DeSmog

NRSP: Climate Change Deniers-Are-Us

authordefault
on

Congratulations to Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (better known as Not Really Science People), who has scoured the earth for “experts” prepared to deny the science behind climate change and has found a couple of people we’d never heard of before.

Most (27) of Harris’s 31 “experts” fall nicely into the category of “usual suspects,” having all signed the infamous Letter of 60, demanding that the Canadian government take NO action on climate change. (Kudos to Harris for his success on that front, as well.)

But there are four names here that weren’t on that letter. Dr. David Legates (University of Delaware), Dr. Garth Paltride (University of Tasmania, Emeritus), Hans Erren (a “geophysical consultant” from the Netherlands) and Dr. Robert Balling.

Balling has been around for a while, taking money from energy companies (Exxon, etc.) and denying climate change; he must have been out of town when they created the Letter of 60.

And Legates also pops up on the Sourcewatch list of industry-friendly experts. But Erren and Paltridge are new.

Well done Tom. If you can find another living, breathing, climate-change denying “expert” anywhere else on the planet, let us know. We’ll publicize his name and website right here on the DeSmogBlog.

Related Posts

on

The Conservative candidate has changed his tune on climate action, recently attacking Labour’s net zero policies and arguing for new fossil fuel extraction.

The Conservative candidate has changed his tune on climate action, recently attacking Labour’s net zero policies and arguing for new fossil fuel extraction.

Clintel’s fifth anniversary conference in town outside Amsterdam offers a glimpse of the group’s transatlantic ties.

Clintel’s fifth anniversary conference in town outside Amsterdam offers a glimpse of the group’s transatlantic ties.
on

The government is being taken to court for failing to publish the evidence provided to ministers before they backed the controversial scheme.

The government is being taken to court for failing to publish the evidence provided to ministers before they backed the controversial scheme.

Les responsables de campagne critiquent des programmes volontaires « fortement défectueux », tandis que l’analyse de DeSmog révèle l'absence de représentation de la société civile ou des communautés locales affectées par les dommages causés par l’industrie des farines et huiles de poisson.

Les responsables de campagne critiquent des programmes volontaires « fortement défectueux », tandis que l’analyse de DeSmog révèle l'absence de représentation de la société civile ou des communautés locales affectées par les dommages causés par l’industrie des farines et huiles de poisson.