No doubt about it, one of the hallmarks of far-left zealot politics is their projection of what their own faults are as accusations against their opponents, along with the way they censor any criticism which threatens their unsupportable assertions. In this blog post, I’ll show a weeks-old example of a person hurling an accusation about the fossil fuel industry running disinformation campaigns which itself contains an item of disinformation that could lead to the collapse of the entire ‘climate crisis’ issue. Key point is – once again – exposing how all the blather about the fossil fuel industry ‘colluding with corrupt skeptic climate scientists‘ always has been, and always will be a one-trick pony. Meritless 1990s-era accusations repeated right up to this present day. That side is not counting on their ‘science’ to save them, they are weak in that arena; they are instead putting all their hopes in what follows. Watch this, it’s just too predictable how it unfolds:
The setup to the situation goes like this: At NASA GISS scientist Gavin Schmidt‘s RealClimate blog, the September 21, 2025 blog post topic was “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!” in which he essentially tried to backpedal on the otherwise inconvenient truth that catastrophic global warming would result in an ice-free Arctic (the prediction failures are whole other story). The implication was that any criticism of the wild predictions was ‘disinformation.’ Among the 200+ comments following his post, one in particular, Keith, basically agreed with Dr Schmidt, but he made the mistake of labeling the readers of Schmidt’s blog “tribal” while adding how failed predictions are “the greatest impediment to acceptance of the ‘climate crisis’ and should’ve been exposed 20 years earlier. Practically heresy to be questioning Dr Schmidt. Barton, a commenter replying to Keith, said the greatest impediment was a three decade-long fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign.
Keith’s slight little venture off the RC blog orthodoxy reservation prompted a diatribe by another commenter with the ironically appropriate user name of “Mal Adapted” in which he described Keith’s ‘heresy’ as “idiosyncratic opinion,” indicative that Keith was an ignoramus, in comparison to Barton ‘the better-read guy.’ But the “Mal Adapted” continued on a tangent having absolutely zero to do with failed science predictions (full context here), where his key authoritative declaration was:
…The origins of the disinformation campaign by fossil fuel producers and investors, with intent to forestall collective intervention in their profit streams, were exposed in the mid-1990s by Ross Gelbspan, a Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter (https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780201132953). Due to subsequent efforts by trained, disciplined investigative journalists, historians of science (e.g. https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org), and social scientists (e.g. https://cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/InstitutionalizingDelay-ClimaticChange.pdf), the ongoing campaign of climate-change denial is now a matter of redundant public record. …
The huge irony there is a commenter decrying disinformation just spewed wall-to-wall disinformation.
• the accusation is absolutely not a matter of redundant public record, it’s been promulgated by only a core clique of enviro-activists for the last 30 years.
• the cited “social scientist” paper is by Robert Brulle, who along with his fellow sociologists are ultimately separated by 3 degrees or less from Ross Gelbspan’s baseless accusation about the “reposition global warming” memos; Brulle is a co-participant in Naomi Oreskes’ Friends of the Court briefs (plural) which are enslaved to Gelbspan’s worthless accusation.
• “historians of science” refers essentially singularly to Naomi Oreskes, who is enslaved to Gelbspan for his Boiling Point book version of his accusation.
• and no “trained, disciplined investigative journalists” that I’m aware of have ever questioned a solitary thing about Gelbspan’s accusation or anything else about him.
Slave to temptation I am, I could not resist popping in a reply to “Mal Adapted” despite the odds being against me that it would be accepted by Dr Schmidt and/or his blog comment moderators. It was accepted under my “TheRealRC” user name (I endorse real climate science, not just half that supports a particular political agenda, plus my initials really are R.C.):
….. . . . . . so, what happens to your worldview when you discover Ross Gelbspan NEVER won a Pulitzer? No need to trust me on this, you can ask the Pulitzer organization about this yourself.
“Mal Adapted” replied – notice his backpedal at the end:
Nothing. It’s irrelevant to my “worldview”. But the publisher’s blurb for The Heat Is On refers to “Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Gelbspan” (https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780201132953). Argue with it, not me.
While it’s true that the Publishers Weekly page states, “Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Gelbspan …,” it undercuts his implication that he’s a ‘better-read’ man when he copies a website’s misinformation without question. But this situation gets worse at two levels. Dr Schmidt or one of his blog administrators intervened and inserted a backpedal response directly to me saying the Boston Globe labeled Gelbspan as a co-recipient of the Pulitzer, to which “Mal Adapted” offers thanks for that new info and says he didn’t appreciate Gelbspan’s “seminal contributions” until he read the man’s 2024 NYT obituary. Meaning he was not ‘better-read’ about Gelbspan in the least. How embarrassing.
But I didn’t leave my commenting to just one try. I next replied to “Mal Adapted” with:
Then I replied regarding what Dr Schmidt & crew had added:
Notice the yellow highlighted words in my screencaptures. Search through all 200+ comments there, you will not find my two additional ones. They’ve been censored.
Why?
Because if the “Mal Adapted” commenter may start to comprehend how the literal best the enviro-activist side has to convince the public not to listen to the skeptic side starts to crumble to dust under hard scrutiny, starting with that’s side’s most beloved ‘journalist’ being exposed as committing the biggest act of ‘journalism stolen valor’ in his profession. “Mal Adapted” and possibly other RC blog readers who still retain some semblance of critical thinking will start to see their worldview falling apart concerning the entire angle of ‘industry-led disinformation campaigns. Worse, when they see how my statement is irrefutable about the Pulitzer organization being the final arbiter of who’s labeled as a winner / co-winner of their prize, they will then wonder why Dr Schmidt & crew seemingly saw fit to mislead them with a truly unsupportable statement.
Perish the thought of seeds of doubt being planted in the minds of commenter “Mal Adapted” or any other reader of Dr Schmidt’s RealClimate, lest that doubt fester and metastasize into a cancer that would spread and eat the climate issue alive from within.
Nobody must ever lose faith in the orthodoxy of “settled science” and “crooked skeptics.”
Because if they do, that’s the beginning of the end of the climate issue. They will then ultimately see where the actual disinformation has been for the last 30 years.
But RealClimate is just a blog, it may have a large audience, but that audience is limited, and the blog limits what is said and what is asked.
Imagine if NASA climate scientist Dr Gavin Schmidt is subpoenaed to appear in a U.S. Senate hearing under oath and is compelled to answer all questions, and Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy asks him, “Who gets to decide when a person may label himself or herself as a Pulitzer Winner?“