Guest 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 GelbspanFiles.com blog posts about this baseless accusation:
- Oreskes derives the talking point on ‘tobacco industry shill experts’ / ‘fossil fuel industry shill experts’ from the main promulgator of it, global warming alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan. “Naomi Oreskes’ Problems, pt 1”
- the talking point begs for deeper scrutiny into its lineage and into the people pushing it. “Naomi Oreskes’ Problems, pt 2”
- and Oreskes’ claims about ozone depletion ‘contrarians’ only points to a huge problem surrounding people at the epicenter of the skeptic climate scientist smear effort being the same as those who tried to trash Dr S Fred Singer’s criticisms about Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). “Worried about Global Warming or Ozone Depletion? Then Destroy Critics Who Say Those aren’t Problems.”
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-167/
http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/04/germanys-energiewende-leading-to-suicide-by-cannibalism-huge-oversupply-risks-destabilization/#sthash.8tE9YRDj.PSllYaQF.dpbs
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
http://news.yahoo.com/prime-indonesian-jungle-cleared-palm-oil-065556710.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.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.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
The optimum level of atmospheric CO2 for C3 plants (all plants including cereal crops except for grasses) is 1200 ppm.
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.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
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.
[snip insulting comment, name calling -mod]
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…
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.
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 (-:
@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.
Dahlquist
@Mike Maguire
What is your ‘authentic scientific view’ of the findings here: http://climate.nasa.gov ?
warrenlb:
You ask Mike Maguire
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.
Richard
@Richardscourtney
My question was directed at Mike Maguire, not you.
warrewnlb:
Your question was meaningless whomever it was directed at, and that is why you cannot clarify what you were asking.
Ric hard
@richardscourtney
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?
Actually, you could be wrong all of the time, witness Paul Erlich.
”…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.
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.
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.
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!
Tomorrow Pope Francis issues his encyclical.
Some are calling it a call-to-arms, i.e. revolution:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-1-reason-popes-climate-encyclical-scares-gop-big-oil-far-right-and-super-rich-2015-06-13?link=mw_home_kiosk
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Church
Very different from the Eastern Church:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
Whether, Albert Arnold Gore Jr.
Gore is a Protestent, i.e. Baptist after Southern Baptist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
Will Pope Francis’s Encyclical prode Al Gore to convert and enter the 2016 Presidential Race?
Ha ha
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.
Projection, my thinks.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Oreskes poses as a serious academic and intellectual. Now THAT is a funny pose.
She identifies as one. That’s all you need in today’s academy.
The New York Times.
“All the news that fits, we print.”
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):
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voronoff+%2B+new+york+times
The global warming contagion
Is so difficult to kill,
If the politicians don’t infect you
The media sure will!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/skeptics-at-the-forefront-of-freedoms-defence/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
.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 ?
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.
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.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3622201/brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr/
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.
warrenlb
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.
Richard
As Jason Bourne would say: Naomi get some rest, you look tired.
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.
@Alx
“Why does CNN not challenge climate alarmist claims?”
Which claims, and by whom?
warrenlb:
There are many such claims. For example, this daft one by one of the daftest alarmists is here in this thread.
Peter Gleick would agree.
Richard
@richardscourney
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.
warrenlb
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.
Richard
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.
She’ll get you skeptics and your little dog Toto too.
Wow. How did they get Oreskes to put on a costume like that? Is this from the NYT site?
Touche! +10
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???
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.
warrenlb:
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.
Richard
warrenlb
You say
Thankyou. That is a complete explanation of why you post so much ridiculous twaddle on WUWT.
Richard
“Oreskes” and “Discovery”! “NYT” and “Trust”! Haha! You’re cracking me up! Please stop!
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.
Whereas skeptics are all unbiased and pure as the driven snow.
Oreskes is a horrible human being.
is that the new Bruce Jenner?
@Warrenib
“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.
In reply to ‘travelblips’ June 18, 2015 at 11:53 am
which was?
(my algore interwebby isn’t so fast or good)
msbehavin’:
Nobody “is doing this”.
warrenlb was addressing one of his many fantasies. Reality has no affect on him.
Richard