Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Misc-370073.16491930032008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <k5VHj.5949$bC6.843@trnddc08>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Tom S the climatologist. The man who wouldn't know a scientific peer
review
from a porno magazine.

Like Paul knows his ass from a hole in the ground (not that there's much
difference there).
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963


Maybe Paul can explain why the "peer review" that stated overwhelming
support for AGW was found to be bogus?

"Gore says:

?There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed
article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big
sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that
disagreed with the scientific consensus that we?re causing global warming
and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero.?

Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows better. The study that
he is referring to was conducted by social scientist Dr. Naomi Oreske.
Another social scientist, Dr. Benny Peiser of the UK, attempted to verify
Oreske?s study. The following is his summary:

?I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results. All
abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same
keywords (?global climate change?) were assessed. The results of my analysis
contradict Oreskes? findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117
abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the ?consensus view?. However, 34
abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main
driving force of ?the observed warming over the last 50 years?.

Oreskes claims that ?none of these papers argued [that current climate
change is natural]?. However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors play
a major if not the key role in recent climate change.

The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes? results concern abstracts
that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force
of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of abstracts
reject what Oreskes calls the ?consensus view?. In fact, there are almost
three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of
anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it.?

Two German environmental scientist, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch,
conducted an extensive survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different
countries in 2003. (A similar survey was conducted in 1996.) On the critical
assertion, ?human activity is causing climate change? only 55.8% agreed, 30%
disagreed, and the rest were uncertain. This is hardly unanimous agreement.

In a recent analysis of peer-reviewed studies, Dennis Avery and Fred Singer
listed more than 500 climate scientists whose studies confirmed that climate
change is a natural phenomenon.

There is no consensus. Even if there were it would have no value in science.
Proof leads to consensus, not the other way around.


Ooo, ooo! <waving hand> The scientific peer review doesn't have as
many close-up beaver shots, right?

Misc "you know, if they want to get some publicity..."

"Peer reviews" are when you decide where you want to go fishing.




.

Relevant Pages

  • When Science Gets Hijacked by Politics
    ... "The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole ... philosophical context of the climate change debate. ... A few scientists prepare a first draft, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Guillemots to the lions!
    ... There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish ... Global warming scientists are under intense pressure to water down ... The drafting of reports by the world's pre-eminent group of climate ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Dont Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. Theres no "consensus" on global warming.
    ... That's all you've got to refute all those other scientists? ... human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large ... a global warming devotee will chuckle and say ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
    ... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ... climate science as a basis for informed policy action, ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • .
    ... global warming "doesn't seem to stack up". ... So what qualifies Gore to override the thousands of scientists who ... massive appeal didn't even make it onto the 'agenda' of the Rio climate ... 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change', ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)