“Merchants of Doubt” Will Show Links Between Climate, Tobacco Misinformation
October 28, 2014
Director Robbie Kenner talks about his new film, “Merchants of Doubt”, which profiles the parallels between tobacco industry science denial, and climate denial.
Kenner is the director of the highly regarded “Food Inc”, which had a big impact a few years ago. I think this one, coming as more and more climate deniers are back on their heels as the tide turns against them, could have a large impact.
Release scheduled for in February 2015.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
October 28, 2014 at 9:13 am
Can’t wait to see it. A click on the “Naomi” in the upper right after Kenner finishes will get you to Naomi Oreskes discussing her Merchants of Doubt book (part 1) at a symposium at KSU. Skip the first 4:20 of introductory BS. Links to Parts 2 through 6 of her talk will appear after that finishes.
October 28, 2014 at 11:52 am
Friends, don’t kid yourself. I own Oreskes’ Merchants of Doubt book, she breaks no new ground on the worn-out accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry shills, she only repeats stuff already seen at Demsmogblog about acid rain, 2nd hand smoke (of which Desmog seems oblivious that their own ‘evidence’ tobacco.org docs wipes out the contention that Fred Singer denies the harm of it) etc. Weird thing is, Oreskes’ book never makes the hard hit of closing the deal on a parallel of paid tobacco shills / paid coal-oil shills. I’m surprised more enviro-activists didn’t hammer her on that. She did try to close the deal back in 2010 right before her book came out at an AAAS symposium, but all she did was repeat material from Ross Gelbspan and Al Gore, both of whom have never shared their physical evidence with the rest of the world proving there’s an arrangement to pay skeptics for stuff they know are lies.
October 28, 2014 at 12:33 pm
Some quotes from Russell’s blog about his “funding situation”. Emphasis added.
“I’ve already disclosed in 2013 (under “A Note About Funding“) and in January this year that I had received a $12,000 STRINGS-FREE grant from the Heartland Institute for last year and this year. For sheer emphasis, strings-free means it is a gift for me to use as I please, COMING WITH NO SUPERVISORY DIRECTION of any kind”.
“Apart from some ‘sympathy money’ my mother gives me and occasional random sales of personal items on bay, IT IS ALL I HAVE TO LIVE ON”.
“However, in my January blog post about receiving the first of two installments of my grant, I said “I will have a new one for this year at exactly the same amount, unless my benefactors choose to add a bit to it later“. Well, I have good news: WHOEVER DECIDES what amount I was to receive July 1st for the second installment decided to double it to $12,000. Again, do the math here. That’s now $18,000 to live on for this entire year, which works out to $8.65 per hour, a buck and some change OVER the federal minimum wage”.
If I’ve read that correctly, Russell wants us to believe that Heartland is now sending him $18,000 a year with NO expectation of any return on their “investment”? And that’s his ONLY visible means of support? Without it he would likely starve?
Can Russell tell us how many others among the 310+ million Americans are “on the dole” with Heartland? Sounds like a good deal to me. If fact, it’s too good to be true. Sorry Russell—–if you look like whore, smell like a whore, walk like a whore, and most importantly, prove it to all by spouting your BS on a site like this, you ARE a whore for the fossil fuel interests. Period. No “client” gives $$$ to a whore without an expectation of “getting something” in return, and you are stupid to keep maintaining that we “can’t prove it”.
Go try to peddle your crap on sites where you will find ill-informed and gullible people who are susceptible to FUD sowing. I do compliment you on managing to lie and con your way into a job that pays over $1 more per hour than minimum wage, and doing no real work to earn it. You’re obviously one of those “takers” that Romney talked about.
October 29, 2014 at 1:30 pm
“… lie and con …” And you still cannot or are unwilling to refute a single word I say about the smear of skeptics. Meanwhile, you are able to prove which of any of my statements are lies and cons…. how exactly? You fellows never seem to catch how that part of your name-calling implodes. Heartland agrees and endorses what I write and what I wrote prior to exchanging a single word with anybody there. Greenpeace commissioned the vice chair of the IPCC http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/PageFiles/19049/SumIB_uk.pdf to write a paper for the identical reason. But do you apply this same wipeout to either Greenpeace or the IPCC? Think about that for a while.
October 28, 2014 at 12:48 pm
“… she breaks no new ground on the worn-out accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry shills, she only repeats stuff already seen at DeSmogBlog…”
Glad you mentioned that as Desmogblog did pave the way in highlighting the dirty tactics of dirty industries and in their book ‘Climate Cover-Up’ which is also worth a read as is Ross Gelbspan’s ‘The Heat is Online’, Joe Romm’s cuttings from Climate Progress in ‘Straight Up’ and a number since.
Seeing as you mentioned DeSmogBlog I am surprised that you didn’t mention John Mashey and his extensive, and intensive research.
You could also try finding a copy of “Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding
and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations” by Robert J Brule.
But then Pat Michaels owned up to who was paying him:
and let us not forget his connections with Western Fuels and Greening Earth and note the tone of the articles he writes in Forbes and the WSJ.
But of course, for one with a blog site such as yours this ain’t happening. Which is absurd!
October 29, 2014 at 7:17 am
To underscore the content of my previous reply I can point to:
‘Censoring Science: Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming’ By Mark Bowen.
in particular Chapter 9 “A Logical Well-Reasoned Conclusion” specifically starting at page 235 with the paragraph beginning, ‘I once attempted to interview Dr. Richard Lindzen…’
which besides highlighting Lindzen once again grasping at straws throws a spotlight on the activities of the George C Marshall Institute and Patrick Michaels involvement with Western Fuels and the others who also enabled dirty fuels fight back against the message which James Hansen had presented to the world, the likes of Robert Balling, S. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.
Western Fuels financed the World Climate Review edited by Pat Michaels which has now morphed into the online World Climate Report published by Greening Earth Society.
October 29, 2014 at 7:22 am
Why do you (and we) waste so much time feeding such good information to a lightweight troll like Russell? DNFTT and maybe he’ll go away.
October 29, 2014 at 10:57 am
duolg (thus avoiding canine connotation): “Why do you (and we) waste so much time feeding such good information to a lightweight troll like Russell?”
I think people like Russell are useful from giving us a way to inform the casual lurkers about the bigger side to the story. Russell and co. are thus useful, but don’t understand in which way.
October 29, 2014 at 11:24 am
I don’t mind the “canine connotation”. Dogs are man’s best friend—-I’d rather rely on most any dog to cover my back than many of the people I know. And since I’m a “salty and grumpy” (and barbaric) old Marine according to Arcus, that brings to mind the “Devil Dog” nickname earned by the Marines in WW1. The Germans had never before met anyone in battle quite like the Marines, and dubbed them “Der Teufel Hunden” or “Devil Dogs” after the ferocious mountain dogs of Bavarian folklore.
So—-OOH-Rah, Semper Fi, Grrrrrrowl, and WOOF!
