I would just want to observe here that Naomi Oreskes has a superb academic background that well prepares her as an expert in her field of Science History. Although she is unquestionably a skilled communicator in the area of science in general, her background is not nearly so well suited to the study and understanding of the global climate as is Professor Curry's. Where the two have differing opinions on the matter of Global Warming, we should defer to professor Curry as the one whose expertise as a climatologist is widely accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes
There must be political scientists who study these matters and can tell us how important in winning national elections mere name recognition is compared to substantive issues . I am guessing that the single most important factor in most elections, ones where there is no overriding, single, substantive issue that captures nearly everyone's interest, is name recognition. Most assuredly, global climate change is NOT such an issue. If my guess is right, then in an election such as the current one, the goal of every candidate should be to dominate all media. If it takes being outrageous to achieve this, so be it. The Donald seems to have bought fully into my hypothesis and decided that even bad press is better than no press. His campaign slogans are carbon copies of Reagan's, but Reagan was infinitely more skilled at insults. The Donald's rhetorical comebacks seem better compared to those of a professional wrestling promoter. They are working nevertheless. He is constantly mentioned in the media; that may be all that matters. What he says may be of no importance. In any case, let's hope not. Otherwise, should he be elected, 'fasten you seat belts', we're in for a rough 4 years.
Q http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/gop-soul-searching-too-old-too-white-too-male-083472 Republicans face a crisis: The country is growing less white, and their coalition has become more white in recent years. In 2004, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics. “The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who will immediately be looked to as a potential 2016 presidential candidate. UQ
I just want to observe that although Oreskes is an excellent scholar and shows that there is somewhere around a 97% consensus among climate scientists, we should pay attention to Judith Curry - "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry." - who is jumping around yelling "but..but" .
Q Her core discovery, made with a co-author, Erik M. Conway, was twofold. They reported that dubious tactics had been used over decades to cast doubt on scientific findings relating to subjects like acid rain, the ozone shield, tobacco smoke and climate change. And most surprisingly, in each case, the tactics were employed by the same group of people. The central players were serious scientists who had major career triumphs during the Cold War, but in subsequent years apparently came to equate environmentalism with socialism, and government regulation with tyranny. In a 2010 book, Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway called these men “Merchants of Doubt,” and this spring the book became adocumentary film, by Robert Kenner. At the heart of both works is a description of methods that were honed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s and have since been employed to cast doubt on just about any science being cited to support new government regulations. UQ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/science/naomi-oreskes-a-lightning-rod-in-a-changing-climate.html
This assertion from the climate cabal that Judith Curry takes money from oil companies has been completely debunked.