Guest post by Russell Cook, blogger at GelbspanFiles.com
We all deplore Oreskes for the ridiculousness of her 100% scientific consensus paper and despise her “Merchants of Doubt” book for its unsupportable insinuation that skeptic climate scientists are corrupt. But if I may humbly suggest it, she has one more huge and basically completely overlooked problem: As she tells it, the sequence of events which led her to write “Merchants of Doubt” with co-author Erik Conway literally cannot have happened the way she claims it did. Her narrative actually falls apart in the same pathetic manner seen in old TV detective shows, where the supposedly sophisticated murderer is exposed via an elemental mistake made in the effort to cover up the crime.
So the next critical question is, why would Oreskes seemingly need to invent a cover story about how she was inspired to write the book?
Excerpt:
Naomi Oreskes has on one occasion shortened her narrative about her discovery of corrupted skeptic climate scientist ‘doubt merchants’ to a single sentence:
After the 2004 paper came out, I started getting attacked, and, well, one thing led to another and I ended up putting aside oceanography and writing, with Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt.
The “paper” she refers to is her December 3, 2004 Science journal paper concerning a 100% consensus of scientific papers over the matter of human-induced global warming.Another interview of Oreskes expands the story, with some short details about her “Merchants of Doubt” book co-author:
We wrote the book because we stumbled across the story, we didn’t set out to write a story about climate change denial.
Oreskes’ says she was attacked for her December 2004 Science paper after it was published, and at a subsequent conference where she mentioned the name of one of her attackers, Erik Conway approached her during its Q&A session to detail a similar prior attack.
But the conference took place in July 2004.
There’s no graceful recovery here. If the truth is that Erik Conway and/or others told Oreskes about ‘corrupted skeptic scientists’ such as Dr S Fred Singer in mid-summer 2004, then she simply looks like she was waiting for an excuse to launch the kind of personal attack she despises. If she was informed about ‘corrupted’ skeptics after the publication of her paper, her narrative about the Germany conference and Conway’s “tip” looks like a cover story for where, when, and how she actually got the information. If she backpedals about being mixed up on the sequence of events, it’ll undermine a recent announcement that she “will be awarded the sixth annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communication.”
Continue reading at GelbspanFiles: “To be Credible, you must Keep Your Story Straight, Pt 2: Oreskes’ timeline problem“
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These days, cause need not precede effect.
In fact, these days need not even have an effect….only a cause.
I believe climate scientist call that “tele-communication”. The effect in one region triggers the cause in another. In this case the tele-communication was able to go back in time.
I knew Doc Brown shouldn’t have left the keys in the Delorean.
“Words are not meant to report history, but to shape history.” – the guiding mission of lefty revisionists.
Tardis Time. Wait until she takes on climate in the universe.
Many recent media articles about how well DNC did and how awful RNC did were in fact written prior to the events. Same ESPECIALLY with climate change. Facts are irrelevant!
Scott —
Nice play off variant meanings of “cause”. If your “cause” is to save the world from evil carbon it is totally unnecessary that evil carbon have an “effect” on the environment.
Eugene WR Gallun
[snip – policy -mod]
And for globalwarmists, claims are facts, and anyone else’s facts are lies unless they back up globalwarmist claims.
Apparently all of you have missed the ground-shaking discovery of Quantum Climate Change or QCC. It is the theory of strong interjections, made up of the fundamental forces of Hubris, Arrogance, and Ignorance. In QCC, there does not need to be any cause and effect, and time-order is completely relative to people writing factual stories from the people that read them – therefore any order of events is acceptable.
I encourage all skeptics to keep abreast of the latest scientific theories of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change).
+1 Indeed Quantum physics at play, with its quantum leaps in to Doom
/sarc
As always in ‘climate science’, only the future is certain, the past is forever changing.
Can’t understand why so many are surprised that she adjusted the data to fit the model.
There’s a perfectly good reason for ….everything…
She was busy ducking sniper fire with Hillary Clinton at the time.
And Brian Williams had their back!
“She was busy ducking sniper fire with Hillary Clinton at the time.”
So does this mean Oreskes is now qualified to be the Democrats’ nominee for President? VP?
How about Secretary Of The Exterior?
Secretary of the Posterior?
…probably just The Inferior.
The the anterior, or ventral, aspect of the head from the forehead to the chin, inclusive, that sunk a thousand ships.
“The the anterior, or ventral, aspect of the head from the forehead to the chin, inclusive, that sunk a thousand ships.”
It sure doesn’t float my boat.
unknown502756
Got to laugh. Hillary Clinton totally lied about being under sniper fire. There are videos of the event of her landing where she is accepting flowers from small children. Below is part of a poem I wrote a long time ago.
Her lies are big, her lies are small
She lies when there’s no need to lie
The strangest lies of all
Eugene WR Gallun
Definition of “<a href="http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html"sociopath"”
Sorry – sociopath: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
This was obviously from minute one akin to the RICO nonsense, and that scammer Santer involved no surprise, that guy.. I hope he pays one day for the damage he’s done. Scumbag
Oreskes is a bitter barren horrible women who thinks all women are unhappy because she is so fn destitute.
In Ireland we call her kind a weapon
Satire alert
Not Just a Pretty Face
OMFGROFLLMAOLOL
From the link: “half scientist, half historian, half novelist,”
150%? Sounds like those numbers need “adjustments” too.
You missed out on “half-wit”.
Bitter&twisted — good one — Eugene WR Gallun
Quasimodo would have thrown her back on the fire
“Science is like crime,” she explained, “in pretty much every way imaginable. And just like scientists, police are acutely aware that one report means nothing.
oh how true she spoke..their form of “science” is a bloody crime!
It is amazing how many of the loudest accusers project their own motives, methods, and actions onto those with whom they disagree. I am at the point where if someone accuses another person of being racist or bigoted or dishonest or unethical*, I assume the accuser is the one actually guilty of the sin.
*Absent any actual proof or reason other than “wah, they did not drink my Kool-aid”.
There’s an old saying. If you want to know what a leftist is up to, just check to see what he is accusing others of.
LMFAO – love this quote – “the lawless, testosterone-drunk mines beneath Western Australia. That’s where she learned “what men do with their hands when they can’t see you [and you can’t see them].””
Indeed! Because the only time a male member of the species is ever going to want to fondle THAT woman IS when they CAN’T SEE HER! LOL.
Another gem – “The Harvard academic, who describes herself as “half scientist, half historian, half novelist,” – – – so, not so good at math then – and by extension, not so good at science either.
But the best is this one – ““It’s important to realize that they’re now, 29? 30?,” she explained. “I think it’s important that journalists especially need to understand, busty young interns are people like everybody else. They get lonely, they crave attention and especially bimbos who have been very attractive in their earlier period of life and I think sometimes it’s hard for them when they start to lose their looks so I think we’ve seen that phenomenon here.””
WHOA! Just a GIGANTIC bit of presumption there, eh?!! Presuming that they’re “busty” (or maybe projecting her own insecurity there?), presuming that they are making accusations because they “crave attention,” presuming that they are “bimbos,” presuming that they are “losing their looks” – WOW. Maybe her idol was just a dirty old man abusing his position of power!
And maybe she’s just ranting because she was never “busty,” WAS lonely, never got any attention, was envious of “bimbos” who, you know, GOT all the “attention” she would have liked, and was NEVER “good looking” (a pretty safe assumption based on her photos LMAO). Sounds like major projection to me. This woman had zero respect from me before I saw this little window into her drab little world, but now not only don’t I respect her but I find her downright vile!
Why the picture of Bob Dylan with the article?
“Given that Oreskes has an ability to get things arse about face,”
As illustrated by the photo.!!
One look at Oreskes says it all. Weapon
[snip -policy-mod]
[snip -policy -ugly comment, you are on permanent moderation now -mod]
?
Ex Queensland Premier Peter Beattie would put it more delicately, Mark.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheCalebBond/status/723470335467622400
Such distractions over superficial qualities accompany every discussion about Oreskes.
