Climate Grift
psychological terrorism by the GU Climate Institute
I am sharing the below my take on 2 years of emails over what in my opinion is erroneous research, to the point of fraudulent, by the GU Climate Institute and how our taxpayer dollars are being stolen from us in a psychological warfare where we are funding our own psychological terrorists. While a long post, it contains important concepts for you to consume, so I hope you will find some time to read it through.
Gonzaga Institute for Climate, Water, and the Environment
Originally founded as the Climate Institute, this monstrosity created by Gonzaga continues to perpetuate harm not only on our local community, but on our region and our nation.
I received the Institute’s "Annual Impact Report" as an email on 7/11/2024, and these are the bulleted highlights:
560 media stories, reaching 1.6 billion people, with an advertising value of $15.5 Million.
(Note: the key thing to see in this claim to fame is the "advertising value"; what, is this a clown-show joke?)
$1.3 Million in grants. (note: yes, that means YOUR tax dollars)
Published 2 reports. (Note: one of these is what I consider the fraudulent Spokane Beat the Heat report)
2,300 people registered for their lecture series events (doesn't say how many attended) and 8,100 people viewed their online library
K-12 teachers in climate workshops: 176
K-12 students reached: 1,797
(Note: yes, they are proud they are psychologically tormenting/indoctrinating teachers and children)
Then on 7/25/2024, I received an email informing me the Institute is getting a $19.9 Million EPA grant to "Combat Climate Challenges in Disadvantaged Communities", specifically to "address environmental and climate justice challenges in disadvantaged communities". You should also note that this funding is part of the "Inflation Reduction Act", which arguably should have been named the "Inflation PRODUCTION Act" or the "Hide our Green New Deal in this Act Act".
Yes, this means more of your tax money going to the Climate $cam, but you should feel good about it because it "comes at a crucial time as Spokane and the Inland Northwest face historic summer temperature challenges impacting low-income families who lack access to air conditioning and cooling centers."
And here's the "money-shot" (pun intended) quote telling you just what the Gonzaga Institute for Climate is all about: "The $19.9 award is the largest federal grant in Gonzaga history, and the largest investment in climate resilience for Spokane." And of course Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown is in on the $cam when she pats the Gonzaga Institute for Climate on the head with the words "I applaud our partners, especially Gonzaga University, for leading in securing this award."
The foresight of seeing this payola coming was predicted in my write-up of the January 29, 2024 City Council meeting: https://flynner.substack.com/p/council-1292024
How hard is it to see a huge point of the Climate $cam is to turbo-charge your fear complex so you compliantly allow billions (and do not lie to yourself, it will be trillions) and billions of your tax dollars to funnel through the feds (who take their first cut of course), who then allocate it out to those compliant "partners" who (after taking their cut of course) are willing to spread the lie (such as the Gonzaga Institute for Climate), but only as long as those partners produce reports that arrive at pre-determined conclusions and hide behind saying they are doing it all for "climate justice" (and, btw, you're a bad person if you question or disagree with what these partners have determined is "climate justice").
How could any of these pristine institutions, (Jesuit-sponsored even!), take part in defrauding us via taxation and eliminating our purchasing freedoms? It's "settled science" and "all scientists agree", right? The bogus 97% of scientists agree argument is bunk: https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/. But even if the number is 80% of scientists believe in climate change, isn't that enough? NO! Look at the Gonzaga Institute on Climate as an exact example as to why: if your funding is dependent on whether or not you come to “the right conclusion”, and you get all the cover you need even if you manipulate data to produce "the right conclusion", do you really think they won’t come to “the right conclusion”? Tell me: if you performed a job that you knew was useless, and your employer knew it was useless, but your employer would continue to pay ONLY IF you continued producing that useless output – would you continue? Put another way: how many clerks at the DMV, Department of Licensing, or traffic ticket counter do you think critically look at their processes to see how they can make it better and more efficient for you? Or another example: how many rooms for the homeless do you think Catholic Charities would provide with a “0% tolerance for drugs” if Catholic Charities was only getting public tax dollars for every room they provided with “no barriers”? (btw, “no barriers” is a HUD requirement of the “housing first” model).
Have you ever read "Climate Miracle" (https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Miracle-climate-crisis-controls/dp/B08L5Z3LMR/ref=sr_1_1) by Ed Berry, PhD? Does it make any sense to you to conclude there is some difference between the carbon-dioxide (CO2) produced by fossil-fuels is any different than the carbon-dioxide (CO2) produced by nature? Or that the man-made CO2 somehow causes climate change when the natural CO2 doesn't? Or that there's more plant-life, feeding us all, than ever? Or that going from 300 parts-per-million to 400ppm is the same as going from 3 chairs in a 10,000-person stadium (our atmosphere) to 4 chairs?
Have you ever been told that WATER (H2O) is THE most impactful greenhouse gas (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047) there is? Or that they actually have it backwards, and that rising heat is what makes the oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere (https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17) instead of more CO2 in the atmosphere making it more hot?
Look, I'm not saying that burning fossil fuels does not impact the climate, and I believe we should be good stewards of the earth. But “how much” does it impact the climate? I also know there are millions of poor and vulnerable who will die of malnourishment and disease if we don't let them have the same benefit of plentiful, reliable, and affordable energy that we have already experienced. All I'm saying is that it is not "settled science" (which is an oxymoron anyway), and that there are causes other than humans (solar cycles, earth cycles, etc) that ALSO change the climate, and that we should not forget that our technological achievements have advanced beyond what anyone could imagine 100 years ago and we should believe our technological achievements over the next 100 years will be just as paramount. This doom and gloom we are imposing on unsuspecting humans is unethical and immoral.
I know this is already a long post, but for those interested in the weeds, here's the analysis and communications I performed on the Gonzaga Institute of Climate's fraudulent (in my opinion) study on the 2021 heat island outlier we experienced in Spokane, and how it's an example of much I wrote about above:
Case Study: the Gonzaga Institute of Climate's fraudulent (in my opinion) report:
I wrote the GU Climate Institute and the Spokesman about what I saw to be fraud in an A1 article on 10/9/2022
The GU Climate Institute wrote me back one time to try and refute me, but my reply highlighted the easily identified fallacies and holes in their reply
I’ve followed up with clarifying facts over the proceeding 2 years and provided it all to the Spokesman editors
Other than the one reply from Brian Henning at the GU fraud complex, oops I mean Institute on Climate, I have not received any replies
Following is an oldest-to-newest email thread:
From: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2022 1:09:15 PM
To: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>; henning@gonzaga.edu <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Subject: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reporting
An above-the-fold, A1 article should be reserved for well-developed stories. Unfortunately, “Hot town, summer in the city” is lacking in what a reader would expect from a front-page article.
ONE day of temperatures taken
Gonzaga U should be ashamed of itself for thinking that one-day’s worth of temperature readings is worthy of anything other than exactly what it is: a single data point taken specifically to reach a preconceived conclusion, as admitted by Mr. Henning, quoted as saying: “what we expected to find”.
These contexts are missing from the article, all of which should have easily been included in the huge inches of space allocated to this article:
Did all the volunteers take the temperature readings at approximately the same times?
Did all the volunteers use the same equipment to measure the temperatures so as to ensure accurate readings?
Was that equipment tested beforehand to ensure each device was dialed in to the same baseline?
Does the color map only show the maximum temperatures for the day or does it show the temperature gain from lowest-to-highest over the day?
Was the bias easily identified in the publishings of Mr. Henning considered?
Was a counter-opinion solicited at all?
Editorial Neglect:
Why did the editor not require Mr. Cabeza to include an overlay of the deaths that, “Scorching temperatures killed 20 people in Spokane County in 2021”
Were those deaths concentrated in one area, or widespread? And was there any correlation to the red and orange areas of the map?
Why did the editor not require Mr. Cabeza to include a table of the yearly deaths attributed to “scorching temperatures”, instead of only identifying the admitted “outlier” year?
Is accurate reporting based on individual outlier data points, or by data trends?
Why did the editor not require Mr. Cabeza to include year-over-year population totals and “scorching temperature” deaths to identify if the ratio is increasing, decreasing, or constant?
How many buildings on the GU campus have been painted white so as to avoid becoming an urban heat island?
