Backseat driving

Naomi Oreskes confirms information showing that her study of global warming consensus was different from Benny Peiser. In case there was any doubt about Peiser being dishonest in saying he studied the same set of abstracts.

Defense Department retaliates against General John Riggs, who had the temerity to suggest there were insufficient troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Standard "kill the messenger" routine from the Bush Administration.

Fascinating NY Times article on intergender children. These people represent a real problem for those who want to discriminate against homosexuals, as well as for society's attempts to control what people are.


keywords: Iraq, Peiser, global warming, science

I discovered a while back that Canada's Financial Post published an incorrect and possibly dishonest attempt by
Dr. Benny Peiser to refute the global warming consensus.  I emailed a response to the Post, but as far as I know it
hasn't been published, so I'm posting it below.
------
Very strange that Dr. Peiser wrote in the May 17th Financial Post Op-Ed that he “checked the same set of
abstracts” as the Oreskes study affirming a global warming consensus, when on the exact same day, Dr. Peiser
responded to me on the same question by saying, “Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know.”

In fact, Dr. Peiser does know that he used a wider search, and has known that fact since he participated in a web
dialogue on May 8th.  He has dishonestly repeated the “same set” argument in at least one other publication,
MSNBC.com, and if his Financial Post Op-Ed was submitted after May 8th, then he was dishonest here as well.
The websites http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_backseatdriving_archive.html#111630828673744298
and http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/peiser2.html lay out the proof.

Peiser’s work is riddled with flaws, and the integrity of his attack is suspect.  If this is the best the global warming
denialists can do, then the consensus position seems all the stronger.


Keywords:  global warming, Peiser

My most trusted source on Iraq writes, "Sometimes You are Just Screwed"

Excerpts:

Readers occasionally write me complaining that I do not offer any solutions to the problems in Iraq. Let me just step back from the daily train wreck news from the region to complain back that there aren't any short-term, easy solutions to the problems in Iraq.
(my emphases in bold)


Keywords: Iraq

For the last 25 years, Republican presidents abetted by Republican congressmen have vastly increased budget deficits, interrupted by 8 years of Democratic control that turned the situation around.

"Conservative" and "conservationist" both have their roots in "conserve": to keep in a sound or safe state. I think it's very clear that "fiscal conservationist" better describes someone trying to stop budget deficits than "fiscal conservative".

I'm a conservationist: one who advocates "conservation," which is "a careful preservation and protection of something." I'm now a fiscal conservationist, as is anyone else who tries to fight massive deficit spending. If the Republicans clean up their act and keep it clean for the next 25 years, we can revisit the issue, but the word choice is clear right now.

P.S. Thought I'd invented the term "fiscal conservationist", but I guess not.


keywords: politics, budget, Lakoff

(This is an actively managed post and may change over time, a little different from my normal editing policy. I stand by all bet offers I've made that are available when contacted by potential betting partners.)

Below are some bets I'm willing to make on global warming, as in betting with actual money if someone wants to take me up on it:

• Successfully-arranged bet number one! With David Evans over 10-20 years, details here.
• A bet that sea level rise will continue over the next five years.
  
• The bet Richard Lindzen refused to take, after saying that there was a 50% chance that temperatures would drop over the next 20 years and that he was willing to bet on it: that temperatures will increase over the next 20 years, and if they don't, he gets a 2:1 payout.
• George Monbiot on BBC Radio offerring to bet a denialist 5,000 British pounds that temperatures will increase over the next 10 years.
• Paul Ehrlich's second bet offered to Julian Simon in 1995 that the years 2002-04 would be warmer than 1992-94 (Simon wisely declined). (this bet would obviously be adjusted to future years, say 2006-08)

(I am willing to sweeten the Ehrlich and Monbiot bets to reflect the denialist view that temperatures MIGHT go up, by giving them better odds than I get, say 2:1.)

• A proposed global warming bet that pays to charity at longbets.org.
• That randomly picked glaciers will retreat over a ten-year period.
• A bet for those who argue we're just going through another of the "natural" temperature cycles. Also, a bet that warming will accelerate in the next 10-20 years compared to the overall rate in the last century.
  
