What’s my next post going to be about? First and foremost, for those of you wanting to read the court filing itself, it’s here: City of New York v. BP. To get a basic idea of where I’ll be heading in my dissection of its accusation about ‘industry-paid scientist shills’, check out my pieces here:
All of these things are interconnected to the core clique of people who first gave the meritless ‘crooked skeptic scientists’ accusation its media traction way back in the mid 1990s. Stay tuned, and please do scroll down this page for my completed posts, and return soon to see how this next one coming up will fill in this space.
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
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
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” ——>
Back in my July 31, 2014 blog post, I asked that simple question. Just three days ago in the Shub Niggurath blog post “RICO-teering: How climate activists ‘knew’ they were going to pin the blame on Exxon”, I saw the answer in a quote from no less than the man running The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library himself, Stanton Glantz. Except, rather than it being a nice tidy answer, it instead only begs for questions of why it takes on the appearance of a major narrative derailment. Continue reading
Not long ago, lawsuits were filed against cigarette companies for all the suffering caused by smoking, saying tobacco executives fully knew their product was a killer when they hired shill experts to testify and report that there wasn’t a clear connection between smoking and lung cancer. A leaked tobacco company memo pushing “Doubt is our Product” was a key bit of evidence in those complaints, but industry efforts to hoodwink the general public were arguably ineffective since a slang term for cigarettes had been “coffin nails” for multiple decades. Meanwhile, someone in the enviro-activist community decided to apply that same kind of complaint to high-level global warming nuisance lawsuits. Guess who and what is connected in a questionable manner to those cases? Continue reading