Talk:Naomi Oreskes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naomi Oreskes article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
12 April 2008 Wikipedia's Zealots: Solomon Lawrence Solomon – Financial Post
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
12 April 2008 Hide your name on Wicked Pedia: Solomon Lawrence Solomon – Financial Post
This is not a forum for general discussion of Naomi Oreskes.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.


Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Criticism and Controversy

Added section on Criticism and Controversy with reference to the US Senate Minority report listing 400 skeptical scientists, Benny Peiser's article, and the the controversy over Lawrence Solomon's efforts to cite Peiser being deleted. see links at the top to Solomon's articles. Added POV to the article to raise attention to this apparent POV edit war. Science must always remain skeptical and continue testing models to test their validity. To delete all reference to skeptics and evidence controversial to the subject violates the foundations of science.DLH (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the entire section on Criticism and Controversy, I added was reverted. Is ANY scientific critique of Oreskes allowed or only POV support?

Here is a proposed section referring to published reports by science policy advisor to PM Margaret Thatcher and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, critiquing Oreskes' 2004 paper.

In 2007, Christopher Walter, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley reviewed critiques of Oreskes’ 2004 paper, also citing scientists who disagree with Oreskes. [1] Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed 539 papers on "global climate change" from the Web of Science from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes. [2]

”In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly.”

Oreskes had criticized Klaus-Martin Schulte over an authorized draft. Schulte demanded an apology publicly rebutting her charges.[3]

DLH (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the ref aren't showing up, here are the direct links:

That's a tiny minority view, and a highly biased one at that. We need to be circumspect about using such sources and giving undue weight to small minority views. In fact, NPOV, our core content policy, says tiny minority views need not be covered at all and I'm not convinced this one merits inclusion. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In science it only takes one fact to overturn the reigning paradigm. Thus, on principle, it is important to air data and models that critics claim are not supported by the reigning dogma. This is particularly important when we are being asked to spend trillions of dollars for policy decisions that may be based on flawed science. This is particularly important in the present case because Oreskes claims unanimous consensus, while the two published reports cited here cite a number of scientists disputing the supposed "consensus". To impose a particular POV and shut out this scientific evidence is both contrary to the foundation of science and a disservice to the public that needs such data to make informed decisions.DLH (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see Galileo gambit. And please familiarize yourself with WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. You may also want to read Scientific consensus to determine what a consensus is (hint: unanimous is not a requirement) and why Schulte's paper actually establishes that there is one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The scientific authority of Schulte is equal if not greater the Oreskes. Both are based on the statistics from a search of public data bases. Both are in recognized journals. (I.e., it (Energy and Environment) is a well established scientific journal with clear peer review policies. Neither claims credentials of a climatologist. If anything, Schulte has the better credentials, by providing a more careful survey. (This has nothing to do with the Galileo gambit.) In particular, he explicitly avoids the errors or weaknesses over which Oreskes has been criticized. Thus Schulte should have greater scientific weight, having done the more careful research. Furthermore, Schulte demonstrates that the scientific community represented by all papers in that clearly defined search, are not explicitly or implicitly supportive, as Oreskes states. That is the heart of Oreskes' paper, and more careful scientific data to the contrary should be acknowledged. This is not a "tiny minority" position, but a scientific study of equal if not better validity to Oreskes'. To reject it is outright censorship in favor of a particular political viewpoint.DLH (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and here has been extensive discussion about this already (see below) which is why your edit was reverted. If you feel you have something new to add to the discussion feel free to do so. Apis (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
NEITHER the journal published report by Shulte NOR that of Viscount Monckton is mentioned in either the article or on this talk page. Schulte provide explicit review extending Oreskes data to present. This shows a substantial shift in the "consensus" with a marked portion (6%) of the published reports by the 539 reviewed "explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus". This is marked variance from Oreskes results who claims there were no scientists doing such. Viscount Monckton provides review of similar reports and data from other sources. DLH (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and thats because neither is published in a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Check it out: Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? Schulte, Klaus-Martin, Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, March 2008 , pp. 281-286(6). Since when is Energy & Environment, now in its 19th volume, on the Inquisitor's list? On what basis and by what authority do you ban this journal?DLH (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Check our article on Energy and Environment. Its a social science journal, where the editor Bøhmer-Christiansen at times publishes things like this, because (in her words) "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?". Suffice to say that this is not a WP:RS on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I have been able to find about this "journal" is this: [1]. Who is this Schulte anyway, a surgeon? As for SPPI they are clearly a biased lobbying group funded by the oil industry. And no, we don't have to include every dissenting opinion, this is an encyclopedia not a forum for scientific debate. Apis (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Schulte is FRCS - a Fellow - responsible for research. i.e., a highly credentialed scientist.DLH (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Viscount Mockton provides a 21 page review of statistics and cites papers - far more evidence than Oreskes' short letter. Funding does not bias others' statistics. David Evans speaks from experience that the Global Warming gravy train can strongly bias as well.DLH (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
An endocrine surgeon and a viscount then... Apis (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Wikipedia is not a soapbox hasn't been mentioned yet though. Apis (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Schulte's paper has at least equal and probably better scientific validity to Oreskes paper. Schulte found:

Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly.”

That is not a tiny minority "soapbox" but a major change in results.DLH (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a tiny-minority view that is trying to be "soapboxed" as far as I can see. You might want to read up on the discussions about Benny Peiser below since they deal with exactly the same issue. Apis (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually some of the discussions have been archived as well. Apis (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither proposed citation author is mentioned in that Archive 1.DLH (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've responded under the new section below.
— Apis (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schulte Extension of Oreskes' study

In summary: The Schulte paper has the same scientific basis of Oreskes' paper - objective statistics about all scientific papers in a given time period citing a prescribed phrase relating to global warming. Schulte extends Oreskes' study through to 2007. There are substantial differences in the resultant statistics which go to the heart of Oreskes' argument. (from 75% to 50% of implicit endorsement, where only 7% give explicit support.) It is in a peer reviewed recognized scientific journal by a reputable author, published in the latest edition. It deserves citing no matter the rest of the archives or discussion.DLH (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Oreskes' letter was one page long. Schulte's paper at 6 pages long is much more detailed. [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2008/00000019/00000002/art00006 Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? Schulte, Klaus-Martin, Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, March 2008 , pp. 281-286(6). Schulte found 6% explicitly support anthropogenic global climate change while 7% explicitly disagree. Both are significant.DLH (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And as stated before Energy and Environment is not a reliable source. And Schulte has gotten even less coverage than Peiser. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean that Schulte (nor the viscount) had been mentioned before. As have been pointed out, the references you have proposed can hardly be considered reliable sources in this context. As for the rest of your argument, if you substitute Peiser with Schulte I think that much of what is said in those discussions are relevant in this case as well.
— Apis (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain a "reliable source". Its Biological Society of Washington a reliable source? Is the Alexa ranking is 11,046,876 with 24 links in. Energy & Environment has an Alexa ranking of 1,373,807 with 125 links in. It only has 8 times the ranking and 6 times the links in. Both sites have a Google ranking of 5/10. Schulte's study is a clearly defined methodology of a search of a prescribed phrase on Web of Science for a prescribed period. Anyone can rerun that study and verify its results. That is foundational to science. Are you now redefining the basis of science?DLH (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what's meant by reliable sources in Wikipedia is explained here: WP:SOURCE, and here are some guidelines for particular types of sources: WP:RS.
— Apis (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Editor Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is Research Associate in Political Ethics at the

Institute for Applied Ethics. She has written International environmental policy: Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto 2002 ISBN:184064818X. Energy & Environment’s editorial board includes 11 professors and 5 PhDs. While it not may advocate majority opinions, PhDs in ethics and Professors would be expected to support the scientific method over anonymous critics. I find it hard to believe that a journal running for 19 years, which a Political Ethics specialist editor and professional editorial board would be considered an "unreliable" source.DLH (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Schulte's paper is now referenced by Google Scholar: [2]
Posted this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for resolution

Schulte's 2008 extension of Oreskes' 2004 study of Global Climate Change articles DLH (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ext link to Solomon?