Painting the Ad building, Jepson, Herak, Crosby, or any other building white may ruin the aesthetics, and aesthetics are valuable in and of themselves
Good luck suggesting the city/county building code should be adjusted to require/exclude certain colors because of the tyranny of some expert
The best part of this article is the 2nd half, which actually talks about things that can be done to improve the quality of life:
The benefits of tree canopy expansion should be communicated and the means to achieve canopy expansion should be incentivized
The benefits of green space are identified, but back to Editorial Neglect:
Yet no question as to how this contradicts the City’s recent incentives to replace greenscape with rock/hardscape
And no question as to how this contradicts the City’s recent initiative to infringe on its citizens use of water for lawn/garden irrigation
As a graduate of the School of Business at GU, it saddens me to see the University so poorly represented by the Center for Climate, Society, and the Environment.
Dennis Flynn
GU class of ‘96
Spokane, WA
(Note: Brian Henning’s replies are in italics font below, and the pieces left of my original email are in normal font)
From: Henning, Brian <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2022 3:13:42 PM
To: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Cc: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>
Subject: Re: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reportingHello Mr. Flynn.
Thank you for your interest in the Spokane Beat the Heat program. Perhaps I can help clarify.
First, I’d encourage you to visit http://www.gonzaga.edu/HeatMaps. There you can download the summary report of the heat survey and use the interactive map. The report and map answers many of your questions. I’ll intersperse a few answers to some of your questions below.
As an alumnus of Gonzaga, you know how important a focus on serving others is. Through this work, Gonzaga is helping the community understand and respond to a changing planet. As Pope Francis has reminded us, we must learn to hear the cries of the poor and the cries of the earth. I’m proud that Gonzaga is looking for ways to help do its part to address the “climate emergency,” as Pope Francis calls it.
Go Zags.
Dr. Brian Henning, PhD
On Oct 9, 2022, at 3:09 PM, Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com> wrote:
An above-the-fold, A1 article should be reserved for well-developed stories. Unfortunately, “Hot town, summer in the city” is lacking in what a reader would expect from a front-page article.
ONE day of temperatures taken
Gonzaga U should be ashamed of itself for thinking that one-day’s worth of temperature readings is worthy of anything other than exactly what it is: a single data point taken specifically to reach a preconceived conclusion, as admitted by Mr. Henning, quoted as saying: “what we expected to find”.
I think you’ve misunderstood the context of my statement. Prior to the study, we had lots of anecdotal evidence and personal experience that suggests that some neighborhoods are warmer than others. That was our hypothesis going into the study. We then conducted the study and the evidence ended up confirming our hypothesis. This is the sense in which it was “expected.” This is how science works. You have an idea/hypothesis, you design a study, carefully collect data, analyze the data, and determine whether and to what degree they track your original hypothesis or contradict it. Here they confirmed our hypothesis.
Second, you’ve misunderstood the number of readings taken. As the summary report mentions (www.gonzaga.edu/HeatMaps), community volunteers took over 43,000 individual data points. The goal was to measure the differentials between various neighborhoods. A one-day study is exactly what is needed to find out what those differentials are. On one day, how can different places vary in temperature? That is what studies like this help reveal and that is why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) funds grants for more than a dozen communities across the country every year to do a study like this. For more on that, visit: https://www.heat.gov/pages/mapping-campaigns.
As the summary report explains, on the study day, trained volunteers drove seven routes (traverses) at three different times, early morning, mid-afternoon, and evening. The traverses were designed to cover the whole 65 sq miles of the City. (See summary report for more details.)
These contexts are missing from the article, all of which should have easily been included in the huge inches of space allocated to this article:
Did all the volunteers take the temperature readings at approximately the same times?
Yes. See summary report.
Did all the volunteers use the same equipment to measure the temperatures so as to ensure accurate readings?
Yes.
Was that equipment tested beforehand to ensure each device was dialed in to the same baseline?
Yes.
Does the color map only show the maximum temperatures for the day or does it show the temperature gain from lowest-to-highest over the day?
See Summary Report.
Was the bias easily identified in the publishings of Mr. Henning considered?
Was a counter-opinion solicited at all?
What bias would that be? The study was conducted by 40 volunteers and the data were analyzed by researchers at NOAA and CAPA.
