Sunday, 12 of February of 2012
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
According to an aricle entitled Don’t Believe the Hype by by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, a review of the abstracts cited by Naomi Oreskes revealed that only 13 out of 928 articles which actually had abstracts endorsed the so called concensus view of global warming.
Date: July 6, 2006
Categories: general
(387 votes, average: 2.91 out of 5)
Loading ...
I’m a bit skeptical of what you write, “billev.”
1. You don’t provide a citation, which is what people do when they don’t want to be checked. Here’s a link to the Lindzen article.
2. You don’t provide a citation to the original piece of research. Here’s a link to the Oreskes article.
3. Lindzen is either unfamiliar enough in his reading or uncareful enough in his writing to screw up the name of the author of the original piece of research. Her first name is Naomi, not Nancy.
4. Lindzen characterizes Oreskes’ article thusly:
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view.
But Oreskes’ actual text claims no such thing. She explicitly states that 25% of the abstracts take no position on climate change.
Either Lindzen hasn’t actually read Oreskes’ original one-page piece before inaccurately blasting it, or he has read it but without the care necessary to understand such a simple, basic piece of information. Neither possibility is reassuring.
5. You don’t mean “endorsed,” or at least you don’t if you actually read Lindzen’s article rather than simply passing on corporate spin. You mean “explicitly endorsed,” as in an abstract that says the explicit words, “we endorse the consensus model on anthropogenic climate change,” which is a rather high standard to meet for an academic abstract (which typically has very few words in it). Lindzen’s article, which you don’t cite but I do, reads:
only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view.
But Oreskes’ piece doesn’t ever claim that all abstracts, or even all of the subset of abstracts that take a position, “explicitly endorsed” the consensus view. Her article, which I doubt you ever read before you posted your diary, reads:
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view.
Did you know this and spread the inaccurate smear, or did you just pass on bullshit without checking it, “billev”?
6. Peiser has in the meantime repudiated his critique of Oreskes’ work, admitting after a colleague checked his work that:
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.
If Lindzen can’t find these problems with Peiser’s critique of Oreskes, he is incompetent. If he won’t mention them, he has an integrity problem. And if you are just passing on corporate spin without thinking about either Lindzen or Peiser thoroughly, then you’re in on the game too.
Brilliant critique, Jim.
This article is a load of industry-funded bunk!
Start watching for headlines that are more optimistic, such as these:
GLOBAL WARMING REVERSED!
DIASTER AVERTED… EARTH SAVED!
MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGES… PERMANENTLY NULLIFIED!
Albert Einstein provided the perfect scientific answer to Global Warming in 1905 with his paradigm, mass-to-energy equation, which is the key to unlocking all of the clean, cheap, environmentally friendly energy the inhabitants of Earth will ever need, without any pollution or waste stream, and with no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse emissions.
Even the super-powerful Energy Cartel will be unable to prevent millions of individuals around the World from freely switching to this abundant and everlasting Einsteinian cornucopia of “home-made energy,” which will automatically reestablish Mother Nature as the exclusive controller of climate change.
http://slow-motion-Thermonuclear.blogspot.com/2006/06/invention-for-sale-slow-motion.html
You’re kidding! Global warming has been reversed?! Wow! Happy Day! Break out the keg!
And nevermind the record heatwave that’s sweeping America and most of the world.
~ Damen
Record breaking heat wave indeed. 2006 is, so far, the hottest year on record in the United States.
Global Warming has not been reversed, that’s a bunch of crap.
Recent Comments