I cut this:

from the ext links. Is it appropriate? I would have thought not, on avoid-self-reference grounds William M. Connolley (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's not appropriate for this article. It's a critique of wikipedia and if it belongs anywhere it would be on that page. Wellspring (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the link to get the article more balanced, the publication of Naomi Oreskes is wery widly (and in depth) critizized. This is hardly metioned at all in the article. Perhaps it belongs in "critics of wikipedia" but it ceartenly also belongs here. Is the wikipedia about dogmatic and propagandistic telling "the one truth" about subjects or is it about giving a balanced view? The freedom of individuals to make up their own mind about different issues is one of the basic fundaments of the western democrasy. If then only one side get its view out, that basic freedom does not exist any more. The article critizizes wikipedia but it also critizize the work of Naomi Oreskes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.33.68 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite quite a lot of editors looking for material, we can't find any support for your sentence: "the publication of Naomi Oreskes is wery widly (and in depth) critizized", feel free to cite reliable sources to back this statement up. Because it would settle a content dispute. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a Lexis/Nexis search, then checked some academic databases. I came up with several of articles in National Post, a couple in other newspapers, and about five other miscellaneous sources. About 10 total, which is far fewer than is normally considered enough to merit inclusion in a situation like this. There have been about a metric ton of blog posts, but these don't normally count.
The article you link to is an editorial -- if you can find a news article, peer-reviewed research article or other source, by all means link it here so we can take a look. You're absolutely free to edit, others are free to edit as well. What keeps things working is a friendly attitude and adherence to policies. Wellspring (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I very much agree with Wellspring here, the column isn't about Naomi Oreskes, it's more about Wikipeida itself. There is a link to the column at the top of this talk page though, so it's not like anyone is trying to hide it.
— Apis (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Even as an editorial, the article certainly carries a lot more credibility than the rag-tag band that keeps commandeering this topic! I would think that some of you should have the good grace to quietly slip into the shadows after all you've been up to here. Any credibility you may have once had, has been shredded by the Financial Post commentary. You may have mastered the back-stage ropes of Wikipedia, but we're not being fooled. Bushcutter (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the "article" blog post carries zero weight or credibility. No foolin', R. Baley (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
KimDabelstein said "we can't find any support for your sentence: "the publication of Naomi Oreskes is wery widly (and in depth) critizized". The Benny Peiser page discusses his criticism of the article, including a link to his discourse with the LTTE segment of Science Magazine. The editors responded that "the basic points of [Benny Peiser's] letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet." Further, Naomi Oreskes wrote a column in 2004 to the LA times entitled "Global warming -- signed, sealed and delivered" [4] in defense of her article. There are only three possible conclusions to be reached from this set of circumstances:
1. The Wikipedia editors are lax in their research ability.
2. Science Magazine is suppressing dissent of climate change.
3. The wiki editors are suppressing dissent of climate change.
Take your pick. Biccat (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What is written on Peiser's biography is based on Peiser's own self published critique, and while that certainly is valid on Peiser's biography (his opinions after-all are important there), they are invalid here. What i was pointing out with the statement, is that there is very little information and support to be found in reliable sources on this subject. And reliable sources, are what wikipedia requires. That is especially the case on biographies, where speculation and similar critique is banned.
Every man and his dog has opinions, but to elevate these opinions to the level that wikipedia requires is another thing... Had Peiser been published in a reliable source - then we would be talking about something else. Now for your 3 items (strawmen each)
1. Actually we have researched it. We've also seen the retractions from Peiser, and we've seen the critique of Peiser - but none of it can be used since its based on self published sources.
2. A nice opinion, and a good conspiracy theory.
3. Scientific dissent is presented in peer-reviewed journals. Not in the blogosphere, via political think-tanks or in the opinion columns in the mainstream media. Sorry.
