From The Gelbspan Files
Predictably, Frontline’s Part 3 program offered viewers only half or less of the full story they were telling, which is why the program as a whole could be labeled “disinformation,” but the program lost all the focus it had in Parts 1 and 2 on the ‘corrupt fossil fuel industry spreading disinformation’ accusation angle. I’ll cover that bizarre twist in highlight form toward the end of this post. The far larger problem overall now is the very weird “Naomi Oreskes Hole” that Frontline and Oreskes herself inexplicably dug for themselves. Her inability to keep her mouth shut on various items is the gift that keeps on giving; ammo handed on a silver platter to potential congressional investigators and law firms defending energy companies in global warming lawsuits.
I’m speaking of “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie star/book author / historian Naomi Oreskes, of course. The new wrinkle arising out of this situation concerns both the teensy little bit Frontline permitted her to say, and her unforced error reaction about what she did not ultimately say.
So, what did she finally say in Part 3, after having been used as a teaser in the introduction mere seconds into Part 1 and again the same way in Part 2?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She never appeared in the main presentation of Part 3 at all.
In a technical sense, it was false advertising – disinformation – from Frontline to imply she was going to appear on the program. She does not even appear in any kind of ‘supplemental’ videos of additional material not seen in the broadcasts.
The massive irony to this situation concerns the teensy little bit from her that Frontline did permit her to say:
It’s important to understand the past. You can’t understand where you are, if you don’t know how you got there.
It is of course implied that viewers would fully appreciate the current ‘disinformation’ spewed by the fossil fuel industry now if they knew of the total history of it. And who better to tell the Frontline audience about it than “climate disinformation expert” Naomi Oreskes.
That is all exactly backwards. It is important to understand the past because the public won’t understand where they are with the accusation now if they don’t know how the accusation got here today via its core promulgators. Start digging into the history of how these accusers got involved, and you don’t find nice tidy answers, you end up finding more and more crippling problems which could reveal the accusation to be nothing more than outright libel/slander.
Start with her reaction to not appearing on the program for any extended length of time in this Part 3. It was in response to some guy tagging her and her “Merchants of Doubt” co-author with praise how the media was finally catching up to their work, in a re-Tweet of some other account’s post about the April 19th broadcast of Frontline’s Part 1:
Better late than never…I guess. (FWIW we pitched this story to Frontline in 2012. They told us they only did stories that were original to them.)
Notice the lack of delight there. But for serious, objective, unbiased investigators, the immediate questions are: “pitched what story?” / “who’s we“? / “why specifically in 2012?”
By 2012, Oreskes had two stories, not just one. Regarding her much more famous “Merchants of Doubt” story, contrary to the hype about it exposing skeptic climate “liars-for-hire,” and contrary to Oreskes’ own hype of it as exposing how fossil fuel industry lobbying led to doubt undercutting ‘scientific consensus,’ the book is described as exposing “a loose-knit group of high-level scientists .. with deep connections in politics and industry,” but it arguably contained nothing more damaging against skeptic climate scientists than their conservative / political / ideological motivations. Meanwhile, her other damaging-appearing accusation “evidence” back then was in her much more obscure book chapter contribution and directly related Powerpoint presentation concerning the worthless “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” ‘leaked memos’ which have long been falsely attributed to the Western Fuels Association. The problem with that second story of hers is that it is hers alone, so there is no “we” involved there.
Or is there?
She specifically said the mystery “we” pitched the story, whatever it is, in 2012. Not 2013, not 2011. Who else also said essentially the same thing about the same date? Kert Davies, who was quite prominently seen in Frontline’s Part 1 and Part 2.
Did he offer any specifics on what that ‘film’ might be about? Yes, he did, at his Climate Investigations Center “Viewer’s Guide” for Frontline’s 3-part series … that totally excluded Part 3:
… clip is shown from this video produced by the Western Fuels Association. The story of the coal industry’s role, and the electric utility companies and associations role could be another whole Frontline
There’s that name again, the Western Fuels Association. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the reason why these core accusers keep going back to ye olde supposedly Western Fuels “reposition global warming” memos is because that is literally the absolute most viable-looking “evidence” they’ve ever had to prove that ‘Big Coal & Oil’ colluded with skeptic climate scientist ‘shill experts’ to spread disinformation. Second-best is their beloved but equally worthless “victory will be achieved” memos.
Meanwhile, Frontline’s Part 3 program strangely lost all the focus it had in Parts 1 and 2, for who knows what reason. Rather than offer any evidence of industry disinformation undercutting the ‘settled science’ of catastrophic man-caused global warming, it veered into what looked like hits against former Obama Administration Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz over vague insinuations that he was involved in illicit advocacy of natural gas production, and hits against President Obama himself (memo to enviro-activists: you don’t bite the hand that feeds you).
Beyond that, here’s my highlight list of Frontline’s arguably continual disinformation:
- Add 16 additional mentions of the term “climate change” within this Part 3 to the overall count for the all inclusive Parts 1 through 3 online transcript. The real name of the issue is still global warming (inconveniently contradicted by the lack thereof, hence the downplaying of its real name).
- “Hurricane Katrina … part of an emerging trend of extreme weather events” — Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was at the beginning of a hurricane drought of Cat 3 or larger hurricanes that lasted for the next nearly twelve years.
- Methane as far more harmful than CO2 — not a solitary word was told to Frontline viewers about the other greenhouse gas: water vapor. Meanwhile, claims about the harm of methane are disputed.
- “the binding [Paris Accords] international treaty” — as PBS own NewsHour program stated in April 2016, the Paris Accords were nonbinding, and they were of course not a treaty approved by the Senate under Constitutional requirements.
- “REP. RO KHANNA, D-California: We won’t solve the climate crisis unless we solve the misinformation crisis.”— Technically, his first bit is arguably disinformation since his side does not tell the public anything about the science assessments from skeptic climate scientists, and, as I pointed out in my dissection of Frontline’s Part 1 program, he displays the hallmark of psychological projection in his second bit. He hurls the accusation about opponents misinforming the public, however, he and the House Oversight Committee he’s a top member of are the ones having the appearance of hurling science mis-disinformation and political mis-disinformation about corrupt industry executives colluding with ‘shill’ climate experts. Yes, there actually appears to be a widespread disinformation crisis, but it’s not coming from the mass of people broad-brushed as being anti-science, racist, insurrectionist ‘Russian-talking-point’ repeaters.
- “TONY INGRAFFEA: … What climate change means to me is looking in the eyes of my grandchildren and wondering what kind of hell they’re going to pay.” — That is also arguably disinformation. While the speaker may have the basic free speech right to hold his opinion, Frontline abdicated on its journalism responsibility to point out that this person’s grandparents, around the turn of the 20th century, might have wondered what kind of future their grandchild might be facing in light of cataclysmic weather events happening around that time – epic hurricanes / heat / heat & snow simultaneously / vanishing glaciers / devastating forest fires / typhoons of epic proportions / epic floods / tornadoes and more tornadoes of epic multi-state proportions / and more hurricanes…… you get the picture by now. Imagine what the grandparents of the grandparents must of thought about the future climate in the face of ….. well …
Take every one of those headlines and more from the days 100-120 years ago of zero SUVs and vastly smaller numbers of giant coal / oil / natural gas-fired power plants and turn them into headlines from 1-10 years ago that blame you and your SUV for harsh weather, and you see the acute problem with what ex-Greenpeace USA neé Ozone Action director John Passacantando said back in Part 1 as an inadvertent display of pure psychological projection, pointing an arrow the size of Texas as where the real disinformation in this issue appears to be:
You want to make an assumption that it’s a meritocracy. A good argument will prevail, and it will displace a bad argument. But what the geniuses of the PR firms who work for these big fossil fuel companies know is that truth has nothing to do with who wins the argument. If you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it.
Sound familiar? Replace the “geniuses of the PR firms who work for these big fossil fuel companies” with ‘relentless activists accusing skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption’ and you may have a far more accurate picture of the way things currently are.
If the Frontline program was an actual investigative news outlet instead of an apparent propaganda pusher for narratives from enviro-activists which were never questioned, they could turn their focus 180° against her and the other activists, in order to find out exactly why their accusation narratives crumble apart under even minimal tough scrutiny.
To be fair, she’s not getting any uglier.
You can stand to look at her long enough to tell?
I disagree. The longer you stay corrupt, the more you continue to rot on the inside! 🙁
True. I know this guy who paints his face orange to hide his sins.
Disagreeing with the left is not a sin, though if you had your way it would be a crime.
I’m not the one who bangs on about disagreement and left and right…. I am more than happy for you to disagree with anything I say as long as you don’t just “make it up.”
He can’t hide them from you though, can he, Simon.
The problem MarkW has is he goes on and on about the left this and the left that. His main gripe seems to be the left is intolerant of others ideas. i think the guy needs to look in the mirror.
Unpleasant old harridan some might say, but her true ugliness is inside with her mastery of the Goebbles “Big Lie” technique.
Beauty is only skin deep but ugly goes all the way to the bone.
She has always reminded me of an Orc in Lord of the rings or as Gollum called them “Orcses” a.k.a. Orerkes.
When she’s already pegged the meter, it’s not much of a compliment.
When it is minus 40 degrees, it really doesn’t matter if it drops to minus 45. -40 is still cold enough to do significant harm.
(… she tried to enter an ugly contest but they wouldn’t let her, “amateurs only … no professionals allowed”)
I for one am not getting used to seeing her. Each time she looks worse, even the same pictures!
This narrative is pure La Jolla Conference BS.
NPR? That should stop anyone from believing anything they have to say about the climate, etc.
Ooops. I meant PBS. But, then either one would do.
Propaganda Broadcasting Service of handmade tales. PBS, once, at least maintained a pretense of objective reporting, albeit with an American bias.
I’ve always thought seeking the opinions of these movers and shakers should begin with a clear understanding of their fiduciary interests that may colour their judgement. Full disclosure in the interests of fairness.
Interviewer: So tell me Ms Oreskes before we begin with your opinions of the particular market sector and their vested interests and what you think should be done about them can you tell the folks at home how much their taxes are paying you annually to do that?
“But what the geniuses of the PR firms who work for these big fossil fuel companies know is that truth has nothing to do with who wins the argument. If you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it.”
Wow, look who’s talking. Who is it that keeps repeating claims about hurricanes, rising sea levels, drought, heat waves, etc., etc.? I don’t seem to recall hearing a lot about climate change coming from the fossil fuel companies or their PR firms.
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.
Handmade tales published, televised, steered, inculcated through public and private institutions, and brayed with sufficient force and diversity to present a particle of plausible proportions.
And the Leftist crusades, of which climate is just one, will fail by that criteria with the fashionable notion of “intersectionality.” They continue to stomp on their climate message by including all of the SJW memes.
She’s just another boring 100% scientific consensus Team™ climate denier. As a member of
Naomi & the GW Sham, she had a top hit with “Bully, Bully” sung to this tune:
(I forgot the lyrics to her song. Can anyone help?)
The wurmunists are guilty of everything they accuse their detractors of.
Yep. Their predictions are worthless, but their projections are a perfect reflection of reality across the x-y plane.
I found this analysis confusing and convoluted. Should I or shouldn’t I watch the Frontline piece? If yes, what are its strengths and weaknesses?
P.S. Every industry and organization has a right to state the benefits it provides and a duty not to lie about its harms. This applies equally to Western Fuels Association and Greenpeace.
Conspiracy theories and anti-conspiracy theories both leave me wondering about the mental prosses that could lead one to such convoluted reasoning. For my simple mind once you get beyond about two or three degrees of separation your argument dissolves into incoherency. All it takes is pulling on one thread of the fanciful constructions to collapse their conclusions.
The above screed, while maybe correct in its overall message, is extremely distasteful to those of us who deal mainly in facts. It assumes the reader is familiar with obscure factoids and agrees as to their significance in the whole scheme of things. I imagine that an independent, non-partisan reader would view it as conspiracy ramblings.
Please ideologues, don’t shoot the messenger.
See my comment reply above to “bcullen1815” – you are not the first WUWT commenter to claim one of my guest posts “assumes the reader is familiar ….” which just happens to be a post originally out of my GelbspanFiles blog where regular readers (an ever-growing population of them) are very familiar with legions of facts I detail and agree as to their significance in the whole scheme of the 30 year smear of skeptic climate scientists as ‘industry-paid liars for hire.’ It’s an educated guess, as a result of getting feedback from actual independent, non-partisan readers who take the time to absorb my overall material within its full context of prior blog posts, that they view my decade+ work as some of the most thorough reporting they’ve ever seen exposing the false accusations from a core clique of promulgators aimed at skeptic climate scientists. I’ve also run across various enviro-leftists who bend themselves into pretzel shapes portraying my work as “ramblings,” but these same people have never once been able to dispute the hard facts I point out.
What I said, again.
What you said seems to be unsupported opinion, seemingly stemming from a lack of curiosity / laziness to find out if any larger context surrounds this guest post. May I suggest that if it is your desire to be spoon-fed simple facts which you do not have to think about any depth, WUWT may not be a site suited to your tastes.
What I said, again.
I am the author of this guest post. May I politely suggest that the reason you found my analysis “confusing and convoluted” is simply because you had no intellectual curiosity as to why it is here in the first place. Allow me to walk you through it: immediately below the date stamp / guest blogger / comment count is a line that states “From The Gelbspan Files” meaning this entire piece sources from that location. Right below that line is my name as a clickable link that takes you straight to my piece in its original setting. At my GelbspanFiles blog, you’ll see my post is a continuation of two prior posts, each devoted to my analysis Parts 1 and 2 of the Frontline “Power of Big Oil” series. WUWT reposted my Part 1 analysis as a guest post back on April 27 resulting from a suggestion on my part, it’s the first clickable link at the very bottom of my guest post here in the “Related” section (you either didn’t find that April 27 guest post confusing/convoluted … or you never saw it, since no comment of yours appears in its comment section). WUWT did not repost my second one, while today’s repost was a decision they made purely on their own, and I’m glad they did, it’ll lead many to find out more at my GelbspanFiles blog. From my three posts there on the Frontline series, the obvious question is not whether a person should watch the broadcasts or not or whether the broadcasts had any strengths or weaknesses, the elemental question is why the program’s producers chose to broadcast accusations and information that they apparently abysmally failed to fact-check along with failing to disclose an irrefutable two decade+ working association of two of the prominent accusers in Parts 1 and 2, and the question arising out of Part 3 is why Naomi Oreskes was unmistakably teased as appearing somewhere within the 3-part series when it turns out she never appeared at all. If you had chosen to let you fingers do a little walking, you would have readily seen that the overall problem with this Frontline series — purporting to expose “disinformation campaigns” — instead has every appearance in the world of being a disinformation campaign itself.
Regarding your “Ps” line, neither you nor any other accuser of the Western Fuels Association could prove that WFA lied about its “harms” if your reputation depended on it. That is the point throughout my GelbspanFiles blog and prior online articles regarding the 30 year history of the accusation of ‘Big Coal & Oil colluding with skeptic expert shills to spread disinformation.’
I think your “no intellectual curiosity” confuses it with most peoples’ aversion to joining Alice in her journey down the rabbit hole. No matter the ultimate truth, your approach is counterproductive to educating the common man.
Explain how exactly my “approach” is counterproductive. But first, can you tell this reading audience what your approximate reading time was regarding the material at my GelbspanFiles blog or what it was for any of my other online articles dating back to 2010? And – for the record – can you state that you either are aware or are not, that my guest post here is technically ‘out-of-context’ as it relates to my prior two dissections of the Frontline “Power of Big Oil” program?
Russell, how many regular people people read any of your stuff? Damned few people care about your fixations.
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?
Russell, you continue to prove my point: You are a strident and persistent fringe voice hammering obscure points over and over again. A hundred hits per day with an all time high of 448 people per day at your blog is not something normal people would brag about.
I make no claim to an “authoritative” voice. While not quite the average asshole on the street (Electrical Engineering degree, post graduate business and economics courses and a progressive career in power systems (with an excursion into nuclear weapons) leading to a CEO/GM position in an electric utility company, I’m pretty sure my reactions to your obtuse screeds is typical.
At 74 years of age, I don’t have time to wander off into your weeds. I really don’t care what Naomi Oreskes or her compatriots are up to.
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.
Look, Russell, I am generally aware of what Oreskes and her compatriots are up to in the climate propaganda wars. I have no interest in the tedious details that you so belabor, nor does anyone else I know of.
I don’t begrudge you your obvious passion in waging war against some of the CliSciFi opportunists and liars. Its just that normal people don’t have the interest nor time to wander down that rabbit hole. You and a few true believers may revel in the details of the struggle but the propaganda wars have been won long ago by the powers that be.
It is my considered opinion that the CliSciFi liars and profiteers will only be defeated by technical and economic realities, not by pointing out that they are bad people conspiring against the little people. Its like the old adage: Don’t get into arguments with people who buy ink by the barrel.
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.
1) 100 hits on your blog is a pretty good indication that not many people are listening to you.
2) The propaganda war was won long ago by the climate hustlers. Read the opinion polls and watch how the politicians vote.
3) Woodward and Bernstein worked for a large media outlet and had an inside traitor.
4) “Its The Economy Stupid.” Hits to peoples’ pocket books will eventually put an end to CliSciFi. It certainly won’t come from an obscure blog saying how bad those people are.
5) Get over it. Have fun blogging, but don’t expect people to get all fired up over you revelations.
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.
Russell, thank you for shouting louder to convince me I don’t know what’s going on in the CliSciFi camp with their lies and vilification campaigns.
After one visit to your blog a couple of years ago I don’t go there anymore, not because of your assumed “… capitulation and indifference you [me] display …,” it is because your flogging of dead horses turns me off. Your style of attempting to communicate is an impediment to reaching people to convince them to act against your “evil” people.
Always remember: “Just the facts, ma’am.” Few people have the time or interest in wading through your convoluted storylines. No matter what you or your peanut gallery think, you are not a good communicator. “663,329 total hits since 2013″ (or an implied 221,110 individual visits within an approximate 10-year span) in no way shows significant interest in the totality of your message(s) nor your ability as a communicator.
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)
Russell: “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”
You appear to confuse my “I really don’t care …” with my being unaware of what the main CliSciFi practitioners are up to. The point is that I see no benefit to my following you down the proverbial Alice’s rabbit hole by fixating on their every utterance or action. It is the technical, social and economic impossibility of what they propose that will be their undoing, not skeptics’ nitpicking arguments with people who buy ink by the barrel.
Skeptics lost the global warming-morphing-to-climate change argument long ago. Polls and the actions of Western governments, media, educational institutions and crony capitalists conclusively prove that fact. Only the obvious (to the voters) technical, social and economic failure of the various CliSciFi/Leftist schemes will reverse that.
I regret ever bringing up this discussion, Russell. I now retire from your field of battle, leaving you to your triumph.
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.
Typical Frontline tactic, and one of the reasons I quit PBS and NPR more than 20 years ago. I got tired of the “False statements.”
This article convinces me that I made the right decision when I saw the title “The Power of Big Oil” and decided not waste my time watching it.
I guess I have to watch the Frontline show to understand the article. But I don’t want to spend time on Oreskes because she only uses political arguments. Nothing to learn there. Nothing to learn here.
Please do watch at least minimally the Frontline Part 3 episode, and you’ll have a better appreciation of how such mainstream media “news reporting” only tells its viewers half of the global warming story. That is one of the crucial points I try to make. The more that increasing numbers of the public start to backlash against the MSM, the sooner that biased news outlets will be forced to account for their journalism malfeasance. But I thoroughly disagree that there is nothing to learn here. Many AGW skeptics simply write off Oreskes as an anti-science kook who built part of her career on the idiotic notion that a “show of hands” validates science conclusions, and who also calls skeptic scientists “merchants of doubt” for some unknown reason. But when people express no intellectual curiosity about why she’s even involved prominently in this issue in the first place, or are completely unaware of how she literally cannot keep her own personal history straight about her entry into this issue and her role within it, they do so at your own peril. She apparently has a far bigger role in the smear of skeptic climate scientists than most everyone are aware of.
I have read Oreskes books and articles. I don’t think she is “an anti-science kook”. I think she is an old fashioned anti-capitalist kook, not much different from her namesake Naomi Klein. If she has a “far bigger role in the smear of skeptic scientists than most everyone are aware of” please simply state what that role is. It is enough for me that she has teamed up with the wretched Lewandowsky and even more wretched John Cook.
Your writing style remains, as I said, confusing and convoluted. Simply get to the point.
Unclear why you choose to embarrass yourself in this manner. Much like the “Dave Fair” commenter fellow in this comment section, apparently, you arrived at the short-sighted conclusion that my guest post was a stand-alone post and that for some inexplicable reason, I wrote this first-ever WUWT guest post under the assumption that readers are already magically aware of my assortment of details. Friend, as I already pointed out, this was not a stand-alone post, it was a repost out of my GelbspanFiles blog that is a continuation of a series at where readers are indeed already aware of the multi-year lineage of my details. “Simply get to the point“, you demand. Friend, I already have, which you would know if you allowed yourself to explore beyond the realm of spoon-fed simple-minded information you seem to crave. I have to assume you did not bother to click on the two links I provided to the “Citizen Smith” commenter above. Here’s two more for you to reinforce just how misdirected your demand was:
“Naomi Oreskes’ Problems, pt 1”
“Merchants of Doubt: A Climate Change Dud”
When you take the time to understand something which initially perplexes you by exploring outside of your seemingly narrow perceptions, it opens up a wider world for you. You should try out that kind of intellectual curiosity sometime.
The Maldives only a meter above sea level? Someone better tell them quickly. Last I heard, they were on a big real estate building boom.