For those old enough to remember the Oreskes-Peiser controversy, Deltoid makes interesting reading.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In a comment to my previous post on Benny Peiser's claim that Naomi Oreskes article on the scientific consensus was wrong, Meyrick made a good case that Peiser had conducted a different search than Oreskes:
Think I've finally worked out how to replicate Oreskes' search. There are 2 fundemental…
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…
Schulte has published a reply to Oreskes' response. While Schulte claims not to be a contrarian, Kevin Grandia has been looking at his links with Christopher Monckton. Meanwhile, John Lynch posts on Shulte's reply and commenter "Chris" (who is, I suspect, Christopher Monckton) threatens lawsuits…
In Andrew Bolt's latest column he sort of admits that Peiser was wrong, but still misleads his readers.
As Attard reported, I'd cited research by British academic Benny Peiser, who claimed to have disproved a survey that concluded none of a sample of scientific papers doubted the theory of man-made…
What's more it only took him about a year and a half to admit it.
Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be publicizing is mistake as enthusiastically as his original critique. I guess we can't have everything!