Have You Seen This Video On GW Denialism From Naomi Oreskes?

Question

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459

If so, what did you think of it? I thought it was fascinating. I encourage everybody to watch through the whole thing.

Answer 1

Excellent- Learnt alot of history from that too.

Answer 2

Ahem! Al Gore has closed all debate on man made global warming, those that are trying to confuse us on a settled issue are really wasting your time and our time. Move on there are other serious problems that you can use your time more constructively on.  This has been resolved by the nobel peace prize winning celeb scientist Al Gore.  I use the term scientist by the definition of one that properly uses science, which by definition is Al Gore *QED*

Answer 3

I'm glad I watched that. Very interesting. If she hadn't mentioned the name, George Soros, lovingly.   If you're interested in the debate on Global Warming,  this is good way to spend an hour

Answer 4

I'm watching it now, and it's funny - the deniers still seem to be taking their cues from pre-2006 Frank Luntz.  Always repeat that there's no consensus and that there's scientific uncertainty!

Oreskes is doing an excellent job going through the entire history of the science behind global warming.  She does a nice job pointing out that scientists were warning about the climate change effects of AGW over 40 years ago.  Very intersting that the NAS concluded there was a scientific consensus on AGW in 1979 - I didn't know that.

The deniers would all benefit from watching this video, because they clearly don't understand this sort of thing (basic fundamental science, established decades ago).  Of course, being denialists I'm sure they will refuse to watch it.  For example eric c saw the name 'Oreskes' and wrongly assumed the video had something to do with her study proving the scientific consensus on AGW, rather than actually watching it.  Unfortunate, but predictable.

The denial part is very interesting.  I didn't realize what a big role the George Marshall Institute had played, or that Seitz had been one of the lead deniers for such a long time.

Answer 5

Read this article about the so called consensus.  Oreskes has been debunked.  End of story.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

Yes there are scientists who say that the earth is warming up due to man.  But these people also want you to believe that that these same scientists also believe that this warming is going to be apocalyptic.   The head of NASA believes in AGW.  But he does not believe this warming will cause any harm.  Is he a skeptic or a believer?  According to Oreskes he is a believer.  I would call him a skeptic.  Remember the hypothesis is that increase levels of co2 will cause a substantial rise in temperatures AND these rise in temperatures will be catastrophic.  A believer is someone who believes in BOTH criteria.  If a person disputes one of these criteria he is a skeptic.

Here is a list of 400 scientists who disagree with the AGW theory.  http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Do you really expect us to believe these scientists are skeptics based on what they have read on some right wing blogs?  They are skeptics because of what they have read based on scientific journals.

So if they are misleading us on these issues what other issues are they misleading us.?

Edits:  Thanks Dana for setting me straight.  I did jump the gun.  

But the question still is can you trust someone who is politically motivated to make such absurd claims that there is no opposition to the AGW theory.  The answer is no.

The term climate change was not coined by the   Bush administration.  It was coined by environmentalist to cover all of their bases.  They could now blame all weather patterns on climate change.  Most supporters approve of the term.

She claims that co2 started to cause a slight increase in temperatures in the 1930's.  It was not slight but substantial.

She claims that the second assessment report of the IPCC says AGW was a certainty.

Dr. Lindzen provided the senate committee with the summary that was created for Chapter 7of the IPCC, which he worked on. "Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport," the summary stated, creating the impression that the climate models were reliable. The actual report by the scientists indicated just the opposite. Dr. Lindzen testified that the scientists had "found numerous problems with model treatments -- including those of clouds and water vapor."

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

So she is not being truthful.  What other parts of her statement is she representing

Most climatologist acknowledge that increases in co2 will cause increases in temperatures.  The dispute is that AGW alarmist claim that a positive feedback will cause catastrophic changes.

In the opening segment Luntz's comment does not mean anything.  He is stating a matter of fact.  Nothing in that statement said that they must purposely mislead people.

Her comments that scientists were long concerned about London and New York covered in water is not supported my modern day science.

She ignore the fact that most of the early predictions were way off base.

Her bringing up the tobacco does not cause cancer is a joke. These are two separate issues.

I can go on, but I have better things to do with me time.

Answer 6

Wow, Thank you very much for that,I thought it was really interesting. LMFAO that the guy above  tried to discredit Oreskes and said that she has been debunked. The irony of his post cracked me up....why did he even try???

  I have a video for you, it is equally interesting though it is also humorous and if you are not English you may not think it is as amusing as I did, it does however have some really interesting information in it. I hope that you enjoy it.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04...

and have you seen this website?

http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldCl...