Not long after the release of Ross Gelbspan’s 1997 “The Heat is On” book, words in its book jacket sleeve about him being a ‘Pulitzer-winning journalist exposing industry efforts to confuse the public about global warming’ drew a response from skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer, who categorically denied any quid pro quo arrangement with ‘big coal & oil’, while also directly saying Gelbspan was not a Pulitzer winner. In my June 19, 2013 blog post, I noted Gelbspan’s subsequent odd reliance on wording about being a “co-recipient“, particularly when the Pulitzer label problem resurfaced later in 2004. But let’s have a look at a 1997 journalist’s effort to prop up Gelbspan’s Pulitzer label. Continue reading
Greenpeace Loves Ross Gelbspan, Pt 2. Funny How They Don’t Mention his Name Early On
In Al Gore’s NY Times review of Gelbspan’s 2004 “Boiling Point” book, he said “Gelbspan’s first book, ‘The Heat Is On’ (1997), remains the best, and virtually only, study of how the coal and oil industry has provided financing to a small group of contrarian scientists“. The executive director of Greenpeace said in 2009 that Gelbspan was a ‘lone voice‘ who uncovered the corrupt influences of the fossil fuel industry. But in a 1996 midyear summary of their accomplishments, Greenpeace International claimed this particular accolade for themselves….. without a solitary mention of Gelbspan. Continue reading
The Sierra Club Roaring Silence Problem
If an enviro-activist organization had a key role in exposing the ‘industry corruption of skeptic climate scientists’, wouldn’t basic pride drive them to mention it at least once, if not ad nauseam, as some kind of achievement to attract new donors and members? Continue reading
Just askin’
Got sidetracked last week with the extended situation surrounding what I wrote about at RedState that’s otherwise a bit outside the narrow scope of this blog. But I will point out one question within the scope here that I posed in my piece, which is certainly worthy of posing to any authoritative person, group or other entity – Ross Gelbspan among them – who claims skeptic climate scientists ‘fabricate nonsense’:
If your position is that global warming skeptic scientists operate under guidance from industries opposing CO2 regulation, are you prepared to provide specific proof of improper payments to those scientists, and specific proof of faults in the scientists’ resulting reports that are obvious indications of industry-guided science errors?
‘Skeptic Climate Scientists are Inconsistent on what They Say.’ Spread This Line Widely; NEVER Check its Veracity.
It’s a simple narrative to grasp. You say ‘Skeptic scientists first claimed global warming is not happening, then they said it is happening but is not man-made, then they caved in and said it is man-made and is either good for plants, or too expensive and too late to fix’. This makes them look foolish, and you look like a really smart, reasoned person with full knowledge of the topic. Mention those skeptics are funded by ‘big coal & oil’, and you’ll gain more adoration as someone who exposes sinister hidden truths. However, you better hope nobody notices how the skeptics have consistently said this entire time that the IPCC has not conclusively proved human-induced CO2, an otherwise harmless greenhouse gas, is the main driver of what little global warming we’ve seen over the last century. Continue reading
I am Funded for another Year. Plus, the Visual-Audio Analogy I wish to Instill in my Critics’ Minds
I already disclosed last year in the “About” tab here how I am funded with a strings-free poverty level grant. Its time span is about to end, but I will have a new one for this year at exactly the same amount, unless my benefactors choose to add a bit to it later. Folks on the Al Gore side of the issue have been too quick from the inception of this whole mess to insinuate skeptics are paid to lie and spread misinformation. In my particular case, folks hoping to use that insinuation against me would do so at their own peril. Continue reading
Orchestrate News of Skeptic Climate Scientists’ Corruption; Claim this News is news to You; Fail to Prove Any Corruption.
In my August 20, 2013 blog piece, I briefly mentioned the role Minnesota assistant Attorney General Barbara Freese had in the May 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearings where skeptic climate scientists were called to testify, and I detailed her subsequent association problems with Ross Gelbspan. She had asked the skeptics at the hearing about their ‘industry funding’, which led me to ponder who could have prompted her to consider pursuing an otherwise irrelevant non-science tangent. Up until finding what I detail in this blog piece, I thought someone resentful of skeptic scientists might have done so while also alerting Gelbspan that one of the hearings’ top questioners was going to grill the skeptics. Well, it turns out I gave Gelbspan too much benefit of the doubt there………. Continue reading
Three Degrees of Separation or Less, Part IV: Robert ‘dark money’ Brulle & Other ‘Skeptic-Trashing Environmental Sociologists’
Skeptic climate scientists and organizations associating with them point straight to highly detailed science-based assessments when they criticize the idea of man-caused global warming, an action that saints and axe murderers can do. ‘Skeptic-trashing environmental sociologists’ devoid of any climate science expertise want you to accept the idea of man-caused global warming without question, and they dismiss skeptics out-of-hand by saying such skeptics are documented to be corrupted by illicit money. These are the only two bullets they have ever had in their arsenal – settled consensus-based science and corrupt skeptics – neither of which they have any hope of proving. Is it possible for such sociologists to have a more anti-science, anti-intellectual position than that? Continue reading
Holiday Wishes, and a suggestion
The holidays and a medical complication with a relative of mine are probably going to slow up my process of putting out blog pieces over the next two or three weeks, so I’ll take this brief time to sincerely wish those who read this a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year, Happy Winter Solstice and other applicable celebrations. And in the spirit of good will toward our fellow citizens that the holiday season inspires, …… Continue reading
Which is it? 1995? Or 1994?
As I detailed in my 8/16 blog piece here, there are problems with the way Ross Gelbspan describes what prompted him to look into the funding of skeptic climate scientists. But there is no ambiguity about when he says that particular event happened. It all took place after the publication of a March 19, 1995 article he co-authored. One interviewer said Gelbspan’s eye-opening experience began just a few days afterward. (full text here). But we also have two big contradictions about that date. Continue reading