In my work here, I follow the citations for ‘evidence’ which supposedly supports the accusation about ‘corrupt industry-paid lying skeptic climate scientists.’ But continuing on the theme I suggested at the end of my February 8, 2018 blog post — oil company lawyers and potentially other investigators examining correspondences of enviro-activists “not limited to” Naomi Oreskes — another name to keep an eye out for is Phil Radford. If lawyers / investigators / reporters ‘follow the proverbial money’ with him, it could lead them to the core of people surrounding the inception of the ‘crooked skeptics’ accusation. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Phil Radford
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
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
Green Corps, part 2: Ozone Action / Green Corps / Greenpeace blur
In my blog post last week, I used a bit of likely inadvertent misinformation from a National Journal article on outgoing Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford as an item to segue into an examination of how the Green Corps organization seems to place Ross Gelbspan in high regard despite easily found problems with his narratives about ‘industry-corrupted’ skeptic climate scientists. Now, let’s re-examine that same two-sentence bit from the NJ article to illustrate how just the most basic of looks into any aspect of the corrupt skeptics accusation runs headlong into inconsistent details. Continue reading
Three Degrees of Separation or Less, Part VII: To Green Corps… and Beyond
If the public saw scientists from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) engaged in heated debate with skeptic climate scientists, it would be deadly to the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming. They’d shrug their shoulders at complicated science terms, dismissing both sides with, “come back and tell us what you know when you really know what you’re talking about.” Do ordinary environmentalists with no climate science expertise kill that situation with carefully memorized citations of superior IPCC arguments? No, they say there are multi-thousands of scientists comprising a scientific consensus against a handful of skeptics who are ‘paid industry money to manufacture doubt’. But how exactly do you get that idea out to everybody? Continue reading
Does the Disappearance of Phil Radford’s, John Passacantando’s and Kert Davies’ Facebook Friends Mean Anything? [4/18/16 Update]
Just askin’. Key points to remember: global warming alarmists always spiral back to a single bit of evidence to support their notion that skeptic climate scientists are ‘paid industry shills’, namely the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” phrase that garnered Ross Gelbspan a second career (a phrase he never established to be a top-down industry directive), and that phrase was ‘obtained by Ozone Action and by Ross Gelbspan’ – Ozone Action being manned back then by the two most recently departed executive directors of Greenpeace USA, Radford and Passacantando, and by Greenpeace’s recently departed head of its ExxonSecrets wing, Davies. Continue reading
The Company You Keep: Greenpeace USA (née Ozone Action) Executive Director Phil Radford; Vapor as Smoke
The about-to-retire Executive Director of Greenpeace USA, Phil Radford, unabashedly points to Ross Gelbspan as “the lone voice, the moral compass, the beacon that has inspired countless people, me included, to demand our country and our future back from the coal and oil interests behind global warming” (full text here). Gelbspan, as I’ve pointed out at this blog and in my prior online articles, has a rough time keeping any of his narratives straight about the ‘coal and oil interests behind global warming’, or more specifically, just how those ‘interests’ directed skeptic climate scientists to lie to the public. Is Radford any better at straight talk and full disclosure on this matter? Hardly. 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 said “Gelbspan’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
If Greenpeace USA (née Ozone Action) is Proud of its old ███████████ Work, Why do they Feel a Sudden Need to Hide It?
Nearly all of Greenpeace USA’s old “Ozone Action” web site was viewable by the public via the “Internet Archive Wayback Machine” from the time the site lapsed out of its ‘live online’ status around March 2001 until just a month or so ago. If all their work on ozone depletion / global warming was above reproach, as were the people associated with it, then why was there a sudden need to hide it all from public view? Continue reading