Talk:Benny Peiser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Peer Reviewed
I do not wish to question that the majority of papers support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Even so, it is simply untrue to claim that no sceptical papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. [1]
- Please, a page from Google cache? I don't need to mention the reasons why this isn't compelling evidence and can't be used in the article do I? FeloniousMonk 03:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Search Terms
The original Dec 2004 essay in Science reported the words "climate change" in two places. "That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9)." "9.The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change."
This reportedly was corrected by Science to "global climate change" in the Jan. 14 2005 issue, which requires login on the site so unfortunate, I can't quote it or see if it was a change or a retraction instead. That information is from Dr. Pieser's letter on his website where Etta Kavanagh, an Associate Letters Editor said "A correction dealing with the mistake in the search terms ("global climate change" vs. "climate change") was published in our Jan. 14 issue." It's also been reported on the RealClimate blog as well as a Washington Post Editorial by Dr. Oreskes.
- Does anyone have a copy of the correction article that is available publicly to read? Or a copy that can be noted from or linked to or quoted from? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5724/952 Science itself has made the essay available, but for some reason not the correction. Sln3412 22:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Ah. No, the actual page from the Jan 14 issue of Science, rather than the one on his website, I mean. Sln3412 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] This is a biography, right?
People here need to make up their minds whether this article is going to be the biography of Benny Peiser or an article his views on Oreskes' study. If the former, add biographical material. If the latter, rename the article to get it out of the Bio namespace. As it stands, it's a transparent vehicle for global warming skepticism aimed at discrediting Oreskes's study, not any identifiable form of biography. Actual, bona fide biographical content that goes into some detail needs to be added soon. FeloniousMonk 04:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer the article to focus on his work and views. He seems to think he has quite handily discredited Oreskes's study; certainly he draws opposite conclusions from the same data. Her group of abstracts yields exactly zero challenges to GW; he says he found three dozen. She says 75% of abstracts support GW (at least implicitly). He says it's a couple of percent.
- I would have moved it to Peiser study or (better yet) Oreskes study (in a criticism section), but the last time I moved a similar article you had voted to delete you nominated the renamed article for deletion to as some sort of 'evasion of process'. So move it yourself, or at least work with me on this. --Uncle Ed 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
