Sentences with phrase «crooked skeptic»

All of these things are interconnected to the core clique of people who first gave the «crooked skeptic scientists» accusation its media traction way back in the mid 1990s, and that accusation has been worthless from its inception.

As a Sierra Club alumnus, you'd think Bookbinder would suggested the inclusion of the same set of «leaked industry memos» in the Colorado trio of lawsuits that are used to indict «crooked skeptic scientists» in the San Mateo / Marin / Imperial Beach v. Chevron and Santa Cruz (plural) / Richmond v. Chevron sets of California global warming lawsuits.

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?

This isn't rocket science, all that's required is an internet search for the «crooked skeptic scientists» accusation, then a look within the results to find out who the accusers cite as their source.

This is the same NPR which featured two attack pieces on skeptic climate scientist Dr Willie Soon here and here, in which the first piece said Dr Soon was valuable to the «forces of climate denial» (the now non-functioning link was to an older version of Dr Soon's Heartland Institute bio page, later replaced by a newer one), and the second piece cited the same Kert Davies who I traced back to the time when the false «crooked skeptic climate scientists» accusation first got its media traction.

There's no Pulitzer Prize or any other similar journalism award to be won from regurgitating a worn - out 20 year - old + unsupportable accusation about crooked skeptic climate scientists, otherwise it would have already been awarded at least a decade or more ago.

Yes, many people repeat Gelbspan's line about reporters giving unfair media balance to crooked skeptic scientists, but it doesn't take much additional digging to see where a Senior Producer at Turner Broadcasting, Teya Ryan, made her case in 1990 with a lengthy opinion in the Society of Environmental Journalists Winter 1990 - 91 newsletter about media balance being «artificial, a matter of giving equal air time or newshole space to dissenting views of questionable merit.

In a nutshell, settled science, crooked skeptics, reporters may ignore skeptics, bam, bam, bam.

Dig deep enough in the «crooked skeptics» accusation, and you ultimately discover that in regard to the notion about skeptics being in a pay - for - performance arrangement with anybody in the fossil fuel industry, there's only one usable weapon in the enviro - activists» arsenal to indict those skeptics as industry - paid shills: the supposedly leaked industry memo set from a public relations campaign called the «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) supposedly containing the «reposition global warming» strategy goal, which targeted «older, less - educated males» and «younger, lower - income women.»

But in putting all their eggs in the one basket of «crooked skeptics,» this looks to me more like the locomotive light of an oncoming libel / slander retaliatory legal action train which could destroy the whole issue.

Tedious as it may be, a dive into each facet of the «crooked skeptics» accusation will be richly rewarded because it all unravels no matter where anyone looks.

When enviro - activists do actually attempt to point to evidence supporting the crooked skeptics accusation, many just point the public to entire websites, books, or presentations.

Any reason why David Hunter would string together that collection of links as evidence for the «crooked skeptics» accusation?

Now, let's briefly examine one more time where the «crooked skeptics» accusation was passed around.

It was another NYT article which I dissected to show how the «crooked skeptics» accusation traces right back to Ozone Action at the time when Ross Gelbspan is seen in conjunction with them.

Steady followers of this blog know who he is, but for the sake of newcomers arriving here, allow me to frame this situation from the perspective of how an objective reporter / investigator / energy company lawyer might stumble across him, in which a follow - the - money exercise can lead to the origins of the «crooked skeptics» accusation.

If lawyers / investigators / reporters «follow the proverbial money «with him, it could lead them to the core of people surrounding the inception of the «crooked skeptics» accusation.

I'm here to say with authority that the compete «crooked skeptics» accusation is baseless, fatally undercut with core problems surrounding its central so - called evidence and the clique of people surrounding it.

Not exact matches

Skeptics may still speak somewhere, of course, but if your fellow reports talk of them as crooked liars, Tribune readers never become informed from you about the depth of the migraine - inducing levels of science - based detail from skeptic scientists and skeptic speakers.

This is the way it is with the «crooked global warming skeptics» accusation.