Last week I wrote a piece about the people and organizations involved in the latest attack on the work of Dr. Naomi Oreseks. They were: Dr. Klaus Martin-Shulte, Christopher Monckton and Rob Ferguson, who was formerly employed by the oil-industry backed “think” tank, the Frontiers of Freedom. Ferguson now runs his own think tank called the “Science and Public Policy Institute.”
After exhausting resources on the internet, I had a few important questions left outstanding, so I sent emails to Ferguson and Martin-Shulte almost a week ago with no response as of yet.
The breathless debate spawned by U.K. endocrinologist Dr. Klaus-Martin Shulte offers a perfect case study in how NOT to debate serious scientific issues.
Shulte - motivated, we are led to believe, by a desire to ease the minds of defenceless children who are worried about climate change - has launched what can fairly be described as an effort to repudiate the work of Dr. Naomi Oreskes.
Of course, this speaks to the worn-out claim that there is a grand scientific conspiracy to silence those who deny the realities of climate change. What if we assume instead that Peiser's unimpressive publication rate is a reflection of a “conspiracy” among journal editors to favour high quality research?
Science History Professor Naomi Oreskes has written a blistering piece in the LA Times today. Her motivation is the barrage of criticism she has been taking lately from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal as well the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Normally, we would advise against scientists responding to this public misinformation because it only adds to the appearance of a debate, which is exactly what the skeptics aim to do. However, Oreskes piece is very well written and clearly reinforces the message that the debate on climate change has been over for a long time.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.