Watch this space: “The Big Erik Conway Problem, Pt 2”

For the latest readers arriving to this blog, I periodically have short descriptions of upcoming material under the “Watch this space” title. Up next …. continuing from part 1, it’s complicated. The flip side here is the simplicity of the idea that Naomi Oreskes, with her Merchants of Doubt co-author Erik Conway, exposed how public confusion about climate science results from organized campaigns designed to create confusion and delay political action, a tactic previously employed in efforts to deny the reality of acid rain, ozone depletion, and the link between tobacco and cancer, used in some cases now by the same people who deny the reality of global warming. Dive any deeper than this superficial idea, and you begin to wonder what useful contribution, if any, that Conway made to this otherwise unsupportable “revelation,” and why he is involved at all in efforts to portray skeptic climate scientists as less than honorable.

Meanwhile, please do scroll down this page for my completed posts, and return soon to see how the next one coming up will fill in this space.

Oreskes’ Inability to Keep Her Mouth Shut & the Big Erik Conway Problem

In telling the tale of inadvertently discovering how skeptic climate scientists are corrupted, a person might be viewed as a hero or heroine, and it is understandably forgivable if the hero/heroine has a memory lapse about exactly when this event happened, or about minor narrative details surrounding it. But when the tale takes on an increasing appearance of being a fabrication designed to make the person look like a hero/heroine, unbiased objective thinkers will start to wonder why there would be any necessity for that kind of embellishment, and they might also wonder if there is something inherently wrong with the core of the tale. Continue reading