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

[Daryl L Taylor <Daryl@DarylScience.com>]

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.

> 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?

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."

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.

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.

Daryl L Taylor

This email prepared and transmitted using 100% recycled electrons.


Quoting John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>:

> 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.)
>
> 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
>
> Professor of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona
> <http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm>
>
> and
>
> Lead Guitarist, Out-Laws of Physics
> <http://outlawsofphysics.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l