Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Who is a more visceral hater of fundamental physics: skeptics or alarmists?

It's a tie: both groups largely despise pure science and modern physics

A month ago, I mentioned that an interview with Edward Witten had occurred at a very strange place, namely John Horgan's blog hosted by Scientific American.

John "End Of Science" Horgan is a loon and one does expect a completely different kind of people to be interviewed over there. And do you know who was the next interviewee who was interrogated on the same blog?
Naomi “Merchants of Doubt” Oreskes Slams “Corrosive” Climate Change Skepticism
Yes, it's Naomi Oreskes, a hardcore left-wing ideologue who would previously write a notorious article arguing that papers disagreeing with important tenets of the climate hysteria didn't even exist. To make you even more frustrated, the interview with this evil stupid lady has attracted many more comments than the interview with Edward Witten, the world's most cited scientist.

She's not just a hardcore Marxist who has some deluded beliefs. She is a truly evil lady, indeed. When she was visiting Harvard – before a department at that school outrageously hired her – she learned that there was a climate skeptic in the physics department. So she wrote a mail to me with copies sent to all my superiors at Harvard and her alarmist friends who had some potential to harm me personally. The letter claimed that I despised the best scientists (meaning the alarmist whackos) from the last 50 years and something should be done about that.

Decent people obviously agree that she is a despicable bitch who wants to harm inconvenient scholars in ways that don't differ in any way from Hitler's and Stalin's eras. And of course, pretty much everyone in the physics department would agree with me that she was this kind of a šitty monster, to put it really diplomatically. But I also knew that Harvard was filled with individuals not dissimilar to herself who were powerful enough to really spoil other people's lives.

Many years ago, meritocracy had died at Harvard's history department that hired this evil Marxist as faculty.

Incidentally, Oreskes would write the book "Merchants of Doubts" that would demonize the climate skeptics as – the following words are my summary, not a direct quote – the zombies who dare to oppose Marxism. What a sin. A film director is completing a film based on "Merchants of Doubts" and I was at least happy to learn what was the film director's favorite moment during filming:
What was your favorite moment from filming?

I enjoyed working with one of the deniers Marc Morano who was a very interesting character. Very smart guy on some levels and very honest guy was telling me what he was thinking and I was thinking it was fascinating to have that experience and to be with him.
The director enjoyed working with Marc Morano, a climate skeptic who is behind the ClimateDepot.COM website. Believe me, I am not surprised that it's the "denier" rather than e.g. Ms Oreskes who appeared in that sentence!

Climate alarmism is supported by various people and they have different motivations to do so. The participants of the recent "People's Climate March" in Manhattan were mostly members of the Communist Party of the USA and similar extreme left-wing groups. Advocates of a Big Government and the state that regulates everything and everyone obviously love the ideology about a "climate threat" because it is a way to promote political goals they have been struggling for since 1867 (the publication of Das Kapital).

Politicians of all flavors – not just the extreme left-wing ones – liked to embrace this ideology because they were promoted to "saviors of the Earth" who are allowed to tax and harass everyone without questions and who only need to parrot the alarmist slogans to get reelected. Many journalists loved to scare the people with horror stories about the looming climate catastrophes. One doesn't need any intelligence or new data to write such stories and they may be pumped repeatedly and the newspapers may be sold repeatedly because the number of readers who just love to scare themselves every day is apparently high.

For scientists in the climate science, it was obviously a source of grants. The discipline that would be considered to be one of the most inferior disciplines of physical sciences (I will focus on this point later) would suddenly lead the fight to "save the Earth". Dear boffins, will we die by 2050 or not? Please tell us! That has led to the increase of funding for the climate science by more than an order of magnitude in less than 2 decades. In other words, more than 90% of the money that this community is getting is linked to the climate hysteria. With this tight correlation between the funding and the hysteria, you simply can't be surprised that many people found it convenient to switch to the panic – and many more people were hired just because they were compatible with the hysteria even though they completely suck as scientists.

The tension between the climate alarmists and particle or fundamental physics has been described in many previous blog posts. That's why I want to switch to something else, namely the sad observation that in the "skeptical grassroots climate movement", one may find a similar kind of hostility against legitimate science. Two days ago, the world's most widely read blog about the climate would publish the story
The Trouble with Physics – Another branch of science captured by groupthink
that returned 8 years into the past and promoted an atrocious text by a certified crackpot named Lee Smolin. The blog post at Anthony Watts' climate blog was contributed by Eric Worrall. You may check that it is a completely unknown person with no papers and just a few nearly unknown patents listed by Google Scholar, and those are related to some everyday biochemistry, anyway.

Just like Watts himself, he clearly doesn't have and cannot have a clue about particle physics. But he decided to "pick the winners", anyway. The rant's rating was close to 5.0.

I am physically scared of the people who can't see that Edward Witten – or even myself, for that matter – is vastly smarter than the likes of Lee Smolin. I am scared that many of these morons are actually power-thirsty and would love to influence the evolution of a scientific discipline that is about 40 IQ points above their mental abilities.

I am shocked that these morons are arrogant enough to talk about "groupthink" when it comes to string theorists. String theorists are pretty much 1,000 or at most 2,000 – if one counts them inclusively enough – smartest people on the Earth. If I want to meet another string theorist, I have to travel 100 kilometers (to Prague) and hope that Martin Schnabl has a spare hour. If I want to meet about 5 string theorists, I have to ride 200 kilometers in the opposite direction (to Munich). If I want to see a group of roughly 10 string theorists, I have to move by 600 kilometers somewhere to Amsterdam or something, and so on. You are surely getting the point.

The number of morons who have upvoted that idiotic rant by Eric Worrall within a few hours is orders of magnitude larger than the number of all string theorists on planet Earth. How can they fail to see that to talk about "groupthink of string theorists" is a rigorous proof of their hopeless idiocy?

If string theorists agree about something, well, it's because there is evidence – often as rock-solid as a readable mathematical proof. It is completely nonsensical to demand some "diversity about every question" within the scientific community or its relevant part. As science is making progress, it's converging towards the correct answers (most of the time) and the percentage of the people who disagree with the correct answers is decreasing. Those who agree are asking more detailed questions and developing more accurate theories, so their large percentage is being split to "subgroups" that differ when it comes to more refined issues. You will always find questions in which over 99% of the people agree, you will always find questions on which the researchers are split, and there will always be big differences between the percentanges encoding the opinions of the experts and those of the general public. To pretend that these tautological observations indicate something "sick" about the science is insane.

Well, I don't believe that most people outside these climate wars are similarly unreasonable. Both the climate alarmist movement and the bulk of the WUWT-like climate skeptical movement have one thing in common: they think that things like measuring and interpolating the temperature belong to the culmination of science. But you know, to decide whether string theory or loop quantum gravity correctly describes black hole thermodynamics is harder than to read the temperature from the thermometer or to notice that the thermometer is 2 meters away from an asphalted sidewalk.

Well, everyone who has a clue knows that the science of climate change is at most a continuation of a discipline of classical physics that would mostly freeze something like 100 years ago and wouldn't dramatically evolve afterwards. Atmospheric physics, climatology, and meteorology are specializations that would attract the weakest students of physics in physics departments of universities across the world. I could tell you quite something about this correlation from my Alma Mater – the Charles University in Prague.

Moreover, I can assure you that almost all physicists in the disciplines that would attract the talents – it would be particle physics and condensed matter physics most of the time, with some genetics and financial fields at different but overlapping eras (of course that the disciplines attracting the top minds are evolving in time) – would confirm my comments about the inferior status of the climate-related disciplines, and so would a very famous atmospheric scientist at MIT whom I know rather well in person - guess who is that.

But like the alarmists, it looks like the WUWT community is really "living" the life focusing on these climate stories.

Back in the real world, there hasn't been really any significant "climate change" in the last two decades. The trend of the global mean temperature in the last 18 years and 1 month is zero (or minus epsilon). There's absolutely nothing to talk about here. More sadly, climate science has made a minimal progress in improving its knowledge (including topics that are emphasized all the time, like the CO2 climate sensitivity) during the same two decades, despite some $70 billion that have been thrown to this research (or thrown to the garbage bin with the words that it's needed for the climate science).

Climate alarmists (from many occupations, see the motivations at the top) have attempted to promote the climate panic to one of the most important issues in the world. The most solid reason why I would consider the climate panic irrational is nothing else than the fact that the climate change surely doesn't make it among the (100) most important trends or issues to be considered. If it's not important, it's silly to talk about it all the time.

But the bulk of the climate skeptical movement must disagree with these trivial comments because it's possible to publish something like 10 climate-related news stories every day that happen to attract almost 100,000 readers. What these one-per-hour stories can be about in the world where nothing substantial has really changed about the climate (and the climate research) for 20 years?

One should be puzzled.

I think that a sensible "skeptic" would want this irrational panic to simply fade away – that's what I always wanted – and we should encourage the apparent trend that this fad seems to be fading away, indeed. But I feel it ain't the case for skeptics including Anthony. It seems to me that they learned to love the (completely indefensible) idea that the climate change is an important topic and it shold stay an important topic (or even become a more important one). From this perspective, the differences between the likes of Michael Mann and Anthony Watts might be much more minor than we are normally imagining.

This is an issue I started to be increasingly worried roughly 2 weeks ago when Anthony Watts attended a lecture by Michael Mann in Bristol. The very idea that an important American such as Anthony Watts would fly from the U.S. to Southwestern England mainly to see a talk by a notorious but otherwise irrelevant crook sounded surreal to me. Does Anthony really believe that a talk by a Michael Mann is this important for Watts to fly to another continent?

But the evaluation of the event looked even more surreal. I was expecting that because Watts was flying to Europe for such an event, he would at least be visible or important in some way. But a Facebook discussion by some alarmists has painted a very different picture:
Chris Colose: Any disruption from Watts et al.?

Michael E. Mann: Nothing. The man didn't say a word, didn't ask a question. There were no questions at all from the climate change denier contingent that supposedly had come out in force – conspiracy theories already abounding that the questions from the crowd were "plants". Tinfoil Hat anyone?
In other words, Anthony and pals played the role of "pussies" who would not only help to legitimize Michael Mann but they would work hard to make him important. My common-sense interpretation is that a talk that attracts a blogger from another continent whose blog has about 200 million views has to be important. While Michael Mann – who is pretty much a self-confessed crook – didn't "win" a word of criticism, Anthony Watts found it a good idea to post a text against all of high energy physics by a biochemical crank.

Similarly, three years ago, Watts would promote Rossi's cold fusion, while allowing the guest blogger to spit on all of nuclear physics. Why? How is it possible?

Some climate alarmists and leftists often say that the skeptics and U.S. conservatives hate and deny almost all of science, and all things like that, and one must say that the evidence does indicate that these statements could be pretty much accurate, especially when it comes to modern physics – more or less everything that is conceptually new and was found since the year 1900. A problem is that the climate alarmists are doing the same thing – and John Horgan's obsessive attacks on Edward Witten and his field was just one example I chose above.

The sad reason is that almost no one in these camps actually cares about science. These wars are political wars and they have always been political wars. Science is only used as a hostage. My opinions about the political wars are well-known but unfortunately, there are not too many people who think that science is at least equally important.


  1. I use homeopathic medicines , it is not a matter of belief but of observation that it helps.( I also use pain killers if necessary and antibiotics if necessary).

    example: all summer two feral cats I was feeding had problems with their eyes. One lost one eye and it was left a hole that was continually weeping and bleeding slightly. The other would keep her weeping eyes half opened, sometimes wholly closed. My sister said "give them Euphrasia, the doctor told me and it cleared the eyes in my cat". Three weeks ago I gave them some. Their eyes are clear two weeks now, and the damaged eye of the one eyed one stopped running mucus and bleeding.

  2. Exactly, Gordon, by sobervations, I meant serious observations performed while one is sober and extremely careful about all the details, including the condition that he would never ever interchange the first two letters in a word. ;-)

  3. Dear Lubos,

    Are you sure about 70 billion $ ? Did the world really spent 3.5 billion $ per year for last 20 years on climate research ? It really seems extraordinary to me. How you estimated this ?

  4. Dear John, it is not the world. The $70 billion is since 1989 but only in the U.S., and the figure is the Congressional Research Service estimate, see


  5. "I think that a sensible "skeptic" would want this irrational panic to simply fade away – that's what I always wanted "

    Well said, that's all I've ever wanted also.

  6. Seems this Naomi Oreskes is really a demonic witch ...


    Haha, my comment has now appeared on WUWT with a strange confused addendum by the mod ... :-D

    Even though I have seen the names of a few friendish commters there to, I do not have the stomach to descend into the darkness. You know, I have to watch my blood pressure a bit...

  7. The eminent historian Hugh Thomas also (and historian Ronald Radosh as well, who acknowledges that persecuted Jews counted themselves lucky to reach Franco's Spain during the war) has it right about Spain: Nationalists vs Loyalists. Most Catholics supported Generalissimo Franco; I suppose according to LM's reckoning, they were all "fascists" as well (even though Christians had been around for about 1900 years by then) and by extension, I guess even my little dog too, who likes me.

  8. Cold delusion would be a better name for this nonsense.

  9. Scientific skepticism is not a natural skill and the human mind by default works irrationally, granting unfortunately plenty of opportunities for con men like this human waste called Rossi. We can only wish we lived in a society where Feynman or Sagan are looked upon as heroes of humanity.

  10. I was waiting for your response to the WUWT article. You are unusually kind in your criticism, I was expecting a less nuanced response ;) I found it embarrassing that the article could be posted on a site that I visit regularly, and the comments were a disappointment. Whatever else can be said about Smolin, he is good at advertizing and tells a good story in selling his snake oil. He could sell a ton of tomato mushers.

  11. First Kudos for the divulgative and thoughtful comments of Anna V at WUWT (October 13, 2014 at 5:15 am. and following)

    I agree with Lubos that this kind of critics are pure nonsense, and they shouldn't appear in a site as WUWT. But in any case my respect for the work of Anthony remains untouchable, even counting unfortunate blog posts as this one.

  12. Luboš,

    as always, when you write "evil stupid lady" -- everyone knows, she is just fine and nice lady.


  13. "String theorists are
    pretty much 1,000 ... smartest people on the Earth."

    The ultimate measure of achievement in science is discovery, not being smart.

    Of course, the observation that climatologists lack the background to judge fundamental physics research is not contradicted by this comment.

  14. Lubos I think you are making the mistake of thinking Mr Watts et al have ever studied or understand a hard science. Few have studied it and and only a few of those have understood it. But of course the benefit of studying Physics to BSc level does help you understand how rigorous hard sciences are and all the more cautious when criticising those people who lead the field. Only fools rush in where Angels dare to tread.

  15. I think I confused Naomi Klein with Naomi Oereskes in a chat with you.
    It boggles my mind what she did to you. Even if she disagreed with your stance on climate change, it had absolutely nothing to do with your physics job. Only a truly toxic person acts that way.

  16. John Horgan makes the mistake of thinking that he is
    on the same mental plane as Ed Witten. This hubris would be funny if it weren't so pathetically misguided.

  17. Are you trying to subtly say that string theorist haven't achieved anything, because they have made no discoveries?

    That's not true. Given that they have discovered the (probably) only consistent theory of quantum gravity, and have extended their knowledge about it since its birth, they have clearly discovered a lot.

    Did Peter Higg's and the other physicist involved in the theoretical background of the Higgs only discover something recently or did it happen 50 years ago?

  18. physicists* sorry

  19. I suspect Lubos knows enough about Anthony Watts and his blog to have a rough idea of his limits. I myself, absolutely a layman, have been dismayed by Watts's remarks at times, even in areas of science having nothing to do with climate science. (I am a climate skeptic). So I think we're just seeing Lubos's penchant for condemnation, which is something that dismays me about Lubos.

  20. No, I objected to the idea that the bottom 500, if not 900, of the 1000 are smarter than the top people in other areas of physics and natural science in general. It's not how things work.

  21. hey she's a country girl, if you get my drift.

  22. I can't pretend to know [or fully comprehend - ha, ha] the Mathematics, the Physics behind string theory and quantum theory..........
    But boy, even in my not so bright noodle a spark lights the fog because - the ideas and hypotheses are wonderful and if it don't cause your imagination to soar to the heavens - then I guess you are a sad dude.
    I dearly wish that, I had the brain capacity to play around with theoretical concepts and translate them into Mathematics - the only real pure science - ah life would be a big headache but in the same moment - what a joy - God gave us Mathematics - it's the only way to find him -ask Einstein.


    Climate science, was spawned out of the American humanities - university faculties of the late sixties early seventies. It started life as Geography [a bastard discipline if ever there was one] and later, became environmental science.......And then, some second rate statisticians realized that, there could be killing made in Government taxpayer funding [governments have NO MONEY - it's ours!] and Penn State faculty of climate science metamorphosed and became solid though - it still makes and talks ectoplasm.
    Climate science, it's a social science and definitely not a pure science, it is therefore given to wild speculative supposition and befuddled by the incoherence of statistical interpretation - ie Bullshit. And BS begets charlatans.

    The more that you get to know, the more you realize how much there is - that you don't know.

    There is so much to understand in the Universe, too much. I like and studied Geology, "our little earth" just a speck of dust at one end - in the Milky Way - nobody would notice it really......

    Not only that, what goes on beneath our feet?

    Yeah, we make educated guesses about the mantle and core and even the crust - the enormous physical forces going on beneath our feet are astonishing and we think [thanks to the Mathematicians and Physicists] we can comprehend some of the processes but we are still at the edge of discovery...we haven't got that deep yet - if you know what I mean.
    Atmosphere and stuff is still understood - not at all....... and as for space - that's your thing - Mr Motl.

    What really gets my goat, makes me really very angry - stupid words and claims from some politicians and climate scientists, those running around and telling all who will listen: "the science is settled!"

    It would make a Saint weep.

    I find what is good to help me cool down, I take a hammer into the wilderness and go and break some big rocks.

    What we must understand, in the end, is that any discipline has experts and people who pretend to be experts - the problem is - we only hear of about the sham experts and politicians.

    Sit down my friend, Prague, as you well know is a wondrous and beautiful city, watch the river, sip a glass and think Mathematics! Life is too fleeting, to worry too much about the clowns. And there is science to be done!

  23. Oh okay.
    I guess smart is also somewhat hard to define. There really is an array of mental abilities.

  24. Anecdotal, not scientific. Look up what homeopathy is and believes. It is like the "here a miracle" cartoon.
    If a decoction of the herb were used, perhaps it would be effective, but if it is a homeopathic preparation, it is shaken water.
    "Several iridoid glycosides isolated from eyebright, particularly
    aucubin, possess anti-inflammatory properties comparable to those of
    indomethacin (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug). Although early
    evidence is promising, there is currently insufficient evidence to
    recommend for or against eyebright as an anti-inflammatory agent."
    Wellness lib.

  25. Exactly, smart is a vague notion. A discovery is not a vague notion and is a more useful criterion. Nothing beats actual success.

  26. Not sure... also because it's hard to find it. Last time, I was looking for it for about an hour.

  27. Oh my God ! Eclectikus, your opinion is so biased in favor to Franco's dictatorship that is offensive. Franco was conspiring against the 2nd Spanish Republic since day one, April 14th 1934. The Republic was a democratic regime, elected by the votes of the spanish people. That's the meaning of democratic, for your information ! . But people like probably it's hard to understand what democratic means. Sure, a fascist military ultra-catholic regime without social and politic freedom during 40 years it's not democracy, isn't it? The Republic had its own problems and was far from perfect, but it was a legitime democratic regime.

    I don't want to continue answering to your bullshit changing the History and trying to justify Franco's fascist regime, but before finish I want to point that Calvo Sotelo murder wasn't the trigger for starting the war; it was just the perfect excuse to the conspiration to initiate a massacre during the war and event worst when the war ended. Stalin was a teletubbie comparing to Franco purges during the afterwar.

  28. You don't need to be on Luboš's level to appreciate the utter ugliness of climatology, an ragbag interdisciplinary hodgepodge very much for low-grade also-rans who couldn't get a decent job elsewhere. There's no aesthetic kick to be had from that stuff, no thrill of understanding or seeing deeper. It's all surface and "suck it and and see" — nothing but an ugly grind. As an applied science it's almost worse even than economics. The best that can be said about it is that at least it is actually a science unlike economics. But it's real hard to spot the difference.

    Of course there are exceptional people, and they do rather stand out. In this regard who doesn't immediately think of Richard Lindzen for example. I love his quietly delivered acid. Unfortunately much of it was wasted on that bunch of assertive thickos at the parliamentary enquiry he attended a while back, all held under the chairmanship of that dim overbearing and eminently punchable arch klimate trougher, Tim Yeo. It was almost comic but at the same time it was incredibly demeaning to a man of Lindzen's stature even to be seen mixing with that scumoid riff-raff. Put it this way: it was as if he had been asked to sit in front of a row of six-month old infant retards* at feeding time all seated in the their high-chairs while being spoon-fed their puréed breakfast cereal with boiled eggs—which ended up mostly all over their faces or running down their bibs—and answering their ignorant fuckwit questions, i.e. attending carefully to their incontinent burps and farts. What a farce that was.

    The thing is, Lindzen himself found it necessary to point out to these mouthy morons that their heroic klimatologists were not exactly the crème de la crème of the current crop of scientists, but rather second-rate 'achievers' at best. It was probably wasted on them though. I imagine to that lot ALL science is just one big black box. These fuckwit parliamentarians would be hard pushed to count their fingers and toes; for them science and scientists are on a par with magic and magicians.

    Talking of which, WTF use is someone like Phil Jones? What's he good for? Even Tommy Cooper could knock him into a cocked hat on a real stage.

    * Peter Lilley, Conservative MP for Harpenden, was an exception. He actually has some background in physics. Naturally enough, he's rather antagonistic the totalitarian programme of the CAGW alarmist brigade.

  29. I like Lubos's penchant for condemnation that's one of the reasons that I am a regular visitor. One of his endearing qualities is that he doesn't tolerate fools (as he sees them) lightly.

  30. I think WUWT is becoming a little lame of late. I think I could get vastly more stimulus by watching porn.

  31. One of your best posts in a long time, Dr. Motl!

  32. Thanks for your reply. This is really an unfair world.

  33. Fact is, Watts is a weather guy, not a scientist, and fell into this role by accident. He is a useful idiot but fortunately he is on our side. He should stick to what he knows.

  34. WUWT is not "the sceptics". There are blogs out there which address the science behind the AGW circus.

    Possibly the most influential - even (though they don't like to admit it) amongst the alarmists (and the biggest thorn in the side of Michael Mann, is Climate Audit (on the temperature reconstructions).

    Then there is Judy Curry and Roy Spencer (on the climate science).

    And, of course, your own (on the physics).

    But I'm afraid that the alarmists won't go away until their theories are challenged - as they rarely were until the "Auditor" first put his head over the parapet - and found wanting: and nor should they. If they believe that they are correct, and that their theories are well founded, there is no reason why they will or should "go away".

  35. After the Mann talk, Watts told his tens of thousands of readers that it's best to just ignore Mann. I am astounded how his support for the latest big hockey stick media sensation that had in fact NO BLADE in any of the actual input data has been ignored by skeptics when it represents the biggest exposure of fraud of all time, promoted by such a well known public figure in climate. Even laypersons can fully understand it, very much unlike the original bad math hockey sticks at only experts could delve into, and skeptics simply had no voice of authority to convince people. The authors simply created a publication worthy blade by re-dating some of the Ph.D. thesis proxy data to afford sudden data drop-off at the end of their average.


    Meanwhile the second highest traffic skeptic blog by Steve Goddard regularly features as a top commenter, the notorious iron sun crackpot and registered son/daughter rapist, never moderated, ranting on about Stalin. For protesting this, I was banned, and am also banned on WUWT. I'm often the *only* seasoned skeptic with referenced facts to present on news sites, and was quite alone too on Phys.org before being also banned there. VICE.com magazine has started randomly deleting multiple comments too. Neither Tony nor Goddard have thus inspired even a *single* knowledgeable skeptic to actually do any outreach on high traffic sites. Instead they have sucked them in to skeptical blogs where they just complain to each other.

  36. I think I can well agree that successful smarts are the best ones! :-)

  37. Nik, I understand your dissatisfaction. Just an example of the situation: I surely do fully ignore all new papers by Michael Mann.

    My shock concerning the older papers with himself on the author list wasn't meant to be a decision to follow him, to become a fan of his with one sign or another. He should be sitting in jail or completely ignored somewhere on the sidewalk and I am afraid that the fan-like attitude of many skeptics have actually helped to keep this guy influential.

  38. You obviously have a very poor grasp of the events and personages leading up to the Spanish Civil War, and to top it all off with a defence of a monster like Stalin in comparison to Franco shows more than a touch of madness. Enjoy your groundless delusions, but don't expect us to share in your folly.

  39. Lubos - I just came across this review (by a 'warmist'!) of Oreskes new book: http://www.geocurrents.info/physical-geography/eco-authoritarian-catastrophism-dismal-deluded-vision-naomi-oreskes-erik-m-conway.
    It certainly seems to confirm your view of her totalitarian and anti-scientific mindset.
    It's also worth reading.


  40. Thanks, RAF. Yes, I've heard of the book. And yes, just to be sure, the comments about the role of ideology for her isn't some cliche one could say about every alarmist.

    By the degree to which she is motivated by the anti-West anti-capitalist etc. ideology, she belongs among the "top" 5% even among the alarmists. Most alarmists may be "unclean" or "crazy" in various ways but they're much less ideological.

  41. I wonder if you are able to solve Maxwell equation nor Einstein's Photoelectric effect ;)