there is a new blog worth visiting that exposes who Ross Gelbspan is and what his damaging influences are.The man who likes to claims fossil fuel industry are paying skepical scientists to downplay the AGW conjecture possibility.
It is a creation made by Russell Cook
who is a moderator
here with his many articles from around the websites he has archived HERE
The new BLOG is gelbaspanFiles.com
Please visit his blog.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
My thanks to SST for mentioning my new blog here. I can't say with any scientific authority which side of AGW is right, and I barely even understand various aspects of the scientific assessments. But one thing bothered me over a decade now, that other folks having no scientific authority (Al Gore, the mainstream media, etc) were occasionally saying there was no plausible skeptic opinion, and what little there was had been unduly influenced by fossil fuel industry money.
That last bit is something I or any other non-science person can actually check into because the only authority to it is whether publicly available evidence is found to support the accusation that skeptic climate scientists were paid by fossil fuel industry execs to fabricate false papers, reports, assessments just like 'expert shills' did for the old 'big tobacco' industry.
I've looked for it, and looked, and looked, gathering as much details about the accusation, and the people closest in association to it. What I've found is not evidence that skeptics 'manufacture doubt' out of thin air about AGW, but instead that we have every appearance of a rather small core group of enviro-activists - largely spearheaded by the work of Ross Gelbspan - to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptic climate scientists.
It doesn't get any more basic. If the idea of AGW can stand on its own scientific merits, and assertions made by skeptics are laughably implausible, then there would be literally no need for the use of character assassination against skeptics.
Steve McIntyre didn't begin his anti-Mann work by saying Mann wasn't worthy of consideration because of ties to 'big government'. He went after Mann's science assessments in mind-blowing levels of detail, and then suggested Mann had credibility problems. In. That. Order. What do we see in attacks of McIntyre? Something like 'don't listen to him, he works for the mining industry' ...... followed by not one word of detailed dissection of McIntyre's statistical efforts.
The comparison holds up across the entire spectrum of AGW's two sides. But the mainstream media is the gatekeeper for the public to hear how that problem exists. My goal is to expose how the MSM and others cannot continue to support the accusation against skeptics. When the larger public sees how long-term efforts were made to shut out debate over AGW, I don't see how the issue can survive if all trust in it evaporates like faith does in any other exposed ponzi scheme. In this case, we don't have a purely money-based ponzi scheme, but one based on constant infusions of false information about its science claims and character assassination of its critics.