By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 05 April 2009
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Just for kicks, I looked into the Wikipedia thing. Seems that the guy was treated badly by the editor, but on the other hand Peiser HAS retracted all his findings except one, a non-peer-reviewed one I might add.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naomi_Oreskes

That's not at all what that says at all.  It says he's retracted some.  Not all but 1... but some... since a few were not peer reviewed.  Not close to all but 1 though.

Did you read the entire link you posted?

Because it states Solomon is correct... and that Peiser was being misrepresented by Wikipedia.

If you'll notice as well it shows that the vast majority of articles Oreskes used in her study weren't even about anthrpogenic global warming!

The link you posted even seems to sugest that Oreskes was flawed in her research methods.

"Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm"

I frankly don't care enough to do research to try to defend Oreskes.  But: 

"The substance of Peiser's criticism of Oreskes was that 34 of her articles doubted the consensus, not zero as she wrote. Peiser told Media Watch that he had revised the number down to just one and withdrawn that part of the criticism."

That is what I was referring to.  Is it inaccurate? 


Yes. That is innacurate.  That was an misinterpretation of the source.