“I think people like Russell are useful from giving us a way to inform the casual lurkers about the bigger side to the story. Russell and co. are thus useful, but don’t understand in which way”. All that’s true, but do we really have that many “casual lurkers” on Crock? The 1642 “amazing people” seem pretty well informed and able to recognize denier trolls, and I worry more about the Dunning Kruger non-troll misleading them.
October 29, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Well, my take is that the ‘belief’ that I’m useful to ClimateCrocks will only carry so far until it dawns on you-all how damaging I am to your unsupported talking points. Then we can expect a wholesale deletion of my comments. To steal a phrase from Al Gore, “this has happened before.” Notice the desire for me to go away by “dumboldguy”. Ask yourselves what he has to fear about my mere presence here. Does he have so little confidence in the readers that he fears some will be swayed to start thinking critically for themselves, that they might first double-check to see if Oreskes / Gelbspan’s / Desmog’s / Gore’s accusations actually have evidence to back them up? Perish the thought if they stop trusting ClimateCrocks and started looking into this just to satisfy their own curiosity.
Unrest is born, and we can’t have that, can we?
December 31, 2014 at 8:27 pm
And Edmund de Rothschild funded the original Global Environment Fund to finance green projects by selling shares in his private Geneva Bank, and oil billionaire Maurice Strong founded and directed the UN climate agencies, and Rockefeller oil dollars have financed the majority of green organizations, including 350.org and Greenpeace, as well as the liberal media that censors all valid climate science.
[video src="https://ia700408.us.archive.org/4/items/Unced1992GeorgeHunt/GeorgeHuntOnUnced.mp4" /]
October 29, 2014 at 1:40 pm
True, I didn’t mention Mashey here….. but too bad you didn’t bother to read through my blog. I covered his antics quite nicely here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2039 And as I said at that piece, Mashey only paints a foggy guilt-by-association picture of skeptic funding and never provides evidence than any amount, large or small, was accompanied by an industry directive to misinform the public and/or fabricate false science reports. That ton of info in his papers and spreadsheets proves NOTHING. Worse, in one of his unguarded moments, he mentioned how he fed the PBS Frontline people his guilt-by-association material on Donors Trust……. which once again leaves out any proof that the money comes under a directive to lie and fabricate false material.
And one more thing, I wouldn’t place much stock in Demsmogblog. Read through the rest of my blog posts and you soon see how they undermine themselves at every turn. Plus, you do know who the other co-founder is of Desmog besides Hoggan, don’t you?
October 30, 2014 at 6:14 am
I did visit your site Russell, but having noted the quote from Breitbart and taken in the slant of some of the items there I came to the conclusion ‘nothing rational to see here’ – another ideologue in action – move on and out. Are you really batting for Heartland?
October 30, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Couldn’t answer the question I asked about who the other co-founder of Demsog is, could you? Helps if you read the rest of my material, you’ll find it, but you will not if you look into Desmog’s own material, and it gets worse when you try to see if Wikipedia identifies who it is.
Nothing rational to see at my blog? Your opinion which you are free in this country to have, but don’t expect others to look to you for evidence to prove political zealotry or industry corruption on my part. You can’t deliver it.
Regarding your last question, stop and think about the insinuation there. It only works if you can find such material at Heartland specifically targeting in detail the smear of skeptic before they mention my name. Oh, dear, you instead find me as the only one doing this long before Heartland ever mentioned the topic. So, what you instead have is…….. not Heartland directing me what to do under extortion of withdrawing monetary support, but instead a pretty good appearance that it is I telling Heartland what to do on this topic.
How’s that working out for ya?
Notice who hurls unsupported accusations in this situation and who is fleeing from confrontation. Not me. What I offer you fellows is freedom from ideological enslavement, freedom from lost sleep over a situation that PhD level scientists say is a topic which the IPCC has not conclusively proven to be the cataclysm they claim it is or someday will be. Once free of that, you can devote yourselves to actually helping those in need, instead of the bleak prospect of lining the pockets of activist One Percenters who failed to deliver the evidence you need to defeat people like me: http://web.archive.org/web/20120427091206/http://www.telofski.com/blog/2011/12/09/greenpeace-exec-paid-for-zero-hours-worked/
October 28, 2014 at 1:09 pm
October 28, 2014 at 1:25 pm
One of your better pieces. I like it when there is nothing left of “them” but small bloody bits scattered over a wide area, and you did that very well here.
October 31, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Mmmm, perhaps not. Peter repeats bits about the Petition that implode under hard scrutiny. Most problematic is the one about fake names in it, originally pushed back in ’98 in a troubling way which has every appearance of being an effort designed to generate a story where there was no story. It’s not something AGWers really ought to draw attention to, out of fear of who it leads to.
October 31, 2014 at 8:02 pm
Perhaps not? In your dreams, Russell. The Petition is one of the best debunked denier games out there, and you must be totally out of your mind to deny the truth of what Peter’s video clip shows and expect to get by with this attempt at deflection.
You say “Peter repeats bits about the Petition that implode under hard scrutiny” and are so deluded that the you cite only ONE as “most problematic”?—–that someone sneaked a few fake names on there?
I will repeat only some of the parts of the Petition scam that implode under only the very slightest scrutiny, and YOU are the one who should never mention the Petition for fear of where it leads—-to exposing you as a charlatan.
1) Nearly half of the signers were engineers—-engineers are not scientists.
2) No effort was made to check the veracity of ANY of the information on the signature cards. The organizers admit this.
3) Among the “scientists” that signed, only the smallest handful were climate scientists. Metallurgists, geologists, veterinarians, and MD’s etc have no business professing expertise or opinions in climate science.
4) The Petition presented a supporting “paper” that misrepresented itself as coming from the AAAS, and got rebuked for it.
5) Many signers removed their names once they saw it was a scam.
The Petition lies in ruins except in the minds of the deniers, who are reduced to grasping at any straw.
November 4, 2014 at 1:05 pm
@”dumboldguy”: As Ronald Reagan would say, “there you go again”.
“… someone sneaked a few fake names …” Nossir. Ozone Action only succeeded in sneaking ONE fake name in, Dr. Geri Halliwell, they were caught and exposed, and I succinctly pointed out in my 2010 AmericanThinker piece how O.A. people pathetically drew that out to suggest other names were fake. In case you never noticed it, ClimateCrocks’ Peter Sinclair also happens to have a M*A*S*H TV character among his Facebook Friends, Honeycutt. How’s that working out for you now?
Funny that you attempt to take down the Petition with gripes about the level of expertise of the signers, yet you never apply that same logic to how it – by default – wipes out IPCC global warming assessments, with all of its biologists, economic analysts, ice core folks, etc, etc. You can’t have it both ways.
