From a July 15, 2013 Huffington Post article, Desmogblog’s Brendan DeMelle (yes, that Desmog) said in response to the news confirming the existence of a 97% scientific consensus on man-caused global warming: Continue reading
Category Archives: Repeated talking points
Golly, Where Have We Heard This Before?
From Douglas Gansler, former Maryland State attorney general, seen within his January 4, 2017 “Did Exxon launch a climate science ‘disinformation campaign’?” Baltimore Sun op-ed:
Exxon’s apparent disinformation campaign came right out of the tobacco companies’ playbook. Exxon even turned to some of the same groups that the tobacco industry had used to promote uncertainty about the dangers of smoking — this time to play up the uncertainty in climate science.
Gelbspan & Trump’s EPA Transition Team leader
For over two decades, both the overall enviro-activist community and the mainstream media have had what amounts to nearly absolute control over framing the public narrative about the global warming issue. “It’s a settled science with a 97% consensus to back it up, and the critics who pop up are bribed to lie by the fossil fuel industry,” they say. But they were too complacent in their belief expectations about the 2016 US presidential race, and were blindsided by the election results. Now, while they still have control over the situation, the long knives are out for Donald Trump and anyone he chooses for resolving the global warming problem. But these efforts are political suicide to an absolutely embarrassing extent. Continue reading
The Battle for Infographic Reality
Rush Limbaugh has said it more than once, the far-left feels a compulsion to cloak reality. For an example of that regarding efforts to prompt the general public to ignore people who are skeptical about catastrophic man-caused global warming, we are blessed with a particular infographic …….. Continue reading
To Be an Objective Reporter, or Not to Be, that is The Question
If the reporter in this situation thinks he’s about to break some kind of major story about ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientiss,’ he’s in for a big disappointment. Continue reading
The Connolley Problem, pt 6: Lahsen’s Spice Girls
Even though this series of blog posts concerns a prominent complaint filed in 2007 against the UK Channel Four Television Corporation video “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” my objective is to show how a thorough analysis of any given accusation about skeptic climate scientists being ‘paid industry money to lie’ shatters the accusation to bits no matter where the hammer strikes. Meaning, current efforts to use racketeering laws as a means to prosecute “climate change deniers.”
Today, an examination of a single-sentence claim within the complaint about fabricated names in the Oregon Petition Project (a claim widely repeated to this day, including a minor ‘supporting actor role’ in Naomi Oreskes’ documentary movie). The sentence should be devastating proof of how the petition is discredited …… Continue reading
The Connolley Problem, pt 5: The Redundant Gelbspan/Lancaster Reference
Citing irrelevant material as a means to question the credibility of an global warming expert’s science viewpoints is fundamentally unwise, particularly when the individual making the citation commits an inexcusable error in the process. But the credibility problem worsens when that person takes on the appearance of trying to inflate the number of sources for the irrelevant material, with a pair of ‘corroborations’ where one of them only cites the identical original source while the other only opens up a Pandora’s Box about the entire situation surrounding the – let me emphasize – irrelevant material. 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
“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
The RICO Letter’s Sole-Source Problem
News of a letter signed by 20 scientists to President Obama (imploring him to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to punish immoral “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change“) first popped up around mid September. At my first opportunity to read it, I immediately recognized a fatal fault in its second paragraph, and I placed two short comments at Anthony Watts’ blog, first noting the problem with the US Senator pushing the idea, and then regarding the letter’s ‘accusation sources’. Afterward, alerted American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson about the latter comment, and he asked if I could flesh that out into a complete article. I did, and you may Continue reading at American Thinker —–>