Slimed by Naomi Oreskes – In Defense of Dr. Fred Singer

naomi_oreskes_slimer1Guest opinion by Ron Arnold

The Oreskes documentary calling Dr. Fred Singer a “Liar for Hire” is a repeat of a nearly identical attack on him twenty years ago. An honorable newsman at that time debunked the attack and my research subsequently uncovered a genuine conspiracy of Big Green money and malice. While we consider legal action against the present vicious attack on Dr. Singer, I submit this short section from my book EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature for your information along with the advice of DeepThroat: Follow The Money.

The excerpt is found in Chapter 5, “Radicals” in the middle of page 183 forward for about 3 pages.

-Ron Arnold


On February 24, 1994, ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel ran a report titled, “Environmental Science For Sale,” produced by Jay Weiss. It was an investigation of the wise use movement, probing my activities and those of scientist Fred Singer of the Washington, D.C.-based Science and Environmental Policy Project, among others.[1]

Koppel opened this edition of Nightline with a stunning revelation: Vice President Al Gore had given him the story. Koppel explained that he and Gore had met by chance waiting for an airplane, and, over coffee, Gore urged him to investigate connections between the wise use movement and such elements as big industry, Lyndon LaRouche and the Unification Church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Koppel had first covered the wise use movement almost exactly two years earlier, on February 4, 1992.[2] On that date, after a five-minute introductory segment interviewing me and a number of other wise use advocates, the program switched back to the studio and a face-off between conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and then-Senator Al Gore. Koppel was the first broadcaster to note that environmentalism was no longer a motherhood and apple pie issue, but now had serious challengers for the moral high ground.

Gore was deeply upset by the rise of wise use. By 1994 he was Vice President of the United States, and the time had come to strike back.

So, on the night of February 24, Koppel told Gore’s story—but notified his viewers exactly where it had come from, a highly unusual move in a medium that normally goes to extremes protecting sources. And he sounded annoyed.

While Koppel explained that Gore’s office had sent him a stack of documents, an image of fanned-out papers filled the TV screen. If you’ve seen such graphics, you know that the top document is always totally illegible so that a certain amount of anonymity is preserved for the source. However, peeking out from behind the first sheet was a letterhead just beyond legibility—unless you knew what it said to begin with. I did. It said, MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider.

So—Vice President Al Gore was keeping a dossier on us, courtesy the Green Cartel: MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider, a political strategy firm, hired by The Wilderness Society, using a grant from the W. Alton Jones Foundation (the CitGo oil money) authorized by Director John Peterson “Pete” Meyers, who has given away hundreds of thousands of dollars to smear the wise use movement. Knowing that Al Gore has been secretly keeping tabs on me, do I need to call Psychic Hotline to know why the Winthrop Foundation gave money so that Sheila O’Donnell of Ace Investigations could gather intelligence on me? Could it be because Wren Winthrop Wirth is the wife of Clinton administration official Tim Wirth who was given his State Department slot with the help of Vice President Al Gore?

Vice President Gore, Koppel told his viewers, was particularly concerned about Dr. Fred Singer of the Washington, D.C.-based Science and Environmental Policy Project, well known for debunking the ozone depletion and global warming scares.

Laws have been passed against important industrial chemicals because computer models predict them to deplete ozone or cause global warming. Dr. Singer points out flaws in computer models, noting that realistic risk assessments rather than computerized guesswork or emotional scare tactics are needed for sound public policy.

Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund told Koppel he was so worried about the wise use movement because, “If they can get the public to believe that ozone wasn’t worth acting on, that they were led in the wrong direction by scientists, then there’s no reason for the public to believe anything about any environmental issue.”

What about those Moonie ties and big industry money? When asked by Nightline, Dr. Singer acknowledged having accepting free office space and science conference travel expenses in the past from the Unification Church, as well as funding from large industries. The Moon support lasted only a short time, but the industry funding continued. “Every environmental organization I know of gets funding from Exxon, Shell, Arco, Dow Chemical, and so on,” said Singer. “If it doesn’t taint their science, it doesn’t taint my science.”

Koppel evidently felt used by Gore, saying, “In fairness, though, you should know that Fred Singer taught environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, that he was the deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon Administration, and from 1987 to 1989 was chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Transportation. You can see where this is going. If you agree with Fred Singer’s views on the environment, you point to his more impressive credentials. If you don’t, it’s Fred Singer and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.”

Koppel noted that Dr. Singer’s predictions about the low atmospheric impact of the Kuwait oil fires was accurate and the environmentalists’ forecast of doom, as voiced by the late astronomer Carl Sagan, was wrong.

Koppel handled the segment about me much the same way, saying that I had once served on a local board of the American Freedom Coalition, “a political organization, which, in the past, has received substantial funding from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.” There were no allegations that my Center had received Moonie money, or that I was a follower of Moon or his church, or that some nefarious Moon-influenced plot was afoot, unlike the Green Cartel’s version of the story. Somebody at ABC News had actually done some fact checking.

Then I remembered. Three months earlier, on Tuesday, November 9, 1993, ABC News producer Bob Aglow had called me on behalf of correspondent Bettina Gregory, asking for an interview for the “American Agenda” segment of World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. I had previously appeared in that segment and was treated fairly. I agreed. That Friday, November 12, Aglow and Gregory taped the interview in my office. Among other things, I gave them a stack of my Center’s financial statements showing where our budget really came from: small donations from members, book sales and conferences, with less than 5% coming from foundations and corporate grants.

However, the segment never aired. But the film that Koppel used in his Nightline broadcast was the footage taken by Bob Aglow with correspondent Bettina Gregory. Someone on the Nightline staff had obtained it from the World News Tonight staff—evidently along with my financial data.

At the end of the Nightline feature, Koppel pointedly rebuked Gore’s recruitment to a hatchet job, concluding, “The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works.”

There was something odd about this edition of Nightline. Why did Koppel reveal the source of his story? And why did he take such pains at fairness that it repudiated Gore’s premise? I contacted the network to see what they knew about their source. Neither Koppel nor ABC News Nightline producer Jay Weiss knew that the Search and Destroy Strategy Guide existed because Gore did not provide it, only a stack of anti-wise use articles and news releases provided by MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider. So I sent them a copy.

A little poking around also led to an interesting discovery: Al Gore himself took $1,000 from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church to address their American Leadership Conference just before accepting the vice presidential nomination. Two high ranking environmentalists had also taken $1,000 from Moon’s Unification Church for speeches at a media conference: Marion Clawson of Resources for the Future and Donella Meadows, lead author of The Limits to Growth. What, if anything, did that mean?[3]

A little more poking around revealed that Jay Weiss was not the producer originally assigned to investigate Gore’s allegations. The original producer of the “Environmental Science for Sale” segment had been 12-year ABC News veteran Tara Sonenshine. Sonenshine had started her career as a booker, the person who finds newsmakers and makes appointments for interviews. She had a Rolodex® to kill for by the time she became an assistant producer. She knew just about every newsmaker in the world when she received the promotion to full producer, including Al Gore and Tim Wirth and his rich wife Wren.

Sonenshine took Gore’s story and ran with it as if she were Gore’s advocate. She scripted it as a truly vicious hit piece. Her original version had painted Lyndon LaRouche operative Rogelio Maduro as a crackpot with ties to the wise use movement, the culprit who allegedly sank the Biodiversity Treaty.[4] It also crucified University of Virginia Professor Patrick Michaels—who, like Fred Singer, challenged global warming computer models—for accepting research funding from industry.[5] It took every cheap shot in the book: sinister lighting to make Professor Michaels look unsavory, industry-sponsored film footage with no context, a one-sided slam against everyone it didn’t like. It was the perfect Green Cartel reprisal.

