County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. et al.
County of Marin v. Chevron Corp. et al.
City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp. et al.

It’s one thing for assorted article writers, amateur private bloggers, prominent professional bloggers, reporters, and political advocacy groups to regurgitate the unsupportable insinuation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by Big Coal & Oil to lie to the public while working the old “leaked memo phrase” reposition global warming as theory rather than fact into the narrative, but it’s much more serious when this comes up in major global warming “costs” court cases. Continue reading

“People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al.”

If you are an enviro-activist with access to lawyers and mega-money who believes catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is caused by evil fossil fuel industries who ignore this harm to humanity to protect their profits, you don’t simply whine about this problem, you file giant lawsuits against those industries. Continue reading

Making my Case for Me

When I say there is only one source for the idea that a fossil fuel industry conspiracy exists where skeptic climate scientists are instructed and paid to lie to the public about the settled science of catastrophic man-caused global warming, I’m not exaggerating in any way. Today, I offer a one-two punch: first, part of a presentation at The 2015 Conference on Communication and Environment in Boulder where I will highlight a particular line with red letters which inadvertently proves my point, made by a “doctor of Rhetoric and Composition.” Then, a days-old video I was alerted to which features not only a couple of the usual suspects whose efforts to smear skeptic climate scientists date from nearly a decade / nearly two decades back, but also a line seen within the video dating from the 1991 origins of the smear. 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 Connolley Problem, pt 7: Cancerous Greenpeace / Desmogblog / Gelbspan Stuff

In my prior post linking to my 4/22 American Thinker article about the very current efforts to use racketeering laws to prosecute Exxon for misinforming people about the certainty of man-caused global warming, I spoke of finding the ‘usual suspects’ behind the accusation. One of those names is seen again in this post. Basically, Dave Rado’s 2007 complaint over the UK Channel Four Television Corporation video “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is plagued with exactly the same fatal fault as any other past or present narrative about the certainty of catastrophic man-caused global warming: its authors offer little more than science claims contradicting material expressed by skeptic climate scientists, and they abysmally fail to provide evidence that those skeptics knowingly lie about their positions under a monetary arrangement with industry people. Worse, the Ofcom complaint’s reliance on highly suspect sources to make the latter insinuation only undermines the overall intent of the complaint. Today, an examination of those sources for the accusation. Continue reading

‘The Usual Suspects’ in the Persecution of Global Warming Skeptics

One inadvertently helpful aspect of the 20-year accusation that ‘skeptic climate scientists are industry-funded crooks’ is how many of the accusers have really unique first or last names. Pair or triple them up in intensive internet searches, and you see their really troubling history.  Continue reading at American Thinker, “‘The Usual Suspects’ in the Persecution of Global Warming Skeptics” ——>

The Repeaters vs the Pushers

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

Where is Ross Gelbspan these days?

People ask me that occasionally, since he is a fellow who has been largely unseen ever since he stopped blog posting at Desmogblog in 2010, the place he said he helped to create. Apparently, either he or somebody associated with him posts blog pieces at his The Heat is Online website which are little more than copies ’n pastes of entire articles from elsewhere. These also are placed at the Facebook outlet for his site. He is more active at his personal Facebook page when it comes to offering personal comments on news of the day, seemingly oblivious to how some of those comments draw attention to things he might find undesirable. Continue reading

Green Corps, part 3: Flipping Senator John McCain

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