If an enviro-activist organization had a key role in exposing the ‘industry corruption of skeptic climate scientists’, wouldn’t basic pride drive them to mention it at least once, if not ad nauseam, as some kind of achievement to attract new donors and members? Continue reading
Category Archives: Information burial
The Need to Screencapture Global Warming Promoters’ Words (because what’s seen on the internet cannot be unseen)
Just over two weeks ago, my blog piece here explained how Ross Gelbspan’s claim about industry intimidation of a top television editor seemed faulty. My 7th paragraph had a screencapture photo link showing a quote from Gelbspan’s web site media tirade, where he described the person more specifically as a CNN editor. As courtesy to anyone wanting to see the full context of his web page, I also provided a direct link to it. Sometime between November 18th and yesterday, his paragraph about the CNN editor disappeared from that page… along with other important material there. Continue reading
The ‘television editor told me “We did. Once.”’ Problem
My 11/8 blog piece recapped six problems seen with a single paragraph written by Ross Gelbspan in a 2005 Mother Jones article, and went on to tell about another of his major narrative derailments. But I mentioned there was one more big problem that needed a separate blog piece to examine it. That’s what this piece will cover. 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
WashPo Letter Writers Briefly Turned Gelbspan into a Global Warming Skeptic… but the story has A Big Glitch.
Ross Gelbspan’s tale about circumstances which caused him to look deeper into the ‘industry funding’ of skeptic climate scientists seems praiseworthy, since it could plausibly happen to any objective reporter. But read one of the lesser-known versions of it, and you might react with “Uhhh, hold on there…….” Continue reading
Author’s Note: What Stays or Goes at this Blog, Compared to Others
A brief few words of about what might change in my writing here, versus what goes on at blogs and other pieces written by supporters of man-caused global warming. Readers who capture versions of my pieces via WebCite are wasting their time. Doing the same for various online pieces written by man-caused global warming supporters seems to be an absolute necessity, in order to catch their inconvenient truths before they disappear. Continue reading
If an Ironclad Accusation Repeatedly Quotes Specific Evidence, Why Take 22 Years to Finally Show the ‘Evidence’?
The accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” has two parts: the 1991-’95 span when it got little public interest, and late 1995 to the present, when it became far more widespread. During this entire 22-year stretch of time, I’m the only one quoting that fragment coal association memo sentence who told where the public could view that phrase and the rest of the ‘leaked memo set’. Among all the promoters of global warming out there, not one ever had a web link straight to the ‘leaked memo set’.
Until last Thursday. Continue reading
Accuse a Scientist of Corruption. Later, Replace His Name Without Explanation. Everybody OK With That?
Dive into science-based criticisms of man-caused global warming or the methods used to gather and assess evidence (or lack thereof) for it, and you are soon neck-deep in very complicated analysis about why the issue appears not to be settled. The accusation that skeptic scientists are paid to lie about the issue is not hard to follow at all, basic scrutiny of it reveals inconsistencies that only lead to more problems.
Let’s start with how Ross Gelbspan’s most widely repeated accusation line initially contained a famous skeptic name, Dr S. Fred Singer, which was later swapped for a different name without a word of explanation. Continue reading