Naomi Oreskes to speak at UNSW

That's great, can't make it Im on the other side of the planet. Is Dr. Oreskes doing a tour to promote her book? if so it would be really helpful to have the itinerary:-)

DR. Oreskes tour

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/events-calendar/categoryevents/1-key…

Doesn't she work for an American university? A bit surprising that she would go to Australian universities with her book.

Anyway, good for you! I managed to get my local political bookstore to take in that book. Haven't started on it yet, though, so many other things came up.

1) I *strongly* recommend attending: Naomi not only knows this turf very well, but is a very lively speaker.

2) These days, she is a Provost at UC San Diego.

3)She has a traveled widely, but worked from Adelaide 1981-1984 as a mining geologist, before moving to Stanford for grad school. Presumably she traveled around Oz a bit in that job.

Naomi's book is an outstanding piece of academic literature. I read it about a year ago and I was very impressed with her grasp of the subject matter. I was not aware that she was touring and speaking about her book, but I will certainly keep an eye out for any local lecture. If you've not read the book by all means buy or borrow a copy.

Merchants of Doubt is a splendid piece of work that shouldâbut alas probably won'tâbe read by every news editor in the world. Anyone interested in the history of the recent science wars in America will find it most illuminating.

Fantastic it is on in Perth on the 22nd. Have put it in my calendar so I don't forget.

What a great talk to have in Sydney. Such a pity that everything comes at once in November.

I will try to make it down.

Keep up the good work Tim.

She is also coming to Melbourne just when I am home from the UK.

Goody! Can't wait!

I see through the alarmists' tissue of lies. If Naomi Oreskes had really been a mining geologist in Australia or America, then, like Ian Plimer and Steve McIntyre, she'd be following Sound Science instead of Al Gore science. It's well-known that mining geologists are the only people capable of sorting out the sorry climate science picture.

Wow. When and where in Melbourne? She*see a great speaker, i' see definitely take time off work for that.

**Update:** Also:

UQ: [Tuesday](http://gci.uq.edu.au/naomi-oreskes)

Melbourne: [Wednesday](http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/notices/20101013/seminars/merc…)

Adelaide: [Thursday](http://www.riaus.org.au/events/2010/11/18/merchants_of_doubt.jsp)

UWA: [Monday 22nd](http://www.ias.uwa.edu.au/lectures/oreskes)

Gees, it's a shame she isn't coming to Canberra.

Yes, why isn't she coming to Canberra? Shame.

Tempted to take Monday afternoon off, but I don't much like driving home at 1am.

Excellent. Thank you Tim.

Just to add my recommendation for Oreskes' book.

Marion # 10

Yep, read her CV and weep. I'm a geologist who has worked in mineral exploration as well and I recognise that anthropogenic driven climate (and ocean) change is a very serious issue. I also know that Ian Plimer is a buffoon.

Would it not be entertaining to see Oreskes debate Plimer?

Please, please can someone in the Australian scientific and/or media establisments make it so?

Bernard, why do you hate Naomi so much..?

[:-)](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/naomi_oreskes_to_speak_at_unsw…)

I have a suspicion that Naomi would shred Plimer to little bits of confetti.

And I'd pay to see that.

THINK OF THE CLEANING BILL!!!

And, with all the problems that concern trolls have had over 10:10, what do you think they'll do after this? EXPLODE! Then explode about how they're exploding. Then explode about exploding about exploding.

rinse, lather, recurse

with lots of rinsing, lather and cursing, of course...

I side with Wow predictively but it would indeed be interesting to see what someone who knows the score and has similar qualifications to Plimer was able to do against what he picked up debating creation science-ists.

What I'd like to here NO say in such a hypothetical debate:

Ian, when you consult for a mining company, do they ever request million-year time flitches? Because in the States, they don't seem to have any industrial use for mining abstract concepts.

1) The book's Website has much useful material, including the current book tour schedule.

2) I wouldn't worry about her ability to handle Plimer.

3)It was a very bad move on some people's part to hassle her for the 2004 Science essay, which got her interested in the work that led to she and Erik writing MoD. It's one thing to bother climate scientists who want to get on with their work. It's another to bother someone who also does history and investigative reporting.

I find it disturbing that this blog hasn't mentioned Monckton's impending contributions to medicine being surpressed by the pharmacosocialisfascistwarming conspiracy (via Crooked Timber):

"I began to think that Viscount Monckton might be a formidable opponent during the debate. Then he told me that he has discovered a new drug that is a complete cure for two-thirds of known diseases - and that he expects it to go into clinical trials soon. I asked him whether his miracle cure was chiefly effective against viruses or bacterial diseases? âBothâ, he said, âand prionsâ. At this point I felt a little more relaxed about the forthcoming debate."

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2010/10/a-night-at-the-oxford-union/

Although Iâm a keen bibliophile on matters AGW & science, I also live off a pension which is never enough. Consequently my wife makes me consider repeatedly whether the next new book is worth buying.
So, could somebody explain to me whether Naomiâs book will give me substantially more information than, say, the book âThe Republican War on Scienceâ by Chris Mooney â (obviously I have a well-read copy of that)?

Clippo, her book sells for just £13.54 in the UK (free delivery)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/…

You can watch her talks on Youtube, or read the reviews online.

> Although Iâm a keen bibliophile on matters AGW & science, I also live off a pension which is never enough.

There's the IPCC reports and Spencer Weart's book is in large part (it is kind of an addendum to it too) available (on line)[http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm].

And, be honest, when it comes down to it, you spend more than the cost of a book on many things that aren't necessary but make life interesting. It isn't the cost of a book, but that you rate other things more highly. As is your choice, just realise it.

SPofTGS: I saw that on Crooked Timber too. And I must agree with the poster there who said "and prions." has good meme-potential, a la "and a pony."

Thanks for the responses.

Wow, I appreciate your point but I do also have Spencer Weart's book, & "6 Degrees" by Mark Lynas, and a "Rough Guide to Global Warming" and several others ...... etc.

As I said, I have to limit my book enthusiasm, (or I should say 'er indoors' does) so I look for the possibility of extra facts as a negotiation point (smile)

Re: #25 clippo

Both MoD and RWoS are worth having although they overlap and are certainly consistent. They are orthogonal, in the sense of RWoS focussing on Republican Party vs science, covering a lot of topics. Think of it as a thin horizontal plane.

MoD is in some sense vertical, focusing on 3 elite scientists (Jastrow, Seitz, Nierenberg) and one other Fred Singer, who turned to anti-science for (primarily) ideological reasons. Their George C.Marshall Institute (GMI) was one of the earliest thinktanks to specialize in climate anti-science and has been amazingly influential for a place most people have never heard of it. It has long worked with Inhofe & co, etc.

Of GMI and the 4 above, the Index of RWoS only lists Singer. Hence, MoD is a really in-depth examination of the some truly key people (who had really been star scientists, unlike most others) who ended up doing much anti-science. It explains all this all got there.

If you want a (free!) more current context that talks about funding, thinktanks, advocates, shared activities around climate anti-science, see CCC. Think of that as a thicker horizontal strip focused on climate and the entities involved, so it overlaps a small slice of RWoS, and the climate chunk of MoD, but covers the other people and entities in more depth. CCC overlaps less with MoD than it might have ... because of course I had been reviewing it and could just reference it, even before it was published.

Tim,

Thanks for the links on Oreskes's visit. I've just used them to spread info on her visit across my university's alumni network (not UNSW)

> As I said, I have to limit my book enthusiasm, (or I should say 'er indoors' does) so I look for the possibility of extra facts as a negotiation point (smile)

Get to a library, man!

It's a hobby you can take 'er indoors with: she goes to town centre, you read a book at the town library!

PS don't blame her. If you weren't willing to forgo some books to please her, you'd be getting more books. So it's not just her.

Marriage is about shared responsibility.

As in "it's your fault" (grin).

re: It's a hobby you can take 'er indoors with: she goes to town centre, you read a book at the town library!

Beat you to it man ! Reserved this book this am at my local library - it's out to someone else at the moment.

And if it does have new info, I will buy a copy.

FYI, here's a podcast of a lecture that Dr. Oreskes gave at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography about 3 years ago: http://podcast.uctv.tv/vod/13459.mp4

Hows' about we start a rumour that the Australian intends to hand over pages 1, 2 and 3 for coverage of each of Oreskes talk's on its next day editions.

Have any of you ever taken a serious look at Orekses' assertions? Fred Singer is a case in point. He pointed out the blatantly dishonest abuse of statistics the EPA used to show that second hand smoke is a danger to humans. He was correct on all counts as anyone with a reasonable grasp of statistical math and an honest attempt to look can quickly determine. But the truth didn't matter to Oreskes. She should know better. Ask yourself why she will not debate Singer on the matter. Better yet, ask Oreskes about it directly.

Shorter Roy Hogue:

Naomi Oreskes refuses to show up on Fred Singer's dog and pony shows. This proves that second-hand tobacco smoke is harmless!

Frank, I'm glad to see that you agree with me!

Shorter Roy Hogue:

THIRD WORLD KLEPTOCRATS!!!!!!1111

Roy, I'm glad you understand irony.

Frank,

Calm down, I don't bite. I will end my little adventure here with this: refusal to debate is always going to be seen as fear to debate. Oreskes would lose on the facts and both you and she know it well.

Chris,

When I see a response such as 37 with only two sentences that are just an inane dismissive response and the second is a non sequitur, I know the quality of debate I'm going to get. I would think that people want to be seen as having a little more character than that.

Thank you for being civil, I appreciate that.

Shorter Roy Hogue:

What Fred Singer's doing is not a dog and pony show! It's a serious debate! Serious! Serious! Why do you refuse to treat a dog and pony show as a serious debate? Is this fear that I sense? It must be! Therefore, Singer wins! Second hand smoke is harmless! Haha!

Ad nauseam! Please don't go on and make it ad infinitum as well.

Shorter Roy Hogue:

I use Latin phrases. Ergo, second hand smoke is harmless! Ha!

See 38, 41 and 43. You can have the last word since that's what you obviously want. It will prove to all your friends that you can stare down a skeptic. But it cannot hide the fact that you sidestep any debate on the merit of Oreskes' baseless assertions.

I'm entitled to take your words at face value, especially since you've said it no less than three times, giving strong emphasis to your conviction about it. Second hand smoke is harmless. As offensive as it is, it's harmless. So you agree with me and thereby declare to the whole world that Oreskes' attack on Fred Singer was baseless and shameful.

If you object to my taking your words at face value then try a well reasoned argument as to why I'm wrong instead of an ad hominem attack. Otherwise, good by!

>*Have any of you ever taken a serious look at Orekses' assertions? Fred Singer is a case in point.*

Yes Roy lets, You can start by citing Oreskese' errors, which you havn't.

BTW Orekese cites evidence, unlike your posts to date.

Roy:

try a well reasoned argument as to why I'm wrong

Instead of the bare assertions which is all you come up with. Roy is very free giving out advice that he doesn't take himself. Unfortunately, the world has an excess supply of such nutcases.

OK, now we're on the right track.

Let's begin with the accusation that Singer was on the payroll of some (any) tobacco company. If you think this is true then produce some evidence of it.

Next: Singer used publically available information to show the dishonest way in which the EPA "proved" that second hand smoke is a danger to humans. Remember, the EPA is owned by the U.S. taxpayers and cannot legally withhold any information about its findings or how they arrived at them. So here is the case against the EPA.

1. They ignored all studies that failed to show any correlation between passive smoke and adverse health effects. This is a clear violation of the basic tenets of honest research. All findings count. The failure of event A to correlate with effect B means something.

2. Even after that their data failed to show a correlation at the accepted minimum statistical standard of 95% confidence interval. This is a show stopper and should have ended the project.

3. Instead of maintaining strict statistical honesty they lowered their standard to 90% confidence interval. That gave them a risk factor slightly greater than 1. Epidemiologists ignore anything with a risk factor less than 2.

4. So by any acceptable standard the EPA is guilty of out and out fraud. They had a preconceived politically correct conclusion to reach and let nothing stand in the way of reaching it.

5. Oreskes nevertheless demonized Fred Singer although his data and conclusions are perfect and stand up to the most demanding scrutiny. And Oreskes knows this. Else why not debate the matter with Singer.

Fred Singer was not the only one to call attention to this deceit either.

I await your well reasoned argument as to why any of this is wrong. Oreskes simply cares nothing whatsoever for the truth.

Roy claims:

>Epidemiologists ignore anything with a risk factor less than 2.

That's not true. We covered this [right here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/04/riskybusiness.php)

Singer worked for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute , which was funding by tobacco companies.

>Let's begin with the accusation that Singer was on the payroll of some (any) tobacco company. If you think this is true then produce some evidence of it.

[The Smoking Gun](http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html)

>*So by any acceptable standard the EPA is guilty of out and out fraud.*

Roy, you have not demonstrated any such thing, nor have you shown Oreskes was wrong in any of her claims. Not a single one.

90% statistical probability is a suitable threashold of significance. Certainly enough to instigate public safety measures.

I think that before we can talk about Singer's alleged associations with tobacco or the meaning of risk factors you have to get by the fact that the EPA dropped out studies that didn't show any possible correlation between adverse health consequences and second hand smoke; also that they committed statistical malpractice by using a 90% confidence interval to get their 1.25 risk factor. Singer's case against the EPA will stand until you can explain away that little bit of deceit. And with that foundation to stand on I think no risk factor, however large, can stand up under the cold hard light of day.

FYI -- I've looked for anything linking Singer to a tobacco company. I can find lots of accusations but nothing definitive that says he actually did anything. "The Smoking Gun" link is to something I can't get inside of no matter what I try. But I'm an honest man. So if you come up with something credible I will admit that you're correct on the matter of his past association with a tobacco company. However, even if he was once a direct employee of a tobacco company it doesn't shoot down his analysis of the EPA's bad behavior.

PS:

I hate tobacco and its smoke in any form, period. I just hate being lied to by my government even more than I hate tobacco.

Roy, perhaps you should learn about the difference between one-sided and two sided tests of significance [here](http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html)?

>*I think that before we can talk about Singer's alleged associations with tobacco or the meaning of risk factors...*

I think Roy, that you need to present one piece of evidence that Oreskes has made any errors at all.

So far your score is zip from seven.

I can see that you will not address the fact that Singer's expose of the EPA's finding is correct and irrefutable. Yet Oreskes has demonized the man for being correct. Then fails to debate him, which is an open admission that she thinks she would be exposed by such a debate.

Tim, your argument boils down to, "The EPA estimates..." When you look at any given case of lung cancer, whether it is a smoker or non smoker, you cannot tell what the cause of that cancer was. The only way you can show causation is by looking at a large population and using honest statistical methods to evaluate the presence or absence of a link between the one thing and the other. To say that a 90% confidence interval is acceptable under "some circumstances" takes science out of the realm of objectivity where it belongs, into the realm of subjectivity where anything can be justified. Indeed, that seems to be what this whole site is dedicated to -- justifying whatever you want to be true rather than finding out what is true and what isn't.

If standards accepted since the beginning of statistical math cannot get you where you want to go, you are not entitled to lower the standards. And therein is Oreskes problem. Things that must be strictly objective are, to her, something completely subjective that she can redefine according to her own preferred world view. Therefore she can condemn Fred Singer easily because in her world, she defines the truth. She can write all the books and make all the tours she wants to but her monumental weakness and arrogance will remain. The truth is neither a matter of academic opinion nor of majority opinion in general. It is what it is.

I'll change my mind when she actually debates Fred Singer and is declared the winner of that debate by an impartial group of judges.

Roy @ #48:

>Let's begin with the accusation that Singer was on the payroll of some (any) tobacco company.

Roy @ #52

>I think that before we can talk about Singer's alleged associations with tobacco or the meaning of risk factors you have to get by the fact that the EPA dropped out studies that didn't show any possible correlation between adverse health consequences and second hand smoke...

Move goalposts much, Roy?

>"The Smoking Gun" link is to something I can't get inside of no matter what I try. But I'm an honest man.

You might be honest, but not too smart. The link is direct evidence of a quid pro quo between the de Tocqueville Institute offering the services of Singer in a projected EPA/ETS hit piece contracted to the Tobacco Institute for $20,000.

Other documents show the 20 grand was paid in full.

So you failed to learn about one-sided tests, Roy?

>To say that a 90% confidence interval is acceptable under "some circumstances" takes science out of the realm of objectivity where it belongs, into the realm of subjectivity where anything can be justified.

Roy, you are not paying attention.

A 90% CI in an a priori justified one-tailed test has the same predictive power as a 95% CI in a two-tailed test. Since it had already been demonstrated by numerous two-tailed tests that smoking tobacco represented a >95% statistically certain risk of lung cancer (actually 99.9% and a risk factor >2), it is entirely appropriate and objectively reasonable to use a one-tailed test to estimate the risk from second-hand smoke.

My bottom line always has been,

"I'll change my mind when she actually debates Fred Singer and is declared the winner of that debate by an impartial group of judges."

It's all about hiding from Singer. No matter what the topic, only the dishonest fear to show their hand in an open exchange of ideas.

Oreskes loses by default.

That Smoking Gun names Singer but that may mean anything. I have searched (since that seems to be what one must do) for some definitive statement that Singer did something on behalf of tobacco and I come up empty handed. Admittedly this is probably intentional on the part of the industry group. The best I can come up with for a match on Fred Singer, mentions him a few times as having made presentations or submitted papers having nothing to do with tobacco or smoking in any way. If you have found something I haven't please don't keep it a secret.

---------

I do not accept this premise that, because 95% CI quite easily proves the link between active smoking and the diseases it causes you are justified in using 90% for passive smoke. The degree of exposure to second hand smoke is orders of magnitude smaller than that for active smoking. It's not even in the same ballpark. The same standards must apply.

"A 90% CI in an a priori justified one-tailed test has the same predictive power as a 95% CI in a two-tailed test. Since it had already been demonstrated by numerous two-tailed tests that smoking tobacco represented a >95% statistically certain risk of lung cancer (actually 99.9% and a risk factor >2), it is entirely appropriate and objectively reasonable to use a one-tailed test to estimate the risk from second-hand smoke"

Then you have to get past the studies that showed no apparent link with smoke at all.

>That Smoking Gun names Singer but that may mean anything.

It means what it says:

>to: Bill Orzechowski (Chief Economist of the Tobacco Institute)

>Here is the man who will handle the EPA/ETS work Brennon wants for us on the âsocial costs". Very impressive resume. I think the project is worth the 20K we discussed. Agree?. W. Woodson (Walter Woodson, Vice President-Public Affairs of the Tobacco Institute).

Attached to Singer's resume.

I can understand your inability to understand abstruse statistical methods, but you really have to be dense to believe that this isn't a direct financial connection of Singer to the tobacco industry.

Roy,

>Then you have to get past the studies that showed no apparent link with smoke at all.

You keep making this assertion as if it means something. It is in violent contradiction to what the [EPA](http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html) actually says:

>Finally, EPA conducted multiple analyses on the then-available 30 epidemiology studies from eight different countries which examined the association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in women who never smoked themselves but were exposed to their husband's smoke. Since the epidemiology studies are the major thrust of the tobacco industry arguments against the EPA report, these studies are examined in more detail below.

>The Epidemiology Studies

>The most important aspect of the review of the epidemiology studies is the remarkable consistency of results across studies that support a causal association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.

>In assessing the studies several different ways, it becomes clear that the extent of the consistency defies attribution to chance. When looking only at the simple measure of exposure of whether the husband ever smoked, 24 of 30 studies reported an increase in risk for nonsmoking women with smoking husbands. Since many of these studies were small, the chance of declaring these increases statistically significant was small. Still, nine of these were statistically significant, and __the probability that this many of the studies would be statistically significant merely by chance is less than 1 in 10 thousand.__

>The simple overall comparison of risks in ever vs. never exposed to spousal smoking tends to hide true increases in risk in two ways. First, it categorizes many women as never exposed who actually received exposure from sources other than spousal smoking. It also includes some women as exposed who actually received little exposure from their husband's smoking. One way to correct for this latter case is to look at the women whose husbands smoked the most. When one looks at the 17 studies that examined cancer effects based on the level of exposure of the subjects, every study found an increased lung cancer risk among those subjects who were most exposed. Nine were statistically significant. __The probability of 9 out of 17 studies showing statistically significant results occurring by chance is less than 1 in ten million.__

>Probably the most important finding for a causal relationship is one of increasing response with increasing exposure, since such associations cannot usually be explained by other factors. Such exposure-response trends were seen in all 14 studies that examined the relationship between level of exposure and effect. In 10 of the studies the trends were statistically significant. __The probability of this happening by chance is less than 1 in a billion.__

>It is unprecedented for such a consistency of results to be seen in epidemiology studies of cancer from environmental levels of a pollutant. One reason is that it is extremely difficult to detect an effect when virtually everyone is exposed, as is the case with secondhand smoke. However, consistent increased risks for those most exposed and consistent trends of increasing exposure showing an increasing effect provide strong evidence that secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

You are welcome to try to show that those six studies that didn't show an apparent link to cancer represent a statistically significant failure to falsify the null hypothesis as opposed to a type II error.

I'm betting you can't.

Roy, you're now zip from nine. Will you ever produce any evidence to support your assertion that Oreskes made any error at all?

This is getting pointless. We aren't going to agree on 90 vs. 95% CI.

I stated exactly why I was here at 36. I was greeted by a moron who couldn't string two sentences together to make sense. What should I do when faced with that? I could call him names, denigrate his character, what? So I just played it by the tone he set for the conversation. He didn't like it and finally lost it. You need a better quality of first responder.

I've been attacked on every angle you can find. If I don't get the point you want me to get it's my fault.

And all I've done so far is lay out Fred Singer's case.

--------

This needs a link that I can read.

"It means what it says:

to: Bill Orzechowski (Chief Economist of the Tobacco Institute)

Here is the man who will handle the EPA/ETS work Brennon wants for us on the âsocial costs". Very impressive resume. I think the project is worth the 20K we discussed. Agree?. W. Woodson (Walter Woodson, Vice President-Public Affairs of the Tobacco Institute).

Attached to Singer's resume.

I can understand your inability to understand abstruse statistical methods, but you really have to be dense to believe that this isn't a direct financial connection of Singer to the tobacco industry."

--------

Then where is any statement by Singer that he actually agreed to do something?

But all of this has been a side issue. Oreskes has had no problem trashing Fred Singer's reputation but when it comes to standing up and defending what she said in a public forum she refuses. Singer has said that he didn't take any money from tobacco and he has been asking for debate. It's hard to imagine that if he was lying about it he would risk a debate in which Oreskes could expose him for the lie.

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate. And character assassination is the substance of her whole book, Merchants of Doubt, it's her specialty. But face those she trashes? No!

So now, "Ask yourself why she will not debate Singer on the matter. Better yet, ask Oreskes about it directly."

My son, when he was about 13 or 14 years old might have said something like this, "Naomi Oreskes refuses to show up on Fred Singer's dog and pony shows." But that kind of excuse is not worthy of an adult. I got it from the moron who gave me such warm welcome.

Have fun!

>*And all I've done so far is lay out Fred Singer's case.*

No, you've attacked Oreskes on a thread on her talk. You came here claiming she made false assertions about Singer, yet you fail to support this claim with any evidence.

I agree with you on on point:

>*This is getting pointless.*

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate.

Piffle.

Scientists generally refuse such useless "debates" with cranks like Singer. Ken Ham can't get a debate with an evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean evolutionary theory has anything to fear from the likes of him. Nor does Oreskes have anything to fear from a stooge of Singer's ilk.

>Then where is any statement by Singer that he actually agreed to do something?

You really have to be led by the hand, don't you?

Singer is the co-author of the first draft and listed as Principal Reviewer [(whatever that is)](http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756807-6876.html) of "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination - A Research Report Conducted by the Alexis De Tocqueville Institution". This is the published source for the claims by Singer that you have laid out. How is it that you don't know this?

Singer may claim he was paid by ADTI and not directly by the Tobacco Institute but it does not change the fact that he was paid with tobacco money.

>*character assassination is the substance of her whole book, Merchants of Doubt, it's her specialty. But face those she trashes? No!*

Its actually your speciality Roy, you keep making outrageous allegations against Oreskes with no evidence of any error in Oreskes work.

>*So now, "Ask yourself why she will not debate Singer on the matter. Better yet, ask Oreskes about it directly."*

Ask your self why Roy will not produce a single error in Oreskes work, and instead runs away when challenged?

It was always about this kind of nonsense.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/894.pdf

"And character assassination is the substance of her whole book, Merchants of Doubt, it's her specialty." [from 63]

Roy @ 59 "I do not accept this premise that, because 95% CI quite easily proves the link between active smoking and the diseases it causes you are justified in using 90% for passive smoke."

You still have not read up about the difference between one-tailed and two-tailed tests, have you? It is one of the earliest concepts people meet in basic statistics courses and you really should get on top of it. You have completely misunderstood the argument that was being made.

Roy [is now](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/naomi_oreskes_to_speak_at_unsw…) zip from 10 and counting. Go Roy!

Feel free to present any of Oreske's errors any time Roy. Or are you just going to play the character assassination game by assertion without fact?

[Roy Hogue said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/naomi_oreskes_to_speak_at_unsw…):

It was always about this kind of nonsense.

and for demonstration immediately linked to a Marshall Institute document.

I suspect that he has not an inkling of how ironically accurate he was - for what was probably the first time in this thread.

You will no doubt go on in similar fashion for as long as I'll keep responding. So this will be my last post.

FYI:

1. I have yet to see something definitive that says Singer worked for, and knew he worked for any tobacco company or industry group.

2. Number 1 doesn't matter a bit because it's quite legitimate to be working for a tobacco interest. The thing that counts is whether he was right or wrong.

3. I'm not ignorant of the existence of one tailed tests or the fact that they're used. I simply disagree with that use by the EPA to prove something that their data did not prove. If 95% confidence interval could show what they wanted to show they would have been ecstatic about it. "Hot-damn, no one can challenge this." But their data couldn't get there at the accepted norm of 95%. The excuse that active smoking was already proven to be dangerous justifies lowering the standard does not fly. At the very worst the level of exposure to passive smoke is orders of magnitude lower than the level of exposure for the smoker. One does not justify the other.

4. I read all the stuff you pointed out. Again, in simple words, when you are charged with making public policy that will be shoved down the throat of 300 million people your procedures need to be squeaky clean. The EPA didn't come even close on second hand smoke.

5. I hate tobacco smoke every bit as much as you do. It's obnoxious in the extreme. But I hate being lied to by my government even more than I hate tobacco smoke.

6. I've never been interested in pointing out errors in Oreskes work. She has published a book that's nothing but a shameful hatchet job attacking people for doubting the current scientific orthodoxy. Well, there is good reason to doubt it. And it's quite legitimate to challenge official dogma. Oreskes has trashed Fred Singer's reputation. Singer has asked for public debate on the merit of his position. Oreskes refuses to debate and you all seem to think that's perfectly OK.

7. So Naomi, why are you afraid to debate Fred Singer? Why are you afraid to publically defend what you've said? If you're right you would easily make a fool of him. Your refusal is prima face evidence that you're afraid to face him. I think that in your shoes I would also refuse. Just for starters, I'd be ashamed to have my hatchet job exposed.

Roy opines: *Oreskes has trashed Fred Singer's reputation*

What reputation is that Roy? Of a contrarian who hasn't published much in the way of anything in a peer-reviewed journal for almost 30 years? Not much of a reputation there to tarnish. The fact is that the only reasons Singer, like other contrarians, gets any attention these days is (1) because he is (or was) a practising scientist, and (2) his contrarian views resonate with those who wish to downplay the threats posed by climate change and other anthropogenic stresses to the environment. Powerful corporate lobbies have given these guys a platform for their nonsense along with a metaphorical megaphone.

One last thing: I am sick and tired of contrarians demanding 'debates' with scientists doing research ( I say this because a large proportion of the contrarians don't do actual research; they either snipe away from the sidelines or distort the findings of other's research). It should be patently obvious by now that these so-called 'debates' are a waste of time because one side generally lies and mangles science whilst expressing no caution in deriving their simple conclusions; the other side speaks the truth and works of the basis of 'probabilities' whilst exhibiting much more caution in the conclusions they make. I think it should be obvious which sides of the ledger the contrarian/denialists fall. At the same time, by refusing to debate a small coterie of contrarians, scientists are deemed to be 'running scared'. It is a no-win situation.

> Roy opines: Oreskes has trashed Fred Singer's reputation

And George W Bush trashed Saddam Hussein's reputation.

Don't get me started on Goebbels...

Sometimes the "Latest Readers' Picks" contain apposite links.

I suggest that Roy Hogue take his complaints to [PZ Myers](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/the_toll_due_to_secondhand_sm…).

Actually, that article is from Orac's "Respectful Insolence" blog.

Roy writes:

>*I've never been interested in pointing out errors in Oreskes work. She has published a book that's nothing but a shameful hatchet job attacking people for doubting the current scientific orthodoxy*

I.e. Roy just wants to assert Oreskes wrong doing, he's not interested in providing evidence of it.

Thanks Roy, we see your tactic.

If Singer were a scientist he could have his debate with all comers in the scholarly literature, as Oreskes does. All he's fit for though is being trotted out like a fairground pony to propagandize for lobbyists like the GMI. In fact was he ever a scientist at all, or at best an ideologically motivated science administrator and bureaucrat with great connections and the willingness to use them? Whatever he once was in scientific terms today he's a nobody. He could get himself on Fox news or published in something like The Australian, he should settle for that kind of exposure and consider himself lucky.

Go do lawyerly things Roy, leave the scientific debate to those with the capability.

[Aureola Nominee, FCD](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/naomi_oreskes_to_speak_at_unsw…).

Thanks for straightening that out.

I was reading PZ Myers' thread on WikiLeaks, and had my head in that space.

Speaking of the Myers WikiLeaks thread, it's curious to see a number of Denialati who hooted with delight at the release of inconsequential climatologists' emails, who are now howling in protest at the release of what are largely inconsequential diplomatic communications - if one considers gossip, personal opinion and such as being inconsequential. There is a difference though... nothing was ever demonstrated from the CRU theft that indicated the truly bad behaviour that occurs in some of the papers released by WikiLeaks.

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate.

Piffle.

Scientists generally refuse such useless "debates" with cranks like Singer. Ken Ham can't get a debate with an evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean evolutionary theory has anything to fear from the likes of him. Nor does Oreskes have anything to fear from a stooge of Singer's ilk.

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate.

Piffle.

Scientists generally refuse such useless "debates" with cranks like Singer. Ken Ham can't get a debate with an evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean evolutionary theory has anything to fear from the likes of him. Nor does Oreskes have anything to fear from a stooge of Singer's ilk.

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate.

Piffle.

Scientists generally refuse such useless "debates" with cranks like Singer. Ken Ham can't get a debate with an evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean evolutionary theory has anything to fear from the likes of him. Nor does Oreskes have anything to fear from a stooge of Singer's ilk.

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate.

Piffle.

Scientists generally refuse such useless "debates" with cranks like Singer. Ken Ham can't get a debate with an evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean evolutionary theory has anything to fear from the likes of him. Nor does Oreskes have anything to fear from a stooge of Singer's ilk.

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate.

Piffle.

Scientists generally refuse such useless "debates" with cranks like Singer. Ken Ham can't get a debate with an evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean evolutionary theory has anything to fear from the likes of him. Nor does Oreskes have anything to fear from a stooge of Singer's ilk.

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate.

Piffle.

Scientists generally refuse such useless "debates" with cranks like Singer. Ken Ham can't get a debate with an evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean evolutionary theory has anything to fear from the likes of him. Nor does Oreskes have anything to fear from a stooge of Singer's ilk.

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate.

Piffle.

Scientists generally refuse such useless "debates" with cranks like Singer. Ken Ham can't get a debate with an evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean evolutionary theory has anything to fear from the likes of him. Nor does Oreskes have anything to fear from a stooge of Singer's ilk.

Oreskes refusal to debate is prima face evidence of fear to debate.

Piffle.

Scientists generally refuse such useless "debates" with cranks like Singer. Ken Ham can't get a debate with an evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean evolutionary theory has anything to fear from the likes of him. Nor does Oreskes have anything to fear from a stooge of Singer's ilk.