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] |
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?