Birtherism, Fake News, Trumpism, Putinism: All Vital Parts of Climate Denial
January 30, 2017
Important to remember, as we wonder whether the World’s greatest Democracy will survive, is that all of this, All. of. This. – the denial of fact, fake news, the support for far right hatred, racism – all of this has been part and parcel of the climate denial movement from day one.
In July 1988, on page 11 of Sports Illustrated magazine, one story caught the eye of Fred Palmer.
Under the headline “The Foul, Hot Summer,” the article lamented that year’s scorching heat and drought.
“We have only ourselves to blame for this midsummer’s nightmare. Burning fossil fuels has created many of these environmental ills,” the story read.
Palmer was worried. As the boss of Western Fuels Association (WFA), a co-op of coal power generators and haulers, this self-confessed “prairie populist” could see the writing on the wall for his industry.
“There was a nationwide heatwave, and I remember it specifically because it ruined a vacation I was going to have on the eastern shore at Chesapeake Bay. The well waters all went dry,” he said.
If governments started to get serious about acting on climate change, then coal plants would be the first in line at the chopping block.
Just a few weeks earlier, Palmer had watched NASA climate scientist James Hansen deliver what was to become historic testimony before the U.S. Senate.
“The greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now,” said Hansen, in a speech that pushed the science of climate change into the public consciousness.
Now, even Sports Illustrated was delivering clear-eyed assessments on the science.
At the same time, America’s iconic Yellowstone National Park was on fire, in what would become the park’s worst recorded episode of wildfires.
“At the time I don’t think people really understood the import of it. But I did understand the import of it. I engaged immediately,” Palmer told DeSmog.
And engage he did, helping to form one of the very first fossil fuel–funded campaigns that would directly target the science of climate change in order to influence the public’s understanding.
For more than 25 years, Palmer worked on government relations in the coal industry — first for Western Fuels Association and then Peabody Energy — before joining climate science denial group the Heartland Institute just a few weeks ago.
Now that long-running and relentless campaign of fossil fuel–funded misinformation which Palmer helped to kick-start has reached its zenith with the election of Donald Trump.
“For the first time in 25 years, CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are not the driving consideration in energy development in the United States,” said Palmer.
“That’s a transformational development and it took a Donald Trump to become president of the United States to put that on the table. I say God bless him.”
Below, longer report from the Heartland Climate denial Conference of 2012. It’s all there. Fake news, birtherism, fascism. The dark heart of science denial.
My post from June 8 of last year was clear enough.
—
Sometimes the universe keeps making things crystal clear. Like a warming planet, and exactly who the people are that continue to deny it.
While tying themselves into knots to support Donald Trump’s aggressively racist campaign, Republicans continue to demonstrate what I’ve been noting for years. Racism and climate denial are joined at the hip.
There could be no clearer demonstration of this than Climate Denier and racist Donald Trump’s current campaign. Mr Trump has managed to convincingly bring White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, homophobes, misogynists and anti-science zealots all happily together in the same big tent. We can at least thank him for making the associations so vivid.
New poll from Gallup makes the divide even clearer. It’s not an accident. The organizations funded by Exxon and others set out 30 years ago to make climate science another hot button in the culture war that began with the Voting Rights Act some 60 years ago.
Climate change is the most divisive issue among United States voters’ rankings of policy areas by importance, a new survey found.
The Gallup poll found that 72 percent of Democrats think climate change is a very important or extremely important in how they will vote in this year’s elections, compared with 25 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of independent voters.
The 47-point spread between Democrats and Republicans was the highest of any issues for which Gallup polled.
“Real” journalists are well trained to ignore this particular gorilla, but I’ve made the point many times that there is a large cross over between climate deniers and racists. One thing we can thank Donald Trump for is making that very, very, clear.
I report. You decide:
Case in point: The well known Climate denier who calls himself “Steven Goddard”, and proudly flies a Confederate symbol on his anti-science blog, is a rabid Trump supporter.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
January 30, 2017 at 7:15 am
I agree with all of it except for one thing – Putinism. Why are you so obsessed by Putin hatred, you obviously don’t know the first thing about Putin save for the totally mendacious anti-Putin propaganda in the mainstream media.
An excerpt from http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/russia-joins-other-nations-historic-climate-change-agreement (and I could post dozens and dozens of links to articles that show that Putin is not a threat to the climate) :
Putin’s address delivered at the start of the summit was short – five minutes – but to the point. “Climate change is one of the greatest threats humanity is facing,” he said, noting that improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important priority for Russia.
From 2000 to 2012, Russia reduced its energy consumption by 33.4 percent. An additional reduction of 13.5 percent is projected by 2020. Putin noted that Russia went above and beyond its Kyoto obligations to reduce greenhouse gases. The amount of additional greenhouse gas (GHG) savings by Russia is equivalent to the global GHG output over the course of one year, he said. In other words, Russia delayed global warming by a year.
January 30, 2017 at 9:35 am
Yes even Russian environmental laws have been changed in recent months.
Of course you can fault Russia for not doing enough, but the same can be said of so many other nations. Even rich Western European nations could be accused of actually doing comparatively little given the possibilities they have.
Analysis means splitting things up in different issues. The idea that some issues are joined at the hips is the opposite of sound analysis and presentation. It could well be that there are high correlations in the population’s opinions. In the early church it was assumed that military service was the opposite to Christian faith. In later times this correlation shifted. That happens to a lot of issues, and it is unhelpful to lump them together if the one is not an actual or logical cause of the other.
It is especially a danger to one’s creditability to join climate science to specious and poorly supported and not germane views about Russia or Putin, or American military policy for that matter. In Reagan’s cabinet there were lunatics who said nothing was more beautiful than an oil derrick visible while walking along the beach, and that god put that coal and oil in the ground for us to dig up. You cannot claim that supply-side economics has an innate twisted logic and is based on the love of burning fossil fuels.
January 30, 2017 at 12:25 pm
Lord love a duck and JFC! VERA spouts all kinds of Tom Bates-like unsupported and distorted BS and DweebyJ jumps right in to support her with his usual maunderings.
“In the early church it was assumed that military service was the opposite to Christian faith”?. WTF? What manual of Irrelevant Factoids for Putin Whores did that come from?. Shout out to VEra and DweebyJ’s handlers!—-you need to retire these two and start recruiting from the portion of the population with three digit IQ’s.
Have they no shame? Are they so stupid that they think Crockers will not see that they are working together?
January 30, 2017 at 1:21 pm
Give it up, Russian troll. You have ZERO credibility.
January 30, 2017 at 3:35 pm
Just got back home from a week in hospital (getting a new hip fitted) feeling shitty especially after catching up on the latest world news (which is truly depressing), but can’t keep silent after reading this post. I agree with you Russia are making advances in de-carbonation and there are learned and respected scientists there who do speak up on the issue (and encourage action). Not sure how much Putin is personally involved, he is a complex and dangerous person and organizations would do well to be wary of him, even though he has a lot of support from a large proportion some of his people. I do not think this piece from Peter is especially critical of Vladimir. There is a lot of history between U.S.A and the Soviet Union/Russia, I wouldn’t advise you to keep pushing it, but of course it’s your choice and voice. I have visited both the U.S.A and the Soviet Union and love both countries and people.
One person I truly think is worth listening to was in charge of the Soviet Union when I last visited, starkly I read recent advice from him while catching up with the news. His thoughts parallel some of mine and I don’t doubt his wisdom.
Mikhail Gorbachev says ‘it looks like the world is preparing for war’
Soviet Union’s final leader says Nato and Russian forces at ‘point blank’ range
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mikhail-gorbachev-ussr-last-soviet-premier-russia-world-prepare-war-syria-donald-trump-middle-east-a7548646.html
Nam myoho renge kyo…
Peace to all beings. And thanks Peter for highlighting the real things we all should be watching.
January 30, 2017 at 4:53 pm
Uh, redsky? How can it be said that Russia is “decarbonising” when they are among the top three fossil fuel exporting countries in the world? Maybe it doesn’t count when they let other people turn it all into CO2?
January 30, 2017 at 7:04 pm
“Russia are making advances in de-carbonation”
“Russia goes offshore. A cooperation deal signed by Karelian Governor Aleksandr Khudilainen and Vice President of Chinese energy company Sinomec Li Yan includes the investment of €130 million in an offshore wind park located off the coast of Karelia.”
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/09/russia-will-build-first-offshore-wind-farm-white-sea/
January 30, 2017 at 10:41 pm
Hmmmmm! According to the link, this is Russia’s VERY FIRST wind farm, and it will have a capacity of only 60 MWh, is PLANNED TO BE BUILT in the period 2017-2020, will create 200 jobs in the construction phase, about 30 people will be employed in the production phase, and we’re supposed to get all excited about that? That’s “decarbonation”?
January 30, 2017 at 10:54 pm
uh, DOG, I spend many many hours a day reading through energy reports and postings, and remembered this one particularly. I post them to a science site, some reactions are like yours. I do it free of charge, because I do not have a lot of money, I am not too strong or fit to attend protests, and I hope I can make a difference in some way. I should be spending more time supporting my son and wife, but I think not enough effort is being put into convincing the world. If you can suggest a better way I spend my time please go ahead. I would appreciate it. I have just come out of a crowded ward with an annoying old man complaining loudly about every little thing day and night and you are strongly reminding me of him.
January 30, 2017 at 11:30 pm
Some reactions are like mine because I’m not the only one that recognizes bright-sidedness and wishful thinking for what they are. I for one DO greatly appreciate the work you do looking stuff up and putting it out for us and others, and can’t suggest a better way for you to spend your time, but you have to stop looking so much at the cleantechnica stuff and dig into data tables in reports like BP’s—–look for the big numbers in production and consumption of various fossil fuels, particularly for the USA, Russia, China, India—-read between the lines. NOBODY is “decarbonizing” in any way that will take place fast enough to avoid the coming climate disaster. It’s all foot-dragging, and the moves that the Trump administration is making are going to take us backwards.
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf
Click to access bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-russia-insights.pdf
As for “I have just come out of a crowded ward with an annoying old man complaining loudly about every little thing day and night and you are strongly reminding me of him”, that’s FAR better than anything ever thrown at me by Veirotchka—-LOL. (And I won’t get in a fight with a “teammate” who’s feeling a bit cranky because of his hospital visit—get well soon)
January 31, 2017 at 12:50 am
I do appreciate your advise, while outlets like CarbonBrief and Climate Central are quite strong on analyzing big data and I also try and cover their releases. Personally, I do like the youth, energyband enthusiasm of CleanTechnica and they are one of the only outlets who release stories on Christmas day and during holiday periods. While a single story on 60 Mwh is far too small to make much of dent, it is a move in the right direction and in fact there are other projects going on in Russia, including small solar startups. Saw a Finnish University report today, concluding that they could easily step up and fully move to non fossil sources (2030ish). and yes, I guess this not address exports. Maybe academic bright siding but is still worth following up in my opinion. Ice melts and temperature rise is continuing relatively slowly in human terms, hopefully we can still get ahead of the game, with or without Trump, Putin, BREXIT and all.
I include a report that improves on the 60 Mwh but is still small fry, same as many places, in the world but still worth keeping an eye on, while the ice continues melting, atmospheric CO2 continues rising and deniers continue denying.
Russia’s fledgling wind industry is getting a boost from a first offshore project planned in the White Sea, while talks are underway between state-owned nuclear group Rosatom and foreign partners over the construction of three wind farms in Russia with a joint capacity of 610MW.
http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1196402/boost-for-russian-wind-from-onshore-and-offshore-projects
January 31, 2017 at 10:25 am
As I said, I don’t want to fight with a teammate, but we need to look beyond the “youth, energy, and enthusiasm of CleanTechnica” (add in their puppy-dog-like tail wagging), and look at the real world. For instance—-posted just today:
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2017/01/tokyo-opts-for-large-scale-coal-power-roll-out.html
“The Japanese government is set to build up to 45 new high energy, low emission (HELE) coal-fired power plants in a bid to diversify its power supply”.
“The coal will to be used in the plants will be imported from Australia”
“Coal power advocates say HELE coal fired power plants produce half of the emissions of traditional plants”.
So, if I’ve got this right, the Russians are “talking” about (maybe) installing (someday) 610 MW of wind while the Japanese ARE SET TO BUILD (ASAP) no less than FORTY-FIVE “clean coal” fired plants, EACH of which will likely be about 600MW in size. Since the Japanese are hurting for electricity and the Russians are just doing it all for show, guess which one will happen first? And guess where the CO2 level will go?
Yes, “clean coal” is a wondrous concept, and one that The Pussy Grabber and hos minions are going to embrace wholeheartedly. For a trip down the rabbit hole with Alice, read this piece.
https://www.worldcoal.org/reducing-co2-emissions/high-efficiency-low-emission-coal
The very first paragraph:
“Deploying high efficiency, low emission (HELE) coal-fired power plants is a key first step along a pathway to near-zero emissions from coal with carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS). HELE technologies are commercially available now and, if deployed, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the entire power sector by around 20%”.
DOG (aka” annoying old man complaining loudly about bright-sidedness and tunnel vision day and night”)
January 30, 2017 at 9:43 am
Reblogged this on AGR Daily News Service.
January 30, 2017 at 10:17 am
Quoted your article here…
CIA Leads Pro Nuclear Hormesis Mass Media Propaganda Campaign All Around The World, Atoms For Peace, Project Plowshares, Overthrowing Governments Like Iran, Hawaii, Ukraine, Many Others
http://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2014/09/cia-leading-pro-nuclear-mass-media.html
January 30, 2017 at 4:06 pm
Jesus , just read this depressing article, think I’ll limp back into hospital, where I’m insulated from world events a bit. Where are my pajamas ?
Trump info shutdowns at US science agencies, especially EPA
The reality is scarier than I imagined.
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-trump-info-shutdowns-science-agencies.html
January 30, 2017 at 4:43 pm
And if you moan enough and act really depressed, they’ll give you drugs that will help with the “scary reality”! Go for it!
January 30, 2017 at 7:00 pm
Thankyou DOG for your kind and wise advise. I was attempting to be humorous but see it has fallen flat. Paracetamol is as strong as I will go on mood and pain relief. Regret mentioning it at all now.
January 30, 2017 at 4:38 pm
My favorites among your comments:
“All. of. This. – the denial of fact, fake news, the support for far right hatred, racism – all of this has been part and parcel of the climate denial movement from day one. Racism and climate denial are joined at the hip”.
“There could be no clearer demonstration of this than Climate Denier and racist Donald Trump’s current campaign. Mr Trump has managed to convincingly bring White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, homophobes, misogynists and anti-science zealots all happily together in the same big tent. We can at least thank him for making the associations so vivid.
“….there is a large cross over between climate deniers and racists. One thing we can thank Donald Trump for is making that very, very, clear.
“I report. You decide:”
Thanks for doing a great job “reporting” over the years. The evidence is clear and there is little left to decide. It’s “wonder” time now—-wonder if the country and the planet will survive.
January 30, 2017 at 9:08 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trump-to-withdraw-from-paris-agreement-change-course-on-climate-change-says-adviser-20170130-gu1t58.html
Donald Trump to withdraw from Paris agreement, ‘change course’ on climate change, says adviser
London: The man who wrote the Trump administration’s environment action plan says the environmental movement is “the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world” and said the United States was about to change course on climate policy, including withdrawal from the Paris agreement.
Myron Ebell, who led the Environmental Protection Agency transition for the new administration, said he gave the president three pathways for withdrawing from the 2015 Paris agreement on greenhouse gas emissions, at least one of which could be done “right now”.
He also said the president had been clear he wanted to abolish the EPA – though it might survive as a channel for pollution clean-up grants to states.
And he hinted at an end to emission standards for US vehicles, through abolishing the EPA’s ‘endangerment finding’, which had given it powers to protect the public from the health threat posed by greenhouse gases.
January 30, 2017 at 11:00 pm
Did you see the follow-on piece on immigration? AUS is ready to take advantage of the situation and try to take in “the best and brightest” that will likely sour on America after Trump makes it NOT great.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/donald-trumps-folly-is-a-onceinacentury-opportunity-for-australia-20170130-gu1cku.html
January 30, 2017 at 10:28 pm
Man. Two YUUUGE errors in Graham Readfearn’s piece. If you guys would just read my blog, you could prevent your various pals from flying off their self-created credibility cliffs. Your loss. Actually, they don’t even need to read my stuff, they could just apply that age-old ‘see-if-it-holds-water’ Journalism 101 lesson before making flat-out assertions about something.
January 30, 2017 at 10:50 pm
Two YUUUGE errors in Graham Readfearn’s piece,you say? It looked pretty good to me—-why don’t you point out exactly what these errors are and give us the true scoop. You are, after all, one of the “insiders” at Heartland, as shown by your inclusion on Fred Singer’s whore’s email list with Ball, Delingpole, Goddard, Michaels, Monckton, Morano, Soon, Taylor, Watts, and quite a few more.
(And stop trying to get the hit count up on your blog. We are not going there).
February 1, 2017 at 2:50 pm
1) RE, the assertion that Western Fuels & Palmer declared “in its annual report it was launching a direct attack on mainstream science” (look it up, this only comes from ONE source, and that is the basis of Desmog’s regurgitation) is unsupportable. I have copies of the annual reports to prove it. The entire “attack” premise is false.
2) the “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)” leaked memo phrase was NEVER a part of the ICE campaign. I have that corroborated at least 4 separate ways, which includes statements from Fred Lukens.
There’s one more error, but likely due to Graham Readfearn misinterpreting what Palmer may have said about Lukens. The leap of assumption that Lukens was an official of Minnkota Power is unsupportable.
Happy now? But since you claimed you have read my blog posts, then you already knew about the two faults. Is this now an admission that you haven’t actually read all the way through my entire blog? You said you were doing that so other Crocks guys wouldn’t have to. Are they going to have to do your work for you now?
I’m no Heartland Insider by any stretch. The inclusion of me in Dr Singer’s email list is best summarized by what he told me back in 2009: “If I can find a multi-millionaire willing to underwrite the legal expenses, I would sue them all: desmog, Gelbspan, [Newsweek’s Sharon] Begley etc”
February 1, 2017 at 9:25 pm
Nowhere in the DeSmog piece does it state “in its annual report it was launching a direct attack on mainstream science”. You made that up.
February 2, 2017 at 12:37 pm
Do I really have to hand-walk you through everything? Take the exact quote you reproduced, put it between quote marks in a Google search, and you’ll readily see how Readfearn’s variation of it is nothing more than an unsupportable talking point from a decade back. Plus, you’ll mic drop on commenter “d.o.g.” on how I ALREADY showed the annual reports at my blog, which he steadfastly beseeches none of you to read. Think about it: what does he not want you all to see there?
Live in a world supported by false premises if it gives you solace, but the real world steam rollers over you every time you push such stuff.
February 2, 2017 at 2:30 pm
Stop evading the issue! Show the annual reports and Lukens “statements” HERE on Crock, Russell. You are simply NOT going to get us to go to GobsOfS**TFiles and up your hit count so that you can argue for more money as a whore for fossil fuels. We now know better—-I am still recovering from the side effects of my last trip there—-the halitosis and excessive flatulence are receding, but the nose hair and inflamed hemorrhoids persist.
February 2, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Russell,
Of course I googled the phrase you quoted and I saw links to your site as well as other places where it has been quoted. However, you introduced your item “1)” as if it were a statement that DeSmog had directly “regurgitated”. It appears that rather than try to give d.o.g. an example of an actual statement that is wrong in their piece, you were trying to show that their premise derives from this quote that you so dislike. Why not just state that? You stated it as though they had said it, and this is not true. If you don’t like my interpretation of your writing, then become more precise.
Scan the entire 1993 Annual Report of the Western Fuels Association, and post it to your site as a pdf. Put up or shut up.
February 2, 2017 at 12:02 am
You have copies of the annual reports to prove it?
Great!—-show them to us!.
The “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)” leaked memo phrase was NEVER a part of the ICE campaign”, you say?. I have that corroborated at least 4 separate ways, which includes statements from Fred Lukens.
Great!—-show us the (at least) 4 separate ways that you can corroborate!. Give us links to Lukens’ statements!
Talk is cheap, Russell—–I’m going to borrow YOUR words and say PROVE IT.
February 2, 2017 at 1:34 pm
See reply to “Torsten” above on the annual reports. Already done and delivered over two years ago.
On Lukens, good idea. I was going to do a brief write-up on Readfearn’s talking point regurgitations at my blog, I’ll see if Lukens grants me permission about his input. Fact is, I have this corroborated 5 ways, which has already been detailed at my blog and in a post elsewhere by Ron Arnold.
Now, assuming Lukens allows me to put out what he sent to me, and if you fellows fear catching cooties from anything linking to my blog, I can create one of those TinyPic dot come screencaptures to post here …. additionally assuming such material isn’t automatically labeled as spam here.
February 2, 2017 at 2:41 pm
More evasive bullshit, Russell—-see my other comment and post your “Already done and delivered over two years ago” stuff HERE. Why won’t you do that? It’s a simple cut and paste.
And you need Lukens’ permission? More evasive bullshit! You have it corroborated FIVE ways now? More bullshit unless you show us. Link us to the Ron Arnold “proof” and show us where Lukens specifically told you to NOT share his input—-if he didn’t do that, it’s “on the record” and you’re just blowing smoke.
And NO LINKS TO YOUR BLOG—-we are NOT going there—-EVER—-how many times do we have to say that? Cut and paste from there and copy into a comment here or accept the title of “lying piece of s**t that can’t back up what he says”.
February 2, 2017 at 2:57 pm
Russell, you wrote:
“2) the “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)” leaked memo phrase was NEVER a part of the ICE campaign. I have that corroborated at least 4 separate ways, which includes statements from Fred Lukens.”
Key word in your “position” is “phrase”.
Here’s a copy of the leaked memo:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3119453-1991-Informed-Citizens-for-the-Environment.html
Note, fuller versions are also available on-line.
While their advertising may not have directly asserted that global warming is a theory (in the sense of how “theory” is misunderstood by the vast majority of scientifically illiterate people, rather than as a powerful idea that explains many observations and leads to testable hypotheses), the intent is clearly so. So, for example, the Chicken Little ad cites “facts”, and states that “the underlying physics of climate change are still wide open to debate.” All of this is meant to sow doubt in the popular mind, leaving people with the idea that “it’s just a theory”.
So Russell, while you harp about the non-use of the phrase, the actual attempt to reposition global warming as they describe is lost on you and your ilk. No matter what you write to defend your buddies, it must contain half-truths or outright deception. It is pathetic.
February 2, 2017 at 3:03 pm
And to be clear, it was a stated strategy of ICE to reposition global warming as “theory”. They didn’t have to even use the word “theory” – their activities were towards fulfillment of that strategy.
February 2, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Don’t forget what Wiki says
“ICE launched a $500,000 advertising and public relations campaign to, in ICE’s words, “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and Sherwood B. Idso all lent their names in 1991 to its scientific advisory panel”.
“Its publicity plan called for placing these three scientists, along with fellow global warming skeptic S. Fred Singer, in broadcast appearances, op-ed pages, and newspaper interviews. Bracy Williams & Co., a Washington D.C.-based PR firm, did the advance publicity work for the interviews. Another company was contracted to conduct opinion polls, which identified “older, less-educated males from larger households who are not typically active information-seekers” and “younger, lower-income women” as “good targets for radio advertisements” that would “directly attack the proponents of global warming . . . through comparison of global warming to historical or mythical instances of gloom and doom.”
“The ICE campaign collapsed after embarrassing internal memoranda related to the PR campaign were leaked to the press. An embarrassed Michaels hastily disassociated himself from ICE, citing what he called its “blatant dishonesty.”
“Following the collapse of the organization, Michaels, Balling, Idso, and Singer have continued to express their skepticism about the theory of global warming. Singer has been the most visible and vocal of the group”.
(And that’s Russell’s “Uncle Fred” they’re talking about)
February 5, 2017 at 6:21 pm
No matter what you write to defend your beliefs about corrupt skeptics being exposed by that ICE campaign, those folks efforts to push the idea that the “reposition global warming” phrase (as smoking gun proof of a sinister top-down directive telling them what to do in exchange for the money they were getting) contain half-truths or outright deception. Learn it, live it. love it. That phrase was NEVER part of the ICE campaign. Lukens told me that in a 2013 email (which he hasn’t granted me permission to show in a screencapture – score a ‘temporary victory’ for “d.o.g.” on that detail), as did a PR guy (whose name I’ll protect) back at that same time who worked at Bracy Williams & Co. Drs Michaels, Idso & Balling never heard of the phrase or the ‘directive’. Fred Palmer never saw it, and as Ron Arnold pointed out here http://leftexposed.org/2016/06/naomi-oreskes-warps-history/ , that whole subsection you refer to, which Oreskes is in love with, never made it out of the proposal submittal stage.
Speculate all you want on behalf of the folks you worship who are supposed to provide you with ironclad evidence proving skeptics are paid to lie, but when a dead proposal strategy is the best thing the collective lot of you have, well …… YOU. HAVE. NOTHING. But if Gore, Gelbspan, Oreskes et al. knew the docs they push as smoking gun evidence were not what they portray them to be, then those folks have worse than nothing. Bring your crimes against humanity lawsuit if you guys are foolish enough to do so … just don’t say I didn’t drop hints on you on where it’ll all implode.
February 5, 2017 at 7:14 pm
He-e-e-e-r-e’s Russell! Shucking and jiving, wiggling and squirming as he attempts to evade truth once again by throwing s**t against the wall and hoping it sticks.
“Lukens told me that in a 2013 email (which he hasn’t granted me permission to show in a screencapture – score a ‘temporary victory’ for “d.o.g.” on that detail), as did a PR guy (whose name I’ll protect) back at that same time who worked at Bracy Williams & Co. Drs Michaels, Idso & Balling never heard of the phrase or the ‘directive’.”
Yeah?, well my neighbor’s sister’s hairdresser (who hadn’t granted her permission to use her name) told my neighbor’s sister that her butcher (whose name she protected) says that Drs Michaels, Idso & Balling are among the biggest lying scumbags and whores for fossil fuels on the planet (along with you). I will take the neighbor’s sister’s hairdresser’s butcher’s word on the doctors—-I already know about you from first hand experience. yours.
Russell gives us a link to that garbage RWNJ site LeftExposed (on which you can find several archived garbage articles from guess who?—-Russell himself! The RWNJ’s are nothing if not a bunch of parrots living in an echo chamber. I read it and Arnold employs the same shuck and jive obfuscation and BS-ing that Russell does—-do the Koch brothers and Heartland send them to school to learn how to do that?
February 6, 2017 at 1:49 am
Russell, you wrote:
“…that whole subsection you refer to, which Oreskes is in love with, never made it out of the proposal submittal stage.”
Yet there it is, showing exactly where their heads were. Horses, barns, doors.
February 6, 2017 at 8:45 am
Yep, Russell and the other deluded deniers will keep insisting in the face of all common sense that if it doesn’t say EXACTLY what nearly all others who look at it say it does, then it doesn’t say what it obviously does say. (And that sentence may sound like Russell or The Duchess talking, but it works). They would deny that something that looks, walks, and smells like a skunk is a skunk until someone sonehow PROVES it to be a skunk. Sad way to make a living.
January 31, 2017 at 1:30 am
Going back to an earlier thread, I gave examples of the drivel you post, here:
https://climatecrocks.com/2017/01/20/as-globe-runs-fever-did-scientists-get-it-right/#comment-89329
I’ve seen the shite at your website – your posts here are more of the same.
January 31, 2017 at 9:55 am
To quote from Torsten’s earlier comment—-“This is just another example of the drivel you write. And it took some effort to debunk it. You think you are defending your “sceptic scientists” against false claims. But you don’t have the necessary skills to evaluate the content of what your “sceptic scientists” are writing. As d.o.g. has stated, it is the science and the actuality of climate change that matters. I have told you that I am swayed by what is written in the scientific literature, particularly by the consilience of the varied methods of climate investigation. Your side does not demonstrate the slightest bit of this”.
Go back and look at that comment—-it DID take a lot of time to assemble and it flushed Russell and his “arguments” so nicely and so quickly Russell didn’t have time to blink. Of course, Russell didn’t reply to Torsten then, just as he likely won’t reply to me now—-he’s just throwing BS against the wall in an attempt to minimize the impact of Redfearn’s piece. Russell simply DOESN’T CARE about truth—-hes a troll, a FUD sower, a whore, and a YUUUUUGE POS—-nothing more.
February 1, 2017 at 2:37 pm
Friend, the specific challenge I put to you was for you top pick a detail or 50 out of my blog posts or online articles on my exposés of how the smear of skeptics accusation falls apart. You sidestepped that, everyone sees that. Worse for you, you imply my “web site” is an ocean of unfounded science assertions. Crocks readers here can either trust that impression with all their heart, or they can read what is actually there. How will your sidestep reflect on the larger holistic perception of AGW if someone says to you, “wait a minute, what he says at his blog post right here is not a lie, I checked it out myself”?
February 1, 2017 at 5:37 pm
As usual, Russell wants to turn things upside down. YOU don’t “challenge” US with your denier troll’s bullshit, Russell—–WE challenge YOU to discuss some real science rather than spout denier BS.
And again, stop trying to get people to up the hit count on your blog. They are about as likely to do that as they are to go to a farm and step in cow pies.
February 1, 2017 at 9:29 pm
I don’t care about your need to defend your pals. What I care about is the BS you post here. I pointed out how it was wrong a long time ago. I’m reminding you of that. You still haven’t acknowledged that what you wrote was wrong.
Yes, anyone can go to your website. Let them knock themselves out.