I think Naomi Oreskes is being charitable when she calls denialists "contrarians", but to each their own. Stranger Fruit has her response to the latest nonsense being spread by these liars.
They've tried this before, and it was swatted down rapidly, basically the only way they can show any significant disagreement with the consensus on global warming since 1990 is to lie and dissemble. This time appears no different.
Maybe that's why they're cranks. They just keep cranking out the same nonsense over, and over.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Sandy Szwarc continues to wage her war against the "obesity myth", and has fallen into the classic crank trap of the attack on scientific consensus. It's right up there with attacking peer-review as a sure sign you're about to listen to someone's anti-science propaganda.
She cites this article at…
Many readers will no doubt know the 2004 paper in Science by historian of science Naomi Oreskes, a paper which discussed the consensus position regarding anthropogenic climate change. Predictably, the paper received much vitriol from the climate contrarians and denialists. Now, a medical research…
Naomi Oreskes, the researcher who could find not a single peer-reviewed climate science publication that disagreed with the consensus that humans are largely to blame for global warming, defends herself against a pathetic attempt to show that she was wrong. (thanks Stranger Fruit.) But in her list…
As a part of a longer post where I was, for the most part, serious albeit sarcastic, I asked one question that I considered a bit of a throwaway joke. Oddly enough, the more I think about it, the more I think that it wasn't such a joke. Here was my question:
Perhaps we could have a contest: Which…