It’s one thing for book author<\/a> \/ documentary movie star<\/a> Naomi Oreskes to be tapped for quotations on the state of affairs in the global warming issue — last night’s appearance on the PBS NewsHour (2:49 point here<\/a>), for example. It’s quite another problematic situation when she is tapped for work by Democrat politicians.<\/p>\n Consider how one particular US Congressman couldn’t keep his mouth shut on who was helping to draft a fact-checking rebuttal<\/a> to the recent House Science, Space, and Technology Committee testimony<\/a> of Drs Judith Curry, John Christy and Roger Pielke Jr.<\/p>\n Beyer Enlists Scientific Experts for \u2018Fact-Check Project\u2019 to Correct the Record On Misstatements Made During House Science Committee Hearings<\/a><\/p>\n Citing a flurry of inaccuracies and misleading statements at a recent hearing on climate science, Vice Ranking Member on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) this week submitted a collection of scientific rebuttals to false or misleading statements made in that hearing. The rebuttals were written by scientists and experts<\/span> who observed the hearing, including Harvard professor and “Merchants of Doubt” author Naomi Oreskes \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As loyal readers of my blog and other writings already know, Oreskes herself has a fact-check target on her the size of Texas on practically everything she says. Let’s recount, for the benefit of newly-arriving readers here:<\/p>\n Rep. Don Beyer could have kept his mouth shut on who is writing rebuttals to use against skeptic climate scientists. Naomi Oreskes could have remained silent on where supposedly damaging leaked memos are stashed. Al Gore could have kept it to himself about who supposedly discovered those memos, and he could have skipped quoting directly from them in 1992, and Oreskes could have done the same concerning what could be literally the same set of memos.<\/p>\n But they did no such thing, and this collective set of missteps on their part absolutely begs for investigation about why none of it lines up right, and why skeptic scientists stand accused of being ‘industry-funded crooks’ in the first place. Could it have something to do with the soundness of the IPCC \/ Al Gore version of global warming science which Oreskes is now tasked with defending?<\/p>\n Could it be that the initial promoters of the catastrophic man-caused global warming narrative perceived their position was so vulnerable in the face of skeptic science-based criticism that they felt a need to distract the public away from skeptics by concocting the idea that those skeptics were paid coal & oil money to lie about the issue being ‘mere theory and not settled fact,’ just like tobacco industry shills did about the harm of cigarette smoking?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It’s one thing for book author \/ documentary movie star Naomi Oreskes to be tapped for quotations on the state of affairs in the global warming issue — last night’s appearance on the PBS NewsHour (2:49 point here), for example. … Continue reading \n