The Unknown Skeptic – My Essay at WUWT

Anthony Watts of WUWT has been kind enough to host “The Unknown Skeptic – Journalism, awaiting to be freed“, a rather long essay of mine of the work done by James Painter and others in order to identify what makes climate change skeptical voices audible and readable more or less often in six countries.

The original and twice-as-long essay, divided in seven parts, was published on this site at the beginning of February 2012 (starting point here).

Finally and BTW, let me top this shameless self-promotion and elevate this comment left at WUWT:

John Whitman says:

Maurizio Morabito (aka omnologos ),

Your piece is a feast of ideas that I think will fertilize others to write an avalanche of additional posts on the virtues of hard core scientific skepticism toward the IPCC ‘consensus’ / ‘settled’ alarming climate science.

I really liked your, “Rather differently than Isaac Newton, Dr Painter might have found himself not on the shoulder of giants, but under the boots of minions.”

I really like your sense of style.

Thank you.

John

One Reply to “The Unknown Skeptic – My Essay at WUWT”

  1. And what caught my attention was the quote near the top of your guest post from the Painter & Ashe paper which said the aim of their study was “to track any increase in the amount of space given to skeptical voices…” – an immediate red flag to me because of my search to find out what the origins were for the notion that skeptics receive “fair coverage” in the mainstream media. I ended up writing an entire article last year that barely scratches the surface of this problem, please see ” ‘Media Too Fair to Climate Skeptics’, say reporters who’ve been unfair to skeptics” http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/02/media-too-fair-to-climate-skeptics-say-reporters-whove-been-unfair-to-skeptics/

    Further into your WUWT guest post, other names jumped out at me, Naomi Oreskes and Myanna Lahsen, both of whom I’ve run across many times in my research into the long-term smear of skeptic climate scientists, and both of whom I mentioned in my own recent WUWT guest post, “The OTHER problem with the Lewandowsky paper and similar ‘skeptic’ motivation analysis: Core premise off the rails about fossil fuel industry corruption accusation” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/the-other-problem-with-the-lewandowsky-paper-and-similar-skeptic-motivation-analysis-core-premise-off-the-rails-about-fossil-fuel-industry-corruption-accusation/#more-70817

    I, too, hope your piece fertilize others to write an avalanche of additional posts on the virtues of hard core scientific skepticism. Regarding this, I quoted the late Andrew Breitbart at the end of another article last year ( http://cdn.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2011/06/07/Will-MSM-Look-into-the-Global-Warming-Abyss-and-Find-Their-Character ): “All we did was ask of the mainstream media to correct their bias problem….but as a result of that, when they wouldn’t correct themselves, citizens said, ‘if you are not going to correct yourself, we’re going to create a media in the wake of your incompetency.'”

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.