My Photo

February 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29          



Thought Leaders

Blog powered by Typepad
Bookmark and Share

« RFID Chips for USA Immigrants & Guest workers? | Main | Scientists Publish First Human Microbiome Analysis or Metagenomics Analysis »

June 04, 2006



Regarding Benny Peiser and his "study" you may be interested in this:

So to summarize, Dr Peiser has made 4 errors in his research:

1. Dr Peiser failed to replicate Dr Oreskes search properly. Dr Oreskes used (as far as I can tell) the following criteria:

TS=”global climate change” ;DocType=Article; Language=All languages;Database(s)=SCI-EXPANDED; Timespan=1993-2003

Dr Pieser used the following criteria:

TS=”global climate change”; DocType=All document types; Language=All languages; Database(s)=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A Timespan=1993-2003

2. Dr Peiser compounded the previous error by assuming that Dr Oreskes got her figures wrong - rather than contacting Dr Oreskes to obtain her search criteria.

3. Of the 34 abstracts identified by Dr Peiser that reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of the observed warming over the last 50 years”, 12 are not in Dr Oreskes sample.

Of the remain 22 articles, 21 do not fit that description (one argues that natural factors have been underestimated still does not reject or doubt that human activities are the main factor). In other words Dr Peiser has misinterpreted the abstracts of 21 articles.

4. Only one fits Dr Peiser's category, but it does not fit Oreskes' criteria of being a piece of published peer-reviewed research, but is instead a statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Dr Oreskes removed this from her sample partly because the statements by the AMS, AOG, & AAAS are not in her sample either.

Read the entire thread.

And this, too:

Peiser admits to making a mistake

Category: Global Warming
Posted on: March 22, 2006 10:45 AM, by Tim Lambert

Last year Benny Peiser claimed that on a literature search he found 34 papers "reject or doubt" anthropgenic global warming. I posted the abstracts and it's very obvious that he misclassified most of the papers. Peiser left several comments on that post, but could not bring himself to admit that he had made mistakes. Now Sylvia S Tognetti has spotted that Peiser has finally admitted to making mistakes:

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.

Better late than never, I guess.

In short: no, Peiser did not refute Oreskes. He tried but he failed.
Peiser has denied that anthroponegic climate change is a problem for a long time. Not based on science but based on his
views that mandatory CO2 reduction would lead to all kind of bad economic news. Talk about paranoia.

He saw Oreskes' study as a threat to the widespread acceptance of his views. Therefore he wanted to discredit it.
As usually it happens when someone already has an agenda and tries to create "evidence" to back it up, Peiser simply made things up.

Science had a good reason not to publish his fantasies. It's after all a serious paper.

The comments to this entry are closed.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

TypePad Help