The Big Naomi Oreskes Hole in PBS Frontline’s Part 3 “The Power of Big Oil” Train Wreck

Regarding your first question, that is a good one, especially when you categorize it as “any of your stuff“. Since you claim to be a man in pursuit of facts, this might be an interesting challenge for you to undertake. Consider first the counter at my blog that routinely indicates a daily reader count that has not fallen below 100 per day in perhaps the last 6 months or longer (I have seen a single day high of 448 individual visits). Also, at my blog I’ve had guest posts / guest comments from Lord Monckton, Dr Willie Soon, Dr Patrick Michaels, Dr David Legates; are you implying by default nobody would want to read what they say, either? Then – again, since you said “any” – consider my 70+ online articles dating back to 2010 on what you claim is a “fixation.” They’ve appeared at American Thinker, Breitbart, Steve Milloy’s JunkScience, “News7G“, etc. Is it plausible that if the editors/proprietors of those sites perceived that nobody in any usable numbers would read my material, then wouldn’t it follow that none of them would have published my material in the first place? Myself, I’ve lost count of the number of times WUWT has featured my guest posts. Would you be able to count those up for me, along with the comment count at each, and then extrapolate how many readers I might have had right here, along with the number of positive clicks I’ve had in my numerous comments at WUWT and elsewhere containing links to my assortment of blog posts and articles, in order to come up with a plausible amount of people who’ve gone on to read my blog/articles? And while you are at it, would you also be able to extrapolate how many people also read my material from being among the several hundred followers at my @questionAGW / @GelbspanFiles Twitter accounts and at my Facebook page?

It could be argued that ‘few’ read my material, but of course that would be in relative proportion to other famous name AGW skeptics who’ve gathered much larger followings, e.g. Anthony Watts, Tony Heller, Marc Moreno (who also published one of my short pieces at ClimateDepot 6 months back). So, the elemental question about your authoritative assertion is, how do you prove it? Also, I assume your usage of the term “fixations” is meant to be derogatory. Since I say my work is intended to right the injustice done to skeptic climate scientists and to also point out the sheer anti-skeptic bias in the MSM, how would you explain to this WUWT audience that my collective work has literally no value and contributes nothing to the AGW skeptic side of the issue?

Or are you all hat and no cattle when it comes to your unsubstantiated opinions?

As I pointed out right at the top of my April 27 WUWT guest post (where you are curiously absent as a commenter claiming it is a “conspiracy rambling“), I noted that one of the hallmarks of enviro-leftists is their propensity to put out intellectually dishonest false premise narratives. Friend, I’ve been more than fair – “dave-fair”, if you want to put a funny label on it – in trying to prompt you to offer hard facts to prove your authoritative assertions. Instead, for a person who doesn’t care what Naomi Oreskes does, you seem to have the channeling of her tactics down to a science. I wasn’t bragging by any means about the daily visitor count to my blog, which was readily obvious within my direct challenge to you to offer hard facts to prove your assertion of “[mild expletive-deleted] few people care” about my efforts. Meanwhile, how does it stand to reason that the points I hammer are “obscure” when they are the cornerstone evidence for fossil fuel industry ‘disinformation campaigns’ in the Frontline program, in the “CBS Sunday Morning” program (again, (where you are curiously MIA as a commenter claiming what I say is “counterproductive”), in the BBC’s program (ditto) and in the majority of the current 25 U.S. “Exxon Knew”-style AGW lawsuits?

Thanks for the brief bio of your career, but it has no more relevance than if you were an ex-photocopier salesman. When I offer evidence that the cornerstone “evidence” in the ‘industry disinformation’ accusation is worthless and the people pushing the accusation have massively troubling narrative inconsistencies about it, skip the bio and tell us all how the problems I reveal are either “distasteful” or “counterproductive.” When you literally cannot back up the specific bits you hurl at me, friend, you have much more of an appearance of a person who’s driven by pure emotional reaction rather than one who can stand behind cold facts. Subtle that I am about it, I’m trying to help you out here by showing how your initial reaction to my guest post here was based on your superficial perception of what it was. Had you decided instead to explore where it came from, it would have opened your eyes to something you seem to be oblivious to. Imagine in possibly the near future when Oreskes et al. are prominently held accountable for their potentially libelous/slanderous smear of skeptic scientists, someone may ask you if you were stunned at just how few people were responsible for that massive of an injustice which otherwise enabled wasteful anti-science climate mitigation to proceed unheeded — your reply would be, “I didn’t care about the injustice.” Imagine how distasteful and counterproductive-sounding that will be to the person who asks you the question.

Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep, it’s what folks who make authoritative statements do when they plow into their own self-created brick walls. If you cannot prove that few to almost nobody cares about what I do, then all you have is unsubstantiated opinion, which I would think is the antithesis of a person who claims to cherish facts. So far, in you inability to prove what I do is pointless rabbit hole exploration, you take on the appearance of being someone who would have leveled the same accusation at Woodward & Bernstein in their pursuit of trying to figure out what the connections were with the Watergate break-in. I’m a big proponent of free speech and personal choice, so if you have no interest in the details I provide, that’s fine, and you are welcome to hold your opinion; but as I see it, that is all it is. But far worse is your seeming revelation about how the propaganda war is lost. May I humbly suggest the back in the first third of the last century, elitists held the considered opinion that a particular authoritarian European regime would only be defeated by technical and economic realities, not by pointing out that they were bad people. Consider how much deadly harm arose out of that head-buried-in-the-sand tactic as more and more personal freedom was eroding away. Good thing you are apparently retired instead of holding any kind of influential political power. I posit that your exact sort of surrender is why the AGW issue is as far out of control now and getting exponentially worse by the day.

Again with the false premise and arguably disinforming narrative? What’s particularly telling in your replies is how you have yet to tally up the number of my guest posts at WUWT (“The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change” in case you weren’t aware of that), in order to extrapolate the amount of people who’ve read my material, along with your apparent Oreskes-channeled mischaracterization of the “hits” at my GelbspanFiles blog. There hasn’t been 100 hits on my blog, there have been – according to today’s count – 663,329 total hits since 2013, where out of the total visit count, the average appears to be that visitors hit more than 3 different blog posts during their visits. And the total count excludes visits prior to the installation of that counter. Also telling in is your attempt to move the goal posts on away from your castigation of “rabbit hole exploration.” If you have zero patience for that sort of thing, then by default you disliked what Woodward and Bernstein chased, and by default you probably hate what Steven McIntyre chases when it comes to ClimateGate and the sheer level of detail he showed to implode the ‘whitewash’ investigations of ClimateGate. No doubt you thoroughly despise Heartland’s / CFACT’s “rabbit hole” revelations about the extent of “The Great Reset”/ ESG implementation efforts. Ya can’t like one rabbit hole and deem another to be counterproductively distasteful.

Friend, don’t expect people to get all fired up over your opinion that the “Clima Change™” issue will die when people scream about $10 per gallon gas and $10 boxes of cereal while homelessness quadruples. If you honestly think Al Gore with his newest $1.7 billion venture and the rest of the multi-billion dollar AGW industry is just going to roll over and cry “uncle!” over rising economic complaints, people will say it is you who lives in a fantasy world. There is one reason – and one alone – why the Oreskes et al. mob has achieved as much success as they have with their false accusations about skeptic climate scientists colluding with Big Oil execs, and that’s because people with the most powerful influence to hold that mob accountable are not aware of just how vulnerable that little mob is to total collapse on their accusation. With the level of capitulation and indifference you display about that situation, its like the old adage: if you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

Friend, it would appear that you don’t think your arguments all the way through. When you previously said, “I really don’t care what Naomi Oreskes or her compatriots are up to,” that would indicate you’ve never looked at any depth into it whatsoever …. and yet you now claim that you know what’s going on “in the CliSciFi camp with their lies and vilification campaigns.” How do you prove that if you express no care in what Oreskes does now or did in the past, or any of the others, for that matter? Can you even bless this WUWT reading audience with any of their specific lies, as it relates directly to the “industry disinformation campaigns” accusations? I can. But since you don’t support any of your other assertions with facts, I’m not holding my breath that you can do so in this challenge.

You determined — after one single visit — that I “flog of dead horses.” Do you have no self-awareness of the illogic behind that claim? Can you even specify which horses, plural? How would you know that my storylines – plural – are convoluted from just one single visit, and from reading my WUWT guest post here (one you literally could not identify as being part 3 within a series) which quite likely was on a topic totally different than whatever post it was that you read “a couple of years ago“? And who is this “peanut gallery” you refer to? Can you specify who they are by name? Or even offer a wild guess? Meanwhile, luv your perpetually sliding goal posts; first you said “[mild expletive-deleted] few people care” about my efforts, then after you couldn’t rise to the challenge of quantifying the number of my readers you switched to “not many people are listening to you,” and now you say “no significant interest.” Friend, if you cannot stand and deliver on your authoritative assertions, accept this fault of yours and move on instead of trying to cover it up.

So, you ultimately don’t like my “style of attempting to communicate.” No offense, but you really need to work on yours. I almost decided not to respond to your first May 16, 2022 6:15am comment reply to commenter “bcullen1815” because I could not tell for certain if you were describing his comment as a screed with convoluted reasoning or if you were referring to my guest post. It was a bit of a gamble on my part to do so if you were actually trashing his odd questions and false premise assertion. My opinion is that your ongoing inability to define precisely what your complaint entails, along with your propensity to offer false premise assertions, combined with your profanity and pointless name-calling, are impediments to reaching people to convince them that your complaint against me is anything beyond unsubstantiated, emotionally driven opinion.

Just sayin.’* (*please ideologues, don’t shoot the messenger)

So, you are indeed actually admitting that you were unaware of what the main CliSciFi practitioners are up to after all. That’s what I thought right from the start.

Nevertheless, Mr. Takagi, er … Fair, I could talk about industrialization and men’s fashion all day, but I’m afraid work must intrude … have a nice life, and if you happen to see any part of the Oreskes et al. mob finding themselves in really hot, unexpected water, think kind thoughts about me, along with — oops, your collective surrender assessments were just a tic off base. No doubt the regret you currently feel, however, stems from your inability to support your emotionally-driven argument in any meaningful, fact-based way.