Over at the Point of Inquiry forums, a commenter named citizenschallenge has done something very, very useful. He (or she) has basically listed all the different parts of my interview with Naomi Oreskes–idiosyncratically, at points, but nevertheless pretty comprehensively and also at times memorably.
So I think I’ll repost; it is not often that one has such a handy roadmap:
7:00 Naomi explains why she doesn’t like the term “manufacturing doubt” since doubt is actually an integral part of science.
7:50 Strategy for delaying legislative action & legislation
9:10 Chris: “How do we know historically that these tactics are without precedent…?” Defending claim that 1953 ushered in an entirely new era in attacking science:
10:10 Interesting phenomena fighting the evidence though you appreciate it is correct.
13:00 The balance between what we know & what we don’t know.
Getting to the point were we can say that “This knowledge is secure, this knowledge is robust, It is based on tremendous amounts of evidence that add up to a consistent picture and that it is rational and appropriate to move forward and take action on the basis of that knowledge.”
14:15 Strategy of undermining people’s small errors
15:00 The challenge is to tell a coherent story and present the evidence.
15:20 George Marshall Institute . . . and strategic defense system (unsaid the military industrial complex)
18:00 Acid Rain, Ozone depletion
19:00 the dress rehearsal
20:30 Keyworth & Reagan White House. . . manipulating final drafts of reports
21:45 Attacks on Rachel Carlson & DDT
23:00 False on too many levels
24:30 “We do know that DDT was very harmful and we do know that it was not a magic bullet to cure malaria that its advocates are claiming.”
24:45 “The whole story is false from top to bottom.”
25:00 Why would they do that???
25:45 “It’s not about corporate profits, its about a deep seated political ideology”
26:00 There’s no free lunch.
global warming is the bill for our great prosperity.
everything has a price.
27:00 … great story scientists as society’s waiters.
29:50 Reviewing the attacks on Ben Santer
The detection and attribution science. . . IPPC
34:00 Corporate news media ignoring scientists who are trying to defend themselves.
35:00 Creating an unlevel playing field
Mega coverage of the accusation, minimal coverage of the exoneration
35:50 Failure of America’s Fourth Estate, the f’n tratiors….my words!
“Media acting as gatekeeper”. . . their words.
36:15 We The Sad (disappointed) People. . .
36:30 The lesson being scientists can not rely on journalists anymore and must find new avenues for presenting their knowledge.
The sad truth being if scientist don’t defend their own findings ~ who will?
37:00 SILENCE TO FALSE CHARGES IS THE SAME AS ACQUIESCENCE !
37:15 Scientists need to figure out alternative venues to defend their work!
38:00 Appreciating a different view of science – considering the concept of “certainty.”
39:10 Grappling with the dichotomy of “either their is absolute truth on the one hand or their is absolute collapse into relativism on the other hand. . .”