Oh, stop the presses, I'm busted for the whole planet to see when I lapse into using the name of the fellow most famously seen being perp-walked after a giant business scandal in his orange jail jumpsuit. Blame it on the color of your blog background, I suppose.Claiming the fossil fuel industry is behind some evil conspiracy doesn't make it so. That point has been proven by a multitude of others. Just read Namomi Oreskes book, Gore's books, Hoggan's book on the subject, and you'll soon see how you literally cannot meet my ongoing challenge to you to provide physical evidence to prove skeptics are paid & instructed to lie. Thus all your downright comical sidestepping, among those being the challenge to prove any skeptic 'denies' climate change overall. That wipeout, with AGW believer's continual usage of it, is acutely embarrassing.Regarding this threat you speak of, did you see any legal papers arrive at your abode from Heartland or any other place? No, because as I abundantly pointed out, it was no more than a challenge posed in conceptual metaphor I thought you could understand, and it is not I who ran away, it was you who fled from that same challenge when I reposed it via a couple of other abstract ways. Your 'legal expert' pals totally missed that, did they, betraying their actual competence on legal advice?Meanwhile, my two challenges stand: Attend ICCC10 and see if your so-called skeptic debate prompts people to flee or reject it. Bring a video recording device if you are certain this will happen. Second, pretend I and your pal commenter "cunudiun" were born yesterday on Mars and just arrived in town on a turnip truck - show us where in Merchants of Doubt that Oreskes provided you with specific evidence that skeptic climate scientists were paid and instructed to lie to the public. I own a copy of that book, I've read it and I watched her movie, and I have written about her enslavement to another source for her accusation. Prove me wrong. Otherwise neither "cunudiun" nor anybody else will look to you as a source of info when it comes to defeating what I have to say about the total wipeout of the accusation.
Say whatever makes you feel better, but with your comment here, you do nor more than take on the appearance of being Keating's [ineffective] hatchet man, linking to a Desmogblog profile of me that does nothing to refute any specific point I make on the origins of the smear of skeptics or prove that I am a paid shill. They used my own words on funding, in case ya missed that, words that destroy the notion that what I say is something that can be bought by the highest bidder.
Again with the false premises? Yes, I readily admit to saying skeptics don't deny climate change, and have used Lord Monckton's ICCC9 presentation ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSVI-EdgLr4#t=818 ) to hammer home the mindlessness of AGWers' enslavement to that 'denier' talking point. Call my comments here whatever you like, astute readers will see them for what they really are - challenges to you to support your specific assertions which you repeatedly fail to meet. Who's really the one with the 'tactic to say the most ridiculous thing in the hope people will believe him'? That would be you, declaring yourself the victor in a rigged 'science debate' with skeptics where there is no independent judging authority. Geeze louise, if any given skeptic climate scientist or speaker tried to pull that same stunt where they couldn't be bothered to meet face-to-face with the people they criticize while doing little more than contradict their critics, and then declaring themselves the judge and debate winner, ThinkProgress and Desmogblog would be all over them for perpetuating a total farce.
Oh, look everyone, Harris Hatchet Person CB is here with yet another regurgitation of the "Earth's history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ as high as we've pushed it" meme. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22polar+ice+caps+withstanding%22Basically reinforces the appearance of "CB" as no more than some kind of robot comment program. Meanwhile, the science debate (which I'm not qualified to speak authoritatively on) is whether any icecap melt we do see is a result of man-caused or natural forces. Don't expect the CB robot to address that anytime soon with any authority.
Funny how you don't link to Harris' exact defense or reproduce his defense verbatim. Is it because you take Harris' 'defense' totally out-of-context?
Personally, I'm amazed how our friend Keating here permits critic comments at all, considering how damaging they are to his overall narratives. Seems he didn't get the memo on deleting inconvenient commentary. https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/597840037376471040
And Desmog has a video of you admitting right off the bat that you have no training in the science at all. So you have no ability to assess the validity of any of the garbage ideas you are defending nor the irreparable harm you and your people cause by gumming up the work the vast majority of honest scientists are trying to do. Meanwhile you guys make a game of concealing your funding sources and denouncing others when they can't see through your ruse.
One more thing: Keating gripes about me spacing out his first name in favor of a celebrity crook, but can't bother to spell my first name right, spacing out with a common mistake about it?
My presentation was not about the science, it was about the facet of the AGW issue that neither you nor Keating or other famous luminaries can defend as a core defense for the public not to listen to skeptic climate scientists. I have not concealed my funding source and you just embarrassed yourself asserting I do, while further undermining the entire notion that funding corrupts when you have no proof any skeptic funding was not given purely because the donors agree with what skeptics say. Deal with reality, friend.
Well Tom certainly conceals his and ICSC's sources, as does Heartland. And you confirm exactly my point. You are a scientific no-nothing who was brought in to do nothing other than character assassination and spin. You don't even understand whose side you are on, i.e. the implications of what they stand for. And what nonsense you spout about funding sources not being important. Upton Sinclair famously said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" But you Heartland people are above all that, from Tobacconist Fred Singer on down, right?
I enjoy letting my readers see what kind of liars deniers really are. There is nothing more damning than your own words.
I find it very interesting how Harris had to have a Heartland hatchet man come in and do so much damage control. Obviously the commentary on Harris upset the deniers.
Really, Russell? That is all you can say to the science? You don't want to even try and produce some kind of evidence to support your claims? I guess, to you, character assassination qualifies as sufficient evidence.
If you had bothered to read the comments made on this blog by the deniers, you would see just how false that claim is. Let's start with your friend and fellow Heartland Institute stooge, John Coleman. He's the TV weatherman going around claiming to be a meteorologist. He has stated there is no global warming, there never has been and there never will be. You guys just love traveling into the land of the absurd. Between the two of you, you can form quite a comedy act.http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-how-it.html
Excuse me? You are really traveling in the land of the lunatic.
I love the way deniers criticized the rules on my challenge. It truly shows how you are not concerned with reality or facts. The rules for my challenge came from a denier challenge, one made by the self-descriptive JunkScience - The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge. The differences between mine and his are that I did not charge a fee to submit and, unlike him, I put all challenges and responses up in a public forum for anyone to read. Tell me, Russell, can you point out a single challenge that was scientifically valid? Can you produce even one submission where my response was not valid? Oh, and you have to provide the science to prove it, too. I bet $10,000 of my own money that no one like you could do it and you only proved me right. Why didn't you, or any of your cronies at Heartland put something together? If I rejected something that was valid, it would have been there for everyone to see and you could have used it for a lot of your talking points. The reason you didn't is because you can't. You are a fraud, just like all the rest of your denier cronies. Talk nonsense, produce nothing.
You are a paid shill. But, I don't think you can be bought by the highest bidder. You chose to serve the fossil fuel industry and they are your master. I don't think you would take any amount of money to betray them. Just like no amount of scientific evidence will ever persuade you to admit you are wrong. Pathetic.
I don't know if you ever fully intended to sue me or were simply trying to intimidate me, but when I said the first thing I would do would be to subpoena Heartland's financials you really backed down. Hmmm, I wonder why?As for your challenge, I completely busted your claims and it has been busted countless times. More importantly, it has been busted by your buddies at Heartland and it has been busted by open admissions by the fossil fuel industry. Your stuck on that one Russell. Say it all you want, but your masters have already provided all the proof needed. I suppose you might find a few people that will still believe you. If you consider your time as having no value, I guess it is worth your while to keep making those claims.You will, of course, keep making your silly claim, but for anyone else, I suggest you start here:http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/05/denier-funding.html
Of course your presentation isn't about the science. That's because you guys have no science to support you and reject any science that doesn't fit. How silly! If you had any science you would produce it. So, why don't you, Russell? And, there is no such thing as "climate skeptic scientists." You have to accept the scientific method in order to be a scientists and all of the deniers have rejected it.The reality is this: Deniers take funds from the fossil fuel industry to undermine climate science in order to influence public policy and protect the interests of their employers. Deniers fly no aircraft, have no laboratories, have no computer models, do not deploy ships, do not launch satellites, do not make expeditions to the polar regions, collect no data, train no graduate students or produce any science. All they do is deny science. Oh, and engage in character assassination.
No. i don't link to Harris because he dissembles. I don't link to Heartland for the same reasons. But he and I corresponded. He can fight his own battles. Maybe.
Despite the fact that you and your friend are unworthy, here is the direct quotation: "United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who delivered the conference’s other opening address, was even more confident, rashly asserting that, “the science of climate change is deep, sound and not in doubt. Climate change is occurring now—and human activities are the principal cause.”Then I wrote:Developed nations are to blame for AGW, and it's not rash to describe human understanding of radiative physics as deep and sound. Who wrote this drivel?And then came the response: TomHarrisICSC Constant Gardener • 7 days agoNeither of those issue (sic) matter in the least and are not the issues under discussion. The UN Sec Gen said nothing about radiative physics.You[r pal is a hair-splitting buffoon.
Mr Cook,Large amounts of information gleaned through Freedom of information efforts have proven over and over again that deniers and think tank organizations have received funding form sources like Exxon Mobile, but now thanks to social "welfare" organizations, freedom from accountability and Superpacs, these same extremely large donations cannot be adequately tracked to ascertain either their identities or the amounts in which they are made.So, since you seem absolutely convinced that very large donations do not come from sources like ExxonMobil, or think tanks devoted to the strategy of discrediting climate scientists, then may I just ask you two question---Firstly, would you be alright with assuring us that the sources of such large donations SHOULD BE REVEALED, and that the entities who make them, should be revealed to assure the public, that such people and their donations are completely on the up? And secondly, if the motives of deniers are beyond reproach, (as they continually claim), then should they even really have any objections to meeting disclosure requirement? If the sources revealed are indeed, completely valid, and are in compliance with all pertinent regulations, then wouldn't investigations into their financial contributions only serve to exonerate such mega-donors, or mega-organizations which fund deniers?And if the old adage which states that, those who are innocent should not fear the consequences of telling the truth is valid, then shouldn't that adage also apply to any special interests who provide their support? If the actions of contributors were deemed acceptable, then why should they feel "embarrassed" or insecure about revealing names and amounts--why should they be embarrassed or feel at risk at all when simply taking part in supporting groups that are also supposed to have a great deal of moral integrity?Should we feel guilty for simply asking a multi-billion profit making corporation how much it donates towards denier or any political cause? Isn't this another case where the fox is guarding the henhouse, and doesn't even want to reveal he is doing so?
I find it predictable to no end that "Constant Gardener" can't even do the most elemental of efforts to back up the assertion that he or she made, and that you have to repeat a label you have literally no chance of proving. Meanwhile, who's the real hatchet man/sock puppet here? Since there has been such a rash of specific efforts to quash Harris' editorial writing outreach, will you disclose who prompted you to write your blog post about him. Tom himself alerted me to your blog because he knows of my multi-year hobby challenging commenters and bloggers to point me to a single piece of evidence proving skeptics are paid and instructed to lie. I had to tell him you were no more than another in a legion of people unable to deliver on that challenge.
Oh, puh-lease. In case you haven't noticed, I have never backed off my challenges to you. By all means, subpoena Heartland's financials, you'll run into the same buzzsaw that Peter Gleick ran into, the same wipeout that all the others face: without proof that any money received by any skeptic came with instructions to lie and fabricate YOU. HAVE. ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING. As I said from the get-go, bring those financials into an evidentiary hearing as your only proof of some conspiracy and you will be seen as a total laughingstock. Exactly what part of that do you literally not understand?
"... since you seem absolutely convinced that very large donations do not come from sources like ExxonMobil...."Oh, my Holy God. Dude, go read my my latest blog post http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2792 , and witness how your own spectacular blunder is no different that what appeared at Desmog UK, ThinkProgress, & DailyKos. When you have no comprehension what i write about, you shoot yourself in the foot with a cannon.
You are so silly that I actually laugh when I read your comments. Such a silly, little man.I wrote the piece on my own volition. I enjoy exposing deniers for the liars they are. And, to the best of my knowledge, no one is attempting to quash Mr. Harris' writing. He is free to write, but so are the people that understand he is a liar and rejects science. See? It goes both ways, despite your best efforts to silence the science crowd.
Actually, Peter Gleick did us a great service and really exposed just how corrupt the inner-workings of Heartland are. The only thing you have never backed off from is being a twit. You keep repeating the same, silly lines, no matter how ridiculous you sound. Don't you ever get embarrassed by being Heartland's sniveling fool?
Just a silly, little man.
Friends, I'd just love to stay and yik-yak with you all day long about your wipeouts. But, I have other things to do, thus I will offer y'all some sage advice. Stop a minute and look at your own lives, filled with rage against critics who dare ask you rough questions, plagued with sleepless nights fretting over some perception of pending catastrophe as the result of global warming hardly different that what folks worried about from global cooling back in the '70s. Skeptic scientists bring you good news, and you flee from it, calling 'em every name in the book for reasons you cannot begin to explain. As I said to the guys at Climate Crocks ( http://climatecrocks.com/2014/11/05/alex-adair-make-me-feel-better/comment-page-1/#comment-65817 ), what you should try doing is some serious introspection, and in conjunction with that, you need to develop an exit strategy for yourselves, so that your children and grandchildren will be able to retain some modicum of respect for you and your legacy.
I do not feel rage against you, Russell. I feel pity. Maybe that's worse.I see you are resorting to more lies on your way out the door. It has been well documented the '70s global cooling' claim never happened. And, it would be irrelevant, even if it did. False claim. False argument. Two for two, Russell.Good news? Let's see, the fossil fuel industry is buying the politicians, funding a massive denier industry, destroying the environment, and, oh, yeah, are making a ton of money at our expense. I guess that is good news for people like you, but not for the rest of the people that have to share this planet with you.So, we, the people who understand the science instead of rejecting it, say adieu as you exit. You failed to intimidate me, failed to shut me down, and were only able to succeed in embarrassing yourself, so your only recourse is to run and hide.Like I said before, you're just a silly, little man, more funny than serious. Go away and let the grown-ups get back to work.
I get you're belief that you and other poor innocent deniers are being picked on just for wanting to discuss what the "real" causes of global warming are. But just the supposed virtue of admitting that warming is actually happening, does not exactly earn you a prize for open mindedness when continually pushing the idea that man is not a primary source of warming. The entire AGW controversy hinges on the idea that if we humans are causing a great amount of the present global warming, (as we are), then we can lower the amounts of Co2 by taking some practical steps to reduce emissions. So, it is really meaningless to say you acknowledge that global warming exists, but will not recognize the overwhelming fact that man is its primary cause. Either way, you affirm the notion that nothing out of the ordinary is happening, and that therefore, no practical steps are needed to reduce atmospheric concentrations of Co2.Apparently what qualifies you to lecture legitimate climate scientists as being frauds and dummies is your Associates Degree in Graphic Arts and your Bachelor's degree in Business Administration. Could you ever have greater qualifications to debunk the findings of the IPCC and defy all of those Nobel Winning PhDs in climate scinece?It's an established fact that Exxon Mobil funds denier's organizations, and makes donations to anti-AGW groups, So, even if you have not been found with a smoking gun, the mere fact that you are a contributing editor to the Heartlands Institute's website on climate and environment, is reason enough to assume that you also approve of its anti-AGW stand.The fact is that, if someone looks like a monkey, walks like a monkey, smells like a monkey, and acts like a monkey, chances are that that person IS a monkey. So all your attempts to deny our human role in global warming, amount to very little, and probably sometimes mean very little to you also!
... and like a monkey throws poo in all directions to see if it will stick.
If all the deniers were making these claims simply because they were ignorant, we should have settled this denial mess decades ago.
Don't forget spreading misinformation too.
Yes, but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. What does it say when saying someone is stupid is the benefit of the doubt?