Naomi Oreskes, the "denialists" bane

[seer]

That's all we needed to know.

And no, I'm not a climatologist. I have though been trained in both physics and astronomy, and I am well versed in all physical sciences, including some literature on this topic.

So do you know more about this issue than let's say MIT Professor Dr. Richard Lindzen? And I will ask again - if those who are crying the loudest are not taking this seriously enough to change their behavior why should I take it seriously?

[Sea of red]

So do you know more about this issue than let's say MIT Professor Dr. Richard Lindzen? And I will ask again - if those why are crying the loudest are not taking this seriously enough to change their behavior why should I take it seriously?

Al Gore and other politicians may not, but what do you expect? These people are scumbags no matter the circumstances. Most environmental science and climate majors I know, take this seriously, and I do take it seriously myself.

If you rank me and Lindzen on a scale of 1-10 I'd be a 6.5 and he'd be about a 9.

Good enough for you?

[Adrift]

I don't know the actual science, I just know what I read, I am not a climatologist, are you? But this I do know, the very people that are crying the loudest are not reflecting those beliefs in practice. Every time they climb on a private jet they belie their claims. If they don't take it seriously why should I?

I don't think I understand the argument you keep bringing up here. Are you comparing climate advocates to major industries that contribute to carbon emissions, because the advocates have been known to use private jets and limos? Wouldn't the output of emissions from, say, the coal industry alone, vastly exceed all of the emissions from those private jets and limos? Vastly?

[One Bad Pig]

Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate

Formally, she is a historian of science. Informally, this diminutive woman has become a boxer, throwing herself into a messy public arena that many career-minded climate scientists try to avoid.

She helps raise money to defend researchers targeted for criticism by climate change denialists. She has become a heroine to activist college students, supporting their demand that universities and other institutions divest from fossil fuels. Climatologists, though often reluctant themselves to get into fights, have showered her with praise for being willing to do it.

This is what we'd call a "feature article" back in journalism class, as differentiated from a "news article," or, with a slightly disdainful crinkling of the nose, an "editorial." It's not "true" journalism, but it's closer to journalism than an opinion piece. Justin Gillis, the author, is a journalist, a news reporter focused on environmental stories.

I've been following climate science since the late 80s, watching the evolution of its coverage in the popular press from curiosity to mainstream scientific consensus and the reactionary conspiracy theories spawned by that consensus.

I've taken to substituting the term "naysayer" for "denialist" because of the voiced sensibilities of those who see echoes of "Holocaust denialism" in the term. The use here, in the NYTimes, however, has made me pause and reconsider. The word "denialist" shows up 43 times in a search among all articles from 1851, but the oldest reference dates merely to 2000 in a reference to H.I.V. ''denialists." It's clear though that in the past few years, its reference to climate skeptics has become mainstream. So it's time now to stop appeasing the recalcitrant. They are denialists, and if the term offends them, that's the price they pay.

Some truths should hurt.

So... I can co-opt a loaded term, use it repeatedly for my opponents, then declare it "mainstream" after I (and others of my ideological stripe) have used it enough, and pretend that ceasing to use it is "appeasement"? Awesome.

[seer]

Al Gore and other politicians may not, but what do you expect? These people are scumbags no matter the circumstances. Most environmental science and climate majors I know, take this seriously, and I do take it seriously myself.

If you rank me and Lindzen on a scale of 1-10 I'd be a 6.5 and he'd be about a 9.

Good enough for you?

No, I'm speaking more of the governmental people, including the UN proponents. So on Lindzen, he does not see the the same degree of negative consequences as others, and I assume you, do. So who should I believe?

[Sea of red]

I don't think I understand the argument you keep bringing up here. Are you comparing climate advocates to major industries that contribute to carbon emissions, because the advocates have been known to use private jets and limos? Wouldn't the output of emissions from, say, the coal industry alone, vastly exceed all of the emissions from those private jets and limos? Vastly?

Oh yeah.

I think the average coal plant put out near 10,000 tons of CO2 in a single day, while jets put out CO2 in the ounces per mile.

[seer]

I don't think I understand the argument you keep bringing up here. Are you comparing climate advocates to major industries that contribute to carbon emissions, because the advocates have been known to use private jets and limos? Wouldn't the output of emissions from, say, the coal industry alone, vastly exceed all of the emissions from those private jets and limos? Vastly?

They probably would, but those in the coal industry are not buying into the whole AGW thing. They are not pushing it on others while not practicing what they preach.

[Sea of red]

No, I'm speaking more of the governmental people, including the UN proponents. So on Lindzen, he does not see the the same degree of negative consequences as others, and I assume you, do. So who should I believe?

What about James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Hans Von Stortch, and every last scientific institution on the planet?

[Sea of red]

They probably would, but those in the coal industry are not buying into the whole AGW thing. They are not pushing it on others while not practicing what they preach.

What a shock.

[seer]

Oh yeah.

I think the average coal plant put out near 10,000 tons of CO2 in a single day, while jets put out CO2 in the ounces per mile.

Except coal plants keep us from freezing and give us electricity to survive. UN types are pretty useless.

[seer]

What about James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Hans Von Stortch, and every last scientific institution on the planet?

OK, so it is now science by majority?

[Sea of red]

Except coal plants keep us from freezing and give us electricity to survive. UN types are pretty useless.

Sure they do.

But we have better ways of obtaining that energy now, including clean coal.

[Wally]

OK, so it is now science by majority?

The word you're looking for is actually:

Consensus
a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey>
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

Your welcome.

[Sea of red]

OK, so it is now science by majority?

I simply reversed your question.

[Sea of red]

The word you're looking for is actually:

Consensus
a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey>
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

Your welcome.

Yup.