Pinned post – if you’re a long ago reader, please be reacquainted with my work at my “Background” posts, I’ve added more. If you’re entirely new here…→ Continue reading
How Do We Keep Climate Propaganda Journalism Alive?
Within my March 23 blog post blog post about what appears to be enviro-activists’ gaslighting efforts to claim ‘reports on the climate issue are fewer than in prior years,’ I described how I created a daily email alert out of the Google organization for any story containing the words “global warming.” In predictable fashion, an article which is likely an outgrowth of the above gaslighting effort was one among those recent results, written by two ‘journalism professors’ for the Neiman Reports ‘leadership in journalism‘ website. Just from its title alone in the email alert – “What Is Happening to Climate Journalism?” – I could make an educated guess about its biased slant, and after reading its subheading “Amid layoffs and industry belt-tightening, quality of coverage, not quantity, becomes even more important,” I could guess with more precision what its massive irony was going to be within the article. Hence my facetious blog post title, a dig at why the ‘journalism professors’ ought to hand in their university resignations and sincerely apologize to all the students they misled over their teaching tenures – starting with the false premise right within their own article title.
“Climate Journalism.” Ever wonder why there are not entire fraternities of reporters specializing in …. Astronomical journalism? Chemistry journalism? Physics journalism? Continue reading
“If your ironclad proof that Big Oil secretly knew their products cause global warming is a leaked industry memo … why would you alter it to make it look more plausible?”
The pushers of climate litigation lawfare keep bizarrely paying out enough rope to hang themselves. The latest instance over the span of just the last eight weeks comes courtesy of the Public Citizen liberal climate policy advocacy group …. and they basically nail themselves to the wall along with every other major promulgator who is enslaved to the never-implemented “reposition global warming as theory” ‘leaked industry memo.’ Continue reading
“What did we miss?” — Open Letter to the Editor of The New York Times
I view the entire climate issue as completely unsustainable; the collective thing is based on disinformation, from the notion that the ‘science is settled’ about deadly catastrophic man-caused global warming, to the feeling that ‘Exxon knew that but instead created disinformation campaigns to deceive the public about what they knew.’ It’s like viewing a crumbling building with spreading cracks and wondering how soon the whole thing goes down, or like a topped dam where it’s a wonder it hasn’t collapsed yet. Or perhaps it’s akin to how Titanic builder Thomas Andrews must have felt upon fully comprehending the situation in front of him in the remaining minutes of April 14, 1912 – things are still nearly level at the moment, but it’s purely a matter of time when the existing damage starts bringing in fatal amounts of accumulation that cannot be stopped. The climate issue will sink, it is a mathematical certainty. The self-inflected damage was actually done long ago to seal its fate, when its arrogant pushers decided to use character assassination and disinformation as a tactic to counter critics while hoping nobody would question that maneuver.
I just don’t yet know which ‘iceberg’ incident will be the one to begin the process of sending the issue to the bottom. Meanwhile, I try to give that iceberg a nudge toward this looming colossus recklessly speeding straight toward its inevitable doom. Continue reading
Connecticut v. Exxon — the Sher Edling connection
Ok, that was an utterly predictable development. This news was announced at the Energy in Depth site in their July 1, “Connecticut Joins the Club: State Quietly Enlists Sher Edling in National Climate Lawfare Campaign” article. I dissected the ‘indeptendently-led’ Connecticut v Exxon in my October 24, 2020 blog post, pointing out how it was only half as effective as the pile of Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuits because it relied on the second best accusation material the enviro-activists have in their arsenal about ‘industry-led disinformation campaigns.’ An accusation based on a never implemented – (never implemented!) industry memo, by the way.
Maybe now, the San Francisco-based Sher Edling law firm can show how the most effective way of committing climate issue political suicide is done, since they rely on that worthless memo evidence and another worthless, never-implemented memo in their boilerplate copy series of lawsuits across the U.S. Plus, there is one other possible problem which perhaps might indicate this co-counsel situation was somehow already in the works maybe on an informal basis back in 2020. Continue reading
How Much Disinformation Can A Person Pack Into A Talk About Disinformation?
A point of amusement for me a week back on Twitter/X was a situation surrounding a volcanoes enthusiast going off topic by asserting the European heat deaths were ‘blood on the hands of people behind Big Oil-funded lies’ – meaning industry deception campaigns, no doubt. The famous Tom Nelson replied by pointing out how there was no evidence to back up the claim. I’ve detailed that problem right here at GelbspanFiles since 2013. Meanwhile, an environmentalist decided to counter Tom with ‘proof’ that ‘deception campaigns’ happened by recommending him to read the “a bit dated” Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt book, implying the book compared Big Oil ‘misinformation mechanisms’ to ‘pro nuclear weapons / pro tobacco mechanisms.’ The comment there – likely well-intentioned and certainly believed by the person posting it – is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty – a person essentially lying to the public and to themself. I own a copy of that book, nowhere within it is evidence of skeptical climate scientists advocating use of nuclear weapons or even remotely being pro-tobacco. My response to that commenter was to read my SPM on Oreskes, to comprehend just how much disinformation Oreskes generates. But my recommendation goes much farther – the same basic accusation may end up in some form when the Supreme Court takes up a discussion about the Boulder v Suncor lawsuit.
Attorney presenting arguments on behalf of energy companies: … as it concerns so-called ‘evidence’ sourcing from Naomi Oreskes ….
Justices Sotomayor / Kagan / Jackson: “I must object here, what’s the relevance of bringing up her name?”
Attorney: “Goes to credibility. These cases hinge on her claims about industry-orchestrated misinformation – she’s the one putting out all the misinformation.”
She’s gotten away with all she puts out because nobody major – such as a potential reference to her authoritative assertions within arguments at a Supreme Court hearing – has ever illustrated just how hugely crippling the problem is. Continue reading
Is Grok A.I. smart or stupid? It’s Simple Test …
For those who might not know, the Grok A.I. system – with its odd name – was created by Elon Musk, the electric vehicles entrepreneur who people on the liberal Left side of politics loved for that effort in displacing fossil fuel-powered vehicles … until they despised him for purchasing Twitter. Perish the thought that he would reconfigure it to lift its egregious policies of blocking/censoring dissenting content; ironic how the critics of his buyout were essentially psychologically projecting what the old Twitter was basically doing for years as an accusation against him. Not helping the ‘love’ for him at all was his subsequent assistance for President Trump on reducing the waste in government spending.
But is Elon Musk’s Grok a source of unbiased, non-political content now? ‘Fraid not. Continue reading
“I tried asking A.I. for info about what I do – it couldn’t stop lying.”
My blog post title this time is a paraphrase of the article title “I asked an AI assistant to write my Wikipedia entry — it couldn’t stop lying” by UK Journalist/book author Steve Boggan, which I pointed out in toward the bottom of my Sept 2025 blog post within this “artificial subintelligence” series of posts I have here at GelbspanFiles. A fun small twist to this kind of situation happened just recently to me. Continue reading
The ‘Dr Willie Soon got $1.2 million from Exxon’ Accusation … is still more dicey, Part 2
My prior blog post pointed out the irreconcilable difference between reports that Greenpeace administrator Kert Davies or Greenpeace worker Jesse Coleman was the person who initiated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which supposedly exposed the corporate corruption of skeptic climate scientist Dr Willie Soon. Coleman or Davies – can’t be both. While I was compiling my prior blog post, I spotted another sizable problem, but I noted that it would have to be a Part 2 separate blog post. So, here it is; the mountainous pile of items showing just how faulty the “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation just keeps getting bigger and more unsustainable to defend. Continue reading
The ‘Dr Willie Soon got $1.2 million from Exxon’ Accusation … just got an increment more dicey
If you are going to mold a corruption allegation against a particular critic of ‘man-caused global warming’ into one of the central arguments for suing fossil fuel companies out of existence – ‘FOIA-released documents led to the revelation of this industry-paid corruption’ – wouldn’t it be advisable for you to be absolutely certain that the narratives about this ‘FOIA revelation’ line up right, and that there isn’t some other related angle that could land one of your associates in Federal prison over what appears to be his own potentially corrupt behavior? Whereupon – perhaps in exchange to reduce his prison sentence – he might offer prosecutors details on how the corruption allegation (which you have every appearance of concocting out of thin air) may end up imperiling the entire ‘climate crisis’ issue while also landing you in jail or facing monumental civil action penalties? Continue reading
Social Media sez the Manosphere wants to “Reposition Global Warming as Theory”
When I send news tips to influential investigative groups / reporters / legal profession analysts on how the “ExxonKnew” lawsuit filings have an enslaved reliance on the meritless “reposition global warming” memos to support their claims that the industry ran ‘disinfo campaigns,’ the one thing that worries me is how those people might respond with, “oh, come on – the enviros surely would not be so dumb as to put all their faith for the last two decades into just one single major accusation like that. And surely there’s more than one corroborating source for that memo set beyond what you say is just one source. You must be exaggerating on all of this.”
No, I’m not. Watch this, it’s a short Instagram video, only a bit over two minutes long: Continue reading