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
In 2004, Naomi Oreskes looked at a sample of 928
papers in
refereed scientific journals and found that not one disagreed with the
scientific consensus: that humans are responsible for most of the
warming in the last few decades. Benny Peiser disputed this, claiming that 34 of them rejected or…
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…
In comments to my post at On Line Opinion Graham Young declares that it is his "dispassionate assessment" as the editor of On Line Opinion that I am "deeply dishonest" for stating that Peiser admitted his analysis was full of errors. Here are the relevant bits of the exchange (links added), with…
We last encountered anti-Kyoto activist John Humphreys in this post when I tried to get him to correct a post that incorrectly claimed that satellites showed a cooling temperature trend and he responded by repeatedly accusing me of lying. Now he's back with three more zombie arguments:
Peiser…
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?