Al Gore can use to salvage his legacy)

Embellishing credentials is an exceptionally bad idea, whether it’s done in self-promotion, or or done deliberately to hoodwink the public, or done mistakenly because someone didn’t do elemental fact-checking. Yet in the global warming issue, we see instances where a major organization promoted the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a Nobel laureate when he is not, and another organization similarly promoting a prominent IPCC scientist as a Nobel laureate when he is not, and the long-term promotion of book author Ross Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner when he is not, a problem first revealed long ago by Steve Milloy and expanded upon at this blog. But now, let’s examine Gelbspan’s other small problem, the “Climate Change Expert” label. Continue reading