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]

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



On May 23, 2007, at 5:14 AM, Daryl L Taylor wrote:

Hi, John. To answer your two main points:

Quoting John Mallinckrodt : 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.

I have to disagree loudly, but respectfully. In her Science paper,
Oreskes states as a set-up (para 2):
"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." Then goes on to mention
several groups who say the same thing - NAS, AMS, and the like. Then
she states (end para 8)
"Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of
confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that
impression is incorrect."
And (para 9):
"But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate
change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It
is time for the rest of us to listen."

Her last paragraph clearly shows her statements on anthropogenic
climate change.

All true enough. She says over and over that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic warming. You can debate that point, but I think it's fair to say. Nowhere, however, does she claim that the consensus is "unanimous."

Quoting John Mallinckrodt : 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.

According to Peiser in a letter he wrote to Science
<http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm> :
"34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main
drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years""
Oreskes claimed that number was zero. I'd call that an error. Not an error of
assembling the data, but an error in the data interpretation itself. 34-0?

If it is true that, among the abstracts Oreskes examined, 34 of them "reject or doubt" human activities as a cause, then I'd call that an error too. Indeed, I'd call THAT an inexcusable error. I don't know, however, whether or not that is the case and Peiser doesn't make that clear either. He may not know. It would seem highly unlikely, but it is at least conceivable that those abstracts were entirely among the additions Peiser made to the study.

Now, if it turned out to be true that Oreskes willfully excluded abstracts from her study that rejected or expressed doubt about anthropogenic warming, I'd call that a serious breach of intellectual integrity. I haven't heard any evidence, however, to suggest that that is the case.

In any event, none of the above is relevant to my remark. I was merely pointing out my sense from what I have read that Oreskes was not referring to those kinds of errors when she "agreed that 'there was indeed a serious mistake in the Science essay.'" I may be wrong about that. The references to her remarks that I have found all point to dead links so it's very hard to know.

Further data discrepencies:

"44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change."

"470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change"
but do not
include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or
greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate
change."

I'm not sure I understand why you call these "discrepancies."

Peiser has his methodology and the data sets used posted at his site for all to
view and check for themselves :
<http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm> .

Yes, there has been criticism of Peiser's work also. However, when a scientist
claims there is a data point of 'zero', it had better be zero. When the data
claimed points to 75%, it better not be closer to 40%. I'm an easy grader on my
kid's lab work, but if the answer is 40 and they report 75, even I can't do much
with this almost 90% error.

Peiser's 40% and Oreskes 75% are based on judgments about what counts as "implicit endorsement." I don't doubt that Oreskes was lenient just as I don't doubt that Peiser was not.

After looking at both sides of the Oreskes / Peiser 'debate', I'm inclined to
think that Oreskes didn't really read all 928 papers, but only looked at the
abstracts/conclusions drawn.

Who's 'right'? I certainly don't know, but with so many folks with such huge and
impressive credentials claiming natural causes and with the absence of
convincing data (That just means I'm not convinced...), I'll hang onto my
little bundle of skepticism, too.

I'm not as impressed as you apparently are with the the size, credentials, and intellectual integrity of the antianthropogenic warming crowed, but I do share your skepticism.

John Mallinckrodt

Professor of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona
<http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm>

and

Lead Guitarist, Out-Laws of Physics
<http://outlawsofphysics.com>