Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Peiser admits he was 97% wrong

Expand Messages
  • bobmagi@att.net
    Peiser admits he was 97% wrong Category: Bolt • Global Warming Posted on: October 30, 2006 12:57 PM, by Tim Lambert In 2004, Naomi Oreskes looked at a sample
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 1, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      Peiser admits he was 97% wrong

      Category: BoltGlobal Warming
      Posted on: October 30, 2006 12:57 PM, by Tim Lambert

      In 2004, Naomi Oreskes looked at a sample of 928 papers in refereed scientific journals and found that not one disagreed with the scientific consensus: that humans are responsible for most of the warming in the last few decades. Benny Peiser disputed this, claiming that 34 of them rejected or doubted the consensus. I asked him for his list of 34 and posted it. It was obvious that there was only paper in his list that rejected the consensus and not only was that paper not peer-reviewed it was from the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists).

      Despite this, Peiser insisted that he was correct

      I was aware that some of the abstracts would be interpreted in different ways. That's why I made this point in my Science letter: "Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it is highly improbable that all 34 are ambiguous". Even if others reject the definition of scepticism I used in my analysis, there can be no doubt that Oreskes is wrong on one of her key claims: "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position". It is quite obvious that a number of ISI abstracts disagree with the "consensus" view, while others show weak or strong forms of scepticism.

      It took year before Peiser admitted that he was wrong about some of them:

      I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay.

      Now he has admitted to Media Watch that the only one that belonged on his list was the AAPG one:

      So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?

      How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?

      Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...

      "Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique." -- Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch

      And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one.

      (Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)

      Media Watch was prompted by Andrew Bolt's column that got 0 out of 10 for accuracy and prompted one of the scientists he cited to call his piece "abuse of science".

      If you thought that Bolt would be embarrassed by relying on a study that even the author now admits was wrong, well you don't know Bolt. To Bolt, being 97% wrong is an "irrelevant quibble" and anyway

      Whatever nuance you may now have uncovered to criticise this list, the basic fact remains as this reveals: When Gore suggests there is absolutely no scientific debate on man-made global warming he is not telling the truth. Ask, say, Professor Sallie Baliunas, on this point. Or Professors Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Bob Carter and on and on. Consult the Oregon Petition, the House of Lords select committee on economic affairs' report and more. Got it?

      This isn't so much refuting Gore as proving his point: that while their is a debate about the consensus in the media, there isn't one in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The people he lists aren't disputing the science in scientific journals but in opinion pieces in newspapers. Except for Patrick Michaels in this paper where they got degrees and radians mixed up.

       

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/peiser_admits_he_was_97_wrong.php#more

    • Eduardo Ferreyra
      So science is about the numbers of votes on a subject. Then Wegener s theory of tectonic plates is wrong because the consensus in his time said he was wrong.
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 1, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        So science is about the numbers of votes on a subject. Then Wegener's theory of tectonic plates is wrong because the consensus in his time said he was wrong.
         
        But consensus change as new evidence arise, and new evidence is arising that solar acrivity is the primary factor governing climate. The sun is who heats the Earth, not CO2. And at the bottom of the issue is that "sceptic" papers are being rejected by "fashion" peer reviewd papers (Science, Nature et al) because they are not politically correct. An extremely corrupt practice. Even so, there are enough papers in respectable peer reviewed journals (not as chic as Science and Nature) that contradict what Oreskes said. Oreskes is not science, she made a wrong query (there are more than 11.000 papers on the subject of climate change) and she cherry picked just about 928.
         
        And no matter how much Tim Lambert wants to rant about, peer reviewd papers are simply opinions of researchers, not evidence. Please tell Tim Lambert to provide the numbre of "replicated" papers on climatologoy that "PROVES" global warming is caused by CO2. We all know that the AGW hypothesis rely on computer models, and there is not just ONE that can give a reliable view of the future world climate. Results of computer models have been already cut down two thrids from their previous reulst and they still are giving wrong present climate when run in reverse. taht's a fact that does not need a democratic voting. Science is not democractic. It is ruled by a tyranny of facts.
         
        Tomorrow there is forecasted a minimum of -2ºC at Comodoro Rivadavia, in Patagonia, on Novemeber 2nd, when there should be around +9º C. In Bariloche temperature went down to -4ºC. We haven't yet put our wool blankets and pullovers away with mothballs. And it looks as we won't do it for the whole summer.
         
        Bob, you, Oreskes and Tim Lambert suck. The sky is not falling -we are cooling!!!. Please, step down from your warming hysteria.
         
        Eduardo
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:54 AM
        Subject: [climatechangedebate] Peiser admits he was 97% wrong

        Peiser admits he was 97% wrong

        Category: BoltGlobal Warming
        Posted on: October 30, 2006 12:57 PM, by Tim Lambert

        In 2004, Naomi Oreskes looked at a sample of 928 papers in refereed scientific journals and found that not one disagreed with the scientific consensus: that humans are responsible for most of the warming in the last few decades. Benny Peiser disputed this, claiming that 34 of them rejected or doubted the consensus. I asked him for his list of 34 and posted it. It was obvious that there was only paper in his list that rejected the consensus and not only was that paper not peer-reviewed it was from the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists).