Editorial Neglect:
Why did the editor not require Mr. Cabeza to include an overlay of the deaths that, “Scorching temperatures killed 20 people in Spokane County in 2021”
Were those deaths concentrated in one area, or widespread? And was there any correlation to the red and orange areas of the map?
We are very interested to learn whether the heat deaths from 2021 correlate to the urban heat islands. We’ve not yet conducted that analysis, but are in initial conversations with the WA Department of Health to begin analyzing the heat data for correlations to other data sets, including age, race, income, etc. If there are meaningful findings, we will hope to publish them in a peer-reviewed journal. If you’d re interested, you’d an find a map of the heat dome deaths on its own page at http://www.gonzaga.edu/BeatTheHeat. Just click on “Heat Dome.”
Why did the editor not require Mr. Cabeza to include a table of the yearly deaths attributed to “scorching temperatures”, instead of only identifying the admitted “outlier” year?
Is accurate reporting based on individual outlier data points, or by data trends?
That would have been a fine thing to include. You can find the data sets here.
https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/
Over the last 30 years, more people have died from heat than any other natural disaster.
Why did the editor not require Mr. Cabeza to include year-over-year population totals and “scorching temperature” deaths to identify if the ratio is increasing, decreasing, or constant?
See above.
How many buildings on the GU campus have been painted white so as to avoid becoming an urban heat island?
Painting the Ad building, Jepson, Herak, Crosby, or any other building white may ruin the aesthetics, and aesthetics are valuable in and of themselves
Good luck suggesting the city/county building code should be adjusted to require/exclude certain colors because of the tyranny of some expert
That is an interesting question. I don’t know the answer. It seems that it is now part of our current practice as roofs are flat-topped roofs are replaced. I could find out more if it were important. There is also solar on the two newest buildings, Woldson and Bollier.
The best part of this article is the 2nd half, which actually talks about things that can be done to improve the quality of life:
The benefits of tree canopy expansion should be communicated and the means to achieve canopy expansion should be incentivized
Agreed. Visit https://landscouncil.org/news/spocanopy For more information. Significant federal funding has recently been approved for expanded urban forestry planting. Urban heat mapping projects such as ours are critical to directing those tree plantings to the communities who need it most. Social justice requires it.
The benefits of green space are identified, but back to Editorial Neglect:
Yet no question as to how this contradicts the City’s recent incentives to replace greenscape with rock/hardscape
It sounds like you might be talking about SpokaneScape. https://my.spokanecity.org/publicworks/water/water-wise-spokane/spokanescape/ This project encourages residents to move away from grass in their yards, which is a terrible waste of water. This is quite consistent with SpoCanopy, as the goal is to increase tree canopy, not lawns. We can and need to reduce water consumption while increasing shade trees. The two projects are quite complimentary in that way.
And no question as to how this contradicts the City’s recent initiative to infringe on its citizens use of water for lawn/garden irrigation
See above.
As a graduate of the School of Business at GU, it saddens me to see the University so poorly represented by the Center for Climate, Society, and the Environment.
If you’d like to engage further I’d be happy to buy you a cup of coffee at Hemmingson Center to talk further about your ideas. I hope you follow us. You can join our email list by clicking on About at www.gonzaga.edu/ClimateCenter.
From: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 5:14:45 PM
To: Henning, Brian <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Cc: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>
Subject: Re: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reporting
I appreciate you taking the time to reply, Mr. Henning. I completely agree with the call of his Excellency for us all to have a responsible attitude toward Creation. In the same statements, Pope Francis also calls for us to listen to the cry of the poor. While these are not mutually exclusive of each other, they can be at odds with each other, which is where individual discernment with a well-formed conscience comes to bear. As an example: how much of a rise in temperature would you consider a valid trade off for child/slave labor mining of heavy metals required for lithium-ion batteries? Or another: how many species of raptors is acceptable to push to the brink of extinction for wind turbines? Or another: how many plants and animals very sensitive to changes in their environment is it OK to extinguish in order to deploy hundreds of acres of solar farm? I'm not sure what the answers are, but I know they are not easy to determine and we must pray to our God for inspirational answers as He sees fit to best comply with His will for us all.
While I can understand that your hypothesis required data collection and analysis, and that the analysis led to confirmation of your hypothesis, my critique that it was a one-day collection of data is pointedly pertinent, especially if said analysis is meant to drive public opinion and policy, as I assume an A1 article in the local Sunday paper is meant to influence.
As you point out, I should do my due diligence as well, and read the summary and full report. I will endeavor to stay up to date on the BeatTheHeat website. Thank you for the link to the mailing list; I signed up.
I am delighted to receive your confirmation that all the volunteers used the same type of equipment, that all the equipment was calibrated to common baseline before use, and that measurements were taken by all volunteers at the same times of day. It is reassuring to know meticulous effort is being made to ensure the data is valid, and I applaud your efforts in this regard.
Again, I would call out that multiple days during multiple times of year are needed to ascertain if the difference in temperature from one part of town to another is consistent over time, and if the rise in temperature varies from one part of town to another. Additionally, it seems obvious (hypothesis) to expect the parts of town that are industrial, having more asphalt, concrete, and metal, while having less trees and green landscaping, would both potentially start at a higher temperature and gain more temperature during the day.
All unnecessary deaths are tragic, and comparing one cause of death to another, while morbid, is definitely necessary when determining policy. While the links you provided to US averages provide valid data to use in comparing "per population" deaths, as in "how many cold-related deaths in Spokane per 100,000 people compared to the US average", I'm sure you are well aware that more unnecessary deaths are caused worldwide by cold than by heat. So, as is obvious, the validity of using statistics is dependent on your methodology and population.
I'm pretty sure the earth's "crying" includes the child labor, the plants and animals, and the people. And while we should be good and faithful servants during the lives we are gifted by our God to be good stewards of the earth He placed under our dominion, we rightfully, and as commanded by our Lord, must defer to the poor and vulnerable among us now, for what we do unto the least of these, we do unto Him. We must both consider possible dystopian or plentiful futures with the needs of those who live now, especially when considering the God-given talents that have brought us to our current state of enlightenment and our arc evermore towards meeting humanity's needs.
I am slightly surprised that the insinuation in the article that the heat-related deaths correlate to the heat islands is something you identify as not yet analyzed. Again, this is a poor mark on the editor to allow this insinuation into the article without the corroborating analysis.
Likewise, the deficiency in your reply to me using USA 10 and 30-year averages for heat-related deaths. The data to use for this analysis is Spokane averages, which also need to be adjusted to population over time. I would assume these statistics are available from the WA DOH and/or SRHD.
Regarding personal decisions on water usage for residential irrigation purposes: it may be your belief that we need to reduce lawns, and that may be what many others want to do with their property as well, but just as you and those citizens should not be punished by their government for that decision, so should other citizens who want green lawns upon which to enjoy the fruits of their labor themselves and/or with their families, their friends, and their community also not be punished by their government for that decision. You and I do not "know better" than someone else is able to determine for himself.
Again, I truly appreciate your taking the time to reply. The critiques I have of the editors regarding this article all still apply.
Thank you for your offer to meet for coffee. My job and my volunteer time keep me very busy. If you're like to meet some evening or weekend, we can schedule something.
Dennis
From: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 6:00:51 PM
To: Henning, Brian <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Cc: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>
Subject: Re: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reporting
Having taken a total of 2 hours to take Mr. Henning's advice and "do the research" AND write this email response, I can say this Spokesman Review article, "Hot Town, Summer in the City" is garbage; the work done by the GU Center for Climate, Society, and the Environment on this study is obviously biased towards a preconception; and that the Spokesman owes its community and readership a more in-depth A1-above-the-fold article on this topic that has actual reporting behind it so as to rectify the record.
Even including the "outlier" year of 2021 with 20 hyperthermia deaths, a cursory look at the Medical Examiner's annual reports (https://www.spokanecounty.org/3003/Annual-Reports) shows that HYPOthermia occurs 50+% more often than HYPERthermia in Spokane. Including the years 2014 through 2021, there was an average of 4.25 hyperthermia deaths and an average of 7.63 hypothermia deaths; maybe it's "new math" but when I was in school, I learned that 7 is more than 4. The fact that the reporter produced a story that echos the shadowy (shadowy because it hides the realities of Spokane behind actual overall USA data) false claim that heat-related deaths are more prevalent in Spokane than cold-related deaths, when the most basic fact-checking would prove otherwise, is a stain on the reporter, the editor, and the Spokesman-Review at large.
More than 25% (5 of the 19) of the deaths the article indicates are within the map are actually outside of the map. And it's difficult to understand Mr. Henning's claims they hadn't conducted an analysis of the heat deaths to see how they correlate to heat islands when they had the map of deaths to reference on their website both in August [which is "after" the measurement day] (https://web.archive.org/web/20220815001739/https://www.gonzaga.edu/center-for-climate-society-environment/our-work/climate-resilience-project/beat-the-heat/heat-dome) and in May [which is "before" the measurement day] (https://web.archive.org/web/20220524202839/https://www.gonzaga.edu/center-for-climate-society-environment/our-work/climate-resilience-project/beat-the-heat/heat-dome)
Looking in-depth at the Center's website and this report, you can see the "CHAI" partner is biased one-way on the impacts of climate change, and even FUND a position for this program. Nothing incestuous there, right?
In the Summary Report, Slide 6 specifically states CAPA Strategies' focus is on "addressing extreme heat"; CAPA uses bias to purposefully "identify a high-heat, clear day" to take measurements; and CAPA tried to "engage...the media" to promote these intended, biased purposes. Feel used yet, Spokesman?
Also in the Summary Report: Slides 9, 11, and 13 show not only huge gaps of areas of the city that were actually "traversed" to collect data, but also significant discrepancies in the actual "traverse points" collected between the "morning", "afternoon", and "evening". Yet despite not even traversing NE Spokane or the West Plains in the Afternoon and Evening, instead of blacking out those areas not traversed, it makes a predictive model anyway! At least the methodology identifies (even if it smooths it over with the words "We suggest caution when interpreting") these gross deficiencies on Slide 16. These gaps are also in direct contradiction to the claim on the GU website (https://www.gonzaga.edu/center-for-climate-society-environment/our-work/climate-resilience-project/beat-the-heat/spokane-heat-maps?&&&&&) that the "full 69.5 miles of the City of Spokane" were traversed. Nice investigative work, Mr. "Reporter".
Finally, the Summary Report lays bare on Slide 19 that, like everything else in the world, what the true purpose of this CAPA model is: to sell CAPA's "Growing Capacity" services! So, GU is given a staff person, a model, and a methodology whose purpose is to specifically find one of the expected hottest, clearest days of the year during which to collect temperature readings (which are not compared to other times of the year, or over years of history), so maps full of orange and red "warning" colors are produced, in order to gin up support for GU to, of course, reach out and buy CAPA's "Growing Capacity" services.
Maybe the Center at GU is doing good work. I have high hopes there are at least good intentions here, but the whole shoddy reporting that we all get from the AP, the Times, the Post, et al appear to be propagating to the Spokesman, and I find it sad.
From: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023, 10:02 AM
To: Henning, Brian <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Cc: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>
Subject: Re: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reporting
I find it telling that Mr Henning was quick to reply to my original email with surface level narrative, but has offered nothing in response to my more in-depth replies. I hope the Spokesman editors will learn from this and require actual journalism from their staff reporters in the future instead of infantile narrative-parroting, _especially_ for A1, above-the-fold "reporting".
From: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 2:38:47 PM
To: editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>
Cc: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; Henning, Brian <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Subject: Re: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reporting
Spokesman Editor: with the next 'Summer in the City' right around the corner, will the Spokesman be doing any "reporting" to rectify the glaring gaps in "the full story" that is missing in the disinformation article you originally published?
From: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 11:14 PM
To: editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>; johnst@spokesman.com <johnst@spokesman.com>
Cc: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; Henning, Brian <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Subject: Re: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reporting
No follow-ups to any of my past emails on this topic, so I'm adding John Stucke, who's is listed as the Assistant Managing Editor for the front page, where this "reporting" was originally placed.
I previously provided County Medical examiner "animals report" stats for 2014-2021 that showed Hypothermia is WAY more prevalent than Hyperthermia, even with including the outlier, 6-sigma (probably more) year of Hyperthermia deaths, so I thought it would be interesting to look at the 2022 report:
* total exposure deaths: 12
* Hyperthermia: 3 (25%)
* Hypothermia: 9 (75%)
I'd give you 10-1 odds the 2023 annual report will show similar ratios.
Mr. Stucke, maybe you care more about the integrity of the front page than those on my previous emails: do you consider a Top-of-the-fold, Page A1 article based on data that, by the identified parameters of those writing the testing methods, is completely biased to a predetermined narrative....do you consider this something that deserves a retraction and deserving of a "real" A1-above-the-fold article with "real journalism" to set the record straight? Or are you fine with the local paper-of-record feeding its subscribers with a nutritionless narrative gruel that might as well be written by an AI instead of a "reporter"?
From: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:09:09 PM
To: editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>; johnst@spokesman.com <johnst@spokesman.com>
Cc: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; Henning, Brian <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Subject: Re: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reporting
Spokesman Editors and 'Reporter" - in the 1/29/2024 Spokane City Council meeting, you will find OPR 2024-0049, in which GU is "granting" $3.4MILLION to the City of Spokane. In the text of the Agenda, this item includes referencing this bogus "Hot Town, Summer in the City" article that you continue to fail to retract and print a new story.
I've given up hope you will retract the story, but may I suggest there is a NEW story here: the City gets 10% for managing/administering this grant; what is the total funding/grant that GU received and from which they are granting the City $3,400,000? How much of an administrative fee is GU retaining for the purpose of managing/administering the grant funding? What organization offered the grant to GU and how much is that organization retaining for the purpose of managing/administering the grant funding? How many other organizations are in the chain collecting administration/management fees for this tax money? Is the ultimate source of this funding the Inflation Reduction Act, the ARPA funding, or other? What other programs promoting the coming hell that climate change will cause are also part of this funding? Just exactly how incestuous is all of this (such as the company that provides the services they expect GU to buy being the same company that paid for the person, the methodology, the equipment, and the study itself)?
By the way, the Spokane County Medical Examiner's annual report for 2022 was published in May of 2023, so the 2023 annual report should be coming out in a few months... are we taking the "over" or the "under" on the hypOthermia-to-hypERthermia deaths being 3:1?
Do you have any investigative reporters of your own, or are you dependent on Reuters, the AP, the NY Times, and the WA Post to provide you drivel to regurgitate?
From: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 12:50:04 PM
To: editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>; johnst@spokesman.com <johnst@spokesman.com>
Cc: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; Henning, Brian <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Subject: Re: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reporting
Hi Spokesman staff, as expected the 2023 Medical Examiner's report shows ONE hypERthermia death and TEN hypOthermia deaths in 2023, once again confirming the bogus report by the GU Climate Center that the Spokesman used for the basis of an A1, above-the-fold article was an example of journalistic malfeasance.
Will you NOW print a retraction about the "fantasy" you were used to perpetuate? Or at least a new article based on "reality"?
Dennis Flynn
From: Dennis Flynn <dpflynn@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2024 3:39:33 PM
To: editor@spokesman.com <editor@spokesman.com>; johnst@spokesman.com <johnst@spokesman.com>
Cc: garrettc@spokesman.com <garrettc@spokesman.com>; Henning, Brian <henning@gonzaga.edu>
Subject: Re: "Hot town, summer in the city" - missing context, missing professionalism, missing reporting
Hello Spokesman editors. I hope you have been paying attention, because on January 29, 2024 the City Council passed OPR 2024-0049, identifying Gonzaga will allocate $4.3M of Climate $cam dollars towards the NE and W Central community centers, 2 libraries, and the Carl Maxey building. On July 25, 2024, the renamed Gonzaga Institute for Climate, Water, and the Environment sent out a newsletter identifying they have received a $19.9M grant from the EPA, which will provide funding for the "Spokane Climate Resilience Project".
So, we've come full circle: a fraudulent (in my opinion, see the whole email string for details) study hypothetically performed by the GU Climate Institute, but really funded and staffed by a climate services provider company (CHAI) and purposefully biased to only include the hottest time of year, is used to manipulate the willing Spokesman as well as produce "studies" that feed the Climate $cam narrative to the estimated amount of $15.5M worth of "advertising", 2.3K lecture registrations, 176 K-12 teachers, and 1,797 K-12 students, so a public that should be informed is instead coerced into a psychological fear state where they don't even question (enthusiastically approve even) ample government funding falling from the sky into the GU Climate Institute's hands to the tune of millions of dollars.