Sentences with phrase «corrupt skeptic climate»

Regarding the Washington Post article in particular, the comical aspect of it is how the late WashPo editor Ben Bradlee must be spinning in his grave at the sight of Chris Mooney as its author — Mooney being nothing like the thorough reporters who investigated the Watergate scandal under Bradlee's command, but is instead apparently too much in love with Ross Gelbspan's «industry - corrupt skeptic climate scientists» accusation, as I described in my 2011 WUWT guest post.

People could dismiss this as a bit of odd embellishment, if it was the only problem with Gelbspan's narratives about his first look into supposedly corrupt skeptic climate scientists.

This 1998 EnviroVideo / Green Sphere video, uploaded to Youtube in 2007, begins immediately by incorrectly labeling Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner, and, before going into his standard narrative about corrupt skeptic climate scientists «repositioning global warming as theory rather than fact», Gelbspan says the following, starting at the 3:56 point:

I'd planned to also mention how our pro-global warming friends must view skeptic scientists and skeptic organizations as a very annoying irritation, but they probably fear the general public the most, over the looming potential of the public losing faith in talking points about «settled science» and «corrupt skeptic climate scientists» that become too preposterous to accept.

He seems to clarify this in a 2001 Boston Globe article (full text here) he co-authored with no less than the same person who was a catalyst sending him into his investigations of «corrupt skeptic climate scientists»:

Neither Gelbspan nor anyone who repeats his accusation about corrupt skeptic climate scientists has ever offered anything more than the embarrassingly paper - thin guilt - by - association insinuation first seen at those 1995 Minnesota hearings.

But how much longer can her credibility hold together, if even her own friends see her as someone who can't seem to get historical facts correct about her personal situation, combined with her claims of being attacked by US Senator James Inhofe being undercut by her own words, and her apparent failure to fact - check elemental details surrounding a core set of evidence she relies on to indict «corrupt skeptic climate scientists»?

At the end of my August 7th blog piece, I mentioned how any prominent person insinuating that industry money corrupts skeptic climate scientists seems to be separated from Ross Gelbspan by three degrees or less.

Naomi Oreskes has on one occasion shortened her narrative about her discovery of corrupted skeptic climate scientist «doubt merchants» to a single sentence:

It's a major problem that the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie» accusation has no evidence to support it, but now it appears the person widely credited with «discovering / exposing» that corruption is seen with significantly conflicting dates of when he actually started examining skeptic scientists.

There isn't just one or two questionable assertions within the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, it is besieged with fatal problems.

For new readers who are just beginning to learn how the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation is totally baseless....

Do an internet search of those phrases or variations on them, subtract my own repeats of them, and you have uncountable numbers of people saying this is the proof of industry corrupting skeptic climate scientists.

Have a look again at what Dr Schneider was setting up back in the summer of 1996, essentially at the beginning of the time when the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation was getting its first major media traction (click image to enlarge):

I've also wrapped up a written piece relating to my work on the basic history of the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, I'll place a link to it in my Archive section when it becomes available.

If anyone had engaged in a one - word internet search of the name «Oreskes» prior to October 31st, 2017, the results would have largely been for Naomi Oreskes, famed «exposer of corporate - corrupted skeptic climate scientists,» with a sprinkling of other references to National Public Radio Chief Editor Michael Oreskes.

Since this blog is almost entirely on the topic of dissecting the accusation that funding (otherwise comprehended as outright bribery) has corrupted skeptic climate scientists, it is incumbent upon me to disclose and detail anything relating to money I receive which even has the smallest appearance of possible corruption.

In a curiosity venture to see if the Union of Concerned Scientists regurgitation of the «reposition global warming» accusation narrative was getting any media traction, I instead stumbled across an unexpected example of outright either deliberate misinformation, or one of otherwise incompetent reporting from someone who is supposed to be an authority on the topic of «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists».

Just 5 days after the broadcast, the MediaLens organization labeled it «Pure Propaganda», predictably citing Ross Gelbpsan and others who cite Gelbspan about «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists», and called upon its readers to send complaints to Ofcom.

Besides revealing at this blog how the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation implodes from any angle it's viewed, I also show how people willingly accept and spread the accusation while never questioning a single element of it.

Since more readers are arriving at this blog, I thought it would be a good idea to create a new «Background» post category, so that those who are basically unfamiliar with the 20 year + smear of skeptic climate scientists can easily read a set of elemental details explaining what I mean when I refer to the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, the «core evidence» for the accusation, the epicenter of the smear, and Ross Gelbspan.

Global warming believers across the board trust that the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation has evidence to back it up, trusting in the notion that their leaders speak with authority about it being exposed by a «Pulitzer Prize - winning investigative journalist.»

It is a perfect example illustrating how it is difficult to venture any distance into the industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists accusation without running headlong into a pile of crippling problems.

Given all that I've dug up on the origins of the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, I'd call it a can't - lose wager if you bet that the «e-mail message circulated at a U.S. climate research lab» which Myanna Lahsen referred to owes its «funded by the oil and coal industry» accusation against skeptic climate scientists to Gelbspan / Ozone Action.

Does the GCCM condone this level of misinformation from all the sources they hold dear on the topic of corrupted skeptic climate scientists?

I'll grant that detailed material such as climate science is beyond the scope of politicians, bloggers and most college students, but when it comes to elemental accusations of corruption, people ranging from the President of the United States on down to college professors, bloggers and students like the one I feature here can undertake basic due diligence to see if the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation is above reproach.

If indeed any of the main accusation pushers do actually read my blog, the visual / audio analogies I offered previously on 12/20/13 and 1/28/14 about the certainty of the «industry corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation sinking and my pile driver - style harder and relentless hits about the faults within the accusation and its pushers still apply.

What I do is point out myriad problems in narratives about the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, and the close associations of the small clique of people surrounding that accusation.

Gore muddied the water, and his sequel did worse than fail to clear up new ambiguity he created, it opened the door for deep, tough examination of why his «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation which relies on a single source for its support is neither consistent nor crystal clear about its origins.

Not exact matches

Accusations of corrupt fossil fuel industry influence over skeptic climate scientists are irrelevant material — worthless — in the absence of any physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video / audio transcripts, leaked emails, money - transfer receipts) proving such skeptics were paid and orchestrated to lie about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

Rather than establish that any kind of deliberate corrupting activity took place, it instead ends up pointing a huge finger back to the origins of the smear of skeptic climate scientists.

It's bad enough that Columbia Journalism Review article writer Robert S. Eshelman made the mistake of labeling Ross Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner (which the CJR later deleted initially without explanation) in his May 1, 2014 piece, but when Eshelman dutifully recited an oft - repeated narrative of how Gelbspan dived into an investigation of «corrupt funding of skeptic climate scientists» — the narrative itself being one plagued with highly questionable contradictions — he basically handed Gelbspan a shovel to dig a deeper credibility hole.

cwon14 / WUWT ignorantly spews toxic venom: • Dr. Curry's «technical comments are a distraction», and • Dr. Curry's views «aren't a rational position», and • Dr. Curry's merely «the least insane person», and • Dr. Curry is «a poster child for failed skeptics», and • Dr. Curry «is completely corrupted», and • Dr. Curry «is a statist in the end game», and • Dr. Curry's weblog is «where skeptics go to die», and • Dr. Curry's ««pause» is yet another stupid concept», and • Dr. Curry's belongs to «pinhead academia», and • Dr. Curry's research is «more climate science magic dust» (multiple further abusive claims not quoted)

But then there's Davies «true specialty», the accusation that skeptic climate scientists were corrupted by industry money.

Forget the #ExxonKnew effort to re-invigorate the otherwise 25 year - old accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid corrupting money by fossil fuel companies to lie to the public about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

As in the «settled science» is rife with unsettled contradictions, the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by illicit money doesn't have a shred of physical evidence to back it up, and one of the main promoters of the accusation is a person apparently plagued with credibility problems.

along with a tougher question on whether the core people of this clique actually believed that skeptic climate scientists had been corrupted by industry payments.

But will they ever vehemently defend Ross Gelbspan, Naomi Oreskes, the core «Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action» folks, Al Gore and others who appear to be in a world of hurt when it comes proving skeptic climate scientists are corrupt liars?

First and foremost, I'm a full disclosure guy, and since my blog here concentrates on how everything surrounding the faulty notion that illicit funding «corrupts» skeptic climate scientists, I'm compelled to mention the recent change to my own funding.

However, supporters of the idea of man - caused global warming across the spectrum praise Gelbspan for his exposé of «corrupt skeptics», including the Associated Press's Seth Borenstein, one of the most prominent climate issue reporters in the country.

Nonetheless, Christopher Monckton, a leading climate skeptic, called the panel corrupt, adding: «The chair is an Indian railroad engineer with very substantial direct and indirect financial vested interests in the matters covered in the climate panel's report.

I concluded my last blog piece by suggesting there might be three degrees or less separation between Ross Gelbspan and others who say skeptic climate scientists are corrupt.

In telling the tale of inadvertently discovering how skeptic climate scientists are corrupted, a person might be viewed as a hero or heroine, and it is understandably forgivable if the hero / heroine has a memory lapse about exactly when this event happened, or about minor narrative details surrounding it.

The above «Climate of Doubt» program qualifies as such with its blatant insinuation about skeptics corrupted by illicit money, as does its prior 2008 program «Heat», in which only unidentified skeptic scientists were shown while the narrator said «Not only have big oil companies not invested much in renewables, but for years they were among the largest contributors to so - called climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.Climate of Doubt» program qualifies as such with its blatant insinuation about skeptics corrupted by illicit money, as does its prior 2008 program «Heat», in which only unidentified skeptic scientists were shown while the narrator said «Not only have big oil companies not invested much in renewables, but for years they were among the largest contributors to so - called climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.»

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.

But her overall situation worsens through an apparent inability to keep her stories straight on what led her to discover skeptic climate scientists were «industry - corrupted.»

An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?

That's how I opened my April 25, 2014 post regarding his repeated overall tale of a) minding his own business, b) being contacted / approached by health / climate change article series writer Dr Paul Epstein, which, c) prompted him to co-author an article with Epstein, that, d) resulted in a backlash of letter - writers which e) is what led Gelbspan to look into the works of skeptic climate scientists, who, f) he learned / discovered / was tipped that they were «industry - corrupted.»

• what's with his mention of Kert Davies, one of the old Ozone Action guys as a source for information on corrupt industry funding of skeptic climate scientists?

Skeptic climate scientists, holding unspecified viewpoints prior to the 1991 ICE campaign, were subsequently corrupted to spout the position of the fossil fuel industry.