naomi oreskes

Tue, 2007-09-11 09:50Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

The telling silence of Martin-Shulte and the Science and Public Policy Institute

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.

Here are the questions I sent Ferguson…

Fri, 2007-09-07 07:49Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Shulte vs Oreskes: How NOT to debate science

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.

Wed, 2007-04-18 21:18Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Denier Peiser's conspiracy is what many consider science

Well-known denier Benny Peiser complains in a recent Reuters story that: “scientific journals refused to take papers from scientists who doubted climate change.”

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?

Mon, 2006-07-24 16:26Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Oreskes hits back hard

Science History Professor Naomi Oreskes has written a blistering piece inCan we add weasel? 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.

Pages

Subscribe to naomi oreskes