explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Green tyrants: Naomi Oreskes

BenziesJul 20, 2019, 8:49:15 PM

It seems the alarmists army are fairly predictable in their hymn sheet. However there are some variants that give rise to what might be a sound game plan.

They scatter themselves in order to occupy as many areas and reach as broad an audience as they can; Al Gore has covered the audience that read the sensationalist rags (unsure if I have more distain for the celeb goss or his unintentionally funny predictions), Brian Cox has taken aim at the hipster market, the rest seem to have gone in for the old newsreader segment of the market. So much so it's probably well oversaturated. And too much of a good thing (or a bad thing painted green...). 

Though there is another member of the alarmist army that offers not just a little variant, but shares something with the people that dare question the climate alarm. The wildcard of dissent. Not quite the tact I'd have opted for were it myself as conductor. I'd have pitched my game plan at the working class in order to find a broader audience for brain washing.

Though maybe the true orchestrators realised not only can you not tax to the eyeballs those that don't have it, but here are a bunch of people with their feet firmly in the real world who wouldn't have a bar of the hyperbole and outright lies. 

But while todays subject may once have shared the attribute of dissent with the working class, she may now consider herself above us. 

Naomi Oreskes. The green wildcard due to her dissent and on her way up, proud self proclaimed dissenter and original progenitor of nuclear = evil. 

While her attacks on anyone who considers the nuclear option as a viable one have been constant, her biggest piece was a movie and book named merchants of doubt. It used both the punk rebellion against the establishment tone coupled with the usual alarmist diatribe. Usually an inextricable link. Just like the whole premise of the movie, beginning with long known home truths about smoking with, once established she's on the side of the exposers, big oil and advocates for nuclear energy. With no one person in the whole movie simultaneously advocating for both smoking and nuclear power. A big leap or a cunning game plan?

Surely the former given how new she was to the table at this stage. But it seems Oreskes was, unlike her fellow greens, playing the long game...

And in light of more recent data finding nuclear energy not just the safer option but also one capable of producing a more long lasting source to the paltry in practice and costly wind and solar, there are a lot of inconvenient truths that both outdate and expose the movie. 

Here's where I believe the dissent grew into something much uglier. Despite the criticism she was now backed up by the media elites who shared the message far and wide. This presenter who wanted not just to enlighten but to stick it to "the man."

Being human, we often get caught up in folklore. Even if it is our own. Unfortunately for her the movie and media outrage coverage reached the same fate as her collective peers; oversaturation. 

The chimera of the mainstream that we can save the world from going under water or facing a new ice age or whatever the narrative of the day is, has been so overused that unfortunately for Oreskes and her ilk, reached peak panic. 

Had she sticked to what seemed a dissenting nature things might have turned out differently. 

Alas, the part of people's brains that was triggered when the panic on the verge of armageddon part became exhausted, kicked into action. The part of the brain that is in fact the alarmists worst enemy; the reasoning. 

It is this reasoning that led people to wake up and see that this constant conflation of 'deniers' with 'anti science' by green tyrants no less, is more ironic than even alarmist morrisette could cope with. To double the irony, the whole movie that was her big hit, conflated tobacco companies with big oil and pro nuclear...then later goes on to say how she has been smeared by the same types as a socialist just merely for exposing the "nuclear scandal". Funny, because for the latter there are several high profile greens that advocate for both.

So in light of the backlash that this new approach aimed at reaching a new audience received, the nuclear argument was not an argument they could win. 

So what now for Oreskes?

Did she:

A) Stay true to her dissenting nature and uncover the truth?

B) Stay loyal to her fellow greens by switching this dissenting to another more winable tact?

C) Expose the fat cats from within?

D) Show zero loyalty to those who gave her notoriety, no longer dissent against anyone and maneover herself to become one of the "fat cats" she claimed to hate on her way to fame?

For what I'd wager would be the first time in her life, Naomi gets the D! 

It seems that when what she was selling wasn't en vogue to the masses, ie. more emphasis on man made impact to global warming, this was honourable dissension. 

