A noted environmental activist met with an attorney general conducting an inquisition against ExxonMobil long before reports surfaced alleging the company hid information related to global warming, a panel at the Democratic Progressive Caucus revealed Wednesday.
Eco-author Naomi Oreskes, who authored Merchant of Doubt, a book about the history of global warming skepticism, told the panel that she “was invited about a year or so ago to New York to speak to the staff” of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, “mostly about the work we did in Merchant of Doubt – the history of misinformation and what our findings were.”
She is also a board member of the Climate Accountability Institute (CAI), a group responsible for manipulating data smearing Exxon. Oreskes told the panel she convened a few weeks ago “with some colleagues from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which also involved the staff of Attorney Generals offices from a number of states who came to listen to again factual presentations about climate science, history of climate disinformation and also a presentation by Sharon Eubanks who had led the US Department of justice prosecution of tobacco industry under the RICO statues.”
The climate science author was likely referring to the Attorneys General United for Clean Power, a group of about 17 attorneys general, as well as former Vice President Al Gore, committed to investigating Exxon and global warming skeptics for supposedly duping the public about climate change.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/23/famed-eco-author-spoke-to-ag-about-global-warming-skeptics-before-exxon-reports/#ixzz4CarLiSc3…
Harvard historian of science Naomi Oreskes is best known to climate realists by her 2010 book,Merchants of Doubt and its scurrilous demonization of climate skeptics as paid hacks parroting the fossil-fuel industry’s self-serving opposition to the “consensus view” of man-made climate catastrophe, but that screed doesn’t reveal the flaws in her work.
A short, obscure, error-riddled essay titled, “My Science is Better than Your Science,” that she wrote in 2011 is more significant. It was a chapter in a book titled, How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, and examined the 1991 origin of the “skeptics are paid industry shills” narrative supposedly found in a legendary set of “leaked Western Fuels memos.”
That short chapter is important because Oreskes totally misinterprets the “memos” as Big Coal’s plan for a vast national campaign with paid climate scientists that created the lasting public doubt about global warming. That’s the very same interpretation repeated endlessly by climate alarmists including Al Gore, Ross Gelbspan (1997’s The Heat Is On), Canadian public relations flak James Hoggan ’s attack website DeSmogBlog, and many others.
Appallingly, nobody in this parade of critics did any fact checking of the memos, not even historian Naomi Oreskes, which is a serious lapse for a historian. In fact, Oreskes and the others were using a garbled conglomeration of nearly a dozen different memos from different sources that were collected by Greenpeace and posted unsorted and in no rational order on one of its websites – because they never checked who they really came from.
Critics had no idea what they were looking at in the hundred-or-so pages of “Western Fuels memos.” They simply took the pieces that made skeptics look the worst and patched them together into an assumption-laden fairy-tale, historian Oreskes most unseemly of all.
Had Oreskes, the renowned Harvard Professor of the History of Science, bothered to interview any of the clearly identified sources of the “Western Fuels memos,” she would have discovered that less than one-third of the jumbled “memos” involved Western Fuels Association at all.
It’s ironic that the “Western Fuels memos” became known as “Orders from Big Coal” because Western Fuels Association is actually just the opposite of what the alarmist critics thought: It’s a small, not-for-profit, member-owned co-op serving 24 consumer-owned rural and small municipal electric cooperatives and other public power systems from Wyoming to Kansas. Oreskes never mentions …
‘Is Naomi Oreskes Using the Same Merchant of Doubt Tactics She Criticizes?’ she smears fellow warmists as ‘deniers’
Oreskes attacks four world renowned climate campaigners as “deniers” … because they argue that nuclear power must play a role in decarbonizing energy production, and they don’t believe renewable energy alone will be enough to stave off serious climate change. Here’s how Oreskes uses the loaded language of denialism;
“A strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.”
“We probably won’t get very far if the alternatives to fossil fuel — such as renewable energy — are disparaged by a new generation of myths. If we want to see real solutions implemented, we need to be on the lookout for this new form of denial.”
Oreskes has been roundly criticized for her ad hominem and polarizing use of “denier” semantics. (See Michael Specter’s How Not to Debate Nuclear Energy and Climate Change)
But she must also be taken to task for intellectual hypocrisy. She does just what she has made her name criticizing inMerchants of Doubt, knowingly playing fast and loose with the evidence, and selectively citing scientific experts, to support her view of “the facts” in a way that clouds public understanding of scientific evidence in order to advance a clear political agenda.…
Marc Morano, one of the most powerful “climate skeptics” who openly confesses to himself to be a scientist. But: “I play a TV.”
The documentary filmmaker Robert Kenner shows in “Merchants of Doubt”, know how masterfully exploit the business of the doubt for their own purposes today the large corporations and political think tanks.…
Why do we want you to read them?
Because you will see that they completely undercut the allegations made by InsideClimate News in its series about ExxonMobil – allegations that were subsequently echoed by activists like Bill McKibben and Naomi Oreskes.
What these documents actually demonstrate is a robust culture of scientific discourse on the causes and risks of climate change that took place at ExxonMobil in the 1970s and ’80s and continues today.
They also help explain why ExxonMobil would work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and leading universities like MIT and Stanford on ways to expand climate science knowledge. …
‘The Climate Mafia Rewrites Science History’: ‘RICO statute was passed to fight the mafia. Now it’s being used by the climate mafia to silence dissent’
The belief that to reject climate catastrophism (aka climate denial) constitutes a moral failing is a hallmark of pseudoscience – See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/rupert-darwall-the-climate-mafia-rewrites-science-history/#sthash.iafFb5JB.dpuf
Scientists were able to prove the threat to health from smoking because there is a very strong statistical relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The strength of those initial findings was further validated by passing a tough predictive test. In 1953, Richard Doll, one of the first researchers to have found the link, predicted that in 1973 there would be 25,000 lung-cancer deaths in Britain. In fact, there were 26,000. By contrast, climate models have been systematically over-forecasting temperature rises this century, demonstrating that climate scientists know much less about the climate system than they would have us believe. In the New York Times, Oreskes complains that climate scientists are ridiculed for predicting catastrophic climate change. If climate scientists’ predictions had been more accurate, they might be taken seriously.
Climate activists have highlighted the history of research on tobacco smoking and lung cancer not to illustrate the weakness of climate science compared with the epidemiology of lung cancer, but to intimidate those who disagree with them and close down debate. Last month, 20 climate scientists wrote to President Obama requesting that the government use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to bypass Congress and, they hope, muzzle dissenting views. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the letter’s organizer, Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University, and his family have been doing very well indeed out of federal research dollars, reaping more than $1 million in 2014 alone.
– See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/rupert-darwall-the-climate-mafia-rewrites-science-history/#sthash.iafFb5JB.dpuf…