To understand why climate disinformation is so persistent, look at how the denial propaganda movement actually works

First, a brief word on my Dec19th post – no appearance yet of the actual lawsuit document for Casquejo v. Shell filed in the UK; stay tuned here to find out whether it regurgitates/plagiarizes U.S. “ExxonKnew” lawsuits content or if it blazes its own new ‘global warming damages’ path. Meanwhile, let’s examine another angle of the incessant psychological projection problem besieging proponents of ClimaChange™. Hat tip to my Facebook climate issue Friend Kurt Womack (a common citizen who I saw years ago fearlessly setting one wayward other common citizen straight on a particular angle of the climate issue). Kurt alerted me to this amazing example he spotted at the Heartland Institute’s “The Climate Realism Community” Facebook group discussion area, where the wayward enviro-commenter there inadvertently pointed out how fundamentally disingenuous the collective climate issue can be at several levels. My blog post title substitutes one word in the title for the load that the wayward enviro-poster dumped on Dec 29th into Heartland’s discussion thread, screencapture for posterity below in case the guy deletes it. From that starting point, let’s then see where it all falls apart at a minimum of three different levels.

Continue reading

Indoctrinate the Children Well (via one, and only ONE, highly dubious source)

Examine the climate issue at a miles wide / quarter inch deep superficial level – its so-called ‘settled science’ and its accusation that scientists who express doubt about the idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming are paid handsomely to push their skeptic disinformation by the fossil fuel industry – and the issue stays alive in zombie-like fashion.

The top-end pushers of the agenda count on the public doing exactly that.

When unbiased, objective examiners focus on the ‘corruption’ accusation and start digging into it at a much deeper levels, it begins to unravel at exponential rates around the core clique of people promulgating the accusation. Allow me to offer the following of just one faulty angle. Continue reading

Who Didn’t Pay the Internet Bill??

I’m talking about the lights going out at two websites, Ross Gelbspan’s beloved “The Heat is Online” and Greenpeace USA’s beloved “Greenpeace Investigations.”

Somebody forgot to pay the electric bill? Just askin.’ Continue reading

Prominent Global Warming Deniers are Funded by Fossil Fuel Companies.’ Spread This Line Widely; NEVER Check its Veracity.

And there’s really no necessity to tell anybody exactly what that accusation means. Al Gore and the top-most promulgators of the ‘climate scientist liars-for-hire’ accusation know what it means …. they simply haven’t proven that any such corruption actually exists anywhere. Continue reading

The Roll Call of a Single Source Wipeout, Part 2

In the middle of the summer of 2016, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse participated with his comrades in a U.S. Senate floor speech stunt decrying the hazards of man-caused global warming. His speech contained a roll call of people who supposedly exposed the complicity of skeptic climate scientists in a fossil fuel industry-funded disinformation campaign. I’ll note why this older event is still relevant today at the end of this post, and for the newer readers arriving here, please do click on my links, as many are quick-glance screencaptures of text details I refer to, or are fuller context posts about my references. Continue reading

Three Degrees of Separation or Less, Part IV: Robert ‘dark money’ Brulle & Other ‘Skeptic-Trashing Environmental Sociologists’

Skeptic climate scientists and organizations associating with them point straight to highly detailed science-based assessments when they criticize the idea of man-caused global warming, an action that saints and axe murderers can do. ‘Skeptic-trashing environmental sociologists’ devoid of any climate science expertise want you to accept the idea of man-caused global warming without question, and they dismiss skeptics out-of-hand by saying such skeptics are documented to be corrupted by illicit money. These are the only two bullets they have ever had in their arsenal – settled consensus-based science and corrupt skeptics – neither of which they have any hope of proving. Is it possible for such sociologists to have a more anti-science, anti-intellectual position than that? Continue reading