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.
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.
oh and also mocking the claim that it took 4 years to correct a “typo”
These lientists are getting out of hand
lientists?
I am so stealing that.
What does this have to do with this post??
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?
and yes prosecutable is not a word, but it delivers my point 😀
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”.
[snip] She’s wrong, and has to know she’s wrong, and that’s the ugly truth.
You have got it in one Joe , it’s the lies and deception that are ugly .
From the article
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.
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.
Howard Stern is a better communicator than Oreskes and probably more honest and attractive. I wonder if she asks her guests to disrobe? 😉
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
Another off-topic comment.
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?
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.
When I see the face with the name I automatically think of the orcs in Lord of the Rings. As Smeagol would say “Oreskes” .
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.
MarkW,
You (and P.J O’rouke) got that exactly right.
ferdberple – Amen.
“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.
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.
Naomi Oreskes lied?! I’m shocked – shocked! – I tell you.
Here are your winnings sir.
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.
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.
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
By age 50, we all have the face that we deserve.
Spray her green and Oreskes would be the twin sister of the Wicked Witch in “The Wizard Of Oz”.
Eugene WR Gallun
Liars.
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?
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
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.
“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.
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.