James Hoggan’s Desmogblog has Inexplicable Problems with Ross Gelbspan. Why?

Weird. Ross Gelbspan founded the global warming anti-skeptic web site Desmogblog, he said so directly just eight seconds into this audio interview. James Hoggan credits Gelbspan as “a big part of the inspiration for starting the DeSmogBlog” (4th paragraph here). Gelbspan was a frequent blogger there, 50 pages’ worth of 10 pieces per page, from January 2006 to November 2010. So, from that level of familiarity, why would Hoggan go flying off a cliff over a central detail about Gelbspan? Continue reading

Greenpeace Loves Ross Gelbspan… sort of.

Since I have a small run of “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” blog pieces going here, and since I had some fun at Ross Gelbspan’s expense a few years ago using a line out of the old “Columbo” TV series, here’s one more “sorry to bother you, there’s just one more thing…” examination of who claims ownership over the ‘leaked industry memos’ that supposedly prove the corruption of skeptic climate scientists. Continue reading

WashPo Letter Writers Briefly Turned Gelbspan into a Global Warming Skeptic… but the story has A Big Glitch.

Ross Gelbspan’s tale about circumstances which caused him to look deeper into the ‘industry funding’ of skeptic climate scientists seems praiseworthy, since it could plausibly happen to any objective reporter. But read one of the lesser-known versions of it, and you might react with “Uhhh, hold on there…….” Continue reading

What’s Wrong with This Picture?

Any association of anything remotely connected with the fossil fuel industry automatically invalidates any criticism a skeptic scientist might offer to the idea of man-caused global warming. So does it not follow that the same invalidation happens to scientists who promote man-caused global warming when anything remotely associated with the fossil fuel industry is seen in their vicinity? Continue reading

Why Imply “found” = “enlisted” When it Clearly Means “discovered” in a Coal Association’s Annual Report?

The situation is as elemental as it gets: Ross Gelbspan wants the public to believe the fossil fuel industry conceived and implemented a plan to save its own skin, and to carry this out, they found scientists who would spout any skeptic notion they were paid to say. To hammer this home in a way ensuring no one questions it, he says this plan is declared just that way in a Western Fuels Association annual report. End of story. But there’s a critical unspoken stipulation here, that no one should read the actual report or see the context in which the specific word “found” appears. Continue reading

Ironclad Accusations Need No Embellishments. Correct?

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

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

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