Naomi Oreskes' Tale of Discovering Corrupt Skeptic Climate Scientists has a Fatal Glitch

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

Advertisements

190 thoughts on “Naomi Oreskes' Tale of Discovering Corrupt Skeptic Climate Scientists has a Fatal Glitch

      • 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.

      • 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

    • 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).

    • As always in ‘climate science’, only the future is certain, the past is forever changing.

  1. 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

    • From the link: “half scientist, half historian, half novelist,”
      150%? Sounds like those numbers need “adjustments” too.

    • “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!

    • “Given that Oreskes has an ability to get things arse about face,”
      As illustrated by the photo.!!

    • 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!

      • 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

  2. 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.

      • 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. 🙁

      • 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

          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?

          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.

    • 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.”

  3. 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.

  4. 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. 🙂

  5. 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.

      • 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. We all deplore Oreskes for the ridiculousness of her 100% scientific consensus paper

    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.

      • it is absurd to claim 100% consensus when it is obviously a bald faced lie.

        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.

      • 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.

        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”.

        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.

        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.

        No doubt 100% of priests agree that God exists.
        You think that a priest’s opinion is similar to the findings of a scholarly paper?

    • 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

      • Seth any claim of 100% consensus on a whole bunch if climate sciences is completely bogus.

        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?)

      • So you found the statistics in her paper interesting.

        I found her essay interesting. There wasn’t a lot of statistics.

  9. 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.

    • The story around the book is based on victimization

      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.

    • 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?

  10. 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.

    • 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.)

    • 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.

      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.

  11. Ahhh
    The conversation is sanitising their comments on Gerghis et al 2016 because the comments correct the completely fabricted version Gerghis gives of events, given we know karoly cited CA as finding the problem in FOI emails
    I made those comments a week ago.

  12. Oreskes is apparently guilty and can be prosecuted under RICO laws, this is racketeering, it’s jut government funded racketeering, is that prosecutable under RICO?

      • Prosecutable is an adjective according to “dictionary.com”. However, it doesn’t show in my 2003 copy of Webster’s dictionary. Spell check has limitations. 😉

      • Prosecutable is the only adjective given for Prosecute in my Oxford English Dictionary. It is used very commonly in discussions here in the States regarding political corruption and whether it is bad enough to prosecute, and is therefore “prosecutable”.

  13. From the article

    “I’m deeply honored to receive this award named after Stephen Schneider,” said Oreskes. “As Steve understood, communication is not just about the facts, it’s about conveying the meaning and significance of those facts — and this is what I have tried to do for climate science.”

    Indeed, Naomi. Indeed.

    • Perhaps the most intriguing thing about a comment thread like this (and why it will go in my files) is that no one really faces up to the fact that Oreskes is dead serious – and what this implies. It’s as if that’s a part of mental space that every skeptical commenter knows to stay away from without ever acknowledging the fact.

  14. Oreskes is simply using an old device to gain the trust of her audience. She wants them to believe that she came into the debate innocently much like they might. This results in a more sympathetic hearing. An educated liar. Nothing more.

  15. Howard Stern is a better communicator than Oreskes and probably more honest and attractive. I wonder if she asks her guests to disrobe? 😉

  16. from the UK’s Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the University of Exeter, UK:
    High chance that current atmospheric greenhouse gases commit to warmings greater than 1.5C over land
    “”Our findings suggest that we are committed to land temperatures in excess of 1.5°C across many regions at present-day levels of greenhouses gases. It is therefore imperative to understand its consequences for our health, infrastructure and ecosystem services upon which we all rely.”
    http://phys.org/news/2016-07-high-chance-current-atmospheric-greenhouse.html
    More nonsense absurdity baloney bunk drivel folly foolishness madness rubbish silliness stupidity trash balderdash bananas bull claptrap hogwash irrationality poppycock prattle ranting senselessness tripe hot air ludicrousness mumbo jumbo

  17. 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.

