I kinda thought this was the more important part to focus on, from a scientific credibility standpoint that is.

""a group of self-proclaimed experts who do little or no research on climate change, but who can always make time to serve on the advisory board of any oily organization that is trying to forestall action on global warming.""

The stated purpose of this blog is to "to clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change", ie, to point out when people like the ICSC try to dupe the public, catching out their colleagues in public relations. If you want to talk science rather than PR misbehaviour, go to the button in the righthand column clearly labeled THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR, where you will find the scientific material, presented by scientists.

Fern Mackenzie

Rob said: "You never seem to be able to address the arguments of your opponents"

On the contrary, denialists' arguments--almost always misrepresented facts, made up factoids, fabricated "evidence," or outright lies--are whacked as fast as they pop up using actual verifiable facts referenced by actual sources, but that doesn't stop them from using the same tired, oft refuted arguments again and again and again....

Denialism: "The position of governments, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific consensus or widely-accepted historical evidence exists. ...
"The employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions." - Wikipedia

For those who don't know, little Robby here is using a clever-by-half diversion tactic called "playing dumb", something most triple-dig IQ bipeds stopped doing somewhere around the sixth grade because they realized they weren't fooling anybody. Robby still thinks he is.

Shockingly, a lobbying org's message correlates highly (and positively) with its leadership, ideological underpinnings, and financing sources, with the causality moving in the same direction. While I find his childish dissimulation charming to a point, Roberto el Pato blows it with his use of the term "ad hominem" and unsubstantiated bluster about "arguement quality". Such psuedo intellectual off-gassing is not only a sign that our little Bobsie twin finds himself several inches short of the g-spot, but also that he may himself be getting served by a passenger on the Rectal Canyon Express who happens to have his own interests regarding this group.

I guess what it breaks down to, Bob-o, is that we really can't take your arguements at face value unless you can prove to us that the four-finger geanie isn't rubbing out his three wishes on your little pooper.