At GelbspanFiles.com, my main focus is to amass a collection of information which shows myriad problems with the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie and spread misinformation, and myriad problems with the people surrounding that accusation, including one of the main promulgators of alleged ‘core evidence’ proving it, global alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan. Considering recent news about the Exxon corporation sending out document retention request letters against those who accuse it of hoodwinking its shareholders about the certainty of catastrophic man-caused global warming, there is perhaps some chance that my work may be used as a guide on ‘who’ needs to preserve ‘what’ in such efforts. But it is worthwhile to also see what possibly motivated the wider efforts behind the smear of skeptic scientists – I’ve done so once before, and now there’s a new and more troubling revelation coming from Gelbspan.

The basic wipeout angle concerning Gelbspan’s motivation for advocating the redistribution of wealth – an otherwise noble but faulty concept – was that it is based on the false-premise need to solve a planetary man-caused climate problem. Compare this to advocating for new jobs in the ghost-busting industry, stemming from a perceived need to stop the spread of harmful ghosts. It’s hard to direct concern at Gelbspan over a what amounts to a spectacularly unsupportable line of reasoning.

However, Gelbspan’s 10/25/2016 Huffington Post “A New Mandate for the Climate Movement” is downright alarming:

Activists are confronting so much cowardice in so many people that they need as many partners as possible working in many different arenas around the world to break through.

If an army of activist groups around the world were to mount an organized effort to force governments to address the coming climate nightmare in a collaborative — rather than competitive — effort to manage the upheavals, it could provide a very different direction for our collective future.

A world-wide coalition of activist groups mobilized by the environmental movement could yield a very positive long-term outcome: an awareness of the increasing irrelevance of human-drawn borders, the fading out of nationalism as a defining element of one’s identity and ultimately an evolutionary step toward more connectedness among human beings.

For additional measure, a pair of podcasters, quoted these excerpts (btw, at the 1:11 point, one of them attempts to perpetuate the myth that Gelbspan won a Pulitzer. which he did not):

To remain relevant, climate advocates need to abandon their role as experts and learn to function as facilitators. They need to realize that merely warning about the catastrophic potential of runaway warming and extolling the virtues of clean energy is not enough.

It is time for climate activists around the world to embrace a new role as global catalysts by engaging people working on a range of other social, political and economic issues.

That last one translating to ‘get the public to believe they are victims of social injustice, which includes possible death or injury resulting from industry-led blockage of efforts to stop man-caused global warming.’

But what happens if someone dares to question the need to tie social justice to climate, or the necessity to force governments to do anything, or that there might be a major problem with open borders and ‘our collective future.’

“Thou Shalt not question Thy Collective Future, lest Thee be branded a Heretic.” That and more was implied from a violently graphic 2010 video which was titled in the form of an unmistakable hint, “No Pressure.”

But that wasn’t an isolated concept held by extremists. Many missed the following news item years back, and again when news of it came up more recently. Bill Ayers, a person who achieved fame at the start of President Obama’s presidency, was apparently a participant in a discussion many years earlier, as the leader of the revolutionary Weather Underground Organization, on what should be done with counter-revolutionists who didn’t want to go along with the Weather Underground’s ‘new collective future.’ The suggested solution is at the 1:23 point here, as told by FBI infiltrator Larry Grathwohl:

I asked, “Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t re-educate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they’d have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say “eliminate,” I mean kill 25 million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

But back to Ross Gelbspan. For years, he claimed he didn’t do what he was doing because he was a tree-hugger, but because he believed the public was entitled to honest information. Yet from 1997 onward all the way up to the above HuffPo article above two weeks ago, he’s made climate science pronouncements that he has no science expertise to make, while failing to inform his audiences about the depth of rebuttal from skeptic climate scientists, and while pushing an accusation against those skeptics which he has no evidence to support.

But now Gelbspan, in a single sentence, suggests ‘an army of activist groups needs to force governments to address global warming in a collaborative way.’ Army – force governments – collaborative.

Think about that for a while. If an issue based on sound science conclusions has irrefutable merit, it would not have the fatal appearance of being based on a false premise from its inception, a foregone conclusion of it as a settled science in need of action to solve it and adapt to it. Nor would it be necessary to concoct accusations against scientist critics as a first-resort defense of the issue, and there’d be no need to tie it into unrelated social injustice issues, or collaborate with governments via any army in order to ram it down everybody’s throats. Certainly, there’d be no need to bolster any claims within the issue via embellishments, false labels, and outright misinformation.

Entice the public about the benefits of ‘global warming redistributing wealth’ and you might be laughed at. Point a gun at the public and say ‘you will embrace our collective future or else‘, and an informed electorate may make sure nobody achieves power who advocates this.