None of your picks are usable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The facts are: (1) there has been critiques of Oreskes' work, sufficient to merit a response (and correction) by the author; and (2) Science Magazine has found sufficient critiques of her work online to make publication of Peiser's letter duplicative. Wikipedia is presenting the study as completely unblemished because it refuses to look at the evidence. Biccat (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but your facts ... aren't. 1) The critique has by Peiser has stated "In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included" [3], 2) Nothing is hindering Peiser in getting it printed in another scientific journal ... Science is not the only peer-reviewed journal our there.
We are presenting the study, as the parity of reliable sources describe it. Nothing more - nothing less. If you want something about the controversy, then refer to Global warming controversy or Benny Peiser, this is mentioned in both articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I was going to post a response including links to reliable sources (Science and Public Policy Institute, Skeptical Science, inter alia), but I see they have already been presented. And you have criticized them under fringe or undue weight. So it seems that even if valid sources are found which dispute Oreskes' findings, you won't let them be included in this article. You're proving a prime example of bias in Wikipedia.
BTW, Al Gore's movie needs to be capitalized - "An Inconvenient Truth" not "an inconvenient truth." Biccat (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes that would be my fault, I'll try to remember to fix it once the page is unprotected again. Thanks for pointing it out. As for the rest, you might want to read the previous discussion about Peisers critique and especially the part about undue weight.
— Apis (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The bias here is that determined by the wikipedia WP:NPOV and WP:BLP guidelines. If a position is poorly covered in reliable sources, then it falls under the weight issue. We explicitly discouraged from having a viewpoint. We must rely on what secondary sources are telling us, and weight these. Btw. i personally believe that AIT has no place in this article (per weight as well), since its merely a trivia item with no relevance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You're deliberately wearing blinders. An article (hypothetical) from David Duke stating he surveyed 1000 articles on race relations and found none disagreeing with his position on white supremacy would never pass the smell test on Wikipedia. His claim is outrageous. The rational conclusion from Oreskes finding that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" is that there was no scientific debate on the merits of the consensus position. The fact that other research has found sources disagreeing with the "consensus position" (using Oreskes' method) should invalidate such a conclusion. Ignoring these facts because they weren't published in a traditional source is outrageous. Using that logic, Rathergate never happened (originating from the blogs), Monica Lewinsky was never involved with William Jefferson Clinton (originating at Drudge Report), and there is no controversy over the September 11, 2001 attacks. Biccat (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a publication of investigative journalism. If you think there is a conspiracy going on thats fine, maybe you're right! If you feel strongly about it then start a blog, try to get your own research published, etc, but don't try to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Imagine what the George W. Bush article would look like if we where to include every piece of criticism we can find of him on the internet! (even if I'm sure some of it is true). That is why we must follow wp:v and wp:npov.
— Apis (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. This may be exciting to you, but the rest of us have been round these circles before. Say something new or go elsewhere and be productive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
We are following the guidelines for an encyclopedia. Which isn't to show a point of view - or even truth (however you define it). But rather present knowledge, such as it is seen by the parity of reliable sources.
Your hypothetic example would merit inclusion on Wikipedia, when and if it got significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, and we would present it in such a way, that our description of it, would mirror/reflect the relative weight that these descriptions give. Which would probably be generally negative. (i hope).
Your examples are all bad, because we are not ignoring such stories because of where they originate (in self published sources), but rather what reliable sources (ie. non self-published) are saying. And the notability of all of these issues aren't in question - any one with 10 seconds free, can find numerous reliable sources for these. So there would be neither undue weight nor any reliance on self published sources. That is not the case with the critiques of Oreskes - Sorry. The amount of coverage outside of the blogosphere (ie. in reliable sources) is extremely low. Apis already covered that we aren't doing investigative journalism here - in fact that is strictly disallowed (see: WP:OR). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

Would this interview from youtube qualify for the external links section? I think it's interesting if nothing else, but not sure what the policy is on such videos.

How to Boil A Frog presents Naomi Oreskes: part 1, part 2, part 3.

— Apis (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Afaik, Youtube video's are generally discouraged, the chance of copyright violation is too high. Might make an addition to the external links, if you can find an official release of the videos. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked into this briefly. How to Boil A Frog presents Naomi Oreskes on Youtube was posted by a user howtoboilafrog. This user has also posted a great many (if not all) of the videos featured at howtoboilafrog.com, and that site's catalog of free online videos includes this multi-part Naomi Oreskes interview. This youtube user has been posting these videos for quite a while. Does this user represent whoever's running howtoboilafrog.com? Good question. Suffice it to say that you can watch these Naomi Oreske interviews on howtoboilafrog.com and on youtube as submitted by a user howtoboilafrog, and it's been that way for a while. That's no absolute guarantee that there's been no copyright infringement. However, I think it's safe to assume in this case that if there's any infringement, it's the fault of whoever's running howtoboilafrog.com and/or whoever submitted the video to them. I don't see how Wikipedia itself would be liable. (Then again, IANAL.) I'd suggest linking directly to the howtoboilafrog.com page for the interviews, but their ridiculous approach to organizing the site makes it impossible to guarantee landing at the right point. The YouTube links are more accurate. Yakushima (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As it turns out, How to Boil a Frog has an article on wikipedia! :D Maybe (since, as Yakushima point out, it appears to be their own videos put onto youtube by themselves) it could be added like this: "Interview by How to Boil a Frog with Naomi Oreskes: part 1, part 2, part 3." or something like that?
– Apis (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, How to Boil a Frog is a Wikipedia article, even though it's of questionable notability. (I find only one very brief press notice [4] when I search Google News Archive. But let somebody else take that up.) The thing that bothers me is that copyright (and freedom to link to the videos) can only be argued for circumstantially, with a lot of plausibility but no explicit statements that I can see. It's annoying, but look how sloppy the site itself is, maybe it's just sloppiness that they don't make the obvious utterly explicit. The videos end with one credit: www.howtoboilafrog.com. The interview subjects are identified initially by name and title. The videos start with "How to Boil a Frog Presents:" That's IT. Yakushima (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of Richard Lindzen

We have "Oreskes responded to some criticisms, including those from Richard Lindzen, with an editorial in The Washington Post.[5]". However, when I go to the WaPo op-ed cited, Richard Lindzen is (fragmentarily) quoted to the effect that the consensus is a "religious belief" (only that phrase is in quotes). Moreover, it's not clear in the op-ed where Oreskes might have been responding directly to anything Lindzen said about Oreskes. When I tried to find where Lindzen had said "religious belief", every mention seems to trace back to a speech made at the National Press Club in 2004. I haven't found a complete transcript of this speech. However, here's where he does say "religious belief" in the speech quotes I can find:

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief."[5]

From this and other comments quoted, I don't think Lindzen meant that the scientific consensus (in the sense where unanimity is not required) is "religious belief". Rather, I think the "you" he invokes is anyone outside the relevant investigations who accepts the theory of anthropogenic global warming on the statement that all scientists support it. This "you" is someone accepting one statement ("all scientists") on faith, then a line of questionable reasoning (that if there's no scientific dissent, it's got to be true) as if it were iron-clad.

I'm no fan of Lindzen - far from it. However (especially considering he's from MIT tech culture) I'd venture that he said "treating it as a matter of religious belief" where a more careful mainstream commentator might have said "taking it on faith". (One can, after all, be a climate change denier but also an agnostic or atheist.) "Religious" in this likely sense is evident in debate over the relative merits of a programmer's text editor that originated at MIT, EMACS, and has become notable enough for at least one Wikipedia mention.

In view of the ambiguities, why not just omit mention of Lindzen in that sentence? It leaves you with an admittedly rather abrupt and opaque "Oreskes responded to some criticisms with an editorial in The Washington Post.[5]". And it's still a one-sentence paragraph (shudder). But I don't know what else to suggest. Yakushima (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't mind removing it. Lindzen does not seem to criticize the study Naomi made, rather the value of such a study and the value of a consensus among scientists (if I understand him correctly). Also, if the dates are correct, it would seem Lindzens speech was made before Naomis essay was published? (possibly he was aware of it going to be published and made a speech to address the subject before the essay went into print?) So given the information I have seen, it appears as though Naomi is the one criticizing Lindzen?
– Apis (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It's gone now, but I think I see what happened here. Maybe somebody linked her 2004-12-26 "Undeniable Global Warming" WaPo op-ed thinking it was identical (virtually or word-for-word) to her LA Times piece (reproduced here at CommonDreams.org). In the LAT piece, she goes a little more head-to-head with Richard Lindzen's WSJ op-ed mentioning Oreskes Science essay and Benny Peiser's analysis and comments on it. I'd consider putting this mention back into the article, but ... I'd prefer to see this sort of thing in other articles covering anthropogenic global warning controversies, or perhaps in the Wikipedia bio for Benny Peiser, or (as I believe someone here has already suggested) in an article specifically about the Peiser-Oreskes controversy. The Peiser-Oreskes controversy is fascinating, a case study in how words get twisted. For example, I've seen it claimed that Oreskes erred in searching on "global climate change" instead of "climate change". But did she? Not all climate change is global. Far from it. I believe Roger A. Pielke (Sr., not Jr.) has argued that local and regional climate change is currently a much bigger human catastrophe and probably always will be. And for all I know, most papers that turn up on searches of "climate change" address local changes. So maybe Oreskes was not only making her survey of abstracts more manageable, but was also making it more precisely targeted. I seen where somebody claims Science published a related erratum, but all that says for sure is that "global" was left out of the article's description of the search, not that Oreskes' methodology was in error. (To be fair, the distortions aren't all on one side. In the LAT piece, Oreskes says that Lindzen said that Lindzen's op-ed "claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted." A close look at Lindzen's op-ed reveals that he said only that "A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure ....", not that he had published in any formal way.) This controversy is a little more notable than simple Google News Archive searches might make it appear, because where Oreskes writes public opinion pieces, she doesn't always mention Peiser by name. The LAT piece is one (OK, maybe the only) case in point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs) 07:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Oreskes as Notable Science Historian, Anyone?

[I just now noticed the warning to limit discussion to improvement of the article. The following is partly an expression of frustration about the article being locked down even for comments not directly related to the Oreskes-Peiser controversy. However, I think what I say here is within scope as "discussion of the article", since it covers material that's an obvious candidate for inclusion in the article, and also discusses where inclusion might lead in future controversies. Correct me if I'm wrong.] Yakushima (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this page has gotten locked down over climate change controversies, because I think there is much of note about Oreskes as a science historian. At the same time, however, I don't think we can entirely avoid brushes with climate change controversy even in discussing her career as an historian of geology.

I've unprotected it. It can re-prot if there are problems again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Drift Rejected, Not Just Neglected?

One of Oreskes' books, Rejection of Continental Drift, tells the story of that older controversy and its resolution. This book (I read about 20 pages of it on Amazon) and a paper that I think roughly summarizes the book's case came as a surprise to me. Invoking continental drift as one of (supposedly) many vindicated theories too long consigned to the outer darkness by irrationally hostile mainstream scientists -- this was one of my favorite variations on the Galileo gambit. I'd long since signed up for the narrative that continental drift had just taken a long time to get the causal mechanism right, a long time to get validation through measurements.

Well, it turns out Alfred Wegener's continental drift wasn't just neglected by almost all American geologists for lack of mechanism and slam-dunk data, but rather (Oreskes argues) sternly rejected by all but a tiny minority, if not actually beaten savagely and left for dead. It gained more of a footing in European geology, but still held only a minority position there.

[edit] ... and for Partly Political Reasons?

Oreskes' thesis in Rejection of Continental Drift is quite startling: if I read her right, she basically says that even if you could have taken late-60s data and causal-mechanism theory (plate tectonics) back in time to the original continental drift controversy, American geologists, at least, would still have rejected it. Standards for scientific validity have changed that much, she claims. She even says that part of the reason for rejecting continental drift was ideological: among other things, it was almost an overarching Theory of Everything Geological, therefore it was "autocratic"; it didn't fit the more American style pluralism in geography, of entertaining multiple hypotheses. Acceptance of it would have ruled out most other hypotheses, including the favored one of the time. I'm not sure I agree. Then again, I'm still in shock, and I'm not a geologist, nor an historian of science, and I haven't gotten a chance to take a close look at her primary sources.

[edit] How that Qualifies Her to Comment on Global Warming Dissidence

From even a cursory review of one of Oreskes' research preoccupations, I'd say it's hard to ignore the relevance of her background to the climate change debate. Among science historians, Oreskes seems to be an authority on theories of how the fringe can "come in from the cold," after a long period in deep freeze -- at least, in the very rare cases where that happens. And that certainly qualifies her to comment on whether climate change dissidents have much chance of eventual vindication. (Not saying it makes her absolutely right, mind you, just that it establishes her bona fides.)

[edit] Her Own Politics Could Make Her a Perpetual Target

That Oreskes invokes American ideological concepts in her theories of continental drift's rejection makes her recent involvement in climate change debate doubly interesting but also doubly problematic. Her own leanings on government policy don't seem to have entered into any debates so far, but could come up in the future.

It's not hard to see political polarization in the climate change debate. With the exception of a few figures pretty far to the left on the U.S. political spectrum, such as Andrew Cockburn, rejection of anthropogenic climate change correlates strongly with conservative tendencies. From a brief viewing of the Oreskes videos linked elsewhere on this talk page, I'd say Oreskes isn't shy about her politics. She attributes much of the resistance to certain post-Cold War environmental and public health measures to the personal need of some scientists who "fought" the Cold War to find a new enemy, an enemy with an arguably statist character, to replace the more obviously statist enemy that fell with the Berlin Wall. And in that, there's a dim echo of continental drift rejection on the grounds of its supposed "autocracy" (though the shoe is decidedly on the other foot in balance-of-consensus terms).

[edit] Permanent Controversy?

I think any more complete Wikipedia biography of Oreskes as a researcher will not be entirely free of political controversy, or at least the potential for it. Climate change obviously has far greater policy consequences than whether or not continents are creeping towards or away from each other in barely measurable increments. I'm still boggling that American geologists could ever have rejected continental drift in part because there was something "un-American" in the way it would end theoretical pluralism in their field; that's practically metaphysical reasoning. Can Oreskes actually be right about that? Very noteworthy even if her case is merely plausible, but not proven. I believe many Americans want to reject anthropogenic climate change until it's absolutely proven beyond any possible doubt, because they don't want to be taxed or in any way hindered for externalizing environmental costs that might still prove to be non-existent. Well, that's ultimately an ideological way of looking at it, isn't it? And from viewing video comments from Oreskes, she seems quite aware of that.

[edit] Galileo Gambit Yields to "Wegener Wedge"?

The irony here (yes, I know we're not supposed to say "ironically") is that something like Oreskes' style of argumentation about rejection of continental drift could eventually be turned against the theory of anthropogenic climate change. One could argue -- and many have -- that the theory is accepted because standards of what is acceptable science have changed - too much. I.e., that standards have swung past the reasonable point where a theory like continental drift could enter, to a point where science now admits of much looser, less substantiated, propositions with far more significant public policy implications. One could argue -- and maybe some already have, in this connection -- that American ideology also carries strains of unifying populist alarmism, not just live-and-let-live pluralism, and that this overarching proposition about climate is being pushed as populist alarmism.

In short, with continental drift being an exception to the Galileo Gambit rule, and with Oreskes being the authority on that exception, she might actually have handed climate change skeptics a framework from within which new and much more nuanced attacks could be launched, from unexpected angles and with compelling irony as a rhetorical support. They could say they are highlighting Oreskes as indulging in favoritism and hypocrisy, and that she has, in a way, made the argument for keeping global warming skepticism respectable, in case it's an example of what Oreskes herself observed about Wegener's theories of continental drift. All the more reason, I think, to enforce existing Wikipedia policy about POV and BLP here, and to keep a close eye on this article as it -- and news about the subject -- develops. Yakushima (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read through this. But if there are other major works by Oreskes, then it would be good to mention them William M. Connolley (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Al Gore's documentary

The name of the movie should be capitalized in this article. Sln3412 (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)