Say a Petition cover paper attempted to hoodwink people having the level of science, engineering or other level of intelligence if it makes you feel better, but you face the impossible task of proving they are really that stupid. But by contrast, would you agree Al Gore followers are dumb enough to believe the Desmog pages http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/singer.jpg and http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Marc-Morano-climate-denial.jpg which are little more than images designed to look like Facebook, complete with fake replies? Or would you say your pals know what Desmog meant to imply there? You can’t have it both ways.
“… Many signers removed their names …” Really? Of the 31,000, how many exactly?
November 4, 2014 at 2:04 pm
Russell is here to again dazzle us with his BS and attempt to deflect criticism of the Oregon Petition, which is perhaps the most thoroughly debunked and discredited piece of horsepucky still in use in the denier echo chamber. Perhaps he is hoping that because it is such ancient history, he will catch newcomers and the gullible? I have already wasted enough time on this with Russel, and have given links that anyone can follow to see the shameful truth about what BS the petition is and how despicable the folks are who still push it as meaningful. (Yes that’s YOU, Russell, despicable and even worse). Here’s yet another one, for those who didn’t find the Skeprical Science piece convincing enough.
http://climatesight.org/2009/06/17/ignore-the-petition-project/
Russell tries to WOW us with his logic skills also, but comes up with a huge non sequitur instead. LOL, Russell, don’t you understand how illogical and just plain STUPID this comment is?
“Funny that you attempt to take down the Petition with gripes about the level of expertise of the signers, yet you never apply that same logic to how it – by default – wipes out IPCC global warming assessments, with all of its biologists, economic analysts, ice core folks, etc, etc. You can’t have it both ways”.
Russell is so eager to grasp at another straw (ANY straw) that he fails to see that a bunch of misguided fools taking the time to individually sign a card with a few sentences on it, stick it in an envelope and mail it off somewhere is in NO WAY comparable to the work done by folks on the IPCC assessments. The IPCC folks WERE expert in the various narrow fields of their study and interest as they pertained to AGW, DID work in groups and over a period of time, and produced yet another document that has validity. I can’t have it both ways? That’s correct, in that there is only ONE way here, and I own it—-you are ankle deep in BS, Russell, and are welcome to it.
Enough time wasted. I will say that anyone who looks into the “level of expertise” of the signers can reach no other conclusion but that it’s a sham and and a hoax. Go back to the Skeptical Science link to review how UN-qualified the signers are. (If they even exist and if they have the education they self-certified, that is. The Project has not checked any of that.)
November 6, 2014 at 1:48 pm
All those lines from “dumboldguy” including “but comes up with a huge non sequitur instead” and he still cannot rise to the challenge of providing evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement between skeptics and industry people. All those lines at SkS about the Oregon Petition, and they don’t even lift a finger to dispute what the signers agreed on, all we see is character assassination. Is that all AGWers got?
November 6, 2014 at 7:09 pm
This is the entire Petition statement. Remember, it goes back many years, so some of the signers may have come to their senses since, but it is not “character assassination” to say that anyone who signed it was a misguided fool. Is there anyone on Crock besides Russell who will defend this statement? Russell? Do you want to grovel around and try to do so? Oh, I forgot—-you’re “not a scientist” and will hide behind that while you sling your meaningless BS.
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind”.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”.
“proposed limits in GHG would harm, hinder, and damage”
“no convincing scientific evidence that GHG will disrupt the climate”
“CO2 is good for us”
Lord love a duck!
October 31, 2014 at 5:56 pm
Sorry, I missed replying to your video, but something else reminded me I must catch it (seems you may have missed the challenge to you about it over 4 years ago, too https://climatecrocks.com/2010/01/09/32000-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-15 ). Just curious, did you gather the material in it by yourself, or did your [not-then yet] Facebook Friend Ross Gelbspan feed you the material for it? Or perhaps was it one of the people from what I term “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action”, MacGillis, Kreider, Radford, Passacantando, or someone they fed that info to? You see, Gelbspan had ties with Ozone Action, and I detailed how O.A. was at the heart of the Petition smear in a 2010 piece http://web.archive.org/web/20140716080021/http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_curious_history_of_global.html (the fake ‘names’ was actually just the one Spice Girl), and I followed it up with a piece showing how efforts to smear the Petition not only involved O.A. people, but also bled into the Clinton White House http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/white_house_involved_in_warmist_smear_campaign.html .
Perhaps your video was no more than an innocently compiled piece, but perhaps a re-examination of it and the problematic ties of “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” to it will cause you to wonder about why there was such a compulsion to smear the scientists rather than engage them on what prompted them to sign the Petition in the first place.
November 2, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Russell is nothing if not persistent in offering us opportunities to cut him some new anal orifices. Here he is again, saying nothing of substance and merely blowing smoke in the hopes that it will obscure truth.
He has “missed replying to Peter’s video”? I doubt he has even viewed it. If he had, he would not be talking about it in terms of anyone “challenging” it, as that fool did years ago. The info in the video is irrefutable, and no one has been able to refute the many criticisms of the Petition it summarizes.
Of course, Russell lives on innuendo and sowing confusion rather than dealing in science or facts, so he doubles down and proceeds to insult Peter by asking “did you gather the material in it by yourself, or did your Facebook Friend Ross Gelbspan FEED YOU the material for it?” and so on. (That approaches a banning level offense, IMO)
Russell tells another lie with “…..(the fake ‘names’ was actually just the one Spice Girl), and I followed it up with…” (BS) Russell hopes that none of us know about the many other fake “signers”, which included “Perry S. Mason” (the fictitious lawyer), “Michael J. Fox” (the actor), “Robert C. Byrd” (the Senator), “John C. Grisham” (the lawyer-author), “Drs. ‘Frank Burns’ ‘Honeycutt’ and ‘Pierce’ from the hit-show M*A*S*H, in addition to that Spice Girl, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as ‘Dr. Geri Halliwel’ and again as simply “Dr. Halliwell”. I remember reading that Donald Duck, Goofy, and Minnie Mouse were on there as well.
In response to the issue of the fake names, Robinson (originator of the petition) said, “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake.” So, let’s follow that to a logical conclusion—-if we can’t tell who the fakes are, how do we know that any of the signatories are real or even “scientists”? NONE of the data on the signature cards was verified.
Anyone who wants to read some truth and real analysis about the Oregon Petition rather than Russell’s horsepucky.should check out the SkS article.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
Russell is also dumb enough to post links to HIS OWN mindless horsepucky on the American Stinker website. For those who are unfamiliar with the site, here is a good description. It doesn’t surprise me that Russell is a “contributor” to AS as well as Heartland—-same feathers, different birds.
“American Stinker is an online wing-nut publication that’s more or less the poor man’s WorldNutDaily or Newsmax. None of its regular columnists are even recognizable names as z-list pundits. The magazine, of course, is chock-full of right-wing conspiracy theories, woo, pseudoscience, and anti-science. On the conspiracy side, they promote birtherism, “creeping sharia,” and still occasionally prattle on about Vince Foster. On the science side, they concentrate on creationism and global warming denialism. They’ve published articles by such conservative luminaries as Noel Sheppard and Pamela Geller and such climate experts as S. Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton, as well as an interview with (and hagiography of) white nationalist Jared Taylor”.
