Brian Williams? Tall Tales vs. Embellished Global Warming Personalities
Source: Red State
Contrasting a pursuit of public adoration with desperate attempts to create authorities who keep an issue afloat
What made Brian Williams inject himself into an Iraq war incident? Perhaps the reason is as simple as a juvenile desire to remain in the center of adoring attention. When prominent personalities in the global warming issue say things about themselves that isn?t accurate, that?s a whole other ballgame.
This isn?t about science details, either, which are subject to interpretation that?s best left to experts. But we don?t have to be a rocket scientist or a climatologist to spot faulty personal embellishments. All it takes is basic level fact-checking.
Many will remember how Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 ? one man and one organization. However, that apparently didn?t stop various IPCC participant scientists from claiming they individually won a Nobel Prize. This became enough of a problem in 2012 that the IPCC had to issue a formal instruction (as reported at Anthony Watts? WUWT blog) that,
The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.
This is an ongoing problem, so much so that book author/blogger Donna Laframboise created a site dedicated to exposing it, FakeNobelLaureates.com. One of my own recently added tips there concerned Camille Parmesan, a professor of Integrative Biology having a Ph.D. in Zoology. At her UK Plymouth University web page, now you see her Nobel Prize winning designation (circa last October, anyway, three lines down in the purple box), and now you don?t at the current page, a change that happened just a couple of weeks after I alerted Prof Parmesan to that problem.
Some embellishments are heaped onto others perhaps with the people not being aware of it. Naomi Oreskes, a science historian with a soon-to-be-released movie based on her ?Merchants of Smear? book, was described in the 2010 Climate Cover-Up book as an ?outspoken scientist.? Many others make this same error, one site going so far as to elevate her to ?climate scientist?.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of IPCC, was described in global warming crusader Bill McKibben?s 350.org web site as ?Nobel Prize winner and Indian climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri?, no less. At least they got his country origin correct. Prominent global warming book author / critic of skeptic climate scientists Ross Gelbspan described Pachauri in a 2007 Grist.com article as a ?leading scientist?, The easily found fact is that Pachauri only has a Master?s and a PhD degree in Industrial Engineering.
But then we have Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist Ross Gelbspan, widely described as such, among those being Al Gore?s description of him in the companion book for ?An Inconvenient Truth.? In a nutshell, Gelbspan is a hero to the enviro-activist community for supposedly exposing a conspiracy of industry-funded corruption of skeptic climate scientists. Problem is, Gelbspan didn?t win a Pulitzer, by his own admission he was not a working journalist at the time of his ?funding corruption discovery?, and he apparently did no investigation of skeptic scientists? funding in any way that suggests he had evidence proving skeptic climate scientists were paid industry money to lie to the public ? the latter being what I dissect in detail in my GelbspanFiles.com blog. Instead, careful and in-depth scrutiny of Gelbspan?s claims reveals how they all fall apart. It?s a time consuming process comparing one narrative against another, but in the end, it becomes quite obvious how inconsistent his and others? accusations are about ?industry-corrupted skeptics?. People label me as an investigative journalist for my work, but I protested that label.
There?s one big difference between what Brian Williams probably did and what Gelbspan and other prominent personalities in the global warming issue do. Pro-global warming people seem to embellish themselves or the people they support in order to create an appearance of unquestionable authority, so that the ponzi scheme of man-caused global warming ? constantly infused with questionable science reports and character assassination of skeptics ? stays alive in the eyes of the public. If the public loses faith in the promoters of global warming the same way they lost faith in Brian Williams, the issue is toast.