It never helps to arm one’s opponents.
But her “superficial qualities” became very relevant as a measure of her self awareness: she managed to make her look relevant, in a spectacular way. You couldn’t make this up!
Agree.
If you are such a fool as to think that it matters, then close your eyes and respond to her printed words.
The visual attractiveness of a person is irrelevant to the power of their words. While a man in a tracksuit might not be as visually striking as one in a business suit, it does not negate their words in any way.
“Such distractions over superficial qualities accompany every discussion about Oreskes.”
Again you don’t READ. SHE brought it to herself. SHE managed to make a POINT out of it. As a feminist, even! (Have you notice how “feminists” like to defend s.x predators or whitewash agressions toward women and r.pe culture these days?)
“While a man in a tracksuit might not be as visually striking as one in a business suit, it does not negate their words in any way.”
Until HE brought it to himself by making a POINT out of the pretty, classy and expensive suit he is currently wearing when wearing a jumpsuit.
Like many French people, I don’t have a great English accent, which isn’t in any want relevant here, and would be highly inappropriate to use against my remarks and my statements of facts, unless I complain about not being selected as a speaker of an event, and being unfairly discriminated against, in favor of a person which happens to have a perfect English accent, for doing a speech in English, which would put into question my self awareness, my ability to see the obvious, my honesty, and which is en entirely a made up story and not a point I am making.
IF I was making a silly point about ME, you would be entitle to question other points I made.
And please, before any PC guy complain: bringing something to yourself IS A THING. And just because r.pists might say exactly that doesn’t mean it’s inherently wrong or sick to say that – it might be wrong or sick.
Also, Naomi is saying exactly that about the alleged victims of the e-otic novels writer. And she is wrong in saying that as she has no special informations about the case. Which makes it sick.
“One look at Oreskes says it all. Weapon”
Be careful. Weapon is a word meaning ‘male tool’. the ‘wea’ part is from ‘weaman’ which is the male equivalent of ‘woman’ (giving male person/female person). The ‘pon’ means ‘tool’.
I don’t know about the Irish origins of calling a woman a weapon. It seems unnecessarily rude.
Of course Naomi fibbed about the motivation and the sequence of events. The book is full of fibs, cover to cover. It is from a bunch of Merchants of Smear who sell (literally) false claims, false analogy and false accusations.
When a book full of untruths has influence, it requires the writing of a significant rebuttal. False witnesses must be exposed. When oppressors commit their oppression by lie, we have a responsibility to stay the hand of the oppressor. Detailed responses are far better than ad hom complaining. Yes rebuttal is work, but some work is important and necessary and forced upon us by others.
The rebuttal becomes a valued treasure of guidance and insight. Merchants of Smear is a great title. From what I can find, there is no book called that yet, though it has been used as an epithet to describe the Merchants of Doubt. Is this correct?
There is a take-down of this ill-informed person claiming to be some sort of science historian here
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/03/06/merchants-of-smear-movie-slanders-eminent-physicist-dr-fred-singer-singer-fires-back/
Well deserved too.
Let’s call a spade, a spade … she LIED, not “fibbed”.
In the ‘war’ against these climate fascists ‘nice’ doesn’t win. Call them for what they are!
What is the source of this etymology of “weapon”? None of the dictionaries I checked knows of it.
The tolerably extensive Anglo-Saxon dictionary I use lists “wæpen” but not *weaman and while
it has an entry for “pon-” it does not give “tool” as a sense for it. Dictionaries just trace it back to
a Germanic root meaning “weapon” and stop.
“Weapon is a word meaning ‘male tool’. the ‘wea’ part is from ‘weaman’ which is the male equivalent of ‘woman’ (giving male person/female person). The ‘pon’ means ‘tool’.:
Ma. Lar. Key.
There certainly isn’t any generic relation between ‘weapon’ and ‘woman.’ The latter derives from ‘wiffman,’ i.e., the ‘man’ (neuter, as in German) who was ‘wife.’ –AGF
And remember, friends, Anthony has just a few excerpts from my much longer blog post. The quoted interview passage where Oreskes steers herself straight into a brick wall of her own making is deeper within that post. Meanwhile, thanks to Anthony for helping me tell the story to a wider audience.
Thanks for you efforts.
I understand you are neither a scientist or a trained journalist and have received money from the Heartland Institute, which hardly makes you an unbiased reporter here?
http://www.desmogblog.com/russell-cook
What makes desmogblog an credible source in your opinion? Every story on its front page parrots the climate alarmist line.
Oh dear.
The best argument you can muster is an ad hominem. Have you no facts?
I’m really sorry for you Griff. It must be so embarrassing. 🙁
Wow. Didn’t know the climate trolls were rocket-propelled now. Impressive.
With the the Church of Global Warming (a sect of the government religion of Secular Socialism) facts are not necessary as they compete with beliefs. Their only response is the cry of “heretic” or in the Warmism cult “Denier”.
Typical warmista, attack the source and claim that only those who agree with you are qualified to speak.
“Every story on its front page parrots the climate alarmist line.”
That’s precisely what makes it credible.
Trained Journalist? What sort of endorsement is that? Worst appeal to authority, I’d say.
I’m calling into question his competence and impartiality, of course.
Would anyone like to correct the information given at desmogblog?
They are happy to correct inaccuracies…
A paid consultant of Heartland putting up this nonsense is equivalent to someone paid by Greenpeace rubbishing Anthony Watts in a Guardian article, isn’t it?
Griff
A government-paid bureaucrat using her 92 billion dollar government budget to pay a government-paid “scientist” sending a government-paid consultant out to put up this nonsense to generate 31 trillion a year in carbon trading futures is equivalent to someone paid by Greenpeace rubbishing Anthony Watts in a Guardian article, isn’t it?
If 79 government-paid “scientists” answer a government-sponsored survey for a government-paid bureaucrat satisfy your 97% requirement for government-paid results to justofy 1.3 trillion dollars a year in new taxes, how many more government-paid “scientists” can you buy for 92 billion dollars in government-paid wind turbines and government research money .. if 25,000.00 dollars one-time from Heartland corrupts a person forever?
Griff, your logic is flawed as is the basic premise of Desmogblog. Nothing in your link proves that Russell has accepted money to make or change his position on the touted consensus. In fact Russell states exactly the opposite. Doesn’t it make more sense that Heartland decided to fund Russell because of his stated position instead of a means to influence his position? You need to put your own bias in check before you falsely accuse others of selling out.
I’ve seen this pattern before, Griff. The Scientologists have an enemies page that looks very much like the desmog page. Check it out and then see if you can find any similarities between desmog, yourself and a brainwashed Scientologist:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/
@Griff: Griff, Griff, Griff….. could you and your pals be any more predictable? Even more funny how you ask in your additional comment “Would anyone like to correct the information given at desmogblog?” How utterly embarrassing for you that you don’t point out specifically right here how those words at my Desmog profile are literally my own words from my blog on how I receive a STRINGS-FREE grant from Heartland, which totally undercuts your own assertion that I’m a “paid consultant.” Rather than rely on second- or third-hand info to make unsupportable assertions about my status which embarrasses you, why not read a bit deeper into my blog posts and see for yourself how I have irrefutable proof that I am NOT a paid employee or consultant of any kind at Heartland?
Meanwhile, call my competence into question if it makes you feel better and gains polite rounds of applause among your friends. But indulge the entire WUWT audience here: where within my Desmog profile or where within any Desmog material do you see them dispute a single word about what I’ve already written on Oreskes’ crippling problems or about their own co-founders ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1989 )? Can you yourself rise to the challenge of disputing what I wrote in my main post yesterday ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=4195 ) about Oreskes? Fail to do so on any of these challenges, and you only end up pointing a finger straight at who should really be questioned on competency.
Someone’s got paid for something? Oh the horror!
Give it a rest Griff
When you can’t play the ball, play the man, eh Griff?
When all you have is a hammer, etc.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
Poor Russell, he can’t answer the issue, so he lies to himself and proves himself a fool. A wise man would be silent and at least some question.
@hunter: Pure psychological projection on your part, friend, a microcosm for the entire AGW issue. Technically, I ‘answer the issue’ the same way Al Gore does, I point to the scientists and their climate assessments. The difference is that Al Gore only points to one side, and I point to both sides and ask why there is such a deep divide. Oreskes et al. tells me and you to ignore the skeptic scientists, saying they are ‘corrupt’. All I ask is “where is the evidence backing that up?” I’ve taken the time, obviously, to read and watch the material from your beloved leaders, and I say the physical evidence proving a pay-for-performance arrangement is not only totally absent, but at least two of your dearest leaders are apparently fabricating stories of how they supposedly ‘discovered’ the corruption of skeptic climate scientists.
And you don’t even lift a finger to dispute a word I say, you only call me a name. Take the time to look in the mirror, and ask yourself why your position is so weak that this is the only reaction you have to all my work — “Man looks in the abyss, there’s nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss.”
Irrelevant and inappropriate to make fun of her outward appearance. I’m sure there are lots of physically fugly skeptics as well, too.
But underneath all of that…the only uglier human beings on the inside than Oreskes are basically monsters.
The presumed infallibility of psychopaths.
A sad prognosis.
The CAGW faithful lie? Who’da thunk it.
Naomi is outstanding in her ability to come out as a know-nothing crackpot when it comes to:
– heavy metals
– pH scale
– radiation dangers and radiation regulations
– nuclear physics and the nuclear industry
– climate
– the scientific method in general
– the historical method in general
She is pretty much the Grampa Simpson of science history: can’t you go five seconds without humiliating herself!
she’s also saying “90% of ground water is corrosive and will melt your brain”
[snip]
Moreover a compulsive liar.
“90% of ground water is corrosive and will melt your brain”
Water melts brains?
That wouldn’t make much difference for her!
Do you have a source for that quote.
Acidic water will leach lead from plumbing joints. The lead, in turn, will cause brain damage. Manual of Small Public Water Supply Systems
Having said the above, each situation has to be evaluated on its own merits. Our town still has some lead pipes dating back to the 1940s. It’s not a problem because the water is alkaline and has high mineral content. The scale that develops in the pipe protects against the lead.
It is important to know what Naomi Oreskes actually said. She’s probably being seriously alarmist. She’s probably wrong about facts and theory. She probably didn’t say that corrosive water will melt your brain. 🙂
“Water melts brains?”
Certainly possible, depending on the volume and pressure.
Is Abe wearing his King of the Mountain boxers?
Now she is bleating on about “Your air conditioner is making the heat wave worse”
Yup, most likely from an air conditioned office, and of course, if you say “ah so you agree UHI is significant” she’ll block you
I’ll do without AC in my Southern Plains environs next Summer, if she will forego heating her New England home and office, next Winter.
Same goes for John Kerry.
Laws for people, creature comforts for political hacks.
There is a petition on Morano’s CD calling for all AC to be removed from fed property and cars, planes ect 😀 240 more sigs to goes to Obama ROFL
The petition is funny, though, in fact I’d like to see it implemented for a while just to make government understand they DO NOT want what green politicians routineously suggest.
I guess Trump could be nasty enough to say next summer we’ll try this new green no-AC style.
I am still waiting for Algore to be charged for letting/ordering his massive SUV to idle for over 20 minutes (I cannot remember the exact number) while he gave a speech in DC several years ago. It is illegal to idle for more than 3 minutes in DC. Apparently it was more important for him to be able to get into an already cool car than it was to walk the talk and not waste fossil fuels.
I think we should practice selective heating and cooling, but this time, Obama does not get to pick “winners” and “losers”, we do! Federal employees who are concerned about AGW lose their AC and heating, and federal employees who are skeptical get to keep their AC and heating. If there really is so much support for alarmism among the rank and file, we will have massive energy/financial savings from no longer having to provide AC and heat. This would likely be followed by mass resignations by employees who want their creature comforts back.
