Sentences with phrase «skeptic climate scientists»

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.

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?

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

It is a perfect example illustrating how it is difficult to venture any distance into the industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists accusation without running headlong into a pile of crippling problems.

Their December 8 ambush blunder of skeptic climate scientist Dr Will Happer at Ted Cruz's Senate hearing is best illustrated with a famous movie courtroom scene question, but let me set the stage with the following points: Continue reading →

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.

Tie this all together, and what we have is Gelbspan's central bit of «evidence» not proving a sinister industry directive exists where skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie, and the collective narratives about what led him to investigate skeptics has too short of a timeline to be feasible, with details so inconsistent that it looks more like a fabrication hiding the true details of the entire situation.

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

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.»

Fall short of that, and what you have instead is every appearance of anti-science, anti-intellectual tactics to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptic climate scientists because perhaps the core merits of IPCC climate assessments can not stand up to withering science - based criticisms...... and such a problem is exactly what enviro - activists do not want the public to see.

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.

In my previous blog post, I showed how one anonymous op - ed writer tried to casually drop the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase into his piece to insinuate skeptic climate scientists received illicit industry money in exchange for the promise to lie to the public.

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

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..

At the end of my August 7th blog piece, I mentioned how any prominent person insinuating that industry money corrupts skeptic climate scientists seems to be separated from Ross Gelbspan by three degrees or less.

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

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.

Skeptic climate scientists existed, but were given zero air time on a prominent news outlet which was otherwise famous for offering fair and balanced reporting.

The same Shabecoff who is also described here (full text here) as being one of the founding members of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a place I argue is one of the earliest promulgators of the notion that skeptic climate scientists do not deserve fair media balance.

So, if none of those deliver (pardon the pun) evidence clearly showing how skeptic climate scientists agreed to accept illicit money in exchange for spreading lies that meet the approval of fossil fuel industry executives, what do we have left?

But I will point out one question within the scope here that I posed in my piece, which is certainly worthy of posing to any authoritative person, group or other entity — Ross Gelbspan among them — who claims skeptic climate scientists «fabricate nonsense»:

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.

Back in 2007, a giant 176 page official complaint was lodged at Ofcom, (the UK's communications regulator of broadcasts) about skeptic climate scientists seen in the British video «The Great Global Warming Swindle», and the complaint went so far as to include its criticism of Dr Soon's non-speaking contribution to the film, while noting his «big oil» funding.

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.»

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).