This site contains information regarding issues related to Dr. Naomi Oreskes and Dr. William Nierenberg.  The particular focus is on the paper "From Chicken Little to Dr. Pangloss."  For more context on my views on these issues please read an introduction from my blog.  My entire blog on this subject can be found here.  It also provides an opportunity for comments which I welcome.

The following is a peer reviewed paper which refutes the conclusions of Oreskes et al.  It is presented here by permission of the UC Press. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, Vol. 40, Number 3, pps. 318–349. ISSN 1939-1811, electronic
ISSN 1939-182X. © 2010 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

hsns4003_02.pdf
File Size: 1164 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

The Sunday Times ran  an article loosely based on "Chicken Little" by Drs. Oreskes and Renouf.  Based on our complaint they were forced to run a correction.  In addition they posted a rebuttal which we provided.  However they chose to edit that rebuttal citing legal issues in the UK.  We didn't particularly want to fight with them about that, so instead you can read our original rebuttal here.

William Connolley who is hardly a skeptic has concluded that Oreskes was flat wrong.  We encourage anyone who is trying to get to the truth of these issues to review the actual National Academy report.