Talk:Naomi Oreskes/Archive 2

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

Editors, Gaming the system and removing "Oreskes principle"?

Naomi Oreske, has compared herself to Erin Brockovich, describing what served as the motivated for writing the book, her "Erin Brockovich moment".[1]

This reference, a Rice university audio recording, was supported by another text based reference, a non-primary source which the editor,User:Stephan Schulz, took issue with. As can be seen in the recent edit history of the article. However trying to approach censensus and upon the removal of this text based reference, now that same editor has once again blanked all mention to this and now criticizes the entry as "no-primary sources"...are you for real? The events that motivated a person and how they view themselves, is not to be included in the encyclopedic entry on them? Is that right? This seems a little facetious if not a clear case of gaming the system?

As for the following second passage that is being removed, by this same editor. I will re-iterate, David Zaruk is a "EU risk and science specialist, involved in EU policy, thus it's WP:NOTABLE.

A review of the increasingly common and contentious approach to affecting public policy; following the campaign Oreskes championed after the book, that was to litigate against fossil fuel industries, the review as it appeared in the Genetic Literacy Project, in 2017 David Zaruk, coined the phrase "Oreskes Principle", to describe this attempt to “tobacconise” other industries. With a specific "scientist-activist at the center of the ban-glyphosate movement" under the spotlight within the Genetic-Literacy article, Zaruk writes that the key goal of the "Oreskes Principle", that "activist-scientists" are now using as a template, is to "run emotional campaigns, before going to the jury, to create enough public outrage that no jury would ever be able to be objective or capable of discerning facts from fear campaign materials. Manipulate public perception, create fear or outrage by cooperating with activists."[2]

  1. ^ Ms Oreskes December 2016 Rice University CENHS podcast interview. c. 44:40
  2. ^ David Zaruk | Genetic Literacy Project | October 17, 2017

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Your first edit added this source, which I can only characterise as a nutcase attack blog, as an excuse for a "secondary source". It's not useful. That leaves the primary source - an audio podcast from which you very selectively pick one cherry. If your claim is notable, then reliable secondary sources should take note. You second edit is entirely based on an opinion piece, again posted on a blog with no editorial oversight here - and one that is not even primarily about Orsekes. Again, this is not a sufficient source for a BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If we get this material re-added, I think we're headed to ANI, for a discussion of WP:POVPUSH. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON. It may become a commonplace term, but right now it has very little presence "out there", and it's not our job to change that. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The Genetic Literacy Project does not appear to host a blog? Could you clarify what you are arguing here Stephan Schulz? Especially your apparent insider knowledge that David Zaruk penned this "with no editorial oversight"? Though I will recognise the WP:TOOSOON critique Guy on that select paragraph for the time being. However to move on to how and why we should include the person's motivation for writing her most well known work. Surely the following can be added without controversy?
This is from the Humanist magazine in 2015. One of many references, including the rice university recording that I found in the old and now, florally described "nutcase" blog, that Stephan Schulz is perhaps very concerned with its accuracy? As if all blogs were this well referenced and coherent, containing this large and copious amount of supportive references, from taped interviews at universities and neutral secondary sources such as this the humanist one, if that were the standard, then I'd imagine we'd have to review our position on the quality of blogs, perhaps being higher than many newspapers.
In any event, Are we good with adding just this for the time being? Or is this a cherry-pick too?
https://thehumanist.com/magazine/may-june-2015/features/applied-science-an-interview-with-merchants-of-doubts-naomi-oreskes
"I started getting attacked, and, well, one thing led to another and I ended up putting aside oceanography and writing, with Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt".
Is summarizing this, unbaggage-filled enough, for entry? Perhaps at some latter point in the future we could have an elucidation of who exactly she claims "attacked" her when it took place, July or December 2004 and over what was she attacked, prior to the book? Though for the mean time, communicating that she claims she "started getting attacked" and then wrote the book, should be without controversy and fairly WP:NOTABLE under every conceivable resemblance of reasoning.
Here are some more references that were also on the, lovingly described, "nutcase" blog, that tries to get to the bottom of this apparently frequently changing "attack" narrative, that motivated her into writing a well known, history of science.
Boundarylayer (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The Genetic Literacy Project is itself an activist organisation. The article by Zaruk is clearly marked as an opinion piece and was originally published by Zaruk, who also goes by the nom-de-guerre Risk-Monger on his blog, also called Risk-Monger here. As far as I can tell from his page, Zaruk is primarily a lobbyist with a long history of lobbying for the chemical industry. That does not make his opinions notable. His scholarly record seems to be largely non-existent. From your other sources, the NYT is good. I don't know enough about the Humanist Magazine to have an opinion. The UBC interview looks fine to me, though again it is primary, and hence to be used with care (I'd say don't cherry-pick, and attribute Oreskes' statements to her). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
So we've come to the consensus on what to do in the "mean time" Stephan Schulz? Communicating that she claims she "started getting attacked" and then wrote the book, should be without controversy and fairly WP:NOTABLE under every conceivable resemblance of reasoning. If that is the case, would you rather write the addition or shall I? It needs to be carefully written to not push any POV but equally leave it up to the possibility that Oreskes may apparently be presenting a backward's falsehood in her chronology here. As exactly when the alleged "attacks" happened, who penned them and where is this "got-the-ball-rolling" "attack" email she mentions? The similarly un-definied point in time, when the duo met & started working on the book needs to be similarly conveyed with care.
"Around the time this was happening, I met the Caltech historian Erik Conway. He’d come across material about the campaign to stop ozone depletion by curbing chlorofluorocarbons use. Erik said one of the people attacking me had done the same to Sherwood Rowland, a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work on ozone depletion. Erik said one of the people attacking me had done the same to Sherwood Rowland, a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work on ozone depletion."
"We sort of discovered this story. I had published my 2004 paper The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change [on | 3 December of 2004] and soon after started to receive hate mail. Then, at a rather obscure academic conference [in July 2004? prior to publication?], I was speaking about my research...In the Q&A, it came up that I had been attacked, and I mentioned the name of one particular person who was attacking me and after the talk, Erik came up to me and said, the person who is attacking you is the same person who attacked Sherry Rowland over the scientific evidence of the ozone hole."
Though no reporters have followed this story up, but for the research done on the blog that contains all these references. It is odd why no reporter said "let me see this attack email please". So if you take to writing it, all I would request is that you leave it open for readers to wonder. A difficult task as you don't want to push a point of view and you don't want to just blanket quote her either. Who knows maybe one of these attack emails might come up someday? Strange how they seemingly were never shared by her? In either event, we don't want to give weight to either historical account. That it's backward in chronology, or that it's 100% gospel.
Boundarylayer (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what you were doing in 2004, but I was already somewhat interested in the climate change debate, and I positively remember public attacks on Oreskes for her Science paper from the usual "skeptics" and "think" tanks. I've looked over the Gelbspan blog, and it interprets Oreskes' words in a particularly tortured way to make its point. In particular, no-where does Oreskes say or imply that her collaboration with Conway on the book started at the 2004 conference - she only says that's when she met him. It's just as possible that they stayed in touch and the topic came up later. Or she may have confused the date of the conference - no-body seems to know which conference she was talking about. You might want to take a look at Principle of charity. Anyways, as you yourself say ("no reporters have followed this story up"), the support for this "theory" is basically non-existent in reliable sources. I don't think we need to add anything, but I'm fine with a neutral statement that, according to Oreskes, the attacks on her after the publication of the Science paper lead to her collaboration with Conway on MoD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for "the usual skeptics" "publically attacking" her for the paper? As while I can imagine the "think-tanks" may have, I have a hard time imagining contrarians being contrarians, "attacking" anyone, instead harsh criticism from hard-scientists to soft-scientists probably occurred. These are hardly "attacks"? I also find that word tossed around carelessly too much these days, pretty much undermining the very serious meaning of the word. Attempts at harsh rebuttals=/="attack", in my world, or the appeal to emotion that serious word elicits Stephan Schulz. In any event, as opposed to your memory, it is claimed that one of these 5 skeptics "sent her an email attacking her", "Erik said one of the people attacking me had done the same to Sherwood Rowland" yet curiously, receipt of this email, goes completely unmentioned in the book?
So it seems really curious to me, that the backstory is not given in the book. That Oreske's felt "attacked" by a skeptic in an email, an email event that is not exactly shared with us readers, of her book, but then soon there afterward, Oreskes decided to write a very-long-book on how that person "in particular" is a "merchant of doubt"?
Also in relation to Principle of charity as it relates to Oreskes, I hope upon reading this, you'll see that the following individuals, would find the very concept of giving such willful charity to Oreskes on these matters, as rather overflowing with irony. William M. Connolley(You know who that is, don't you?) wrote here:
"So, Oreskes decided to go a bit further back [than the early 1990s when no consensus actually existed] and published an article with an extremely stupid name which attempted to rip up William Nierenberg. Initially I was uncertain – for example, not really understanding the chronology, I was prepared to believe that Nierenberg was Evil because "he was [according to Oreskes, claimed to be] appointed by Reagan"..."]
"However...I eventually concluded that Oreskes was hopelessly wrong."
"Nicolas Nierenberg [NN] (son to William[one of the supposed 5 "Merchants of Doubt" to jog the memory] also thought Oreskes was wrong, and has commented here and on his blog on the matter; leading now to the publication of his joint paper. Congratulations."
"Where does this leave Oreskes? Looking a bit silly, and a bit shoddy too I think. Whilst the “Ivory Tower” paper [that is, the consensus paper Oreskes is most well known for] was valid, and decent work, the “Chicken Itza” paper [also penned by Oreskes] seems to have been written around pre-arranged conclusions, or perhaps even around its absurd title. As Nicolas Nierenberg writes on his blog I was quite shocked to discover that much of the material [in Oreskes] had been paraphrased in ways that changed the meaning, or which misrepresented the original document. I can only assume that the authors didn’t think anyone would get access to the original material. Still, on the plus side, it is unlikely that anyone outside the incestuous field of climate history scholarship will notice or care."
Nicolas Nierenberg's co-written peer-reviewed paper rebutting Oreskes claims is here, by the way. It should be included, don't you think? In fact it kind of raises the question, why doesn't this wikipedia article mention Oreske's "Chicken Itza" article, already? Or her [equally controversial congressional testimony?
Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy The Origins and Making of Changing Climate 2010, University of California Press. Nierenberg et. al
For a quick summary of the paper, I would recommend this summary of the paper by Nierenberg, to get you up to speed "So much like her congressional testimony, and I would argue her paper, Dr. Oreskes chose to ignore the facts that she already knew, in order to paint a misleading picture."
Boundarylayer (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you have shifted the topic a bit, there, don't you? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better if just the reliable sources were listed without all the other faff. I agree there should be something in the article about this but it should be described as a controversy rather than taking sides as we do not have a definite assessment from an independent reliable source. As far as I can see the following are relevant, is there anything else of note?
Dmcq (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I too agree that this should be included, that's kind of why my incredulity on why it wasn't mentioned even in passing, resulted in a decisions to be WP:BOLD and add it.

"The themes in “Merchants of Doubt” have hardly gone unchallenged, though, and the protests have not always originated on the far right. A vigorous objection has come from the family of William A. Nierenberg, one of the scientists singled out for criticism in the book. Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway accused Dr. Nierenberg of weakening two major scientific reports that he led in the early 1980s, one on acid rain and one on global warming.

Dr. Nierenberg died in 2000, but his son, daughter and son-in-law have compiled a detailed critique contending that the historians misrepresented Dr. Nierenberg’s activities. “If you read her writing on the subjects I am familiar with, you know less about the topic than before you started,” Nicolas Nierenberg said in an interview.

A former staff officer at the National Research Council who helped oversee the preparation of the global warming report, John S. Perry, also said he felt that Dr. Oreskes had been unfair to Dr. Nierenberg. “That sort of bothers me, because her book ‘Merchants of Doubt’ is otherwise so good,’” he said in an interview, adding that in his view the 1983 climate report stands up to scrutiny even in hindsight.

Dr. Oreskes has disputed the specific complaints raised by the Nierenberg siblings, but she did say in an interview that she somewhat regretted the tone of one article on Dr. Nierenberg — a paper that compared him to Dr. Pangloss, the character in Voltaire’s “Candide” who is optimistic about the future to the point of delusion.

“I concede that the tone was somewhat aggressive,” Dr. Oreskes said. “We were still working out the argument at the time. But we stand by every fact in that paper."

I have summarized both papers. Without taking sides. However it is widely acknowledged that Oreskes paper is historically...I suppose I can only say "controversial". Alongside the curious piting of everything into a left/right political debate and using emotive language like attempting to caricature respected scientists, William Nierenberg by evoking cartoonish images of "Dr. Pangloss" and referring to Chicken little...in the title of a historical paper? Boundarylayer (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Her growing controversy/anti-consensus on GMOs and nuclear energy

Dec 06, 2017 Denialism and the ‘Scientific Consensus’: Naomi Oreskes’ Attacks on Nuclear Energy and GMOs Expose Deep Divide Among Environmentalists https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html

"Is Naomi Oreskes, science historian at Harvard University and ardent supporter of the science of climate change, a visionary as her supporters claim?"

"Or, as a growing number of critics maintain, is she a populist Luddite, the intellectual Rottweiler of in-your-face, environmentalism, unduly wary of modern technology, and whose activist policies are crippling environmental reforms?"

This is actually a decent article summarizing her political views, curious use of wording and controversies, most notable her rather concerning "attacks" on James Hansen.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-not-to-debate-nuclear-energy-and-climate-change

"Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University, took a different approach: in an article published on Wednesday in the Guardian, she said that “four climate scientists”—she didn’t name them, but linked to a piece by James Hansen, the former NASA chief scientist; Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at M.I.T.; Tom Wigley, perhaps the most distinguished climate scientist in Australia; and Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution, who contributed to the team from the International Panel on Climate Change, which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize—had adopted a new form of “denialism.”

"It was an interesting choice. There is perhaps nobody who has done more to alert the world to the dangers of climate change than Hansen or Caldeira. But the article that the four men wrote, published in the Guardian as the Paris summit got underway, argued that “To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions—not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power.”

"According to Oreskes, suggesting that nuclear power play some role in limiting carbon emissions and solving global warming is not just wrong but “a strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.”

"It is one thing to wonder about the value of nuclear energy—I was mostly opposed, too, until I saw Robert Stone’s compelling documentary, “Pandora’s Promise.’’ But to label Hansen (whom my colleague Elizabeth Kolbert has Profiled for this magazine) or Caldeira as denialists is absurd"

All this is notable, is it not?

I'd really rather someone else wrote the summarization of this material, for inclusion into the article. Any takers? Boundarylayer (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it would probably be best to leave it to others. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Difficult to see all this as anything other than an attack against Oreskes

Regarding my revert [1]: At best, it looks like cherry-picking information then giving it undue weight as an attempt to undermine her. This article is under ArbCom enforcement. Editors need to be far more careful with their edits. I'm not arguing that some of the information might be due some mention in the article, and am happy to help identify such information and determine what weight is due. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a controversies section would be good and stick the various things into that. That section was just obscurely written, on Wikipedia we should try and make things plain and straightforward and not so much quotes. The William Nierenberg stuff hasn't made much waves and personally I think she was about right in the basic thesis though she went a bit over the top about it, but we should have a paragraph about it. The latest business though does look like a major controversy brewing. Dmcq (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Controversy sections, as the alternative? Fair enough Dmcq, will we allow you to take the lead on penning that?
"Thinly veiled attack"? Ronz it appears that you are emotionally invested in this person somehow and therefore you over-react when any suggestion of material summarizing or critizing their work appears. Could you clarify, How summarizing the two papers, theirs and the response, is "an effort to undermine her" or is "cherry-picking", precisely? It's just WP:SUMMARY as far as I can see. I didn't put any quotes that exist outside the 2 papers in, but if you wish here are two below, inclusive of the counter-response.Though these are not really essential for a summary. I'm including them just to show that this is a well known issue amongst her peers.
One other thing I should probably mention, it seems like I add anything and it gets vanished pretty fast here. Plus I may be at the 3R limit right. Correct? Or was this setup intentional? Setting up a trap and hoping I'll fall into it? Then you'd claim I'm edit warring, at which point all of the political/sacrilege-herd will spring out of the woodwork and the cycle begins again? The article goes un-touched, everything gets made about the editors instead, is that not your ultimate game-plan? This has been my experience of editing of late, owing to how the article has not included any additions of mine, yet 2 other editors agree it's valuable info, so I've grown wiser to learn to be a little suspicious of those who react with this sort of sacrilege/defensive posturing, in their responses. I hope you can understand.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/science/naomi-oreskes-a-lightning-rod-in-a-changing-climate.html
The themes in “Merchants of Doubt” have hardly gone unchallenged, though, and the protests have not always originated on the far right. A vigorous objection has come from the family of William A. Nierenberg, one of the scientists singled out for criticism in the book. Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway accused Dr. Nierenberg of weakening two major scientific reports that he led in the early 1980s, one on acid rain and one on global warming.
Dr. Nierenberg died in 2000, but his son, daughter and son-in-law have compiled a detailed critique contending that the historians misrepresented Dr. Nierenberg’s activities. “If you read her writing on the subjects I am familiar with, you know less about the topic than before you started,” Nicolas Nierenberg said in an interview.
A former staff officer at the National Research Council who helped oversee the preparation of the global warming report, John S. Perry, also said he felt that Dr. Oreskes had been unfair to Dr. Nierenberg. “That sort of bothers me, because her book ‘Merchants of Doubt’ is otherwise so good,’” he said in an interview, adding that in his view the 1983 climate report stands up to scrutiny even in hindsight.
Dr. Oreskes has disputed the specific complaints raised by the Nierenberg siblings, but she did say in an interview that she somewhat regretted the tone of one article on Dr. Nierenberg — a paper that compared him to Dr. Pangloss, the character in Voltaire’s “Candide” who is optimistic about the future to the point of delusion.
“I concede that the tone was somewhat aggressive,” Dr. Oreskes said. “We were still working out the argument at the time. But we stand by every fact in that paper.”
Another environmentalist and wikipedia editor William Connolley, as discussed above, concluded that Oreskes is "wrong" and "silly" to have written this particular paper. He concluded, as have others, that factually it is also completely without substance.
Similarly, now with Professor James Hansen and 4 others receiving the strange label of a "new form of denier" from Oreskes, when Oreskes ironically uses Hansen extensively in her book and film...It really is a bit wild, and frankly a trend has emerged that may influence their writings. A political leaning, that interestingly, or sadly enough. Singer, ever one to be politically discerning, pointed out way back in 2011.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/06/science_and_smear_merchants.html
"now we know at least where Oreskes stands in the political spectrum."
I hate to say Singer was accurate or right about anything, but there you go. He was also generally accurate over the effects of the Kuwait oil fires, when debating with Carl Sagan, who instead argued mass famine/"nuclear winter" would come about. In any event, broken clocks can be right twice a day. On Oreskes, there appears to be a common trend of Policy based evidence making. Though we can't say this out-right, that is however the general consensus amongst other scientists, reporters, lay readers etc. Oreskes' use of the "denier" label, namely putting it on Hansen, after everything, is literally the epitome of a somewhat troubling irony. The consensus is with Hansen on this one too.
Boundarylayer (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Set up you own blog for all this sort of stuff. See WP:NOTAFORUM. We don't need walls of text which have no constructive content. We are not here to discuss Oreskes but to write an article. Dmcq (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naomi_Oreskes/Archive_2&oldid=1046328763"