Re: [Phys-l] Scientists speaking outside their fields. Was...The Cause of Global Warming...

["Richard Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Mallinckrodt" <ajm@csupomona.edu>
> > 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.
>
> I don't see any obvious contradiction between the statements above
> from Oreskes and Pieser.  Moreover, I note that in Pieser's essay he
> writes, "According to an essay by Naomi Oreskes, published by Science
> in December, 2004, there is unanimous "scientific consensus" on the
> anthropogenic causes of recent global warming."  But Oreskes simply,
> unequivocally said no such thing in her essay.  Finally, the
> statement that, "Oreskes agreed that 'there was indeed a serious
> mistake in the Science essay,'" appears, at best, to have been taken
> out of context.  From what I can tell, she seems to have been
> referring to errors in assembling her data set--errors that wouldn't
> seem likely, as far as I can tell, to bias the set.  Contrary to the
> implication, she does not seem to be referring to errors in her
> analysis of the data set.  (I haven't been able to track down a
> source for her statement.  The references I have found point to a
> page at davidappell.com, a domain that apparently no longer exists.)

How is the
"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".

not contradictory to the

"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."

?????

And what it is about the Pieser work that is possibly willfully dishonest?

David Marx seems to have verified Pieser's work--is he also willfully
dishonest?

It seems pretty clear that there tends to be a bias towards anthropogenic
warming amongst 'climate scientists' that seemingly shows up in their papers
but they don't go so far as to claim confirmation of such from their work.
It would seem that it is 'just accepted' within the group.  This doesn't
make it wrong--just much less convincing.

BTW--just what is a 'climate scientist'?  What is the normal academic path?
How well trained are they in physics and experimental method?

Still seems we are into true believers and heretics rather than hard science
here.  ;-)

Rick

**********************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
***********************************************
FREE Windows & Mac Instructional Software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
Energy 2100 project info:
http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/ENERGY_PROJECT/ENERGY2100.htm
********************************************************




> I appreciate the fact that Oreskes' work has been misrepresented by
> those on the anthropogenic warming side of the fence, including Al
> Gore, but it seems to me that Pieser's work is at least inexcusably
> sloppy and possibly willfully dishonest.  Accordingly it seems to me
> that he is easily dismissed as a credible critic for precisely the
> reasons Daryl states in the last sentence above.
>
> John Mallinckrodt