Sentences with phrase «industry corruption»

My automatic reaction, resulting from examining global warming lawsuits back in 2010 (updated here), is to look for the usual suspects accusing skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption along with anything that's an indicator of the single source for that accusation.

And as I've noted on several times, Ozone Action and Ross Gelbspan sure appear to be the epicenter of the fossil fuel industry corruption accusation against skeptic climate scientists.

It is the AGW believers» side that says «ignore the skeptic scientists» data and assessments because they are all corrupted by fossil fuel industry corruption.

Gelbspan weaves a fantastic tale of industry corruption in a single 199 word - long six sentence paragraph at Mother Jones.

He mentioned the four debates he had initiated on arms industry corruption, though appeared to develop amnesia when quizzed about arms industry subsidies, forgetting for example, that a pamphlet written by him in September 2009 had said that government insurance for arms exports was an indirect subsidy to the arms industry «difficult to justify on wider policy grounds».

Today I offer this post as a «Summary for Policymakers» regarding my series of seven prior blog posts about a smear effort which took place back in 2007 that is a case study for examining other prior and current industry corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists.

--(That Dr Schneider, the person who featured Ross Gelbspan two pages later as someone who indicted skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption via leaked documents — notwithstanding that Dr Schneider got the leaked documents bit wrong.

In my December 31, 2014 post, I hinted at how an utterly casual drop - in of Ross Gelbspan's central bit of evidence indicting skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption ends up looking like a pre-scripted propaganda tactic.

The Eighth Circuit allowed access to warrants in a defense - industry corruption investigation in In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area - Gunn, but the Ninth Circuit denied access in to warrants in the same investigation in Times Mirror Co. v. U.S. I think, though, that the Ninth Circuit decision would have come out differently if the investigation had already ended.

But this lineage leads back to a solitary 1996 situation seemingly at odds with all subsequent narratives about the leaked memos being ironclad proof of industry corruption.

If an enviro - activist organization had a key role in exposing the «industry corruption of skeptic climate scientists», wouldn't basic pride drive them to mention it at least once, if not ad nauseam, as some kind of achievement to attract new donors and members?

The collective enviro - activist movement wants the public to believe global warming science is settled and that opponents may be dismissed out - of - hand due to «extensive documentation» of skeptic climate scientists» industry corruption.

The woman accusing Dr Soon of industry corruption could not bring herself to refute anything he said or engage in actual debate on his specific topic points.

So now the question is no longer about what would have prompted questions about skeptic scientists» funding to come up at «an obscure utility hearing in Minnesota», it's about why an assistant A.G. would insert material into a public hearing against some of its expert science witnesses concerning an industry corruption insinuation based on a suggestion coming from a private citizen who had nothing to do with the topic at all just eight or so weeks earlier.

One final point: a June 2011 Reuters article is often cited by critics of Dr Soon as proof of his industry corruption.

Was he little more than a theatrical device to give her the appearance of «accidentally connecting the dots» on who Dr Singer was, much the way Ross Gelbspan's invitation to co-author a newspaper article supposedly led him to accidentally discover the «industry corruption» of skeptic climate scientists?

In two of my other posts here, I showed how IPCC Vice Chair Jean - Pascal van Ypersele had prominently accused a particular skeptic scientist of industry corruption, and how Ypersele cited Naomi Oreskes for his insinuation that the ClimateGate email leaks were the result of an effort ««organized» to undermine efforts to tackle global warming.»

Ross Gelbspan's association with Ozone Action likely began sometime between their switch in December 1995 from pure focus on ozone depletion to one which also concerned climate change (happening in the same month that Gelbspan first publicly mentioned his «industry corruption» findings), and their March 1996 «Ties That Blind» report mentioning that he and they «obtained» industry documents.

Within the main text of Oreskes» book, however, she only makes a brief mention of Gelbspan on page 246, lumping him in with others who themselves only cite him as their source when accusing skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption.