My residence situation is unsettled at the moment, and this will cause interruptions in what has been my usual 3 blog posts per month here. Continue reading
The Irony of The Mann
During this interim inconvenient time where I must downsize to a much smaller residence, which includes selling off unneeded books at the HalfPrice Bookstore, almost no time is available for in-depth blogging. But while I was at that bookstore today, I had the opportunity to look through a used and perhaps not especially cherished copy of Dr Michael Mann’s “The New Climate War” book, which allows me to at least minimally offer the following for future investigators to consider: Ironic that Dr Mann, who filed a defamation lawsuit which he ultimately lost and is forced to pay lawyers fees to at least one of the people he falsely accused of defamation, apparently commits the very same giant act himself, while recklessly pointing an arrow the size of Texas at the people he relies on for his accusations. Remember, the definition of the term is that a person knowingly tells a falsehood, or recklessly doesn’t make sure the accusation has merit.
(Don’t get me started on James Hoggan’s enslavement to Ross Gelbspan for the “crooked skeptic climate scientists” accusation. Plus, back in Feb 2022, I covered Dr Mann’s inexplicable blunder in this same book concerning ye olde “reposition global warming memo.”)
Background: Key Word / Names Checklist – what to look when prominent accusers yell “Big Oil disinformation” / “crooked skeptic scientists”
[Updated 5/22/23] What follows in this post is a sort of work-in-progress, the “Background info” collection I referred to in my March 31, 2023 post. If I may suggest it for those who might end up investigating the clique of enviro-activists who’ve long accused skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption, bookmark it as a growing reference to utilize when the prosecution direction does eventually turn 180° against these accusers. Like I’ve implied more than once here at GelbspanFiles, the central promulgators of the false accusation about the fossil fuel industry employing shill scientists have been extraordinarily lucky so far, but what they recklessly push is simply unsustainable. It will sink. It is a mathematical certainty. Continue reading
“The Climate Crisis: The Greenhouse Effect” – when did the smear of critics get added to that template?
A “just askin’” post today for investigators with more reach / resources than I have, concerning the epic-level, decades-long defamation of skeptic climate scientists who stand accused of colluding with fossil fuel industry executives in disinformation to undercut the ‘settled science’ of catastrophic man-caused global warming. The fundamental question is, when exactly was that accusation formulated? What was the accusation meant to protect? Continue reading
“Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil For Climate Deaths” Part 2
I wrote about the main fault with the ludicrous draft paper submitted to the Harvard Law Review in Part 1, namely the paper authors’ enslavement to a particular set of literally worthless ‘leaked industry memos’, and the funding association of one of the authors, David Arkush. But as usual, there’s more. Arkush apparently has quite a basic problem with making authoritative statements — hold that thought for just a bit. First, let me say I don’t simply write about these collective situations, I try to get something done about them. Continue reading
“Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil For Climate Deaths” (a.k.a. “we still only have worthless evidence and suspect sources backing this.”)
The breaking ‘political climate news’ last week concerned the Harvard Law Review’s draft version of a scholarly paper (not due to be actually published until 2024) posing the idea that oil companies could be criminally charged with committing ‘climate homicide resulting from deceiving the public about the harm of burning fossil fuels.’ Particularly ludicrous to me was the statement in one of those news reports by one of the paper’s authors concerning the pitch of this idea to plaintiffs:
We have some indication they’re at least listening and curious,” said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s climate program and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. “To someone who knows the criminal law, there’s a moment of ‘What!?’ and then, ‘It’s OK. It’s not crazy.’
Not only is this notion crazy, it would be an act of political suicide. Continue reading
DailyClout: A Letter to the Editor: “When the MSM Misleads about January 6th, What Other Disinformation Do They Push?”
Note: I tipped Naomi Wolf to the two specific items below after I read her “Dear Conservatives” article, and she asked to compile my pair of tips into an 800 word submission to her DailyClout website, where it was published after a bit of a delay on March 24th.
To the Editor:
Dr. Naomi Wolf, who nobody would term as a right-wing zealot, admitted to being misled about the January 6 Capitol riot (“Dear conservatives, I’m sorry I believed so many media lies”), noting how the man with the face paint and Viking horns hat is revealed in never-seen footage inside the Capitol being tranquilly led around in the building by Capitol police; he’s not the violent insurrection leader the mainstream media portrayed him to be.
There’s more: namely, the basic question of why MSM reporters never asked how or why that man, previously seen in 2019 as a prominent climate strike march leader, switched his political viewpoints 180° just over a year. Surely they’d use that to illustrate how persuasive “right-wing propaganda” can be.
This lack of curiosity by the MSM doesn’t end there. Dr. Wolf’s realization that the MSM is less-than-forthcoming on particular information was quite abrupt. My distrust of the news media grew over years.
