In my previous blog post, I showed how one anonymous op-ed writer tried to casually drop the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” phrase into his piece to insinuate skeptic climate scientists received illicit industry money in exchange for the promise to lie to the public. Now, watch how Greenpeace used the phrase to say the Koch brothers are guilty of corrupting those skeptics. The phrase is heard and seen just 34 seconds into this video, right after a cute but rather defamatory setup of Charles and David Koch….. Continue reading
Author Archives: Russell Cook
Drop the “reposition global warming” phrase casually into a sentence…..
….. without having it look like propaganda at its finest. I say it can’t be done. Continue reading
“The illusion has become real.”
For believers in the idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming, it remains as real as can be if critic scientists can be dismissed as industry-funded shills paid to lie to the public. But the belief in that accusation is merely a belief without evidence to support it. So, when they see statements and illustrations like this one Continue reading
How Widespread is Ross Gelbspan’s Accusation, how Deadly are Core Faults Within it?
No need to trust me on this, let your fingers do the internet walking, and let your critical thinking do the analysis. Continue reading
The ‘Non-smoking Gun’ Leaked Memos Pattern
If five different instances of leaked memos from ‘anti-global warming’ interests are supposed to be proof that skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie the public in a manner parallel to the way shill experts were paid to lie by the old tobacco industry, wouldn’t that be more devastating if there was actual proof within the ‘anti-global warming’ interests’ memos to back up that corruption accusation? Continue reading
“Oops, didn’t think that one all the way through…”
Such is the sheepish statement we should be hearing from enviro-activists accusing MIT’s Dr Richard Lindzen of being an “oil industry paid shill.” Continue reading
“But is it Art?” And am I a Journalist?
Since I’ve been labeled an “investigative journalist”, I’ll briefly dispute it, and then describe how no less than Democrat New York Senator and global warming believer Chuck Schumer says people like me are journalists. Continue reading
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels Guest Comments on his 1995 Encounter with Ross Gelbspan: “An Amusing Scene”
I’ve already detailed critical problems with Gelbspan’s narratives about his ‘discovery of skeptic corruption odyssey’ in my January 22, 2014 and May 9, 2014 blog posts, regarding the way he supposedly found out that skeptic climate scientists were ‘paid industry money to lie’, and regarding the questionably short time frame in which this took place. In a nutshell, his narratives about the situation surrounding his attendance at the 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities hearings where skeptic scientists testified are crippled with unexplained contradictions. Now, in a pair of guest comments intended for GelbspanFiles.com courtesy of Dr Michaels’ recollection of his encounter with Gelbspan at those hearings, we have a new major problem. Continue reading
What Dr S. Fred Singer said about Ross Gelbspan, circa 1997
Ever since Gelbspan’s “The Heat is On” book came out in 1997, he’s been lauded as a ‘journalist exposing the corruption of skeptic climate scientists’ in one form or another. But there’s a problem with that ‘journalist’ label itself, and there’s a bigger problem concerning the contradiction of what professional journalists should do, compared with what Gelbspan failed to do, a detail pointed out by atmospheric physicist Dr Singer back in 1997. Continue reading
Gelbspan’s Undisclosed Article Rewrite, and the Irony Therein
Back in my August 16 and November 18, 2013 blog posts, I described the manner in which elements of Ross Gelbspan’s 2010 article narratives about Dr Paul Epstein and a CNN editor did not line up right. On December 4, 2013 I had to write a blog post about how the Epstein / CNN references in his piece – a piece which had been otherwise basically unaltered since May of 2010 – disappeared along with other material. All I could do at the time was speculate whether someone purposely deleted the material, or if it was just really clumsy handling of web content by him or an associate. Well, it’s most likely the latter now, but his latest rework of that piece only presents a new situation where he further undermines his own credibility. Continue reading