{"id":9511,"date":"2019-12-31T11:15:07","date_gmt":"2019-12-31T18:15:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=9511"},"modified":"2026-01-13T10:33:54","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T17:33:54","slug":"psychological-projection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=9511","title":{"rendered":"Psychological Projection"},"content":{"rendered":"

For those of you living in Rio Linda, or Port St Lucie, or you are part of the mainstream media, this means accusing someone of doing exactly what you<\/em><\/strong> are doing. I’m certainly not the only person using those words<\/a> lately to to describe an increasingly troublesome problem with the far-left. They’re being widely used in political analysis<\/a>, as more of the general public discovers<\/a> the way people in the far-left political spectrum hurl dubious accusations concerning a variety of controversial social issues. FNC’s Tucker Carlson frequently speaks of it (here<\/a>, here<\/a>, etc<\/a>); a very recent Washington Post<\/em> headline<\/a> embodied the ongoing post-2016 election sentiment<\/a> to comical proportions; a news outlet president essentially states what his own channel does, according to an insider whistle blower<\/a>; a prominent news anchor essentially telegraphed<\/a> what his own news program reports as gospel truth. Who is routinely caught uttering apparently coordinated talking points, though?? Oops<\/a>. Twice<\/a>. Three times<\/a>. \u2026. this could go on for hours regarding controversial social issues.<\/p>\n

Then there’s the specific global warming issue, where I can add a bit more setup before hammering my point home \u2026.<\/p>\n

An enviro-activist created a smartphone gamer app which included a part on how to identify “fake experts” from the skeptic side of the issue who have no science expertise. Oops. Basically a giant arrow pointing where the most prominent ‘experts’ with no science expertise<\/a> are actually found.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, from President Obama’s science czar John Holdren<\/a>,<\/p>\n

… Another problem is that a denier can tell a lie in a single sentence that takes a scientist three paragraphs to rebut<\/strong>, but the scientist never gets the three paragraphs in the sound bite culture that our media represent. And so, the denialists<\/strong>, even though they are small in number, they have no credible arguments, very few of them have any scientific credentials, get attention out of all proportion to their credentials<\/strong> \u2026.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Problem there is, the collective side of the notion of ‘man-caused catastrophic global warming’ can be distilled into a single sentence of “the science is settled, fossil fuel industry executives colluded with skeptic climate scientist ‘shills’ to spread lies about it being unsettled, thus reporters aren’t obligated to give fair media balance to skeptics because of those first two points.<\/em>” But with regard to that first point, how many paragraphs have people on Holdren’s side been given at places like the PBS NewsHour, compared to to skeptic scientists<\/a>?<\/p>\n

And while the bit within this ABC News Nightline program dates all the way back to 1994, concerning a scientist who subsequently got free rein to speak without opposition about the issue<\/a> at the NewsHour \u2026.<\/p>\n