Naomi “no evidence” Oreskes – careful for what you wish for, Pt 2

Reposted from Gelbspan Files Naomi Oreskes’ appearance at a 10/23/19 House hearing on the topic of “the oil industry’s climate denial campaign” wasn’t a one-time event. She reappeared six days later at a Senate “hearing,” where her Prepared Written Testimony contained the identical blunders I detailed in Part 1 of this two-part blog post. Unlike…

Advertisements

Naomi Oreskes – the gift that keeps on giving, Pt 1

Reposted from GelbspanFiles.com Harvard science history professor Naomi Oreskes was one of the witnesses appearing under oath at the 10/23/19 House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s “Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change” hearing. A pair of missteps while responding to questions didn’t bolster her appearance as a detached, objective,…

America Being Misled by Cook, Oreskes, Lewandowsky and Maibach

Guest “liar, liar, pants on fire” by David Middleton Hat tip to Dr. Willie Soon… America Misled: How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change Over the past few decades, the fossil fuel industry has subjected the American public to a well-funded, well-orchestrated disinformation campaign about the reality and severity of human-caused…

The Evils of Climate Enthusiasm

Address to the Alumni of Warrane College, University of New South Wales Academic Dinner, September 2017 Dr Howard Thomas Brady No matter our age we are all adapting to circumstance. I would never have thought, after I went away to be a Catholic priest at the age of 16, that 20 years later I would…

Guest post: “Climate variability research: did the sceptics make us do it?” – Professor Richard Betts

This is a guest post by Prof. Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office, (IPCC AR4 and AR5 lead author) about Lewandowsky, Oreskes et al’s forthcoming paper, which suggests that climate skeptics influence climate scientists.  Richard’s post starts now.   Stephan Lewandowsky and co-authors have published an Executive Summary of their forthcoming paper*…

A question for Oreskes – But what do we mean by consensus?

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Politicians pay for science, but scientists should not be politicians. Consensus is a political concept. Unwisely deployed, it can be damagingly anti-scientific. A reply to Naomi Oreskes (Nature, 4 September 2013). Subject terms: Philosophy of science, consensus, climate change The celebrated mathematician, astronomer and philosopher of science Abu…

The Collapsing 'Consensus'

 Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Environmental Research Letters ought to have known better than to publish the latest anti-scientific propaganda paper by John Cook of the dubiously-named Skeptical Science website. Here are just a few of the solecisms that should have led any competent editor or reviewer to reject the paper: It did…

A Conspiracy of One

Guest post by Brandon Shollenberger Words cannot describe the humor of Michael Mann’s latest post: As professional climate change deniers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts. These are mostly just noise in the background these days, as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the…