Just one more thing (because there’s always one more thing) regarding what I illustrated in my dissection of the two weeks-old California v Exxon lawsuit, about the intellectually dishonest way the mainstream media was implying it was some kind of new and wondrous situation. Continue reading
Seems Oreskes et al. are not figuring out what the lesson is to be learned here. They continue to file Friends of the Court blunders in boilerplate copy fashion supporting various “Exxon Knew”-style cases, repeating their same blunders they had in their first one, e.g., what I term ye olde “reposition global warming” leaked industry memos evidence, which are the same worthless, never implemented memos the lawsuits themselves are enslaved to – in boilerplate copy fashion, e.g. the Hawaiian pair – as cornerstone evidence of “fossil fuel industry-led public disinformation campaigns. So, I’ve created a new tag category just for these situations, “Oreskes et al. amici filings.” Continue reading
The climate issue only has two legs to stand on, the claim that the science is settled, and the accusation that fossil fuel company executives colluded with skeptic climate scientists via disinformation campaigns to undercut the ‘settled science.’ Give a round of applause to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and three of his closer Senate friends whose attempt to shore up that second leg on July 31st demonstrated that no matter who you are as a prominent public figure hurling the accusation, there you are: enslaved to either both or just one set of literally worthless ‘leaked industry memos’ as proof for your accusation, basically traceable back to a fellow named Kert Davies who currently runs the Climate Files website, and who dates back in his highly suspect long-term promulgation of the two ‘memos’ sets to the 1990s. But this dicey enslavement situation doesn’t stop there. Via recently released Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) documents out of the New York State Attorney General’s office, that ‘love affair’ apparently applied to AG Eric Schneiderman’s office back in 2015 while further corroborating the interconnectedness of Kert Davies with other suspicious character assassination efforts against Exxon and scientists who are skeptical about catastrophic man-caused global warming.
Allow me, at the end of this post, to throw in a zinger about Hunter Biden’s connection to the Clima-Change™ issue as a counterpoint to the Senator Sanders situation. First, though, watch this: Continue reading
I wrote about the main fault with the ludicrous draft paper submitted to the Harvard Law Review in Part 1, namely the paper authors’ enslavement to a particular set of literally worthless ‘leaked industry memos’, and the funding association of one of the authors, David Arkush. But as usual, there’s more. Arkush apparently has quite a basic problem with making authoritative statements — hold that thought for just a bit. First, let me say I don’t simply write about these collective situations, I try to get something done about them. Continue reading
For any of the folks at last week’s Heartland Institute climate conference (and any others I’ve contacted recently) who heard me say the worthless “reposition global warming” ‘leaked industry memos’ is the literal best ammunition that enviro-activist accusers have in their arsenal as evidence that the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns, that was no exaggeration. And as we all know, the primary hallmark of far leftists is the way they project their mindset onto the people they accuse of treachery, so when we see the Covering Climate Now group, a supplier of biased, one-sided climate info to 500+ news media outlets, publish a March 2 “FOX Doesn’t Just Lie About Elections” hit piece castigating the Fox News network with a subheadline that reads ….
The network is part of a climate disinformation ecosystem that journalism has to confront.
…. it is an arrow the size of Texas pointing to who it actually is who spews disinformation and who should be exposed for exactly what they are doing. Especially when Covering Climate Now feels totally compelled to support their accusation with ye olde “reposition global warming” memos that date all the way back to when the co-founder of CCNow first used them in a pure disinformation effort back in 1997. That’s how old this pathetic effort is, and why I put the comical “ye olde” modifying noun in front of those memos’ notorious name.
Call this post a follow-up to both my similarly-titled November 16, 2022 post and a sort of “corroborating new information addition” to my Sept 2021 post about the Democrat House Oversight Committee’s political suicide. It’s a point I cannot emphasize enough, as it relates to enviro-activists promulgating the idea that there’s a fossil fuel industry conspiracy to mislead the public – via industry-orchestrated disinformation campaigns – about the certainty of man-caused global warming. Always keep these two bits in mind when considering any prominent hurl of their accusation: first, a primary hallmark of enviro-activists his their psychological projection of their mindset as accusations aimed at others; and second; the very best evidence in their arsenal for their accusation about deceptive industry campaigns consists the above-noted memo sets. As I’ve detailed here at GelbspanFiles, both sets are literally worthless, neither were ever implemented anywhere, thus rendering them useless as evidence to prove deception efforts are rooted in the directives of those memos. Obviously.
