« profile & posts archive

This author has written 83 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

21 responses to “Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt tour”

  1. Dave McRae

    I got a few links to her gear at http://galahs.blogspot.com/2010/03/naomi-oreskes.html the best being a Uni Cali. TV talk of hers on this subject Dec2007, 58min, http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459

    I got interested in her work when it must’ve been ~4 years ago, my mum asked me about global warming, “is it true?”. Having a bit of an science education, the first thing to do is a literature survey on the topic. It’s easy today in the internet age. So I googled and top link was her lit survey paper published in Science 2005. My work was done for me http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686# and I could report to mum (also myself too)

    As she says in the UCTV talk, having published this paper resulted in hate mail and death threats. Instead of being intimidated, as a science historian she investigated as to why the nuttery. Merchants of Doubt is the result.

  2. Doug

    Surely she can get a gig on Alan Jones?

    Seriously looks like a good read.

  3. David Irving (no relation)

    Fran Kelly managed to annoy the shit out of me (again!) yesterday morning by being more interested in listening to her own voice than actually finding out what Oreskes had to say.

    Missed Lateline. Was it worth watching?

  4. patrickg

    No Sydney?

  5. Dave McRae

    patrickg, Sydney was last night, UNSW (I’d do a link but I fear binning – see deltoid)

    no Canberra 🙁

  6. Eric Sykes

    David I @ 2. Yes Fran gets increasingly annoying, but I thought it was good to hear Oreskes cutting thru when she could.

    And as Oreskes said herself the media campaign gets into a rage against her all the time, so I suspect if the commercials cover her at all…they’ll try to undermine her credibility and de-bunk her research.

  7. Steve

    Professor Ian Plimer won’t appear with her. “Quaking in his water-filled boots” is likely the apt expression

  8. billie

    I have noticed ABC journalists plugging away with their prepared questions rather than responding to points raised by the person being interviewed.

    Entirely off topic – but a Microsoft scientist in Hobart said that of course Foxtel is against the NBN because once NBN is rolled out everyone will cancel their cable subscription. Latrioli finished with a vacuous person question whose studity enraged me so much I forget what it was.

  9. David Irving (no relation)

    I’m expecting that, after the usual shrill shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects, RN Breakfast will be wall-to-wall Plimer for about a fortnight, to provide “balance” to Oreskes.

    Gutless pricks.

  10. moz

    It’d take more than a fortnight of Plimer to balance Oreskes. Closer to a lifetime. Although a fortnight ogf listening to Plimer does *seem* like a lifetime.

  11. adrian

    billie, the vacuous question was a final attempt to ingratiate herself to him after a disastrous start, and was ‘are you related to Alexander Graham Bell?’!!! She then suggested he ‘googled’ the name, to which he just managed to get in the obvious response as a Microsoft employee. Bling!

  12. Stu

    Bought the book today, but unfortunately the Adelaide talk is already full.

  13. Lefty E

    Great post, interview with Oreskes here: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s3067282.htm

    This is right on the money:

    “It’s part of this whole ideological program of challenging any science that could lead to government regulation, because it’s part of an ideological conviction that all regulation is bad, that any time the government steps in to ‘protect’ us from harm, that we’re on the slippery slope to socialism, and this the ideology that you see underlying a kind of almost paranoid anti-communism. So even after the Cold War is over, these people are seeing reds under the bed. “

  14. Lefty E

    I should add that the Oreskes interview “lacks balance”, cos it doesn’t quote some fact-denying idiot with his head up his bum, singing lalalalalala.

  15. p.a.travers

    There are only four scientist named by this author above.Gratefully,as a non-scientist myself,I also know the history of science is a very large field.One is pressing ones’ luck to assume that non climate change warming advocates do not know about these type of manifestations of U.S.A. science.I am not convinced her book will change my mind,if some of the above contributors are so absolutely sure she proves the case,herself, for climate change warming.Working for Al Gore to me,is like accepting fluoride and chlorine are compatible for human beings in drinking water.And Al Gore, the Green, makes me want to puke.You win!

  16. David Irving (no relation)

    I booked early, Stu. There may be on-line video or audio available after the event, although I agree that’d be a poor substitute.

  17. klem

    There are many climate skeptics who would have her for breakfast. Besides, who cares, the climate war is over. She is flogging a book on a topic which is last years news. She missed it. No one is interested anymore. The best proof of this will be in a few weeks at the Cancun Climate Summit; almost no leaders are going to this photo-op, even the news media outlets are sending only their lowest level reporters. The only place which still cares about this subject is Australia, the rest of the world has moved on. That’s why she’s there, she can’t sell the book anywhere else.

  18. Doug

    Kem

    Wrong – action is proceeding in a big way on climate issues – to assume it is all over is self delusion

  19. Don Wigan

    There are many climate skeptics who would have her for breakfast.

    Yeah, sure, klem. That’s why they’re all rushing to debate her.

  20. David Irving (no relation)

    I’ve just come home from listening to her.

    There were questions from the floor afterwards, as is usual, and there was a bloke who was sceptical about climate models. She wiped the floor with him, in the nicest possible way.