Sentences with phrase «paid shill scientists»

Not exact matches

The larger and arguably fatal problem is that in order to make the case that skeptic scientists» climate assessment reports are worthless, the skeptic scientists must be portrayed as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry.

Dissect any prominent post-1995 narrative repetition about skeptic climate scientists being paid industry shills, and all you find are highly questionable associations, and an accusation that is not only never supported with actual evidence or otherwise independently corroborated, it always ultimately spirals down to one person: Ross Gelbspan.

But let's get one thing straight, Oreskes is little more than yet another «cog in the wheel» when it comes to accusing skeptic climate scientists of being paid shills of the fossil fuel industry, enslaved just like all the other cogs to the same single source for the accusation, Ross Gelbspan.

At a September 27, 2014 panel discussion at Queens Museum titled «Climate Wars: Propaganda, Debate, and the Propaganda of Debate,» Hoggan revealed that he was inspired to start DeSmogBlog by the work of Ross Gelbspan, a retired journalist who helped launch the modern environmental movement and spread the slanderous narrative of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance (page 160) that skeptical scientists are paid shills of fossil fuel companies hired to neutralize public support for government climate programs.

In his talks on the topic, Gelbspan doesn't restrict himself to just the «certainty» about the science of man - caused global warming, or the «certainty» that skeptic climate scientists are industry - paid shills.

Declarations that skeptic climate scientists knowingly lie about the certainty of man - caused global warming as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry appear devastating...... but dig deep into the details, and all those claims look more like a «Keystone Kops - style» farce.

But the entire notion hinges on the insinuation that scientists who had even the most tenuous financial tie to industry donations were corrupted — paid to lie in a manner no different than shill «experts» working for the tobacco industry who said smoking didn't cause lung cancer.

Heartland pushes climate denial by attacking legitimate climate scientists, paying professional shills, and publishing misleading psuedo - scientific materials.

... along with myriad other problems surrounding Naomi's efforts to portray skeptic climate scientists as «paid shills working for the fossil fuel industry.»

To quash the notion that no valid scientific criticism exists against the idea of man - caused global warming, enviro - activists often say «denier scientists» are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the issue, insinuating a parallel to expert «shills» who did the same for «big tobacco».

Please see» «Skeptic Climate Scientists are Industry - Paid Shills» (sir, what is your source for that?)»

Steer them to material which portrays those scientist critics as «paid shills who spew lies on behalf of planet - destroying industrialists.»

Likewise, since before I ever became a skeptic, the establishment climate scientists and their supporters have been characterizing, ad infinitum, the skeptical community as shills of the oil industry and other large industrial concerns, and especially as paid - off pawns of right - wing think tanks and right - wing concerns.

So, what we have here from Bud Ward is little more than half the story, with the basic idea of trusting Gelbspan as some kind of highly regarded investigative journalist who found smoking gun proof that skeptic climate scientists are shills paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie to the public.

It's the only weapon in the enviro - activists» arsenal to indict skeptic climate scientists as industry - paid shills.

Make no mistake about it, the mantra repeated by enviro - activists everywhere is that there is no doubt about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming, and nobody should bother to listen to skeptic climate scientists because what few skeptics there are were paid industry money to lie, just the same way «shill experts» lied on behalf of «big tobacco» years ago.

Since Bookbinder is both currently a litigator in a set of global warming lawsuits against industries which supposedly paid «shill scientists» to lie, and was involved in a similar way back in 2010 as the Mother Jones article points out, those are relevant questions to ask.

Naomi Oreskes is a history professor not a scientist; Ross Gelbspan, as I've already established, was certainly not the first to «expose» material that would prompt the public to think skeptics are paid industry shills; and Richard Littlemore could hardly be defined as a «lone pen» at Desmogblog considering his blog posts started only two days before Gelbspan's pieces began.

For all practical purposes, the collective Greenpeace organization committed outright political suicide two weeks ago, essentially telegraphing to the entire world that they never had the evidence they claimed they had, proving skeptic climate scientists lie to the public under a pay - for - performance arrangement with fossil fuel industry people just like the way shill experts lied for the tobacco industry.

Such rebuttal material was probably viewed as potentially fatal for enviro - activists, and from all I've found, it appears they took a practically unknown pilot project PR campaign from the Western Fuels Association and blew it out of all proportion in order to have some kind of plausible - sounding «evidence» for their claim that skeptic climate scientists were no different than the paid shill experts who claimed cigarette smoking was not especially harmful.

Similar to other like - minded material, «Climate Cover - Up» breaks no new or independent ground to prove skeptic climate scientists are paid industry shills.

Voila — from obscure middle class real scientist to famous, well paid climate shill adored by billionaires, corporate behemoths and Tea Partiers alike, in 7 easy steps.

They imply my efforts of exposing the fatal faults in the smear of skeptic climate scientists are written by, directed by, approved by, and paid by people who supposedly shill for the fossil fuel industry.

If you attended the conference, or even if you simply are looking into the skeptic climate scientist side of the issue, one overriding appearance should be readily obvious: the people opposing Al Gore and the IPCC «are not boogeymen or paid shills who are in it for the money» (to quote directly from an otherwise pro - Gore / IPCC reporter I've been corresponding with), and they absolutely do not have just some simplistic nauseatingly repeated one - paragraph «climate change is a hoax» mantra.