    Question: Was this a real attack? Or was a person asking legitimate questions or sharing a different viewpoint? I mention this today because it seems leftists view any opinion contrary to theirs as an attack. The fight-or-flight response takes over. Some have the “agree with me, OR ELSE!” attitude. (i.e. a bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding soon becomes blacklisted and all sorts of bad things happen to that business.) Others become so traumatized that they need therapy, seriously. Many universities have implemented “safe spaces” where no contrary opinion can be heard for fear it may damage someone’s delicate psyche. James Hansen accused George W Bush of trying to silence him when Bush just told him to shut up and do his job. This was not an attack, but the leftist perceived it as one because. Or the leftist made it out to be an attack so that he becomes the victim.
    So, where is the proof that this was a real, actual verbal assault?

  18. When you have a cause with an effect, you are dealing with logic.
    When you have a cause without an effect, you are dealing with an activist.

  19. When I see the face with the name I automatically think of the orcs in Lord of the Rings. As Smeagol would say “Oreskes” .

  20. Why would anyone spend $1 billion dollars to gain a job that pays $400 thousand a year?
    Unfortunately the courts in the US overturned laws designed to prevent big money from corrupting the election process. Instead we have armies of pad shills working as legitimate news reporters, subverting the 4th arm of the US government; the press. All controlled by a few uber rich individuals.
    The only shining light in all of this has been the internet, which has largely taken over the role of the 4th arm of government. Especially the role of investigative reporting, which has largely fallen to “hackers”, exposing the corruption and high level government lies.
    Whether it be climate-gate, or the US government illegally spying on its citizens, or the DNC rigging the current election process. All dismissed as “conspiracy theories” until the facts were made know.
    Expect massive changes in internet content under a Clinton presidency, all in the name of “protecting” us. Anything that runs counter to “accepted” truths will be subject to prosecution, for the “harm” it does to others, backed by RICO laws.
    The First Amendment to the US constitution says this:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
    Nowhere does it limit the power of the President to limit freedom of speech by Executive Order.

    • Big money has always corrupted the political process.
      The stupid thing was that so many people actually believed that a law that was designed to get other people’s money out of politics was going to work.
      The very idea that the government could outlaw anyone other than the media from commenting on an election in the week before an election is something that only a totalitarian should come up with.
      Beyond that, the law carves out huge exclusions for “the media”, but who determines who is media and who isn’t?
      Why the government of course.
      This law, like the others before it had only one purpose, to make incumbents safe.

      • As P.J. O’rouke said, when government controls buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold will be politicians.
        As long as government has a big role in the economy, those who have economic interests at stake will do whatever it takes to protect those interests from the government.
        The ONLY solution is to reduce the power of government to the point where government influence isn’t worth buying.

    • “Nowhere does it limit the power of the President to limit freedom of speech by Executive Order.”
      The only way the president could stifle free speech is by declaring martial law.
      Otherwise, it is Congress that makes the laws, and the Executive Branch is supposed to carry out those laws.
      Presidential Executive Orders are directions to Executive Branch Departments on how to implement the laws pertaining to that Department. The president cannot change laws, but he can work around the margins of the law, with Executive Orders by manipulating how the laws are implemented.
      Or, in the case of President Obama, the president can issue an illegal Executive Order which stays in effect until the Supreme Court slaps it down, or the Congress impeaches and removes the president from Office.

    • The Supreme Court allowed free speech to continue.
      The so-called election finance laws pushed by far too many in oligarch were going to stifle free speech greatly, and limit only conservative voices.
      Don’t by into the money = corruption myth.
      The most corrupt politics in modern history were instates that strictly banned- and ultimately outlawed- money in politics.

  21. When the filthy lies of the CAGW ideology have finally been uncovered for all to see, there should be Nuremberg-like trials for folks like her, because of the enormous damage they have done.

  22. Oreskes role appears more of an Activist than a Historian, which would appear to disqualify her as a Historian on Climate issues.
    The crucial requirement of all Historians is that they are not part of the story they are recording. Otherwise their own participation lends bias to their work. It is like General Lee or General Grant writing the history of the US civil war. Or Napoleon or Wellington writing the history of the Battle of Waterloo. Or Stalin or Churchill writing the history of WWII.
    No one is going to write a History in which they appear as a villain, because all of us, no matter how terrible we are, sees ourselves as the hero in our own story. Even the most monstrous of individuals, psychopathic serial killers, they will see their own actions as completely justified. This isn’t something we do consciously. It is inherent i our behavior. We do what we think is right, now matter how wrong others might think our actions.

    • Churchill’s History of WWII certainly left out still classified details, and may have downplayed some of his failures, was very well worth reading. It took me an entire summer to get through all six volumes.

  23. And the Ward Churchill Award for academic misconduct wrapped in attention getting tactics goes to Naomi Oreskes. Your prize consists of a dog biscuit to reward that pleasure center-attention reward response that drives you.

  24. The facts will interfere with her receiving the “Schneider clisci communication award? I don’t think so. He’s the guy who encouraged scientists to lie as much as their consciences can bear! The twisted time line makes it a shoo-in for the award

  25. Spray her green and Oreskes would be the twin sister of the Wicked Witch in “The Wizard Of Oz”.
    Eugene WR Gallun

  26. I was rather hoping that now Anthony was back in the driving seat these ludicrous personal attacks would be limited.
    Despicable comments like “face like a plumbers bag of spanners ” have no place in any blog
    I suppose some of your respondents would denigrate the intelligence of Stephen Hawking because of his strange appearance,

    • Unfortunately, not all comments get flagged for moderation, and I don’t view every comment. A “face like a plumbers bag of spanners ” doesn’t get flagged by spam or problem word filters, and so makes it in. I’ve removed it though.

    • What did Stephen Hawking say about:
      – being or not being s-xually harassed?
      – potential s-xual harassers he worked with?

  27. What has been done to reply directly to the NCSE who is presently hailing her?
    https://ncse.com/news/2016/07/congratulations-to-naomi-oreskes-0018308
    It really is a great problem when the NCSE so ably and rightly advocates for evolution and yet so wrongly advocates for AGW, as if the idea that global warming is more harmful than beneficial was a settled fact. Really, the facts are that any global warming trends are far more likely to be more beneficial.
    See: Thomas Gale Moore’s books-
    Global warming : a boon to humans and other animals
    Climate of fear : why we shouldn’t worry about global warming

  28. My first thoughts would be, “I sure hope Naomi didn’t have another unofficial, unannounced meeting at a later date, that you were unaware of”. As it does seem like a serious alligation to me.
    I’ve known some wild lies from people, but even I can’t accept this is one without more evidence or corroboration from others.

    • @Greg Cavanagh: As I said far above in these comments, my guest post here is a short version of the longer piece ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=4195 ) at my blog. I showed there how Oreskes said the time and place of her first meet-up with Erik Conway at an event which she specifically stated in her own words more than once as happening after her Science paper came out, an event which she herself along with the materials from the event show as occurring before the publication of her paper.

  29. “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.”
    Please do tell us about the psychic powers you have developed. If you want to say what you think, that’s fine, but don’t presume to know what everyone else thinks.
    And, if we’re going to go down this route, examining peoples character and honesty, how about an article skeptically examining Mr Moncktons many dubious claims, aside from direct scientific issues. What’s good for the goose…. If it actually matters, then If we are to be truly skeptical, shouldn’t we be willing to test the character and motivations of people who write articles for this site just as thoroughly?
    I’ll put my hand up to write it. If Naomi Oreskes’ honesty is important enough to warrant an article, then why not an article about Moncktons honesty?
    I’d even be willing to submit it to a bit of peer review first, if someone like Willis or Evan would be willing to do it (I’m probably dreaming, but I think they’d easily catch me out if my personal feelings were leading me to be unfair).

