Like so many other facets of the \u2018corrupted skeptic climate scientists\u2019 accusation which enviro-activists hope nobody explores in any depth, Pawa\u2019s citation of Gelbspan\u2019s article doesn\u2019t lead to a tidy explanation of the \u2018corruption,\u2019 it prompts the question of whether Pawa has once again been caught citing ‘evidence’ that isn’t what it professes to be.<\/p>\n
The short explanation about Pawa\u2019s Section D<\/a> within his Kivalina<\/em> lawsuit is that the fossil fuel company defendants supposedly created front groups to spread misinformation to the public that undercut the certainty of the idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming. The infamous leaked industry memo set<\/a> that gave Gelbspan a second career<\/a>, saddled with Pawa-inflicted citation source problems<\/a>, was included in that section<\/a>. Toward the end of this \u201cUse of Front Groups\u201d section, it appears that Pawa was using a citation (ignore his incorrect title word \u201cHeaters\u201d) of Gelbspan\u2019s 2001 \u201cBush\u2019s Global Warmers<\/span>\u201d article at The Nation<\/em><\/a> to drive this corruption message home.<\/p>\n Gelbspan used that old The Nation<\/em> article several times to hype his role of exposing ‘corrupt skeptic climate scientists,’ most specifically atmospheric physicist Dr S Fred Singer<\/a>. Witness what he said starting at the 13:48 point of his March 2006 presentation<\/a> at the Earthlands Retreat Center, regarding a letter-to-the-editor<\/a> Dr Singer had written:<\/p>\n We had a little fun with one of the most visible of these guys, Fred Singer. Fred declared in The Washington Post a few years back that he hadn\u2019t accepted any oil money for 20 years since he did some consulting for the industry. Whereupon, we wrote an article in The Nation saying he got at least $75,000 from ExxonMobil in 1998<\/span>. And, lest you think this was an ingenious feat of investigative reporting<\/strong>, it happened to be on the ExxonMobil\u2019s website. (audience laughter)<\/em> Of course they took down the page right after the article ran. (more audience laughter)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Same basic narrative at a September 2006 Oxford University presentation<\/a> where he was introduced as a Pulitzer winner<\/a> (which he is not<\/a>), where he wasn\u2019t specific on the dollar amount and left out direct mention of the article\u2019s publication<\/a>:<\/p>\n We had some fun with the most visible of these \u2018greenhouse sceptics\u2019, Fred Singer. A couple of years ago, Singer declared in The Washington Post that he had not received any money from the oil industry for 20 years. Shortly thereafter, we published<\/strong> the fact that he had received thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil in 1998<\/span>. Lest you think this was an ingenious feat of investigative reporting<\/strong>, the information was on the ExxonMobil website. Of course they took down that page shortly after the article was published.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a 2004 National Public Radio interview<\/a>, Gelbspan left out the bit about his article altogether, but still mentioned the \u2018investigative reporting\u2019 bit<\/a>:<\/p>\n Fred Singer is one of the more prominent nay-saying skeptics. Singer had received anywhere from 10 to 75,000 dollars from Exxon Mobil in 1998<\/span>. And that information didn’t come through some real magical work of investigative reporting<\/strong>. It happened to be on Exxon Mobil’s website.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Go to the effort of pulling the time slider for the video at this webpage<\/a> to the 3:52 point, and you\u2019ll see Gelbspan repeat the same basic assertion about Dr Singer – the bit about his The Nation<\/em> article, and the “about $75,000<\/em>\u201d figure. Pull the slider all the way back to the 57 second point, and you\u2019ll hear how Gelbspan claims the Western Fuels Association (WFA) stated in its annual report that it was going to attack mainstream science (it said no such thing<\/a>); that WFA \u201cenlisted\u201d Dr Singer for a PR campaign (it did not<\/a>) and sent him and others \u201caround the country to do a lot of media interviews”<\/em> (a massive embellishment<\/a>); with the specific strategy to \u201creposition global warming as theory rather than fact<\/em>\u201d targeting \u201colder less-educated men and young low-income women<\/em>\u201d (none of which was ever a strategy used<\/a> by WFA\u2019s inconsequential<\/a> pilot project PR campaign).<\/p>\n (Scroll down in this video page<\/a>, and you see it is for a December, 2004 \u201cSpecial Marin County Town Hall Meeting.\u201d Marin County<\/strong> \u2014 the same community currently suing Exxon and other oil companies in a lawsuit which relies on those non-<\/em><\/strong>WFA memos<\/a> as evidence proving an industry corruption conspiracy. Coincidence?)<\/p>\n Let’s review:<\/p>\n But what does Ross Gelbspan\u2019s The Nation<\/em> article actually say, in either its current<\/a> or archive version<\/a>, regarding Dr Singer\u2019s corruption?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2026 in 1998 ExxonMobil gave $10,000<\/strong> to Singer’s institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and $65,000 to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which shared building space with SEPP<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wait. As plain as day at the Earthlands and Marin County videos, Gelbspan specifically named the $75,000 figure as being readily seen at Exxon\u2019s own website, and insinuated in the NPR interview that a figure as much as that could be easily deduced as going to Dr Singer. But what does Exxon’s old page actually show regarding Dr Singer\u2019s \u201cScience and Environmental Policy Project\u201d organization<\/a>?<\/p>\n Science and Environmental Policy, Fairfax, Virginia . . . . . . . 10,000<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So if no investigative skills are needed whatsoever to spot where the additional $65,000 is with either Dr Singer\u2019s or SEPP\u2019s name attached, how does it follow that the $65,000 amount for the Atlas Foundation<\/a> is obviously specifically earmarked directly for Dr Singer?<\/p>\n One other thing: when Gelbspan said Exxon took down their page “right after<\/em>” \/ “shortly after<\/em>” \/ \u201csoon after<\/em>” the article’s April 9, 2001 publication<\/a>, apparently that wasn\u2019t soon enough to prevent the Center for Science in the Public Interest organization from accessing Exxon\u2019s page two months and 18 days<\/a> after his article was published \u2026. or\u00a0soon enough to prevent the Internet Archive from accessing and archiving it as late as December 2001.<\/p>\n Ross Gelbspan’s “10 to 75,000 dollars from ExxonMobil<\/em>” insinuation about industry corruption appears to be neither ingenious\/magical or ‘bonehead obvious’ that Dr Singer lied about being paid ‘Big Oil’ money to spread disinformation, nor does it provide investigative reporting of any type that might dissuade people from wondering if Exxon ‘took down its page<\/em>\u2019 because, well … UC Berkeley didn’t want the public to see them receiving Exxon money<\/a>. Dig deep enough into Gelbspan’s remark, though, about how Dr Singer “did some consulting for the industry<\/em>,” and you’ll see why Gelbspan probably doesn’t want anyone to go farther<\/a> than what Dr Singer said in a letter to a newspaper.<\/p>\n Who is it here who really has something to hide?<\/p>\n I\u2019ve said it before, and it can\u2019t be emphasized enough: no matter where any objective unbiased person lands in the accusation about \u2018Big Oil & Coal paying shill experts to hide the certainty of man-caused global warming from the public<\/em>,\u2019 they won\u2019t find a tidy, rock-solid collection of smoking gun evidence, they\u2019ll find inconsistencies and other inexplicable problems under every stone they turn over. And when anybody goes deep enough on any one of these angles, it always leads back to the pinch-point in time where Gelbspan\/\u201cGreenpeace USA n\u00e9e Ozone Action<\/a>” got involved in efforts<\/a> to give successful media traction to an otherwise faltering accusation that has part of its roots in Al Gore\u2019s 1991-\u201992 Senate office<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Matt Pawa, a leading lawyer in four current global warming lawsuits aimed at fossil fuel companies, described elsewhere as the main motivator behind such action, has already been admonished for attempting to push \u2018evidence\u2019 in one of his lawsuits which … Continue reading \n
![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/Pawa-Kiv-Gelb-Nation.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n