Global ocean changes...

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Oreskes 2004

Since the Naomie scandal came out, many well known scientists came out and admitted that there was no consensus based on the peer review that led to this huge scandal.

References for this work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-87

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Peiser's Retraction

3 - Then someone did a peer review of her work. He used the same databases, and the same words to find the articles she said she was referring to. Instead of 1247 articles, he found 12,000 articles. She then recognised that she did not use the words "climate change", but instead the words "global climate change". Then started the scandal since she falsely claimed previously that scientist that talked about climate changes were convinced of "GLOBAL WARMING ON EARTH". This was no more true. It appears that if she had used the expression "climate change" there would have been no consensus at all like a study has shown afterward.

On the same site Ed cited, we have a specific page about this claim :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm

Its conclusion:

An examination of the papers that critics claim refute the consensus are found to actually endorse the consensus or are review papers (eg - they don't offer any new research but merely review other papers). This led the original critic Benny Peis(n)er to retract his criticism of Oreskes' study.

Peiser's retraction in an email to Media Watch:

Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. 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.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s1777013.htm

The complete corrigendum is here:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

[Benoit St-Pierre]

History and Science Studies

When she published her study in the very serious prestigious magazine "SCIENCE", did you see any eco-extremists say "She is not a scientist, do not listen to her"? No they took her story everywhere they could and I saw a reference to it on the cereals box of my kids last year. On the cereal box it never said: "Their is a scientific consensus on global warming base on the stuy of Noemie but kids be careful she is not a scientist herself".

Being an historian of science, Oreskes is entitled to study the history of sciences. History does not stop in 1934. Recent events can be considered from an historical point of view.

Reading science abstracts is a part of an historian of science's research. Oreskes also studied geology, in case one doubts her scientific background.

The claim that Oreskes is a climate scientist is simply false.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Likelihood Forecast

They use the weasel word "likely" to predict the future.

Their models entitle them not to predict, but to forecast:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/coupled_model/poama_iod.shtml

In modelling, "likely" refers to the likelihood function:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood_function

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Global ocean changes...

Your page on the "Consensus" shows studys, comments and video of the WORST SCANDALOUS CLIMATE scientist: Naomie Oreskes.

Who is not a climate scientist at all. Another fib from Carl.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Likelihood Forecast

Their models entitle them not to predict, but to forecast:

I forecast the future will be like the past. Eventually another ice age will come. Then it will go. My model uses a longer time period than the ones which are being posted here.

Were you satisfied with the outcome at Copenhagen? What immediate actions are being taken? If disaster is imminent why was more not done?

If the Americans stop all buying of oil from Canada because they don't like how it's obtained from the Tar sands, what do you suppose would happen? Maybe they would have to import more from nations which don't like them and as a result the price they pay would rise to well over $100. a barrel. Their economy would again falter.

So they will continue to complain and we will continue to ignore them. It's all part of the game.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

A Prediction

I forecast the future will be like the past. Eventually another ice age will come. Then it will go. My model uses a longer time period than the ones which are being posted here.

In a longer run, we're all dead.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: A Prediction

In a longer run, we're all dead.

Finally, there is someone who understands the situation.

I think it's better to bask in the sun than freeze in the snow.

My roses were beautiful this summer. Do you know what that means? It means they got more water than other years. Probably the scientists would call it acid rain. :)

I read there is still enough snow for avalanches.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Global ocean changes...

Who is not a climate scientist at all. Another fib from Carl.

Ed,

Remove the word scientist if you want, "my description" here changes nothing to the scandal. She has been published in the top scientific magasines. In magasines where they refuse those who denied the global warming (is this a scientific approach for you?).

You have used very bad words to describe those who denied the false consensus. Now the proof of the consensus you bring is the one that has been shown to be completly false. She took about 1,200 studys out of 12,000. She falsely described her experiment to the scientific community.

What do you answer to such a manipulation of data and on purpose selection of articles to show a consensus?
Since her study has shown to be falsification, do you agree to have some critics on this reference you gave or do we have to take her conclusions as is everytime you will refer to it?
Do you realize that 90% of the "scientific consensus" comes from and started with this study she did?

But listen to me, I do not say you are in fault. It is a normal habit for all of us to believe in articles that have been published in the top scientific magazines. Mass manipulation of data and facts never occurs in any science subject. Climate is an exception since it is highly emotional about the faith of humankind. When someone study in climate science, most of the time they have deep personnal conviction in the beginning. The same does not occurs in mathematic or physics at so high levels.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Peiser's Retraction

On the same site Ed cited, we have a specific page about this claim :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm

Its conclusion:



Peiser's retraction in an email to Media Watch:



Source: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s1777013.htm

The complete corrigendum is here:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf

There has been peer review and they chalenge SOME of his conclusions. But Benoit, the main conclusions about the manipulation of data, the wrong use of words, the elimination of 10000 articles, the false association of a consensus are still true and have not been contredicted by the peer review.

This is the normal scientific way of doing things: Peer review and critics. In the end the Noemie's study main conclusions about a "consensus in the scientific community" does not work and are false. There has been three petitions signed since her reports that show the scientific community has no consensus on global warming.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Global ocean changes...

If we could find an impartial intelligent jury that would be great but I don't think that we can.

I think that it will soon be painfully obvious that it was a hoax as we keep getting reports of data fudging everywhere that the original data can be checked (Russia, New Zealand and Antarctica spring to mind.).

My brother phoned today from Dallas and they had snow there on Christmas for the first time in most peoples' living memory. This is going to keep happening notwithstanding Ed Seedhouse's ludicrous pronouncements on the subject.

I will always be skeptical where it seems that the scientists demanding drastic measures refuse to release the original unadjusted data. Climategate was only a confirmation of what I already knew to be true from reading the accounts of the climate skeptics who had been trying to get the original data to do their own analysis.

We have a mystery here where everyone seems intent on framing the suspect CO2 for everything from global warming to ocean acidification and nonexistent rising sea levels (where Ed's religious devotion and belief seems incongruous since the sea level scientists don't agree with Ed's climate science high priests). The evidence just doesn't fit, so we must acquit.

Vlad Drkulec

I totally agree with you here. I myself became suspicious about the eco-extremists a few years ago. Then I started to seek for the data myself and I found that the whole thing is a game. They are the good ones and anything is good for their truth to go throught even if the weather does not agree.

The same apply to any religion, at one point, the facts and the science is no more important so they write a bible and we have to believe it or die. If you deny, it means you don't care about humanity and you are a capitalist that will consume the earth and the end of world will come soon.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Global ocean changes...

....
Even if, as seems likely, there is then still a consensus on human activities heating the planet,
....

If we get rid of the false study and manipulated data, from what is left do we really know if we are heating or freezing the planet?

Most likely it is a neutral effect in my opinion since there is so much variables in the equation. Heat produce more evaporation of the water, the evaporation produce more cold. The sun variations in the black spots seems to have much more impact than any human activity.

Remerber life florish.

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Oreskes 2007

The main conclusions about the manipulation of data, the wrong use of words, the elimination of 10000 articles, the false association of a consensus are still true and have not been contredicted by the peer review.

See Oreskes 2007 :

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/Chapter4.pdf

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Oreskes 2007

See Oreskes 2007 :

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/d...s/Chapter4.pdf

From this text I see that she is an emotional preacher about global warming. In the text she still claims there is consensus, she refers to the scientists of the climategate emails, and to their false studys.

She talks to the american public in the text and want them to believe in global warming and gives them many reason to do so. She show the statistics about the believers in USA and want it to change. This is preaching.

Benoit, when I read scientific articles I never see that kind of emotional preaching. No doubt climate is a religion for her and nothing in the world will change her mind, not even a drastic cooling. Don't expect her to write this year about the recent recovery of ice and the effect this had on many scientists.

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Oreskes' Hypothesis and Conclusions

In the end the Noemie's study main conclusions about a "consensus in the scientific community" does not work and are false.

The hypothesis was about the drafting of the reports downplaying legitimate dissenting opinions. The test was an analysis of 928 abstracts between 1993 and 2003, listed in the ISI database with the keywords "Global Climate Change". The conclusion was that 75% of them endorsed implicitely or explicitely the consensus view, and that the 25% remaining articles did not disagreed with the consensus position.

The claim that Oreskes conclusions prove are that there is a consensus is bad.

The claim that Oreskes' conclusions have been disproved by Peiser is false.

The claim that Oreskes' study is a scandal is wrong.

There has been three petitions signed since her reports that show the scientific community has no consensus on global warming.

The claim that Oreskes' conclusions are disputed by the alleged anonymous petitions remains to be proven.