Talk:Naomi Oreskes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Terminological note[edit]


The term "science historian" (as used in this article's first line and in the first sentence of the Merchants of Doubt section) is not one with which anyone in the history of science community self-identifies. It would accord better with usage if someone would change it to "historian of science."



Controversy nuclear power deniers[edit]


I think something needs to be in about Naomi Oreskes piece in the Guuardian saying that advocating nuclear power was a new form of denialism. I had





In 2015 she published an opinion piece There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don't celebrate yet[1] which branded as climate deniers four climate scientists who advocated the use of nuclear power to mitigate climate change.[2]





    

  1. ^ "There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don't celebrate yet". The Guardian. 16 December 2015.

    2. 

  2. ^ Specter, Michael (December 18, 2015). "How Not to Debate Nuclear Energy and Climate Change". New York Times.

    3. 





in the article. The New Yorker made the connection to the climate change scientists clear from what she wrote though she didn't write the actual names herself but just what they wrote. My addition was amended to stick in one of the four specially, I see no good justificaion for this. It was then removed wholescale by another editor. The removal says ' that article did not "brand four scientists as deniers" -- it didn't even name them, as the subsequent critique makes clear. Enough with the WP:OR...' That is simply wrong. That she didn'tt spell their names in her article does not mean she did not name or brand them, the aricle twice identified their work right near the beginning and the New Yorker confirmed this obvious fact. Her links were "Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, "four climate scientists held an off-site session", and "coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power". I just used the 'four climate-scientists' part. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]



I'm okay with adding something -- but the text has to be accurate, especially in regard to named individuals.  If she didn't name them, we can't say she did. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We most certainly can if a reliable secondary source says so and identifies a pretty obvious identification in what she said, and they did. However I see no good reason in this case to identify a particular one of the four. The New Yorker identified all four  and said "There is perhaps nobody who has done more to alert the world to the dangers of climate change than Hansen or Caldeira" but did not go on about particular ones any more than that. So there is no good reason to identify Hansen by himself. Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latest expansion [1] seems rather undue given that these sources are opinion pieces. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of experts and journalists are can still be reliable sources. Michael Specter at the New Yorker is a staff writer who has won awards for his writing on science. I see nothing undue about these widely read sources. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they weren't reliable, only that the expansion seems undue. It's been two years. If there hasn't been any better analysis of the back-and-forth, then why is it encyclopedic? --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was lots at the time, and I see two new books came out this year citing her piece, one The Retro Future: Looking to the Past to Reinvent the Future saying how wrong she was and the other The Climate Swerve: Reflections on Mind, Hope, and Survival saying how right she was. Dmcq (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Oreskes cites Mark Z. Jacobson as her rationale, now if you could take a look at his article, you would see that this has blown up recently with Jacobson taking a highly publicized legal action to remove a critique of his publications, in PNAS Nov 2017. I am an editor on that page and that's why this is fairly relevant. Dmcq & Ronz.


While I have entered it twice now, each time the link to Jacobson has been removed. Could one of you include it?


Boundarylayer (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the books, Dmcq!


Also, is the last sentence a bit awkward/confusing, "An opinion piece in the New Yorker said she branded these four scientists as "climate deniers", and that was absurd as they were amongst those who had done the most to push people to combat climate change."? --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it if you like Dmcq (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Has anyone else noted that her piece used Mark Z. Jacobson as her rationale? That's the sort of evidence that should determine whether we should say something or not. I believe it would still be okay though to mention her piece in the Guardian in the article about Mark Z. Jacobson even without any secondary assessment like that that. Dmcq (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


So if I am to understand you correctly, you're of the view that including Oreskes Guardian piece, on the wiki-page for Jacobson is preferred, just not here on Oreskes page?
Boundarylayer (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]



No that is not what I said. I said that referring to Mark Z. Jacobson here as her rationale is not justified in the context  of the controversy but that however it can be mentioned in the Mark Z. Jacobson article as it mentions him. Dmcq (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified (January 2018)[edit]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Naomi Oreskes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:




When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).



  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • 

  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]



how is this relevant? Benny Peiser is defacto a blogger and lobbyist[edit]


"Oreskes' 2004 "Beyond the Ivory Tower" essay was challenged by British social anthropologist Benny Peiser," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.31.240 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]



New stuff goes to the bottom. Also, read WP:SIGN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Need to add activist to the list of titles she has[edit]


She has stated that she is an activist. “ExxonMobil also accuses us of being ‘activists,’ as though that is something to be ashamed of,” they wrote in a statement. “But we are proud to be activists. As scientists before us have shown, speaking truth to power is a civic duty.”  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/24/exxonmobil-asked-people-to-read-the-documents-it-produced-on-climate-change-so-these-harvard-researchers-did/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.53.103 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Read WP:SIGN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Bibliography[edit]


I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]









Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naomi_Oreskes&oldid=1212159304"