        Despite this, Peiser insisted that he was correct

        I was aware that some of the abstracts would be interpreted in different ways. That's why I made this point in my Science letter: "Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it is highly improbable that all 34 are ambiguous". Even if others reject the definition of scepticism I used in my analysis, there can be no doubt that Oreskes is wrong on one of her key claims: "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position". It is quite obvious that a number of ISI abstracts disagree with the "consensus" view, while others show weak or strong forms of scepticism.

        It took year before Peiser admitted that he was wrong about some of them:

        I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay.

        Now he has admitted to Media Watch that the only one that belonged on his list was the AAPG one:

        So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?

        How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?

        Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...

        "Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique." -- Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch

        And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one.

        (Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)

        Media Watch was prompted by Andrew Bolt's column that got 0 out of 10 for accuracy and prompted one of the scientists he cited to call his piece "abuse of science".

        If you thought that Bolt would be embarrassed by relying on a study that even the author now admits was wrong, well you don't know Bolt. To Bolt, being 97% wrong is an "irrelevant quibble" and anyway

        Whatever nuance you may now have uncovered to criticise this list, the basic fact remains as this reveals: When Gore suggests there is absolutely no scientific debate on man-made global warming he is not telling the truth. Ask, say, Professor Sallie Baliunas, on this point. Or Professors Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Bob Carter and on and on. Consult the Oregon Petition, the House of Lords select committee on economic affairs' report and more. Got it?

        This isn't so much refuting Gore as proving his point: that while their is a debate about the consensus in the media, there isn't one in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The people he lists aren't disputing the science in scientific journals but in opinion pieces in newspapers. Except for Patrick Michaels in this paper where they got degrees and radians mixed up.

         

        http://scienceblogs .com/deltoid/ 2006/10/peiser_ admits_he_ was_97_wrong. php#more

      • Dan
        This sure does sound like Tim Lambert. That computer programmer who is the guru of mis-information. I ve seen his stuff before. Bob keeps showing it. Let s
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 4, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          This sure does sound like Tim Lambert. That computer programmer who
          is the guru of mis-information. I've seen his stuff before. Bob keeps
          showing it.

          Let's see. Do I trust Peiser who admits there are people on both
          sides of the issue. And even gives us the information.

          Or do I trust that research giant Lambert and, of course, Oreskes who
          finds people who don't either agreement or disagreement as magically
          in agreement.

          I'm gonna go with Peiser.



          --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:
          >
          > Peiser admits he was 97% wrong
          > Category: Bolt • Global Warming
          > Posted on: October 30, 2006 12:57 PM, by Tim Lambert
          > In 2004, Naomi Oreskes looked at a sample of 928 papers in refereed
          scientific journals and found that not one disagreed with the
          scientific consensus: that humans are responsible for most of the
          warming in the last few decades. Benny Peiser disputed this, claiming
          that 34 of them rejected or doubted the consensus. I asked him for
          his list of 34 and posted it. It was obvious that there was only
          paper in his list that rejected the consensus and not only was that
          paper not peer-reviewed it was from the AAPG (American Association of
          Petroleum Geologists).
          > Despite this, Peiser insisted that he was correct
          > I was aware that some of the abstracts would be interpreted in
          different ways. That's why I made this point in my Science
          letter: "Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it
          is highly improbable that all 34 are ambiguous". Even if others
          reject the definition of scepticism I used in my analysis, there can
          be no doubt that Oreskes is wrong on one of her key
          claims: "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus
          position". It is quite obvious that a number of ISI abstracts
          disagree with the "consensus" view, while others show weak or strong
          forms of scepticism.
          > It took year before Peiser admitted that he was wrong about some of
          them:
          > I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you
          mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of
          the Oreskes essay.
          > Now he has admitted to Media Watch that the only one that belonged
          on his list was the AAPG one:
          > So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?
          > How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-
          made global warming?
          > Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...
          > "Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW
          (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly
          withdrawn this point of my critique." -- Email from Benny Peiser to
          Media Watch
          > And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he
          eventually conceded - there was only one.
          > (Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by
          Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)
          > Media Watch was prompted by Andrew Bolt's column that got 0 out of
          10 for accuracy and prompted one of the scientists he cited to call
          his piece "abuse of science".
          > If you thought that Bolt would be embarrassed by relying on a study
          that even the author now admits was wrong, well you don't know Bolt.
          To Bolt, being 97% wrong is an "irrelevant quibble" and anyway
          > Whatever nuance you may now have uncovered to criticise this list,
          the basic fact remains as this reveals: When Gore suggests there is
          absolutely no scientific debate on man-made global warming he is not
          telling the truth. Ask, say, Professor Sallie Baliunas, on this
          point. Or Professors Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Bob
          Carter and on and on. Consult the Oregon Petition, the House of Lords
          select committee on economic affairs' report and more. Got it?
          > This isn't so much refuting Gore as proving his point: that while
          their is a debate about the consensus in the media, there isn't one
          in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The people he lists
          aren't disputing the science in scientific journals but in opinion
          pieces in newspapers. Except for Patrick Michaels in this paper where
          they got degrees and radians mixed up.
          >
          >
          http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/peiser_admits_he_was_97_wrong.
          php#more
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.