Oreskes Inability to Keep Her Mouth Shut & the Big Erik Conway Problem

Guest essay by Russell Cook

Excerpt:  If Conway and Oreskes were placed under oath in courtroom appearances or in congressional hearing appearances, would their narratives be forced to line up right? That’s a good question.

At a rock-bottom level, this question must be asked: if a particular set of details is as damaging to Dr S Fred Singer as it is portrayed to be, why would there be any need whatsoever to embellish the situation surrounding it? http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=5917

In telling the tale of inadvertently discovering how skeptic climate scientists are corrupted, a person might be viewed as a hero or heroine, and it is understandably forgivable if the hero/heroine has a memory lapse about exactly when this event happened, or about minor narrative details surrounding it. But when the tale takes on an increasing appearance of being a fabrication designed to make the person look like a hero/heroine, unbiased objective thinkers will start to wonder why there would be any necessity for that kind of embellishment, and they might also wonder if there is something inherently wrong with the core of the tale.

I’ve already detailed in my July 26, 2016 blog post how Naomi Oreskes’ own written words fatally undermined the timeline of her repeated stories on how her then-future Merchants of Doubt co-author alerted her to critics of her 2004 Science paper. Now, contradictory spoken words from Oreskes and her co-author make that dicey tale incrementally worse.

First, via screencapture photo links, let’s recap the sequence of events Oreskes describes as happening after her December 2004 Science magazine paper on the scientific consensus for man-caused global warming was published:

  • she was verbally attacked for the content of her paper. Later, at an obscure academic conference, she was approached by Erik Conway during the Q & A time after her presentation about geophysicist Gordon J. F. MacDonald, and he alerted her to who one of her attackers was.
  • the attacker that Conway spoke of was a person who not only questioned the evidence of global warming, but also the evidence of ozone layer depletion; this obscure academic conference took place in Weilheim, Germany.
  • the conference where Conway and Oreskes were presenters took place in July 2004, which Oreskes’ own resume confirms.
  • Conway was thus alerting Oreskes to the of attackers of her Science paper who would not be mounting their attack until at least five months into the future.

Those are Oreskes’ words in text form. Now, let’s examine her spoken words via a 2015 audio interview about her Merchants of Doubt book/documentary movie (the Youtube links below will open up in separate tabs, return to this page to follow along in my transcripts). After explaining how she came to understand how solid the science was for man-caused global warming, she says:

5:24 point of this video: There was no debate about the reality of climate change. So I wrote a paper in 2004 that said that, and immediately I became the target of attacks. And it was those attacks, it was me actually becoming a victim of the merchants of doubt, which led me to try to figure out who are these people, why are they attacking me, why are they claiming there is no consensus … and it was that set of questions based on my own being attacked by these people, that led to the book and now the film Merchants of Doubt.

6:03 point, after the interviewer asks her what the nature of those initial attacks were: That I was a stalinist, that I was a communist, that I was attempting to suppress scientific debate, that I was part of a liberal conspiracy to bring down global capitalism ….

This narrative, by the way, was the apparent composite story problem I detailed in my July 19, 2016 blog post about Oreskes’ direct accusation about Senator Inhofe accusing her of these labels. Meanwhile, after the interviewer asks what her first steps were to counteract accusations where she had been called a communist, Oreskes says:

6:47 point: I wrote something for Science magazine in which I sort of, just kind of hinted at the early results that we- some of the things I was finding, that some of the people who were attacking me had previously worked for the tobacco industry…

What was this newer “something” she wrote for Science after her paper on consensus? It was her October 7, 2005 book review of Chris Mooney’s “Republican War on Science” (meaning “science” in general, not against Science magazine. Full text here). Hard to miss her “hints” there about “people in the tobacco industry.” Now, continuing with the audio interview:

7:10 point: and Science magazine then started getting attacked, and one of the people who we ended up writing about Fred Singer, wrote a letter to the editor saying that what I was writing was nonsense …. Now in actual point of fact, I had said nothing about Fred Singer …

Yes, she did. Three times. Made doubly ironic by the unchanging photo of him for this Youtube audio interview. She just didn’t say outright that Dr Singer had worked for ‘Big Tobacco,’ but some people, particularly Al Gore’s followers, would do a connect-the-dots thing between him, the George C. Marshall Institute and Frederick “Reynolds Tobacco” Seitz.

