Originally blogged at Realclimategate
Note – I’m away for a couple of days, I doubt that I will have much opportunity to review and approve any new comments.
I came across Sourcewatch a little while ago.
If you were to also take a brief look at it’s global warming, climate change and climate skeptic section it will become quite clear what the contributors thoughts are about ‘climate skeptics’. After browsing for a while I then considered:
Who and what is the climate skeptic section intended for?
Perhaps it is there to reassure ‘climate change activists’, by publishing information about individual sceptics that are not terribly complimentary, or in my view economical with the full picture. Thus reassured the activist can depart and continue to state it is all down to an Exxon/Koch Brothers ‘anti science’ well funded climate denial machine.
Source Watch – Individual Skeptics
I might suggest stick around Source Watch a while longer, as a look at the list of individual sceptics led me to some interesting individuals websites that I was previously unaware of. Reading Sourcewatch can also give you an idea about the motivations and thought processes of the largely anonymous people that research and write there, perhaps allowing a sceptic or 2 to understand them better.
Perhaps it could alternatively be seen as a ‘skeptic role of honour’ ?
In much the same way as the ‘Campaign Against Climate Change’ probably has more ‘skeptics’ signed up to their ‘Skeptic Alerts’ email campaign than activists, where they now kindly email me daily a list of sceptical articles. Try embracing Sourcewatch as a jump off point for potentially interesting people’s websites and blogs….
You can then read these climate sceptics thoughts for yourself and judge them on the merits of their arguments and make up your own mind, something sadly I imagine many ‘climate change activists’ never do, just relying on the Sourcewatch review.
(Skeptics/sceptics seems to used interchangeably depending on US vs UK english spellings)
You know it sure is telling how much that site looks like wiki !!! Could there be a WC hand in there? Sorry got to ask the Q not being as dumb as some LOL
So we have the PNAS ‘paper’ and now the ‘SourceWatch’.
It’s interesting too that the ‘skeptics’ page has a number of factual errors on it…. seriously guys- proof read.
SourceWatch, created by Sheldon Rampton, as I detailed toward the end of my article “Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits Are Based on a Fatal Flaw” http://biggovernment.com/rcook/2010/11/27/global-warming-nuisance-lawsuits-are-based-on-a-fatal-flaw/
The first link in my article takes readers to a prior one where I show how the very same Sheldon Rampton appeared before a US House hearing and regurgitated an accusation phrase against skeptic scientists that was made famous by anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan and the enviro-advocacy group Ozone Action in 1996-7 – these people have every appearance of being the epicenter of the accusation that skeptic scientists operate under a coal/oil industry directive to fabricate false assessments in exchange for mega-millions…… an accusation that has no evidence to support it that I can find, and its central piece of evidence is a 1991 coal industry memo that no one is allowed to see in its complete context.
Never heard of Ozone Action? But you have heard of Greenpeace. O.A.’s executive director merged his little group with Greenpeace in 2000 and became the executive director of Greenpeace USA, retiring in 2009. Its current Exec Director is Phil Radford, also an Ozone Action employee. Al Gore’s spokesperson is Kalee Kreider, and she was Ozone Action’s Communications Director.