Climate Change Historian or Environmental Activist?

Sarah Everts is a C&EN reporter, apparently stationed in Berlin. In the September 20, 2010 Issue of the C&EN, she has an article entitled "Naomi Oreskes. The subtitle says, "A Science Historian takes on climate-change skeptics and fights off their attacks".

Without even reading the article, it is apparent from the above that Naomi Oreskes is not really a Science Historian. Rather, she is a climate change activist. This is easily deduced from the fact that historians, in their writings, are supposed to report situations and opinions of the principles and general public at the time in history that the opinions and actions were generated. It is my understanding of historians that there is no room for personal opinion of the historian. If the historian is giving a personal opinion, then it is no longer a historical account, but rather an editorial. Wikipedia calls her a Science Historian, which is now somewhat doubtful.

Since Sarah Everts is a reporter and has a public obligation to report facts and situations, this C&EN article appears to be confusing, but there is an explanation. Sarah Everts is following the C&EN byline of promoting global warming, now switched to climate change. As I've indicated in my previous writings, this is apparently a program of Rudy Baum, C&EN Editor-In-Chief. Perhaps Sarah Everts and other C&EN editors have to come up with articles favorable to promoting the aspect of global warming or climate change to the C&EN readers, in order to establish its legitimacy by repetition, without scientific basis. In other words, this appears to be a promotional program similar to a well-known athlete endorsing Nike shoes. We can excuse the Nike shoe promotion, because it is obvious that it is promotional, and as one judge has said, "a certain amount of puffing is allowable in advertising". Contrarily, the use of puffing in a scientific/business publication is morally reprehensible. Sarah Everts may be forcing herself to do this in order to hold her job. She may be truly convinced about the ridiculousness of climate change control, or she may have rationalized it to a position, which she can accept.

Notice that in the above two paragraphs I have implied that I am one of the climate-change skeptics and am attacking. True. I am attacking, because I have yet to see any scientific justification that I and others should believe in anthropogenic global warming or climate change of any significance. It is obvious that in man's burning of fossil fuels, such as oil natural gas, oil, and coal, heat is generated, but that heat is highly likely to be insignificant compared to variations in heat delivered from the Sun. No one seems to have bothered to make the mathematical calculations, in spite of the fact that the US Government Department grants to so-called scientists in universities have been many and substantial.

However, that is not the main issue. Sarah Everts goes on to devote most of the full-page to the rantings and ravings of Naomi Oreskes trying to make analogies with tobacco related diseases and push, pushing the terrible disasters which will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. Oreskes finally gets down to cases in the next-to-last paragraph when she mentions that a Superior Court judge has allowed the EPA "to control carbon dioxide as a pollutant". I urge the reader here to consider the fact that in the last two years I have continually asked for scientific information, which would justify designating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Specifically, I would like to see someone review the existing or new data concerning carbon dioxide's power of insulation or resistance to the passage of heat, as compared to other much more prevalent gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen.

Oreskes says that "scientists have to be on the forefront of explaining their work". I'll agree with that. Presumably Oreskes is a scientist, since she is a Ph.D. professor at the University of California. Where is she explaining her work? Opinions are not work explanations.

In checking the Internet, I find Oreskes had grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these organizations are agencies of the US government. We know that the Obama Administration has been pressing for the acceptance of carbon dioxide as a pollutant leading to global climate change, and this is likely part of the process by which he can obtain more tax money to redistribute on a worldwide basis to pursue his socialistic agenda. People who receive grants from the US government for climate research know full-well that they must come up with positive answers to support government's philosophy or they will lose subsequent funding.

Under the above conditions, the legitimacy of the writings of both Sarah Everts and Naomi Oreskes are in serious doubt. I would like to see Oreskes take some of the grant money and do some serious, honest research on carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant leading to global warming. And I want to see some honest-to-goodness physical chemistry involved in that research, rather than some pie-in-the-sky collection of data on global warming.