Ron Arnold
October 20, 2014
The
Oreskes documentary calling Dr. Fred
Singer a “Liar for Hire” is a repeat of a nearly identical attack on
him twenty years ago. An honorable newsman at that time debunked the attack and
my research subsequently uncovered a genuine conspiracy of Big Green money and
malice. While we consider legal action against the present vicious attack on
Dr. Singer, I submit this short section from my book
EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save
Nature for your information along with the advice of DeepThroat:
Follow The Money.
The excerpt is found
in Chapter 5, “Radicals” in the middle of page 183 forward for about 3 pages…..
To Read More……
This appeared on October 24 (Australian time) on
Jon Ray's Greenie Watch.
Fred Singer has decided not to sue over the grievous libel directed at him by
Naomi Oreskes & Co. but he has suggested that his supporters reprint two
articles from a few years back wherein both he and another writer have critiqued
her work. What she says now is more shrill than in the past but her accusations
are basically now old ones so the effort of composing a new reply would be
superfluous.The two articles follow the backgrounder below:
Naomi Oreskes is the
environmentalist Noam Chomsky. She thinks that anyone who questions
environmentalist doctrine is evil. Her crusade is to expose the presumed
ulterior motives of the critics. According to Oreskes, if you question the
dubious studies concerning secondhand tobacco smoke, you must be in the pay of
tobacco companies. If you question global warming, you must be working for a
fossil fuel company. If you question the DDT ban, you must part of a right wing
conspiracy to weaken faith in government regulators. Oreskes is the author of
one of the silliest articles ever to appear in the journal Science. She claimed that
she analyzed 928 peer-reviewed papers on global warming and 100% agreed with
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concerning global warming.
If you go to the website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change (NIPCC) you can
find hundreds of peer reviewed papers that disagree with the IPCC in one way or
another….
Oreskes
is a professor and an important administrator at the University of
California. Like Chomsky, she cloaks her endless conspiracy theories in the
machinery of scholarship. Her 343 page book has 64 pages of notes. A pig with
lipstick is still a pig. Neither Oreskes nor her co-author have strong
scientific educations and it shows......
To Read More…..
Professor Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California in San
Diego, claims to be a science historian. One can readily demonstrate that she
is neither a credible scientist nor a credible historian; the best evidence is
right there in her recent book, "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful
of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
," coauthored with Eric Conway. Her science
is faulty; her historical procedures are thoroughly unprofessional. She is,
however, an accomplished polemicist, who has found time for world lecture
tours, promoting her book and her ideological views, while being paid by the
citizens of California. Her book tries to smear four senior physicists -- of
whom I am the only surviving one. I view it as my obligation to defend the
reputations of my late colleagues and good friends against her libelous
charges.....
We have
established so far that Oreskes is neither a scientist of any sort nor a
careful professional historian. She is, however, a
"pop-psychologist." It seems she has figured out what motivates the
four senior physicists she libels in her book; it is
"anti-communism." Really! This is not only stated explicitly but she
also identifies them throughout as "Cold Warriors." ......To Read More......
Editor's Note: One more thing. I wish to address this issue that's constantly thrown up to Singer - and others who have spoken up about EPA's minipulation of science regarding second hand tobacco smoke. The issue wasn't whether or not so these scientists who spoke up support smoking or tobacco companies. The issue for them was the junk science the EPA used to reach it's conclusions. There was serious concern was that if this was allowed to stand it would become a serious slippery slope to justify more regulations involving more things the environmental activists at EPA were against. The tobacco
companies sued, but the stakes in the suit were far more reaching than profits for
tobacco companies or the rights of smokers. As Glenn Lammi, chief counsel of the legal
studies division at the Washington Legal Foundation, said that amounts to
"moving the goal posts during the game." "It's a very definite
slippery slope, and we think this is very dangerous for the whole
community," he said, noting that a huge number of chemicals have been
accused of being cancer-causing on evidence similar to that used in the
second-hand smoke analysis. That concern has turned out to be justified.
One more, one more thing. Fred Singer commented on these attacks against him over this by saying:
"I am certainly no expert on lung cancer or on
epidemiology. My only 'offense' was to quote an official report by our Congressional
Research Service and the extensive documentation by a federal judge that
exposed the dubious way in which EPA cooked the data to come up with its claim
of 3000 cancer deaths from SHS. I have never smoked and am on the advisory
board of ACSH, a well-known anti-smoking organization. Personally, I hate SHS;
but that does not affect my science".
Here are two articles by Michael Fumento worth exploring that deal with this issue
