I also watched all (at least most) of the presentation and found it
interesting and well-presented. Naomi Oreskes seemed well-informed on
the issues and passionate about the topic.
There were, however, two problems I noted (and I'm sure there might be
more). Here, she seemed to suffer from the issue Michael addressed -
scientists talking outside their area of expertise.
First was a discussion of spring coming earlier than a century ago.
(See minute 58 of the presentation.) She stated this could be caused by
greenhouse gases, but not by the sun getting brighter. The implication
was that the astronomical definition of spring doesn't change, so
astronomical changes (like the sun putting out more energy) couldn't
change the beginning of spring.
Here I think she was flat-out wrong. Either greenhouse gases OR more
total energy from the sun would add energy in a similar way. Either one
could cause spring to be warmer, causing flowers to bloom earlier, etc.
Another problem in the talk was political - not scientific. She blamed
the "Bush Administration" for ending the hurricane season when there
were still hurricanes occurring. The dates of the hurricane season have
been set for a long time. George Bush wasn't trying to sweep a
politically problematic issue under the rug by prematurely decreeing an
end to the hurricane season.
Both of these are problematic when scientists are trying to address the
general public or politicians. Any one small error will be pointed to
by opponents. "See! She doesn't understand basic science of spring!"
"See! She has a political agenda because she is blaming Bush for things
that aren't his fault." "See! These pictures of arctic ice are
photoshopped, not 'real' data!" (From our own discussions - not from
Oreskes).
Science is held to a higher standard. Even if you are correct 99% of
the time, that 1% will destroy your message and your credibility. The
Rush Limbaugh's (or Al Gore's, for that matter) of the world will warp
and magnify the problems, and ignore the 99% that is correct.