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
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
Despite the mainstream media portraying the global warming issue as a settled science problem caused by human activity, the issue is essentially besieged with contradictions showing it to be anything but settled. The unexplained disappearance of the global cooling craze of the ’70s; the Arctic predicted to be ice-free, then utterly failing failing to do so; a blanket of CO2 holding all the heat in which apparently is not doing any such thing lately; global warming creates bigger and smaller lobsters at the same time; on and on. But that’s just the science end of the issue, which I leave to the skeptic climate scientists to point out. Since I’ve become something of an expert on how the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic scientists’ accusation falls apart, I figured it might be time to compile the contradictions found within that accusation in one spot using can’t-miss photo links. Keep an eye on this blog post, I’ll be periodically adding to the list. Continue reading
Quite unlikely that I have readers in Rio Linda and Port St Lucie, but in case I do, “raison d’être” means “the most important reason or purpose for someone’s existence.” Speaking personally, my concern is not about what motivates Gelbspan to do what he does, I focus on what he has said and compare it to material which contradicts him, with the basic objective being to ask why these contradictions exist. But it is fair to ask if I’ve encountered narratives where he appears to offer base-level reasons for the actions he has taken. Continue reading
It’s bad enough that Columbia Journalism Review article writer Robert S. Eshelman made the mistake of labeling Ross Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner (which the CJR later deleted initially without explanation) in his May 1, 2014 piece, but when Eshelman dutifully recited an oft-repeated narrative of how Gelbspan dived into an investigation of ‘corrupt funding of skeptic climate scientists’ – the narrative itself being one plagued with highly questionable contradictions – he basically handed Gelbspan a shovel to dig a deeper credibility hole. Continue reading
Listen to or read a single version by itself of Ross Gelbspan’s various narratives about what led him to look into the ‘corruption’ of skeptic climate scientists, and it sounds quite compelling. Know some background information on what he’s talking about, and you wonder why he can’t keep his stories straight. Continue reading
As I’ve said on several occasions here and elsewhere, the major problem with global warming believers’ enslavement to the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” phrase is that it is not in any way proof of an arrangement between between skeptics and industry officials involving payments made for false climate assessments. Besides the way it crumbles apart under hard scrutiny, other associated narratives tied to it fall apart the same way. Such as this one, Continue reading
The idea of man-caused global warming is especially effective because it can be pounded into practically everybody’s head via three easily memorized talking points. Global warming believers need only to counter dry recitations of skeptic science material with:
- assertions that the sheer numbers of ‘climate scientists’ on the IPCC side indicates this to be the overwhelming consensus opinion
- claims about leaked memo evidence proving skeptics are paid industry money to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” – dupe the public, in other words
- the obvious conclusion that reporters aren’t obligated to give fair balance to skeptics because of the previous two points.
In a nutshell, settled science, crooked skeptics, reporters may ignore skeptics, bam, bam, bam.
A timeline of where, how and when that “reposition global warming” phrase first appeared and where it prominently pops up afterward is something global warming believers would hate, since it might prompt a total loss of faith in the validity of that central accusation point. The loss could cascade into questions of whether the science actually is settled in the face of skeptics’ science-based criticisms, and people may also start to wonder about the ‘fair media balance’ idea, since they might not readily recall instances where skeptics actually received that from mainstream media reporters. Continue reading
Honestly, when I said in my previous post that one of the founders of Society of Environmental Journalists’ (SEJ) walked back Ross Gelbspan’s “Pulitzer-winner” label at the same time the SEJ itself was calling Gelbspan a “Pulitzer-winner”, I gave SEJ co-founder Bud Ward too much credit. If anything, Ward inadvertently dug a bigger hole for Gelbspan by dancing around the application of the label. Continue reading