{"id":7395,"date":"2018-08-09T18:02:08","date_gmt":"2018-08-10T01:02:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=7395"},"modified":"2018-08-13T16:42:17","modified_gmt":"2018-08-13T23:42:17","slug":"the-long-reach-of-naomi-oreskes-fingerprints","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=7395","title":{"rendered":"The Long Reach of Naomi Oreskes\u2019 Fingerprints"},"content":{"rendered":"

My primary focus at this blog is to illustrate myriad ways the \u2018skeptic climate scientists are paid fossil fuel money to lie<\/em>\u2019 accusation falls apart, while the secondary implied point is that the mainstream news media has done essentially nothing when it comes to checking the veracity of any claim made within the global warming issue, whether it\u2019s pure science claims or political analysis claims. Today\u2019s topic is a case in point about one of the political angles.<\/p>\n

One of the main reasons why I dissect the \u2018crooked skeptic scientists \u2019 accusation is because of my long-ago curiosity about why such skeptics were being ignored by policy makers who were plunging ahead with cap-and-trade initiatives<\/a>. The more I looked into it, the more I saw that the science viewpoints from skeptic climate scientists wasn\u2019t being actively debated in news media outlets. I didn’t initially understand why until broader examination clearly showed scientist skeptics were viewed as little more that ‘shills’ of the fossil fuel industry … but that is another story.<\/p>\n

Most notable to me at the time was the absence of climate skeptics on PBS’s weeknight NewsHour program, which was otherwise famous for its fair and balanced news analysis. In a subsequent article I wrote for AmericanThinker in late 2009<\/a>, I detailed a particular talking point I saw in a reply from the PBS Ombudsman<\/a> about this apparent reporting bias. A talking point seemingly traceable back to a singular figure<\/a>.<\/p>\n

When the \u201cJournolist\u201d story broke out in the summer of 2010 about active, covert collaboration among leftists to plant political themes in the news media<\/a>, I offered an example at AmericanThinker<\/a> on what appeared to be an older variant of that at the PBS NewsHour<\/a> gleaned from the works of Ross Gelbspan<\/a>. To additionally illustrate the extent of the biased reporting on the topic of global warming at the NewsHour, I quantified how there was practically no discussion of the skeptic side of the issue (click image to enlarge).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve kept an ongoing count ever since that 2010 article. In my latest update effort of my overall tally of the bias<\/a>, I ran across the following<\/a>, from their July 29, 2018 broadcast titled \u201cWhy U.S. lawmakers failed to act on climate change decades ago<\/a>\u201d:<\/p>\n

HARI SREENIVASAN: This coming week, The New York Times, in partnership with the Pulitzer Center, will publish \u201cLosing Earth.\u201d \u2026. The topic is climate change and the scientific discoveries and decisions made in the decade between 1979 and 1989. \u2026.<\/p>\n

NATHANIEL RICH: .. By 1979, there was a strong consensus within the scientific community<\/span> about the nature of the problem. \u2026<\/p>\n

HARI SREENIVASAN: \u2026you also point out that even the CIA in 1974 had written a report looking at climate change<\/span> basically as a national security threat or a global security threat.<\/p>\n

NATHANIEL RICH: By the mid-50s, you had top government scientists speaking about the issue. You had major articles in Life Magazine and Time. So it wasn\u2019t just industry that was following it. It was at the highest levels of government. Lyndon Johnson sent a special message to Congress in 1965 that discussed the problem<\/span><\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One-by-one:<\/p>\n