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 AEDTlthough 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I love WUWT, you learn new things everyday.
Who knew “univocality” was even a word ?
Sounds made up, even desperate.
Michael Oppenheimer Quote:
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?
Thank you Rick C PE
I should add that quote to my post on climate racism
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/14/racism/
“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.
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.
Julius Robert Oppenheimer, related?
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.
You also get into trouble for not toeing the line hard enough.
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.
Come on man, you should label this NSFW with that picture. Give us some kind of warning, at least.
“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”.
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…
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.
Oreskes really does have a butterfly face.
Doh! Forking spell check.
You know what I mean.
Sent from my iPad.
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.
Hang on, she is quoted on the NASA climate consensus weblink and being a climate scientist, like Jane Fonda and John Cook.
I hope they remembered to remove Rajendra Pachauri….?
After all, a railway engineer can be a climate scientist, but a railway engineer who does to his 29-year-old female employees what Michael Mann does to his statistics* can’t.
*alternative euphemism: “what Michael Oreskes does to his employees”
Whatever happened to the prosecution of Randy Catweazle? He’s rather dropped out of the news.
It’s being called the Trial of the Century—that being the average duration of legal proceedings for sexual harassment to peristalse their way through the immotile bowels of the Indian court system.
That’s not even a circular argument. It has an extra knot in the middle, it’s a pretzel-like argument.
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.
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.
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
This is what you get when PeeWee Herman and Gollum have a baby.
Eric,
I don’t really think the issue is one of
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”
Take the Halloween mask off and cut the crap.
“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?
“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.
More from the
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&authuser=1&sxsrf=ACYBGNRo0r8IgFhQvcyjGFK7QMRy69oj8g%3A1572498129268&ei=0Wq6XZj8D-6xrgSQtICIAw&q=reich+ministry+of+public+enlightenment+and+propaganda&oq=propaganda+ministerium+gleichgeschaltet&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
All that’s left is satire:
https://www.google.com/search?q=science+is+spectral+analysis%3B+arts+is+light&oq=science+is+spectral+analysis%3B+arts+is+light+&aqs=chrome.
Experts from “the last Days of Mankind” :
https://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/Avant_Garde_in_a_Different_Key/
Karl Kraus reads Jaques Offenbach:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNRH_ao2La5tW-eWnGyAlPV7vhmyLA:1572514782287&q=Karl+kraus+reads+jacques+offenbach&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuhYKImsblAhVEkMMKHeXACvAQBSgAegQICxAC&biw=360&bih=518
That rotten “spellchecker” does satires on its own :
“Experts <– Excerpts | All that’s left is satire:
https://www.google.com/search?q=science+is+spectral+analysis%3B+arts+is+light&oq=science+is+spectral+analysis%3B+arts+is+light+&aqs=chrome.
Experts from “the last Days of Mankind” :
https://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/Avant_Garde_in_a_Different_Key/
Karl Kraus reads Jaques Offenbach:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNRH_ao2La5tW-eWnGyAlPV7vhmyLA:1572514782287&q=Karl+kraus+reads+jacques+offenbach&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuhYKImsblAhVEkMMKHeXACvAQBSgAegQICxAC&biw=360&bih=518
Dissent; Consent & Coercion in Nazi Germany:
https://www.google.com/search?q=dissent%3B+Coercion+and+Consent+in+Nazi+Germany+-+British+Academy&oq=dissent%3B+Coercion+and+Consent+in+Nazi+Germany+-+British+Academy&aqs=chrome.
James Snook October 25, 2019 at 2:59 pm
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.
_______________________________________
Babylonian thinking / hoping past is future:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNTeQjH0mhyZf3QxZf_LqqFe7HUr_g%3A1572517347475&ei=47W6XcLbHKvJrgSQ3Z34BQ&q=babylon+thinking+past+is+future+present&oq=babylon+thinking+past+is+future+present&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
.