The line of defense that “well, the evidence I have looks valid enough to use as a means to ensure nobody takes skeptic climate scientists’ reports and viewpoints seriously” is one that may not actually convince judges to let you off the defamation hook.
I’m talking about the lights going out at two websites, Ross Gelbspan’s beloved “The Heat is Online” and Greenpeace USA’s beloved “Greenpeace Investigations.”
Somebody forgot to pay the electric bill? Just askin.’ Continue reading
In my April 17, 2020 blog post about the death of Dr S. Fred Singer and my experiences with him, I began by noting how readily accessible he was to even ordinary citizens like me who genuinely expressed uncritical interest in the overall global warming issue. Dr Michaels, whose death unfortunately was just last week, (more memorials here, here, here, and here), was no different that way. Regarding Dr Singer, I first began emailing with him simply because I wanted to let him know that I was exchanging emails with the Seattle mayor’s office on the global warming issue, but I also wanted to know if I had it right about my Viking ancestors being able to farm in Greenland. With Dr Michaels, my first inquiry to him was at the beginning of my efforts to undertake a due diligence job which the mainstream media should have done, concerning the troubling accusation that he, Dr Singer, and others were paid and directed by fossil fuel executives to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” Back in 2009-2010, that accusation was all over the internet, but not a single person or group on the Al Gore side of the issue had the guts to show the full context of the ‘leaked industry memos’ containing that awkwardly-worded ‘directive.’
Dr. Michaels ultimately ended up providing some specific bits about that, under a broader examination, which look quite damaging to his accusers. Continue reading
… it’s still old, when it comes to enviro-activists bending themselves into pretzel shapes trying to steer the public away from the idea that a complete science / political debate is needed on the global warming issue before drastic measures could or should not be taken. No doubt these activists anxiously hope they never have to answer for what they’ve done. Continue reading
The namesake of my blog is still alive and kicking. But just like other promulgators of the “fossil fuel execs colluded with skeptic climate scientists to spread disinformation” accusation, he doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut about some of the accusation’s contradictory details. Continue reading
Label this post “The Director’s Cut,” where my heavier emphasis on particular points is intact, compared to the edited-shorter version published online 6/8/22 at American Thinker as “Selling Global Warming to Eskimos.”
When John Kerry, President Biden’s special envoy for climate, lamented that the Ukraine war situation would distract the public away from the ‘climate crisis’ and then doubled down later on how ‘climate change refugees will outnumber Ukrainian refugees,’ he seemed to have no self-awareness of how ludicrous his statement was. NPR and CNBC have both trumpeted this same theme about the war distracting the public away from the “true crisis.” Then there’s Biden’s Commerce Secretary, Gina Raimondo, who reacted the following way to Rep Ben Cline’s “distraction” that the proposed 2023 budget “doesn’t really help families put food on the table or clothes on the back.”
… we believe climate change is an existential threat so, you know, children won’t – [shrugs, pauses]. Forget about clothes on their back. They’re not going to be able to have a life if we don’t deal with climate change.
Add Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro saying climate change – not hostile foreign adversaries – is an existential threat to America.
It’s as though Kerry, Raimondo, and Del Toro are so assured of their own importance in the issue that they might actually believe they can sell global warming to Eskimos. Continue reading
…. within a presentation that’s clearly titled “You Can Argue with the Facts,” and get away with it indefinitely, without ever being held accountable for all the harm coming out of such a presentation? When you are Naomi Oreskes, and you’ve built your second career is built on that presentation in such a way that it leads you onto becoming a documentary movie star, a go-to source for the news media (or not) and a star congressional witness for the Democrats while putting you on a first-name basis with luminaries such as Al Gore, you can cross your fingers that this whole situation will never sink.
Myself, I wouldn’t advise her to hold her breath on that or bet the ranch on it, in the face of the looming November U.S. House mid-term elections, where a complete reversal of the controlling majority might lead to a wave of congressional oversight investigations in the next two years that may quite likely include deep examinations of where the real disinformation is apparently found in abundance within the global warming issue. Continue reading
If there is one irrefutable hallmark of the extreme far-left political community in the U.S., it is their seemingly endless propensity to psychologically project their beliefs, attitudes, and actions onto opponents as accusations of what their opponents are. I’ve covered this topic before, and I prominently mentioned the projection angle near at the top of my April 26 dissection of Frontline’s latest “Big Oil” program. At the top of my May 2nd Frontline follow-up post, I further emphasized the irony of wacko Department of Homeland Security “disinformation reduction” efforts coming from people who should really look in the mirror* about where actual disinformation is found. (* thankfully, one DHS person now has more free time to do so)
To illustrate just how insidiously pervasive the idiotic problem of the enviro-left projecting their own disinformation onto others, let’s have a look at one other news item that occurred back in early April, 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