By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - I'm watching Al Gores 'An inconvenient truth'

Final-Fan on 05 April 2009

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



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 05 April 2009
Final-Fan said:

I see. In the future, could you please not make allegations you know are false?

 

In the future, can you not equate "one of the richest men in the world" to "monopoly"?

I stand by what I said. If Cap and Trade passed (and it didn't), Al Gore would be in position to be one of the richest men in the world.



Kasz216 on 05 April 2009
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 since a few were not peer reviewed.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"

 



Final-Fan on 05 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Final-Fan said:
I see. In the future, could you please not make allegations you know are false?
In the future, can you not equate "one of the richest men in the world" to "monopoly"?

I stand by what I said. If Cap and Trade passed (and it didn't), Al Gore would be in position to be one of the richest men in the world

"If the federal government made every company who exported gas (that's just about every company), pay his company (or one of a dozen like his), to tell them how many carbon credits they needed to buy, and then made them buy the credits from Gore's company, he could be the next Bill Gates."

"He will not create a Monopoly"

You appear to have mentioned that as a possibility and subsequently stated that you knew it was not going to happen.  So ... yeah.  Maybe I shouldn't have said "allegations", but perhaps "fearmongering". 

 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan on 05 April 2009
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? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 05 April 2009
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.



Final-Fan on 05 April 2009

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



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan on 05 April 2009

You mean the source misinterpreted? Because the source is pretty explicit.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 05 April 2009
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

Read the source in the link you just posted.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

 



Final-Fan on 05 April 2009
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 [edit: to] "a few" [edit: and then] 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. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!