Trust the New York Times? Source says Skeptic Climate Scientists are Crooks (ignore NYT's burden-of-proof wipeout)

oreskesGuest Opinion By Russell Cook

While attending the 10th International Conference on Climate Change in Washington D.C. late last week, Dr S. Fred Singer asked me to send him material he could forward to New York Times reporter Justin Gillis, in response to Gillis contacting him about an article he was writing on Naomi Oreskes, ‘star’ of the “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie. Dr Singer was not only aware of my recent prominent review of the movie, I was one of the names seen in the leaked October 2014 email chain in which Dr Singer pondered suing Oreskes. Dr Singer values my work work because I do what reporters such as Justin Gillis do not do.

Although I immediately sent an email to Dr Singer upon returning home, Gillis apparently already gleaned what he wanted from Dr Singer for his 6/15/15 article, “Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate”, which was material to skewer Dr Singer while portraying Oreskes as something she is not, an independent ‘discoverer of corrupt skeptic climate scientists.’

First, Gillis’ errant description about Oreskes’ so-called discovery:

Dr. Oreskes’s approach has been to dig deeply into the history of climate change denial, documenting its links to other episodes in which critics challenged a developing scientific consensus.

Her core discovery, made with a co-author, Erik M. Conway, was twofold. They reported that dubious tactics had been used over decades to cast doubt on scientific findings relating to subjects like acid rain, the ozone shield, tobacco smoke and climate change ….

If Gillis had either read the material I sent to Dr Singer, or if he had simply undertaken basic due diligence on the claims about Oreskes, he would have seen that she is little more than a johnny-come-lately on talking point insinuations about skeptic climate scientists being no more than people who operate, as Gillis describes one paragraph later, under “methods that were honed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s and have since been employed to cast doubt on just about any science being cited to support new government regulations.”

As I’ve described at length in my blog posts about this baseless accusation:

Repeating the words from that last blog post from Dr Singer circa a 1994 Washington Post article (archived ironically in, of all places, the organization I term “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action”):

It is interesting to watch the proponents of the ozone-CFC theory squirm when under scientific attack. They resort to evasion, double-talk and often outright prevarication. ….

Unfortunately, this lesson from CFC-ozone policy has not been learned by our public officials. They prefer to believe the myth of a “scientific consensus” and seem eager to repeat the same mistakes for the global warming issue where the potential for damage by ill-advised and hasty policies is so much higher.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Justin Gillis to divulge any of that to his NYT readers or who the real lightning rod is in the global warming issue, Dr S. Fred Singer.

Toward the end of his article, Gillis skewers Dr Singer this way, on Singer’s effort late last year to find out if he could take any action against Oreskes’ movie (web link identical to what is in Gillis’ NYT article):

In the leaked emails, Dr. Singer told a group of his fellow climate change denialists that he felt that Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway had libeled him. But in an interview, when pressed for specific errors in the book that might constitute libel, he listed none. Nor did he provide such a list in response to a follow-up email request.

What organization did Gillis link to for the ‘leaked emails’? Desmogblog, the organization Ross Gelbspan says he helped to found (8 seconds into this audio interview), the same organization that co-founder James Hoggan says was built around the works of Ross Gelbspan, in particular, his “smoking gun evidence” that skeptic climate scientists and fossil fuel industry officials were conspiring to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” For all her efforts to push that accusation, who does Oreskes cite as the source of it? Ross Gelbspan.

Has anyone, from Al Gore to Naomi Oreskes, the New York Times, James Hoggan, or Ross Gelbspan ever provided anything beyond pure guilt-by-association accusations, have they ever provided a scintilla of evidence proving people such as Dr Singer operated under any kind of pay-for-performance situation, in which instructions were given to lie to the public and to knowingly fabricate reports everyone knew were false?

No, they haven’t. The idea that the New York Times seems to totally miss here is something I was told by a prosecuting attorney during my brief jury duty service just a day ago, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the accused need not respond to the accusations to remain innocent, and that it is entirely upon the accuser to meet the burden of proof in the accusation. Not only is this the way the US law works, it is plain common sense.

After nearly two decades of a constant barrage of accusations that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie, the best the New York Times can come up with is “trust us, our source has third-hand hearsay evidence which we won’t question in any manner.” Elaborating on what I tweeted to Justin Gillis and another reporter after their hit pieces against Dr Willie Soon in February, there is no Pulitzer Prize to be won from repeating worn-out talking point accusations, but a Pulitzer could be won if reporters turned the tables on the people who created the accusations.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bloke down the pub
June 17, 2015 2:37 pm

a Pulitzer could be won if reporters turned the tables on the people who created the accusations.
Yeah, I wouldn’t go holding my breath waiting on that one.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
June 17, 2015 2:46 pm

it only takes one reporter though …

Reply to  KaiserDerden
June 17, 2015 4:21 pm

Takes more than that. It takes a reports whose story is taken seriously by the Pulitzer Board. Pal review in newsprint.

Reply to  KaiserDerden
June 17, 2015 5:24 pm

It would be as llikely as a sceptic getting a Nobel for demolishing CAGW with contrary evidence. Simply won’t happen.

Winnipeg Boy
Reply to  KaiserDerden
June 18, 2015 10:13 am

Andrew Jennings. FIFA reporter.

Bloke down the pubs mate!
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
June 18, 2015 1:50 am

The “Proof of guilt” is with Oreskes et el, and it boils down to the very simple:-
………… SHOW ME THE MONEY ……………
Too obvious, for even a simpleton like me to ask, let alone trained, objective, unbiased, professional, reporters and EDITORS/OWNERS found on the NYT and Guardian newspapers.

June 17, 2015 2:48 pm

An insider CAGW Whistleblower working for IPCC or NOAA is my hope for the citizens of the world.

Reply to  kokoda
June 17, 2015 5:45 pm

Make it NOAA. Most in the US would ignore anything with respect the IPCC, as they fo other UN orgs.
NOAA, on the other hand, would be revealed to be just another government agency. They still hold a reputation left over from the space race, and the public trusts their professionalism. That’s the same trust once placed in the IRS, Veterans Administration, Enivironmental Protection Agency, Governments Services Agency, Secret Service, the CIA, and FBI that has been destroyed in the last few years. It would not take much for the general public to dismiss NASA as just another politically and monetarily corrupt agency if a whistleblower stepped forward. Eliminate trust in the GISS and NCDC and what data sets remain? That would totally destroy the AGW movement in the US.

Reply to  Jtom
June 18, 2015 7:55 am

I think you may have NOAA mixed up with NASA.
NOAA had little if anything to do with forays into space.
Just as NASA had little to do with studying the climate.

Reply to  Jtom
June 18, 2015 11:38 am

NOAA, along with NASA falls within the United States Department of Commerce. Both are DoC agencies, though there is a persistent presumption by many that NASA is a military agency – shocking isn’t it? So, NOAA satellites are designed, built, and launched by the DoC. It is especially interesting that NASA has always been part of the DoC.

Reply to  Jtom
June 18, 2015 3:44 pm

while the Soviet Union viewed the space shuttle as a potential military threat, wrote Anatoly Zak on his website

Reply to  Jtom
June 18, 2015 5:51 pm

You’ve neglected to consider that every one of the 197 Institutions of Science on the planet — the national Science Academies of the US, UK, France, Germany China, Japan, et al, and the Scientific Professional Societies, plus NASA and NOAA, and ALL Major Universities, all conclude AGW — NO exceptions.
The only way for AGW to be discredited is for the overwhelming evidence to disappear — which is as likely as the evidence for Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, or Relativity, to suddenly evaporate.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 18, 2015 5:56 pm


The only way for AGW to be discredited is for the overwhelming evidence to disappear

And just what is this overwhelming evidence of man-made global warming catastrophes?

