Thursday, August 31, 2006

Al Gore Is Not Infallible; The Oreskes Study Was Bogus!

I'm sick and tired of people both on this site and around the net perpetuating the myth that is the so-called "consensus view" of global warming. Their #1 go-to quote is to cite the Naomi Oreskes study where she claimed to read 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on global warming and not a single one was in doubt of the cause (i.e., anthropogenic global warming). Hows that for consensus? (You must say this last part smugly for the full effect).

The only problem with this is that the study was a horrible example of research. Supposedly she read the abstracts of all of 928 articles; however, when replicated, it was found riddled with errors! Benny Peiser, a British social scientist, checked her procedure and found that "only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it."

Furthermore, she actually included three(!) papers by renowned meteorologist and anthropogenic global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen, who has been blacklisted in the scientific community for refusing to follow the party line. So much for the peer-review process.

In reality, then, the "consensus" of those 928 papers was more like 13-3-912. Man, they're really positive. Unfortunately, Al Gore included this in his new book/movie about Global Warming. It was one of several lies, some of which were in the opening pages. But people are ready to believe, and believe they did.

Here's a few anti-hysteria "shills" who are not a part of this so-called consensus:

  • Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at University of Alabama at Huntsville
  • Dr. Patrick Michaels, author of the Association of American Geographer's 2003 Climate Paper of the Year
  • Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Astrophysicist
  • Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloan Professor of Meterology at MIT
By contrast, Naomi Oreskes? Social Scientist. People are falling all over themselves to string along with people who literally have no idea what they're talking about and completely ignore the experts.

To summarize: would you go to an engineer if you needed your broken femur set? Would you ignore the advice of the world's premier orthopaedic surgeon on the grounds than his research is funded by (gasp) medical companies who have a vested interest in his work?

Read this -- its a great satire showing just how this so-called "consensus" has been achieved.

Update: Great link. Thanks RoQ!


rightonq said...

here's another good site with a list of scientests that question the unquestionable