    • Philip Schaeffer seize “… how about an article skeptically examining Mr Moncktons many dubious claims, aside from direct scientific issues .. I’ll put my hand up to write it….”
      You mean the bits about him not being a Lord, or not winning a Nobel prize? The ‘Lord’ bit has already been beaten to death, and Monckton himself destroyed all the criticism right here at WUWT years back with his details about what a UK lawyer’s assessment of the situation was. Regarding the Nobel bit, it is embarrassing the way enviro-activists can’t understand the subtlety of satire when they read it. Personally, I’d welcome anything you can put out here, but I’d forewarn you that you’d be facing a total smackdown from Monckton himself.
      Friend, there are two problems with Oreskes: 1) Her story of how she ‘discovered’ corrupt skeptic climate scientists has an unrecoverable glitch in it from the way she tells it, along with her claim of being attacked by Senator Jim Inhofe as a Communist 2) The balance of her talking points about scientific consensus validating scientific conclusions, how skeptic climate scientists do not deserve “fair media balance”, and how a particular set of so-called “damaging evidence” ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=4024 ) indicts those skeptics, also have unrecoverable glitches to them. If Oreskes continues on the course she’s been on when it comes to pushing the idea of using RICO laws to prosecute skeptics, she’s going to have one heckuva time explaining her way out of these messes in front of people much more important than me. In all seriousness, it is time for her to find an exit strategy, before others are the first to roll on her to save their own legacies.
      You are more than welcome to “test the character and motivations” of me, to, by the way. I’ve already described at my blog how a few others have pathetically tried and failed to portray me as some kind of villain.

      • Luke 16:10
        “Whoever is faithful with very little is also faithful with a lot, and whoever is dishonest with very little is also dishonest with a lot.”

      • “I’d welcome anything you can put out here, but I’d forewarn you that you’d be facing a total smackdown from Monckton himself.”
        Well, I posted a message dealing with this, before I posted that bible verse, but it hasn’t come through. Whether its because a decision on whether to allow it is pending, or whether it’s just been blocked I don’t know. So, we might not be able to have this conversation, but I won’t know until the message either appears or doesn’t.
        [an argument about Monckton on this thread is going way off-topic, policy /mod]

      • “You are more than welcome to “test the character and motivations” of me, to, by the way. I’ve already described at my blog how a few others have pathetically tried and failed to portray me as some kind of villain.”
        I’ve not seen anything myself that would cause me to questions your character, well, aside from the claim that we all deplore Oreskes, which I will put down to getting a bit over excited and being a bit presumptuous, but hey, we’re all human, and I’ve been guilty of that at times. If Oreskes’ can be hung with her own words then so be it.
        As you are someone who is interested in the character and honesty of the public faces of this debate, I’d like to have a discussion with you about Monckton. It’s been made clear that this won’t be allowed in the discussion of your article, so I’d like to invite you to have a private conversation with me about the issue.
        Anthony, could you or the mods give my email address to Mr Cook?
        Mr Cook, if you wish to have this discussion, I will do my best to look at the evidence as dispassionately and fairly as I can. What say you? If you wish to engage with me on this subject, then please send me an email when you get my address.

  30. at the moment i saw my girl friend taking a dump, i new things could never be the same. the Genie was out of the bottle. just the thought sprung an image to my mind. i became a lab rat for Viagra.

  31. Oreskes “will be awarded the sixth annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communication.”
    It’s easy to understand why Oreskes will get the Schneider Award. Below is Schneider’s actual quote:
    “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    Obviously Oreskes followed Schneider’s advice especially the (dis)honest part.
    Liar or lunatic or both?
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/chjmIy_gxT0/maxresdefault.jpg

  32. Interesting article, but I suppose that for someone who believes in retroactive causation (with regard to temperature changes and atmospheric CO2 levels) then the timeline is immaterial to her.

  33. Russell Cook – your quote “..book for its unsupportable insinuation that skeptic climate scientists are corrupt.”
    Have you read the book? It is completely supported throughout with ample references and sources. She claims that Singer and the others are corrupt and misleading,yes. Did Fred singer like this? No. Did he threaten to sue Erik and her? Yes. Did he sue? No.
    If he claims otherwise,he should sue,or at least show details where the book is wrong-but he hasn’t.
    End of story-he is corrupt!
    (He is also well known for being wrong about acid rain,ozone depletion,tobacco,etc. (also in the book).

  34. Why do people listen to Naomi Oreskes about climate?
    She is not even a scientist.
    She is just a propagandist.

  35. Go to the articles linked. I put a comment in that Orestes is a fraud. It will be moderated out as the LEFT cannot tolerate the truth for even a nano second.

Comments are closed.