Sonenshine’s show was scheduled to air early in February, but a Nightline assistant producer told me Koppel didn’t like its tone and demanded changes. Sonenshine was chagrined. My source said that during an acrimonious staff meeting, she departed. Whether she was fired or resigned depends on who you ask.

The February 8 edition of The Washington Post carried “Rumour du jour: Tara Sonenshine, editorial producer at ABC News’s ‘Nightline,’ is headed for a policy job with national security adviser Anthony Lake. She has been with ‘Nightline’ for 12 years.”[6]

The Washington Post reported on February 14 that Tara Sonenshine had been appointed special assistant to the president and deputy director for communications at the National Security Council, “working on longer-term projects, which some uncharitably call an effort to make NSC chief Anthony Lake more TV-genic.”[7]

Did Al Gore give her that job as a weenie for doing a hatchet job on the wise use movement? Or as a getaway route when the hatchet broke?

Ten days later, “Environmental Science For Sale” was broadcast, much changed, a combination of clips from Sonenshine’s hit piece and the Weiss remake.

Sonenshine lasted less than a year at NSC before going to work covering national security for Newsweek.[8]

[1] “Environmental Science For Sale,” ABC News Nightline, Ted Koppel, Transcript No. 3329, February 24, 1994.

[2] “The Environmental Movement’s Latest Enemy,” ABC News Nightline, Ted Koppel, Transcript No. 2792, February 4, 1992..

[3] Telephone interview with Tom Ward of the Unification Church, New York, March 10, 1994.

[4] Telephone interview with Rogelio “Roger” Maduro, Leesburg, Virginia, February 25, 1994. The actual individuals behind the anti-treaty call-in campaign were Tom McDonnell, consultant Michael Coffman, Ph.D. and Kathleen Marquardt of Putting People First.

[5] Telephone interview with Prof. Patrick Michaels, Charlottesville, Virginia, February 25, 1994.

[6] “The TV Column,” The Washington Post, February 8, 1994, by John Carmody, p. C4.

[7] “The Federal Page – In The Loop,” The Washington Post, February 14, 1994, by Al Kamen, p. A13.

[8] “Media Notes,” The Washington Post, June 21, 1995, by Howard Kurtz, p. D1.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 20, 2014 12:20 pm

Met her once. At a Stanford AGW presentation. Gave me the creeps… Something set off all my “be aware and alert” reactions. (All just my opinion, FWIW). Highly partisan (to say the least) and with a tendency to radiate nastiness at topics / people who did not follow her lead / direction. Decided not to ask much, nor say much, and just leave her and those gathered to praise her in mutual ego massage…
I’m generally considered to have a pretty good “people reader”. I’d not trust her behind me in an elevator (and would assure my back was to the side-wall near the buttons and exit…) I’d preferably take the next car and cross the street to avoid walking the same way…
Yes, that creepy.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 20, 2014 12:53 pm

Never met her, but everything I’ve read about her leads me to be thankful for that fact.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 20, 2014 3:52 pm

I get a similar impression from looking at the above photo.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 20, 2014 5:52 pm

Selling hatred and lies dressed up as science will do strange things to a person.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 21, 2014 12:37 am

I have been doing some googling on IPCC lads who have taken money from Big Tobacco. Interesting results – see
Incidentally, I couldn’t find info re whether the French Philip Morris Science Prize paid USD100,000 per winner as the German one does, or even whether the German one took in French nationals as well.
Help on this appreciated.

Reply to  tonythomas061
October 21, 2014 12:38 am

Also for those who missed it, Naomi Oreskes’ great puppy and kitten extinction see

Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 21, 2014 1:05 am

She sure delivers a slippery “deconstruction” in theis video from another member of the viscous organic fluid department:

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 21, 2014 11:00 am

Thanks for the link. I am sure that the video was edited and so the following is based on the clip presented.. What struck me about Oreskes little rant was that she only asked rhetorical questions, made numerous unsupported attributions about Minchin’s views and evinced a level of certainty about her position that was then and is now totally unjustified.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 22, 2014 8:02 am

Togther with the late Schneider, Stanford have much to answer for.

October 20, 2014 12:37 pm

Beauty may be only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.

The Other Phil
Reply to  DickF
October 20, 2014 1:24 pm

How is that helpful?

Reply to  The Other Phil
October 20, 2014 2:48 pm


Reply to  The Other Phil
October 20, 2014 2:53 pm

Although should be obvious, good explanation here:
Quote is by Dorothy Parker:
Perhaps the “Beauty” part was confusing , by obvious appearance.

Reply to  The Other Phil
October 20, 2014 2:53 pm

Think about it.

Reply to  The Other Phil
October 20, 2014 3:18 pm

Touche, Alexander.

Reply to  The Other Phil
October 20, 2014 4:22 pm

BeautyorBeast on October 20, 2014 at 2:53 pm
– – – – – – –
That was a great Dorothy Parker quote.
Speaking of Dorothy Parker’s famous quotes.
Famously sharp tongued art critic Dorothy Parker said about the acting of Englishwoman Dame Edith Evans, “She looks like something that would eat its young”

george e. smith
Reply to  The Other Phil
October 20, 2014 4:54 pm

If you noticed, this post by Ron Arnold was stated to be a “guest opinion”.
In which case, it is not some piece of science for us to digest / comment on.
Ergo, I think it is legit for others to voice their “opinions”, so long as they keep it within house rules.
I’ve not met the person, or Ron. But I value E.M.’s opinion.
So I would have no desire to meet or converse with Miss/Ms/Mrs/whatever Oreskes.
I have a natural aversion to busybodies.

Steve R
October 20, 2014 12:40 pm

How about the cliff notes version. What is the take away lesson for those Add-types who only made it to the fourth paragraph?

October 20, 2014 12:46 pm

[snip – I won’t tolerate that sort of stuff here – Anthony]

Reply to  Col Mosby
October 20, 2014 12:52 pm

Is this kind of comment really necessary?

Reply to  Col Mosby
October 20, 2014 12:57 pm

[snip per above – Anthony]

Reply to  markstoval
October 20, 2014 2:16 pm

Ironic. I was attacking that fellow for his comment in my snarky way and picked up my first ship. Oh well, such is life.

Reply to  markstoval
October 20, 2014 2:17 pm

I can’t spell tonight! “picked up my first snip“, not ship. Darn. (and yes, this is a Mac doing that)

The Other Phil
Reply to  Col Mosby
October 20, 2014 1:25 pm

I agree with Contrari. You can wipe out ten thoughtful comments with crap like that.

Reply to  Col Mosby
October 20, 2014 4:05 pm

That’s not your mother, that’s a man, ba-by!

October 20, 2014 12:55 pm

If the scientific evidence really did show that increased anthropogenic CO2 release was a problem, then there would be no need for the decades long slime campaign and the screaming that “the debate is over”.
We don’t really know how the sun works. We barely know how the earth’s weather machine works. We are still discovering how volcanoes and continental drift (yes, what the discoverer called it — not the renamed “plate tectonics) impact climate, and we don’t fully understand the role of water (in its various forms) in the weather engine. We don’t know if, when, or how many times the earth may have suffered large impacts from space objects and what that may have done to the climate. We don’t really know what natural cycles may be in play as the resolution and quality of past reconstructions is not all that great.
What we do know is that political activists (both inside and outside of science) will use underhanded tactics to marginalize those that question their agenda and their mythology. They will do this because they know the evidence is against them. They would be all nice and pleasant if they thought that the evidence was really n their favor.

