|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:49:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Amazingly Oreskes posts a rebuttal for an article published on August 29, 2007 11:07 AM, on August 31, 2007 1:50 PM. What a great historian, the ability to dissect research in in about 51 hours. Those must have been a couple of long nights.
|
What are you talking about? The article wasn't published on August 29, 2007. Some guy named Michael Asher posted a note about Schulte's work on anti-MMGW Senator (and sadly, fellow Oklahoman) James Inhofe's Senate blog at the time, however. Moreover, if you look at her critique, it's easy to see how it wouldn't take long to find flaws in Schulte's work. According to Oreskes, Schulte misrepresented her work and results. One needn't thumb through a dense article to see if that's the case. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:54:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Could you point out were Schulte misrepresented his research? |
I'm sorry. I didn't address this. Again, though, Jerome, if you'd just read her reply, the answers are obvious. You must be having trouble clicking on the link, so I'll post several of her points:2) The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that.
3) The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say "we endorse evolution". Earth scientists never say "we explicitly endorse plate tectonics." This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant.We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc. (See Oreskes, 2007 for further discussion). |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:59:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
2) The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that. |
Straw man. He never stated anything about her work other than it is dated. His research was done on newer work.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 16:03:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
3) The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say "we endorse evolution". Earth scientists never say "we explicitly endorse plate tectonics." This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant.We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc. (See Oreskes, 2007 for further discussion). |
First part is another straw man. As I explained above. Secondly if she is claiming that scientists do not explicitly endorse theories in their papers, exactly how did she create these categories in her research?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2007 : 16:05:33 [Permalink]
|
Is anyone going to answer why a historian is a better source than a researcher?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 17:06:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Is anyone going to answer why a historian is a better source than a researcher?
|
You're joking, right? She answered the question, and I provided her answer. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 17:07:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
2) The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that. |
Straw man. He never stated anything about her work other than it is dated. His research was done on newer work. |
 Your answer doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 19:05:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Is not the newer science more likely to be closer to the truth? |
What newer science? Schulte's paper has been shredded by the person it was intended to respond to, and Asher's summary is science-free. Your charges against Oreskes of strawman arguments are null and void in light of the fact that Schulte was responding directly to her and her earlier work.| According to the more recent information concerning climate research that give an explicit opinion, the figures are 38 support MMGW (54%), and 32 reject the consensus (45%). |
It's already been demonstrated that Schulte's analysis is dead wrong on several papers. If you want to argue percentages, you'll have to first get the correct numbers.| All the number manipulation in the world will not change the phrase "world wide scientific consensus" to being truthful in a talk about MMGW. |
So far in the history of MMGW, there have been five papers which explicitly reject MMGW. The other 27 are implicit rejections, except Asher doesn't want you to know that. All the number manipulation in the world will not change the fact that there has extraordinarily little dissent from the MMGW hypothesis amongst professional scientists over the last 14 years. The subject is only contentious among the press and the politicians... and you, Jerome. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
MMGW Dubunked Again!