So when these same two sets are put out front & center in one way or another by enviro-activists again and again and again, it is a valid concern to determine whether this is a conspiracy on their part to deceive the public about the legitimacy of the science-based disputes offered by skeptic climate scientists to counter the IPCC / Al Gore side of the issue.
Allow me to illustrate this troublesome situation once again, where what I found a couple of months ago, combined with the latest available info about those enviro-activists’ efforts (hold that thought until near the end of this post), reinforces the appearance of their apparent conspiracy efforts. Continue reading
I was alerted by a prominent climate scientist to an embargoed “New Harvard study puts a number on what ‘Exxon knew’ decades ago about climate science” news release out of Harvard University the day before it was released on January 12th, concerning Geoffrey Supran’s then-upcoming January 13 Science magazine publication of his “Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections” paper. The news release mentioned Geoffrey Supran’s name but not Naomi Oreskes – she, of worldwide “Merchants of Doubt” book author / documentary movie star fame. That struck me as being a bit odd since Supran owes his rising fame entirely to Oreskes, he’s not the least bit subtle about pointing his inclusion within her aura. So, I added the words “Supran’s mistake is believing in his own publicity!” to the email subject line of my reply back to the person and others included regarding the embargoed news release.
I underestimated just how much bigger his ego might be inflated. However, the more a person believes in their own publicity, the more susceptible they are to crippling deflation of their ego. For those unaware of it, Geoffrey Supran is a very weak link among the accusers who are desperately trying to keep the “industry-paid skeptic climate scientists liars-for-hire” accusation alive. Continue reading
How’s it going to work out when you have to defend your accusation that this ‘leaked memo’ directive is smoking gun proof that the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns to deceive the public about what the industry knew about the certainty of man-caused global warming? Just askin’ … for potentially 218+ friends ….
No exaggeration there about that worthless-as-evidence memo directive phrase (it was never implemented anywhere) being the only thing enviro-activists have in their arsenal to support their accusation about the fossil fuel industry bankrolling disinformation campaigns, and I’m not kidding about the sheer repetition of it recently which proves just how devoid that mob is of anything else to support their accusation, and how desperate they’re becoming in using it to keep the accusation alive. Continue reading
Just sayin’ – anytime a person or group with a significant amount of prominence in the climate issue regurgitates ye olde “reposition global warming” memo set as ‘smoking gun’ evidence to supposedly prove the existence of industry-orchestrated disinformation campaigns, it’s an instance that should trigger other prominent people with a significant amount of investigative authority to look deeply into the instance and what or who prompted it. Why? Because those supposedly ‘leaked industry memos’ were actually an unsolicited subset proposal comprised of operations goals and alternative names that were never used – I’ll reiterate that a little farther down in this blog post. The memo subset is literally worthless as evidence of energy company disinformation campaigns.
By this late date in the history of pro-global warming people citing those memos, this specific accusation tactic looks like nothing more than a one-trick pony that’s perhaps made available somewhere in a prepackaged template for influential accusers to hurl.
Witness the latest two separate examples of really clumsy regurgitations of that memo set within just this current month of September, falsely said to be the operating instructions for the 1991 “Information Council for the Environment” (ICE) public relations campaign.
[Author’s note: Unlike prior instances where WUWT reproduced some of my blog posts here as guest posts there, this one is the opposite – I submitted it straight to them first, and it now appears there as “Peer Reviewed Science Journal Report: ‘Electric Utility Industry’s Role in Promoting Climate Denial, Doubt, And Delay.’” I reproduce it here from WUWT.]
Enviro-activists who claim human-induced catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is happening, is harmful, and should be stopped, also say evidence to support their claim is found in peer reviewed, recognized science journals. It’s their gold standard for validating the credibility of scholarly papers on the topic. They admonish anyone offering criticism outside this system — if it is not peer reviewed and published in a science journal, it has no credibility and is likely corrupted by dubious outside influences.
They would say that another term for peer reviewers is “fact checkers,” outside experts not associated with the paper’s author(s) who ascertain whether there are errors in the paper prior to publication in a climate science journal, on any area related to the issue. Peer reviewed approval = no errors. Continue reading