Debunking Oreskes Part 4: Disinformation or debate?

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Canman says:

    I read Merchants of Doubt and I went over the part about Ben Santer a couple of times. While it might have seemed terrible every time I read it, I’ll be damned if I can still remember what I read. I wonder how it will play out in the dialogue for the upcoming movie:

    Gee Dr. Santer, it’s terrible about the way that they, … ah, they … ah. What was it they did again?

  2. Neal says:

    Trump has said that he believes that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China, less than 20 GOP reps and less than 10 GOP senators are on record as believing in AGW. This while you can’t find more that a small handful of professional scientists to support these views vs. literally thousands who don’t. (Of course, there are none who would support Trump’s “China hoax”.)

    I love the Pielke Obama “war on science” example. That’s what you’ve got?
    The entities promoting CC denial are, rather than being in the business of academic or other climate research, are the Heartland Institute, American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation are right wing advocacy lobbying/PR shills for big energy. I.e.; they simply don’t do science; their mission is to affect policy. IOW You’ve missed the whole point.

    Joe Barton or Trump has studied the science and simply figured out on his own that CC isn’t happening?

    You are probably unaware…for good reasons the darlings of CC denial are variously ethically tainted (Willie Soon) or simply viewed as 3rd rate scientists (Pielke/Curry/Christy/McKittrick) or, as with the fake “Lord” Moncton, simply nutso. Join the Club!!

    • dagfinn says:

      I approved this comment as it’s not spam. I don’t see much relevance to my blog post, though.

      No, the “war on science” example is not “what I’ve got”. My main objection to Oreskes and Conway in this case is that their “method” or lack of it consists of cherry picking examples from one side.

      You seem to be unaware of the complexity of the climate change issue. It’s not about whether climate change is happening or not. No one denies that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.