they might dare to question whether his entire accusation
narrative against skeptic climate scientists has any merit
Not exact matches
For people like Borenstein, the one last thing to ask in this whole exercise is what the breaking point must be for him and other mainstream media reporters regarding their faith in Gelbspan's ability to defend his basic accusation
against skeptic climate scientists and all his
narratives surrounding it.
Start dissecting their
narratives, comparing them side - by - side while looking for physical evidence corroborating Ross Gelbspan's «industry corruption» accusation
against skeptic climate scientists, and a very different picture becomes clear: these people's
narratives don't line up right, they collectively have no evidence backing up their accusation, and this prompts serious questions of whether core leaders of the global warming movement are totally oblivious to this situation, or if they knew their
narratives had no merit from the start.
Jon wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that even if the
skeptic narratives are correct, the old
narratives I was telling wasn't an argument
against climate action.
Much like Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, this scheme, with its constant infusions of material that could be libel / slander
against skeptic climate scientists, was also doomed to fail from the start, built on a foundation of sand about its core «evidence» that was pushed by a person who never won a Pulitzer, and whose
narratives don't line up right.