November 4, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Ronald Reagan “there you go again” II.
“…. I doubt he has even viewed it. …” Pure psychological projection, more appropriately applied to global warming believers, as proved by what a Climate Reality Project participant http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/al-gores-climate-leadership-training-kept-me-riveted-and-inspired#comment-249769 Myself, I do read and view AGW material, that is how I am able to point out the faults within all of that material. It would seem you rely on third-hand material, which is why you repeat the mistake above about the M*A*S*H characters. Call my AmericanThinker piece what you want, but you didn’t read it, did you? Otherwise you wouldn’t have dug yourself the hole with the M*A*S*H characters.
What I write about is original work, regarding the smear of skeptics. With all due respect, what Peter wrote was material originating from others as far back as 1998, so IMO, my question about the origins of it is quite straightforward and not ban-worthy.
Now, if you say AmericanThinker is what you say it is, then is there anything out of bounds for others to say the Huffington Post or Daily Kos are “of course, is chock-full of left-wing conspiracy theories, woo, pseudoscience, and anti-science”? I’d say such an assertion is not out-of-bounds, but it would be meaningless without something to back it up. But how about if I say their skeptic scientist smears look like what comes from 911 Truthers, creation science or ChemTrail believers since the accusations about scientists being paid industry money to lie is never backed up with physical evidence proving the accusation true?
Notice in this entire exercise, you never bother to refute what I say in my own work about the smear against skeptic climate scientists. Is it because you cannot?
November 4, 2014 at 2:13 pm
“Notice in this entire exercise, you never bother to refute what I say in my own work about the smear against skeptic climate scientists. Is it because you cannot?”
No Russell, it’s because I learned a lesson from the policemen I worked with over the years, and I’m going to apply it to you. Their motto of “never argue with a drunk” pertains here, because you are a “drunk”. You are drunk on your narcissism, your ignorance of science, your freedom to run your mouth on the internet without someone slapping you silly, and , most importantly, your self-delusion that taking money to whore for the fossil fuel interests is an honorable and useful existence.
Go away!
October 28, 2014 at 1:13 pm
Russell, In this interview, you claim to “want to get to the bottom of this”. If you really want to know “what happened to global cooling” read Science as a Contact Sport by Stephen Schneider, the scientist who predicted cooling as a function of incorrectly projected aerosol concentrations. The “climate thing” really is about science, not Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Agenda 21, or living in caves burning buffalo dung.
October 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm
I already have. Did you by chance catch the bit on pg 122 where Schneider is enslaved to Oreskes’ source of the smear of skeptic climate scientists. Plus his bit on the “doctrine of balance” on pg 119? I detailed myriad problems with that in one of my other blog posts: “‘Skeptic Climate Scientists Do Not Deserve Fair Media Balance.’ Spread This Line Widely; NEVER Check its Veracity and Don’t Examine its History.” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1886
Are you sure you fellows want to continue undermining your cause by giving me space here, or isn’t it more advisable to start deleting my comments before some of your wavering readers start talking among themselves, saying “ya know, that guy is right about that….”
October 29, 2014 at 2:59 pm
I’m all for giving you space, and re-read the pages that attracted your attention. IMO, you should be as interested in the advances in the science as his opinions about how the debate is conducted. Forty years ago there was legitimate uncertainty about whether aerosols or CO2 would “win”. Not so anymore – unless there’s a dramatic increase in atmospheric particulates.
October 29, 2014 at 3:32 pm
“Are you sure you fellows want to continue undermining your cause by giving me space here,”
You’re doing great Russell.
As anyone will tell you, we welcome opinions here.
Just keep it clean, and no threats, abuse, or obvious craziness, which gets quickly boring.
October 29, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Actually, Russell has already “gotten VERY quickly boring”. He has brought nothing to Crock but the same old tired “talking points” that have been debunked and dismissed so many times that they’re not worth answering except by those that need to exercise their typing skills.
He and the other deniers are delusional. They think that parroting the same old stuff (and piling it on as he has on this thread with so many comments) is somehow going to magically make it come true. They fight a “last gasp” battle with it, and don’t seem to realize that the evidence keeps piling up against them and their arguments keep disappearing.
Going “but, but” and looking at ever smaller and more irrelevant pieces of the evidence as they set up their straw men is an exercise in futility (except that it DOE provide a Heartland paycheck for some like Russell). Russell asks what we fear from him and his BS”? I fear falling asleep while reading it, falling off my chair, and hurting myself.
Peter allows Russell to post for now. I suspect that there may come a time when he bans Russell because Russell looks like he is a bit out of control and will eventually “overdo it”. Russell will then crow “I was banned by Crock” and gain status among fellow whores and trolls. IMO, “Go away, Russell” says it all.
October 29, 2014 at 6:09 pm
so whoever shows up your goal is to tell him to go away. maybe you’ll save the world by yourself.
October 29, 2014 at 6:43 pm
If that’s true, it’s time for me to say—–wait for it—–Go away, Omno!
October 30, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Thanks! Readers are welcome to read through any of my comments anywhere they appear via either Disqus or Facebook, they’ll readily see my positive attitude, and no abuse or threats. I’ve been labeled ‘crazy’ numerous times, but when I immediately asked the accusers to indulge the rest of the readers with how that was proven, all that was seen was emptiness or self-damaging quips like “well, itsn’t it obvious?” Beliefs are entertaining, proof is not only devastating, it is something others can share. Notice how commenter “dumboldguy” claims I must be a paid shill, but can’t be bothered to share the proof with the rest of you.
October 30, 2014 at 2:14 pm
“I’m not crazy!—-I’m not a shill!—-Prove it!” says Russell as he drones on and on.
Russell, it’s almost like you were running for office. The “proof” that a candidate is not worthy of office is that he doesn’t get elected. You’re losing the election badly here on Crock. We think you’re “crazy” and a shill, and that’s all the “proof” a rational person would need to make the decision to Go Away.
Since you love challenges, here’s one for you. Spend some $$$ and have some psychiatrist (not in the employ of Heartland) test you and certify to the world that you are not “crazy”. Actually, I myself don’t think you are what we typically think of as “crazy”. You suffer more from personality disorders like narcissism, egomania, extreme motivated reasoning, Dunning-Kruger, and delusional thinking. Can you prove I’m wrong?
October 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Didn’t see that particular link dog (hum) but this may be similar:
Naomi Oreskes – Beyond Belief 2008
Which as the title suggests comes from a Beyond Belief 2008 symposium at the Salk Institute:
Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark title being inspired by Carl Sagan who’s books I have and read. Chris Mooney has a stall in these 2008 Salk talks.
I first became aware of these Salk symposiums in 2006 when Richard Dawkins and Daniel C Dennett gave talks, the latter from a sick bed by proxy. These are two other rational beings who’s books I admire. Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow, spoke that year. If Richard Feynman were still alive I suspect he would be a speaker at Beyond Belief.
October 28, 2014 at 10:30 pm
[…] Director Robbie Kenner talks about his new film, "Merchants of Doubt", which profiles the parallels between tobacco industry science denial, and climate denial. Kenner is the director of the highly… […]
October 29, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Friends, you can always ban me if you fear what I say. No less than Bill Moyers’ crew did: http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Moyers-blocks-me-10-10-14-1024×562.jpg
But as I said at Bill’s place, what has been seen on the internet cannot be unseen. You’d think from the ClimateGate scandal, folks on the IPCC side of the issue would have learned how deletions and censorship of criticism only weakens positions, they don’t bolster them. Just ask the folks at SkS: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
October 29, 2014 at 2:22 pm
How boring. I hope none here is paid to spout any argument. That means it doesn’t matter what this or that industry does or says, our arguments will remain the same. So Oreskes obsession doesn’t matter either.
I would like to meet a skeptic who turned such because he or she read something an oil company wrote. Please help in this quest.
October 29, 2014 at 2:33 pm
“I would like to meet a skeptic who turned such because he or she read something an oil company wrote”, says Omno?
Does Omno mean something other than things like the paychecks Russell has admitted receiving from Heartland? The ones that are his sole sour5ce of income and make him a paid shill?
October 30, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Question is, will commenter “dumboldguy” be the one banned for remarks like the one above. I fully disclose that I receive strings-free grants, and it is Desmog who can offer nothing better than my own words at their so-called profile page hit of me. “Paychecks” are paid to employees who work under an contract, written or under verbal agreement, to do specifically defined work,and surely “dumboldguy” is aware of that difference. And surely “dumboldguy” can spot the problem of calling me a paid shills, since he quoted my dollar figures ( https://climatecrocks.com/2014/10/28/merchants-of-doubt-close-to-release/comment-page-1/#comment-65271 ) from the blog post ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1930 ) where I challenged Tom Styers’ people to donate more to me in order to determine whether I can be so easily bought.
I suggested to “dumboldguy” at another comment section here ( https://climatecrocks.com/2014/09/25/john-stewart-on-climate-march-and-clueless-deniers/comment-page-3/#comment-65157 ) to try extending that challenge straight to Desmog, and I do so again. If you-all truly believe my words are bought, then you and Desmog have literally nothing to lose and everything to gain by figuring out what the dollar figure Heartland is supposedly bribing me, top that figure, and plop it in my bank account. You-all can either believe such a flip-flop coup is possible, or you can see if it will actually happen. Put your money corruption accusations where your mouth is.
October 31, 2014 at 5:31 pm
Russell, I’m trying to ignore you so that Charles Zeller can debate your “science” with you as per his request. You apparently are afraid to do that and keep trying to divert us off into BS land, the only place you show any strength at all. Perhaps you keep trying to divert to me because I have dismissed your “science” and said I wouldn’t waste time rehashing all the debunking that it has received from many others over the years? That way the secret of your abject ignorance is safe with me and you won’t have to answer to Charles?.
First, let’s answer the question you asked, i.e., “….will commenter “dumboldguy” be the one banned for remarks like the one above.” Have you not seen Peter’s comments welcoming you to Crock? I myself have told you to go away and suggested that YOU be banned. Peter could have done that but has instead thrown you out in front of the animals of Crock like a slab of red meat, and he will enjoy watching us devour you. Have you not noticed that he has taken a few chunks out of you also? No, you will be gone long before I will—I have in the past said worse things to people who deserved it less than you, and I’m still here.
I don’t have to prove that you’re a shill, Russell, just like I don’t have to prove that you no longer have a substance abuse problem or no longer beat your wife. You “fully disclose” that you take money from people whose sole reason for being is to propagandize and shill for fossil fuel and right wing interests and you expect us to believe you are “pure” and untainted? Do you think we’re so stupid that we can’t see through that? Heartland only supports those who agree with its mission.
The rest of your comment is nothing but more straw man challenges. You know neither Steyer nor desmogblog is going to try to buy you off, and it is rather stupid to keep issuing that transparent and meaningless challenge.
November 4, 2014 at 1:39 pm
“… Heartland only supports those who agree with its mission. ….”
So does Greenpeace. And your point is? When you cannot establish that the money donated comes with an explicit directive to lie and knowingly fabricate false material, You. Have. Nothing. What part of that is so hard to figure out.
“… people whose sole reason for being is to propagandize and shill for fossil fuel and right wing interests …”
Implying Heartland’s material is false and they know it. You have yet to prove either point, as has Oreskes, Gore, et al.
“… You know neither Steyer nor desmogblog is going to try to buy you off ….” At least you get one thing right. And kablooie goes your entire accusation that money buys my words, and by default your entire Oreskes, Gore, et al. transparent and meaningless accusation against skeptics in general implodes.
Ooooo, that’ll leave a mark.
October 30, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Oh, dear, Omnologos has arrived, “the most dangerous animal on the planet.” =)
Meanwhile, commenter “dumboldguy” hopes that I “will eventually “overdo it” and be banned. Considering how my pal James Delingpole once termed me polite in one of his blogs, the odds of me ‘overdoing it’ are nil.
October 30, 2014 at 1:53 pm
You misinterpret what I meant by “overdo”, Russell. I was referring mainly to your penchant for making an excess number of inane comments and thereby clogging the discourse here on Crock. If it were my blog, I’d ban you just because you get in the way of intelligent discussion with all your deluded talking to yourself, parroting of disproved denier talking points, and issuing of meaningless challenges.
I DO, however, consider you to be VERY impolite, in that you are subjecting us all to your mindless horses**t against our will, and in spite of our entreaties to stop doing so. Go away! Take your “deluded rooster strutting in the barnyard and crowing about his imagined superiority” act to some venue where it might be appreciated—go hang out on WUWT.
Since you like to repeat yourself, I will emulate you and do so also.
Go away! Soon! Do it now! Thank you!
October 30, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Do me a favor DOG. I love you bro’, but please stop barking for this thread. I’d like to have a crack at digging in to climate science with Russell, rather than the tribal intrigue. Since this is his passion, and he knows he’s right, I assume that he understands the underlying subject matter.
October 30, 2014 at 8:49 pm
No problem. If you want to “dig into climate science” with Russell, I will not get in your way. I have pretty much said all that I need to say to and about
Russell anyway (and really AM starting to repeat myself).
So, my final word to Russell—-DON’T go away just yet. Charles wants to bask in the glow of your vast knowledge of climate science. Humor him.
October 30, 2014 at 11:52 pm
Russell, I “dug into” your work a little deeper. Albeit the magnitude of your confirmation bias pegs the meter, you are too sincere and principled to be a shill. However, as you acknowledge, your opinions are not based upon the science, so our conversation about the substance probably isn’t going to happen.
