Author Archives: Russell Cook

About Russell Cook

Russell Cook is a semi-retired graphic artist. His collection of articles and blogs about the Gelbspan/Gore/Ozone Action/Greenpeace accusation can be seen here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=86

When is a “Pulitzer Winner” not a Pulitzer Winner?

Posted on by

The March 26, 2006 ABC News quote I put in the main blog banner illustration above is a case study on how the news media repeats the basic accusation against skeptic climate scientists, and steers us to what is supposed to be devastating reporting by an unimpeachable source:

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan blames a 15-year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries. […] To redefine global warming as theory — not fact — the industry funded research by “friendly” scientists…”

Perish the thought of the news media actually giving skeptics a fair shot at defending their science assessments, such as the way the PBS NewsHour has demonstrably excluded them from its program for 17+ years. Otherwise viewers might perceive a significant flaw with the “misinformation” accusation. But since we are talking about journalists who must aspire to do reporting worthy of a Pulitzer Prize, we have to wonder how they let Gelbspan’s “Pulitzer winner” label go unquestioned. Surely, if an ex-editor/reporter gains fame as a Pulitzer winner, we have a giant problem if he never won a Pulitzer, don’t we? Continue reading →

Sycophants (yawn). Actual Witnesses of Gelbspan’s Accusation “Proof” are a Whole Other Matter

Posted on by

In my prior piece about the spread of Ross Gelbspan’s accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact“, I barely skimmed the surface of the sheer number of repetitions of it. The first time I threw the phrase into an internet search, a virtual ocean of sycophant repetitions could be seen, I forget how many pages it ran even without the trick of putting the phrase in quote marks. Three+ years later, I can almost count the total number of people who have every appearance of actually witnessing Gelbspan’s famous ‘leaked/secret coal industry’ memos on the fingers of two hands. Each person’s involvement in the matter is beset with crippling problems. Continue reading →

Tried to Directly Ask Al Gore a Question about Gelbspan today

Posted on by

Straight from an email I received from Al Gore (Steve Milloy’s reproduced an identical one to him): I’m pleased to invite you to join me for an interactive Google Hangout with my good friend Jeff Skoll tomorrow, June 11, at 2pm EDT …. Most importantly, I want to invite you to participate in shaping the conversation by submitting your questions and watching the Hangout here.  Well, I gave it a shot. Continue reading →

If an Ironclad Accusation Repeatedly Quotes Specific Evidence, Why Take 22 Years to Finally Show the ‘Evidence’?

Posted on by

The accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” has two parts: the 1991-’95 span when it got little public interest, and late 1995 to the present, when it became far more widespread. During this entire 22-year stretch of time, I’m the only one quoting that fragment coal association memo sentence who told where the public could view that phrase and the rest of the ‘leaked memo set’. Among all the promoters of global warming out there, not one ever had a web link straight to the ‘leaked memo set’.

Until last Thursday. Continue reading →

The First, the Last, and the Only Accusation Against Skeptics. Repeat it Often, Inexplicable Errors are Optional

Posted on by

To quash the notion that no valid scientific criticism exists against the idea of man-caused global warming, enviro-activists often say “denier scientists” are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the issue, insinuating a parallel to expert ‘shills’ who did the same for ‘big tobacco’. But the accusation has no punch without some kind of authoritative-sounding citation, so they inevitably invoke Ross Gelbspan’s narrative. Now, lets examine just how far and wide the successful spread of this accusation has been after Gelbspan’s first mention of it. Continue reading →

Ironclad Accusations Need No Embellishments. Correct?

Posted on by

My first blog piece on Gelbspan’s unexplained “Singer/Idso name switch” between the hardcover and paperback editions of his “The Heat is On” book told how his supposedly ironclad accusation had a significant problem from its inception. Now let’s see how Gelbspan’s accusation repetitions contain an odd embellishment. Continue reading →

Lord Christopher Monckton Guest Post: “Ignoratio elenchi and global warming”

Posted on by

Besides detailing myriad instances of how Ross Gelbspan’s ‘big coal & oil funding’ accusation of skeptic scientists unravels, it is also my goal to have guest blogs here about how enviro-activists are enslaved to character assassination as a first-resort tactic for avoiding genuine debate on the science of global warming. This short excerpt from Lord Monckton’s encounter with an accuser encapsulates the problem (mild profanity warning in the main essay, typifying what’s heard from some global warming promoters):

Why had he been so reluctant to talk about climate science or economics? The answer is that he knew – knew with a dreadful, raging certainty – that he would lose the argument.

Continue reading →

Accuse a Scientist of Corruption. Later, Replace His Name Without Explanation. Everybody OK With That?

Posted on by

Dive into science-based criticisms of man-caused global warming or the methods used to gather and assess evidence (or lack thereof) for it, and you are soon neck-deep in very complicated analysis about why the issue appears not to be settled. The accusation that skeptic scientists are paid to lie about the issue is not hard to follow at all, basic scrutiny of it reveals inconsistencies that only lead to more problems.

Let’s start with how Ross Gelbspan’s most widely repeated accusation line initially contained a famous skeptic name, Dr S. Fred Singer, which was later swapped for a different name without a word of explanation. Continue reading →