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.

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
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?
John
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.
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?
“When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche
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
I know for a fact, that’s not true. Not an exhaustive survey, but much more than one trial.
I’m lucky, Alexander, mine is a PhD and well published … and I have no complaints 😉
All complaints to Nietzsche, please.
This and the other misogynistic remarks are a complete waste of readers’ time and attention, and they demean the site.
Matthew,
Couldn’t agree with you more.
I didn’t realise how much misogyny there is around.
For shame.
“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
Women are amazing creatures-sweet, soft, gentle, and far more savage than we are.
― Robert A. Heinlein
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
“There is no fouler fiend than a woman when her mind is bent to evil.”
— Homer
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
― Robert A. Heinlein
“No woman, no cry.”
– Bob Marley 🙂
“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
–William Congreve
“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?
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.
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?
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Women talk when they want to. Or don’t.
― Robert A. Heinlein
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.
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.
DW: Agreed.
Misogyny is vile.
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.
It may be dead, but it’s good and stiff. The problem is what’s going to happen in a couple of hours.
Greatest female invention: windshield wipers
That says it all
Snip
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).
“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.
There are good women and evil women, as there are good men and evil men.
Oreskes is evil.
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.
Political Correctness is Vile.
“Political correctness is vile.”
+ 10
“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.
DW: I absolute agree. It is sad to see a WUWT-thread getting hijacked by gender related OT comments of questionable nature.
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.
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:
http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/19/spiegel-sees-shaken-science-collapsed-consensus-in-the-wake-of-the-lennart-bengtsson-mobbing-scandal/#comments
Misandrist
at least these commentors are not staying silent while they come for Dr Singer.
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 ClimateDepot.com, 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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
http://www.geocurrents.info/physical-geography/eco-authoritarian-catastrophism-dismal-deluded-vision-naomi-oreskes-erik-m-conway
I am glad I am not the only one whothought this article was prefaced with a picture of Bob Dylan
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
John
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?
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/get_us_national_laboratory_sys.html
“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.
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”.
Whoops – thought I was commenting on the warmest website distancing itself from Oreskes’ book.
Mea culpa.
Richard Lindzen
short clip
How Science can be Politically Useful
http://tinyurl.com/n5hom3s
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.
http://tinyurl.com/mnnq4l3
Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics (1995)
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf
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
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1813229/posts
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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813207/posts
I thought that that was an old photo of Bob Dylan?
Dan, no Bob Dylan is a lot uglier…
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”: