My weekly post at DeSmogBlog is now up. It's about the latest Naomi Oreskes brouhaha, which I've been trying not to watch too closely. That's what the piece is about. And if that's too mysterious--well, read it.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Back in 2008, I examined the Oreskes vs Nierenberg affair and concluded that Nicolas Nierenberg was correct and Oreskes was wrong. And then NN capped that by actually writing stuff up into a paper, published in July of this year: Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins…
I've been running around crazy busy again, so I haven't had time until now to comment on Gore's Nobel, which I believe was richly deserved. However, there is what I would call a "paradox" about Gore and his recent achievements, the nature of which I try to outline in my latest DeSmogBlog weekly…
The paper arrived for the first time at our place here in Silverlake today. Something about getting your local rag really makes you feel like you're rooted in a new location.
But though that observation might sound uplifting--and hey, this piece in the Times today was particularly great--it also…
In comments to my post at On Line Opinion Graham Young declares that it is his "dispassionate assessment" as the editor of On Line Opinion that I am "deeply dishonest" for stating that Peiser admitted his analysis was full of errors. Here are the relevant bits of the exchange (links added), with…
In tackling the problem of avoiding the naysayer rehash, I like to put the challenge towards two fronts:
1. positive evidence that allegedly points away from anthropogenic global warming; and
2. showing how the consensus research effectively rebuts the naysayer direction allegedly supported by such evidence.
The idea is get them to substantively talk about the science, rather than just gain-saying and taking points out of context. Usually this results in no response to the science, and so I just keep hammering on that point.
ANSWER; Probably a trained and credentialed framing genius.
A yuppie graduate degree in communication, rhetoric, and framing is a terrible thing to waste.
Or it could have been a trained lawyer?
Your DSB piece is very good. Thanks.
Douglas Coker