Long-time PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer died this past Thursday, lauded far and wide as substantive reporter who always had ‘a sober approach to the news.’ Many repeated parts of his famous nine tenets of old-school journalism. Fox News stated his 9th one, “I am not in the entertainment business” and NBC News led with Lehrer’s adage about the perils of news reporters committing the sin of believing in their own superficial publicity: “it’s not about us.” As a long-time viewer of the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from some time in the late 1970s all the way up to Jim Lehrer’s retirement as its anchor, I get the impression he was very sincere about that last advice to his colleagues. While he’d humbly appreciate the many kind words about him now, he’d quite likely also suggest that an old-school tough reporter-style examination of his career wouldn’t be out of order, either. I wish an objective reporter could have approached him directly regarding my own personal brief interaction with him years ago, but that’s a lost opportunity now. It isn’t lost overall yet, however, when it comes to news reporting by others about the collective global warming story.
Back in 2011, I sent an 1100-word snail mail (full text here) directly to Jim Lehrer, first praising him for his advocacy of fair and balanced reporting over his long career, and then inquiring about the NewsHour’s appearance of egregiously biased reporting of the global warming issue. I received a two sentence reply, a cherished letter which also contains something that prompts a perplexing question:
Want to see something troubling? In today’s post I offer a pile of screencaptures which collectively prompt two basic questions: How many masters and doctorate degrees should be revoked out there because the degree recipients presented faulty, unsupported evidence for the idea that the fossil fuel industry orchestrated sinister disinformation campaigns to undercut the certainty of man-caused global warming in collusion with skeptic climate scientists? How much wider is this overall problem within the university system, where thesis writers and thesis evaluators fail to do elemental due diligence on authoritative assertions and accusations within those papers? Continue reading
Similar to the suggestion at the end of my prior blog post on Psychological Projection, the title of this post is another Texas-sized arrow pointing out where a form of criminal speech may actually be found — but there’s a bit of an ironic twist to this. First, however, let’s see where the wild suggestion to criminalize ‘climate denial’ comes from, and what justification the person has for proposing that. Continue reading
For those of you living in Rio Linda, or Port St Lucie, or you are part of the mainstream media, this means accusing someone of doing exactly what you are doing. I’m certainly not the only person using those words lately to to describe an increasingly troublesome problem with the far-left. They’re being widely used in political analysis, as more of the general public discovers the way people in the far-left political spectrum hurl dubious accusations concerning a variety of controversial social issues. FNC’s Tucker Carlson frequently speaks of it (here, here, etc); a very recent Washington Post headline embodied the ongoing post-2016 election sentiment to comical proportions; a news outlet president essentially states what his own channel does, according to an insider whistle blower; a prominent news anchor essentially telegraphed what his own news program reports as gospel truth. Who is routinely caught uttering apparently coordinated talking points, though?? Oops. Twice. Three times. …. this could go on for hours regarding controversial social issues.
Then there’s the specific global warming issue, where I can add a bit more setup before hammering my point home …. Continue reading
Never lose sight of how Al Gore said at the 2008 Davos conference that “Exxon Mobil has funded 40 different front groups that have all been a part of a strategic persuasion campaign to, in their own words ‘reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.’” And don’t forget how Gore was a prominent part of a March 2016 announcement by seven Attorneys General (including Massachusetts AG Maura Healey, led by NY AG Eric Schneiderman) regarding their prosecution of Exxon, where he cited Naomi Oreskes in reference to the way Big Oil employed the same people who operated in disinformation campaigns for the tobacco industry to hide the harm of cigarette smoking.
Exxon, in other words, knew their oil products were harming the planet by causing global warming, but hired ‘shill experts’ to hide that by saying global warming was naturally occurring.
Do these Attorneys General-led New York / Massachusetts lawsuits against Exxon present evidence to back up that accusation? Not so much. Or strangely, not at all for the New York one. Continue reading
There are golden opportunities for GOP congressional representatives or energy company defendant lawyers to hammer ‘expert’ witness testimonies about the validity of the ‘corporate-funded global warming skeptic liars-for-hire’ accusation. I’m not kidding when I say these so-called witnesses are enslaved to only one set of supposedly viable ‘leaked memo evidence’ for their accusation. Continue reading
As I’ve established from the start of this blog back in 2013, and in subsequent funding disclosure updates, I’m a full disclosure guy on this topic. Enviro-activists claim that prominent ‘doubters of man-caused global warming’ hide their funding because ‘they’re ashamed to admit it’s received in exchange for lies that must meet the approval of the funders.’ I have to laugh about it, because I’ve been accused of that exact thing already in various ways, including this year, but my accusers couldn’t prove I’m in any pay-for-performance arrangement for industry-sourced money if their lives depended on it, or that any gift money I receive comes under directions on what to say, do, or think. Continue reading
Similar to the February 2015 resurgence of Kert Davies, a long-time promulgator of the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation, enviro-activist writer Mark Hertsgaard has returned in zombie-like fashion, once again illustrating his very old one-trick pony narrative about ‘Big Oil financing a disinformation campaign to undercut the certainty of man-caused global warming.’
Naomi Oreskes’ appearance at a 10/23/19 House hearing on the topic of “the oil industry’s climate denial campaign” wasn’t a one-time event. She reappeared six days later at a Senate “hearing,” where her Prepared Written Testimony contained the identical blunders I detailed in Part 1 of this two-part blog post. Unlike the House hearing, she and the others at this “hearing” offered truly bizarre and comically self-damaging statements without fear of anyone questioning them. Continue reading
Harvard science history professor Naomi Oreskes was one of the witnesses appearing under oath at the 10/23/19 House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s “Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change” hearing. A pair of missteps while responding to questions didn’t bolster her appearance as a detached, objective, expert witness on the complicated topic of alleged fossil fuel industry disinformation efforts. She also offered written testimony, … and in doing so about a couple of details, she once again reinforced how she’s not particularly adept about keeping her mouth shut on items that have the potential of opening up a Pandora’s Box about the history of the tactics used by enviro-activists to accuse skeptic climate scientists of being ‘industry-paid shills spreading disinformation.’ Continue reading