Actually, why not put this in play across the nation or even go global? Ever claimed to be concerned about AGW and preached that “we” must change “our” behavior to save the planet? No heat or AC for you! All power and resource savings will be redirected to the residents of developing countries (not their leaders). After all, the whole point of lowering emissions, etc. is to benefit all those poor people, right? Bonus: true believers can demonstrate the effectiveness and survivability of their prescribed lifestyles.
John Kerry said that air conditioning and refrigeration is making ‘globul warmun’ worse. Sign the petition to have air conditioning in all US Federal buildings turned off.
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/07/petition-to-remove-air-conditioning-from-all-us-state-property/
Signed. Here’s the link for the petition itself. Makes total sense. Otherwise, they are just liars and hypocrites.
Heating the buildings in winter has the same effect as AC in the summer. Turn off the AC and heating in all US Federal Buildings, including Congress, the White House and the Pentagon. See how quickly Kerry changes his tune.
What Kerry is talking about of course is your AC. Yours is needlessly heating the planet, because you are of no value. His AC on the other hand is performing a vital function, keeping the vital levers of government functioning.
Not just at the State Department. They need to turn off the A/C in ALL federal buildings around the world. AND Kerry needs to turn it off in his home(s), yacht(s), cars, etc.
It’s for the children, don’tcha know. (Whose kids, I have no idea.)
I would love to know how we are supposed to do things for future children, when none of us are supposed to have children.
It’s a simple explanation, really…time-travel. Oreskes published in Dec 2004 and then went back in time to the July 2004 conference. She’s a time-traveling expert compared to, say, Gergis, who can only go back in time a matter of days.
But nothing compares to those dedicated scientists who go back in time up to 100 years and more to gather information so that they can adjust our historical temperature records and make them more accurate.
This is one of the pseudo science sites she gets her “facts” from
http://www.climatesignals.org/headlines/events/northern-wisconsin-and-minnesota-flood-july-2016?utm_content=bufferbb059&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
“climate signals” how moronic ROFL
She seems a perfect recipient of the Stephen H. Schneider Award named for a person I’m only aware of for his immortal defense of the moral need to lie to advance one’s cause .
Bob
“for his immortal defense of the moral need to lie to advance one’s cause ”
That sounds Islamic
I prefer to remember Steve seized up in paroxysm, while flying across the Atlantic, returning from a “save the planet” conference.
So what’s the big deal about a mere five month dating error?/sarc
Kudos to Bob Armstrong for reminding us of the most famous position ever held by Stephen H. Schneider.
Anyone who believes in 100% polls isn’t worth having a coffee with.
We need a #OreskesLies spread far and wide?
Anybody remember this? I do….
Holy cow!
Leni Riefenstahl would have heaped praise on such a skillful image edit.
totally out of context. lol Good for a joke though
But George Bush sr constantly talked about the New World Order lol
I call it the project for the new American Century.
…Back up your idiocy with a VIDEO !
Mark – Helsinki
I believe that after the Japanese raped Nanking we did apply trade restrictions. Should we have done nothing?
Eugene WR Gallun
http://visibility911.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/pnac.jpg
and we now know from declassified memos that A they new the Japanese fleet was coming and B the 8 point plan to goad Japan into attacking 😀
Declassified memos are not conspiracy theory
A skillful edit to completely change the intended meaning. Shame on you. And this from an American who can’t stand Obama’s “leadership.” We CAGW skeptics are fighting against a war of pernicious and false propaganda. Don’t add to the problem.
[snip -policy -mod]
You seem to be mistaken on that point.
I found the essay interesting, and not ridiculous.
Seth,
it is absurd to claim 100% consensus when it is obviously a bald faced lie. Consensus doesn’t advance science at all,reproducible papers do.
The claim was that none of the abstracts that she looked at rejected the consensus position, which is not exactly a claim that there is a 100% consensus.
It doesn’t look like a lie to me. What am I missing?
