Sentences with phrase «skeptic climate»

Since I've spent the last 6 + years digging into the smear of skeptic climate scientists and who is behind the smear, I'm not surprised at all.

Forget what the core elements in the smear of skeptic climate scientists are?

But statements against skeptic climate scientists which look like ordinary political bias only appeals to a limited audience.

And again, since skeptic climate scientists have had the same position this entire time, where is the corruption in all of this?

Be assured, there's much more to each person's involvement with the smear of 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.

Not long after the release of Ross Gelbspan's 1997 «The Heat is On» book, words in its book jacket sleeve about him being a «Pulitzer - winning journalist exposing industry efforts to confuse the public about global warming» drew a response from skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer, who categorically denied any quid pro quo arrangement with «big coal & oil», while also directly saying Gelbspan was not a Pulitzer winner.

--(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.

Which happens to be within the same the year Ross Gelbspan first gained fame for accusing skeptic climate scientists of industry funding corruption.

For me — a person having no climate science expertise — the most maddening aspect of the global warming issue is how enviro - activists attempt to persuade me and everyone else to side with them by saying skeptic climate scientists are liars on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry.

No pathetically obvious industry - led conspiracy leaps from that material where skeptic climate scientists were paid to manufacture doubt about the certainty of cataclysmic man - caused global warming.

But the next question is, considering how Gelbspan's «evidence» supposedly proving industry executives paid skeptic climate scientists to be part of an orchestrated disinformation effort is actually an accusation built on a foundation of sand, how long will it take for the Casten campaign to erase Gelbspan's endorsement entirely?

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.

Given the level of vitriol aimed at skeptic climate scientists from the early 1990s up to 2007, one can just imagine the kind of complaints that were sent.

But let's re-examine what he said in that old 2004 interview about being a reporter angered over discovering skeptic climate scientists were paid industry money to lie.

With the latest fixation on using racketeering laws to persecute companies and organization siding with skeptic climate scientists, a fourth talking point could be added, «when deniers persist with their industry - bought and orchestrated lies, they should be charged with crimes against humanity.»

This links page by Raymo plausibly indicates how the suggestion about Gelbspan might have been infiltrated into Lamont - Doherty overall as the excuse for dismissing skeptic climate scientists out - of - hand.

The bit in my A.T. piece was how Robert McClure (a Society of Environmental Journalists board member who had previously offered me the unsupported idea that Gelbspan's work was also documented by others) quoted Dykstra's concern over skeptic climate scientist Patrick Michaels getting too much «false» media balance.

Back in 2008 -» 09, I was perplexed that efforts to mitigate runaway global warming were occurring despite detailed opposition offered by skeptic climate scientists.

So I'll mention it here, to point out once again how there typically is less than 3 degrees of separation between any prominent person who insinuates skeptic climate scientists are crooks, and Ross Gelbspan.

If skeptic climate scientists were bonafide industry shills, we would have already seen irrefutable proof of it 20, 15, 10, 5 years ago, not the «industry enemy du jour» shifts from Western Fuels, the Global Climate Coalition, Exxon, Kochs, etc..

If the reason why skeptic climate scientists» funding continues to be brought up is because the pure science information they offer is so damaging to IPCC climate assessments that it needs to be buried via outright character assassination by elected officials, then we have a monumental problem.

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.

Ross Gelbspan, ever since late 1995, has claimed skeptic climate scientists received industry money in exchange for knowingly spreading misinformation about global warming.

The latter situation certainly takes on the appearance of a media strategy effort to marginalize skeptic climate scientists in the eyes of the public.

Koppel apparently explained that at the beginning of the program, referring to documents provided by Al Gore's office with Gore's request for Koppel to look into skeptic climate scientists» industry associations.

The article concerns skeptic climate scientist Pat Michaels supposedly bowing out as an expert global warming science witness from the Vermont Green Mountain Chrysler - Plymouth - Dodge et al v. Crombie et al lawsuit due to insinuations about being «paid «fossil fuel industry money.»

In my work here, I follow the citations for «evidence» which supposedly supports the accusation about «corrupt industry - paid lying skeptic climate scientists.»

Trenberth was, of course, referring to the inadequate state of global observations, such as the sparsely sampled deep ocean among other things, but his comment was predictably distorted by misinformers and spawned a fake - skeptic climate myth of its own.

First, Hoggan openly admits he knows nothing about climate change, but after reading just one book by Ross Gelbspan who is also not an expert on climate change (to the demonstrable contrary of such a label), he says «these guys» — meaning skeptic climate scientists and skeptic speakers who cite those scientists — are liars.

While I was aware of myriad problems with the «fictional names» narrative in 2010, I was not aware of the Ofcom complaint until skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer had emailed the producer of «The Great Global Warming Swindle» in February 2011 (cc» ing my email address among several others, since he was well aware of my work).

2) The few skeptic climate scientists out there are paid to lie about that by «big coal & oil» interests.»

Skeptic climate science news also from Japan I've been regularly bringing you climate and energy news from Germany, with Kenneth in USA posting on the latest science.

Instead, I'm hit with insinuations of money corruption by critics who can otherwise only point to material contradicting skeptic climate scientists» assessments rather than debunking it.

Gelbspan, as I've pointed out at this blog and in my prior online articles, has a rough time keeping any of his narratives straight about the «coal and oil interests behind global warming», or more specifically, just how those «interests» directed skeptic climate scientists to lie to the public.

While it may be worthwhile to ask if the GCC ultimately did not drop skeptic climate scientists after seeing convincing skeptic arguments, a far bigger question to ask is this: Is it purely coincidental that Matt Pawa — of the Oakland / San Fransisco cases currently citing old GCC material — seems to have a potential appearance of being connected with the 2009 NYT GCC documents story?

in which I was a participant discussing whether skeptic climate scientist Dr S Fred Singer had any grounds for launching a libel / slander lawsuit against people accusing him of being a «liar for hire».