Wikipedia bites Oreskes in the ***
Naomi Oreskes has an interesting and troubled relationship to the D word (climate change denial). She is known to have claimed that anyone who doesn’t believe “renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs” is...
Author: dagfinn
#MeToo feminist war, using fake logic
Is it possible to make a case for #MeToo using rational and reasonable arguments? Probably, depending on which flavor of #MeToo is on offer. But sometimes, what seems rational and reasonable is anything but,...
Google is macho
When Google fired James Damore, they were acting like that macho guy who thinks he has been insulted and chooses to pick a fight. (“What did you just say? Ideological echo chamber?”) They...
6 ways climate science gets infected with politics
Many seem to think that scientists have no reason to have political motivations, and that anyone who suggests that climate science is politicized is a deranged right-wing conspiracy theorist. That’s why it’s important to...
What is an emission target?
An emission target or emission reduction target is a promise by politicians that they don’t have to keep. Not just any promise, of course; it’s a promise about how much CO2 will be emitted...
We are not separate from nature. Really!?
“We are not separate from nature.” That’s what they say, anyway. Who? The followers of “deep ecology“, I guess. The central spiritual tenet of deep ecology is that the human species is a part...
Debunking Oreskes part 6: Is it all about the money?
← Part 1: A wall of vagueness ← Part 2: The wicked “handful of scientists” ← Part 3: The “tobacco strategy” ← Part 4: Disinformation or debate? ← Part 5: Irrelevance to the current climate...
Debunking Oreskes part 5: Irrelevance to the current climate change debate
← Part 1: A wall of vagueness ← Part 2: The wicked “handful of scientists” ← Part 3: The “tobacco strategy” ← Part 4: Disinformation or debate? Part 6: Is it all about the...
Debunking Oreskes Part 4: Disinformation or debate?
← Part 1: A wall of vagueness ← Part 2: The wicked “handful of scientists” ← Part 3: The “tobacco strategy” Part 5: Irrelevance to the current climate change debate → Part 6: Is it...
Debunking Oreskes part 3: The “tobacco strategy”
← Part 1: A wall of vagueness ← Part 2: The wicked “handful of scientists” Part 4: Disinformation or debate? → Part 5: Irrelevance to the current climate change debate → Part 6: Is it all...
Recent Comments