• That temperatures would not drop significantly 10 years after the anomalously-hot 1998 El Nino year.
• That the post-1995 hurricanes will be found to have become more intense partly due to anthropogenic global warming.
• For those who deny we have enough knowledge to place odds, think about this - I'll also bet temperatures will DROP in 10 years, if given 20:1 odds. If 20:1 sounds good to you but 2:1 doesn't, we've established your estimate of global warming.
• Successfully-arranged bet number two, except this time I'm on the cold side about Arctic ice not disappearing, with details here.
  

If some denialist is interested, please get in touch with me.

UPDATE: corrected odds originally offered to Lindzen from 3:1 to 2:1. For a 20 year bet, I'm willing to give 3:1 odds to my opponent, and I expect James Annan, who originated the bet, would be willing to do the same.

UPDATE 2: Elsewhere I offered to bet a right-wing radio host on global warming, and he backed down.

The arch-conservative Free Republic forum deleted my posting and banned me for offering to bet people on global warming.

UPDATE 3: I'm fixing a "bug" in the bets, that large volcanic eruptions at the end of the betting period will skew the results while telling us nothing about humanity's effect on climate. My fix is a three-year reset into the future for the bet period from the time of any large eruption occurring in the last three years of the bet. For example, say someone bets against me over global warming in the 2005-2025 time period. In 2024, a large eruption occurs. Betting period gets reset three years from the eruption, so it's from 2007 to 2027.

Large volcanic eruption would be anything equivalent to the Mount Pinatubo eruption, measured in terms of energy. I'm open to alternative definitions.

I'm also open to a similar fix for strong El Nino-type events, if any betting opponent wants to include it.

UPDATE 4: I'd love to take a bet similar to the one that James Annan finally arranged.

UPDATE 5: I deleted a very short-term (3 year) bet because there's too much noise in that data. I had figured that it would work out fine over time with many bets, but I no longer think I'm likely to find many denialists who are willing to bet me.

UPDATE 6: deleted a paragraph discussing the "natural warming" proponents, after figuring out a bet that should interest them.

UPDATE 7: I've challenged Senator James "Global Warming Is a Hoax" Inhofe to a bet.

UPDATE 8: Added sea level rise bet.

I'm also keeping a running list of blogs that I've challenged to a bet.


keywords: science, global warming, bet

Labels: climate betting, climate change

A striking sci-fi/political satire/PowerPoint-plus-audio presentation on the web. I let it play while doing other stuff, but it's entertainingly distracting. (Via Boing-Boing.net)

Brief movie reviews:

The Woodsman: excellent, excellent film, Kevin Bacon was robbed of an Oscar nomination. He plays Walter, who was rightfully convicted of a horrible crime. Upon release he struggles with reintegrating with society and with the temptation to reoffend. Spoilers about the crime he committed are everywhere, including the DVD sleeve, but I'll hold back. Strongly recommended. A missed opportunity here - the DVD extras should have added a short called "If You Know Someone Like Walter" to give a brief lesson on how to help these people.

The Day After Tomorrow: the very mediocre, global warming disaster film from last summer. I skipped most of it so maybe there's great stuff in the middle, but I doubt it. Rented it to see if there was a snazzy, good-science exposition scene before it became ridiculously exaggerated, but no luck. Also a missed opportunity in the DVD extras, where they could've added some good science and activist information. Oh well.

Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room: an excellent documentary of Enron's deserved collapse. Showed how wrong and corrupt its leaders were while keeping them human. Briefly mentions Schwarzenegger's connection to Enron - I'd like to know more. I think I'll have to read the book it's based on. I was especially taken with how Enron CEO Skilling thought that coming up with an idea was all that counted, while making the idea happen was drudge work for non-geniuses. I might have believed that years ago, but I sure don't now.

(Background here, shorter version here.)

On May 12 at 4:26 p.m., Dr. Peiser wrote "I have analysed the same set of abstracts" as Dr. Oreskes, in order to refute Oreskes' claim that the abstracts showed a consensus about global warming. As the first link above shows, Dr. Peiser knew by May 8 that he had not analyzed the same set of abstracts.

I discuss earlier today the third potential dishonest statement from Peiser printed in the Financial Post - it's clearly wrong, but it's not clear yet whether he knew that when he submitted the article.

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if Peiser switches to saying something ridiculous like "I have analyzed virtually/substantially/basically the same set of abstracts." I consider that just as dishonest.

Dr. Benny Peiser has a long Op-Ed in the Financial Post of Canada discussing his supposed proof that no consensus exists on global warming. He repeats his incorrect statement that he "checked the same set of abstracts" as the Oreskes study published in Science magazine that had found a consensus.

As discussed extensively below, Dr. Peiser has known since May 8th that he did not check the same set of abstracts. The Op-Ed was published on May 17th, so it's possible that Dr. Peiser crossed the same dishonesty line that he did with MSNBC.com, if he submitted his Op-Ed after May 8.

I've written a letter to the Financial Post - if it doesn't get published, I'll put it up here.

(See the long May 16, 2005 post below for background. I disputed the honesty of part of Benny Peiser's work, which questions whether a consensus exists on global warming.)

Below is the email I sent to Peiser after he responded to my original post:

Thank you for replying, Dr. Peiser. I will add this
section of your response to my post:

(excerpt removed from here - you can see it at the end of the May 16th post)

Unless I hear otherwise from you, I assume you have no
objection to my posting your entire email, and will do
so in several days.

Your saying:

"Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know."

differs substantially from your public statement
published on the MSNBC website:

"I have analysed the same set of abstracts."

Saying "I don't know" leaves much to be desired in my
opinion, as I believe it has been shown you did use a
wider search. Still it represents an improvement over
what you said previously, and I obviously think you
should stop saying you analyzed the same set.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt


Following my reply, Peiser sent this response:

Dear Mr Schmidt

I am sorry to notice that you decided to
selectively post parts of my letter on your
website.

On this basis, I think we should end our
communication.

With best regards
Benny Peiser

I immediately reiterated my previous email, that I was waiting a few days to give him a chance to object to my posting his entire email. I said I was disappointed in his response, but now assumed that I should go ahead and post his full response. (I forgot to save this email, so you're just getting the summary.)

Peiser doesn't seem eager to discuss this issue, or any other where his arguments run into trouble. Besides raising questions of honesty, it also raises questions of his ability to wrestle with science.

Anyway, here's his complete reply to my original post:


Dear Mr Schmidt

I'm afraid you are missing the point. I have tried to show that the
Oreskes
'study' is flawed in a number of ways:

1. Oreskes claims that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus
position." This is simply incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as
a few abstracts actually reject the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes
(http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm).

2. Oreskes claims that "all major scientific bodies in the United
States
whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" have endorsed
the
consensus. This is incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as most
open-minded observers of the debates know that both the American
Association
of State Climatologists (AASC) and the American Association of
Petroleum
Geologists (AAPG) remain decidely sceptical of the "consensus".

3. Oreskes claims that "75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the
consensus
view." My analysis, however, shows that the vast majority of abstracts
does not
deal with anthropogenic global warming. In fact, I could only find 13
abstracts
that *explicitly* endorsed the "consensus". This falsification of her
results
is true even if Oreskes may have used slightly fewer abstracts (928)
than I did
(1117) from the same ISI databank.

4. Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know. From what
little she says about
her methodology, I understood that she used an ISI databank search of
abstracts on "global
climate change". I did exactly the same. But whatever search strategy
Oreskes may have
employed - and she hasn't clarified this problem as yet - her figures
simply don't add
up. She claims she analysed 928 abstracts. But she also claims that
"some abstracts were
deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put
'climate change' (sic) in
their key words, the paper was not about climate change."

I also found that some 10% of documents in the ISI databank on "global
climate change" did
not include any abstracts. Whatever the case, the fact of the matter is
that Oreskes 'study'
lacks any coherent methodology, which is rather strange given her
emphasis on peer-review.
I cannot recall any other study published in Science that lacked *any*
clear method. All
she says in her essay is that she "analyzing 928 abstracts, published
in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate
change" (sic). Why 928 and not 929? What happened to all those
abstracts that were "deleted
from the analysis"? Why don't any of these figures add up?

To conclude, the scientific community is far from any global warming
consensus. Not only
are there many open questions about the balance between human and
natural drivers of
terrestrial climate; even less agreement exists about whether or not
the anthropogenic
contribution to climate change poses any long-term threat to the
stability and health
of our global village.

The reality of disagreement was confirmed by a recent survey among some
500 international
climate researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch of
the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter of
respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic
changes." It simply
confirmed what a previous survey, conducted in 1996 and published in
the peer-reviewed
literature showed: that there is a sizeable body of scepticism within
the scientific community.
To deny its very existence seems rather futile to me given that
'sceptical' research papers
continue to being published all the time.

BTW: I'm not a climatologist and would not want to voice any strong
opinion on the complexities
involved in trying to attribute climate change to any of the countless
factors. The *real* problem, as I see it, is how we, as individuals and
as a society, deal with scientific doubts and uncertainty on such and
other controversies. All I am arguing is that science requires freedom
of thought, freedom of debate and freedom to doubt. If we lose these
liberties because
climate alarmists think it is crucial to silence any doubt, or deny its
very existence, you
can forget science.

I hope this clarification is helpful.

With best regards
Benny Peiser

To quickly respond to his arguments:

1. Lack of disagreement with the consensus shown here.

2. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has an obvious industry association that makes their statements biased, and I further question their climatological expertise.

The American Association of State Climatologists is a little trickier. I've read their 2001 policy document (available here), and it's very mushy on climate change. I'd place that document as either non-committal or rasing doubts on whether current current warming is primarily human caused, while definitely acknowledging the human role in climate. At most it gives Peiser marginal support, and whether 150 climatologists with obvious political affiliations (many presumably appointed by conservative Republican governors) constitute a "major scientific body" is questionable.

3 and 4. Partly dealt with in the comments here, but to truly handle it, one would have to repeat Oreske's original study, and maybe Peiser's too, which I'm not prepared to do, especially given Peiser's lack of credibility at this point. I dealt with Peiser's reference to a survey of "climatologists" in my May 16th post.

In any event, it is Peiser that's missing the point - the issue isn't whether the original Oreskes study that Peiser attacks is flawed, but whether one can trust anything Peiser says about climate. I think I showed dishonesty in how he portrayed his work, his response to me was unsatisfactory, and then he cut off communication.

As to what, if anything, happens next, I have no idea.

UPDATE: Dr. Peiser has not completely cut me off, apparently. He responded to my email:

>I assume you have no objection to my posting your *entire* email,

But I do have objections to *selective* posting. I did not give you
permission to cut and paste.

I responded:

My apology for the confusion - if your original email
had said, "please publish this as my response," I
would have done so immediately.  I have now published
your email in full as an update to the original post,
just as I did yesterday in a follow-up post.

He then thanked me. The only good thing about all this is that it's been conducted civilly.

keywords:  science, global warming, Peiser

John Lott is a conservative, anti-gun-control researcher with a reputation for dishonesty. Benny Peiser is a global warming denialist who conducted an easily-refuted study (UPDATE: also see here for more refutation) disputing proof that scientists have reached consensus that human-caused global warming currently exists.

Now it's one thing to defend your work with weak arguments, or even to ignore flaws in your work that have been pointed out to you. You cross a line, however, when something you've said is proven to be refuted, you've read the refutation, you refuse to address the issue in front of an audience that knows of the refutation, and then, in front of a new audience not aware of the refutation, you reassert the original statement. At that point, you're the next John Lott.

The chronology is below, but if you want to skip it, here's the summary: Peiser asserted in comments on Tim Lambert's blog that he used the same abstracts as a study he was refuting in order to show the flaws in that study. Other comments on the same Lambert post proved him wrong. Peiser continued to post in the comments, which is nearly-absolute proof that he read the refutation, but he ignored the refutation and failed to repeat his assertion to that narrow audience that was aware of the refutation. Several days later, he repeats the assertion on a different website, where people are not aware of the refutation.

In short, Peiser doesn't try to stand by his argument where the audience is aware that it is wrong, and then repeats the argument to a different audience while being aware that it is wrong. That is dishonest (at the bottom of the post, I try and think of excuses, but I'm not satisfied).

Chronology:

1. Early on May 6 or late on May 5, Tim Lambert posts 33 of the 34 abstracts that form an important part of Peiser's argument that there is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). (The date listed for the post is May 6, but it may reflect the updates Lambert added.)

2. In the hours following the posting, I and other Lambert readers go through the 33 abstracts (and a 34th added still later), and post in the comments section our conclusion that the vast majority do not support Peiser's position as contradicting the consensus view.

3. May 6, 8:30 p.m., A major news website, MSNBC.com, discusses Peiser's work at the Cosmic Log:

Although the exercise may be politically satisfying, it does little good to try to resolve scientific debates by calculating how many wheelbarrows' worth of published papers support your view, as the backers of standard evolutionary theory did this week in Kansas, or as climate researchers did recently in the journal Science. (Check British social anthropologist Benny Peiser's Web site for updates on his feud with Science over those global-warming claims.)

3. May 7 at 1:58 a.m., Peiser posts the 34th abstract at Lambert's website in the comments section, and defends his own work. He claims the study by Naomi Oreskes that he is challenging gave a wrong total number of abstracts dealing with climate change. This is the key issue now for purposes of examining Peiser's honesty.

4. May 7 at 2:29 a.m., commenter Meyrick quotes and refutes Peiser:

Peiser: "she was wrong about the overall number of ISI abstracts"

So is Peiser. He gets the 1247 by including the social sciences and humanities indicies, but this was about consensus in the scientific community. (P.S. I consider myself to be a social scientist, so this is not about a scientists elitist bias)

5. May 7, 7:27 a.m., I write:

Peiser didn't take Oreskes' abstracts, he changed the search.

6. May 7, 5:34 p.m., Peiser writes:

Let me correct another canard, the claim that “Peiser didn't take Oreskes' abstracts, he changed the search”: I used exactly the same data bank (ISI Web of Science) as Oreskes, and selected the same period of time (1993 – 2003). Everybody with access to ISI can confirm that a key word search for “global climate change” will produce 1,247 documents (of which only 1117 have abstracts). I repeat: Oreskes got her figures wrong.

7. May 7, 10 p.m. Meyrick writes:

Think I’ve finally worked out how to replicate Oreskes’ search. There are 2 fundemental differences between Peiser search and Oreskes.

1. Oreskes excluded the “Social Sciences Citation Index” and the “Arts & Humanities Citation Index”, Peiser does not.

2. Oreskes set the search limits to include only “Article”s, whereas Peiser set the search limits to include “All document types”.

Using Oreskes search you get 929 documents (her article says 928, close enough?), where as with Peiser’s search you get 1247 documents.

8. May 8, 4:33 a.m: Peiser posts the next comment following Meyrick; his post ignores Meyrick's refutation and makes a new argument. While evasive, this is not dishonest.

9. May 8, 6:48 a.m, commenter Connelley posts:

On the 1247/929 question: BP got a different # to Oreskes. Did he stop and work out why? Did he ask Oreskes? It seems not: he just assumed she was wrong. Yet Meyrick seems to have found a rather sensible solution to get the "right" number.

10. May 8, 7:23 a.m., I wrote:

Dr. Peiser,

You quoted me as having stated the "canard" that “Peiser didn't take Oreskes' abstracts, he changed the search”. Given Meyrick's research here, do you retract that description of my statement being a canard, and do you retract the statement you've made here and doubtless repeated elsewhere that you did not change the search? You appear very interested in having Science magazine correct any misrepresentations it has made - the principle should be universal.

11. May 8, 8:43 p.m., Peiser posts another comment making additional arguments and ignoring the refutation to his original claim the he used the same abstracts. To defend Peiser (slightly), the number of abstracts was only one of several issues being discussed in the comments, but still he was being evasive.

12. May 8, 10:55 p.m. Meyrick posts:

Dr Peiser

1. You have failed to replicate Dr Oreskes work and have failed to admit this.

13. May 9, 1:19 a.m., Peiser posts:

OK folks. Let's call it a day. I acknowledge your denial of the reality of scientific scepticism in the global warming debates and its presence in the scientific literature.

(note: all the quotes above are excerpts - full quotes are here.)

14. Sometime between May 6 and the evening of May 10, I notice the MSNBC.com report citing Peiser, and send a critical email. I didn't keep a record of this, so I don't know the exact time.

15. May 10, 7:50 p.m., Cosmic Log posts my email on their website:

"When publishing Benny Peiser's attack on the global warming consensus position, you should also publish how easily he's been refuted. ... Peer review and consensus have something in common: quality control. Peiser challenged the consensus position, refused peer review, and ended up with material that supports the opposite of his position. When 99 percent of the experts agree, they may still be wrong, but anyone who relies on that possibility in order to do nothing is foolish indeed."

16. May 11, 11:50 p.m., Cosmic Log posts Peiser's response to my email:

"Naomi Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts on global climate change. She claims that 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made and concludes: 'Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.' I'm afraid none of her claims are correct. I have analysed the same set of abstracts. Not only are there a few abstracts that explicitly reject the alleged consensus; the vast majority of abstracts does not even mention anthropogenic global warming. Her claim that the consensus is supported by 'all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter' has also been shown to be bogus.

"I am sorry to say that Mr. Schmidt's claim that '99 percent of the experts agree' is just as fictitious, as a recent survey among 500 international climate scientists has shown: 'These results seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4 percent of the respondents "strongly agree" that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes' (PDF file).

"So much for universal agreement among the climate research community."

(Emphasis added for the bolded statement.)

My apology for the long chronology, but I want to give the details for anyone interested. I think Peiser's failure to address the argument with an informed but small audience is an important indication of his credibility. It would have been understandable, if not entirely acceptable, had Peiser simply walked away from that argument that he analyzed the same abstracts, but reasserting the argument where he was not likely to get caught is a serious breach of honesty.

It takes a great leap of imagination in my opinion to come up with a non-dishonest explanation. I can't believe he didn't read the refutation, so at best he had some kind of cognitive failure that kept the refutation from sinking into his head. Such a failure would make future work from him pretty unreliable, though.

Final notes:

1. I'm not a scholar, and haven't repeated Meyrick's search that refuted Peiser, but I have no reason to think Meyrick is wrong.

2. I assume Peiser did not know who I was when he attacked my argument at the Cosmic Log, but even if he did, I could imagine him repeating his original reckless assertion there, and hoping to get away with it.

3. The "99 percent" figure I stated was a general assertion based on Oreskes' finding of consensus with no-to-virtually-no disagreement in peer-reviewed science articles. I don't have another explicit source for that assertion. If it's at all incorrect, I suspect it's nowhere nearly as incorrect as Peiser was about analyzing the same abstracts, and in any event I would stop using it if proven wrong.

4. Peiser's final reference to a survey of 500 climate "scientists" refers to work that is even worse than his own, and is refuted again by Lambert here.

5. I'm going to have to email this to Peiser. I'll let him say what he wants here, if he feels like it, and if he proves me wrong, I'll correct it or remove the post, as he wishes.

UPDATE: Dr. Peiser responded to my email. Excerpt below:

4. Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know. From what
little she says about
her methodology, I understood that she used an ISI databank search of
abstracts on "global
climate change". I did exactly the same. But whatever search strategy
Oreskes may have
employed - and she hasn't clarified this problem as yet - her figures
simply don't add
up. She claims she analysed 928 abstracts. But she also claims that
"some abstracts were
deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put
'climate change' (sic) in
their key words, the paper was not about climate change." 

At least he's civil about it, but this doesn't suffice for me, and I still don't know if he's changing his public claim. I responded:

Your saying:

"Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know."

differs substantially from your public statement
published on the MSNBC website:

"I have analysed the same set of abstracts."

Saying "I don't know" leaves much to be desired in my
opinion, as I believe it has been shown you did use a
wider search.  Still it represents an improvement over
what you said previously, and I obviously think you
should stop saying you analyzed the same set.

UPDATE 2: Peiser cuts off communication with me (see my May 17 post above this one).

UPDATE 3: In accordance with Dr. Peiser's wishes, I'm posting his full email below, which I've also posted in the May 17th entry above. I had only posted the excerpt above because I was not sure if he wanted me to post the entire email, but felt justified in posting the only part that I believe was responsive to the issue I raised publicly. My May 17th post discusses the parts of Peiser's email other than the part excerpted in the first update.