Then you are just a bit silly. The idea that 100% of climate scientists think we know enough about climate to be certain that human emissions are affecting the climate is ludicrous. There are huge gaps in our understanding of the climate and therefore any sensible climate scientist will have significant doubts about whether we are affecting it or not, and to what degree.
If 100% of climate scientists do actually agree with Oreskes, then 100% of climate scientists can be ignored.
No doubt 100% of priests agree that God exists. They are the experts, so there we go. God exists.
She didn’t make that claim.
But the claim that all the readers of this blog “deplore Oreskes” is a bit silly.
It is also wrong. I read this blog, and I think Oreskes has added a useful analysis of the “debate”.
So you agree with Oreskes’ paper when she says: The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known?
That’s good. Do you also not deplore her?
It doesn’t matter, the claim that we all do is still wrong.
Seth any claim of 100% consensus on a whole bunch if climate sciences is completely bogus.
Nonsense, there is no such thing, not unless you take nuance and shoot him\her in the head ffs dont go full rtrd mate
Mark, if you think some of the papers she looked at were incorrectly classified, then you should be able to point out which ones.
I mean you’d base your opinion on something material wouldn’t you? If your opinion is as strong as your language suggests.
Don’t hold back, mate: Now’s your chance to prove your point. What are some of the papers that you think show that less than half of the warming of the previous 50 years were due to natural forces from amongst those published between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “global climate change”?
The argument is as follows:
100% of Roman Catholic priests believe in God.
Therefore, this proves that God exists.
So you found the statistics in her paper interesting. Did you also take the Iraqi election results under Saddam Hussein at face value? (Do you think there might be an analogy here?)
I found her essay interesting. There wasn’t a lot of statistics.
The story around the book is based on victimization, which always enhances sales and is a propaganda mechanism to impart authority. “It must be right, because I was attacked for it” means that others felt she was right or a threat, and must be silenced. The actual answer is that no one cared what she said about anything, before or after the book. The tobacco industry suppression of evidence was their evidence. The climate debate is with public data. Apparently she has cognitive trouble understanding you cannot have a conspiracy of data using public domain data. Think Exxon. No meteorology department. Just MBA hacks reading newspapers, yacking about possible climate impacts on business.
It’s based on how public perception of science can be manipulated by a few scientists. The same few scientists did this for ExxonMobil as did it for Phillip Morris.
Certainly there has been victimisation, hence the need for things like the climate science legal defense fund. But that’s not the basis of the book.
Which scientists manipulated what?
Seth,
Show us the names so we can join you enlightened souls and applaud [trimmed].
Yet another hag that needs to be locked up
You think that speaking out that the public perception of science is distorted should be a crime?
Are there other things that speaking out about should be a crime, or just that?
It’s pretty clear that Naomi O is accusing without any evidence.
But if I may humbly suggest it, she has one more huge and basically completely overlooked problem.
I’m sorry. I don’t usually comment on this aspect because, well, we can all see. She is so godam ugly.
Perhaps subjective attractiveness is now to be considered a privilege. Compare yourself on a chart and if you fall below some level you automatically get boosted (levelled-up) in Credibility or Moral Authority or something.
A persons external appearance is not independent of their internal self. A person with a permanent scowl etched into the lines of their face was not born that way. A person with laugh lines around the mouth and eyes was not born that way. As we age our personality is often reflected in our face.
ferdberple is wise.
I for one am really tired of seeing this sort of comment. (Incidentally, the same thing could have been said about George Eliot or Flannery O’Connor.)
Wow.
Very creepy.
Which 57 year olds do you find don’t have this “huge problem?”
On second thoughts, please don’t answer that, what you’ve said already is way too cringeworthy. I do recommend you see a psychiatrist though. You’re a little bit overly perverted.
The manuscript was on the shelf, just waiting for the moment to arrive.
Doing my best to prompt others with deeper investigative resources than me to see if this is not actually the genuine situation. Same thing goes for the timeline problems surrounding one of the other prominent pushers of the ‘corrupt skeptic climate scientists’ accusation: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1748