Imagine floating a false accusation with awkward wording so uniquely memorable that it might be repeated nationwide as an authoritative quote from a person having a usable degree of national prominence . . . . who literally says he doesn’t remember where he heard the quote. What if the person genuinely believed the veracity of the accusation, only to discover that it is totally without merit, and that the central promulgators of the accusation who claim it is evidence of a massive disinformation effort are themselves using the accusation as the basis of their own disinformation campaign? What if that person was to discover how others like him aren’t actually the ‘good guys’ in the climate issue? What if legions more just like this person became fully aware of this problem?
No joke on the very first bit of the above situation. I mentioned it in only cursory fashion in my just-prior blog post dissection of the Hawaii v BP lawsuit. But since the person with the authoritative quote was a college professor author (with an easily-found university email address) of a recent book describing a conservative evangelical political movement which supposedly “made anti-environmentalism the accepted position through public ridicule, conspiracy theories, and cherry-picked science,” I thought it would be a worthwhile experiment to find out if he would gladly share who exactly his source was for ye olde “reposition global warming” phrase. My guess was that he did actually reply, he’d say the source was either Ross Gelbspan or Naomi Oreskes, or else he’d offer another source only one degree separated from those two. That would enable me to respond back with a followup on the overarching religious angle here, the so-called ‘moral imperative’ for evangelicals to stop global warming, which I posit actually puts evangelicals — including the now-late Pope Francis — into a religious moral dilemma: Which is the bigger sin, doing nothing at all as the planet burns from global warming (a claim by enviro-activists increasingly plagued with problems concerning its ‘scientific basis’), or breaking the Commandment against bearing false witness by telling others to ignore heinous skeptic climate scientists who are industry-paid ‘liars for hire’?
False witness, namely that specific skeptic climate scientists were participants in a public relations campaign directing them to ‘reposition global warming,’ per Gelbspan and Oreskes, respectively. None of the scientists were paid, obligated, or otherwise operating under any such directive. Problematic in another way for those two accusers, as it concerns a basic sin recognized across all religions – Gelbspan was not the Pulitzer Prize winner he claimed to be, and Oreskes has every appearance of fabricating her personal heroine story of discovering who these ‘industry paid’ skeptics were. Major people listened to both, nevertheless.
In my initial inquiry to this book author, I said I did not want to reveal who I was, so as not to lead him in any direction, but also noted how I like the adage spoken by cross-examining attorneys who advise, “never ask a question of which you do not know the answer.” I figured what no matter who his source was, I could subsequently point out where the religious moral dilemma would confront evangelicals. He missed the direction I was headed completely, so I rephrased the basic question in my response to his reply email. His second reply was not what I was expecting at all:
I’m not sure where I heard of the phrase – I was just describing how anthropogenic climate change was repacked by think tanks and special purpose groups in the 1990s.
He’s a man with enough prominence and plausibility on the religious angle that quite likely many readers at BaptistNews have repeated what he authoritatively said. However, this has gone even further, where an individual essentially regurgitated what he said within a far longer piece at Substack, while a different person posted the link to the BaptistNews piece with no less than the “reposition global warming” as its subheading.
All, based on a phrase he heard . . . . . . . . somewhere.
That’s actually breathtaking. A phrase that has no reason to be repeated anywhere as evidence of fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns. Yet it’s been repeated to so much of a viral extent (I need to add some of the more recent examples of that to my list) that a person like that book author has it firmly planted in his mind, readily available to offer as evidence of immoral fossil fuel industry behavior when such a discussion comes up.
That’s a propagandists’ dream right there. The proverbial ‘lie traveling half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.’ How many times has this particular one circled the globe? It’s unsustainable, though.
This isn’t the first time I’ve tried to see if an influential enough person might start questioning the veracity of the ‘settled science’ / ‘crooked skeptics’ talking points if I pointed to one of the faults that they could then subsequently explore on their own. At the end of my April 30, 2025 blog post’s introductory setup, I noted that the ‘journalist’ in question had at least responded with a single email reply, but I’ve heard nothing more from her afterward. I’m still exchanging emails with the book author topic of this blog post here, but I gather from his latest reply that he’s not yet comprehending at all that there might be a massive problem with his authoritative quote in the BaptistNews article. If he does open his eyes, you’ll be the first to know right here.
Imagine if someone major – say, Pope Leo XIV – tells the public how the plot ‘by Big Oil repack climate change back into theory’ was fake news ever since Day 1. Imagine if the true believers who repeated the false accusations about ‘industry executives paying skeptic scientists to spread disinformation’ came to the realization that those executives / skeptics weren’t the bad guys.
I’m the bad guy? … How did that happen? I did everything they told me to. I help to protect the planet. I told everyone I knew about the crooks working for Big Oil, I made sure everybody I told wouldn’t listen to them. You should be rewarded for that. Instead, they give the Peace Prize to an ex-Vice President. They lied to me.