I was alerted to this particular “The Mann” / Naomi Oreskes Twitter situation in the screencapture below back in late April right at the beginning of my home residence upheaval, and only just today have a window of opportunity to offer some observations. Dr Michael Mann was quote-retweeting Oreskes’ tweet about a CNBC article which essentially implied fossil fuel money bought influence with Republican officials. Dr Mann, you might notice here, didn’t do anything to bolster his personal image with that tweet. This doesn’t work out well for Oreskes, either, or as it turns out, for her long ago “Merchants of Doubt” co-author Erik Conway.
Why did I put dollar signs in ex-Greenpeace USA / ex-Ozone Action Executive Directors John Passacantando’s name, the man who arguably was the first to infuse the “reposition global warming” phrase with sustainable major media traction as an indictment of skeptic climate scientists colluding with Big Coal/Oil executives to undercut the ‘settled science’ of man-caused global warming? Hold onto that question until the latter part of this blog post. If you are an aspiring journalist, are you assured good good grades in your journalism classes and great job prospects if you never question anything you are told about that whole “reposition global warming” phrase situation? Hold onto that question as well. Continue reading
[See update additions in red, below] John Passacantando, that is, the ex-Greenpeace USA Executive Director who had merged his former Ozone Action group into it in 2000. I term him and his cohorts “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” because of that merger situation, with regard to its central role in finally prompting the first useful major ongoing media traction to the “reposition global warming” ‘leaked memos’ accusation that supposedly is proof that fossil fuel executives skeptic colluded with climate scientists to create disinformation which would cause the public to doubt the ‘settled science’ of man-caused catastrophic global warming. This is the same John Passacantando who was seen much more recently with former Ozone Action / Greenpeace USA-ExxonSecrets staffer Kert Davies in an apparent effort to portray Exxon as corrupt in the eyes of the public, the same Passacantando / Davies duo that seems to be swimming in dark money – nearly $5 million not so long ago – to do … what, exactly?
Fair’s fair — when the collective pro-global warming side of the issue claims the mere appearance of possibly illicit funding is enough to indict skeptic climate scientists of spending disinformation, then by default, the notion is not off limits to explore when it comes to the motivations and efforts of those who are the core people hurling the ‘crooked skeptics’ accusation. Continue reading
I was away for the Oct 15-17 weekend, attending the Heartland Institute ICCC14 climate conference. Poor as I am, I’d be remiss if I didn’t again thank the two people who generously donated to cover the cost of registering for the conference and the costs of the hotel and fossil fuel for the drive there. While there, I not only met up with old friends and benefactors, I gained new friends and supporters, and I gleaned information on both the science side of the issue and its unnerving “Great Reset” / Environmental Social Governance” political side. Plus, a slide from Dr Will Happer’s presentation (FYI, back in late 2015, I covered how he doesn’t like Greenpeace much) turns out to be something I can borrow to illustrate the latest update of how the corrupting money in this issue seems to be found entirely in the enviro-activists side of this issue.
“было бы корыто, a свиньи-то будут.” Roughly translated, “if you have a trough, there will be pigs.”
This requires two setup points. First, in my February 13, 2020 blog post titled “Joke: ‘Why did the Greenpeace USA Executive Director cross the Road?’,” I covered how the founder of the long forgotten environmental group Ozone Action subsequently merged his little group into Greenpeace USA and took over there as Executive Director, only to inexplicably step down eight years later into what looked like the oblivion of an utterly inconsequential, one-man operation apparently pointlessly named “Our Next Economy LLC” which had practically no internet presence outside of his rather bland blog page ….. while getting, as late as what’s seen in a 2017 IRS 990 form, at least $2 million in income. The main question arising out of all the details in that post is whether his long-term promulgation of a worthless set of leaked industry memos, which gained their first major ongoing media traction in his dinky Ozone Action group as a go-to source for indicting skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption, is being facilitated into the latest set of global warming lawsuits, e.g. the two month-old Maui v Sunoco one, via millions of dark money dollars poured into his mystery Our Next Economy LLC operation.
The second setup point is that the U.S. Government’s “Paycheck Protection Program” was created to help shuttered small businesses to keep their workers employed during the current virus pandemic situation.
So now, I could have actually titled this post as “Joke: What do you get when you cross a small business bailout loan with a one-man operation swimming in millions in cash?” The thing that investigators need to ask is, what on Earth is going on here? Continue reading
There’s another good question to ask corresponding to the one in my blog post title: how many times does a pattern have to be repeated before it stops looking like just a coincidence and instead looks like something resulting from a prepackaged set of talking points assembled as part of a larger coordinated propaganda effort? Continue reading
To get more cash for his agenda. No joke, actually. Continue reading
In my work here, I follow the citations for ‘evidence’ which supposedly supports the accusation about ‘corrupt industry-paid lying skeptic climate scientists.’ But continuing on the theme I suggested at the end of my February 8, 2018 blog post — oil company lawyers and potentially other investigators examining correspondences of enviro-activists “not limited to” Naomi Oreskes — another name to keep an eye out for is Phil Radford. If lawyers / investigators / reporters ‘follow the proverbial money’ with him, it could lead them to the core of people surrounding the inception of the ‘crooked skeptics’ accusation. Continue reading