Oreskes vs Peiser

The IPPC stated in their Summary for Policy makers that that there was a "consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities " .

Naomi Oreskes in "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (Science Science, 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686) explains how the commision arrived at that conclusion:

source: Naomi Oreskes The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change in Science

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Al Gore quotes those 928 papers and that "0" disagree with the consensus poition in his movie An Invonvenient Truth see inconvenient truth.

Benny J Peiser of John Moores University wrote a letter to Science on January 4th 2005 purporting to debunk that claim. That letter was rejected for publication, however, apparently we have the text of the letter here and updated here with hyperlinks to the actual abstracts.

Since then much contraversy has ensued ... here is our current and changing reading list:

A correction published in Jan 14 issue of science (need to find this) ... it is probably here. Will someone with access please provide us with the text of the correction ... please .
May 2005 Robert Matthews
May 2005, The used by Peisner (which claims 34 articles s/b reject or doubt)
including extensive comments,some from Peiser himself
...
Peter Norvig's, AI Scientist of Google, The Global Climate Change Consensus: My Experiment
March 2006 Coby Beck: What About Peiser?
June 2006 Deltoid
July 2006 Lindzen quoting Peiser

Now, me thinks, it is time for careful reading.

This is a fact finding node. All comments which do not contribute to a rational inquiry will be deleted.

Comments

Seth says

source: my inquiry on Coby Beck's blog
I'm trying to get to the bottom of this and have created a reading list Oreskes vs Peiser. Your article has been instrumental in building that list, thank you. There is, however, one article that i cannot access ... the correction in science to Oreskes findings (see my page above). Do you have access to that article? Is there some way that we can find and publish what the correction was? Thanks again for your help in this matter.

Mark de LA says
I've looked for the bit you want in the January 2006 issues of Science (searched all of 2006 actually), and don't find anything.

Seth says

Mark 2006-10-07 22:28:43 3848

I've looked for the bit you want in the January 2006 issues of Science (searched all of 2006 actually), and don't find anything.

It would have been in the January 2005 issue, not 2006 as you state above. I got that date from the following letter that (Peiser?) has published.

source:published here empasis mine
From: Etta Kavanagh [mailto:ekavanag@aaas.org]
Sent: 18 February 2005 18:17
To: Peiser, Benny
Subject: Your Letter to the Editor of SCIENCE

Dear Dr. Peiser,

A couple of weeks ago, you submitted a Letter to the Editor on Naomi
Oreskes' Essay "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. In its
current form, it is too long for a Letter, but we would consider a
shorter version if you are willing to edit it. It should be 500 words or
less, not counting the references. A correction dealing with the mistake
in the search terms ("global climate change" vs. "climate change") was
published in our Jan. 14 issue.

Best regards,

Etta Kavanagh
Associate Letters Editor
SCIENCE
ekavanag@aaas.org

Department e-mail: science_letters@aaas.org

... Note that the (email?) was apparently sent in 18 February 2005 18:17, hense it could not have been in the 2006 edition. Sorry, my hyperlink above may have been a misdirection.

Oreskes vs Peiser

Tags

Comments

See Also