Skeptic climate scientists existed, but were given zero air time on a prominent news outlet which was otherwise famous for offering fair and balanced reporting.
Not exact matches
This mystified
scientists, but
climate change
skeptics used it as surefire, «scientific» proof that
climate change either wasn't as bad as
scientists thought, or it didn't
exist, at all.
A brief set of questions and answers illustrates how any sort of examination of the «
skeptic climate scientists are industry - corrupted» accusation doesn't reveal a nice, tidy, open - and - shut case against such
skeptics, all that's seen is something begging for a deeper investigation of why the accusation
exists at all.
Tie this all together, and what we have is Gelbspan's central bit of «evidence» not proving a sinister industry directive
exists where
skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie, and the collective narratives about what led him to investigate
skeptics has too short of a timeline to be feasible, with details so inconsistent that it looks more like a fabrication hiding the true details of the entire situation.