Russell Cook

What we have here is a failure to coordinate. Naomi Oreskes says she undertook her 928-to-0 consensus study all by her lonesome, initially as just an act of curiosity. Gore says otherwise. Now the question here is, which of these two are less trustworthy about their remarks?
"So … Mr Gore … can you explain why your statement here doesn't match the statement over there?"
http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=11527

Keep the larger picture in mind here, though: as I pointed out in my prior blog post http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=11478 , Oreskes' initial raison d’être is the anti-science notion that a show of hands validates ANY science conclusion. She immediately parlayed that meteoric fame into an excuse to go after 'crooked skeptics' who criticized her silly study, and Gore used her study to say there was no valid dispute over the consensus on man-caused global warming and the few naysayers out there were corrupted crooks on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. Set aside how studies in general are undertaken -- that whole Oreskes / Gore situation all by itself is what looks hugely suspect.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.