Reply to  markstoval
October 20, 2014 3:08 pm

“Contentinental Drift” is a nice popularization term, but “plate tectonics” is far more descriptive to a geologist. “Tectonics” has to do with the uplift of mountain ranges and other large scale features. Prior to the proof of spreading crust along the oceanic ridges, the best theory available for how mountains lifted themselves was called geosynclinal theory, which in the really short form simply argued that over time high places became low, and low places became elevated. There was lots of NON-computer modeling, thermodynamics, estimates of thermal output from radioactive isotopes in granite versus the rock’s conductivity, all directed to demonstrating a mathematically, physically and thermodynamically consistent model of how mountains formed. What Wegener offered was an hypothesis. The debate was not really of interest to him, though he did suggest that mid-oceans ridges might be tied in. Primarily he argued that centrifugal force was the driver.

Reply to  Duster
October 20, 2014 4:30 pm

Duster: Good reply. Continents DO drift – because of great density-related motions in the stuff they float on – and not because of the wind, or spin, or just because they have a footloose fancy.

Arno Arrak
Reply to  Duster
October 20, 2014 5:06 pm

Continental drift is not just nice, it is the original designation of what was happening to the continents. Plate tectonics is not an equivalent of continental drift, it is merely the explanation of how continental drift is possible. The opposition to Wegener came from old-timers who argued that there was no way continents could move because solid rock was in the way. When a way was found they had to put down that upstart Wegener so they decided to subsume his theory into the “more general” theory of how continental drift works. I took a geology class in my senior year in college and the professor actually ranted against Wegener. I had found some chain corals in the rocks on the eastern side of the Baltic Sea. At a class outing to the Catskills I found the same corals in the Kaaterskill limestone there. I was afraid to point it out to the professor because I wanted to pass the course.

Reply to  markstoval
October 20, 2014 11:14 pm

Indeed one of the give a ways of how ‘unsettled ‘ the science really is , can be found in the massive use of smoke and mirrors in seen in trying to claim it is settled.

Shawn from High River
October 20, 2014 12:58 pm

Legal action all the way!!

October 20, 2014 1:01 pm

“If they can get the public to believe that ozone wasn’t worth acting on, that they were led in the wrong direction by scientists, then there’s no reason for the public to believe anything about any environmental issue.”
With modern environmentalism being largely a political and religious movement we DO have legitimate reasons to be skeptical about anything they say. It’s very hard for the average person to separate real environmental issues from activism.

John F. Hultquist
October 20, 2014 1:02 pm
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 20, 2014 1:40 pm

Or WUWT, or skeptics, generally.

Reply to  dp
October 20, 2014 3:55 pm

nor cats or dogs, rabbits, hamsters, hedgehogs, etc etc etc

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 20, 2014 1:46 pm

Lubos is on a very singular journey.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 20, 2014 3:44 pm

I don’t understand this comment. And the link is circular. No references to Lubosch

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 20, 2014 10:14 pm
Frank K.
October 20, 2014 1:03 pm

You would think that left-wing progressives like Oreskes could make their points using logic and facts rather than slime and innuendo. Unfortunately, the modern CAGW climate science movement is so filled with vindictive political hacks and pseudo-scientists that it’s hard to sort the honest scientists from the flakes.
Folk in the US. Please remember that you can help end this madness by voting appropriately in November. Right now, I am optimistic that we are going to see a wave election, and that we stand a good chance of defunding the CAGW climate science machine once and for all. Please do your part. Thanks!

Reply to  Frank K.
October 20, 2014 3:21 pm

That would be , Frank, if they had points of logic and fact … lies and slime is all they have. Particularly in the government’s science, its ugliness “goes all the way to the bone”.

Reply to  Streetcred
October 21, 2014 3:01 am

Isn’t the phrase “government’s science” somewhat of an oxymoron?

Reply to  Frank K.
October 20, 2014 3:58 pm

Logic and facts? ???? Serously?
NONOnonononononono…that is not the currency in which they trade 😉 This is about feelings, and marketing. If it were about facts, the tent would have folded decades ago.
I really laughed out loud when I read the part about creating doubt. Every piece I’ve read from the Team talks about “may”, “might”, “could”…not a statement of fact in anything we read from them.

Reply to  Frank K.
October 20, 2014 4:15 pm

Hate and lies are intrinsic to the CAGW movement; it’s not a climate science movement, it’s fundamentally a psyop to disguise a misanthropic and dishonest political and financial agenda, using the same perception manipulation techniques used by the same people to promote support for wars by ‘us’ against horribly evil ‘thems’. The emotional content of the AGW-alarmist campaign; the constant puerile name-calling and personal denigration of climate scientists by pro-AGW political scientists, seems blatant enough to distinguish the AGW movement from anything related to science. I’m surprised that the general public hasn’t questioned AGW-alarmism solely in response to the hostility of AGW supporters – it definitely exceeds any hostility I’m aware of based on religion or nationality.

Frank K.
Reply to  cassidy421
October 20, 2014 5:52 pm

I suppose my point is that under “normal” scientific debate (which DOES happen all the time), people make their points using evidence, logic, data, and coherent arguments. You can always agree to disagree if both arguments have valid points. Ultimately, answers will come in the form of more data and evidence, which can confirm one side or the other.
Unfortunately, CAGW climate science (which is just another branch of radical left-wing progressivism) is not about, nor has it ever been about science, but rather about **politics** and **control of the masses**. If you think about it, these people couldn’t care less about polar bears as long as they get to ban coal, oil and other things they don’t like.
I also believe we’ve reached a tipping point with these people. They now have lots of money and power and are wielding it at every opportunity. If we compromise or give in to any of their demands, they will NOT stop, but continue with their radical agenda and (as we can see in the case cited here in the OP) destroy people if they are deemed a threat to the cause. We therefore MUST defeat them politically, and we MUST try to stop their encroachment on our freedoms. If we don’t do it now, I’m afraid that our nation will become so radicalized that it will take generations to undo the damage. Therefore I urge everyone here in the US to please vote this November with these left-wing progressives in mind. “Climate change” is just the beginning…

October 20, 2014 1:06 pm

If I click on the Oreskes documentary link it goes to “nothing found”. I’m on an iPhone.

Reply to  Scute
October 20, 2014 1:30 pm

Fixed – some issue with wordpress caused a link substitution…or it could be user error on my part, couldn’t tell

Gunga Din
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 20, 2014 2:05 pm

Thanks for fixing it.
As of the time I’m writing this there were about 8 comments there. 7 skeptics and one Oreskes supporter with his fingers in his ears basically saying, “Make them stop!”

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 20, 2014 3:04 pm

I have a suspicion that Gunga Din’s “Oreskes supporter” is in fact the author of the Blog itself – Astray?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 20, 2014 3:26 pm

mikemUK, it was. I didn’t know it was his blog. But to his credit, he didn’t just delete them.
(Now it he’d just take his fingers out of his ears….8-)

October 20, 2014 1:09 pm

The first link in the post leads to an empty page.
[Fixed, thx. ~mod.]

Gary Pearse
October 20, 2014 1:23 pm

This may be a good story but the author is perhaps so exercised by the smears and the past hatchet work that he leaves me wondering about some central issues. eg.: Who, what, where, why is the “wise use movement”? I’m not usually that much of an outsider. It reads to me like everyone is supposed to know about this organization. Maybe comments will be more edifying.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 20, 2014 1:48 pm

I looked up the “wise use movement” and it sounds pretty wise to me, Gary. To socialists? Not so much.

October 20, 2014 1:27 pm

At one time Naomi Oreskes made some sense. In 1994 she was first author on a paper discussing numerical models in earth sciences. The abstract starts with this sentence: “Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible.”
I wonder what sent her down the ideologue track.

Reply to  Gary
October 20, 2014 3:29 pm


Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  brians356
October 20, 2014 3:48 pm

Ego and intellectual hubris

Reply to  Gary
October 20, 2014 4:18 pm

15 minutes of fame and fortune.

Reply to  Gary
October 22, 2014 8:31 am

Gary: Thanks for the link. I read the Oreske, Shader-Frechette and Belitz paper from Science (1994). I don’t get it. How did this rather mundane, hair splitting article get into Science. Much of this semantic quibbling is undergraduate level stuff. I am astonished that it appeared in Science.

October 20, 2014 1:31 pm

Same thing here, the first link doesn’t connect (I’m on a Toshiba laptop).
[Fixed, thx. ~mod.]

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 20, 2014 4:21 pm

No, thx to you…you guys are always on-the job…

October 20, 2014 1:34 pm

Throughout human history I would believe that it has always been the mean and nasty people who latch onto all “anti-movements” and lead those movements over the cliff. Unfortunately they usually take a lot of good people with them….DDT elimination, fossil fuel and GM restrictions causes huge suffering for the poor.
In this case the “CAGW mean and ugly crowd” are taking not only humanity down a dark path but science as well. I for one have no trust in any activist sponsored science anymore and the public no longer understands the difference between real science and activist tyrannical science so they mistrust all of it.

Reply to  jjs
October 20, 2014 4:21 pm

Unfortunately, I think only SOME of us mistrust all of it. Most people, sadly, love life in their echo chambers. It’s comfortable there.
I believe one of the biggest problems is that we no longer promote/teach critical thinking, and are now paying the price for that grave mistake.

Reply to  jjs
October 20, 2014 7:50 pm

These are indeed the dark days of science . No new great discoveries since the 60s.
The optimism in the 50s and 60s for all things science gave children hope for the future.
The science of today is based on fear of the future. It is no longer as much about discovery as it is about entertainment and distraction

Reply to  Mick
October 21, 2014 11:24 am

That was when a certain generation decided they would have a paradigm shift to a scientific model that assumes every chemical is guilty of being a carcinogen or harmful to the atmosphere. No matter what the quantity, no matter what the chemical, no matter what the benefits, every chemical is studied for its harms. It follows that even carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide would be accused of crimes against the earth.
I just realized the full scope of the wool that was pulled over my eyes, by the 60’s generation.
Where does it end….

October 20, 2014 1:44 pm

OK, I’m a bit slow and I have bad eyes, but for the life of me I couldn’t figure out why a picture of Howard Stern was accompanying this article. I’m not kidding.
Then I realized…

Reply to  H.R.
October 20, 2014 3:03 pm

…he had a bad haircut.

Reply to  H.R.
October 20, 2014 3:31 pm

I thought it was Bob Dylan.

October 20, 2014 1:45 pm

Ms. Oreskes has been overtly writing fiction for sometime. When one considers the quality of her work, perhaps that time was from the start.

Eamon Butler
October 20, 2014 2:04 pm

She’s a particularly nasty piece of work. ‘Nuff said about her.

October 20, 2014 2:08 pm

I saw Naomi Oreskes talk at two AGU Fall Meetings in San Francisco. She was quite agitated as she spoke with some abrupt gestures and with some almost baleful facial expressions. She expressed vehement denouncement of any person or organization who is critical of her claims of knowing, with scientific certainty, that there will be total catastrophe from fossil fuels. She was making a case for a grand con$piracy against her climate change movement. Her vehement dislike included the IPCC who she accused of being too conservative because, she explained, the IPCC was being subverted by the fossil fuel industry.

Reply to  John Whitman
October 20, 2014 4:25 pm

One could only hope…

Mr Green Genes
October 20, 2014 2:09 pm

The Guardian regularly gives her space. ‘Nuff said.

October 20, 2014 2:15 pm

Meanwhile, just heard on BBC radio that NOAA released September 2014 Land/Sea surface temperature update, says 2014 is “on course to set a new hottest year on record”, proof that “warming is accelerating at pace” (BBC’s words) so they’re doubling down, chaps.

Reply to  brians356
October 20, 2014 4:12 pm

Wunderground has a similar ‘hottest ever’ that cites NOAA data as well. Guess they missed the ‘no warming for 18 years’ sats and the 1998 spike up never been beaten and the 100 year records snows globally and….

Christopher Hanley
October 20, 2014 2:19 pm

I’m looking forward to the stage when they start fighting amongst themselves.
It always happens.

October 20, 2014 2:22 pm

It’s Naomi’s favorite season, Halloween.
This year she’ll be optimistically dressing as “the princess”.

van Loon
October 20, 2014 2:37 pm

Fred Singer doesn’t need support from the fuel industry.

October 20, 2014 2:38 pm

The links are to your local computer:

Stu Miller
October 20, 2014 2:53 pm

The link in the comment by John F. Hultquist
October 20, 2014 at 1:02 pm returns me direct to a new copy of Watt’s Up

October 20, 2014 3:05 pm

From the main post by Ron Arnold and its links, I cannot find a recent video or a transcript or a document by Naomi Oreskes where she actually has (recently) called Singer a ‘Liar for Hire’.
Can someone point me to where Oreskes recently said that?

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  John Whitman
October 21, 2014 12:36 pm

John Whitman, I see what you mean. The phrase seems to be due to the reviewer of the documentary film which is called “Merchants of Doubt”, not due to Oreskes.

October 20, 2014 3:10 pm

Since Naomi Oreskes is a “Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences” and a GEOLOGIST she should consider how history might view here if CAGW is shown to be exaggerated (which it has been for 18+ years of no surface global warming). If the world goes into cooling will she still call people names? I am tempted to call her names but I will resist the urge to attack such very easy targets like her. Many Liars For Hire can be found at the funding troughs of ‘Climate Change’ research.
Naomi knows that the IPCC uses models to make projections. What did she think of them before?

Abstract – 1994
Naomi Oreskes et al
Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences
Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. This is
because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always non-unique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic…….
Finally, we must admit that a model may confirm our biases and support incorrect intuitions. Therefore, models are most use-ful when they are used to challenge existing formulations, rather than to validate or verify them. Any scientist who is asked to use a model to verify or validate a predeter-mined result should be suspicious.

October 20, 2014 3:17 pm

“When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 5:00 pm

Most women are damn fools and children. But they’ve got more range then we’ve got. The brave ones are braver, the good ones are better — and the vile ones are viler, for that matter.
― Robert A. Heinlein

Pat Frank
Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 6:27 pm

I know for a fact, that’s not true. Not an exhaustive survey, but much more than one trial.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 21, 2014 12:40 am

I’m lucky, Alexander, mine is a PhD and well published … and I have no complaints 😉

Reply to  Streetcred
October 21, 2014 2:20 am

All complaints to Nietzsche, please.

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 21, 2014 1:06 pm

This and the other misogynistic remarks are a complete waste of readers’ time and attention, and they demean the site.

Reply to  Matthew R Marler
October 22, 2014 1:27 am

Couldn’t agree with you more.
I didn’t realise how much misogyny there is around.
For shame.

October 20, 2014 3:21 pm

“The gods have sent medicines for the venom of serpents, but there is no medicine for a bad woman. She is more noxious than the viper, or than fire itself.”
— Euripides
“Terrible is the force of the waves of sea, terrible is the rush of the river and the blasts of hot fire, and terrible are a thousand other things; but none is such a terrible evil as woman.”
— Euripides

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 5:02 pm

Women are amazing creatures-sweet, soft, gentle, and far more savage than we are.
― Robert A. Heinlein

Juliette Curtis
Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 21, 2014 6:09 am

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
–Rudyard Kipling

October 20, 2014 3:24 pm

“There is no fouler fiend than a woman when her mind is bent to evil.”
— Homer

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 5:04 pm

Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
― Robert A. Heinlein

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  dbstealey
October 20, 2014 8:10 pm

“No woman, no cry.”
– Bob Marley 🙂

Reply to  dbstealey
October 20, 2014 10:09 pm

“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
–William Congreve

October 20, 2014 3:26 pm

“Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.”
— Karl Marx
We had enough of the Marxist progress, hadn’t we?

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 9:21 pm

Agreed. Social progress meaning control of the populations. (Apologies for the long reply)
Men are the biggest threat to their control of the populations. In every takeover or suppression of an enemy throughout history the men were taken out first. Men are more likely to view totalitarian authority as an alpha male threat whereas women are more likely to view it as a protector (related to women liking the ‘bad boys’). Men are thus more likely to challenge authority and are physically more dangerous.
Globalist inspired feminism is also about societal divide and conquer. They need to destroy the social fabric to make it harder for familial relationships to form particularly between men and women as families provide cohesion and resistance against tyranny. So pushing women to abandon traditional nurturing female traits and to pursue male qualities creates friction as men have evolved to protect and compliment women not compete with them. Relationships have become harder to form between men and women, divorce is at an all time high, marriage at an all time low as women abandon their biological natures in favour of pursuing masculine traits, ending up with internal conflict and they are often unhappy.
At the heart of feminism lies deception. Feminism was created by the power elite as a communist tool (modelled off Stalinesque Russian female empowerment techniques) to make society more divided, more matriarchal and thus more controllable.

Just Steve
October 20, 2014 3:42 pm

So, the question of the day is….if this stellar example of the fairer sex at one time, for all intents and purposes, denounced models as worthless, and is now a staunch proponent of the “dark side”, why the change of heart and mind?
Well, considering there are only three primary motivations in humans, we guess. Those three are money, sex and power.
Follow the money?

Reply to  Just Steve
October 20, 2014 3:51 pm

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Reply to  brians356
October 20, 2014 5:05 pm

Women talk when they want to. Or don’t.
― Robert A. Heinlein

October 20, 2014 3:50 pm

Leaves me with a middle ground question.
Is Ms Oreskes …
(a) Sincere (believes the CAGW position to be true).
(b) Disingenuous (knows the CAGW position is untenable – but promotes it as true).
If (a) then her statements are biased but honest.
If (b) then her statements may be biased and dishonest.
In legal proceedings, is extra weight added to the prosecution for slander derived from (b), rather than for (a).
When the wheels fall off the CAGW, at a Supreme Court level or fronting up for a Congressional inquiry, methinks trying to show one was (a), while public records show (b) will prove difficult, if not impossible.

October 20, 2014 3:52 pm

Surely it’s possible to cast legitimate aspersions on Oreskes’ research and conclusions without enthusiastically working overtime to tie them directly to her gender…isn’t it? I don’t see people littering alarmist blogs with such statements about Judith Curry. Not a good look for readers on the fence, WUWT.

Reply to  DW
October 20, 2014 3:57 pm

DW: Agreed.
Misogyny is vile.

Reply to  zenrebok
October 20, 2014 4:15 pm

Oh, how sensitive we are that a quote from Greek classics is “vile”!
That’s exactly what’s wrong with the modern society.
Dismount from your moral high horse, it’s dead already.

Reply to  zenrebok
October 20, 2014 5:47 pm

It may be dead, but it’s good and stiff. The problem is what’s going to happen in a couple of hours.

Reply to  zenrebok
October 20, 2014 9:08 pm

Greatest female invention: windshield wipers
That says it all

Reply to  zenrebok
October 20, 2014 10:45 pm

Actually, windshield wipers were invented by Polish great pianist and not-so-great prime minister, Jan Paderewski, who edited, and edited very well, the complete works of Chopin (an enormous achievement in itself).

Reply to  zenrebok
October 20, 2014 11:00 pm

“Dismount from your moral high horse, it’s dead already.”
Ha! Blend of “high horse” and “dead horse.” Fine wit!
“To flog a dead horse” is attributed to John Bright, in 1867, though he may have used the expression in an earlier speech. The earlier Greek equivalent would be “to slay the slain.”
However the quote that applies to Oreskes is “Truth is Beauty” by John Keats. It follows that “Falsehood is ugly”, especially when it is used to trash an honest person like Singer.
For what it is worth, Wikipedia states the expression “dead horse” appeared in the 1700’s in the slang expression, “To work a dead horse,” and, “This use of ‘dead horse’ to refer to pay that was issued before the work was done was an allusion to using one’s money to buy a useless thing (metaphorically, “a dead horse”). Most men paid in advance apparently either wasted the money on drink or other such vices.”
This doesn’t really apply to Alarmists, because they will do almost anything for an advance.

Reply to  DW
October 20, 2014 4:11 pm

There are good women and evil women, as there are good men and evil men.
Oreskes is evil.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 4:32 pm

Misogyny is Vile.
That was not directed at the Greek Classics quote(s), but the gender sentiment.
As for the Greek Classics.
I note a minor semantic similarity between the Greek Orestes, and the not so Greek Oreskes.
Orestes’s Dad, Agamemnon (arguably a misogynist,) fell to his Wife Clytemnestra’s hand out of revenge for sacrificing his own Daughter(probably misogyny) in order to obtain favorable winds.
Seven years later Orestes avenges his Fathers murder, by murdering his Mum Clytemnestra, not sure if that’s Misogyny or not. Probably.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 5:04 pm

Political Correctness is Vile.

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 8:14 pm

“Political correctness is vile.”
+ 10

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 11:19 pm

“Misogyny is Vile.”
I think we can agree that blind hatred of all women is vile, but I think it is a red herring to bring up that topic when we are discussing behavior that is beyond vile, and is truly ugly.
The expression “beauty is only skin deep” refers to superficial beauty, and you can see such beauty vanish in a twinkling if you, for example, call a fashion model “fatty.” (A lovely face can can then become demonic with amazing speed.)
True beauty lies deeper in a person, and radiates outwards. I have known old and wrinkled grandmothers who are truly beautiful.
Conversely, once a person turns to falsehood, it tends to canker and fester like an itch that gets worse the more you scratch it. Unless a person experiences an epiphany, and gets knocked off their high horse like St. Paul, turning to falsehood creates an ugliness that gets worse and worse. I think this is the ugliness people are referring to, and it does not merely merely apply to women like Oreske, but to men like Gore.

Reply to  DW
October 20, 2014 11:47 pm

DW: I absolute agree. It is sad to see a WUWT-thread getting hijacked by gender related OT comments of questionable nature.

Reply to  Pethefin
October 21, 2014 12:27 am

We come here, people of all walks of life, to steam off our disillusion with human stupidity and mendacity. We, rational people, need sense of humor, we need irony, we are the minority persecuted by those who cannot tolerate real diversity, diversity of thought, and many of us are haunted by depression and sense of futility caused by isolation within the crowds. We come here for a gulp of fresh intellectual and emotional air.
And then there are wooden martinets.

Reply to  Pethefin
October 22, 2014 10:50 pm

Alexander, I have no idea what you are referring to with your “wooden martinets”. However, we obviously disagree not only on gender & looks related issues but also on argumentation tactics. In science related issues, I do recommend sticking to facts and leave emotions & appearances out of it. It has worked well with even some of the biggest climate bullies, like William Connolley in this thread:

Reply to  DW
October 21, 2014 12:44 am


Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  DW
October 21, 2014 4:05 am

at least these commentors are not staying silent while they come for Dr Singer.

October 20, 2014 4:13 pm

But she also slimes someone who I have a lot of respect for Marc Marano:
“But the star of this show is the astonishingly charming rogue Marc Morano, a frequent cable-television guest who admits, “I’m not a scientist, but I do play one on TV.” Morano, the founder of, not only spouts his nefarious nonsense about science everywhere he goes but is also in the business of ensuring the mau-mauing of genuine scientific researchers who have felt a responsibility to go public with the dangers we face. “We went after James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer and had a lot of fun with it…we mocked and ridiculed,” Morano brags. He has also published their private e-mails, both as a means of harassment and as a warning to other scientists who might be considering doing the same thing.”
So, I guess truth becomes nonsense in her world. And she defends James Hansen who actually deserves to be slimed. The reason emails are published, is because “climate scientists” are not transparent, and are not releasing their data. (Also, I tried to get through her Ted Talk, but failed).

