Naomi Oreskes Accuses Climate Scientists of Fitting In with the Consensus

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Naomi Oreskes, who is so prolific with her public name calling she once called NASA climate scientist James Hansen a denier, climate scientists are frightened to speak up when their findings diverge from the public positions of their colleagues.

The real reason some scientists downplay the risks of climate change

Climate deniers often accuse scientists of exaggerating the threats associated with the climate crisis, but if anything they’re often too conservative

Dale Jamieson, Michael Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes
Fri 25 Oct 2019 18.00 AEDT

lthough the results of climate research have been consistent for decades, climate scientists have struggled to convey the gravity of the situation to laypeople outside their field. If anything, the wider public only recently seems to have awakened to the threat of the climate crisis. Why?

One of the factors that appears to contribute to this trend of underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we call “univocality”: the felt need to speak in a single voice.

Many scientists worry that if they publicly air their disagreement, government officials will conflate their differences of opinion with ignorance and use this as justification for inaction.

Others worry that even if policy-makers want to act, they will find it difficult to do so if scientists fail to send an unambiguous message. Therefore, scientists actively seek to find their common ground, and to focus on those areas of agreement. In some cases, where there are irreconciliable differences of opinion, scientists may say nothing, giving the erroneous impression that nothing is known.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/the-real-reason-some-scientists-downplay-the-risks-of-climate-change

Clearly the real problem is Naomi hasn’t called enough people names. If she makes an effort in future to call even more people a “denier”, to help defuse the toxic atmosphere of public bullying which has stifled scientific dissent, perhaps more climate scientists would feel able to freely speak their thoughts to her.

Advertisements

122 thoughts on “Naomi Oreskes Accuses Climate Scientists of Fitting In with the Consensus

    • Too bad she and Gerald Butts aren’t an item. They would win the FUgly contest hands down. A face only a mother could love. I do admit though this woman does give me nightmares. Imagine waking up to that every morning. NO!

    • The real question is why doesn’t Naomi discuss and denounce the sexual misconduct of her brother, Michael Oreskes, who was dismissed from his executive position with NPR. His gross misconduct has hurt far more lives than climate change.

      • Why didn’t she condemn her own brother?

        Well, rumor has it the male Oreskes invoked the Silence Equals Consent excuse for his actions hands-on management style; since this was a remarkably good fit with the female Oreskes’ own philosophy of Silence Equals Consensus—the fallacy to which she owes her only pseudoscholarly accomplishment to date—her hands were tied.

        So to speak.

        • Just looking at that face suggests someone who has been subject of severely hard mistreatment in childhood, and I don’t mean inappropriate kiss on the cheek.

          I suspect the reason she does not denounce the behaviour of her brother is that that is a box she really dare not open. He is probably not the only male member of here family with a story to hide.

    • Oreskes is a most disgusting climate alarmist and sycophant who wrote THE WORST paper on climate consensus, claiming a 97% consensus because if a researcher did not disagree with CO2-caused warming then he/she must support the theory. Obviously she supports her brother’s perverted behavior or else she would have publicly disagreed!!!

      Who pays her? Why was she an envoy to convince the pope with her climate bullshite??

      • Not quite—the 97% meme was the invention of Oreskes’ son to Stephan Lewandowsky.

        Her consensus article, the first and worst, proved the existence of a quantum consensus whose value changes every time she describes it.

        By the way, don’t dignify Oreskes04 by calling it a paper—it was a one-page reminiscence included in Science’s special Essay section, a section presumably introduced in order to allow such stercoraceous grey-lit into the Prestige Scientific Press without the bother of being peer-reviewed, or even peer-reviewable.

        It would have been a C-worthy term paper in grade school, I suppose. To Oreskes’ credit, she almost managed to recall her all-important search term, global climate change, verbatim. Well—she forgot one word out of three. Making replication a breeze!

          • Yep, that’s what I said. From the History of the Climate Debate:

            John Cook conceived

            Stephan Lewandowsky, a Wisconsin psychologist, ingests a neurotoxic potion that makes the vilest gorgon look like the fairest maiden in the land, allowing her to seduce him.