Oreskes continued in the interview, noting how the editor of Sciencewanting more information about this ‘Big Tobacco’ angle, was pleased with her “17 page memo with chapter and verse references and citations about evidence of where this is coming from.” Then, she said:

8:20 point: Around the same time I went to a conference on the history of meteorology, a conference who one of the people in the audience there was Erik Conway, who at the time, I did not know, and in the question and answer session, this issue came up, and afterwards over a beer Erik came up to me and said “Naomi, some of the people who are attacking you are the same people who attacked Sherry Rowland over the scientific evidence of the ozone hole …

9:07 point: And so Erik said, “Yeah, I’ve got a bunch of I’ll send you when I get home,” because this conference was in Germany. So a week or so later, Erik sent me a pile of documents, and they showed very, very clearly that what he said was true, that it was the exact same people, and very quickly we realized it was the same people who’d attacked me had attacked Sherry Rowland and had defended the tobacco industry, and so that’s when Erik and I started talking and began to think there was a story here to be told …

See what happened to Oreskes’ timeline from this interview, compared to what I detailed in my July 26, 2016 blog post? It went from the impossibility of Erik Conway alerting her to critics of her December 2004 Science paper five months in advance, to Erik alerting her to who her main critic was to her October 2005 Science review of Chris Mooney’s book fifteen months in advance of the situation.

In advance of the time where Oreskes and Conway first met at that July 2004 German conference, that is. Not only is the date corroborated for the conference literature itself regarding Conway’s attendance there, other people’s writings corroborate it.

To demonstrate that there is no doubt about the date, Conway’s spoken words confirm this, in this 2015 video interview:

1:25 point: Naomi and I met at a meeting in Germany, a history of meteorology meeting in 2004, during the summer. She was working on J Gordon MacDonald … and I was doing history of meteorology work….

1:54 point: And later that summer, she started doing the work, unknown to me, that became her 2004, her December 2004 paper in Science on how there’s this almost universal consensus among scientists about climate change. And then she came under kind of a vicious attack from an organized lobby and I called her up one day and said, “How could you not know that would happen?” She was very naive about that and kind of started a long conversation about that organized effort that I had discovered in my atmospheric science history research but really had no plans to do anything with …

Conway is speaking about his 2008 book, “Atmospheric Science at NASA: A History” (Oreskes also references his book beginning at the 38:38 point of this other audio interview and – 40:31 point there – the “things that he thought were interesting, but didn’t really fit in the book”). Meanwhile, in Conway’s interview here, things get far worse for Oreskes. Continuing with the line above starting at the 2:25 point:

… that organized effort that I had discovered in my atmospheric science history research but really had no plans to do anything with, and she really didn’t either, she was trying to finish some other work, and then, probably 2006, I forget the times now, she discovered the same folks who had been involved in kind of organizing climate change denial in the Unites States had also been involved in the tobacco lobby, involved in the tobacco institutes specifically which handed out money to researchers in the United States who would do science that raised questions about whether tobacco smoke was harmful…

3:08 point: … and then we knew we had a story to tell.

Numerically summarized in sequence, Oreskes says that…

  1. She wrote a paper for Science magazine in December 2004
  2. She was immediately attacked as a communist
  3. She wrote “something” additional for Science, which was her October 7, 2005 book review where she “hinted” that the people attacking her “had previously worked for the tobacco industry
  4. She later attended a German conference where she first met Erik Conway, who, over a beer in the Q&A session, informed her that one of her attackers had also attacked a prominent ozone layer scientist
  5. Conway sent her his unused research material a week after the conference, and the two of them realized these attackers of the ozone scientist and of her, had defended the tobacco industry, and this was a major story to tell

The timeline is December 2004 – October 2005 – to some point after a obscure German science conference took place, which from her narrative, could have occurred anywhere from late 2005 to some time into 2006. Conway’s sequence works out this way:

  1. He met Oreskes at an obscure German science conference which was held in July 2004
  2. She wrote her December 2004 paper on the scientific consensus for man-caused global warming
  3. She came under a vicious attack “from an organized lobby” at some time after that
  4. He called her up one day afterward and said, “How could you not know that would happen?”
  5. They talked and he told her of the “organized effort” he had discovered that was criticizing a renowned ozone scientist
  6. And sometime afterward, perhaps in 2006, Oreskes discovered the ‘organized effort against ozone science’ which Conway had found were also the same people who were “organizing climate change denial” and were involved “involved in the tobacco institutes

The irrefutable fact of this situation is that there is no way for Oreskes to move the dates of when her Science paper was published, or when her review of Chris Mooney’s book was published, or when Dr Singer started criticizing her work. And, her narrative does not align with Erik Conway’s. But is Conway’s version of this timeline without fault?