October 20, 2014 4:24 pm

Throwing dirt on honorable people because they interact with unificationists is a cheap and sleazy tactic of leftists. Who needs arguments if you have a scape-goat?
The Unification Movement has sponsored many conferences for clergy, politicians, journalists, scientists, etc., most of them before the downfall of Communism. The demise of the atheistic empire has been a big part of the meetings’ purpose, and we tried to bring right and left, racial and religious opposites, etc., together, so that they might reduce what divided them and increase what they had in common, to stand against the destroyer of liberty and enemy of the search for truth.
The ideologically driven leftists hated us by default, those driven by compassion often worked together with us. The ideologically driven conservatives hated our theology (Jesus is the Second Adam, not God – sorry Mr. Courtney) but liked the anti-communist and moral education. That surely always guaranteed a lively exchange of views and, with a lot of prayer, diplomacy and self-denial, broke down many barriers between our diverse guests.
The UM did not benefit directly, but, so to say, often paid their enemies’ hotel and travel. What the members had fundraised on the streets was spent mainly for living and these expensive conferences. So I lived on the dime, but spent freely to subsidize rich pastor’s air-fare. Yes, I was glad that they could boast about inter-religious cooperation afterwards, and that they had become aware that Communism was their enemy and not their Russian friend.
The „Unity of Science“ meetings, which Dr. Singer probably has attended, seem to have been very fruitful and I always have been looking forward to read its proceedings. Often attendees published articles in the now defunct „The World and I“, the best monthly magazine I ever read, and other non-religious journals.
One note: When people are in office, they try to avoid you, if you are smeared by the mainstream media. As soon as they have retired, they don’t mind to pay everything themselves, if the meeting is of interest to them and they don’t care much about the media’s noise.

October 20, 2014 4:30 pm

Re-read the article, thinking less about Naomi…
Gotta say, I’ve always felt like Ted Koppel was a fair guy. Now I’m sure of it.
Maybe it’s just my natural ‘nice guy schmoo’ nature, but I’ve never understood (nor accepted) the “hit piece” or the “character assassination” or “negative ads” or any of it. Make YOUR case, then leave it be. I guess that no longer applies in Science. (At one time that was a major draw of the sciences, for me.) Now with Politicized Science, it’s all slime all the time.
We really do need to find a way to fix that. Starting by making any “non-profit” that pushes political agendas unable to remain a non-profit wouldn’t hurt. Hey, if my Pastor can’t say “abortion is evil” without threat of losing non-profit status; then saying “carbon is evil” ought to be in the same boat.
At any rate, it needs a fix. Somehow.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 22, 2014 11:41 am

The Pastor can say that. Non-profits agree not to endorse candidates. Law does not restrict teaching about issues or discussing truth and civil society in light of scripture. Frivolous lawsuits can be brought, but they have no basis in law.
Recent examples of frivolous lawsuits include the subpoena issued to Houston pastors for their sermons and communications regarding homosexuality.
Another significant suit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation against the IRS has resulted in a settlement which calls for greater scrutiny of churches for offenses and enforcement of non-profit regulations. I think this is meant to have a chilling effect and increase surveillance, at public expense. So Pastors should know that they can preach and teach the truth – and they have not been endorsing candidates at election time for a long time. Besides, that has always been selectively applied. Notice Clinton’s frequent visits to black churches during elections.

October 20, 2014 4:44 pm

Naomi Oreskes is, probably, the biggest help to scale down all the alarmism about climate dynamics. Her speech is so ridiculous that she even “embarrasses” alarmists. Let the creature speak, do not bother. Her science is near “0” or bellow that.
See this opinion from someone that believes in climate change (the AW one) and read her book:

Delurked Lurker
October 20, 2014 5:36 pm

I am glad I am not the only one whothought this article was prefaced with a picture of Bob Dylan

Bill Illis
October 20, 2014 5:44 pm

Oreskes forecasts in her new book that cats and dogs will go extinct in 9 years (2023) because of global warming. Believe it or not but its true.
Just shock-factor exaggeration?
Well, then how do we know when she is just exaggerating for effect or telling the truth?
How far will she go in exaggeration for effect? Does that include academic papers?
Well, there is no limit apparently. And no-limit exaggerators are most often just called “liars” because that is what they are.

October 20, 2014 5:51 pm

Ms. Oreskes has the gall to complain about other non-scientists who have opinions on so-called climate change while she writes “C” grade science fiction predicting cats are going extinct from her cliamte apocalypse.
Calling Ms. Oreskes an ignorant hypocrite seems like an insult to ignorant hypocrites.

Chip Javert
October 20, 2014 6:01 pm

On paper, Ms Oreskes’ academic pedigree looks fantastic…then she opens her mouth, and you’re just left to wonder what the hell went wrong.
Her shrill screed plays well with her low-information base; the silver lining is she can’t marshall her (alleged) intelligence and education to craft a more compelling and less ad hominem message.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Washington
Reply to  Chip Javert
October 22, 2014 5:59 am

It also tells us something about ‘degrees for sale’ universities intent on quantity over quality. If you pay enough, apparently, you pass. This is extraordinary.

Orson Olson
October 20, 2014 6:13 pm

“Oreskes is [weirdly] creepy?” I believe it. So, why does Cal Tech historian, Eric Conway, write with her?
Apparently, Conway did his PhD at the University of Minnesota in their History of Science, Technology, and Medicine program. I presume it’s a program that was captured by social science marxism – critical theory – during the 90s, which assumes “unmasking power” as its de-privileged lectern to preach to the dumb masses.
Put another way, how is it that Oreskes, trained in geology, got captured by mendacious Marxists? There must be an intriguing story here that unmasks the powerful.

October 20, 2014 6:13 pm

As regards Oreskes’ book and the new forthcoming documentary based on it, let me do a review of her work by paraphrasing an ancient Horace quote.

“It is no great art to say something briefly when, like Tacitus Oreskes, one has something to say; when one like Oreskes, has nothing to say, however, and none the less writes a whole book and makes truth into a liar – that I call an achievement.”
{Apologies to Horace for paraphrasing his wonderful quote – JW}


Steve Oregon
October 20, 2014 6:14 pm

Her dishonesty grotesquely blatant.
Here she not only invents a false reality of what is occuring but she actually claims climate model projections have NOT been SEVERE enough.
Isn’t that something> She wants them to be even more wrong than they are?
“Arctic sea ice is retreating at an unprecedented rate, sea levels are rising more rapidly than anticipated, and the sea-surface temperatures that drive tropical storms and hurricanes are rising, too.
Another topic at last month’s gathering was how the latest climate models do not account for the additional warming caused by methane release from thawing permafrost and the continental shelves. This means that the generally accepted projections for what may happen in the coming decades are almost certainly not the worst-case scenarios.”
And this-
“… threat of a Nazi atomic bomb, it was viewed as imminent. Today we face a threat that is somewhat less immediate but far less speculative.”
“An obvious response is to engage the national laboratory system to study options to reduce or alleviate climate change, which the president could do by executive order.”
She plays the Nazi card then recommends a Nazi like executive takeover?
Imagine if Naomi were in charge of anything.
I’m pretty sure she would find many people expendable for the sake of the cause.

Chip Javert
October 20, 2014 6:23 pm

You state “climate deniers argue carbon dioxide is such a scant component of the atmosphere that it could not possibly play any climatic role”.
I’m sure some screwball is saying that somewhere, but the other 99% of us stipulate the climate has indeed warmed from the LIA, but it simply hasn’t warmed in the last 17-20 years, as required by climate CO2/warming models forecast. Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Feynman all knew if ACCURATE REAL DATA doesn’t match the theory, THE THEORY IS WRONG.
It’s a simple as that. Notice I didn’t emote about your use of the term “denier”, as in “holocaust denier”.

