Category Archives: Narrative derailment

The Al Gore Problem just got one increment larger: “The Climate According to A.I. Al Gore.”

Posted on by

If you are a nationally or internationally recognized hero / heroine who’s exposing a crisis situation caused by bad operators that not enough of the public is aware of, and you decide to tel the story of what specific event led you onto your current heroic path, that event had better not be something which somebody will say, “wait a minute, that is not the way it actually happened.” Because if someone does, and presents compelling enough evidence which totally undermines your oft-repeated narratives about what inspired you to do what you do, increasing amounts of people who trusted you are going to wonder what else you’ve said are embellishments or outright fabrications designed to make you look heroic.

Such is the major problem presented in Joel Gilbert’s ‘unauthorized bio-pic “The Climate According to A.I. Al Gore.” (available now for DVD or live streaming purchase). The setup is elemental: Al Gore himself does not like questions from anyone he suspects is an unfriendly interviewer, so filmmaker director Gilbert’s opted to ask an A.I. version of Gore to tell his life story and then to answer some tough questions about the climate issue angle of his saga. But that’s not all —this film reveals a huge legacy-crippling problem in Gore’s longtime ‘hero’ story he tells concerning what exactly propelled him into the climate issue. At GelbspanFiles, I’ve detailed the legacy-crippling problems of the others who’ve told heroic tales of how they got into the issue, along with briefly mentioning a key problem with Gore’s outrage against industry entities that allegedly sought to “reposition global warming as theory.” What follows below is how these ‘hero/heroine’ stories all seem to dovetail together in a much more troubling manner now. Continue reading →

“Merchant of Disinformation” – the movie. Part 4

Posted on by

I can’t emphasize this enough: Naomi Oreskes is presented at congressional hearings and elsewhere as an expert on so-called ‘fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns’ – her own biography introductions at the hearings imply as much. Investigators / objective reporters / law firms representing the defendants in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits / congressional staffers can either accept what she says or what is said about her work without question, essentially enabling her to continually to get away with what she’s been doing since 2003, or they can deeply cross examine her work for the first time ever, to find out if there’s any actual merit to the assertions she’s made over the last two decades, such as those contained within in her 2015 “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie. As I’ve shown in Parts 1, 2 and 3, her movie – supposedly exposing fossil fuel industry deception downplaying the harm of global warming – has every appearance itself of deceptively impugning the integrity of those criticizing the idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming. She and her associates fare no better in Part 4 here, the the overarching problem of the movie being her and her associates’ psychological projection hole they’ve dug for themselves that begins to resemble one the virtual size of an open pit mine.

It’s quite a slog to go through this movie. I’m doing it so objective reporters / energy company defendant law firms / potential prosecutors don’t have to. Continue reading →

“Merchant of Disinformation” – the movie. Part 3

Posted on by

Not only is Naomi Oreskes the author of the 2010 “Merchants of Doubt” book / star of the 2015 same-name documentary movie, she is also now apparently trying to make some kind of inroads into influencing SCOTUS clerks, if this August 15, 2024 “Interview: Science historian Naomi Oreskes schools the Supreme Court on climate change” article from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is to be believed. There’s no indication in the article that she’s ‘schooled’ anybody there yet, but she evidently has ‘schooled’ global warming lawfare lawyers – she’s on retainer with the law firm directly handling / assisting with 22 (at the time of this blog publication) of the current U.S. “ExxonKnew”-style lawsuits. She has apparently also had some kind of influence with no less than Pope Francis.

She’s been skating on thin ice ever since her foray into the issue, but via sheer blind luck of never facing anyone questioning a word she says, she hasn’t yet fallen right through. When major high-level discussions occur regarding how, where, and why the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits should proceed, her name as an ‘expert’ on the topic is certain to be mentioned in some form. This actually already happened once, where her “Merchants” movie was brought up within the 2015-era NY state Attorney General’s office. That’s why it’s crucial for any clerks for the ruling majority of the Supreme Court to be aware, along with any other people involved in the court system – law firms for the defendants in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits especially – or people involved in the Republican side of the U.S. congress, of how massively vulnerable she is on her assertions about the climate issue and what she terms ‘industry-led disinformation campaigns.’

Continue reading →

Merchant of Disinformation – the movie. Part 2

Posted on by

Continuing from Part 1 on my line-by-climate-issue-line analysis of Naomi Oreskes’ “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie. She’s on retainer with the Sher Edling law firm handling 17 of the current U.S. “ExxonKnew”-style lawsuits and ‘assisting’ in 5 others. In the 2023 European lawsuit, Greenpeace Italy et al. v. ENI S.p.A., et al. against the Italian energy company Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, Greenpeace implies “Merchants of Doubt” book author Oreskes is an ‘expert’ on fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns. The accusation seen in that lawsuit about fossil fuel companies running disinformation campaigns is not supported by any evidence in her book. But these assertions arising from her work or coming straight from her continue unabated because nobody challenges them.

