{"id":19280,"date":"2025-12-30T12:49:37","date_gmt":"2025-12-30T19:49:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=19280"},"modified":"2026-01-13T10:32:36","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T17:32:36","slug":"when-the-other-side-is-oblivious-to-their-own-psychological-projection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=19280","title":{"rendered":"When the other side is oblivious to their own psychological projection …"},"content":{"rendered":"

First, a brief word on my prior post<\/a> – no appearance yet of the actual lawsuit document for Casquejo et al. v Shell<\/em>: rest assured, it isn’t just me looking for it, I’ve asked a prominent figure known for his own expertise on filing court actions to keep an eye out for it. Meanwhile, I’ll wrap up the 2025 year with an item gleaned out of my ongoing count<\/a> of the PBS NewsHour’s climate reporting bias problem, where my days-old tally update was for the 2nd appearance of a particular IPCC-associated scientist. But this post isn’t about what she said, it was the spectacular<\/em><\/strong> bit of psychological projection the other guest offered. <\/p>\n

I should be immune – but I’m not – to being stunned by how the global warming true believers are basically guilty of what they accuse their opponents of doing. The spectacular bit happened within the NewsHour’s December 26, 2025 discussion<\/a> about the planned dismantling by the Trump Administration of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Truth is, NCAR could certainly continue to exist, just not on the government’s dime anymore, but that’s another discussion topic. What was not mentioned in this NewsHour segment was how a former 3-time NewsHour IPCC-associated scientist guest<\/a> \/ 23-year NCAR staff scientist<\/a> was Dr Stephen Schneider – who famously suggested back in the 1970s when he worked at NCAR (53 second point in this video here<\/a> – that geoengineering to slow or stop runaway global cooling<\/em><\/strong> was not a good idea.<\/p>\n

“WHAT global cooling?!<\/em>” NewsHour viewers would have exclaimed, “You never told us about that!!<\/em>”<\/p>\n

That’s what the NewsHour does, they leave out vital bits of information which would otherwise give their viewers a much more clear understanding of what the collective climate issue involves. By my count of the overall bias at the NewsHour on this issue, it is the 1,771st time where exactly zero input on science points were offered in rebuttal to the IPCC \/ Al Gore side of the issue. What was offered as cursory ‘rebuttal’ this time was the idea<\/a> that NCAR is “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country<\/em>,” quoted from the U.S. Budget Director.<\/p>\n

‘Cursory’ because neither the NewsHour segment host nor the two guests offered anything remotely resembling what would be interpreted by NewsHour guests as elemental science debate points on how NCAR climate assessments are … well, overly alarmist. The NewsHour segment host prompted both guests to take a stab at that rebuttal angle deep into the discussion. His effort to hand a ‘home run hit’ to the IPCC-associated guest<\/a> was the angle about President Trump saying the climate issue was a hoax, to which the guest could have readily offered examples of science assertions made by skeptic scientists which were utterly wrong. NewsHour viewers could’ve used that as ammo to wipe out any encounters they have with people who say skeptic climate scientists have legitimate disputes about NCAR or other ‘alarmist’ assessments. Instead, the best she could come up with<\/a> was ‘looky – carnage everywhere<\/em>.’ Her alarmist response there begs for meme parody<\/a>. Give her credit, however, for offering a statement of real truth<\/a>, that people want the best available information. Ironically, that is exactly what the NewsHour routinely fails<\/em> to provide.<\/p>\n

The point where the spectacular psychological projection came in was the response the other NewsHour guest offered when asked about NCAR’s ‘woke ideology or climate alarmism<\/em>.’ Here’s how the man sailed right off the cliff<\/a>:<\/p>\n

… the only people doing the politicization are, for the most part, politicians and the general public and the media.<\/strong><\/p>\n

… this fits into an overall pattern of the demonization of both science and academia. The idea that we’re trying to shut down science that produces results we don’t like<\/strong>, it’s a very worrisome trend …<\/p>\n

… simply because one political party<\/strong> or even one political person doesn’t like the fact that we’re learning<\/strong>….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Who politicized the climate issue in its infancy about catastrophic man-caused global warming? Al Gore, a politician, and Ross Gelbspan, news media reporter<\/a>. – aided in that specific effort<\/strong>, I should add – by NCAR’s Dr Stephen Schneider<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The scientists and academics who were demonized, who faced efforts to shut them down were those such as Dr S Fred Singer<\/a>, who, through his Science and Energy Public Policy publications, dared to suggest that the collective members of a political ideology \/ political agenda didn’t like the fact that the public could learn how there were deeply detailed disputes questioning the assessments coming out of NCAR<\/a> and the ‘research trajectory ideas’ from Dr Stephen Schneider<\/a> – the very same man who notoriously advised that in order for the global warming issue to stay afloat . . . . the organizations promoting it needed to be alarmist<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What’s one other way to shut down dissent against the IPCC \/ Al Gore side of the issue? Put those scary scenarios<\/a> into climate lawfare efforts, where you portray skeptic scientists as being akin to bribery recipients<\/a>, no different than ‘shills working for the tobacco industry<\/a>.’<\/p>\n

Stay tuned here to see if the Casquejo v Shell<\/em> lawsuit in the UK tries to pull that very same one-trick pony stunt.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

First, a brief word on my prior post – no appearance yet of the actual lawsuit document for Casquejo et al. v Shell: rest assured, it isn’t just me looking for it, I’ve asked a prominent figure known for his … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[58,201],"tags":[4,31],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19280"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19280"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19280\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19295,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19280\/revisions\/19295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}