Background: The WORTHLESS 1998 American Petroleum Institute “Victory Will Be Achieved when …” leaked memo

Among the five major ‘leaked memo’ situations which enviro-activists try to say are proof of sinister fossil fuel industry collusion efforts with skeptic climate scientists to spread doubt about the certainty of man-caused global warming, only two stand out at least on a superficial level as being particularly damaging. The one with seemingly the most devastating appearance is the so-called “Information Council for the Environment” (ICE) public relations memos of 1991, supposedly detailing Western Fuels Association (WFA) efforts to push misinformation that would achieve the goal to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” among a nationwide audience of gullible “older less-educated men and young low-income women.” Problem is, those memos are worthless as evidence of that conspiracy because they were never part of the short-lived, small three-city-only pilot project ICE PR campaign.

The second most damaging, laughably so when its actual content is taken into consideration in an objective manner, is the 1998 American Petroleum Institute (API) “Victory Will Be Achieved when …” leaked memo. Continue reading

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

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 ‘television editor told me “We did. Once.”’ Problem, Part II: Which Editor?

My 11/18 blog dealt with Ross Gelbspan’s claim that ‘a top CNN editor’ was scolded by a supposedly powerful industry group for attempting to connect weather events to global warming, where the threat was made that advertising would be pulled if CNN’s reporting did not meet the approval of that group. His claim appears to fall far short of being infallible, and from that, maybe it is not out-of-bounds to speculate on just who the CNN person might be. Continue reading