Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
This thread began with a link to a chat by Naomi Oreskes. I need to
bring up the
point that she published a paper in Science 03 Dec 2004, in which she
claimed to
have reviewed all 928 papers written on climate change from 1993-2003
and found
that 75% conclude explicitly or implicitly that we are causing global warming
and the other "25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change". Paper is at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Unfortunately for Naomi, Benny Pieser of Moores U in UK, yes a skeptic and an
anthropologist to boot, re-ran her data and found glaring errors.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm
His findings after reviewing the same 928 papers and 200 more he found
were that
only 13 papers (<2%) explicitly agreed with anthropogenic causes. When
taken to
task, Oreskes agreed that "there was indeed a serious mistake in the Science
essay."
Take it for what it's worth, but I find little faith in anyone, regardless of
their credentials, passing off information that just isn't so.
Daryl L Taylor, Fizzix Guy
Greenwich HS, CT
PAEMST '96
International Internet Educator of the Year '03
NASA Astrophysics Educator Ambassador
www.DarylScience.com
This email prepared and transmitted using 100% recycled electrons.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM