If so, I know how you vote, and that you would be a great fit as a humanities academic claiming to be an expert about science. Like historian Dr. Naomi Oreskes, who sees conspiracies everywhere except in her tribe, even if a domestic front group for her political party got a gigantic mysterious off-shore anonymous donation through a donor-advised fund because they routinely promoted Russia Today and Sputnik and oppose American science in Russia's two largest exports, energy and food.
Dr. Oreskes routinely denied that she takes money from lawyers but when exposed as a liar after a deposition reverted to arguing that she only takes money from lawyers out to sue oil companies since Big Oil was trying to buy off scientists. Because she was a history major she may never have learned logic. If the conspiracy had been on the Big Oil side, they'd have won. She repeatedly claimed Monsanto bought off scientists to get GMOs approved yet her noble cause resisted the money. So trillions of dollars of Big Oil money could not buy off a few hundred climate scientists while tiny Monsanto, with even less revenue than organic store Whole Foods, somehow bought off 500,000 biologists?
How naïve do you have to be to believe that, much less argue in favor of it?
She's a professional progressive ax-grinder and if she were not part of the progressive clique that dominates northeast universities, she'd be dismissed as a crackpot. The only thing she hasn't done right in line with her fellow anti-science humanities academics is donate money to Hamas. Yet she routinely claims anyone who criticized her denies the Holocaust. And people in her sphere repeat it. They hate science that much.
Dr. David Zaruk takes her and a few other "consultants" using their university jobs to moonlight to task for fabricating Vast Right Wing Conspiracy claims about everything from science to her real agenda, progressive campaigning. Nature published it and the wealthy family that owns the magazine...former Nazis...probably wants to publish anything that reminds people the Holocaust was real, even if the reference is disjointed and bizarre.
In the 1980s, the communist regime in Nicaragua banned a newspaper and unironically wrote they did it because, "They said we oppressed freedom of speech. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it."
In a Nature editorial last week, she and co-authors (no scientists, lots of other corporate consultants) make the same argument - for freedom of speech to continue, speech the authors just happen to oppose must be censored. They actually used the term "educational intervention" - the verbiage of re-education camps used by communist dictatorships.
Don't agree with her? You will be compared to Big Tobacco, as she outlined in her La Jolla Playbook as a tactic to be used against her opponents.
If corporations really throw wealth around to control the narrative, where's the money? I've never gotten it. I have been making fun of her conspiracy hot takes for 16 years and no one wrote me a check to keep doing it.
But she has gotten checks. Lots of them, and never disclosed them until she was forced to do so under oath. Prior to that she repeatedly lied. Funny how that works. The author of “Why Disclosure Matters” should next write "Why Irony Matters."
Dr. Oreskes is late to the 'combating disinformation' party and it seems to be that she wants it stopped only because Republicans finally got as good at it as her party. Like all social authoritarians, she wants to ban freedom of speech once the lies are being told by her political enemies.
Comments