Re: [Phys-l] Scientists speaking outsidetheirfields.Was...

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

On May 24, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Daryl L Taylor wrote:

> Yes, Peiser has his detractors also. However, since everyone seems  
> to attack him for trying to duplicate a 'scientific' study, why is  
> Oreskes off scott free?

I don't see how one can say that Oreskes has escaped criticism.  I do  
agree that it would have been nice if she had been more forthcoming  
about her materials and methods, but Peiser has, in effect, done that  
work for her.

And I don't think it's fair to say that Peiser has been attacked for  
trying to duplicate a scientific study (or even a 'scientific study'  
for that matter!)  It seems to me that most of the criticism has been  
based on the fact that his work is, at best, astonishingly sloppy.   
He includes in his somewhat larger sample of abstracts everything  
that Oreskes did plus a collection of non peer reviewed and opinion  
pieces.  All of the 34 abstracts he identified as challenging the  
consensus view come from that additional pool.  Moreover, almost none  
of them challenge the consensus by any rational reading.  The only  
one that unambiguously does is a report written by the American  
Association of Petroleum Geologists that was not peer-reviewed and is  
seven years old.  Indeed, it's hard to understand how he could  
possibly have made such a large number of completely obvious mistakes.

Even Peiser is now on record saying, "the overwhelming majority of  
climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly  
due to human impact," which is all that Oreskes was saying.

> ... By the way, I love your work in Out-Laws, John.

Thanks, Daryl.  It does a pretty good job of keeping me off the  
streets (but obviously not good enough!)

John Mallinckrodt

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

and

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