Are you sure we’re the ones who are trapped by “ideological enslavement”? After all, we do agree that “the IPCC has not conclusively proven cataclysm”. We simply understand the range and probabilities of possible risks resulting from abruptly hammering the carbon cycle like it’s never been hammered before.
October 31, 2014 at 2:14 pm
@Charles Zeller I appreciate the consideration which “dumboldguy” seems to abhor, particularly the manner in which you just imploded “d.o.g.”‘s shill accusation. Actual shills, of course, can do little more than repeat what they are explicitly told and they fold like cheap suits when anyone grills them for deeper context. As you have apparently already found out, the most I can offer on the core science points is not one bit more than any Greenpeace activist can offer. I point to the contradictions, pointing not to vague assertions but to highly detailed reports from experts ( http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ ). Unlike Greenpeace et al. folks, I DON’T proclaim that skeptic climate assessments debunk IPCC material, and I wish my other non-scientist skeptic pals would avoid that assertion since they also do not have the science expertise to make that claim. Now when it comes to the AGWers having an ideological enslavement, I mean those who discount skeptic scientists out-of-hand via the ‘industry corruption’ accusation they hurl at skeptics. Dr Judith Curry, by way of example, in not enslaved to such an ideological politically-rooted position (I’ve been fortunate to exchange emails with her and she is a Facebook Friend of mine), she disagrees with skeptics on AGW through scientific differences of opinion.
Yes, you and I would probably only be pointing to scientific details which contradict each other, essentially what I did from January 2008 to late 2009 with various pro-AGW people until I was overwhelmed with folks telling me skeptics were paid crooks. Since I’ve been blessed with the luxury of time and enough savings that carried me through to when I was at a too-low level (at which point Heartland graciously kept me solvent), I dived into an area where ordinary people can become an expert: namely, whether or not the smear accusation has any merit. No need to trust me on this specialty, you can embark on it yourself. Look into your own side’s material and point to me where any one of them has provided you with physical full context proof that there is a quid pro quo arrangement between skeptics and industry people. I’ll submit that instead of finding it, you’ll soon discover that Gore, Oreskes, Hoggan, Monbiot, Dunlap/McCright, “Greenpeace née Ozone Action”, Desmog and so many others have only one source, and that source is utterly full of holes.
That’s why I chimed in at this blog post in the first place, Oreskes is just a repeater of the accusation, as is Desmog, and John Mashey said in one of his video presentations that Oreskes steered him ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Sb0V9acno#t=706 ) into Desmog, a rather suspect thing to do. Dig into Oreskes’ material, though, and you might spot an unguarded moment on her part where she potentially triggers the wipeout of the entire accusation as a deliberately out-of-context effort from the get-go. Myself, I’m amazed how she doesn’t know when to keep her mouth shut.
October 31, 2014 at 12:40 pm
Sorry, not leaving anytime soon. Notice how I don’t advocate for your departure.
“… issuing of meaningless challenges …” With all due respect, the challenge to provide evidence – not vague references to entire books or web sites – physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.) proving skeptic scientists were paid to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints is a CRITICAL one. If the AGW movement fails to meet it, then the entire issue faces the potential of total collapse, because the general public and the media will have no excuse to ignore skeptic climate scientists, who point out massive faults in the science and the politicization of it via the 97-98% consensus talking point.
October 30, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Oh, you mean the Delingpole featured here?
Hah! Yeah, man, I love having you here.
October 30, 2014 at 2:56 pm
You’re being unkind to Russell’s “pal” Delingpole. After all, Delingpole is the victim of “intellectual rape” and deserves our sympathy. He has had this happen to him many times before, I would imagine—-how come he’s just now noticing what is being done to him? And this is my favorite meltdown clip (after Karl Rove’s “Ohio Special” in 2012, of course)
PS On second look, I had to laugh at Russell saying “James Delingpole once termed him polite”, as if that meant anything. Clueless is as clueless does.
October 31, 2014 at 1:33 pm
First, thanks for the welcome. Second, Delingpole is Delingpole, I half expected him to hit me in the mouth when I met him at Heartland’s ICCC9 conference in Las Vegas. Third, on the point Paul Nurse said about ‘consensus’, Delingpole is still right in his position and not even AGWers’ favorite pro-AGW news outlet, the PBS NewsHour, actually believes in their heart of hearts that consensus validates science conclusion ( http://junkscience.com/2012/09/28/pbs-newshour-against-scientific-consensus-before-they-were-for-it/ ). Fifth, take Sir Paul’s analogy about cancer and mirror flip it: if a consensus of 7 out of 10 cancer experts said you were terminal, and three said you could be saved, would you give up and focus on your burial, or would you dive into what the three have to say? Be honest there. Sixth, while you claim Monckton said he’s found a cure to HIV, you resort to an online snippet and a video clip which hardly contain the full context of the matter, with the video clip actually prompting more doubt than confidence – notice in the rolling text how he says “we” in such a vague that people could interpret it to mean the entire medical community. Seventh, I notice over at your July 2011 post on Monckton and his ‘non-Lord’ status, you haven’t yet amended it with November 2011 opinion from a UK constitutional lawyer in which that person most certainly does say Monckton is entitled to his hereditary title ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck/ ). And 8th, regarding Monckton’s pronouncement that he is a Nobel winner, do remember (or try instead listening to his various presentations at length), Monckton is Monckton – he was being facetious in that Heartland piece. The point was that he was not lauding himself but was actually lampooning the IPCC as a Nobel winner. Subtle, perhaps, but you’d get it if you knew the various other facetious statements he uses to drive home his viewpoints.
November 2, 2014 at 6:20 am
Eight (8) pieces of “gossip”, meaningless “justification”, and generally self-serving BS. Go away, Russell.
November 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Not leaving anytime soon. That must really get under your skin.
November 4, 2014 at 3:11 pm
“Not leaving anytime soon. That must really get under your skin”.
LOL Russell is too wrapped up in himself to notice what games are being played here (on him). Perhaps he should go back and read the comments from Peter and others saying that he is viewed as a “useful idiot” and a bad example, and that’s why his presence is tolerated?
Of course, Russell is a legend in his own mind, and is blissfully unaware of that reality. I spent a professional career dealing with smarter and better educated misfits than Russell, and Russell is too much of a lightweight to get “under” my skin or anyone else’s on Crock.
He is the walking personification of “All Hat, No Cattle”. I tell him to “go away” for his own good actually, but he is too freakin’ stupid to take that advice.
October 29, 2014 at 2:55 pm
#NaomiOreskes-Her paper on the “consensus” so thoroughly debunked it is rarely if ever referred to any more.
#AlGore’s “Inconvenient Truth” found by UK court to contain eight MAJOR scientific errors, so serious that it cannot be shown in UK schools without an alternative viewpoint bring presented. No wonder he refuses to debate. He could never win one.