Chip Javert
October 20, 2014 6:25 pm

Whoops – thought I was commenting on the warmest website distancing itself from Oreskes’ book.
Mea culpa.

October 20, 2014 6:47 pm

Richard Lindzen
short clip
How Science can be Politically Useful
Full Presentation by Lindzen to DDP (Doctors for Disaster Preparedness)
Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics (1995)

Reply to  brent
October 21, 2014 5:01 pm

Big oil versus the environment is the central fiction of AGW-alarmism. I recently found these articles on the Enron-Gore-Greenpeace-Kyoto-Hansen-Carbon trading connection, and a 1998 letter signed by Enron’s Ken Lay in which he “and a few other bigwigs asked President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue, because these individuals were standing in Enron’s way. The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to moderate the political aspects of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission. The purpose of this commission was clear – high-level trashing of dissident scientists. Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists that Enron was trying to shut up. After considering all of the inconsistencies in climate science, the report concluded: “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.” One of Enron’s major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony.”
The Kyoto Conspiracy (Gore, Enron, Carbon Trading, Global Warming)
Investigate Magazine ^ | March 2006
I wasn’t aware that White House involvement in the destruction of scientists and climate science is a 16-year long formal agenda, and that it originated specifically to benefit the oil industry.

October 20, 2014 7:37 pm

I thought that that was an old photo of Bob Dylan?

Jim Z
Reply to  Dan
October 20, 2014 8:37 pm

Dan, no Bob Dylan is a lot uglier…

Reply to  Jim Z
October 21, 2014 6:48 pm

YouTube has banned Bob Dylan originals (or Dylan Has banned YouTube) So it took some time to find the place where Dylan says “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”:

October 20, 2014 8:51 pm

My wife of 33 years agrees with me in that ugly women form a foundation of any modern tyranny, including bureaucratic and politically correct tyranny.
Does this make me a misogynist?

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 9:46 pm

Cut it out already. You seem to have entirely forgotten or misunderstood what WUWT is about.

Reply to  Pethefin
October 20, 2014 10:14 pm

Who are you to define for me, what WUWT is about?
Or, maybe, there is some truth that you don’t like to read about?
Truth hurts sometimes. Learn to live with it.

Reply to  Pethefin
October 20, 2014 11:05 pm

This is truly getting embarrassing. WUWT is about climate related issues NOT about your views on politics, gender etc. Mods are the ones defining the WUWT, not me. By the way, who are you to determine the truth on gender related issues?
There’s more than enough to talk about when it comes to the role and behaviour of Oreskes as a scientist…

Reply to  Pethefin
October 21, 2014 9:30 pm

WUWT where pretty lies perish

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 20, 2014 10:51 pm

Whether or not your wife agrees with you is immaterial. It is a defense along the lines of “some of my best friends are (minority of your choice)”.
Does this make you a misogynist? Also immaterial. By focusing on her looks you are failing to engage the real danger, which is her message.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 21, 2014 1:07 am

Nonsense. Looks tell volumes about a person. Much more than her incoherent lies.
Message? An excessively honorable term, in her case. I’ve been arguing against Oreskes’ “message” back in the 90s, when WUWT didn’t exist yet, and the only place to find some rational views was Steve Milloy’s junkscience site. Arguing with robbers doesn’t get you anywhere.
What good does it do, repeating again and again the same arguments in the face of people who are having fun at your expense? They know they are liars, arguments are futile. What they are afraid of is being a laughing stock, being ridiculed, emotionally rejected, publicly despised.
Not to mention that my wife’s agreement with my views is very material to me.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 21, 2014 4:18 pm

We are trying to win the hearts and minds of all kinds of people. If you are demeaning the way Oreskes looks, your target ends up being many more people who might otherwise be sympathetic to us.

October 20, 2014 11:25 pm

Naomi Oreskes
It follows logically
is, ergo [INV]
for hire, also.

October 21, 2014 12:10 am

“Laws have been passed against important industrial chemicals because computer models predict them to deplete ozone or cause global warming. Dr. Singer points out flaws in computer models, noting that realistic risk assessments rather than computerized guesswork or emotional scare tactics are needed for sound public policy. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund told Koppel he was so worried about the wise use movement because, “If they can get the public to believe that ozone wasn’t worth acting on, that they were led in the wrong direction by scientists, then there’s no reason for the public to believe anything about any environmental issue.”
My gratitude to Dr. Fred Singer, for working in these directions for decades. It would be incredible to bring up the banning of harmless, effective CFCs – and how as soon as the ozone holes were discovered at the poles, they were said to be increasing in size because of human activity. In reality they fluctuate constantly. This is a really important topic.
The generation following him will try to do the same scientific hatchet work on every single chemical we use, in agriculture, energy, and manufacturing.

October 21, 2014 12:15 am

Perhaps the poor woman has simply gone mad. Many people are too polite to tell a mad person they are mad, to their face, but word gets around.
When more and more people walk out on a sermon, the church will soon echo.

Charles Nelson
October 21, 2014 12:35 am

She may have some weird opinions, but you’ve got to admit she’s hot.

Reply to  Charles Nelson
October 21, 2014 1:52 am


Gunga Din
Reply to  Alexander Feht
October 21, 2014 2:42 pm

I think (I hope) he was making a play on words, global “warming” etc.

Pete Olson
October 21, 2014 3:14 am

I’m pretty sure that is a picture of either Bob Dylan or Howie Mandell…

Reply to  Pete Olson
October 21, 2014 1:48 pm

A Simple Sailor, me.
Some of this thread seems to be ad hominem concern [I put it no stronger].
I am not – hitherto – aware of the Lady Oreskes.
Basis above – I’m glad – but is that ad hominem [Or female equivalent, which my Latin does not manage . . . . . . . .] or evidence based?
[Bit late for me to read the entire thread. Sorry if I’ve skipped bits.]

October 21, 2014 7:12 am

The main post “Slimed by Naomi Oreskes” brings up a ‘chicken-or-the egg’ question.
Is it Oreskes excreting slime or is it climate changed slime oozing into Oreskes? Hmmm, both seem plausible. Maybe there is a symbiotic relationship.

October 21, 2014 9:08 am

Alexander Feht October 21, 2014 at 1:07 am
Nonsense. Looks tell volumes about a person. Much more than her incoherent lies.

Very disappointing to see such a comment in this day and age.
What good does it do, repeating again and again the same arguments in the face of people who are having fun at your expense? They know they are liars, arguments are futile.
So you resort to calling them ugly instead? If the same argument were made by an attractive person, how then would you refute them? Do you really think that all people who spout Oreskes nonsense are ugly? If your arguments are futile, then the fault lies with your arguments. Work on them instead.

Shawn from High River
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 21, 2014 11:20 am

Agreed. It is very distressing to see such thinly veiled (or not) hatred for women. I thought WUWT was better than this

Reply to  Shawn from High River
October 21, 2014 11:44 am

Any one who pursues policies which make water, electricity, crops, and cattle more expensive and less available hates women. That includes the huge environmentalist NGOs and Naomi Oreskes. You could not hate women more than by inflicting these endless, unnavigable, impossible environmental restrictions on local people.

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Shawn from High River
October 21, 2014 11:46 am

Geesh, really ?! The guy (Feht, and others, including myself)) is venting and having a little fun at an evil persons expense, who happens to be reportedly female. Seems to be a lot of thin skin around here lately.
Lighten up some, more serious subjects are right around the corner, then we can all get back to harrumphing, wagging fingers, and the usual ego driven pissing contests.
Laugh now and then … the joke might just be you, or me. 🙂

Siberian Husky
October 21, 2014 8:21 pm

Wow- reading the comments leaves me in no doubt regarding the biases and intellect of the typical reader of WUWT.
Perhaps you should also mention Singer’s views on the health effects of smoking and his relationship with the Tobacco industry? This man has zero credibility on scientific matters.

