Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The IPCC goes closed and opaque | Main | Huhne's damaging legacy »

Oreskes and Dr Karl Part 3

Here is the final part of the Oreskes and Dr Karl piece. It's not quite as racy as the last one, but you can hear Oreskes condemn those who doubt global warming and almost in the same breath belittle any comparison of global warming to religion. Hear her tell us that under global warming, some places will get warmer, some cooler, some wetter and some dryer. And you will hear Dr Karl say that ocean levels have risen by 20cm in the last century.

Oreskes & Karl Part 3

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (19)

I don't know how you have the time or the stomach to watch such.... now what's the word I'm looking for?

May 23, 2011 at 8:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Fact-free propaganda. Oreskes is an inveterate liar.

May 23, 2011 at 8:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterFergalR

Naomi Oreskes is obviously in denial hersel! She is so convinced that 'the Denialists' are bonkers that she displays all the symptoms she assigns to her target and turns the findings of the science of sea-level measurement on its head.
The first segment, about the play 'The Heretic', was as much as I could listen to without my gag reflex doing nasty things with my breakfast.
I wonder how on earth do people such as Oreskes acheive as much credibility as they do, then I think back a day or so to the rantings on this blog from the incredible John Peate and I think I understand; they must be a part of a movement that is well organised and generously financed by Exxon-Mobil. :-)

May 23, 2011 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

The AGW debate is more than generous in its support of the maxim that the deluded are strongly disposed to projecting their own characteristics onto those they see as their enemies.

The reasons for this phenomena are doubtless manyfold, my own hypothesis is that as, by definition, the deluded do not have a ready supply of facts on their side, the "thought cupboard" is, perforce, somewhat empty and this often leads to an essentially free-associative process when the deluded attempt to characterise their opponents.

May 23, 2011 at 9:19 AM | Unregistered Commenterdread0

I don't see much difference between the AGW movement and The Rapture -- both keep stating that the world is guaranteed to be utterly doomed due to man's iniquity, and keep trumpeting the idea as loudly as possible.

Oh, and they both keep getting the date wrong, as well.

May 23, 2011 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Oreskes, she don't never give up, shame though, she's spouts such nonsense.

May 23, 2011 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan

Re Rick Bradford

Climate Rapturists then?

May 23, 2011 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

"And you will hear Dr Karl say that ocean levels have risen by 20cm in the last century."

I am not sure what point you are making here, Bishop. Have I missed something?
I thought the figure of 15-20 cm in the last century was well accepted.
It's the 20 m in the next century that is way out.

May 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Bates

@golf charley

Yes, I like it.

The one thing these people really can't stand is ridicule -- the realisation that other people don't take them as seriously as they take themselves.

May 23, 2011 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

O/T... but not by much...

Independent: Weather disasters in the poorest nations 'have trebled since 1980s'

In one article we have at the beginning...

"Whichever way you look at the figures, there is a significant rise in the number of weather-related disasters. They have been increasing and are set to get worse as climate change further intensifies natural hazards."

Then at the end...
"What we seem to be getting is a big change in the number of people exposed to weather-related disasters, some change in the reporting of them, and the two combined are the major explanation of what we are seeing," Dr Jennings said. "I suspect that the climate change component is smaller."

They are spinning as much as they can...

What I find objectionable about these things is, metaphorically they are standing next to these people. often in abject poverty: "Yes... we understand... yes we are going to do something about it... we are going to spend trillions of dollars so that in 50-100 years you will not have this problem... now go away and wait"

May 23, 2011 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

You can see this blog post:

Tim Lambert and the hysteria-gang get their ass handed to them (once again) by Tom Switzer and Mark Lawson.

May 23, 2011 at 4:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

This sort of over-the-top substitution of fantasy for fact was predictable once Climategate occurred. The insanity is floating to the surface all across the CAGW movement, from JH's Messiah complex to the sadistic 10:10 "No Pressure" video, to Travesty Trenberth's flip of the null hypothesis. Meanwhile, the MSM commit harakiri on the sidelines. Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad.

May 23, 2011 at 5:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Jiminy Cricket

Roger Pielke Jr has written reams (much of it peer-reviewed) about the misrepresentation of disaster data as confirmation of the anthropogenic signal.

And agreed. It's a bloody disgrace.

May 23, 2011 at 5:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Oreskes and Dr Karl suffer "Munchausens by Proxy". They want the Earth to be in danger, so they will be needed to save it. By fanning the flames of alarm with false catastrophe claims, they are doing the equivalent of poisoning a child, so they can be heroes saving it. Nurses suffer from it as an occupational hazzard. So too, apparently, University Academics.

It has the futher peverse pleasure of "giving permission" to dehumanize their opponents. "You are stopping us from saving The Planet by claiming it is in no danger" runs the script. "So we must destroy you to protect The Planet".

Dr Sanity has these people to a Tee.

May 23, 2011 at 7:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterLondonCalling

The early convicts in Hobart,chiselled the high water marks in the rocks around the harbour, the Navy, being the Navy, was interested in this sort of thing 200 years ago. the high water mark has not changed since

May 24, 2011 at 12:20 AM | Unregistered Commenterspadger

Oreskes is a shining example of someone who's hitched her career to the Global Warming Catastrophe story, she can't hop off now without endangering her livelihood so she has to keep pushing the same old nonsense.

May 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

Perhaps the people calling Dr Oreskes a liar could support that by saying what it is that Dr Oreskes is saying that you think deserves rebuttal ...

May 24, 2011 at 8:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

Awa' t' yon sheep, Hengist!

May 25, 2011 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPFM

Listening to Mz Oreskes makes me think that she is remarkebly like that Green MP , Caroline Lucas - another strident harridan who suffers from runaway mouth.

May 25, 2011 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPFM

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>