His bit about “probably 2006” regarding Oreskes’ ‘tobacco / fossil fuel industry’ connect-the-dots exercise is sketchy, but he apparently undermines that collective situation in a totally different manner, and that potentially huge problem will have to wait for a Part 2 blog post.

If Conway and Oreskes were placed under oath in courtroom appearances or in congressional hearing appearances, would their narratives be forced to line up right? That’s a good question.

At a rock-bottom level, this question must be asked: if a particular set of details is as damaging to Dr S Fred Singer as it is portrayed to be, why would there be any need whatsoever to embellish the situation surrounding it?


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R. Shearer
November 18, 2017 10:40 am

She’s just as beautiful on the inside.

Reply to  R. Shearer
November 18, 2017 1:51 pm

Harse but fair!

Reply to  R. Shearer
November 18, 2017 2:00 pm

so, the fillet knife?

Reply to  gnomish
November 19, 2017 9:20 am

gnomsh 2:0 pm: Yes, the fillet knife. “Beauty is skin deep, but ugly is to the bone.” Redd Fox (?)

Reply to  gnomish
November 19, 2017 3:45 pm

Gil 9:20 am
My mother, born 1913, used to quote her mother, born 1890s — “Beauty is skin deep but ugliness goes through to the bone.”
So if Redd Foxx has his name to it, he’s claiming someone else’s words.

Reply to  R. Shearer
November 18, 2017 7:10 pm

One piece of “climate ugliness” is the incessant harping on Dr Oreskes alleged pulchritude deficiency.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2017 7:39 pm

so, the flensing knife?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2017 8:10 pm

Its the “inner” ugliness, Nick..

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2017 8:13 pm

But the destruction of modern capitalism is probably pretty high on your agenda too.. Isn’t it Nick.

Otherwise you wouldn’t spend so much time mangling mathematics and distorting reality to try to support the unsupportable AGW farce.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2017 8:14 pm

Why do you support the AGW agenda Nick?

Not even you could pretend “because of science”.

Ian H
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2017 8:43 pm

I’ve never been able to understand why Oreskes is as influential as she seems to be. She sometimes seems a bit like an academic Kardashian, famous mostly for being famous. I think it might be because, as a science historian, she comments on the hard sciences through the filter of the politicised social sciences. Very useful if you want your hard science commentary flavoured with postmodernist political sauce.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2017 10:30 pm

Her’s is a deficiency that even the best multi-vitamin in the world could not help.

November 18, 2017 11:06 am

Oh the tangled web we weave…..

November 18, 2017 11:09 am

The simplest consistent explanation is that Naomi Oresekes has a time machine./sarc

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 18, 2017 1:01 pm

Unfortunately for her that time machine takes a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts required for functioning. And we all know that Nuclear Power isn’t green
Oh wait…comment image

Leo Smith
Reply to  Bryan A
November 19, 2017 4:57 pm

Bryan; that is a delicious load of rubbish you linked to

Reply to  Bryan A
November 20, 2017 9:04 am

It should be a blue glow.

November 18, 2017 11:10 am

If a leftist/progressive accuses someone (especially an ideological opponent) of something, that should automatically trigger suspicion that the leftist/progressive is actually already guilty of that very same thing.

I Came I Saw I Left
November 18, 2017 11:14 am

Is that her brother who quit NPR over sexual harassment allegations?

R. Shearer
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
November 18, 2017 11:29 am

Yes, her older brother and spiting image.

Reply to  R. Shearer
November 18, 2017 1:11 pm

And isn’t there another related Oreskes that writes for Vox?

Mark - Helsinki
November 18, 2017 11:22 am

Oreskes is an utterly horrible human being

kokoda - AZEK (Deck Boards) doesn't stand behind its product
November 18, 2017 11:25 am

Mark…what was the instance for the upgrade?

November 18, 2017 11:47 am

Pants on fire!

November 18, 2017 12:17 pm

[snip – inappropriate -mod]

Reply to  F. Leghorn
November 18, 2017 12:46 pm

[snip – inappropriate -mod]

Pop Piasa
November 18, 2017 12:28 pm

[snip – inappropriate -mod]

Eric Stevens
November 18, 2017 12:31 pm

If you write something which is conspicuously wrong you can expect over time to be severely criticized by a considerable number of people. With the right mindset, if you already see this as some kind of a war, it is very easy to see this as an attack “by an organized lobby”.

Reply to  Eric Stevens
November 18, 2017 12:48 pm

A vast correct-wing conspiracy.

Reply to  menicholas
November 18, 2017 6:45 pm

‘You hear about the new Kentucky Fried Chicken chicken wings for socialists … a bucket of left wings!

John F. Hultquist
November 18, 2017 12:47 pm

S Fred Singer and Naomi Oreskes

Let’s see a simple graph with scientific knowledge on one axis and integrity on the other.
Don’t. I will be happy to pass on to the next world without seeing or hearing from/of her again.

Taylor Ponlman
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 18, 2017 1:09 pm

In the consulting world, that’s called a ‘two by two matrix’. The quadrants would be labeled (assuming integrity is the x axis, and scientific knowledge is the y axis) counterclockwise from the origin, ‘useful idiots’, ‘climate rent-seekers’, ‘maligned scientific skeptics’ and ‘skeptical amateurs’. Sorry I don’t have time/skill to show this graphically.

Taylor Ponlman
Reply to  Taylor Ponlman
November 18, 2017 1:14 pm

Oops, wrong label sequence, should be ‘useful idiots’, ‘skeptical amateurs’, ‘maligned scientific skeptics’ and then, in the upper left, ‘climate rent seekers’ (low integrity, higher scientific knowledge)

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 18, 2017 4:32 pm

John,…I do not want to go all …appeal to authority like the warmivistas…but I would just note that when Freddy Singer got his Doctoral Thesis his supervisor was John Archibald Wheeler and 2 of the members of his thesis committee were Robert Oppenheimer and Neils Bohr. ( a Pop World comparison would be Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger)
Wheeler is the Real Deal in real world and academics and was the biggest influence upon the up and comers in his day and should have the term as The Science Educator Guy. His students are a who’s who’s of physics and also Richard Feynman’s supervisor.
His Wikipedia page is a beauty.

November 18, 2017 1:17 pm

That I was a stalinist, that I was a communist, that I was attempting to suppress scientific debate, that I was part of a liberal conspiracy to bring down global capitalism ….

I’m not sure but I think she’s denying all this. But why? They’re all badges of honor to leftists.

November 18, 2017 1:46 pm

Bryan A, that linked nuclear site appears to be complete moonbattery.

November 18, 2017 2:00 pm


Defining a Sociopath…

Lots of tick marks on the list for this person!

David Ball
November 18, 2017 3:04 pm

Great article, Russell Cook. Hold their feet to the fire!!!

Russell Cook (@QuestionAGW)
Reply to  David Ball
November 20, 2017 7:44 am

Thank you for your support!

November 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Can I ask, even if this is true so what? All that it suggests is that one or other of the people involved can’t remember when they first met a decade later. It does not invalidate any of their arguements but just means that an amusing story about how they met might not be true.

Reply to  Germonio
November 18, 2017 6:41 pm

Yes. Dates are so inconsequential. Like weddings, births.

Russell Cook (@QuestionAGW)
Reply to  Germonio
November 20, 2017 8:06 am

@Germonio: Sorry friend, there is absolutely no way you can spin this into anything positive for Oreskes and Conway. They are both historians, their profession and basic professional integrity depends on them getting facts historically correct. Oreskes implies her meetup with Conway (at that German conference where OTHER folks – plural – were discussing in the Q&A session after her presentation how she was being attacked for the content of her Science paper) was the catalyst leading to her Merchants of Doubt book. This wasn’t a one-time recollection by Oreskes, she’s told the tale multiple times, and as I’ve detailed, there is no way her first time meetup with Conway there could have happened that way. Read my material further at my GelbspanFiles blog how her composite story about Senator Inhofe calling her a communist falls apart, and how her claim about certain leaked industry memos being archived at A.M.S. falls apart, and you soon see that rather than asking “so what?” about this particular situation, you’ll ask why it is that she feels compelled to weave such tales together at all.

November 18, 2017 6:59 pm

If Conway and Oreskes were placed under oath in courtroom appearances or in congressional hearing appearances, would their narratives be forced to line up right? That’s a good question.

Russell, You naively assume those two wouldn’t perjure themselves for the cause. It happens all the time.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 19, 2017 6:15 am

An oath is no guarantee for speaking truth.
comment image

Russell Cook (@QuestionAGW)
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2017 8:17 am

: But the problem arises now if they attempt to line up their narratives under oath. The subsequent question would be posed that, as historians, what would have led them to be so contradictory. They’d have to go with Conway’s recollection since the date of the German conference is indisputable. So the question would follow, why did Oreskes choose to tell so many interviewers a tale that is literally not true that otherwise portrayed herself to be an innocent science consensus observer who was unaware of who her attackers were until Conway appeared out of nowhere to alert her to this? It leads to a downward spiral for her on more than one front, because this isn’t the only narrative from her about the corruption of skeptic climate scientists that falls apart under hard scrutiny.

November 18, 2017 8:24 pm

“Germonio November 18, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Can I ask, even if this is true so what? All that it suggests is that one or other of the people involved can’t remember when they first met a decade later.”

When documenting evidence to establish claims, if one can not definitely prove a claim as fact, it is unusable for establishing an allegedly true story.

“Germonio November 18, 2017 at 5:23 pm
It does not invalidate any of their arguments{sic} but just means that an amusing story about how they met might not be true.”

A major weakness for liars is their inability to know when to stop lying.
That weakness causes liars to constantly embellish, bolster, or buff their stories by layering more lies into their fakery.

Catching a liar in one lie is a sure indication that there are more lies. Let’s put the percentage at 97%, even though it is likely higher.

Just as how science works, finding one falsehood falsifies the entire proposition/theory.

Oreskes’ claims are falsified.

Where are copies of the threats?
Where are phone message threats?
Where are the police reports and the substantiating evidence?

Just as so many other alarmist or dodgy scientist claims regarding receiving threats, Oreskes concocted hers.

In typical progressive leftist elite fashion, Oreskes’ book “Merchants of Doubt” is all projection. Oreskes may attribute spreading doubt to skeptics and critics of dodgy science, but she does not provide actual proof.

The actual organized “Merchants of Doubt” are those colluders seeking to:
• subvert science,
• destroy careers of scientists, editors and journalists,
• deny funding to skeptics,
• overthrow democracy,
• confuse the weak minded into accepting the bogus consensus claims.

November 19, 2017 6:34 am

If Conway and Oreskes were placed under oath in courtroom appearances or in congressional hearing appearances, would their narratives be forced to line up right?

They’ll need an experienced lawyer and who better than John B. Williams?

Michael Mann’s defamation lawyer is none other than John B. Williams who successfully defended a “Big Tobacco” case over Joe Camel.
You couldn’t script this stuff.

November 19, 2017 6:46 pm

Someone said she is a Communist, and is intent on bringing down the global capitalist system.

And, she’s upset with that? That is her reason d’etre.

November 20, 2017 4:20 am

Yet another despicable series of comments.
How can your moderators allow comments with nothing but references to anothers physical appearance.?

Scientific credentials have nothing to do with beauty.

Truly, unbelievable ,despicable postings. I am shocked but not surprised that these comments are allowed on this site

[The comments were caught and deleted. Comments may slip through temporarily, but we eventually catch them. -mod]

Russell Cook (@QuestionAGW)
Reply to  Ghalfrunt
November 20, 2017 7:41 am

By contrast, over at blogs such as ClimateCrocks (where I comment in hopes of opening the eyes of the readers to a side they routinely dismiss out-of-hand) I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of their people calling for more civilized discussion among commenters. Do a site-specific search of my name at that blog and you’ll readily see the vile things they say about me, and occasionally about my appearance (and even worse things about other people’s appearances) while never actually disputing what I detail about folks like Oreskes.

%d bloggers like this: