MY previous post discussing the historian Professor Naomi Oreskes’ theory on the motivations of climate change sceptics was reposted over at the ABC’s The Drum a couple of weeks ago.
The last time I looked, the comment community had amassed more than 600 thoughts on the story and the issues it raised.
In the article, I mentioned one of Australia’s very own little dens of climate doubt, the Institute for Public Affairs and, quite fairly, the ABC granted one of its senior research fellows, Sinclair Davidson, a response.
I’ll not bore you with the tit-for-tat over his response, which is mostly wrong and largely a repeat of the modus-operandi of misrepresentation which Oreskes’ highlights in her book.
What was rather odd though, was that the IPA’s executive director John Roskam chose not to respond on the ABC’s The Drum, or even in the comments on the original blog post. Instead, he chose the comments section of one of the least-read and hardest to find page on this website (and a page I rarely update).
So I thought it only fair to bring you John Roskam’s considered response.
Thank you for your piece publicising the work of the IPA. We’ll use it in our fundraising efforts.
There was one thing you missed however in what you wrote – in May The Sydney Morning Herald said that ‘Roskam has done more to fuel doubt about climate change than almost anyone in Australia.’ It would have been great if you had mentioned it.
For more reaction to the post, you can go and read Jo Nova’s denialist blog and the comments there. I especially like the one calling me a “little green communist hitler” and several false and defamatory comments stating that I was sacked from my role as a feature writer at The Courier-Mail.
There was also a response to my post from the US-based Science and Public Policy Institute. If you must, you can read the article from the institute’s president Robert Ferguson on American Thinker.