What\u2019s the problem? Essentially, Meyer concludes<\/a>,<\/p>\n \u2026 any sensible narrative of climate politics has to start and finish with the idea that opposition to climate policy grew in parallel with the scientific case for action. Telling the wrong story makes the case for action look easier than it is.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Carefully sift through Meyer\u2019s piece, and it becomes obvious that his gripe about the NYT<\/em> writer is that the fellow implied global warming was a problem having widespread agreement about the need to solve it, up until the early 1990s when the fossil fuel industry decided to turn its back on what it supposedly ‘knew<\/a>\u2019 (actually, Exxon demonstratively did not know<\/a>, but that\u2019s another story). Meyer attempts to shoot down this \u2018late arrival\u2019 of opposition to the certainty of man-caused global warming with this bit of name-dropping<\/a>:<\/p>\n Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University who studies environmental policy, noted that Rich\u2019s story did not mention that \u201cclimate-science denial efforts\u201d began in 1982, with the publication of Sherwood Idso<\/span>\u2019s Carbon Dioxide, Friend or Foe.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sherwood who? This Atlantic<\/em> article is not\u00a0a lightweight piece aimed at superficial readers, it assumes they have some intellectual curiosity \u2014 but not too<\/em> much \u2014 and that they might wonder at a minimum who Sherwood Idso is. Drop his name into an internet search and what are the top results? The top three<\/a> will take searchers straight into an unmistakable narrative<\/a>: he\u2019s a \u2018paid shill of the fossil fuel industry<\/a>.\u2019 The #1 Wikipedia result is just a bit subtle<\/a> about the effort, but it still gets the job done<\/a>.<\/p>\n So, there you are, end of story. This Atlantic<\/em> really ends up looking less like a criticism and more like an effort to hammer home the notion that the evil fossil fuel industry sought to beat down the settled science of man-caused global warming ever since this concern first popped up.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s take a step back: plop the combined names of Robert Brulle and Sherwood Idso into an internet search and one of the more recent results is a 2013 sociology paper<\/a> by Riley Dunlap and Peter Jacques<\/a> which mentions Dr Idso\u2019s “Friend or Foe” book and its publication date<\/a>, while thanking Robert Brulle<\/a> for input into their paper. Who is the source for this 2013 paper about the idea of \u2018industry manufacturing doubt?\u2019 David Michaels and Naomi Oreskes<\/a>. Now, while their individual books don\u2019t cite him directly, each \u2014 Michaels<\/a> (full text here<\/a>) and Oreskes<\/a> \u2014 rely on Ross Gelbspan as someone who exposed the \u2018corruption\u2019 of skeptic climate scientists.<\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t end there. Back in 2008 in another paper<\/a>, these same two sociologists, Dunlap & Jacques<\/a>, did the same thing: They mentioned Dr Idso\u2019s book and its publication date<\/a>, and they thanked Brulle<\/a>. In this older paper, however, they were a little more direct<\/a> for their citation insinuations about corporate-corrupted skeptic climate scientists. They even went so far as to note Gelbspan\u2019s supposed role in illustrating the unnecessary effort to give fair media balance to skeptic scientists \u2026. and<\/em><\/strong> Brulle\u2019s<\/a>. The irony there is the Brulle citation is for his 2003 paper<\/a> which \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. gets no farther than the first page<\/a> without citing Gelbspan\u2019s June 2000 industry corruption accusation presentation<\/a>. Gelbspan\u2019s presentation not only repeated the worthless core \u2018evidence\u2019<\/a> that\u2019s long been used to indict skeptic climate scientists of industry-paid corruption, it also repeated three scientist names<\/a> originating from the 1997 version<\/a> of his \u201cThe Heat is On\u201d book.<\/p>\n Not<\/em><\/strong> the 1998 paperback version where Gelbspan made the unexplained name swap<\/a> of \u2026\u2026. Sherwood Idso.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Was there a reference earlier than the 2008 Dunlap & Jacques paper to Dr Idso\u2019s 1982 book? Yes, Spencer Weart\u2019s 2007 supplement website<\/a> pages (for his own short book<\/a>), where Idso\u2019s book is described as \u201cfriendly<\/a>\u201d \u2026.. and where Ross Gelbspan is seen further down the page as someone who castigates the media<\/a> for the unnecessary effort to give fair media balance to skeptic scientists. Weart\u2019s end note<\/a> for that latter item includes a 2004 paper<\/a> by the Boykoff brothers \u2026. who essentially admit the whole premise of their paper is based on Gelbspan\u2019s assertion<\/a> about unnecessary media balance, while citing his role<\/a>*<\/strong> in \u2018exposing crooked skeptic scientists,\u2019 and thanking him for his input<\/a>. ( *<\/strong> the other Jeremy Leggett book citation there is actually an enormous<\/em> problem<\/a> for Gelbspan\u2019s credibility)<\/p>\n See the pattern developing here? My January 16, 2014 post \u201cRobert \u2018dark money\u2019 Brulle & Other \u2018Skeptic-Trashing Environmental Sociologists\u2019<\/a>\u201d details many of the names seen as citations in the Dunlap & Jacques papers, except Peter Jacques himself. So, to illustrate how silly the citation cascade is when it comes to the \u2018crooked skeptics\u2019 accusation always spiraling back to one source, witness this passage from Jacques’ 2009 book<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u2026 there has been multiple corroborated layers of material connections brought to the fore by investigative journalists from different perspectives surrounding climate denial, conservative state officials, think tanks and industrial networks (Gelbspan, 2004, Mooney, 2005\u2026.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mooney\u2019s 2005 \u201cSome Like It Hot\u201d Mother Jones article<\/a> doesn\u2019t name Gelbspan as the source for the accusation (he instead appears in an online side note piece<\/a> about the unnecessary effort to give fair media balance to skeptic scientists, which includes a key item<\/em><\/strong><\/a>), but one of its key assertions<\/a> was one that Al Gore later repeated<\/a>, while adding a tie-in straight to Gelbspan:<\/p>\n Exxon Mobil has funded 40 different front groups that have all been a part of a strategic persuasion campaign to, in their own words \u2018reposition global warming as theory rather than fact<\/span>.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Meanwhile, Mooney\u2019s 2005 “Republican War on Science” book does cite Gelbspan<\/a>, as does the old Boston Globe<\/em> newspaper reference within Mooney\u2019s book citation.<\/p>\n As these sociologists (none of whom having climate science expertise to back their premise about \u2018settled climate science\u2019) inadvertently demonstrate, all paths lead to Ross Gelbspan \u2014 whether it was a month ago or a decade ago \u2014 when it comes to the premise that \u2018multiple corroborated layers of material connections<\/a>\u2019 confirm skeptic climate scientists are \u2018industry-corrupted.\u2019 Word to the wise who are corporate investigators, congressional investigators, or unbiased objective reporters: where does the path lead back, once you get past Gelbspan?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" You can either accept what reporters say without question, or you can look more deeply into what they say to see if it all lines up in a nice straight problem-free line, or if it ultimately takes on the unavoidable … Continue reading ![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/THiOpg34Pback.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/BGlobe-Gelb.jpg\")
<\/p>\n