Watch this Space: Green Corps

Debuting a new feature at GelbspanFiles today:  Blog posts occupying small spaces like this one will be teases about the upcoming full content. Regarding Green Corps, let me simply say that I first mentioned them in August 2010 here, with just a 3-word reference at item #10. As loyal followers of my work know, there is almost always far more to any of these situations and their ‘3 degrees of separation or less‘ from Ross Gelbspan

The Hertsgaard Error, pt II: Not a Case of Poor Wording

In a curiosity venture to see if the Union of Concerned Scientists regurgitation of the “reposition global warming” accusation narrative was getting any media traction, I instead stumbled across an unexpected example of outright either deliberate misinformation, or one of otherwise incompetent reporting from someone who is supposed to be an authority on the topic of ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’. Continue reading

Story of organized denial has been well told and documented’ No, it has NOT.

You could hardly ask for a better example of psychological projection than believers of man-caused global warming claiming their critics spread misinformation. I give you examples of the exact opposite, all of which point squarely to the core piece of misinformation at the political heart of the issue. Continue reading

Association Taints! (ignore the man behind the curtain)

Mention the existence of skeptic climate scientists to any enviro-activist, and they dismiss anything those scientists say out-of-hand as an industry-corrupted conflict of interest. After all, hardcore believers in man-caused global warming have stacks of sources saying such skeptics are industry shills (clueless to how they only actually have one highly suspect source) But are enviro-activist groups shills of government regulators and/or government office-holders, or vice versa?

The Energy and Environment Legal Institute’s Chis Horner pointed to just such a situation yesterday in his WUWT guest post, complete with screencaptures of emails between an EPA official and the Sierra Club (shorter summary here). It is a situation apparently encompassing a government agency proceeding on Sierra Club approval in a manner neither organization is proud enough to share with the public. But I exposed a situation a bit rougher, in which an environmental organization was apparently working with a White House official to quash favorable opinion of skeptic scientists across the board. Continue reading

Trust the New York Times; Source says Skeptic Climate Scientists are Crooks (ignore NYT’s burden-of-proof wipeout)

While attending the 10th International Conference on Climate Change in Washington D.C. late last week, Dr S. Fred Singer asked me to send him material he could forward to New York Times reporter Justin Gillis, in response to Gillis contacting him about an article he was writing on Naomi Oreskes, ‘star’ of the “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie. Dr Singer was not only aware of my recent prominent review of the movie, I was one of the names seen in the leaked October 2014 email chain in which Dr Singer pondered suing Oreskes. Dr Singer values my work work because I do what reporters such as Justin Gillis do not do. Continue reading

Small Update

Loyal readers here might have noticed some drop-off of material here in the last couple of months, as I’ve otherwise tried to put in 3 or 4 blog posts per month over the last year. That stems largely from a hobby pursuit of my which ate up a good chunk of April, and I’ve been having some fun just recently outside of my standard examination of the history of the smear of skeptics. Please see “Climate Change Free Speech Prohibited at DailyKos“,  “Merchants of Doubt: A Climate Change Dud”, and my additional review of Oreskes’ film at the Internet Movie Database site. Plus, some amount of my time goes toward dropping into hard-core global warming believers’ sites, ultimately to live rent-free in those bloggers (plural, I should note) / commenters’ minds. So much to do, so little time to get everything done.

Rest assured, my dissection of the events and people involved in the smear of skeptics goes on. Stay tuned, my long-held educated guess that Ross Gelbspan did no ‘investigative journalism’ research into his claims that Western Fuels was out to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” is now something I can say (via interview results conducted by a renowned politics researcher), with absolute certainty. The most basic of interviewing of key people surrounding the leaked memo page containing that infamous phrase would have told Gelbspan it was never part of the public relations campaign he claims it was.

Global warming believers across the board trust that the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation has evidence to back it up, trusting in the notion that their leaders speak with authority about it being exposed by a ‘Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist.’ I’ve already shown the backpedaling surrounding Ross Gelbspan’s ‘Pulitzer winner’ label. I just wonder now what kind of spin will be applied to his ‘investigative journalist’ label.