Naomi Oreskes: "Merchants of Doubt" (Part 1 of 6)

Proceed to Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILII3msFBiA
Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Oreskes is also a co-author, along with Erik M. Conway, of the book, "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming."

This presentation was made possible through a cooperative effort between Fort Hays State University, Kansas State University, and the University of Kansas.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• environment
• global
• warming
• climate
• change
• science
• technology
• ozone
• smoking
• tobacco
• second-hand
• smoke
• strategic
• defense
• initiative
• ronald
• reagan
• john
• tyndall
• svante
• arrhenius
• callendar
• suess
• revelle
• bert
• bolin
• charles
• david
• keeling
• robert
• jastrow
• frederick
• seitz
• william
• nierenberg
• fred
• singer
• polar
• bear
• ice
• cap
• methane
• greenhouse
• gas
• carbon
• dioxide
• co2
• naomi
• oreskes
• erik
• conway

[RandomVersion]

Oreskes’ clumsy, venomous smear campaign: busted

Jonova (.) com

The great Fred Singer takes the time to explain why Naomi Oreskes is a scientifically inept and a poor historian. Her famous claim of a scientific consensus based on 900 papers missed more than 11,000 that should have been included.Her grasp of science is so poor she isn’t familiar with the pH scale, thinks Beryllium is a heavy metal, mistakenly assumes that CO2 is trapped in the troposphere, & climate models&predict forest fires

[AdNeeb]

@TheRealArchAngel

Sorry, but that isn't correct. A graduate degree in physics can get you a high paying job in a huge variety of fields, including pretty much anything related to engineering and technology. You might want to take a peek at the Occupational Outlook Handbook published by the Dept. of Labor.

[TheRealArchAngel]

"One has to start with a true scientific mind to have their logic taken seriously"

I only have an Associates in the "pracatical" Science v.s. the PHD in Physics that those IPCC academics voluntaring thier time there do when they aren't teaching Physics at University or having think sessions at the University under grant

I have usable skills that can solve practical problems in thereal world

Outside of the university or IPCC the PHD in Physics still starts you as Cleanup Crew at McDonalds

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Yes, a blanket can't create heat that wasn't there already. But the CO2 blanket is getting thicker than it USED TO BE, hence trapping heat that wouldn't have been trapped EARLIER."

But that isn't how the real world heat exchange system works

Heat isn't trapped in the atmosphere by a trace gas..it is spend creating the ocean conveyer and powering the Evaporastion percipitation system,wing,thunderstorms,huri­canes,tornados and in gebnerating clouds and rain

GHG is antiquiatef 18th centry theory

[TheRealArchAngel]

"are you by any chance a Creationist? "

A Diest

There was no "Creation"/"Big Bang...the Universe was always here,the Earth was always here.Life was always here

"Many if not most AGW deniers are"

Strange considering AGW is aa "Armegedon" story of droughts,famine,raiseing seas,Blood on the moon, and 7 headded Dragongs coming out of the sea(All the things meentioned in AGW is mentioned in revelations)

Christains ,from what I've seen brace "AGW"as the sign of the revelatiolns and "God's will"

[Antithropocentric]

@TheRealArchAngel, are you by any chance a Creationist? Many if not most AGW deniers are. One has to start with a true scientific mind to have their logic taken seriously.

[Antithropocentric]

@TheRealArchAngel, you're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect; armed with baseline knowledge but ignoring the full context. Common among conspiracy theorists.

Yes, a blanket can't create heat that wasn't there already. But the CO2 blanket is getting thicker than it USED TO BE, hence trapping heat that wouldn't have been trapped EARLIER..

In other words, if you layer on a series of thin sheets on a winter night, you'll get warmer, and we're still in the PROCESS of adding those "sheets."

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Imagine laying on ever-thicker blankets..."(cont)

Bsides, the het the blanket traps and warms you with will never equal your body tempature nore get hotter then your body tempature (synergetic effect) like those claiming that co2 can make the atmosphere warmer then the amount of energy comming in would allow

It's called the Zeroth law of Thermal Dynamics and it was developed by Scientists trying to falsify doubling of mass of gas in volume to increase Maximum heat asorbtion threshod like"GHG"

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Imagine laying on ever-thicker blankets and trying not to sweat; that's the general CO2 analogy"

And it's a wrong one as the real woprld heat exchange in the oceans and air runs on convection and conduction,not a ancient greek philosiphy carried over into 18th century Chemical Theory("greenhouse effect") government Physics PHDs thump on VS ..Co2 being a tracegas that has jackshit to do with weather,climate,or tempature as the Sciences of Meterology,Oceanagraphy,Geolog­y,and Ecology observes

[TheRealArchAngel]

"if you're claiming that MORE CO2 isn't what's trapping MORE heat..."

The Whole thing is dependent on the Sun but the Sun has beren in minimus all this time so there cant be any "AGW"

CO2 cannot trap any more heat then there is in the system

The Claim of "AGW" as IPCC suggests requires that the SUn comes out of minimus and adds more heat for the "human Added" Co2 rise to asorb that extra heat and cause "AGW induced Global CLimate Chamge"

All that has happen is Natural Climate variability