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Siberian Husky
October 21, 2014 9:00 pm

Well- The highly Connellized Wikipedia has quite a glowing and impressive account of Dr. Singers Scientific credibility, briefly interrupted by some poorly sited and unproven allegations by known agendists.
Perhaps you know something beyond mere allegations that Connepedia has left out ?
I suspect you found the biases you were looking for and were offended prior to arrival.

Siberian Husky
October 21, 2014 11:57 pm

How about you spend 10 seconds searching with “the google”? Some time spent learning how to spell and use basic punctuation might also help.

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Siberian Husky
October 22, 2014 4:59 am

So YOU have no sources or referrals or sites to back up your ugly allegations of another persons “zero credibility” ?
Well heck Husky, at least you’ve got the spelin and puncturation down to a “science”. That’s certainly much more convincing than, you know, actually backing up your words with facts, isn’t it ?
But then, why change tactics now and start using proven facts and data and logical debate when vitriol and BS have worked so well for your “cause” ?

October 22, 2014 1:37 am

I can’t imagine that many intelligent women would want to come back to this site given the amount of misogyny that’s been tolerated here. Why would they bother? For shame.
I know you have a thankless task moderating all your posts, but this is your house and you set the rules.

Reply to  Ian
October 22, 2014 9:51 am

Ian on October 22, 2014 at 1:37 am
“I can’t imagine that many intelligent women would want to come back to this site given the amount of misogyny that’s been tolerated here. Why would they bother?”

– – – – – – – – –
You should be able to get some useful info to address your question with a little easy quick research on your part. You could take, for instance, the 12 WUWT articles before this ‘Slimed by Naomi Oreskes’ article and compare it to the 12 articles since. Look at the number of comments by women in pre-‘Slimed by Naomi Oreskes’ articles to the number in post-‘Slimed by Naomi Oreskes’ articles. I picked ’12’ as the number of articles pre and post because there have only been ~12 articles since the ‘Slimed by Naomi Oreskes’ article. If you wait a week or two you could do a similar analysis on many more articles.
I wish you good hunting on any efforts you make to get an answer to your question.

Reply to  John Whitman
October 22, 2014 11:55 am

That’s the thing about rhetorical questions they…

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  John Whitman
October 22, 2014 1:20 pm

… sometimes have an agenda behind them rather than actual curiosity ?

Gunga Din
Reply to  John Whitman
October 22, 2014 1:34 pm

Some time ago Rosie O’Donnell said something stupid. I better qualify that. She said something stupid about global warming. (I think it had something to do with polar bears and fur coats. I don’t remember now.) It was the subject of a post here.
I made a crack about her appearance.
I later apologized for it saying something to the effect that hot air and balloons just seemed to go together.
Some here have made cracks connecting Oreskes’s words and actions with her appearance. The word “evil” has been used.
Some have said things implying that her appearance are the cause of the evil. Those are off the mark.
I think the intelligent people who come here can tell the difference between the two. Give the former a brake. And, unless you want Anthony to go “Politically Correct” on us, give him a brake too.
BTW Some years ago one of the ugliest women I ever met was also one of the most loving people I ever met. What did she look like? Think of a cross between Rosie and Naomi. Now replace the hot air and the vile with the love of God.
I haven’t seen her for a few decades but I’m a better person for having known her.

Reply to  John Whitman
October 22, 2014 4:51 pm

Gunga Din says:
October 22, 2014 at 1:34 pm
“[. . .]
Some here have made cracks connecting Oreskes’s words and actions with her appearance. The word “evil” has been used.
Some have said things implying that her appearance are the cause of the evil. Those are off the mark.
I think the intelligent people who come here can tell the difference between the two. Give the former a brake. And, unless you want Anthony to go “Politically Correct” on us, give him a brake too.
BTW Some years ago one of the ugliest women I ever met was also one of the most loving people I ever met. What did she look like? Think of a cross between Rosie and Naomi. Now replace the hot air and the vile with the love of God. I haven’t seen her for a few decades but I’m a better person for having known her.”

Gunga Din,
I am not much into late 20th century PC-ness. Yet, as always, when generalizations are attempted about the nature of male humans versus the nature of female humans, the discourse is going to be viewed as potentially sexist by various people. Such conversations normally show a lot about that aspect of the human condition but they can be rough going.
I think describing a person’s (for instance Naomi Oreske’s) appearance in detail will always contain poetic license; it is verbally making a cartoon. It is universally seen in public discourse / comment to make such entertaining verbal caricatures. On this thread it was done with vigorous imagination.
There are some well-articulated reasonable concerns by some commenters on this thread about there being no plausible relationship between:
a) what critics say about the verbal caricatures of Naomi Oreskes
as opposed to
b) what critics say is the critical intellectual ammunition used to destroy the hate filled intellectual stuff seen in Naomi Oreskes’ PR, in her book, and now (apparently) in the documentary based her book.
I think a verbal caricature does tend to often embody some element of parody of the intellectual ideas of the person being caricaturized. N’est ce pas?

Gunga Din
Reply to  John Whitman
October 22, 2014 6:54 pm

….I think a verbal caricature does tend to often embody some element of parody of the intellectual ideas of the person being caricaturized. N’est ce pas?

I don’t think we are in disagreement.
(Can’t you picture Oreskes saying to Dr. Singer, “….and your little dog too!”8-)

Reply to  John Whitman
October 23, 2014 11:24 am

@Gunga Din
October 22, 2014 at 1:34 pm “…”
Cheers. Only one thought can be added.
Vive la difference!

October 22, 2014 3:29 pm

Ian says: October 22, 2014 at 11:55 am
lawrence Cornell says: October 22, 2014 at 1:20 pm
– – – – – – – –
Ian / lawrence Cornell,
. . . . nice tag team commenting . . . . .

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  John Whitman
October 22, 2014 4:30 pm

John Whitman,
Ironically, I was actually implying that Ian’s comment and question was not one of actual curiosity or offense, but was actually intended to disparage and disrupt the WUWT forum by invoking the misogyny accusation. Further I read into your response to Ian a similar attitude of sarcasm, (as in : ” If you REALLY wanted to find out the answer to your question you might … with the implication : “but you REALLY don’t…”) and in fact I was in essence “tag teaming” on his cryptic … non response in support of that theme. I was speaking of Ian’s agenda behind his question.
Thought I was being clever playing off of the … am I now accused of being a troll ?

Reply to  lawrence Cornell
October 22, 2014 4:48 pm

lawrence Cornell on October 22, 2014 at 4:30 pm
– – – – – – – –
lawrence Cornell,
My comment was not intended to be negative about your comment. I am sorry if it appears so. ‘Tag team’ was not meant as a pejorative.
I rather liked your way of completing, in a wonderfully ironic way, what Ian’s apparent initial thrust was. Your comment seemed to artfully go against his thrust. : )

Reply to  lawrence Cornell
October 23, 2014 6:00 am

It’s interesting how people can read different intents into comments made in writing than were intended.
My original comment wasn’t made to disrupt or disparage WUWT, as I think it is an excellent site which must be a labour of love for Anthony. My comment did reflect my genuine outrage at the number of misogynist comments being made, and that they were being tolerated.
I have no other agenda. I rarely comment here but come often to read and learn – which may mean I agree or disagree, as I see fit.
I have opinions on Naomi Oreskes opinions but they have nothing to do with her sex.

lawrence Cornell
October 22, 2014 5:18 pm

Thanks John,
“reading in” too much. Time for meds and a nap. LOL

%d bloggers like this: