Last year Benny Peiser claimed that on a literature search he found 34 papers "reject or doubt" anthropgenic global warming. I posted the abstracts and it's very obvious that he misclassified most of the papers. Peiser left several comments on that post, but could not bring himself to admit that he had made mistakes. Now Sylvia S Tognetti has spotted that Peiser has finally admitted to making mistakes:
I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay.
Better late than never, I guess.
More like this
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Sure, Oreskes found no one bucking the consensus, but her paper was overturned by Benny Peiser who did the exact same study and found very…
Sadly, a large percentage of Americans are under the impression that climate scientists do not agree on the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). A lot of people are simply wrong about this. They think that there is a great deal of controversy among the scientists who study the Earth's…
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
All those institutional position statements are fine, but by their very nature they hide the debate and the variety of individual positions.…
Back to the septic tripe I fear (thanks Fergus). From dailytech.com, whatever that is, we have someone "updating Oreskes". And the work has been submitted to... yes you guessed it, E+E. Bit of a hint there re quality. Does this come under be careful what you wish for?
Oreskes said The 928 papers…
Yes, I read that with interest as it was in response to a direct question of mine. I didn't know it was a first, but wondered if I had just been unaware of previous retractions. I thought I had made a follow up comment thanking him for the admission but asking if he shouldn't make that a more full and public retraction, but apparently not. The thread is long and under this article:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_ge…
That's a pretty weak retraction, more along the lines of, "Well, yes, I got all the facts wrong but my point is still the same".
I notice that Peiser has still not retracted his statement that Oreskes got her numbers wrong, which she didn't ... he failed to replicate her study properly!
Secondly he's still pushing the following idea:
This is of course utter bullshit ... Oreskes made no such claim. She did claim that there was a unanimous consensus in her sample of 928 papers, but she did not, nor would she be able to, draw an inference to the population that said there is a unanimous consensus in the population.
Well spotted Tim. I note that Murdoch attack dogs like Andrew Bolt have gleefully milked Benny Peiser's study.
The only thing we learn from anthropologists is .... um .... it's not what you dig up, it's where you throw the mud?