Further down the Gizmodo author’s Twitter thread on that day was a reply by ‘some person’ (the one I casually noted<\/a> as a problematic example in my prior blog post<\/a>) whose reaction to the line in the Gizmodo article near the end about “it feels a little like climate reporters are like Chicken Little, yelling constantly that the sky is falling<\/em><\/a>” was something similar to ‘I feel this way too, sometimes<\/em>\u2019\u2026.. while also including an image that looked pretty much like this:<\/p>\n That’s the “even more cropped version<\/em><\/a>” I mentioned in my prior blog post. Where does that exact worse-cropped image source from? Kert Davies’ Climate Files website<\/a>.<\/p>\n But why do I have to state “by saying something similar to<\/em>” \/ “an image that looked pretty much like<\/em>” regarding that guy’s Tweet? Because it ain’t there anymore<\/em><\/strong> for unapproved public viewing<\/a>.<\/p>\n It was there<\/strong> on July 15th, and I made a mental note about including it for my then-upcoming blog post as an illustration of how so many global warming ‘reporters’ and ordinary people are enslaved to talking points tied to the “reposition global warming” memo set<\/a>, including related points about newspaper ads supposedly tied straight to the memo set’s ‘disinformation efforts.’ I figured he was just an ordinary Twitter user with a name I didn’t recognize at all who had an unremarkable profile section<\/a> and lots of Tweets about stuff I didn’t care about.<\/p>\n When I wanted to get a screencapture of his tweet for my prior blog post, however, I was surprised how it disappeared, and I noted that<\/a> shortly before I posted that blog. Still thinking the guy was nobody in particular, I gave serious thought to including him in my Tweet announcement<\/a> about my post as a sort of hint that, while his post is gone from public viewing, the faults with that cropped Chicken Little ad remain. However, it’s always wise to triple check who a person is before taking such an action, so rather than do a simple internet search for the name appearing on his Twitter profile by itself, I included the words “climate change” in combination<\/a> with it.<\/p>\n Thus my post-publication addition of the asterisk link of who the person is<\/a>. The August 2019 report I linked to is here<\/a>, and it says on page 7<\/a>, regarding the M+R public relations services company<\/a> and Kyle Moler,<\/p>\n M+R acts as a lynchpin between the offshoots of the climate litigation campaign. It managed the public relations around Naomi Oreskes<\/strong> and Geoffrey Supran’s paper, and spearheaded communications for the Center for Climate Integrity’s (CCI) “Pay Up Climate Polluters<\/strong>” campaign … Kyle Moler<\/span>, senior strategist in M+R\u2019s Washington D.C. office, is the point of contact for<\/span> CCI’s Pay Up Climate Polluters<\/span> campaign and<\/span> on the press release for Oreskes<\/span> and Supran\u2019s paper.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yep, that<\/em> Naomi Oreskes with her own “reposition global warming” memo set<\/a> \/ wrong ICE name Chicken Little ad enslavement<\/a> and that<\/em> “Pay Up” group<\/a> (who source their accusation from Kert Davies’ CIC website<\/a>, but apparently ‘didn’t the memo’ that the name they attribute to the newspaper ads was never used<\/a>).<\/p>\n Past tense about Moler at M+R, however. Two months later in October 2019<\/a> he started working at whatever the “Little Thing<\/a>” place is, which, when you click on its downarrow at the bottom of its otherwise monstrously uninformative two-word website homepage<\/a>, it only moves down the same page which doesn’t share anything more with the public than what their political services are<\/a>.<\/p>\n After a year and 10 months, that’s all the more he can share at his website? And after a bit more than an entire decade<\/a>, he closes off his Twitter account from general public viewing 12 or 13 days ago possibly because one lone blogger asks him a tough question about an old, strangely cropped newspaper ad he posted?<\/p>\n There are weaknesses everywhere within the ‘man-caused global warming’ issue. Weak science points, really weak corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists, and particular individuals who are potentially the weakest links in the chain of people promulgating the ‘corrupt skeptic scientists’ accusation, who might quite likely turn state’s evidence<\/a> against the others to save their own skins when real reporters and\/or attorneys start asking really tough questions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u2026 which is a hint for energy company defendant lawyers and objective news reporters to deeply consider. If “li’l ol’ private citizen me” can apparently prompt such a response, imagine what official investigators with far more influence or subpoena power … Continue reading ![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/props-to-Taft.jpg\")
<\/p>\n