Award-winning DeSmog author swipes at climate-change spin, gullible media

“Skeptics demand balance,” Gelbspan said in an interview with the Georgia Straight , “but balance only comes about when it is a question of opinion. Then you are obligated to give competing points of view equal space. But when it is fact, balance does not come into play.”

Gelbspan says American journalists have not followed these guidelines nor have they asked skeptics where their funding comes from. The recent summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in contrast, is the “largest, most rigorously peer-reviewed” evidence that climate change exists and is likely caused by humans.


While Mr. Gelbspan has written extensively on climate issues, he is in fact, not a Pulitzer Prize winner according to which is the official Pulitzer Prize site.

How is pointing out that Gelbspan never recieved a Pulitzer (a demonstrable fact), a “smear”?

Oh. You mean like pointing out that someone is associated with a group that received funding from Exxon-Mobile? This site seems to have a strong focus on establishing that skeptics have skeletons in their closets … usually via some often tenuous connection to Exxon-Mobil. That is defended as being within the “public’s right to know” when evaluating any statements they make or scientific papers that they author. Fair enough. And it is also the public’s right to know that Ross Gelbspan’s claim to a Pulitzer Prize is false when evaluating his statements.

… Gelbspan didn’t actually win a Pulitzer award, as he claims. At the very least, that makes him deceptive, which is not a particularly reliable trait in someone who purports to be reporting The Truth(tm).

One wonders what other “truths” he’s embroidering?

Ross led a team of individuals to a pulitzer prize winning story, this has been talked about for years and the only people who bring it up are those whoe are desperate to discredit Ross.

It’s telling that it is the only argument you have.

now he claims to know the “facts” (aka “truth”), whereas the rest of us, opponents of the IPCC dogma (including a multitude of scientists who know much more about climate change that Ross does), are merely stating opinions. I suppose Ross would like it if media (and the population at large) were simply not allowed to question the “truth”. Perhaps we should make “climate change denial” a hate crime?

Climate change denial is not legally a hate crime; but morally I would say the deniers often do demonstrate a deep hatred of the environment, of intellectual integrity, and of their fellow human beings. It is a destructive ideology and a false dogma.

to outlaw non-IPCC thinking? It’s only a matter of time, I suppose? In any case, a skeptic like me (whom I am sure you would designate as a climate change denier, actually care a lot about the environment, which is why I am a supporter of nuclear power, as well as capitalism and property rights, which intrinsically promotes a good environment. I am also big on integrity, which is one reason I dislike desmogblog’s spin and smear strategy. And I consider the indivudual rights as the most fundemental aspect of a modern society (i.e. no hatred for people here).

Climate change denier? Are you trying to link those who question “Climate Change” to Holocaust deniers? One is a historical fact, the the is a theory. I personally see “Climate Change ” as being along the same lines as Y2K. That does not mean I don’t care about nature. The Romans used cui bono to find the truth. Who benifits from the “Climate Change” spin. 1) Exxon- They can now raise the price of fuel to as high as they want to be seen as being environmental. 2) US military/US Government- any distraction causing fear is good. 3) The Media- gives them something to report on ad naseum.