If you are a reader returning after a long absence, please allow me to suggest that you reacquaint yourself with my work by reading my “Background” posts. If you are entirely new here …. Continue reading
Predictably, Frontline’s Part 3 program offered viewers only half or less of the full story they were telling, which is why the program as a whole could be labeled “disinformation,” but the program lost all the focus it had in Parts 1 and 2 on the ‘corrupt fossil fuel industry spreading disinformation’ accusation angle. I’ll cover that bizarre twist in highlight form toward the end of this post. The far larger problem overall now is the very weird “Naomi Oreskes Hole” that Frontline and Oreskes herself inexplicably dug for themselves. Her inability to keep her mouth shut on various items is the gift that keeps on giving; ammo handed on a silver platter to potential congressional investigators and law firms defending energy companies in global warming lawsuits. Continue reading
In the race to the bottom for the distinction having no self-awareness of how ridiculous a person or organization appears as they denounce “disinformation” while putting out essentially non-stop disinformation, it looks like Frontline and the Democrat-led House Oversight Committee and the steady, plodding plow horse of the PBS NewsHour just got massively outpaced by the 4/28/22 news of songstress (no joke!) Nina Jankowicz as executive director of the Department of Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Governance Board.” If Ms Jankowicz actually makes it to Day 1 of her new job without being forced to resign in shame, certainly the first of her potential targets should be the Democrat-led House Oversight Committee, and PBS, since a case could be made that their out-of-context, intellectually dishonest, less than transparent, false premise narratives have led to actual preventable death.
Meanwhile, Frontline continued on in its 4/26/22 “The Power of Big Oil, Part 2,” beginning straightaway Continue reading
On Easter Sunday, CBS News spectacularly reinforced how the collective enviro-activist community has only one primary go-to source of viable-looking evidence to indict the fossil fuel industry of running disinformation campaigns designed to undercut the ‘certainty’ of catastrophic man-caused global warming. With Frontline’s “The Power of Big Oil” broadcast on Tuesday April 19, the Public Broadcasting Service began its spectacular reinforcement of exactly where the tiny source is for that unsupportable accusation, and how it dates all the way back to the mid-, late-1990s with two key promulgators. But before anyone examines the faults in this latest mainstream media journalism malfeasance, they should never lose sight of what the two central hallmarks are for extreme political leftists:
- intellectual dishonesty, as the late Rush Limbaugh often pointed out, in one way or another, with both themselves and with the public on the narratives they push. Utterly false premise narratives, in other words.
- psychological projection, on pretty much any accusation they make when they need to aim the accusation squarely at themselves.
Frontline’s “The Power of Big Oil” is a case study on how this all comes together in one presentation, Continue reading
On — of all days — Easter Sunday, April 17, 2022. I’m not kidding, that’s exactly what the CBS Sunday Morning program did with their “Suing over climate change: Taking fossil fuel companies to court” report. In doing so, they telegraphed to the whole country how enviro-activists indeed only have one viable-looking weapon in their arsenal when it comes to supporting their claim that fossil fuel companies deceived the public into thinking no harm was happening while ‘knowing’ their products were causing catastrophic man-caused global warming. Continue reading
… and maintain your status as ‘heroine-exposer-of-fossil-fuel-industry-disinformation’ if people interrupt your presentations to say, “wait a minute, what you said there isn’t supported by the actual reality of the situation”? Continue reading
…. and retain credibility derived from your self-imposed title of ‘expert about the history of climate disinformation’?
Just askin.’ Continue reading
As much as “Merchants of Doubt”documentary movie star/book author Naomi Oreskes wishes to be a “Friend of Various Courts” and a friend to plaintiffs Honolulu and Maui County in particular, her fourth filing of one of these only points a giant arrow once again at the way enviro-activists across the board really only have one viable weapon in their arsenal when it comes to supporting their notion that fossil fuel companies engaged in disinformation campaigns. Continue reading
Enviro-activists say that not only did Exxon and the rest of the fossil fuel industry know the science of man-caused global warming was settled as far back as the 1970s, they paid ‘shill’ expert climate scientists to say it was not settled in deliberate disinformation campaigns. Enviro-activists, however, are loathe to engage in any direct science discussions with those skeptic scientists because, well …, quite simply they do not have expert level climate science experience or knowledge to match the expertise of those skeptics. How do enviro-activists circumvent that fatal problem? They need a shell game diversion. They have one in the claim that smoking gun proof for those corrupt disinformation efforts was revealed in ‘leaked industry documents’ in which – I’m paraphrasing here – industry executives declared ‘victory will be achieved when we reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.’ No joke on the literal words there, anyone can undertake an extensive internet search to see just how widespread the primary “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” memo strategy phrase is (along with its directly related audience targeting phrases “older, less-educated males” and “younger, low-income women”), and then do the same deep search for the secondary “victory will be achieved” memo set. Both memo sets are worthless as evidence because neither were ever implemented anywhere by any fossil fuel industry executive. It is disinformation, whether accidental or deliberate, on the part of any enviro-activist to say any fossil fuel company operated under the directives of either memo set.
The most plausibly sinister-sounding of the two sets was used by Al Gore in his 2006 movie in an accusation comparison of its strategy to a tobacco industry memo strategy, and he first quoted the set’s audience targeting phrase in his 1992 book; yet the rejected “reposition global warming” set’s key strategy was so obtusely worded that it was rejected outright by the people it was presented to. One of the officials in the “Information Council for the Environment” (“ICE”) PR campaign told me firsthand that their official copy was ultimately tossed into the trash, while the head of the campaign implied elsewhere that its too-narrow audience targeting suggestion was idiotic.
But someone else apparently thought the memo set copy they had, including its worthless discarded unused bits, could be turned into a weapon to use against the fossil fuel industry. Who ‘leaked’ it and when, and how did they portray the set to the recipients back then? What did the recipients know about the validity of the set, and did they undertake any due diligence to find out anything about the set? Continue reading
When prominent people tell and retell the details of what led them to heroically fight the forces of evil, we’re dazzled every time. It’s inspirational. I’ve suggested this before; when audience members spot significant changes in the details, they wonder about that, particularly when more details start to unravel. A once praiseworthy story suddenly begins to look more like it’s filled with lines designed as mind control, in support of a larger and rather suspect agenda to spread self-serving propaganda.
When it comes to the overall tales of heroism from the folks on the Al Gore political side of the global warming issue, I’ll paraphrase from a famous Avengers movie line:
I’ve seen the inconsistent narratives. Not a fan. Continue reading
Just askin,’ yet another in my series of posts asking questions that not only the inquisitive public and unbiased reporters should be asking, but also the law firms working for the defendant energy companies in the current 25 “Exxon Knew”-style global warming damages/cost recovery lawsuits, along with unbiased, objectives members of the US House Oversight Committee. You’ll never how weak and indefensible that situation is until you know what and who led to the current situation.
Kalee-who? You’ll be glad you asked. I covered her problems back in September 2013, but there’s always more to cover, especially when it is relevant to current-day situations and questions that should be asked in courtroom settings and congressional hearings. Continue reading