#DesmogBlog mostly a collection of ad hominem attacks. Financed by convicted money launderer/guitar player John Lefevbre and run by unethical Rockefeller-connected PR hack James Hoggan.
Gelbspan’s “evil oil puppets” has been obsoleted by nature as #CO2’s non-performance as a warming driver becomes more and more evident. After all, the science is the real bottom line here, and it is not supporting the alarmist proposition that man made CO2 is a crucial driver of climate, or that there is any likelihood of catastrophic change caused by it.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2CiGa82CthU
October 29, 2014 at 4:11 pm
Wow. the UK court case. You had to really reach back for that one, which clearly you have not read – as the judge made clear –
“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
() global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);
() climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”);
() climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
() there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.”
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
couldn’t have made it much clearer on the science.
October 30, 2014 at 9:59 pm
I stopped watching the video when reaching the skeptic’s case for cloud feedback. Clouds don’t just cool. Increased nighttime cloudiness of all types are a heating feedback. During the day, low level clouds have a cooling effect and high level clouds have a warming effect. To work out the overall effect, scientists need to know which types of clouds are increasing or decreasing. Although satellite studies are reducing the standard deviation of measured feedback, the current measurement is still very uncertain, ranging from a positive to negative feedback with the probable value being positive. .54 ± 0.74 (2σ) W m-2 K-1
Click to access 28_Bony_CERES_ScienceTeam_sep2010_final.pdf
To claim that feedbacks cut the direct effect (1.2C) of CO2 in half (0.6C) isn’t even good arithmetic. The Earth’s at 0.8C, yet still accumulating heat at the rate of 0.82 trillion watts, despite the warmer surface and aerosol dimming.
The most significant negative feedback is surface temperature to the fourth power.
November 1, 2014 at 8:32 pm
In reply to Russell Cook on October 31, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Russell has not recognized that Charles Zeller has apparently looked into Russell’s “work” and decided that Russell is a charlatan and unable to discuss “science”. At least that’s how I interpret “…the magnitude of your confirmation bias pegs the meter…your opinions are not based upon the science, so our conversation about the substance probably isn’t going to happen”. Am I wrong, Charles? Under the assumption that I am not, I will resume “barking” at Russell.
If I had said that Russell was “too sincere and principled to be a shill”, it would have been with the intent to mock him, and if Charles is serious, he’s far too kind.. IMO, Russell is not “sincere” but merely obsequious, and ingratiating when he says to Charles “I appreciate the consideration which dumboldguy seems to abhor, particularly the manner in which you just imploded d.o.g.‘s shill accusation”. Russell is obviously looking for friends (and putting words in Charles’ mouth).
Russell fails to fully understand what Charles has said to him applies directly TO him, and lays this gem on us—-“Actual shills, of course, can do little more than repeat what they are explicitly told and they fold like cheap suits when anyone grills them for deeper context. As you have apparently already found out, the most I can offer on the core science points is not one bit more than any Greenpeace activist can offer”.
Sorry, Russell, but that bald assertion won’t wash—-the typical “Greenpeace activist” (I am one) is FAR better informed on the “core science points” than you are, and that mindless confirmation bias you suffer from is the only thing keeping you from folding like a cheap suit (in YOUR mind that is, the rest of us have watched you fold and blow away).
Lord love a duck, but Russell then shows us that he “does little more than repeat what he is told” by giving us a link to a HEARTLAND piece, calling it “a highly detailed report from experts”. It is touted on the Heartland page as “an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report”. We all know that there is no science pf substance in anything from Heartland, that it is all propaganda intended to influence political and economic decisions and is biased in favor of fossil fuels.
I have to laugh too at the assertion that the papers from Heartland are “scholarly reports” produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute. All those entities are denier and right wing propaganda mills, and the only thing remotely “scholarly” about their work is the cleverness with which they sling BS—-they HAVE studied how to do that. Anyone who wants to see the depths to which the “scholars” there have sunk should read the pamphlet by Idso of the CFSCD&GC about the 55 benefits of CO2 published by SPPI, a soulmate of these groups —-it’s a sidesplitter. From the introduction:
“How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
So wrote Elizabeth Barrett Browning in a romantic poem that perfectly captures the all-encompassing emotion of love. Though Miss Browning surely had humans in mind when she wrote these words, she would not have been far off the mark had she attributed them to plants; for if plants could articulate their feelings, they too would surely recite these same lines … to carbon dioxide. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the elixir of life”
And “….enjoy this guide to the wonderful CO2-enriched world of the future, made bright by the amazing molecule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has had the audacity to so wrongly characterize as a dangerous air pollutant!” (…and believe it or not, it gets worse).
The rest of Russell’s comment is just more maundering, and not worthy of comment except for this: Russell says: “I dived into an area where ordinary people can become an expert: namely, whether or not the smear accusation has any merit”. I call BS on Russell, he has shown no expertise in anything he has said on Crock, and this area of his “diving” is no different—-he has not “become an expert” but is just setting up another straw man.
(PS Myself, I’m amazed how Russell doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut).
November 4, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Myself, I’m amazed how “dumboldguy” doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut: Charles Zeller looked into my work and saw that I don’t have climate science expertise. He is probably aware that you do not, either. If you are truly “better informed on the ‘core science points’, then why is it you do not refute specific items in the NIPCC but instead repeat the Greenpeace talking point about “there is no science [of] substance in anything from Heartland”? As for CO2Science.org being a ‘denier / right wing propaganda mill’, where in any of their material do they explicitely deny climate change, and what to you make of the peer-reviewed science journal-published papers they cite when making the claim that the MWP was a worldwide event?
Call my work on exposing the lack of evidence behind the ‘industry corruption of skeptics’ BS if it makes you feel better. I and everyone else here will wait for you to step up to the plate and prove what I say are manufactured lies fed to me.
November 4, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Call my work BS, says Russell. (Easy to do, because it simply IS BS, and the fact that I refuse to waste time arguing with a drunk and refuting his horsepucky line by line is all Russell has to hang his hat on now. So he will continue to strut around issuing his meaningless challenges that we “prove” what needs no proof, and telling us that because we won’t answer he is winning an argument that he lost before he started.
PS Have any other Crockers noticed that Russell seems to be silent for a period of time and then “blitzes” us with a string of BS comments? Is he waiting for someone at Heartland to feed him crap from the archives or proofread his crap? Does Russell visit various sites to troll them on a schedule and every third day in the AM is Crock’s turn? Does he punch a time card for Heartland and is Heartland that rigid in its expectations for “work product”?
November 2, 2014 at 11:05 am
You’re spot on DOG. The NIPCC? Really!
Russell, compare the IPCC and NIPCC list of contributors – and their credentials.
From NIPCC’s about us: “NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.”
