If there is one overriding trait among believers of catastrophic man-caused global warming, it is how their narratives to keep the issue alive depend on the public accepting everything surrounding their assertions without question. The science is settled, no need to listen to skeptic scientists because those scientists are corrupt industry shills. Problem is, when these narratives are examined in fine detail, they unravel. In this “Connolley Problem” series of posts, I’ve already pointed out suspect detail omissions (parts 1 and 2) and the suspect time span (part 3), of a supposed concerned citizen’s official complaint over a 2007 UK global warming video featuring skeptic climate scientists. Today, one more post about the suspect appearance surrounding this concerned citizen’s email to a person appearing in the video – and its tie-in to William Connolley. Continue reading
Author Archives: Russell Cook
The Connolley Problem, pt 3: A Time Span Problem
This involves the most elemental math situation: 95 days (a.k.a. 13 weeks, 4 days) and 176 pages. Continue reading
My Funding for 2016 Update [new non-news 7/14]
This is exceptionally bad news* for conspiracy theorist critics of mine who say things like this. *[made one step incrementally worse with the non-news of 7/14/16. See below] Continue reading
The Connolley Problem, pt 2: Connolley who?
In part 1 of this series, I pointed out how self-described ‘concerned citizen‘ Dave Rado left out a fairly important detail in telling the story of his consultation with William Connolley about filing an complaint concerning alleged bias in the 2007 UK Channel Four Television Corporation video “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Rest assured, Rado’s enslavement to Ross Gelbspan’s ‘industry-funded skeptic climate scientists’ accusation will come up in a later post, but today’s post is a necessary setup for it. Continue reading
The Connolley Problem, pt 1: Call in the Cavalry
Back in the early spring of 2007, believers of catastrophic man-caused global warming were no doubt quite happy with Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” movie, Ross Gelbspan’s books, prominent pro-global warming blogs, mainstream media outlets, and others who gave essentially no fair play to the presentation of detailed climate assessments from skeptic climate scientists. But then came the announcement in the UK about a video to be broadcast March 8, 2007 on their Channel 4 called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which was met with UK media scorn before it was seen, not once (full text here) but twice in the same manner (full text here). But unlike the arenas where the other material was presented (Gore’s movie encountered a UK lawsuit), the opportunity to inflict a major hit against the video existed via the UK’s communications regulator (Ofcom), but only if you called in the cavalry to do so. Not to inflict a scientific wound, however, but one via character assassination. One that ends up being a case study of how any given corruption accusation lodged against skeptic climate scientists is separated from Ross Gelbspan by three degrees or less. Continue reading
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
Bill Gray on Personal Attacks, at realclimatescience.com
I’ve been privileged to have guest posts by Lord Monckton, Drs Willie Soon and Patrick Michaels and Jonathan DuHamel here at GelbspanFiles regarding character assassination efforts against people who dare to question the certainty of man-caused global warming. Today I link to “The Practice of Personal Attacking Global Warming Skeptics – Rather than Responding to Their Scientific Criticisms”, a guest post at Tony Heller’s blog by Dr William Gray, where Dr Gray offered this bit in a longer story: “Why are the warmers so afraid to have open and honest discussion about the basic nitty-gritty assumptions of their AGW hypothesis? I think it is because they well know (but will not admit) that the science behind the AGW hypothesis is ripe with conceptual errors and, in the long run, be proven to be wrong.” Continue reading at RealClimateScience.com —–>
Small Funding-related Update
One person has already called me “a paid propagandist working for the fossil-fuel-industry-financed Heartland Institute”. At a climate alarmist site I sometimes comment at, another person has said (full context here) Heartland pays me to “side-step, deflect, distract, obfuscate, and deny the truth” (that person being someone who – unless I’ve missed it somewhere – who has yet to dispute a solitary detail I have here at GelbspanFiles or in any of my online articles). However, no less than a large arm of the U.S. Government has admitted, in not so few words, that I am not employed in any way by Heartland. Continue reading
“Long Established Evidence Proving Skeptic Climate Scientists’ Guilt, Baked Fresh Today!”
For all practical purposes, the collective Greenpeace organization committed outright political suicide two weeks ago, essentially telegraphing to the entire world that they never had the evidence they claimed they had, proving skeptic climate scientists lie to the public under a pay-for-performance arrangement with fossil fuel industry people just like the way shill experts lied for the tobacco industry. Their December 8 ambush blunder of skeptic climate scientist Dr Will Happer at Ted Cruz’s Senate hearing is best illustrated with a famous movie courtroom scene question, but let me set the stage with the following points: Continue reading
ABC News’ Bill Blakemore: “The only thing I am an activist for is rigorous journalism”
Former ABC News reporter, I should add. But I’ll get to that small problem later. First, in regard to Ross Gelbspan, it appears Blakemore has a backpedal situation that most people would agree a reporter should never be caught doing, then there is a problem with a particular line in Blakemore’s ABC News bio, and finally there is the larger problem of how the global warming issue seems to owe its life to the sheer lack of rigorous journalism about it. Continue reading