My transcriptions of several segments of a TV interview makes this blog post a long one. They’re necessary to drive home a critical point: The ‘climate crisis’ is not an existential threat to the well-being of the country; journalism malfeasance on the part of the legacy news media is the actual threat. Bits in the old interview are a driving force in the climate issue today.
If we’d had objective, genuine journalists who suspected particular narratives about the climate issue didn’t look right back in the late 1990s, it’s very possible we would not be speaking about the climate issue at all today. Parents right at the present time would not be misinforming their children with visions of a horrifying climate future if objective reporters back then – and even right at the present time – smelled a rat about the efforts to portray skeptic climate scientists as industry-paid spreaders of disinformation. Or, to borrow the words of the above concerned parent, if reporters had ‘leaned into the inconvenient truths.’
The reason why the above-referenced parent is worried sick – as are the plaintiffs in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits – about climate calamity is because they’ve all been deceived about the entire climate issue. It only has two legs to stand on, “settled science” and “don’t listen industry shills who are paid to deceive the public about the certain harm of man-caused global warming.” Take out that latter leg at the knees on how its four main elements are provably false, and everyone across the board will have no excuse to dismiss out-of-hand what the skeptics have to offer, which is the good news that we don’t actually face a dire climate future.
No exaggeration about the ‘then vs now’ opportunities to commit acts of real journalism by news media people. Allow me to illustrate via one hapless ‘reporter.’
Karl Grossman’s 11/2/2024 “Suffolk Closeup: It’s real and will happen to us” offered up a predictable deluge of calamitous descriptions, but he felt compelled to wrap up with his last two sentences being an homage to the late Ross Gelbspan and how his “first journalism” experience in 1997 was a TV program concerning Gelbspan’s newly-published “The Heat Is On” book. The article finished with “Gelbspan, a Pulitzer Prize winner, passed away this past January.”
When I saw that the Suffolk Times always prints letters-to-the-editor, I thought I should try asking if they would correct that error. One of two things caused them to not publish my letter: it landed in their junk mail folder; or they could not bring themselves to lean into the inconvenient truth. I stayed within their word limit and did not violate any of their prohibitions – readers here can judge it for themselves, I kept it as a PDF file.
Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer. The relevance here is that Karl Grossman didn’t just offer his false accolade a few months ago; if he’d fact-checked it – along with other news outlets at the time in 1997 reporting on Gelbspan’s work – Gelbspan’s smear effort accusing skeptic climate scientists of being paid industry money to lie would have run straight into a credibility brick wall. What needs to be asked is why a false accusation made famous by Gelbspan in 1997, who committed a major act of stolen journalism valor / outright resumé fraud, is being repeated to this day in multiple lawsuit actions, when everything surrounding that situation crumbles to dust under the most basic of investigative journalism acts?
No exaggeration about the ‘stolen journalism valor’ dating back to 1997 — right at the start of Karl Grossman’s interview, he introduced Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner. Before proceeding any farther, he should have asked Gelbspan point-blank which work of his reporting earned that prize. If Gelbspan then responded with any variant of “I conceived, directed and edited a series of articles that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984, the ‘hard-nosed investigative reporter’ within Grossman should have smelled trouble and pressed Gelbspan to clarify whether the Prize was awarded by name to him or not. If Gelbspan could not – or even refused to deliver – on what was clearly stated on the jacket sleeve for his book, Grossman should have ended the interview on the spot. If Gelbspan had stormed out of the interview over such an elemental question, Grossman could have gone straight to the Pulitzer organization to get the direct answer himself. Upon seeing Gelbspan’s claim was not true, the next-most obvious question, certainly worthy of a deep dive, would have been: “If that claim of his was not true, what else did he say in his book which was not true?”
Notice in my screencapture of the book jacket sleeve, the right side of the image shows the text in Gelbspan’s book, page 34. The accusation is totally without merit because neither the main memo directive nor its narrow PR campaign audience targeting suggestion was ever implemented. Nevertheless, his accusation about the “reposition global warming” memo and its sinister-sounding targeting of particular people is identical to what’s in the first of the Sher Edling lawsuits against oil companies, and is almost identical that law firm’s latest three months-old filing.
So if Grossman missed the opportunity to do real journalism in his 1997 interview of Gelbspan, what else did he miss that would have led to the death of the climate issue, which is pertinent to this very day?
4:31 point: There’s a large coal operation called Western Fuels, it’s a $400 million coal operation. and in their 1991 annual report, they were very candid, they said “We want to attack mainstream science …”
Grossman would have been justified if he exclaimed he couldn’t believe a company could be that pompous, and nobody would say it was unacceptable to ask to see those words in the annual report. But he did neither.
• Western Fuels 1991 annual report said no such thing about attacking anyone. I showed that in the last part of my July 2013 blog post via actual page copies from it …. and yet, there is that basic same accusation in the months-old Nov 2024 Maine v BP lawsuit, naming a particular scientist, Dr S Fred Singer. As I showed in my just-prior blog post, a straight line can be drawn from Maine v BP back to Ross Gelbspan circa 1997.
• Western Fuels’ gross asset value is irrelevant; they are a non-profit co-operative. In the current ExxonKnew” lawsuits, the implication is that the fossil fuel industry ran disinfo campaigns out of fear that their profits would disappear.
4:49 point: The coal industry basically enlisted three scientists who are skeptical about this, they’re called “greenhouse skeptics.” In ’91 they launched a public relations program which called for TV and radio and newspaper interviews by these three skeptics, and the strategy papers for that campaign are very explicit. It says the campaign is designed to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,” and more specifically the campaign targets “older, less-educated men” and “young, low-income women” …
Grossman could have 1) asked who the three skeptics specifically were; 2) where this PR campaign took place; 3) how Gelbspan got the ‘strategy papers’ and; 4) if corroborating evidence was available that whoever these three were knowingly operated under any such directive and if the campaign actually – and basically illogically – targeted such a narrow range of people.
• Among the three scientists Gelbspan specifically names in his 1997 book, Dr S Fred Singer had no involvement whatsoever with the actual PR campaign; the campaign – again – never operated under any such strategy; written testimony submitted to a 1991 US House hearing debunked the ‘narrow audience targeting’ accusation; and the PR campaign itself was no more than a barely seen pilot project carried out in just three small cities
• The 2022 Puerto Rico / 2023 Multnomah v Exxon lawsuits name three scientists and Dr Singer as a participants in the PR campaign. A straight line can be drawn from those two lawsuits back to Ross Gelbspan circa 1997.
From the 5:30 point to the 16 minute point (minus a pair of 2 minute commercial breaks), Gelbspan basically talked about science points. He had every free speech right to offer his opinions, based on input he’d heard or read about. We all do. If any layperson like me offered counterpoint, Karl Grossman’s automatic question would’ve been something like, “but are you an expert on epidemiology, or entomology, or climate science?” … but he didn’t pose any such ‘what entitles you to say this?‘ question to Gelbspan.
He did switch to asking how Gelbspan got came to discover ‘crooked skeptics.’
16:35 point: I had done some environmental reporting at the Boston Globe. I came in contact with a public health doctor whose name is Paul Epstein, who was very concerned about the spread of infections diseases, about tropical diseases moving northward from warming, so I worked with Dr Epstein, we did an article that appeared in the Washington Post. After that article appeared, a lot of people said to me, “Oh, we don’t believe this is happening, this global warming.” So I began to investigate that and ….
Grossman didn’t question any of that. He could have stopped Gelbspan right there and asked the most basic of questions:
Was Gelbspan still working at the Globe when he came in contact with Dr Epstein? Why did this contact happen? Dr Epstein was a long-established Harvard scientist, was there a reason why he didn’t publish the article at the Washington Post entirely on his own? Hasn’t global warming has been happening ever since the Earth exited the ice age? Why would he allow people to arbitrarily sway his opinion which – it would seem – cause him to think the article he just co-wrote was meritless?
• Gelbspan self-confessed that he had been retired from the Globe since 1992. The article he co-authored with Dr Epstein – likely needing only weeks or a few months to compile – was published in 1995.
• Epstein was already a published author of many articles; years later, he self-described as such.
Instead, he let Gelbspan continue uninterrupted.
… So I began to investigate that and I read the work of all of these greenhouse skeptics, many of whom are funded by coal and oil, and at the end of that time I told my wife, “Gee, there’s no subject here, it’s stuck in scientific uncertainty.” And personally I was very relieved, I didn’t want to deal with the subject. But I had a few more interviews set up with some other mainstream scientists, and they showed me clearly how this small band of skeptics were really manipulating and distorting the science and the information. And what really troubled me, much more than actually a feeling for the environment, was my concern that our reality was being taken away; that in a democracy we need honest and accurate information to make the proper decisions that we need to make, and that is really what propelled me into reporting first on the disinformation campaign and then learning the various elements of the science …
How could it be that Gelbspan, in what can be interpreted as the very first time for him, was prompted to read the works of the ‘greenhouse skeptics,’ unnamed in this interview?
• He named them specifically in his book as Robert Balling / Pat Michaels / Fred Singer, but just five years earlier within his last Boston Globe article about the calamitous future of global warming … he specifically named Dr Balling and Dr Singer. He conveyed scientific certainty of a horrid future climate beyond any shadow of a doubt in 1992.
If he basically co-wrote the WashPo article with Dr Epstein out-of-the-blue as a retired reporter … why would he have set up appointments to have interviews with more ‘mainstream scientists?’ As a person having zero climate science expertise, how could see the ‘mainstream scientists’ were not themselves “manipulating and distorting the science and the information?“
• The irony of Gelbspan saying “we need honest and accurate information to make the proper decisions is breathtaking, considering how his self portrayal as a Pulitzer winner was – politely put – inaccurate, and his accusations about the Western Fuels PR campaign were false to the point of being outright defamation. His 1998 paperback book version erased his accusation against Dr Singer, as though the accusation never happened.
Again, questions Karl Grossman could have asked in an act of actual journalism to get the the bottom of the actual reality of the situation. Instead, he asked Gelbspan – essentially ‘reporter-to-reporter’ – how reporters can ‘cut through the fog of disinformation‘ in order to discern what’s real to the public.
18:35 point: There are several tools you can use, and there is also an easier way. I did a bunch of Freedom of Information requests to the Internal Revenue Service, that showed me how much money the industry was spending on this public relations campaign, I attended a hearing at which these greenhouse skeptics were compelled under oath to disclose their industry funding. But short of that kind of…
See what kind of automatic question Grossman could have asked right there? If the three skeptic scientists “manipulated and distorted the science and information,” hadn’t they basically committed science fraud, and their specific humiliating career-ending fraud should be exposed for the whole world to see? Was it? What was their specific manipulated / distorted science information? Why on Earth would there be any need whatsoever do initiate FOIA requests to the IRS, what operating authority did he operate under to do this? Why, how, and where would Gelbspan have attended a ‘hearing’ requiring skeptic scientists to disclose their funding?”
• Again, Gelbspan was not a working reporter anywhere at the time he undertook his ‘investigation’ of skeptic scientists. It looks hugely suspect that he would do IRS FOIA requests as a purely private citizen.
• Whatever funding they do receive, from industry or government is irrelevant unless the money came under either instructions to fraudulently misrepresent facts, or if it is threatened to be cut unless particular mandated results are produced.
• As I detail in my series of posts under the tag category “Discovery odyssey” almost nothing line up right about his story of attending a ‘hearing’ where skeptic scientist appeared, beyond him attending it. He never disclosed anywhere I can find how he learned about it in the first place.
Grossman did not interrupt.
… But short of that kind of effort, a reporter can simply take some scientists to lunch. They can get some background on the relative weight within the scientific community of various opinions, where really the weight of knowledge lies, where the disinformation lies, this can be done on a background basis. In an issue of this magnitude, with these kinds of consequences, I fault reporters for not taking the extra step, and going the extra mile to inform themselves. Short of that, they’re left with a ‘he said / she said’ kind of story, and that’s precisely what industry wants to happen, and it has very much confused the public.
“Weight of knowledge“? What does that even mean? Isn’t the effort to get all relevant sides of an issue under debate a core tenet of journalism?
• “Weight of knowledge” is every bit of an anti-science notion as “science consensus” is. It is not how science works. And yet, it is the central argument in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits today.
• Fair and balanced reporting – a.k.a. giving the public all relevant information – is not just what industry wants, it’s what we all should not merely want, we should demand it.
“A a reporter can simply take some scientists to lunch, they can get some background” – hold that thought for a few moments. Meanwhile, see the way the questions really stack up here? Grossman didn’t ask any there, either, he fed Gelbspan a repeat of the line about media balance.
19:40 point: Let me give you an analogy, I mean today no editor or reporter would give the same weight to a tobacco company scientist as they would to a lung disease specialist. They clearly wouldn’t give them equal play. That learning curve really hasn’t caught up, or maybe it’s just beginning to catch up in this area of global warming. That requirement of journalists to write fair and balanced stories in the absence of them really finding out where the weight of opinion lies has produced this situation.
Grossman missed the opportunity to ask a rock-bottom question there – isn’t the analogy of a tobacco company scientist a pure apples ‘ oranges comparison? Isn’t the science surrounding the inhalation of burning particulates large enough to see with the naked eye vastly different than the sheer magnitude of the science involving planetary size weather patterns over decades, across entire hemispheres containing a huge range of variables for land surface, clouds, humidity and temperatures?
• If the tobacco industry paid shill scientists to say smoking wasn’t harmful in disinformation campaigns, it was a waste of time and money. Nobody but complete imbeciles would believe smoking is not harmful. It’s common knowledge that nothing good comes from the addiction, so much so it makes for a funny line in a movie. The other name for cigarettes, all the way back to 1896, is “coffin nails.”
If Karl Grossman displayed just a tiny bit of traditional hard-nosed journalism, it came immediately after the above bit.
20:10 point, Grossman: These experts from the industry, you’ve spoken to them, you’ve dealt with them?
Gelbspan: Absolutely.
Did he? Let’s run through the list. Robert Balling, when asked by the C-SPAN anchor interviewer (2:54:40 point here) regarding Gelbspan’s Harper’s essay that led later to his book, said he had no recollection for certain if Gelbspan had talked to him. The late Pat Michaels very vividly remembered his encounter with Gelbspan … a highly suspect one on Gelbspan’s part. Fred Singer categorically said Gelbspan never spoke to him at all, and didn’t mince words on what he thought of Gelbspan’s “background research.”
For Grossman, that was the end of any semblance of actual journalistic curiosity. He immediately followed up with, “Are they consciously lying, or do they actually believe this stuff, that there is no global warming?” It’s tantamount to asking, “When did they stop beating their wives? Or do they consciously think wife beating is justifiable?” The scientists never stated once that global warming is not happening, the question has always concerned what exactly has caused the little amount of warming over the last 150 years.
Gelbspan continued with essentially unsupportable claims about insurance considerations. After the last commercial break, the wrap-up discussion centered around the changeover to a renewable energy. Grossman asked what the then-current Clinton/Gore administration on the issue.
26:22 point: The administration has done very little. The first thing the President did was call for a voluntary reduction approach … the President at the White House conference in October to which I was invited was very eloquent about the dangers of the problem …
Grossman absolutely missed a Rush Limbaugh-style “stop the tape!” opportunity right there. You were invited to the White House!? How did that happen??” But he let it slide right by.
• There was indeed such a conference on Oct 6, 1997 at the White House. Katherine Ellison (ironically an actual Pulitzer winner) apparently corroborates that Gelbspan was an attendee. Notice in that screencapture, she mentions Bill Clinton had read Gelbspan’s 1997 book. But as I covered in my Dec 2023 blog post, she dutifully repeated another of Gelbspan’s several dicey variants about what launched him into investigating ‘crooked skeptic scientists,’ and as I showed in my Aug 2016 blog post, President Clinton missed both the opportunity to reveal Gelbspan had never won a Pulitzer, and he certainly missed the opportunity to invite the skeptic scientists to lunch who Gelbspan had implied were industry-paid crooks. Plus. it sure looked suspect that Clinton was handed the book to read in the first place.
The real journalism question here is if Clinton’s reading of Gelbspan’s book alone is what led to his invite to the White House. Keep in mind that in 1992, then-Senator Al Gore had the same set of memos in his possession years before Gelbspan first mentioned them, and in that same year Gelbspan quoted Gore’s anger against – essentially – the ‘uncertain’ Fred Singer. And, keep in mind that after Gore’s attempt with ABC News’ Ted Koppel blew up in his face to smear the credibility of Fred Singer . . . isn’t it interesting that an associate of Gore said Gelbspan was working on an investigation book in 1994, a year before Gelbspan first said he’d discovered the ‘corrupt funding’ of Fred Singer?
Karl Grossman ended his interview with Gelbspan on angles about global governance and then wild science speculation about a calamitous climate. Imagine if he and/or other news outlets had instead made the effort to verify Gelbspan’s Pulitzer claim. Nobody would believe anything Gelbspan said afterward.
I repeat here for emphasis what I said at the start of this blog post, Gelbspan’s 1997 accusations aren’t irrelevant ancient history, they are the mainstay in the months-old Maine v BP global warming lawsuit. Imagine what can happen if someone far more influential than me starts asking rough questions about the entire “crooked skeptic climate scientists” accusation, start to finish.
Imagine what happens if someone big in the legacy news media stops being a propagandist and returns to doing real journalism.