Fossil fuel has been a marvelous energy source. Why would the world’s major scientific organizations and government want to exaggerate the impacts of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
November 4, 2014 at 2:11 pm
The NIPCC. Yes. Really. Atmospheric physicists, PhD level scientists offering thousands of pages of detailed rebuttal. And the best you have to offer is some vague insinuation that it is all bunk due to an even more vague guilt-by-association thing about funding? And then follow it up with a worn-out talking point about ‘all the world’s this and that’ when you are actually speaking of a minority of people offering summaries for policy makers and a select few numbers of politicians? Did you fail, for example, to notice how a major section of the Australian government voted down their cap-and-trade bills not once but twice?
Instead of thrusting unsupportable talking points at me, wouldn’t it be a far better use of time to do some self-introspection about why the collective AGW issue is enslaved to a compulsion to mislead the public by leaving out significant details from those talking points? Does it not bother you that the collective AGW issue constantly demands that the NIPCC and people like me need to be NOT HEARD, instead of demanding that all hear us and see how sound take-downs of what we say destroy our credibility for all to see?
I submit to you guys that Ross Gelbspan’s accusation against skeptic climate scientists is riddled with problems and that Oreskes merely repeats straight from Gelbspan and I do so at great length in my writings. So far, not one of you has disputed a single word I’ve said. Is it because you cannot? Or is it because you fear what you will read?
I suggest you have nothing to fear and everything to gain.
November 4, 2014 at 2:59 pm
The NIPCC, in addition to dishonestly adding an “N” to the legitimate IPCC in an attempt to gain some credibility, is a Heartland and fossil fuel financed group of only a few dozen charlatans and deniers like you. They are not leading scientists, and the fact that the three “lead” NIPCC authors are Singer, Idso, and Carter says it all—it’s a clown show masquerading as a serious body.
And that’s not “vague insinuation”, as some googling will reveal.
I love the way Russell slips totally insane stuff into his comments as if it somehow makes his point. He asks, for instance, “Did you fail, for example, to notice how a major section of the Australian government voted down their cap-and-trade bills not once but twice?” Explain to us what that means, Russell, and why it’s significant
Actually, Russell is the one who thrusts unsupportable talking points, gossip, innuendo, and general BS at all od us as if it was truth, and it would be a far better use of his time to do some self-introspection about why he is getting no reaction with any of it on Crock.
I will compliment him, on a fine piece of rhetoric here—“the collective AGW issue is enslaved to a compulsion to mislead the public by leaving out significant details from those talking points? Does it not bother you that the collective AGW issue constantly demands that the NIPCC and people like me need to be NOT HEARD, instead of demanding that all hear us and see how sound take-downs of what we say destroy our credibility for all to see?”
Actually, what bothers me is that the lies and obfuscation from people like you manage to be “heard”, and that you demand that we waste time refuting them. That of course meets your goal of giving the appearance that there is a “debate”and that there are two “sides”. You have no credibility to destroy, Russell, and you waste your time arguing to us that you do.
“So far, not one of you has disputed a single word I’ve said. Is it because you cannot?” It’s because you are FOS, Russell, and only designated “sheep dogs” like me even bother to read and respond to you. Go away.
November 4, 2014 at 3:52 pm
I read your articles Russell, including this revealing quote, “If there is one example of how far-left ideology can’t defend itself, it is the entire idea of man-caused global warming.” The “entire idea of man-caused global warming” has been around long before it devolved into environmental vs. industry/libertarian driven political issue. If you want to refute the physics of “greenhouse gasses”, I’m game – but am profoundly uninterested in things like who signed Art Robinson’s petition as a spice girl.
November 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Indulge us, what is revealing about that quote? The idea of man-caused global cooling was around for some time, too, or did you not notice that? Seems you completely missed the point of my AmericanThinker piece, the “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” folks were so petrified of the potential effects of the Petition that they enlisted people in the Clinton White House in efforts to quash it. If you likely have objections to government manipulation of the news, why would you not object to the undisclosed stuff surrounding the Oregon Petition?
November 6, 2014 at 6:27 pm
What’s “revealing” about this quote, asks Russell? To me it’s the complete dishonesty, hypocrisy, and general sliminess portrayed by anyone who would put their name to it and hold it out as truth. And here’s the full quote.
“If there is one example of how far-left ideology can’t defend itself, it is the entire idea of man-caused global warming. Just look at what its promoters must do to keep it alive in the face of withering criticism. The disturbing thing about it is how long they’ve kept up this juvenile tactic, thanks to a complicit mainstream media”.
What’s wrong with it? Everything.
1) AGW is not “far left ideology”, it’s mainstream science.
2) It does not need “defending” from anal orifices and shills like Russell because there is no basis for attacking it other than right wing ideology and the interests of the fossil fuel interests that Russell shills for. They attack it because they want to delay acceptance of the truth of AGW, not because it’s not true.
3) There is no “withering” criticism except in the minds of the deniers, just the endless chanting of discredited talking points by shills like Russell who think that repeating the same BS over and over will somehow make it true and get people to believe it. The alleged criticism is nothing more than nit picking of small points in an effort to discredit the larger body of information.
4) Actually the better question is “What must the deniers do in the face of withering criticism to keep their lies alive”? Russell’s answer is to simply continue to spout BS and ignore any attempts to get him to really engage..
5) Juvenile tactics? Better used to describe Russell. Sneering and speaking disdainfully may work on American Stinker and WUWT, but not here.
6) Yes, the “complicit mainstream media CAN be faulted, but for facilitating the BS of the deniers and NOT doing a proper job reporting on AGW. Of course, they are owned by the same people that own Russell, so that’s no surprise.
I am really getting tired of Russell’s BS.
November 6, 2014 at 6:33 pm
PS Perhaps the best illustration of Russell’s perfidy is his constant attempts to make something out of the Oregon Petition, that shameful piece of ancient history that has been discredited and forgotten for years. Only a lying POS would continue to bring it up and try to imbue it with any value. It’s DEAD, Russell, and it STINKS, and it needs to be buried. You will never gain one tiny bit of credibility here if you keep bringing it up, especially when you try to weave some conspiracy around it.
November 11, 2014 at 10:59 am
Friend, you are the ones weaving the conspiracy around it with the ‘fake names / fake cover sheets’ bit. You never noticed that, did you? All I do is point out the wipeouts, particularly the origins of the ‘fake names’ efforts being at Ozone Action, which you don’t lift a finger to dispute.
November 11, 2014 at 11:24 am
Here’s Russell again, getting his ticket punched. And trying to make a big deal out of what was said about a few fake names and deflect attention from the real issue with shouts of “conspiracy”. The presence of a few fake names was NOT high on the list of reasons why the world thinks the Petition is a piece of garbage. Anyone who has looked into it or read other comments here knows the many substantial reasons why it is a hoax, and those who don’t only need to look it up.
The real conspiracy here is what Heartland and the deniers like Russell have constructed around the Petition. I speak of their constant mention of it as if it had any validity. It doesn’t.