Ultimately, this is all about asking tough questions. During my youth in the ’70s through the ’90s, journalists could be counted on to question authority. These days, not so much.
Allow me to illustrate via my own questions concerning the ‘climate crisis’ issue.
Covering Climate Now, 3/2/23: ‘Fox News Lies About Elections & Repositions Global Warming as Theory (Not Fact).’
For any of the folks at last week’s Heartland Institute climate conference (and any others I’ve contacted recently) who heard me say the worthless “reposition global warming” ‘leaked industry memos’ is the literal best ammunition that enviro-activist accusers have in their arsenal as evidence that the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns, that was no exaggeration. And as we all know, the primary hallmark of far leftists is the way they project their mindset onto the people they accuse of treachery, so when we see the Covering Climate Now group, a supplier of biased, one-sided climate info to 500+ news media outlets, publish a March 2 “FOX Doesn’t Just Lie About Elections” hit piece castigating the Fox News network with a subheadline that reads ….
The network is part of a climate disinformation ecosystem that journalism has to confront.
…. it is an arrow the size of Texas pointing to who it actually is who spews disinformation and who should be exposed for exactly what they are doing. Especially when Covering Climate Now feels totally compelled to support their accusation with ye olde “reposition global warming” memos that date all the way back to when the co-founder of CCNow first used them in a pure disinformation effort back in 1997. That’s how old this pathetic effort is, and why I put the comical “ye olde” modifying noun in front of those memos’ notorious name.
The Be-All / End-All “reposition global warming” & “victory will be achieved” Memos: Told ya so …
Call this post a follow-up to both my similarly-titled November 16, 2022 post and a sort of “corroborating new information addition” to my Sept 2021 post about the Democrat House Oversight Committee’s political suicide. It’s a point I cannot emphasize enough, as it relates to enviro-activists promulgating the idea that there’s a fossil fuel industry conspiracy to mislead the public – via industry-orchestrated disinformation campaigns – about the certainty of man-caused global warming. Always keep these two bits in mind when considering any prominent hurl of their accusation: first, a primary hallmark of enviro-activists his their psychological projection of their mindset as accusations aimed at others; and second; the very best evidence in their arsenal for their accusation about deceptive industry campaigns consists the above-noted memo sets. As I’ve detailed here at GelbspanFiles, both sets are literally worthless, neither were ever implemented anywhere, thus rendering them useless as evidence to prove deception efforts are rooted in the directives of those memos. Obviously.
So when these same two sets are put out front & center in one way or another by enviro-activists again and again and again, it is a valid concern to determine whether this is a conspiracy on their part to deceive the public about the legitimacy of the science-based disputes offered by skeptic climate scientists to counter the IPCC / Al Gore side of the issue.
Allow me to illustrate this troublesome situation once again, where what I found a couple of months ago, combined with the latest available info about those enviro-activists’ efforts (hold that thought until near the end of this post), reinforces the appearance of their apparent conspiracy efforts. Continue reading
Mistakes. These Guys Make Mistakes. Big Ones.
The critical thing that people must never lose sight of when examining the Clima-Change™ issue is how enviros wage their war on two fronts, namely that the science of man-caused catastrophic global warming is settled, and that skeptic climate scientists are “liars-for-hire on the payroll of Big Oil.” The science is fatally weak, skeptic climate scientists and other experts detail that at levels that’ll give you migraine headaches from trying to absorb it all. Not that the mainstream media will tell the public about any of this.
But the false accusations about industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists are much more faulty, promulgated by just a core clique of enviro-activists and their weak link helpers. They hand the massive mistakes they make on a silver platter to the law firms defending energy companies in all of the current “Exxon Knew” lawsuits, and they hand these same mistakes over the same way to U.S. House investigators, who now have the opportunity to mirror flip the prior Democrat-led hearings which egregiously sought to vilify fossil fuel company executives.
Has the prophecy at the end of “3 Days of the Condor” come true?
I watched a replay of the “3 Days of the Condor” movie starring Robert Redford and Cliff Robertson Thursday night. That 1975 movie is so old that it is from the era when the mainstream media was pretty much above sheer partisan bias and would report government abuse and overreach in a heartbeat, no matter the origins of such treachery. The elemental plot of the movie is that Robert Redford’s character, Joe Turner (code name Condor) is a low-level CIA worker doing no more than fiction book research to cross-check it against actual CIA activity. After all of his co-workers are assassinated, he ultimately uncovers essentially a ‘rogue CIA’ within the CIA that operates above all authority. Good U.S. patriot that he is, he leaks all of these details at the end of the movie to the New York Times — because, as we all knew in 1975, the investigative mainstream media’s job was to report when top level authorities were not operating in the best interests of the public. And nobody in America lived in fear of their own government.
Think about that these days, and what the traditional, legacy mainstream media does not tell the public: Continue reading