Story of organized denial has been well told and documented.’ No, it has NOT.

You could hardly ask for a better example of psychological projection than believers of man-caused global warming claiming their critics spread misinformation. I give you examples of the exact opposite, all of which point squarely to the core piece of misinformation at the political heart of the issue.

Witness the following – arguably from a really obscure book – but a great illustration of outright misinformation nevertheless (screencapture here of the body text and footnote 71):

The story of organized denial has been well told and documented, and I will not repeat it here.71

… 71. See Leggett 2001; Gelbspan 1998; Oreskes and Conway 2010, ch 6; Hoggan 2009; Lahsen 1999, 2005, 2008; Dunlap and McCright, 2011; Monbiot, 2006, ch. 2.

Now watch what happens the sources are examined in detail rather than taken at face value:

  • Leggett 2001 is Jeremy Leggett’s Carbon War book paperback of his 1999 hardcover version, the same one describing his first meet-up time with Ross Gelbspan and Gelbspan’s own start-up time of investigating ‘corrupt skeptic climate scientists’, neither time matching what Gelbspan had for them, as I described in my July 25, 2013 blog post.
  • Gelbspan 1998 is of course the paperback for his 1997 hardcover “The Heat is On”, having the infamous page 34 “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” phrase that is the core of the smear of skeptics. Best to cite the paperback, since the hardcover has that nuisance problem of having Fred Singer’s name in a specific accusation where Dr Singer had nothing to do with the organization that Gelbspan mentions.
  • Oreskes and Conway 2010 is their “Merchants of Doubt” book, ultimately a comprehensive indictment of skeptic climate scientists that stems from Oreskes’ enslavement to Gelbspan’s accusation, as I described here. I described Conway’s problem with Dr Singer here, where Oreskes claims he alerted her to Singer.
  • Hoggan 2009 is the “Climate Cover-up” book, which I’ve described in at least five different places tagged here as owing its entire premise to Gelbspan’s accusation.
  • Lahsen 1999 – She is a particular item of interest that requires an entirely separate future blog post, concerning her PhD dissertation (a 64meg PDF file here) and how she expanded that into a body of work about the ‘culture-driven corruption’ of skeptic climate scientists that Naomi Oreskes seems to be in love with. [2/19/16 Author’s addition: As I noted in item 7 of my January 15, 2016 blog post, Lahsen has a particularly close tie to Gelbspan.]
  • Dunlap and McCright, 2011 refers to the pair’s Chapter 10 in “The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society”, where they very nicely point straight to Gelbspan on page 148, along with Newsweek‘s Sharon Begley, who – without citation in her 2007 article – repeated Gelbspan’s favorite “reposition global warming” phrase
  • Monbiot, 2006, ch. 2. refers to an entire chapter of Monbiot’s “Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning”. GoogleBooks scans only has a 2009 version, but in skimming through that chapter, I recognized the Ozone Action-sourced diatribe against the Oregon Petition Project (described in the second half of my 2010 article here). Ozone Action, remember, being the place along with Ross Gelbspan that somehow ‘obtained‘ those infamous leaked memos with the “reposition global warming” phrase in them. Monbiot also cites the web site as a place exposing the corruption of skeptic climate scientists…. without mentioning once that the site is a Greenpeace site, created and run by Kert Davies, an alumni of Ozone Action and a person all but enslaved to Gelbspan’s accusation, as I detailed here last February. Don’t forget, Ozone Action merged into Greenpeace USA in 2000, with three of its top people, including Davies, transitioning into long-term top-most positions in Greenpeace USA.

It is easy to pile on. From another obscure book, we see the same single-source problem in the same false premise assertion. Click on the image to enlarge it – Greenpeace/Hoggan/Gelbspan:

Another well-doc 2

Ditto – one with Oreskes / Conway, Dunlap / McCright, and Sharon Begley.

Another well-doc

No need to look for this material in obscure books, it can be found across the internet. Vary the wording to convey the same concept, and it becomes readily apparent just how widespread the talking point is about ‘well documented organized climate denial.’ A 2012 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists says as much….. citing the same same people who are singly enslaved to Ross Gelbspan’s accusation

UCS well doc

Wait for it:  soon people will soon cite the Union of Concerned Scientists directly as having ‘well documented’ the corruption of skeptic climate scientists…. when the UCS just days ago did little more than copy ‘n paste an uncited old “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” PDF file that is the core piece of evidence in Gelbspan’s accusation – a piece of non-evidence taken entirely out of context and twisted into something it absolutely is not, proof of a sinister industry strategy to pay scientists to lie to the public and push climate assessments all know to be false.

This situation exposes a far larger problem than any kind of science assessment debate quandary. This is all about people who accuse others of using misinformation to further an agenda, who have every appearance of either deliberately, or via egregiously inexcusable ignorance, misinform all about their critics. Call it the proverbial ‘big lie’, if you will, a fundamentally indefensible tactic employed so far with much success by global warming believers. However, challenge any one of them to come up with an independent corroborator of Gelbspan’s accusation that skeptic climate scientists are hugely paid and instructed to lie, and they fold like cheap suits. Challenge any one of them to show any instance where Gelbspan himself provided physical evidence for the conspiracy he pushes, and they fold like cheap suits.

Challenge Gelbspan directly and any others appearing to be involved with the earliest smear efforts – a golden opportunity for open minded reporters or congressional investigators – and they will fold just the same way. The more entertaining possibility here is how any of those accusers might turn on each other to save their own skins.