Showing posts with label Naomi Oreskes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Naomi Oreskes. Show all posts

Monday, October 12, 2015

"Exxon’s Climate Concealment"… So what?

A couple days ago I started a thread over at the CFI Forum titled "Exxon’s Climate Concealment" with an introduction and the following quote:

The Opinion Pages New York Times
Exxon’s Climate Concealment
By NAOMI ORESKES |  OCT. 9, 2015
"The same thing has happened with climate change, as Inside Climate News, a nonprofit news organization, has been reporting in a series of articles based on internal documents from Exxon Mobil dating from the 1970s and interviews with former company scientists and employees. 
Had Exxon been upfront at the time about the dangers of the greenhouse gases we were spewing into the atmosphere, we might have begun decades ago to develop a less carbon-intensive energy path to avert the worst impacts of a changing climate. Amazingly, politicians are still debating the reality of this threat, thanks in no small part to industry disinformation. 
Government and academic scientists alerted policy makers to the potential threat of human-driven climate change in the 1960s and ’70s, but at that time climate change was still a prediction. By the late 1980s it had become an observed fact. …" 
_______________________________________
One comment it received is worth mentioning over here: "Imagine that, pass thousands and thousands of regulations, make it so you have attorneys running the big business and the country. And you have a company that employees thousands of scientists and engineers covering up the truth. What the hell did you expect would happen? The lawyers to tell the truth and do what is morally right?" 
________________________________________

To which I responded: 
What about the simple matter of scientists having a right to have their papers and information honestly represented?

My point is, it’s one thing to come up with every conceivable bias driven argument you can dream up to support one’s doubts.

It’s quite another to deliberately and repeatedly LIE about the work and information of bonafide experts 
in critically important scientific fields.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Seepage, impacts of a chimera - Lewandowsky, Risbey, Oreskes study

Stephan Lewandowsky together with James Risbey and Naomi Oreskes published a new study looking at how the contrarian PR campaign has influenced the way serious climate science was being done.  Here's the abstract followed by some more information regarding the pause and a previous "Seepage" study.

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2015 

The “Pause” in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a Problem for Science

Stephan Lewandowsky
University of Bristol and University of Western Australia
James S. Risbey
CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania
Naomi Oreskes
Harvard University

Capsule 
Contrarian discourse about a “pause” in global warming has found traction in climate science even though there is little evidence for anything but a fluctuation in the warming rate similar to earlier deviations from a longer-term trend.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

#3 Government is driving AGW - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness

 This is the third part (link to part one, part two) of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider Alex and Lindzen's conviction that climate science is all a government plot of some kind.  Oh yeah, to rob us of our freedoms.  As if the developing AGW driven climate change we've allowed isn't going to radically curtail freedoms we take for granted today, over this next couple decades.  

_____________________________________________________

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen 
October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein
Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:
  • Questions about climate
  • “Balance” in nature
  • The goals of environmentalists
1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (R.L.) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority. ...
3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...
_____________________________________________________

15:30  Alex:  What set the direction of climate science in the past before this whole government hierarchy?
~ ~ ~ 
CC:  Originally?   
How about curiosity to understand why we had ice ages and tropical hot house ages on this planet through deep time.  

There was also the obvious purely utilitarian desire, if not need, to understand what drives global weather patterns {wasn't there professor?}  

Focusing on some vague "government hierarchy" is a game of fabricating political enemies. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
15:40  Lindzen:  "Oh, you know, there were problems that had come up.  Probably the most interesting problem was the ice age cycle, you had theories there and they were argued and tested.  There was the climate program of the 70s.  Ah as the paleo records become clearer. The Eocene was a fascinating climate period and people were trying to understand that.
~ ~ ~ 
What bothers me about Lindzen's calculated obtuseness is that he never acknowledges the pivotal role weather plays in our lives.  

Isn't it self-evident that, of course, many people, for many reasons, needed to learn as much as possible about weather?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Lindzen: I mean it was very much a matter of, here are things that we see, how did that happen, how did it work.
~ ~ ~ 
Student's and scientist's desire to learn and understand remains as strong and passionate as ever!  But, you'd have to actually listen to them to know that.

I'd suggest the critically huge change over the past half century has been, our citizen's no longer demand honesty from information sources, and the Republican/libertarian PR machine has fully embraced repetition of lies, stonewalling and rejection of learning as a political strategy. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Monday, February 17, 2014

Response to Prof John Nielsen-Gammon - 2/17/2014

Professor John Nielsen-Gammon left a comment at my post titled "Dear Dr. Nielsen-Gammon, re. statistical certainty vs geophysical realities" he sent it before I finished my review of his "Extreme Weather" article and I didn't see it until after I posted it.

His note provides me with an excellent vehicle to define my issues with JNG's, and many others, approach.  It gives me a chance to point out some glaring omissions and to ask a couple questions.  I have not changed or deleted any of Professor Nielsen-Gammon's words, I have underlined key ideas.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

John N-G (February 16, 2014 at 12:30 PMsaid...
Cross-posted in comments at ClimateChangeNationalForum: 
JNG:  "It’s as though I’ve carried on quite a conversation with you without actually participating in it! 
I want you to realize the trap you are setting for yourself.