            By the time the alcohol wears off, Lewandowsky is alone in his bedchamber. The succubus—who gave her name only as Naomi Oreskes—has stolen silently away, carrying his precious seed within her. He never even knew her academic title.

            The fruit of their drunken coupling, a boy-child named John Lewandowsky-Oreskes, will change his initials to those of the Antichrist when he comes of blogging age. Thus will the ancient projections be validated.

            Lewandowsky tries to put the tryst behind him, but it’s futile; his fate is entwined with Oreskes’ forever. The lovers are destined to lie together again, and again, and again, and again (mainly in the peer-reviewed literature).

      • “Why was she an envoy to convince the pope with her climate bullshite??”

        There’s a fascinating story behind that.

        The current Pope takes his vow of celibacy very seriously, apparently. Coming from a Latin culture, that can’t always have been easy, so full props to his Holiness. These days it’s an open secret that his Secretaries are under Papal orders to do everything they can to insulate his private offices from temptation.

        The climate community went through a whole list of proposed ambassadors: Katherine Hayhoe, Renate Chr-
        ist, Rajendra Pachauri, Gavin Schmidt and even Oreskes’ own epigone, John Cook.

        All knocked back by the Vatican for being too pretty.

      • Some people don’t need to be paid; they will destroy civilization for free. All done, of course, in the name of saving us from ourselves. I guess she’s motivated by a messiah complex; in her own mind, she knows what’s best for us. I think this messiah worldview develops among leftists by mostly talking among themselves. They are too conceited to think they can learn something listening to other people. They write off other people as the knowing, or ignorant stooges for capitalism. Unless they know you are, in your heart of hearts, a communist, they will intellectually blank you.

    • We must wonder if Naomi Oreskes has any scruples whatsoever. Based on her climate logic, if she never publicly disagreed with her brother’s depraved behavior, then she must support it!!!

      According to investigations into Michael Oreskes, Mr. Oreskes repeatedly expensed meals with young female employees, ostensibly to discuss their careers, but that the conversations often veered into sexual and other personal territory. He set up similar meetings with young women, including college students, who did not work at NPR, the report found.

      “While management made multiple attempts to counsel Mr. Oreskes about his conduct, he was not deterred from pursuing conversations and dinner meetings with women inside and outside of NPR that were inappropriate and served a nonbusiness purpose,”

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/business/media/npr-michael-oreskes.html

    • She may have been a scientist long ago, but now she is mostly into history. I would love to remove “into”.

        • “History Of Science”

          I guess that’s appropriate. Oreskes’ one-woman war on epistemology, in which consensus usurps the hegemony of evidence, does make history of science.

      • Her career as an exploitation geologian began Down Under, embarrassingly enough for us. It gives the a$$ end of the world a bad name.

        In outback South Australia, at the BHP Moria minefields, a sulfurous sinkhole is still named Oreskes’ Ulcer in her “honor.”

    • I’m not sure I know what it is that makes one a “climate scientist.” I don’t see much actual science being done with respect to the climate system. I see a lot of measurement taking, but I don’t think taking measurements makes a person a scientist – if it did, any sports statistician could call themselves a scientist. I see a lot of “research” – but again research doesn’t make one a scientist, else any marketing researcher could call themselves a scientist.

      I don’t think economists, for example, are scientists and certainly the ordinary person doesn’t associate the same deference or credibility to an “economist” as they do a “scientist.” Yet I’m hard-pressed to differentiate what it is that “climate scientists” do with the climate system that is different than what economists do with an economic system. Both measure vaguely and often arbitrarily defined metrics. Both use computer models to simulate theories and make predictions that can only be very-imperfectly tested. Both publish a lot of papers, give a lot of speeches, and advise policymakers on how best to affect some desired change in their respective systems. Neither can actually demonstrate that they are good at what they do. Why do we give more credibility to one than the other by conferring the title “scientist” on the climate professor but not the economics professor?

      • Kurt: I’m not sure I know what it is that makes one a “climate scientist.

        Many are geography majors who have learned the art of running climate models.

      • Kurt, in the past 30 or so years “scientist” have gone from people I held in high regard to the level of politicians, used car salesmen, lawyers and fortune tellers.

      • “I don’t see much actual science being done with respect to the climate system.”

        It’s because climatology is an observational, rather than an experimental, science. It’s like geology and astronomy in that regard.

        • Roger, does that explain why climate science fails to even fulfil the one [1] single solitary social function that justifies the existence of any field of science:

          the continual, incremental expansion of human understanding of (and shrinkage of human delusion about) the natural world?

          I’m getting tired of asking this:

          If climate science is a science (and not just something in the set {the sweet science, political science, Christian Science, Scientology}, then please name one thing we’ve learned about the climate that we didn’t already know 5 years ago.

          And failing that, please name any other open field of science for which there would be any difficulty coming up with a whole list of recent discoveries?

        • But both Geology and Astronomy are scientific fields that have produced demonstrably useful results. A geologist can test their ability to locate and map mineral reservoirs for successful extraction, or reliably design and implement a geothermal power plant. Astronomers can correctly tell us the time, location, and duration of solar eclipses and correctly predict how close asteroids come to Earth. We can test a scientific theory of the composition of the atmosphere of Venus by sending a probe there.

          And while it’s true that both Geology and Astronomy have highly theoretical sub-fields, like time and space dilation around black holes and the origin or development of current geological formations, the geologists and astronomers don’t demand that all the world make severe sacrifices merely on the basis of their unprovable hypotheses.

          But climate scientists seem to be a different breed altogether. The climate scientist, who can’t experiment on the Earth’s climate and has only one real climate system to observe – lays claim to a mystical ability to learn how that single climate system changes, at a rate orders-of-magnitude faster than their ability to observe it physically changing. On one hand they say that “climate” isn’t mere weather, and that it takes many decades of painstaking and highly technological observations to tease out what is climate among all the “noise” of weather. But in the space of a mere three decades – maybe just barely enough time to even begin to actually observe “climate” changing amongst all that noise – they claim “95% confidence” not only in how much it has changed, but why it’s changing, and what the downstream effects on weather events are going to be. Amazing!

          And that bit about “climate” being a multi-decade average of a lot of “noise?” When has that ever stopped the climate scientist from showing a 5-year or 10-year running mean ( both mostly just “noise”) through annual averages (even more noise) and saying that somehow the one or two decade tail at the end of the graph shows how “climate” has “changed.” It’s almost as if the very definition of “climate” expands and contracts to suit the instantaneous needs of the climate scientist.

          The climate scientist doesn’t believe in data or scientific results, per se. What the climate scientist believes in is their interpretation or judgment of what the data means, and that the subjective beliefs of the climate scientist then assume the mantle of “Science.” Question the interpretation of the scientist and you question Science itself. Where have we seen this, before?

          My point here is that science isn’t just the mere observation of a physical system and a rote recordation of statistics relating to the observations. Science relates to an objectively demonstrable understanding of how the system works. And from what I can see, no climate scientist has ever been able to objectively demonstrate any level of true understanding as to how and why the climate changes. They just have their opinions.

  1. If as she wrote :

    “there are irreconciliable differences of opinion, scientists may say nothing, giving the erroneous impression that nothing is known.”

    That means things are known, but it is not certain, and differences need to be resolved. So, it is not that “nothing is known”, but rather that the facts and methods are in dispute (how science works), and what is known is not solid.

    • I’m afraid you just went way over her head. She’s more of a misosopher than an epistemologist. Try hand-puppets if you don’t want to lose her next time.

  2. She really is a nasty piece of work and a real anuliloquist to boot, to coin a new word. It is not a nice word and one should not stoop to her level but “denirer” annoys the hell out of me so I can’t resist a bit of malicious teasing However it is a good word to give you a clue if you did not study Latin, a ventriloquist is literally one who speaks from his belly from venter belly and loqui to speak.

  3. After seeing the hatchet jobs she and her co-author did in “Merchants of Doubt”, I will never trust anything Naomi Oreskes says or writes.

    • There is an important difference between an Evil Witch, and the person in question. If we throw a bucket of water on an Evil Witch there is catastrophic melting. If we throw water on the person in question she would scream that it was proof of catastrophic sea level rise.

  4. Sophistry. They present the semblance of a consensus which is less extreme than the ‘consensus’ because this (real) consensus contains significant disagreements and so, policy makers might not understand that it is actually a consensus. Right…….

    • ‘Casuistic jesuitical sophistry’ would be praising Oreskes with faint damnation.

      She’s an anti-intellectual, a sophophobe, an anti-scientific anti-Semite for hire, and an inimica humani generis before breakfast.

    • That may be true but she is a Professor in the History of Science Department; Harvard University.

      • John,

        “she is a Professor in the History of Science Department; Harvard University.”

        Srsly? But I thought she was exposed as a liar who grossly misrepresented her own career-launching paper, the one on which her entire academic ‘renown,’ such as it is, rests, a year ago? Does Harvard’s Office of Professional Integrity really take a year to fire someone for cause?

        I’d be very surprised. I mean, I know no bureaucracy is as agile as we might like, but come on. A YEAR?

  5. From Oreskes:

    “ For political leaders and business people, we think it is important for you to know that it is extremely unlikely that scientists are exaggerating the threat of the climate crisis. ”

    Her arrogance knows no bounds and the article was lapped up by commentators in the Guardian.

    The fact is that it is highly probable that the reverse is true. We have evolved to perceive the present as ‘worse‘ than the past and to believe that the future will be worse than the present. It’s an inheritance from our early ancestors who survived to live in the African savannahs and subsequently settled the planet.

    It’s a characteristic that scientists share with the general population, but as with all experts making predictions of the future, they have a strong tendency to magnify the threats.

  6. Many scientists worry that if they publicly air their disagreement, government officials will conflate their differences of opinion with ignorance and use this as justification for inaction

    Really? From what I’ve gathered, it’s more like this:

    Many scientists worry that if they publicly air their disagreement, government officials will conflate their differences of opinion with ignoranceheterodoxy and use this as justification for inaction cutting off their access to future grant funding.

  7. “perceived need for consensus, or what we call “univocality””

    Well “univocality” is what the Vatican enforced on geocentrism 400 years ago. It is certainly anti-science to want univocality. Univocality is religious dgma. Not science where finding natural truths matter, not dogma.

    So instead of having to invent new reasons on why the purported Climate Consensus is failing to work on policy, why not go with parsimony.

    parsimony n. Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham’s razor.

    That is:
    The purported climate consensus is contrived BS. It is a state where considerable “unsettledness” exists in our climate understanding and CO2 attribution to the quantity of warming, which is why “climate scientists have struggled to convey the gravity of the situation.” As evidence, the IPCC’s own 1.5ºC to 4.0ºC sensitivity a range exhibits considerable uncertainty sitting right there in front of her.

    The other BS thing that Oreskes does is put anyone who isn’t a card carrying “climate scientist” as a layperson. Does that mean a PhD physicist or chemist is also a layperson who can’t understand “climate science” methods? Most of which in Climate Science is just a lot of bad statistical methods, and circular constructed models assuming on the design what they purpose to show via an output. Do she then think that a physical scientist is still a just layperson unable to understand the Bull Shit science being shoveled their way?
    This of course is just one of the many ways the ClimateNutters try to impose Gate Keeping on the discussion to keep out dissenting views from other qualified scientists and engineers intellectually equipped with the mathematical and data tools to and introduce of inconvenient data to the contrived consensus.

    • She started her career as a mining geologist in Outback Australia and then moved into History of Science.
      So she is the definition of someone who isnt a Climate Scientist

    • Joel Bryan: “climate science” methods? Most of that in Climate Science is bad statistical methods, and circular constructed models assuming on the design what they purpose to show via an output”

      Wow!
      The whole of my blog of more than 170 posts put into one sentence by Joel Bryan!

      Amazing !

  8. She doesn’t realize that she’s saying what skeptics have been saying for years – dissent is silenced.

  9. She provides the world with a rare service.
    Thanks to her, it is possible to put a face to ugly ignorance. 🙂

  10. Do scientists know best or do scientists not know best? Is 97% consensus the proof that clinate scientists are righr or is it proof that climate scientists are wrong? Is refuting what climate scientists say “climate denial” or is it “climate affirmation”?

    The politics of climate science just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/19/facts/

    • “Is 97% consensus the proof that clinate scientists are righr or is it proof that climate scientists are wrong?”

      It’s not proof of anything.

      It’s not even evidence of anything.

      But the fact that someone HAS that statistic at the tip of their fingers, which nobody would have if we were talking about a non-pathological field of science, is a red flag.

      It tells you that at some point, climate scientists acquiesced to an opinion survey, which is a dishonest, pseudoscientific activity, which tells you that climate scientists en bloc are both dishonest and evidentially bankrupt.

      So if the only thing I knew about the climate debate was that 97% of scientists Believed [in whatever—it doesn’t really matter], that information would be enough to make me, or anybody who thought about it for themselves for half a goldarned minute, a Denier.

  11. “One of the factors that appears to contribute to this trend of underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we call “univocality”: the felt need to speak in a single voice . . .”

    This is too much. Isn’t Oreskes one of the ones who publish ad nauseum about the supposed quality and significance of this “consensus” she now disparages when it’s not alarmist enough for her wishes?

    “. . . conflate their differences of opinion with ignorance . . .”

    But I thought climate change was a matter of settled science an not opinion? What does opinion and consensus ( a group opinion) have to do with what can be scientifically demonstrated?

    “though the results of climate research have been consistent for decades . . .”

    Am I the only one who has a problem with the phrase “results of climate research?” Just what kind of “results” can mere research and measurement-taking produce? My idea of a result is at least the output of an experiment, and more preferably a working device or application like a medicine, a proven track record of predictions, and so forth. Merely touting consistency in “results of climate research” seems pretty pathetic.

    • Speaking of output of data analysis:
      A new analysis of radiosonde data shows there is no greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. See ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY ) at 1Hr-01 Min for their conclusions. These include that the IPCC was wrong to conclude that recent climate changes were due to greenhouse gasses and current climate model projections are worthless.
      Now what will Naomi support the right of the Connollys to speak out on the dangers of the climate crisis or the lack either danger or crisis.

  12. Curious, isn’t it? They concoct stories about the “97%” but it doesn’t seem to work. So they come back for more. Always looking out for yet more heretics to whine about.

    One day they may be claiming a 99.9% consensus with equally flimsy justification, yet Oreskes et al will still be droning on and on about those naughty people with the temerity to disagree or even those who just don’t give a damn what she thinks. By now I’m pretty sure she doesn’t believe any of it herself. But she intends to continue flogging this dead horse as long as it brings her continuing attention in the media and, presumably, funding.

    • Close Michael but the “consensus” is even greater than that apparently!
      https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/caroline-lucas-apologises-for-comparing-climate-change-denial-to-holocaust-denial-1.483207
      From the “wisdom” of the ex leader of the UK Green Party and currently the only UK Green party MP, no less. Hysterical, anyone?

      From the article:

      Discussing climate change with host Shelagh Fogarty, Ms Lucas, who has become an outspoken supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, was asked how do you tackle disinterest or refusal to accept climate change.

      She replied: “Well I think what we need to do is to look at the fact that the vast vast majority, 99.999 per cent of the world’s best scientists believe that climate change is happening and believe that it is being driven by human activities…

      “Politicians can argue about it but ultimately we need to look at where the vast majority of scientific evidence lies and I do think that the media has a responsibility on that too.

  13. I can’t believe that a geologist can have such an impractical view on climate.
    Which I consider as a subset of geophysics.
    Oh well, as Goethe drying observed that men of science would “worship even error if it affords them a substance”.
    Medieval troubadours, who mooched their living by going from wealth manor to manor, quiped:
    “His bread I eat, his song I sing.”

  14. From the article: “[A]lthough the results of climate research have been consistent for decades”

    Yes, climate research has been consistent in not being able to quantify the amount of net heat CO2 adds to the Earth’s atmosphere, even though it has been studied for decades. The current guess by the alarmists is a 1.5C to 4.5C increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. But it’s just a guess, they don’t know anything for sure, and the more they study the issue, the lower the estimate goes.

    Climate science has been consistent in not being able to quantify the feedbacks of the Earth’s atmosphere. They have not been able to rule out that CO2, after all feedbacks are taken into account, may add NO net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere. Just ask your favorite alarmist climate scientist if that has been ruled out. It they say yes, they are lying.

    Making predictions based on this lack of knowledge is ridiculous. Although it is obviously profitable since so many people do it.

  15. The Guardian link comes up with the bold pledge: “We will not stay quiet on the climate crisis”.
    It’s wonderful to see that august journal finally, at last, recognizing the gravity of the climate emergency that we are facing!

  16. I love WUWT, you learn new things everyday.
    Who knew “univocality” was even a word ?
    Sounds made up, even desperate.

  17. Michael Oppenheimer Quote:

    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

    If this isn’t blatantly racist, I don’t know what is. It amazes me that anyone – even Naomi O. – would associate with anyone who holds such views. Why hasn’t Oppenheimer been pilloried by the SJWs?

    • “Why hasn’t Oppenheimer been pilloried by the SJWs?”

      That’s a great question with a multifactorial answer.

      To simplify, it’s because SJWs believe the only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t, in SJWs’ opinion, let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. SJWs feel obliged to stop these Third World countries right where they are.

      All of which mitigates against the probability of their pillorying Oppenheimer.

      • To simplify, it’s because SJWs believe the only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.

        As far as I can tell, SJWs believe that there should not even be one United States, and are working very hard to make that true.

      • Zig Zag Wanderer October 25, 2019 at 10:34 pm
        To simplify, it’s because SJWs believe the only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.

        As far as I can tell, SJWs believe that there should not even be one United States, and are working very hard to make that true.
        ______________________________________

        Right – to one word missing:

        “SJWs believe that there should not even be one United States, and are working very hard to make that true.” Immediately.

  18. Wait a minute, I thought they were all very critical of anyone who did NOT toe the authoritarian consensus line. Man, it takes a lot of energy to keep up with alarmist logic.

    • PaulH

      sigh. It’s not complicated.

      It’s not about “stepping out of line equals good” or “stepping out of line equals bad.”

      It’s about the DIRECTION in which you step out of line.

      Your difficulty following this basic ethical rule set is understandable (if not excusable), because the science of the Republican brain tells us that conservatives crave consistency and struggle to cope with ambiguity, nuance, special exceptions and double standards.

      But hey, thanks for proving the Law of Psychology. In case you’ve never heard of it, it states that there are only two kinds of people in life: those who can see in a continuum of grey (because they grasp the complex and messy nature of real-world phenomena and issues), and Republicans.

    • Brad Keyes October 25, 2019 at 7:03 pm
      PaulH

      sigh. It’s not complicated.
      ______________________________________________

      It’s plain simple. Don’t think twice.

  19. Come on man, you should label this NSFW with that picture. Give us some kind of warning, at least.

  20. “Many scientists worry that if they publicly air their disagreement, government officials will conflate their differences of opinion with ignorance and use this as justification for inaction.”

    Who are these “many scientists”? Real scientists have no qualms about publishing what they find and are academically constrained to do so.

    This sounds like one of those straw man arguments that are created about “the opposition” claiming they said something they didn’t. And where are the examples of the “government officials” “using” a difference of opinion to take no “action”? Perhaps the action they will “take” will be to seek out the truth and not swallow every catastrophic vain imagining as God’s Own Truth.

    Conceptually it is a pro-active defense move designed to slander and besmirch opponents before they actually say or do anything. I suppose the idea behind it is that government workers are so dumb they cannot determine whether or not they are being lied to. What elitist claptrap from those who envy the levers of power – otherwise known as “my precious”.

  21. This is projection and mind-reading. Oreskes thinks she knows what “many scientists” say, and why they say it.

    Doesn’t The Guardian call itself a “news paper”. Isn’t news about reporting? Doesn’t reporting obligate the Guardian to find actual scientists to tell us what they say? Instead, they find a tea-reader to project her opinions onto imaginary scientists.

    • “This is projection and mind-reading”

      Yep. And if you thought their predictions missed the mark, their projections don’t even hit the side of the barn.

      One of the best accidental comics they’ve got is John Cook. Whenever he tries to read our minds, lo and behold, it turns out that skeptics think in much the same monosyllabic baby-talk that prattles through Cook’s head on a quiet night.

      It’s the Sun. No it isn’t. Is too. Nuh-uh, it’s us. If it’s us, it’s not bad. It so, so, is bad. Is not…

  22. Oreskes really does have a butterfly mind. One day she tells us that 97% of climate scientists believe the end of the world is nigh. Next day, it’s scientists don’t believe in the clear and present danger of climate change. The only thing I know for sure is she’s not asked actual scientists what they think about the climate. She already decided what she’d like them to think.

  23. The Liberal Left are the arch purveyors of the Mirror trick. That is, whatever fraudulent piece of sophistry they are about to embark on, they claim i is the main tool of those that disagree with them

    The only reason that cthe climate change narrative is so little challeneged is that scientists are afraid to speak out against the ‘claimed ‘consensus’

    The last thing the warmist wants is open debate and discussion.

  24. Hang on, she is quoted on the NASA climate consensus weblink and being a climate scientist, like Jane Fonda and John Cook.

  25. That’s not even a circular argument. It has an extra knot in the middle, it’s a pretzel-like argument.

  26. Oh, my God!
    Those other Halloween videos were not very scary, but THIS one is positively terrifying!
    What depraved lunatic created that hideous mask that woman was wezring?
    Sure glad I saw it after dinner.
    A weeks dead leprosy patient who died of severe chemical burns to the upper portions of the body?
    Ha ha, just kidding…I know it was Naomi all dolled up and looking her best.

  27. I don’t know what this woman is smoking, but it must be seriously good! It causes her to see oppression, bullying and censorship in the very system that allows her to do and say exactly what she wants and make a good living from it.

  28. Hitler had a similar problem with some of his henchmen and had to deal with them by various means some OK some not so much.

    James Bull

  29. Eric,
    I don’t really think the issue is one of

    perhaps more climate scientists would feel able to freely speak their thoughts to her.

    I think it is more likely that she wants more Climate Scientists to be able to freely speak HER thoughts to her.
    As in “All should believe as I do and parrot my language”

  30. “where there are irreconciliable differences of opinion, scientists may say nothing, giving the erroneous impression that nothing is known.”

    Um…seems to me that “irreconciliable (sic) difference of opinion” gives the ACCURATE impression that “nothing is known” on that particular subject.

    When one scientist “knows” that the world is coming to an end due to global warming, but another scientist “knows” that it’s not…then no one really “knows” anything do they?

  31. “Dale Jamieson, Michael Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes, Fri 25 Oct 2019 18.00 AEDT

    [ [ Al ]lthough the results of climate research have been consistent for decades, climate scientists have struggled ]

    [ feel the urgent need ] to convey the gravity of the situation to laypeople outside their field.
    ____________________________________

    So Dale Jamieson, Michael Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes, the laypeople inside their field,

    find too little attention. Outside their field. Maybe they should play something / somewhere else.

    Wishes and stars, anyone.

Comments are closed.