Reply to  Jtom
June 18, 2015 6:00 pm

You know where to find it, or in the IPCC Assessments, or in the reports by the NAS or AAAS — or in the 10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers supporting AGW.

Reply to  Jtom
June 18, 2015 6:06 pm

Can you name a National Science Academy, Scientific Professional Association, or major University that disputes AGW? Just One?

Reply to  Jtom
June 18, 2015 6:08 pm

You ask the question “And just what is this overwhelming evidence of man-made global warming catastrophes?”

That is the wrong question.
The question to ask is “And just what is this overwhelming evidence of man-made global warming?”

And the answer to that question is in most scientific publications of the past 30 years.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
June 18, 2015 10:20 pm

Joel D. Jackson

“And just what is this overwhelming evidence of man-made global warming catastrophes?”

The question to ask is “And just what is this overwhelming evidence of man-made global warming?”

And the answer to that question is in most scientific publications of the past 30 years.

Don’t change my question: ONLY if there IS ACTUALLY a catastrophic global warming threat (due to man-s use of fossil fuels CO2) is there ANY need to change or reduce global warming.
ONLY if there is an absolute link between man’s beneficial release of CO2 to the atmosphere, AND that increase of CO2 IS actually linked to actual (NOT “potential” or “feared” or “possible” global warming is there ANY possible reason to limit CO2 and to artificially raise energy prices worldwide.
Not. The benefits of added CO2 in the atmosphere, and man-released CO2 from fossil fuel production and use in general, are ENTIRELY beneficial to the world’s people. The benefits of warming between 0 and 4 degrees worldwide are entirely helpful. Above 4 degrees – that 5% chance of it being that high? A few might be harmed. the remaining 99.7%? All benefit. We have 85 years to see and to mitigate the potential harm to the very few potentially threatened by a possible increase over 4 degrees.
The rest of your only hyped, only propagandized “global warming”?
Good for people, good for their welfare and health. “Uncivilized” (poor) areas and communist/socialist monopolies do need to clean up their work and their pollution. (But the CAGW catestrologist community is not demanding that, is not criminalizing the communist and third world corrupt dictators in their zeal to attack the capitalist system and send money to the corrupt.)

Pat Frank
Reply to  Jtom
June 18, 2015 6:50 pm

Arguments from authority are empty of content, Joel. They work only for the timid-minded and the scientifically illiterate.
I’ve looked through the journals of the last 30 years, and have concluded there’s no viable evidence of human causality in the recent climate warming.
The only possible evidence of a human cause can come from a unique prediction made using climate models. But climate models cannot make predictions. Their limits of resolution are literally orders of magnitude too coarse to predict the effect of increased CO2 (or of cumulated GHG emissions) on the climate.
There isn’t a single journal article that can refute that point. Nor can anyone from an official scientific organization.

Reply to  Jtom
June 18, 2015 7:55 pm

@Pat Frank
And you assert that the conclusions of every scientific institution on the planet are wrong, but offer no contradictory evidence? Why should anyone pay attention to your unsupported claims?

Reply to  Jtom
June 19, 2015 1:29 am

You write

@Pat Frank
And you assert that the conclusions of every scientific institution on the planet are wrong, but offer no contradictory evidence? Why should anyone pay attention to your unsupported claims?

Please try to not be silly.
Scientific institutions do NOT provide scientific “conclusions”: they represent and promote what they consider to be the interests of their Members, Associates and Fellows.
Importantly, there is no evidence for discernible anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); none, zilch, nada. Three decades of research conducted world wide at an annual cost of more than $5 billion per year has failed to find any.
And, contrary to the ignorant assertions of you and Joel D. Jackson, the literature of the last 30 years contains no evidence of discernible AGW (except for the paper by Santer in the 1990s which was soon discredited as being a deliberate artifact of his data selection). The total absence of any such evidence in the literature is why you cannot cite any paper that does provide any evidence of discernible AGW.
So the questions properly directed at you, warrenlb, are
Why do you support the political propaganda from every scientific institution on the planet when you cannot provide any evidence to support their propoganda? Why should anyone pay attention to your unsupported claims?

Reply to  kokoda
June 19, 2015 5:49 am

What is your answer to my question ‘can you name one Scientific Institution that disputes AGW?”

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 11:48 am

Define “AGW”!

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 12:30 pm

you don’t know this acronym? and you’re posting on WUWT?

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 12:42 pm

So you admit you can’t define it.
Good. Your complete humiliation is on the way.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 1:58 pm

Name any Scientific Institution that promotes AGW and I’ll label it as corrupt, not scientific.

Pat Frank
Reply to  kokoda
June 19, 2015 7:29 pm

warrenlb is being doubly silly, Richard, because I’ve provided plenty of evidence from my own work; .here (pdf), here (pdf) and here, among others.
Including that climate modelers are not scientists and not competent to physically evaluate their own climate models; climate models that, in any case, provide no physical meaning.
But none of that exists for warrenlb, despite that it’s been right in front of his eyes for months. Apparently evidence isn’t evidence unless it confirms his prejudices. For warrenlb, it appears even not-evidence is evidence so long as confirmation can be manufactured.

Reply to  Pat Frank
June 20, 2015 1:41 am

Pat Frank:
Yes, warrenlb keeps making a fool of himself with his daft Appeal to Authority by claiming Scientific institutions make scientific “conclusions”.
A scientific institution exists to represent the interests of scientists, and a trade union for plumbers exists to represent the interests of plumbers. I am sure warrenlb would recognise that trade unions representing plumbers do not bend pipes, but he keeps pretending scientific institutions conduct research. And he seems to think he can get others to share the delusion that opinions of scientific institutions are scientific “conclusions”!

June 17, 2015 2:48 pm

The magna carta is 800 years old this year. Here is the relevant part from the copy held at Hereford cathedral regarding being innocent until proven guilty.
It was incorporated in the US Bill of rights so this presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of both UK and US law.
In Europe this presumption is reversed

Reply to  climatereason
June 17, 2015 4:22 pm

The magna carta is 800 years old this year.


In Europe this presumption is reversed

History note:
Tomorrow, June 18, is the 200th anniversary.
Napoléon meets Wellington at the battle of (……..)
There might be some sort of metaphysical lesson in here somewhere.
H/T to Old AF Sarge and Chant Du Départ.

Clif Westin
Reply to  TonyL
June 18, 2015 7:04 am

Another miss conception this time about Napoleon….he was 5,8″. Not a short man, just propaganda of the era which survives today unquestioned….

Clif Westin
Reply to  TonyL
June 18, 2015 7:28 am

Correction, 5.6″

High Treason
Reply to  climatereason
June 17, 2015 5:29 pm

In Australia, twice in quick succession the previous Labor government tried to turn the presumption of innocence in to a presumption of guilt.
First, Roxon’s tightening of the offense provisions of the anti discrimination act. Someone could say you called them whatever or said something they thought was offensive. You would be assumed guilty and have to prove innocence. There would be no compensation even if you were found to be innocent, a flood of letters(including from myself) just manahed to have this torpedoed. Then shortly after came the ASADA affair-drugs in sport. Nobody seemed to notice-the sportsmen were assumed to be guilty and have to prove their innocence. NO actual evidence was ever there. NONE. It was a total beat-up and political smokescreen that directly and most falsely slandered the sportsmen and their clubs.
Alas, the high powers are trying to get rid of the core principles of Magna Carta. ONLY we, the People can do anything about it. ONLY rebellion has any hope of stopping the very rapidly moving(was creeping) world fascism. In the context of global warming/climate change/whatever witch hunt of the day, humanity itself is being presumed guilty and denied the right to defend itself against baseless accusations.

Another Ian
Reply to  High Treason
June 17, 2015 7:34 pm

High Treason
Don’t forget the singling out of land holders under the ALP’s native vegetation in Queensland – and the tree police to go with it

Reply to  High Treason
June 18, 2015 12:42 am

And now the Abbott Government (a Republican equivalent) is proposing to strip Citizenship based on accusations of authorities at the discretion of the minister. No presumption of innocence, no court of appeal, no right to even defend yourself.
This is not a problem confined to the Left, it is a systematic attack by politicians on both sides of the Left Right divide who are happy to disguard our rights and freedoms to do what they please.

Leo Norekens
Reply to  climatereason
June 18, 2015 1:24 am

“In Europe this presumption is reversed”
Say what ?
You are ill-informed, sir.

Reply to  climatereason
June 18, 2015 4:39 am

This presumption is not reversed in the UK unless you are extradited under the EAW

John Smith
Reply to  climatereason
June 18, 2015 11:50 am

Hi Tonyb
thanks for reminding us off this great document
so sad and disturbing to see it forgotten and it’s hard won ideals under attack on both sides of the pond
our President will certainly hold no celebration
as an American, I certainly appreciate the English Barons of 1215
and happy that there their notions held sway for a little while
they did not live to see the fruition of their risk
and you and I may see it undone

June 17, 2015 2:49 pm

Circular reasoning is plausible if one step on the circle is given absolute faith.
That is the case with the NYT with respect to scary climate change (and the Guardian too).
But it doesn’t make it justifiable – unless their faith is true. That’s a new religion.
And that’s climatology.

June 17, 2015 2:50 pm

Reporters? What are these reporter things of which you speak?

June 17, 2015 2:53 pm

Not holding my breath, either, but do remember how fickle reporters can be, especially when it comes to saving their own skins when they are caught red-handed in not doing their jobs. If they smell blood in the water over the entire Gore-Gelbspan-Oreskes ‘crooked skeptics’ accusation, they might turn on each other when it comes to blaming somebody for never checking the veracity of the accusation.
(And many thanks to Anthony for allowing me to have another guest post here!)

Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
June 18, 2015 3:14 am

I took two reporters to take down Nixon’s plumbers.
It’ll take a few more than that to get the CAGW crowd.
Then the msm would need to push it.

Clif Westin
Reply to  mikerestin
June 18, 2015 7:30 am

Yes, but Nixon was GOP. It only takes rumors to bring them down….

June 17, 2015 2:56 pm

Oreskes was number one witness in John Cook’s Denialism 101 course too. Dreadful.

Pat Frank
Reply to  kenskingdom
June 18, 2015 6:53 pm

Naomi Oreskes is proof positive that a talent for character assassination can get one a tenured position at Harvard University.

Curious George(@moudryj)
June 17, 2015 3:02 pm

“innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt” – in criminal cases. In civil cases only a “preponderance of evidence” is required.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Curious George
June 17, 2015 4:27 pm

In the US, criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. Mr. Cook is either misinformed or has misremembered.

Reply to  Gary Hladik
June 17, 2015 5:09 pm

I stand corrected, but my point remains that our collective friends on the Al Gore side haven’t even given us a lame version of the ol’ college try to provide us with evidence that skeptics are paid and instructed to lie.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Gary Hladik
June 17, 2015 6:56 pm

No argument there.

M Seward
June 17, 2015 3:04 pm

Oreskes latest effort is just part of a desperate, “Battle of the Bulge” type all out attack of ‘skeptics’ in the lead up to Paris in the hope that they will capture the fuel dumps of public and government opinion at the great boondoggle event. Oreskes has been tasked with character assassination, some other mob with OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ( when the ocean is arguably only becoming more neutral, i.e pure H2O like), someone else again with killing off the hiatus etc.
The kool ade bill must be horrendous but heck, its all on the public purse.

Reply to  M Seward
June 17, 2015 5:34 pm

From the looks of “her,” she’s got a bulge down low too. “That’s not your mother, that’s a man BA-BY!!!”

Reply to  Legend
June 17, 2015 9:47 pm

@Legend, first impression? I had the same one , looked at the pic after your comment again, yikes it just got re-inforced. This person is one angry human, living a lie.

Reply to  Legend
June 18, 2015 7:20 am

That is uncalled for.
“With her husband, Ken Belitz, and daughter, Clara, the family lives in San Diego. Her older daughter, Hannah, attends Stanford.”
In the NYT 1986 “Style” section:
Is it not unusual that a student from California be featured in the NYT?

Reply to  M Seward
June 18, 2015 11:27 am

Nice story about Patton. Thanks.
But the subject is Anthropogenic Climate Change, not weather.

Reply to  M Seward
June 18, 2015 6:41 pm

According to “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” it’s all about the weather….

Reply to  M Seward
June 19, 2015 1:41 am

Climate is average weather.
So, change weather and you change climate. Also, change climate and you change weather.
You see, warrenlb, it is your ignorance of such basic information as ‘climate is average weather/’ which leads you to repeatedly promote the ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacy: you don’t know enough to do anything else.

Reply to  M Seward
June 19, 2015 5:51 am

Not knowing the basic difference between Climate and weather may be a reason they keep you on as an editor for Energy and the Environment.

Reply to  M Seward
June 20, 2015 2:02 am

It seems you cannot resist taking any opportunity to demonstrate both your ignorance and your stupidity.
I wrote the true, accurate and correct statements

Climate is average weather.
So, change weather and you change climate. Also, change climate and you change weather.
You see, warrenlb, it is your ignorance of such basic information as ‘climate is average weather’ which leads you to repeatedly promote the ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacy: you don’t know enough to do anything else.

And you have replied with this idiocy

Not knowing the basic difference between Climate and weather may be a reason they keep you on as an editor for Energy and the Environment.

But I stated “the basic difference between Climate and weather”; i.e. weather is weather, and climate is average weather. My knowledge of such things is why I have the great honour of being on the Editorial Board of so prestigious a technical journal as E&E, and your ignorance of such things is why your posts only provide rubbish.
The IPCC Glossary provides this definition of climate.

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables
such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

Now, warrenlb, a man in your situation would apologise for having been so very, very wrong but, of course, I don’t anticipate your providing such an apology.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
June 17, 2015 3:06 pm

The New York Times is basically the mouthpiece of the illiberal left. I submitted a post concerning the Pope”s so-called “encyclia” on climate change [to the] effect that if The Pope cared about the poor, he would foster their need for cheap energy. The rise of GDP correlates well with availability of cheap energy (Huber and Mills, 2005, The bottomless well).
Did the nytimes post my comment for all to read? No. In doing so, they made Goebbels proud.

Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
June 17, 2015 3:47 pm

They were supporters of Stalin. Walter Duranty.

Reply to  M Simon
June 18, 2015 6:42 pm


Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
June 18, 2015 11:28 am

He cares about us all. Hence his encyclical.

June 17, 2015 3:07 pm

Human evolution from conception… Selective-child policy (i.e. pro-choice doctrine) earns the Nobel Prize in Denial of scientific fact and, more so, self-evident knowledge. As well as rejects any semblance of moral philosophy.
As for science, the scientific method reduces it to a frame-based philosophy, where accuracy is inversely proportionate to the product of time (or motion) and space offsets from an established frame of reference, specifically to limit secular abuse and excess. Claims that rest on assumptions of continuity and uniformity; that substitute inference for deduction; and that elevate the significance of correlation to causality, are not science, but rather philosophy. And then only where there exists a probable path where the scientific method may ever be applied.
That said, does The New York Times include disclosures of preconceived perspectives, including bias and prejudice, with publication of their [news] reports? It seems only fair that people’s capital and labor not be devalued, their quality of living not be diminished, and human life not be debased, with a liberal interpretation of the scientific method.

Reply to  n.n
June 17, 2015 4:28 pm

That; is an existential thought.

Reply to  Brian
June 17, 2015 10:05 pm

Not that it changes anything; but, it keeps people’s politics, and science, in perspective. Most people seem to operate with a common set of principles. However, the secular incentives/penalties are always predating our integrity and conscience.

June 17, 2015 3:11 pm

In my view Fred’s greatest contribution as a sceptic was during the various ozone layer scares in the 1970s. The heroic narrative of the series of wolf cryers over a succession of phantom wolves is strained to the extreme by others (Roan, Dotto) long before Oreskes. Whereas, turn the table and tell the tail of a series of fear-merchants…and the narrative runs like honey.

Paul Coppin
June 17, 2015 3:12 pm

We’ve been around this loop with Justin Gillis before. He is an intellectual fraud. Not previously believed possible, he brings the NYT’s credibility down to a whole new low. When you stand with Justin Gillis you look up at Tom Friedman…

Reply to  Paul Coppin
June 17, 2015 3:43 pm

It is hard to beat Walter Duranty. An apologist for mass murder.

Evan Jones(@evanmjones)
Reply to  M Simon
June 18, 2015 3:36 am

He didn’t exactly apologize for it. He denied it was happening in the Ukraine.

Steve P
Reply to  M Simon
June 18, 2015 8:03 am

Agreed, but Judith Miller made an effort.

Reply to  Paul Coppin
June 17, 2015 9:50 pm

And here I though 0 Kelvin was the lowest, these guys are setting a new (low) standard. -1K??

Svend Ferdinandsen
June 17, 2015 3:13 pm

A comment at Chiefio suggested that the warming side is used to a top down [hierarchy], so they assume their opponents must also work in that way. That’s why they look for some dubius mastermind, and can’t think of any other way.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
June 17, 2015 3:49 pm

One of the strangest aspects is that the alarmists are all too keen to condemn big business as placing profits before people or planet, and to claim that any critics are ‘obviously’ being funded by big business, but they then go and promote renewable energy, which is nothing other than a big business with very few scruples as to how it makes its profits. Which also funds activist groups to promote its products.
Somehow, they can’t see that this is exactly the misdemeanour they are accusing others of.

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
June 17, 2015 5:18 pm

Oh, they know it, it’s just their usual practice of projecting…blaming others for doing the devious deeds that they themselves are doing.

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
June 18, 2015 3:25 am

Noble cause corruption will allow any method, path or logic.

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
June 18, 2015 6:58 pm

You see, because it’s unethical to make a profit and perhaps become rich by providing goods and services that people want. The only ethical way to become rich is by taxing the productive (who provide goods and services that people want) at the point of a gun, and then turn around and fund your cronies’ hare-brained schemes. Look up what these politicos are worth, people, before and after they took office. Do you realize there’s no rules against our legislators using inside stock market information? And you thought all they did was exempt themselves from Obamacare.

June 17, 2015 3:40 pm

Did the NYTs look into the “Jewish science” episode of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s?

Reply to  M Simon
June 17, 2015 9:00 pm

That Deutsch Physik thing almost cost Heisenberg his career.
Sorta has a familiar ring to it, huh?

June 17, 2015 4:09 pm

“…“Her courage and persistence in communicating climate science to the wider public have made her a living legend among her colleagues,” two climate researchers, Benjamin D. Santer and John Abraham, wrote in a prize-nomination letter in 2011…”
Yes, but not in the way she would want. For anyone investing in her grasp of climate science, you should know that she is still banging the drum for the “97% of scientists…” claim. She is one of those parasites that manage to get a career in the media by latching onto one newsworthy subject, proclaiming her absurd point of view, then writing reams of articles denouncing all those who disagree with her to be engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy.

R. Shearer
June 17, 2015 4:10 pm

Please give that witch a pointy black hat.

Gunga Din
Reply to  R. Shearer
June 18, 2015 1:43 pm
(With apologies to Margaret Hamilton. Her “green” was just make-up.)

Pamela Gray(@pamelasuemakin)
June 17, 2015 4:13 pm

I’m not all that keen on “he said, she said” articles. And as a mother, I have already lived through the silly two-word arguments kids have, aka “Did too!” “Did not!” That’s when I get my fly swatter out and hit a few kids in da head in the back seat of the car.
In this instance, it seems this is an argument over low hanging fruit with precious few bringing a cogent argument to the table that is back on topic having to do with Earth’s on again off again fever.
Because we are adults here, I will not get out the fly swatter. Instead I suggest to the combatants that they all take a pass.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
June 17, 2015 5:19 pm

With all due respect, there is no “he said, she said” equivalency here. We’ve had around 20 years of AGW being boiled down to a 3-point mantra of “The science is settled” / “skeptics are industry-corrupted” / “reporters may ignore skeptic material because of points 1 & 2”, with the last point being one of the more brilliant propaganda tactics ever conceived, leading to a journalistic malfeasance problem of epic proportions. All I’ve done is point to just how badly every aspect of the accusation falls apart no matter which angle you view it from. In my view, the ‘corrupt skeptics’ accusation is one of the primary barriers to the greater public seeing what is truly going on here, faulty science that must do all it can to distract the public from seeing its faults.

Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
June 17, 2015 5:50 pm

Yes I’d ignore dear Pam on this point…

David Ball
Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
June 17, 2015 6:06 pm


June 17, 2015 4:17 pm

I don’t know Anthony I am at the edge of giving up. I know that many of the people on here are much more scientifically literate than I am, but in the last week I have tried in vain to convince people that humans have indeed walked on the moon, a 757 can make the type of high speed turns that they made on 911 (I didn’t even get into if heat can melt steel), how light refracting off the little drops of sweat or water on your skin are not caused by chemtrails, that a pressure cooker type device on your kitchen counter can not turn unprocessed garbage into a useful amount of oil, because there really, really, yes really, is such a thing as conservation of energy and matter,and this pressure cooker has not invented cold fusion.
So, how on earth we can deal with The NYT if they are hell bent on ignoring all facts I don’t know. Since 1972 I have been interested in global warming, but then The NYT called it “the next ice age.” Nothing has change, ice age, warming, change, disruption whatever, humans are to blaim. We can’t fight this. logic, facts can not win, only emotion can win, and we can’t get emotion on the side of facts and truth.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Tom Trevor
June 17, 2015 4:35 pm

You have to pick your battles, Tom. Most of the idiots in the world will have little if any impact on your life, other than being an endless source of amusement. Some are more dangerous, and they’re the ones you target.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
June 17, 2015 5:02 pm

Time to invest in tin foil, your acquaintances have a lot of hats to purchase.

Reply to  FTOP
June 17, 2015 9:37 pm

They’d never be convinced they’d qualify for such hats; his investment in tin foil would be a waste of time and money.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
June 17, 2015 5:41 pm

Progress is a slow and erratic process – two steps forward, one step back. It seems right now we are taking one step back – maybe our job is to make sure that it won’t be three steps.
“Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree today.”
Martin Luther
(why yes, I do come from a long line of Lutheran ministers.)

Reply to  Tom Trevor
June 17, 2015 8:06 pm

Do not dispair. Give them a copy of Blowing Smoke,or your favorite equivalent. Back away slowly, as their minds might go.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
June 18, 2015 12:55 am

Tim, don’t give up! I used to be a Gore Groupie and I managed to break the global warming spell! There is hope. You don’t need to convince everyone, just find enough people who are open to evidence. They are only harder to find than tin foil hat wearers because they make less noise.

Tim Groves
Reply to  Tom Trevor
June 18, 2015 3:28 am

in the last week I have tried in vain to convince people that humans have indeed walked on the moon, a 757 can make the type of high speed turns that they made on 911 (I didn’t even get into if heat can melt steel), how light refracting off the little drops of sweat or water on your skin are not caused by chemtrails, that a pressure cooker type device on your kitchen counter can not turn unprocessed garbage into a useful amount of oil
Why do you feel it is important for you to convince others on these particular points? Also, did any of the people you argued with manage to convince you of any of their points? Or did they resort to one of the many logical fallacies that many of us have learned to identify by reading the posts at WUWT? Personally, when somebody tries to convince me of anything, my first reaction is to clam up and regard them as a zealot. If you want to change other people’s opinions, the adversarial approach is probably going to be counter-productive since many people are emotionally committed to their opinions.
Particularly when dealing with “progressives”, I find that most of them, even the apparently well educated ones, are not very scientifically or mathematically literate. Or perhaps a better way of saying that would be to employ a term used by the Japanese in this context, onchi or “tone deaf”. These people are scientifically tone deaf. When arguments are put to them, they can’t tell the butter from the margarine. They just don’t “get” the details that are so important to you and I. So when I debate, I try to state simply why I believe this and don’t believe that to be the case, I respond in detail to any questions they put to me, I actively try to maintain a respectful and calm tone, and I ask others to do the same. If others can’t or won’t follow my reasoning, i they ignore my questions, or if they are unwilling to discuss or explain their own reasons, that’s their business. There’s no need to make it a contact sport. Rather than trying to push home any advantages and gain victory over them, I try to plant some seeds of doubt that may later bloom in their minds. And I find that this does work to a certain extent. Just being a role model of someone with a different opinion who is reasonable and non-confrontational can have a persuasive effect on getting other people to reexamine their preconceptions, as Anthony Watts’s example demonstrates.

June 17, 2015 4:30 pm

Their real motto: “All the news that’s fit to slant.”

Mark from the Midwest
June 17, 2015 4:51 pm

More amateur reporting from the Times, it’s actually very sad to see what they’ve become. Back in the 80’s, I actually paid real cash to have the Sunday edition delivered to my home. Now I might use it as easily combustible material to help torch up one of our giant, plant food producing, bonfires.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 17, 2015 5:04 pm

You can wrap all the dead fish caused by 8.17 pH sea water. Being acidic and all

June 17, 2015 5:03 pm

There are a few reporters on the sceptic side,Christopher Booker,a couple of writers for the boston herald, james delingpole.. anyone know of any?

Reply to  John piccirilli
June 17, 2015 5:40 pm

There’s a couple fairly prominent ones in Australia – most notably Andrew Bolt.

June 17, 2015 5:08 pm

trust the NYT? trust the MSM? nope.
btw i think the Gallup figures are too high:
16 June: Politico: Dylan Byers: Trust in American news media remains low
The latest terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, not-at-all-surprising news from Gallup…
Confidence in newspapers is currently at 24 percent, eight points below the historical average. Television news is at 21 percent, nine points below the historical average…
Mooney’s another case study!
15 June: WaPo: Chris Mooney: How the climate debate keeps us from just letting science be science
Someday, to be sure, this pattern will cease — ***just as soon as the issue is resolved on a political level and there’s less motivation to argue over it…
But in the meantime, we should all contemplate why we can’t just take a deep breath and let mysteries be mysteries — even as the people actually capable of sorting them out, the researchers, get to work.

Reply to  pat
June 17, 2015 5:24 pm

No Chris Mooney. This will end when government money stops flowing to climate science. Lindzen described climate change best when he said it should be no more than a mild curiousity to scientists that the earth has warmed slightly in the last century.

Reply to  pat
June 17, 2015 5:34 pm

That is rich coming from Looney Mooney. He has yet to challenge any of the glaring inconsistencies or downright falsehoods he reports on from the consensus brigade. What he really means is let the circus go unchallenged under the guise of science.

Tom Anderson
June 17, 2015 5:17 pm

Lest we forget:
“When all else fails scientifically, it’s time to use smears, slurs, ostracism, and general character assassination. (Actually this was the first choice and used all along. It has just reached new heights of absurdity).”
Jo Nova in Climate Change: The Facts, page. 168.

June 17, 2015 5:24 pm

“top-tier”, “prominent” “pure scientific excellence”, “not co-opted by the ***United Nations”:
17 June: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Behind the Scenes With the Pope’s Secret Science Committee
These are the top-tier researchers doing research for the Vatican
Several dozen of the world’s most prominent scientists sprang from their seats and left the Vatican hall where they were holding a conference on the environment in May 2014… Among the horde was Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Since 2004, he has also been a member of a 400-year-old collective, one that operates as the pope’s eyes and ears on the natural world: the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
He had a message for Pope Francis…
“The pope has his own experts, who are completely secular,” said Ramanathan. “Not all of them even believe in a god. They are there for pure scientific excellence, and they are not co-opted by any country. They’re not co-opted by the ***United Nations.”…
More than a dozen faith leaders heard from one of the world’s top climate scientists, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, about how the earth went “from glacial chaos to climate paradise” during the last big climate transition 12,000 years ago, and what we may be in store for next…
And they heard Jeffrey Sachs, prolific writer and Columbia University economist…
Members of the academy don’t always get feedback from the pope or Vatican officials on their work…
The pontiff never revealed his thoughts on a 2011 report documenting the melting Himalayan glaciers, which provide water to a billion people…
They were compelled by the work of Sachs — who’s also director of the ***United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network — according to Martin Rees, a British astronomer and an academy member since 1990…
Nigeria’s poor are asking far simpler questions than the pope and his scientific advisers about the changing world around them.
“You begin to wonder,” he (Cardinal John Onaiyekan, the archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria) said, voicing their perspective, “are the gods angry?” (THE END)

Tim in Florida
Reply to  pat
June 17, 2015 6:12 pm

Your point

William Astley
June 17, 2015 5:51 pm

Naomi Oreskes is clueless and a fanatic.
Oreskes does not understand that the green scams are scams, a colossal waste of limited public funds. The green scams do not work.

Germany Energiewend Leading To Suicide By Cannibalism. Huge Oversupply Risks Destabilization
The coming age of power cannibalism…Germany on the verge of committing energy suicide
Capacity without control The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany).
Yet Germany has a unique peculiarity: its leaders sometimes exhibit a stunning inability to recognize when the time has come to abandon a lost cause. So far €500 billion (William: €500 billion is $550 billion US) has already been invested in the “Energiewende”, which is clearly emerging as a failure. Yet all political parties continue to throw their full weight behind the policy rather than admitting it is a failure (which would be tantamount to political suicide). Instead, the current government coalition has even decided to shift into an even higher gear on the path to achieving its objective of generating 80% of German electric power from “renewable” sources by 2050. If the situation is practically unmanageable now with 25% renewable energy (William: Note that the Germans are receiving 25% of their electrical power from green scams, the actual carbon reduction is only 15% to 25% due to requirement to turn on/off/on/off single cycle natural gas power plants rather than to run combine cycle more efficient power plants that take 10 hours to start and that are hence left on for weeks), it’ll be an uncontrollable disaster when (if) it reaches 80%.,9171,1725975,00.html
Oreskes does not understand basic biology. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is unequivocally beneficial to the environment. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing times.
Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 enable plants to reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which enables plants to live and thrive with less water. More atmospheric CO2 is a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.
The optimum level of atmospheric CO2 for C3 plants (all plants including cereal crops except for grasses) is 1200 ppm.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

Oreskes does not understand basic paleo climatologically history and appears to be completely ignorant concerning what is happening to the sun. The planet cyclically warms and cools driven by solar cycle changes and is about to abruptly cool. Scary global cooling is going to be the number one environmental problem.

The peculiar solar cycle 24 – where do we stand?
Solar cycle 24 has been very weak so far. It was preceded by an extremely quiet and long solar minimum. Data from the solar interior, the solar surface and the heliosphere all show that cycle 24 began from an unusual minimum and is unlike the cycles that preceded it. We begin this review of where solar cycle 24 stands today with a look at the antecedents of this cycle, and examine why the minimum preceding the cycle is considered peculiar (§ 2). We then examine in § 3 whether we missed early signs that the cycle could be unusual. § 4 describes where cycle 24 is at today.
Oreskes does not understand the developed countries have increased their debt to GDP ratio by 50% since 2007. That was a significant mistake. There will be consequences when the next economic crisis appears. The public will not support green scam mandates that will triple of the cost of electricity and result in the loss of more jobs to Asia during an economic crisis.

Economist June 13, 2015
Watch out: The world is not ready for the next recession
…If any of these worries causes a downturn the world will be in a rotten position to do much about it. Rarely have so many large economies been so ill equipped to manage a recession, whatever its provenance, as our wiggle room ranking makes clear (see page 72). Rich countries debt to GDP ratio has risen by about 50% since 2007. In Britain and Spain debt has more than doubled.

Siberian Husky
June 17, 2015 5:55 pm

[snip insulting comment, name calling -mod]

June 17, 2015 5:59 pm

Why don’t they include the Gulf War oil fires in the list of scares that Singer expressed skepticism about. Somebody should tell Oreskes that often the non-consensus or skeptical position is later validated by empirical evidence. Although you would have thought that she might have understood this, since she is the author of, “The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science”.
“During Operation Desert Storm, Dr. S. Fred Singer and Carl Sagan discussed the possible environmental impacts of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan argued that some of the effects of the smoke could be similar to the effects of nuclear winter, with smoke lofting into the upper atmosphere, with global effects and that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the Year Without a Summer. He reported on initial modeling estimates that forecast impacts extending to south Asia, and perhaps to the northern hemisphere as well. Singer, on the other hand, said that calculations showed that the smoke would.. be rained out after about three to five days and thus the lifetime of the smoke would be limited.”
Final score in the Kuwaiti oil fires round:
Popular alarmism based on modeling 0 : Singer’s skepticism 1
Next contestant please…

Grey Lensman
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
June 18, 2015 4:10 am

Strangely there seems to be little studies after 2000. Perhaps because it recovered so well so quickly despite it being such a massive and prolonged unresponded spill.

Mike Maguire
June 17, 2015 6:03 pm

Been an operational meteorologist since 1982. Since 1993, predicting global crop yields/production and energy demand(mainly in the US) based mainly on weather/climate but also considering factors like CO2 fertilization.
My daily observations and analysis(that include studies on weather/climate data that go back as far as records go back) tell me that the last 3 decades featured what was probably the best weather/climate in almost 1,000 years(since the Medieval Warm Period) for life on this planet.
I operate independently, making money only when being right, losing money when wrong.
Imagine if this same criteria was used to judge/pay climate scientists and climate models.
Guys like me, that make a living being accountable for our positions and statements on weather/climate, get called deniers or flat earthers or crooks in an attempt to discredit our authentic scientific view because it doesn’t fall in line with the “settled science”.
Were my career or reputation be at stake, government or grant funding or position working for/with an entity that represents the “settled science” be effected, would my position be different?
Offer me a lucrative, prestigious job or a bundle of money and we’ll find out. At least that way, I can be wrong some of the time and still get paid then too (-:

Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 17, 2015 8:14 pm

@Mike Maguire
Your sense of self sufficiency is, sadly, becoming a rare commodity here in the US these days. I too understand your work ethic and can only pray that some our children will carry on that ethic. Too many schools nowadays seem to be preaching the “government line” socialist crud… Go on some welfare kick and suck the life out of the hard workers still plugging away. I doubt you would really be happy changing your colors to exist on the government dole.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 18, 2015 6:34 am

@Mike Maguire
What is your ‘authentic scientific view’ of the findings here: ?

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 2:13 am

You ask Mike Maguire

What is your ‘authentic scientific view’ of the findings here: ?

What findings?
Do you mean the four unreferenced facts at the bottom of the page?
If so then what relevance does that have to anything written by Mike Maguire?
Or are you merely again trying to demonstrate that you know nothing?
If so, then people here already know that.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 5:53 am

My question was directed at Mike Maguire, not you.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 20, 2015 2:04 am

Your question was meaningless whomever it was directed at, and that is why you cannot clarify what you were asking.
Ric hard

Reply to  warrenlb
June 22, 2015 12:28 pm

You claim to be an expert on Climate (although your posts argue otherwise), and an editor for a peer reviewed journal. So I found out:
‘According to a search of 22,000 publications, Courtney has not published any research in the area of climate change. [But] He has written opinion papers expressing his concern over the loss of jobs in the coal industry as a result of the UK’s movement towards renewable energy. He has published one article in the journal Energy and Environment, which has previously been criticized for its peer review process.’
And this:
According to SourceWatch there has been some confusion as to whether Richard S. Courtney holds an academic degree. Courtney’s profile states that “Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements.”
Is this record correct? If so, how is it that a ‘prominent peer-reviewed journal’ would employ you as an editor?

Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 18, 2015 2:47 pm

Actually, you could be wrong all of the time, witness Paul Erlich.

Gary Pearse
June 17, 2015 6:33 pm

”…he could forward to New York Times reporter Justin Gillis, in response to Gillis contacting him about an article he was writing on Naomi Oreskes..”
I’m surprised that Singer didn’t suspect the NYT, of all newspapers, of bad will in their request. I think something similar happened to Anthony when he was plied by Muller on BEST. There is zero guileless interaction with hard wired, CAGW activists and their support group. The science was ‘designed’ by one of the worlds most evil misanthropist elitist ideologues. He didn’t go beyond high school, let alone study science and all these rent seekers bought in to it and have become robots. There isn’t much science in this movement. How can you trust them. The kindest thing I can say about such naive expectations of rapport with the central synod of the climate mafia, is that it is coming from incurably nice guys. I hope this is lesson enough for everybody else.

June 17, 2015 6:49 pm

I’m beginning to think what this planet needs is a good astroid strike to hit the reset button on Mankind. The inmates have taken control of the asylum.

Reply to  Jtom
June 17, 2015 10:15 pm

As long as it hits everybody equally, ( well I guess a small local event on a certain site on a large house on the “threatened by rising sea levels” coast of Kalifornia might be an exception as long he is the only one there). I get your point though although the way things are falling apart we won’t need that at all.

Reply to  Jtom
June 17, 2015 11:23 pm

Please resist that line of thinking Jtom – it’s what the warmunists want: decimation of the human race.
Themselves and their cronies excepted, of course.
They also want folks like you dispirited. Chin up!

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
June 17, 2015 6:53 pm

Tomorrow Pope Francis issues his encyclical.
Some are calling it a call-to-arms, i.e. revolution:
Well, good old fashion revolutions were all about killing human beings of an opposing race, political organization and government.
Perhaps Pope Francis is just using “Anthropogenic Climate Change” as yet another means to distract and delude public knowledge from the Pedophile ways of the Catholic Church aka the Western Church i.e. the Latin Church.
Very different from the Eastern Church:
Whether, Albert Arnold Gore Jr.
Gore is a Protestent, i.e. Baptist after Southern Baptist.
Will Pope Francis’s Encyclical prode Al Gore to convert and enter the 2016 Presidential Race?
Ha ha

Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
June 17, 2015 8:05 pm

Would you kindly explain what you mean by pedophile ways of the Catholic church?
Have known many fine Catholic priests and never encountered any who would even be suspected of being pedophiles.
And pedophile clergy were discovered in other religions as the scandal unfolded.

June 17, 2015 8:12 pm

Projection, my thinks.

June 17, 2015 8:40 pm

“The idea that the New York Times seems to totally miss here is something I was told by a prosecuting attorney during my brief jury duty service just a day ago, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the accused need not respond to the accusations to remain innocent, and that it is entirely upon the accuser to meet the burden of proof in the accusation. Not only is this the way the US law works, it is plain common sense.”
Very disappointing argument here. What does criminal law have to do with this situation?

Reply to  aneipris
June 17, 2015 11:35 pm

It was brought up as analogy I believe. In court, assertions must be backed up with incontrovertible evidence, not by computer simulations of what the truth might be.
The evidence is freely available to both sides, not hidden away, not subject to revisions.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The analogy falls a little short though: the court is interested in justice (eg OJ received justice); Science is interested in Truth.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 18, 2015 12:17 am

No, courts are not interested in justice.
Courts are interested only in ensuring that due process is followed.
Truth and justice are incidental by-products of that.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 18, 2015 8:48 am

One has to forget about the science arguments for a moment here, Oreskes is not a scientist, she is a person making an unsupportable, non-original claim that skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie under a sinister arrangement orchestrated by industry people. Granted, I should have said such accusations need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt or at least with a preponderence of evidence, but Oreskes, Gelbspan, Gore, the NYT, et al have not even proven their accusation beyond mediocre so-so doubt. Their entire accusation centers around the single leaked “reposition global warming” memo phrase “evidence” I mentioned (Gore spells it out full screen in his movie), which was deliberately taken out of context beyond belief and portrayed to be something it never was meant to be. When the complete political wing of AGW is built around an effort that potentially can be described as outright libel/slander, they have a monster problem on their hands if the greater public ever sees that for what it is.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 18, 2015 10:17 am

@Russell Cook
“..unsupportable, non-original claim that skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie under a sinister arrangement orchestrated by industry people. ”
I agree that this claim is incorrect. The skeptics don’t lie. Rather, they have a particularly severe case of Confirmation Bias, and cannot bring themselves to accept the findings of Science. And so they invent their own world by claiming that every institution of science on the planet is populated by scientists in a conspiracy to delude the public — or are incompetent (except themselves of course) — or both.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 19, 2015 4:35 am

Russell Cook wrote: “Their entire accusation centers around the single leaked “reposition global warming” memo phrase “evidence” I mentioned (Gore spells it out full screen in his movie), which was deliberately taken out of context beyond belief and portrayed to be something it never was meant to be.”
That reposition-as-doubt tactic isn’t necessarily sinister. It could be employed on behalf of a good cause when confronted by an audience that is unwilling to be converted and won’t spend the time to listen to a fully worked out and highly technical argument. I don’t have any examples that spring to mind, but it’s likely that some good causes have utilized a Sowing-Doubt strategy in the past, at least in part.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
June 19, 2015 4:58 am

Warrenlb wrote: “[Skeptics] invent their own world by claiming that every institution of science on the planet is populated by scientists in a conspiracy to delude the public — or are incompetent (except themselves of course) — or both.”
Scientists are presumed innocent and correct based on their expertise and assumed objectivity. Those presumptions have worn thin over the past decade in light of 1) their failed predictions and 2) their partisan behavior. It’s not crazy now to presume the worst of them, or at least their leading lights.

June 17, 2015 8:42 pm

Oreskes poses as a serious academic and intellectual. Now THAT is a funny pose.

Reply to  hunter
June 17, 2015 9:02 pm

She identifies as one. That’s all you need in today’s academy.

June 17, 2015 10:55 pm

The New York Times.
“All the news that fits, we print.”

Chris Hanley
June 18, 2015 12:05 am

Whatever transpires in future, the internet is a permanent record.
For example during his heyday in the ‘20s monkey gland doctor Serge Voronoff received much favourable publicity in the New York Times but when he died in 1951: ‘… as Voronoff was no longer respected, few newspapers ran obituaries, and those that did acted as if Voronoff had always been ridiculed for his beliefs …. The New York Times, once one of his supporters, spelt his name incorrectly and stated that “few took his claims seriously” …’ (Wiki):

June 18, 2015 12:08 am

The global warming contagion
Is so difficult to kill,
If the politicians don’t infect you
The media sure will!

June 18, 2015 12:14 am

A late entry here, bit I believe that the assertion that an accused is “innocent until proven guilty” is wrong.
Anyone accused is, by virtue of the fact that they are accused, guilty. Otherwise, we would not have a police force, charges would not be laid, and we would not have courts.
The “innocent untill…” meme is a legal fiction which applies ONLY in the context of a trial in a courtroom. It has the utility of providing a baseline from which the prosecution must prove its case IN A COURT.
So, in reality, if you are accused, you are assumed to be guilty.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  William
June 18, 2015 1:47 pm

In English and related law, the statement is “presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. Obviously if the accused is proven guilty then they were guilty at the time of the accusation. Innocence is never proven only guilt. A failure to prove guilt has not proven innocence (the evidence may not be sufficient to prove guilt in the guilty) therefore the presumption of innocence stands.
p.s. As an aside, I prefer the English ruling of guilty, but insane, to the American ruling of not guilty because of insanity. At least in the English form the case is closed, whereas technically because no-one has been convicted in the American form the case remains unsolved.

Joel Winter
June 18, 2015 12:20 am

Thanks to all you science guys. I enjoy reading your posts and the comments. As an attorney I feel duty bound to contribute from my expertise. The legal standard in criminal law is to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” not “beyond a shadow of doubt.” We would likely never convict anyone with such a high standard.

Reply to  Joel Winter
June 18, 2015 8:54 am

I’ll correct the original blog post at GelbspanFiles. But we can potentially ‘convict’ the pushers of the smear of skeptics since they can’t even be bothered with providing us with ANY solid evidence to back up the accusation that people like Fred Singer knowingly lie and fabricate false reports, instructed and paid to do so. That was my entire point. Oreskes and any other accuser is all show and no go. This is a cancer that eats the AGW side of the issue from within, when its loyal followers lose all faith in their leaders to prove skeptics are crooks.

Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
June 18, 2015 5:40 pm

Maybe Dr. Singer should pursue that libel suit after all. He could obtain the same legal team that little Mikey Mann is using in his libel suit. Oh wait, then Dr. Singer *would* be affiliated with at least Big Tobacco…dang! / sarc

June 18, 2015 2:06 am

.climate change denialists. is both totally untrue, has those attacked has such have never denied that climate changes, and a basic smear job , has it designed to liken CAGW sceptics to holocaust deniers , which has no place at all in science.
Therefore if it seen you know the author has little respect for honesty and is just hopping that by throwing enough mud some of it it stick.
That a journalist uses this approach is perhaps to be expected, the real issue is when ‘scientists’ use this approach, has many in ‘the team’ have and the worst aspect of is the silence of their fellow professionals who see such practices and say nothing .
Although to be fair , such smear jobs are standard way of working in climate ‘science’ so at least for those in the area they are working to ‘acceptable standards ‘ , but what is the excuse for others ?

Reply to  knr
June 18, 2015 6:29 am

I have no respect for those who reject the findings of Science, Left or Right, or for Conspiracy theorists. Excuses for refusal to deal with the modern world abound, but we should not mistake such refusal for a rational response to reality, or their perpetrators as legitimate advancers of human progress.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 18, 2015 5:44 pm

Than I would expect you are particularly disturbed by Mann’s tree ring “trick”. As well as Trenberth’s completely erroneous linking of warm moist air and climate change to the Boston snow. Particularly, after scientist in Boston verified that it was average precipitation amplified by extreme cold. Thus, his quote below was anti-science and political. I expect you have lost all respect for both of these AGW proponents.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 18, 2015 8:03 pm

Hardly. The only ‘tricks’ are by those proposing to have found another example of fraud or conspiracy among the scientists of the world. — which requires that they are ‘all in on it’ since every scientific institution on Earth concludes Mans burning of fossil fuels are warming the planet and the results are likely to be strongly negative. Such conspiracy theories are the excuses offered by those that cannot accept reality.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 2:20 am

I, too, have no respect for Conspiracy theorists.
I also have utter and complete contempt for people including you who promote a return to pre-Enlightenment thinking by refuting every precept of science and proclaiming the ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacy.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 18, 2015 2:16 am

As Jason Bourne would say: Naomi get some rest, you look tired.

June 18, 2015 5:52 am

Writing a story because it is plausible within the motivations of your world view but not proven is not journalism, it is at best activism and at worst cynically manipulative.
Recently an article in the Sunday times reported “agents” being “lifted” due to Russia and China breaking encryption codes found in Snowden documents. There was only innuendo to support the story and when CNN asked the Sunday Times reporter follow-up questions it became clear the story was fabricated by picking a few events and using imagination to weave a a tale, which climate change reporting does in spades. Why does CNN not challenge climate alarmist claims?
With the tobacco comparison we do not know how tobacco causes lung cancer, many people who never smoked get lung cancer. We do know that statistically people who smoke have a higher incidence of lung cancer. But this higher incidence is reported without context. Lets say cigarette smoking is reported to increase lung cancer by 500% based on 5 in 5,000 smokers and 1 in 5,000 non-smokers getting lung cancer. The 500% number is accurate but removes the context of 1 in 5,000 vs 5 in 5,000. Also isn’t it important to know it is primarily people over 70 who die from lung cancer? An adult deserves all relevant facts in context to make an informed decision. Numbers coming out of climate alarmism consistently provide limited facts and ignore context a.k.a. the 97% consensus.
What often happens is the media and politicians treat the public like children who need to be led by the hand for their own good; good being defined by ideology. What I wonder is if the public allows itself to be treated like children, maybe the media and politicians are correct in treating them like children.

Reply to  Alx
June 18, 2015 11:10 am

“Why does CNN not challenge climate alarmist claims?”
Which claims, and by whom?

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 2:27 am

There are many such claims. For example, this daft one by one of the daftest alarmists is here in this thread.

The only ‘tricks’ are by those proposing to have found another example of fraud or conspiracy among the scientists of the world.

Peter Gleick would agree.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 5:59 am

Once again you’re answering questions directed at someone else– and not with a very bright light at that. They should keep you in your box at E & E, and feed you simpler questions.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 20, 2015 2:08 am

Once again I have demonstrated to you that you have spouted total nonsense.
Whomever you mean by “they” should stuff you back under your bridge.

Rob Dawg
June 18, 2015 6:10 am

At the risk of sinking to the level of alarmist behavior I must admit my tolerance for the content of any assertion evaporates upon discovering the Guardian is in any way involved.

June 18, 2015 11:22 am

comment image
She’ll get you skeptics and your little dog Toto too.

Reply to  RWturner
June 18, 2015 12:34 pm

Wow. How did they get Oreskes to put on a costume like that? Is this from the NYT site?

Reply to  rw
June 18, 2015 5:44 pm

Touche! +10

June 18, 2015 11:53 am

it seems to be a bit absurd to accuse every Climate Skeptic of being a paid shill of the oil companies. If we are – where do I line up to get paid???

Reply to  travelblips
June 18, 2015 12:38 pm

Just as absurd as accusing every Climate Scientist of being in on a conspiracy to defraud the public because they are paid to do research. Or any of us to be corrupt because we are paid for what we do.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 2:32 am

When you grow up you will learn the difference between a conspir*cy and a bandwagon.
A coincidence of interests usually has a more powerful effect than any group of conspir*tors.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 2:35 am

You say

…we are paid for what we do.

Thankyou. That is a complete explanation of why you post so much ridiculous twaddle on WUWT.

June 18, 2015 2:19 pm

“Oreskes” and “Discovery”! “NYT” and “Trust”! Haha! You’re cracking me up! Please stop!

Michael Jankowski
June 18, 2015 5:32 pm

Not every climate scientist is accused of such things, and I am sure many climate scientists truly believe what they preach. Happy now?
And don’t try to play-off a heavily-politicized field where scientists often play the role of activists as if it is some sort of typical job.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
June 18, 2015 5:37 pm

Whereas skeptics are all unbiased and pure as the driven snow.

Michael Jankowski
June 18, 2015 5:33 pm

Oreskes is a horrible human being.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
June 18, 2015 8:06 pm

is that the new Bruce Jenner?

June 18, 2015 5:55 pm

“Just as absurd as accusing every Climate Scientist of being in on a conspiracy to defraud the public because they are paid to do research. Or any of us to be corrupt because we are paid for what we do.”
Who exactly is doing this? I’m not seeing it anywhere on this thread.

Reply to  msbehavin'
June 18, 2015 8:05 pm

In reply to ‘travelblips’ June 18, 2015 at 11:53 am

Bubba Cow
Reply to  warrenlb
June 18, 2015 8:09 pm

which was?
(my algore interwebby isn’t so fast or good)

Reply to  msbehavin'
June 19, 2015 2:39 am

Nobody “is doing this”.
warrenlb was addressing one of his many fantasies. Reality has no affect on him.

June 19, 2015 7:36 am
B. Kepley
Reply to  warrenlb
June 19, 2015 8:02 am

Another appeal to authority?

Reply to  B. Kepley
June 19, 2015 10:40 am

No, a citing of expertise and gravitas. Both in short supply on this forum.

Reply to  B. Kepley
June 20, 2015 2:13 am

You say

No, a citing of expertise and gravitas. Both in short supply on this forum.

Pleasae explain how you could possibly know that when you repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t have a clue as to what expertise and gravitas are.

June 19, 2015 9:55 am

Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy
External Board of Advisors include:
John McCall MacBain, Chair. Trudeau Foundation Canada, and Board of European Climate Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland
Elizabeth Barrett-Brown, Senior Advisor, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C

%d bloggers like this: