|Are the IPCC shills?|
In a new Heartland Policy brief, Russell Cook says that, sceptical scientists
or, as he calls them, "prominent climate scientists" are routinely denounced as “shills” paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread lies and misinformation.
Wikipedia describes a Shill: (Link)
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
AND who was publicly pushing the aim of one world government using the falsified AGW hypothesis? The IPCC, that's who.
Trouble is, the more mud the real shills, the Alarmists, throw, the more it sticks. The mud should be thrown the other way:
The truth, however, has every appearance of being exactly the opposite: A clumsy effort to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptical clim(Rebuttedate scientists arose in 1991 with roots in Al Gore’s Senate office; it gained effectiveness and media traction after Ozone Action took over the effort and drew attention to the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” memo phrase (which they never showed in its full context); and the effort achieved its highest success after being heavily promoted by the “Pulitzer-winning investigative reporter” Ross Gelbspan, who never won a Pulitzer, never displayed any investigative prowess in this matter, and never proved that any skeptic climate scientist had ever knowingly lied as a result of being paid illicit money.This blog and others have previously reveals the truth:
- The Big Lie: Sceptics funded by BIGOIL:
- Funds from BigOil. Who's shady now?
- Hey BigOil, Where's our $$$$s?
- Sceptics Lavish funding by Big Oil Exposed as lie.
- Big Oil money funds Warmists (Jo Nova)
The main pillar of support for the notion that humans are causing a dangerous warming of the climate has been the notion of “settled science.” That notion has long been questioned (rebutted! -Ed) by skeptic scientists. The secondary pillar of support for the alarmist global warming theory has been the notion that industry-corrupted skeptics are unworthy of public consideration. This accusation could easily have been investigated and refuted long ago. That never happened, because of the third pillar: Journalists should not give equal time to skeptic scientists.
We are overdue for the biggest ideology collapse in history, begging for an investigation into why the mainstream media and influential politicians apparently never checked the veracity of claims about “settled science” and “corrupt skeptics.”