![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/San-Fran-Singer-attack-sci.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This happens \u2013 I\u2019m in the midst of compiling a blog post, I look up something I remember in connection with another accusation angle, then I spot something that doesn\u2019t line up right in the whole narrative. What I\u2019d planned to describe concerning \u201cCommitting Acts of Journalism\u201d (or the lack thereof by the reporters over the last two+ decades on the climate issue) No need to trust me on whether the \u2018attack mainstream climate science\u2019 bit is in the UCS Smoke & Mirrors report, the whole thing in its full 68 page context is here<\/a>. Of the five results for the word \u201cattack,\u201d the best this report can come up with is an unsupportable connection to ye olde<\/em><\/a> 1998 American Petroleum Institute\u2019s \u201cvictory will be achieved\u201d memo<\/a>. Unsupportable \u2014 because the memo was never implemented<\/a>. Never implemented!<\/em><\/a> Dr Singer is only mentioned twice in the report\u2019s main passages<\/a>, but not with any connection to any \u2018attack, and the 22 other instances appear either in attached table lists, or in end note references<\/a>, SEPP even less<\/a>.<\/p>\n Was that a misstep on Pawa\u2019s part back in 2017? If he delegated the assembly work to some law firm intern who did not have a good grasp of the whole history of the \u201ccrooked skeptic scientists\u201d accusation, it might explain this.<\/p>\n The key to getting to the bottom of the origins of the \u2018attack mainstream science\u2019 accusation is the \u201cPawa\u201d name and what he is a little more famous for, as in being the \u201cbrains\u201d<\/a> behind the climate lawfare effort \u2013 meaning his launch of the first-ever such lawsuit, his 2008 (dismissed<\/a> in 2012) Village of Kivalina v Exxon<\/em><\/a>. Look within that one, and the very first instance is the same \u2018attack the proponents\u2019 line<\/a> in his 2017 pair of lawsuits and Sher Edling\u2019s Maine<\/em>; the second instance in the same paragraph connects the \u2018attack\u2019 word to the accusation about ye olde<\/em> \u201creposition global warming\u201d memos, a hint of where the whole accusation begins to fall apart.<\/p>\n What\u2019s the source in Kivalina<\/em> for that accusation? Two sources<\/a>, which I covered in my dissection of that filing<\/a>, but the latter of the two is Matt Wald\u2019s 1991 NY Times<\/em> article<\/a> which never uses the word \u201cattack\u201d at all. The first source, Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton\u2019s \u201cThinking Globally, Acting Locally<\/a>\u201d PR Watch article does indeed use the \u2018attack the proponents\u2019<\/a> line, but in a manner which only undermines the entire accusation because of the citation cascade tactic they use with their own three sources in order to make it look like they have more than one source. The filers of the current \u201cExxonKnew\u201d lawsuits do essentially the same tactic, hoping nobody has the time or temperament to look deep into this material.<\/p>\n \u2022 CLEAR site \u2014 By using the Internet Archive to look for what Burton & Rampton\u2019s PR Watch article was citing, it can be seen that they were citing CLEAR\u2019s old catch-all site home page<\/a>. Good luck finding anything among all the possible link paths remotely about \u201cattack the proponents.\u201d An educated guess, however, of what Burton & Rampton were referring to is likely a report CLEAR was in the process of compiling about the Western Fuels Association<\/a> which didn\u2019t get published until Nov 1998. In that one, CLEAR noted about ye olde<\/em> \u201creposition global warming\u201d memos that the set had been \u201cobtained by environmental group Ozone Action and journalist Ross Gelbspan,\u201d the source for that assertion<\/a> being a \u201cTies that Blind\u201d report by Ozone Action. Hold the thought for a few moments, about where the word \u201cattack\u201d appears within those<\/em> memos, the hint of which Burton & Rampton already offered in their PR Watch article.<\/p>\n \u2022 Ross Gelbspan\u2019s 1997 book \u2026 which almost<\/em> contains the specific \u201cattack mainstream science\u201d accusation twice in his \u201cA Congressional Book Burning\u201d chapter \u2014 the first instance aiming it at congressional Republicans<\/a>, and the second instance aimed at skeptic climate scientists<\/a> \u2014 but hold that thought for another moment on where he said it elsewhere like what\u2019s basically seen in the current San Francisco \/ Alameda County and Maine<\/em> lawsuits, which is a massive problem.<\/p>\n \u2022 Sharon Beder\u2019s \u201cGlobal Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism\u201dbook. You can search through an entire book scan<\/a> (after setting up a free account login). The word \u201cattack\u201d is found 19 times<\/a>, but never refers to an attack on science, mainstream or otherwise. Do a search for the word \u201creposition\u201d and just one result comes up<\/a>. She says her source is \u201ca media strategy obtained by Ozone Action,<\/em>\u201d her footnote #27 goes to \u201cOzone Action 1997, page 5<\/a>\u201d which is that group\u2019s \u201cTies That Blind\u201d report<\/a>. Notice how she did not say that Gelbspan also obtained the memos. Since her book was published in January 1998, she would have been referring to Ozone Action\u2019s particular industry influence report from likely not later than mid 1997<\/a>. The online report only occupies two pages, but the latter part of it matches up well with what\u2019s in her book<\/a> \u2013 minus the bit about Gelbspan obtaining the memos. Ozone Action\u2019s report does not contain the word \u201cattack\u201d at all.<\/p>\n There\u2019s only one single source there, Ross Gelbspan, in some sort of association with Ozone Action. Or vice versa.<\/p>\n Like I said in my Oct 2015 blog post<\/a>, I would\u2019ve been lost without Sharon Beder<\/a> when it came to finally being able to find the elusive \u201creposition global warming\u201d memo set, after many months of a fruitless search. In 2009-2010 Ross Gelbspan alone was widely credited for exposing them, but nobody linked straight to them for the public to see them for stand-alone judgement. After I found them, I was the first to link straight to them<\/a> in what is now an offline<\/a> Greenpeace Investigations scans file, because I could readily see there was nothing actually damaging in them.<\/p>\n So, where is the word \u201cattack\u201d in that memos collection? Fortunately, the Internet Archive preserved the 2007 PDF file download version<\/a> of the \u201cGreenpeace USA n\u00e9e Ozone Action\u201d scans<\/a> collection, and I have my own download copy circa 2010<\/a> in case the Archive versions stops working.<\/p>\n Burton & Rampton\u2019s reference to \u201cattack the proponents of global warming\u201d \u2013 and thus the Maine v BP<\/em>\u2018s \/ California v BP<\/em> accusations \u2013 is seen on scan page 28<\/a> in what appears to be genuine memo pages that were a part of the official \u201cInformation Council for<\/strong><\/em><\/a> the Environment\u201d public relations campaign (as distinguished from the rejected<\/em> memo set with the \u201creposition strategy and unsolicited<\/a> spelled-out name variant<\/a> and rejected narrow audience targeting<\/a> suggestion).<\/p>\n Read the actual print ad text<\/a> in the ICE newspaper advertorials \u2014 do those look like outright attacks of climate science, or do they simply question what was being said at the time? Read the actual text for the single taped radio ad by Rush Limbaugh<\/a> \u2014 does that constitute an attack on science in any sense of the word?<\/p>\n Who was it who implied the fossil fuel industry was out to attack mainstream science?<\/p>\n Ross Gelbspan<\/strong>. In a 1997 TV interview<\/a> about his newly-published book.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a large coal operation called Western Fuels, it\u2019s a $400 million coal operation, in their 1991 annual report<\/strong>, they were very candid, they said \u201cWe want to attack mainstream science \u2026\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He didn\u2019t just say that a single time. In his 2006 Earthlands presentation<\/a>, he named the same name seen in the Maine v BP<\/em> \/ California v BP<\/em> accusations:<\/p>\n Western Fuels, which is a 400 million dollar coal operation, it was very candid in its annual report, it said it was out to attack mainstream scientists, it hired three scientists who were skeptical of this phenomenon Pat Michaels, Bob Balling, Fred Singer<\/strong>, it turned out they paid these three scientists more than a million dollars under the table, which was never disclosed publicly until we wrote about it. Western Fuels and several coal utilities then launched a big PR program, they sent these scientist all over the country to do a lot of media interviews and lectures and appearances \u2026 We got a copy of the strategy papers for that campaign. And it says specifically the campaign is designed to \u201creposition global warming as theory rather than fact<\/strong>\u201c, and more specifically it was designed to target \u201colder, less-educated men<\/strong>\u201d and \u201cyoung, low-income women<\/strong>\u201d \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See that? Essentially a straight line can be drawn from Ross Gelbspan in 1997 through the 2017 Matt Pawa\u2019s pair of California lawsuits, to the Nov 2024 Maine v BP<\/em> lawsuit. But Dr Singer had no involvement<\/strong> with the ICE campaign whatsoever<\/a>, and \u2013 I can\u2019t say it often enough \u2013 neither the memo strategy nor its audience targeting goal were ever implemented.<\/p>\n Regarding Gelbspan\u2019s bit about the Western Fuels 1991 annual report \u2013 when I wrote my July 2013 \u201cWhy Say Sinister Plans are in a Coal Association\u2019s Annual Report\u2026 when they aren\u2019t<\/a>?\u201d it was a complete mystery why the man would paint himself into such an indefensible corner via a fervent misguided hope that nobody would ever think to check if Western Fuels ever made such a statement. But when Al Gore had this memo collection<\/a> in his possession years before Gelbspan did<\/a>, \u2026 and when I have it on firsthand confirmation that a Senate associate of Al Gore\u2019s was demanding to have annual report copies and other docs from Western Fuels back in the early 1990s \u2026 and when Al Gore demonstrated an outright desire to launch a character assassination attack against Dr Singer in 1994<\/a> \u2026\u2026.<\/p>\n \u2026 the growing appearance here is less that Gelbspan discovered the memos at all, and instead a pile of leaked docs \/ annual reports was dumped on him, with the instruction for him to use all of that to attack proponents advocating for the public to hear.<\/p>\n \u2026 the growing appearance here is less that Gelbspan discovered the memos at all, and instead a pile of leaked docs \/ annual reports was dumped on him, with the instruction for him to use all of that to attack the proponents of the public hearing all<\/em> of the available science information.<\/p>\n Sorta looks like the same thing happened within the last year for the people who assembled the latest Maine v BP<\/em> lawsuit, doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This happens \u2013 I\u2019m in the midst of compiling a blog post, I look up something I remember in connection with another accusation angle, then I spot something that doesn\u2019t line up right in the whole narrative. What I\u2019d planned … Continue reading will have to wait until the next blog post<\/del>, (is in my next post<\/a> as of 2\/24\/25) because I just spotted a new problem with the basically still-current (originally Matt Pawa-led) pair of 2017 Alameda County \/ San Francisco County lawsuits. I dissected that pair jointly in my October 6, 2017 People<\/em>(s) of California v. BP<\/em><\/a>, while also bringing up those two again in my November 30, 2024 Maine v BP<\/em> dissection<\/a>, since the Sher Edling law firm inexplicably decided to apparently plagiarize<\/a> Matt Pawa\u2019s old 2017 accusation paragraph to use in their filing for Maine<\/em>. What I did not catch in my latest dissection there was the basic fault with Matt Pawa\u2019s citation source for the bit about Dr S Fred Singer\u2019s \u201claunch<\/em>[ing] repeated attacks on mainstream climate science<\/em>,\u201d namely the 2007 UCS report. Those words are not in that report that way. I can show where they are seen that way, and where the actual source is . . . . . . which does not help the credibility of the \u201cExxonKnew\u201d lawsuits one bit. It reinforces the fatal fault in essentially every one of these.<\/span><\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/PRwatch-3-sources.jpg\")
<\/p>\n