To challenge her, you must know where her narratives fall apart. Continue reading →

Merchant of Disinformation – the movie. Part 1

Posted on by

This 4-part series is for the congressional investigators / attorneys defending energy companies in “ExxonKnew” lawsuits / objective, unbiased reporters: — when a person appearing before you has been portrayed as an ‘expert’ while only facing softball questions designed to exalt that person’s ‘expertise,’ you need to have absolute hardball questions at the ready, like a pile driver, so that you can show the public what they’ve never been told: where this person’s credibility implodes.

I’ve slogged through Naomi Oreskes’ “Merchants of Doubt” movie …… so you don’t have to. Continue reading →

I Stand More Informed, Part 2 — and it doesn’t help Ross Gelbspan’s climate issue legacy at all

Posted on by

I’ve implied it on several occasions relating to several people; it bears repeating in this situation — when a person tells the tale of a particular significantly noteworthy personal history event which is consistent in every retelling, notwithstanding minor errors about minor details, it’s a good indicator the event actually happened. When significant details are noticeably inconsistent from one telling to the next, we’re left to wonder if the event never actually happened at all the way the person describes it. Was the narrative instead just a script handed to the person to read, where he or she is ineptly acting out the tale?

My Part 1 post was a look into Ross Gelbspan’s earliest mentions of ye olde “reposition global warming” memos – the memos that, from late 1995 to just over a week ago (stay tuned here for more about that latest blunder) – are the literal best that enviro-activists have in their arsenal to accuse skeptic climate scientists of being paid fossil fuel industry money to spread ‘disinformation which causes the public to doubt the certainty of catastrophic man-caused global warming.’ No. Joke.

I’ve already written how Gelbspan is seemingly unable to keep his narratives straight about his discovery odyssey of ‘industry-paid skeptic climate scientists.’ What he additionally said in the November 1995 C-SPAN interview I covered in Part 1 didn’t clarify any of the problems in his subsequent retellings of his discovery story. It added one more major angle of inconsistency to them all. Continue reading →

Covering Climate Now, 3/2/23: ‘Fox News Lies About Elections & Repositions Global Warming as Theory (Not Fact).’

Posted on by

For any of the folks at last week’s Heartland Institute climate conference (and any others I’ve contacted recently) who heard me say the worthless “reposition global warming” ‘leaked industry memos’ is the literal best ammunition that enviro-activist accusers have in their arsenal as evidence that the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns, that was no exaggeration. And as we all know, the primary hallmark of far leftists is the way they project their mindset onto the people they accuse of treachery, so when we see the Covering Climate Now group, a supplier of biased, one-sided climate info to 500+ news media outlets, publish a March 2 “FOX Doesn’t Just Lie About Elections” hit piece castigating the Fox News network with a subheadline that reads ….

The network is part of a climate disinformation ecosystem that journalism has to confront.

…. it is an arrow the size of Texas pointing to who it actually is who spews disinformation and who should be exposed for exactly what they are doing. Especially when Covering Climate Now feels totally compelled to support their accusation with ye olde “reposition global warming” memos that date all the way back to when the co-founder of CCNow first used them in a pure disinformation effort back in 1997. That’s how old this pathetic effort is, and why I put the comical “ye olde” modifying noun in front of those memos’ notorious name.

Continue reading →

Mistakes. These Guys Make Mistakes. Big Ones.

Posted on by

The critical thing that people must never lose sight of when examining the Clima-Change™ issue is how enviros wage their war on two fronts, namely that the science of man-caused catastrophic global warming is settled, and that skeptic climate scientists are “liars-for-hire on the payroll of Big Oil.” The science is fatally weak, skeptic climate scientists and other experts detail that at levels that’ll give you migraine headaches from trying to absorb it all. Not that the mainstream media will tell the public about any of this.

But the false accusations about industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists are much more faulty, promulgated by just a core clique of enviro-activists and their weak link helpers. They hand the massive mistakes they make on a silver platter to the law firms defending energy companies in all of the current “Exxon Knew” lawsuits, and they hand these same mistakes over the same way to U.S. House investigators, who now have the opportunity to mirror flip the prior Democrat-led hearings which egregiously sought to vilify fossil fuel company executives.

Continue reading →

It’s Cute, How Hard They Try.

Posted on by

One of the things the political far-left does, including enviro-activists, is seemingly make assertions that they have no hopes of supporting while crossing their fingers that nobody ever questions them about those assertions (which seems to be backfiring of late in an epic way on a non-environmental topic). Additionally, with regard to global warming activists, they seem to have literally no self awareness of how ironic their clamoring is about guilt-by-association tainting the credibility of the people they criticize, compared to their own hugely troublesome associations. It’s almost endearing, the way they valiantly attempt to keep their beloved issue alive in the face of potentially deep investigations which could expose their fatally crippled thought processes and their troubling associations.

I have my fun with using famous movie lines to illustrate my analysis points. One from Annette Benning’s character in the 2019 “Captain Marvel” movie applies to an article topic a prominent climate figure alerted me to. Continue reading →