In 2004, Naomi Oreskes looked at a sample of 928
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 doubted the consensus. I asked him for his list of 34 and posted it. It was obvious that there was only paper in his list that rejected the consensus and not only was that paper not peer-reviewed it was from the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists).
Despite this, Peiser insisted that he was correct
I was aware that some of the abstracts would be interpreted in
different ways. That’s why I made this point in my Science letter:
“Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it is highly
improbable that all 34 are ambiguous”. Even if others reject the
definition of scepticism I used in my analysis, there can be no doubt
that Oreskes is wrong on one of her key claims: “Remarkably, none of
the papers disagreed with the consensus position”. It is quite obvious
that a number of ISI abstracts disagree with the “consensus” view,
while others show weak or strong forms of scepticism.
It took year before Peiser admitted that he was wrong about some of them:
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.
Now he has admitted to Media Watch that the only one that belonged on his list was the AAPG one:
So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?
How many really “reject or doubt” the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?
Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us…
“Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.” — Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded – there was only one.
(Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)
Whatever nuance you may now have uncovered to criticise this list, the basic fact remains as this reveals: When Gore suggests there is absolutely no scientific debate on man-made global warming he is not telling the truth. Ask, say, Professor Sallie Baliunas, on this point. Or Professors Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Bob Carter and on and on. Consult the Oregon Petition, the House of Lords select committee on economic affairs’ report and more. Got it?
This isn’t so much refuting Gore as proving his point: that while their is a debate about the consensus in the media, there isn’t one in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The people he lists aren’t disputing the science in scientific journals but in opinion pieces in newspapers. Except for Patrick Michaels in this paper where they got degrees and radians mixed up.