Now an honourable alarmist fat cat, any dissention from the narrative is not okay. So now sticking it to "the man" is no longer cool? 

Far from delving into the science like a true investigator would, she's happy with her perch on the establishment elite team. How do we know this isn't purely vindication for a life's work? If that were true why then did the very attribute that got her to where she is go by the wayside? 

Was this all just a well acted front to enable her to scale and slither up to a chair at the table of the elites? Poison Ivy anyone?

It might seem that if her goal was to get at the elites table then attacking a team mate contradicts this. After all the fat cats usually look after one another for the sake of their narrative. But Oreskes found in James Hansen a dissenter in her own ranks and suddenly found she didn't like this questioning of the authorities now that she was one. A big ego grown uncontrollably from greener pastures?

But if from what once may have been ill informed albeit well intended roots now stemmed to naivety, why such a change from the persona that moved her to the top? If she is to focus on nuclear and all its faults then in critiquing a fellow green why not point out their flaws?

Flaws evident in such facts as owners of commercial greenhouse gases pumping CO2 into the air to speed up growth in its plants. Evident in inconvenient facts like the amount of vegetation growing on earth has been increasing every year for the past 30 years. 

Surely cutting these beliefs now we know more would be a lot easier than digging deeper and ridding yourself of an admirable trait of dissenter? Surely that trait would've been strengthened by the acquisition of fame because of it?

Oreskes is more calculated than that. She realises that cutting the branches of the tree, she may fall victim to the lumberjack of truth herself one day. Getting through this proverbial vegetation would always take a while and with the nuclear critique being such a niche, makes her all the more embedded in the tree. Keep your peers safe from critique, but not safe from you. 

But before we condemn her as queen of obscene, let's send who we now know as queen of green down the ladder of send the pish back to your bladder, can she move from the cow farter starter to the stuff that actually matters platter? (You'll be glad I'm at the end of these). 

Humility points: she is now a Harvard professor of the history of science, so during her lesson plans she, being honest with herself, must have realised some of her predictions were proven wrong. Nein. 0

Double down deduction: so much did she want to fight her corner that she went in on her own, poor James Hansen. And not only did she do that, I'd give her double points for this crime; the victim olympics of the left usually allow the rest of us to sit back and enjoy the trainwreck. Oh no, she couldn't give us a green version of men competing in womens sports. As a damsel in distress she opened up no forum of discussion or option for James Hansen to redeem himself, while still maintaining his faux CO2 bad science as sound, to shield from her school of thought being encroached on. -40

Glass house stone thrower: as a dissenter she had credibility, to continue to use this reputation as a fat cat, becoming what she once supposedly hated is a prime example of why she is so reprehensible. Did she dissent on the lack of tangible results from the Paris climate accord? No. Minus 10. Did she attempt to do something fruitful with all her power and ask of her peers to better predict and nullify the effects of natural disasters better? No minus another  10. Minus 20 redeeming qualities. 

She actually went in on her own ally as a protective measure and denied us any clown world like entertainment that usually follows from the open borders, baby killing, islam loving, slut walking left. Bitch. 

Couldn't navigate the honest business world so used being a pious greenie in a new guise to get her way to the top. She isn't someone who reached the moon and was tempted by an easy way out, her actions show she had a calculated plan from the get-go.

As stated from the outset, Oreskes is a variant. But not because of the ruse of her apparent dissention, more because on the scale of greens; going from the well meaning but ill informed through to the ego trippers who are riding the fame wave, yet aligning in solidarity with their peers, Naomi sits at the far uglier end of the scale. For she knows the fraud of what she's selling, sees no value in peer solidarity yet peddles the lies and uses them purely for her own gain. 

Watch merchants of doubt not just for its hilarious irony but also how Naomi Oreskes uses these peers to take centre when the big claims are to made...all the while occupying the emotive how can they do this monologues at the beginning and end of the movie.

We have, members of the Minds jury a new green tyranny supreme champion. The ugly inside and out Naomi Oreskes 

#QueenOfGreen #Obscene