Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm
And for giggles:
"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch, 12th October, 2006 |
1... from the critera she used. Not total. Once again interpretation of a source and not a direct source... which he is.
There is him directly stating something... then Mediawatch claiming something else.
Furthermore they said this proved Oresthkis correct when it did not.
You don't seem to be grapsing the issue of the misquote.
They are suggesting he admited he was wrong and that her research data was right.
When infact she ran a poorly run study, which he still maintains, and the poorly run study still did show issues with her work.
|
If you're saying Media Watch LIED about his backing down from "a few" to "one", I'm going to need you to produce more evidence than say-so.
Short of that, his claim of stuff within the scope of her study that is not consistent with her claim has been reduced from 34 to one (the non-peer-reviewed AAPG thing). Which seems to me to contradict your position "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 since a few were not peer reviewed.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."
I'm sure Oreskes' "study" is probably given more merit than it should have, but in and of itself it is not even remotely as incorrect as Peiser had claimed, and he has admitted this.
|
The proof is in the article you posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf
You can see the source Mediawatch used and how they misquoted him.
Also... for giggles. The whole quote from what mediawatch cherry picked.
I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.
Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (For the latest developments, see http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i-detect-first-tiny-rumblings-of.html)
Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.
