A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

Update on Peiser

An update pertaining to my article on Benny Peiser's analysis of climate science. He had claimed he found 34 abstracts in the scientific mainstream that did not accept the consensus position that humans are causing rapid climate changes.

He is a frequent commenter on a science policy blog run by Roger Pielke Jr., Prometheus, that I sometimes try to keep up with. I challenged him directly about one particular abstract in the comments section of one post a couple of weeks ago and he made the following admission:

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. It certainly deflected attention from my main criticism, i.e. that her claim of a unanimous consensus on AGW (as opposed to a majority consensus) is tenuous.

I suppose this is to his credit, but I would think he is obligated to go to a little more effort in correcting the false impression his "finding" created (at least among those already inclined this way). Also, despite the disintegration of this evidence, he still holds the same conclusion. There are certainly many other problems, see my article cited above, as well as the other "rather ambiguous" abstracts.

I wonder how many times this discredited (and now disavowed) bit of shoddy research will continue to be cited?



  • At March 30, 2006 5:19 PM, Blogger Dano said…

    I have a new, more appropriate approach for ol' Benny [at March 30, 2006 04:51 PM].



  • At March 30, 2006 6:25 PM, Blogger coby said…

    LOL! That is a good metric...

  • At April 02, 2006 12:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    As with what you've done with Peiser, I've been trying to do with CO2science. I've just spent all day collecting together references and made a post where Idso and co2science was being cited to deny AGW. Here is my post:


    It would be good if you could have a blog entry dealing with CO2science.

  • At April 02, 2006 1:45 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi anonymous (wagdog from peakoil),

    I am planning a category for the septic sources on the web and elsewhere, it is alot of work but it is important. Do you mind if I use some of your material? I have not decided how much to actually write versus simply quote and/or link to other good dissections of the FUD.

  • At April 02, 2006 2:34 PM, Blogger Wag the Dog said…

    Do you mind if I use some of your material?

    Most of it I got using the same sources that you use, anyway. So sure you can. I've paraphrased a few of the comments and entries from realclimate.org without actually linking to them, (favoring instead direct links to the cited publication) so you might what to add those.


Post a Comment

<< Home