Dear Mr Schmidt

I'm afraid you are missing the point. I have tried to show that the
Oreskes
'study' is flawed in a number of ways:

1. Oreskes claims that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus
position." This is simply incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as
a few abstracts actually reject the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes
(http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm).

2. Oreskes claims that "all major scientific bodies in the United
States
whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" have endorsed
the
consensus. This is incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as most
open-minded observers of the debates know that both the American
Association
of State Climatologists (AASC) and the American Association of
Petroleum
Geologists (AAPG) remain decidely sceptical of the "consensus".

3. Oreskes claims that "75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the
consensus
view." My analysis, however, shows that the vast majority of abstracts
does not
deal with anthropogenic global warming. In fact, I could only find 13
abstracts
that *explicitly* endorsed the "consensus". This falsification of her
results
is true even if Oreskes may have used slightly fewer abstracts (928)
than I did
(1117) from the same ISI databank.

4. Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know. From what
little she says about
her methodology, I understood that she used an ISI databank search of
abstracts on "global
climate change". I did exactly the same. But whatever search strategy
Oreskes may have
employed - and she hasn't clarified this problem as yet - her figures
simply don't add
up. She claims she analysed 928 abstracts. But she also claims that
"some abstracts were
deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put
'climate change' (sic) in
their key words, the paper was not about climate change."

I also found that some 10% of documents in the ISI databank on "global
climate change" did
not include any abstracts. Whatever the case, the fact of the matter is
that Oreskes 'study'
lacks any coherent methodology, which is rather strange given her
emphasis on peer-review.
I cannot recall any other study published in Science that lacked *any*
clear method. All
she says in her essay is that she "analyzing 928 abstracts, published
in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate
change" (sic). Why 928 and not 929? What happened to all those
abstracts that were "deleted
from the analysis"? Why don't any of these figures add up?

To conclude, the scientific community is far from any global warming
consensus. Not only
are there many open questions about the balance between human and
natural drivers of
terrestrial climate; even less agreement exists about whether or not
the anthropogenic
contribution to climate change poses any long-term threat to the
stability and health
of our global village.

The reality of disagreement was confirmed by a recent survey among some
500 international
climate researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch of
the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter of
respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic
changes." It simply
confirmed what a previous survey, conducted in 1996 and published in
the peer-reviewed
literature showed: that there is a sizeable body of scepticism within
the scientific community.
To deny its very existence seems rather futile to me given that
'sceptical' research papers
continue to being published all the time.

BTW: I'm not a climatologist and would not want to voice any strong
opinion on the complexities
involved in trying to attribute climate change to any of the countless
factors. The *real* problem, as I see it, is how we, as individuals and
as a society, deal with scientific doubts and uncertainty on such and
other controversies. All I am arguing is that science requires freedom
of thought, freedom of debate and freedom to doubt. If we lose these
liberties because
climate alarmists think it is crucial to silence any doubt, or deny its
very existence, you
can forget science.

I hope this clarification is helpful.

With best regards
Benny Peiser

-------------------

keywords:  science, global warming, Peiser, debunking

Labels: global warming, Peiser

(Disclaimer #1: if you're not a blogger, or are one but don't use Blogger, then this posting redefines the Platonic essence of "boring." Enjoy!)

(Disclaimer #2: I'm not qualified to judge or write about one of these two methods for creating categories, but that's never stopped me before.)

Filing posts in various categories that one writes about often - science, politics, lack of dates, evading parole officers - can be a useful trick for finding old posts. Two of my favorite blogs, Deltoid and Brad DeLong, do this quite a bit. Blogger, who provides my host software Blogspot.com, doesn't provide this capability directly. Since this website is free for me I can't complain, but still.

So, two work-arounds. First, Smack describes a system where you set up a separate blog for each category, then aggregate the blogs together in an uber-blog using the RSS system that I've never bothered to figure out. Seems pretty good.

Second idea is what I'm doing - I've added Google searches of this website to the sidebar on the left, with a different Google search for different categories. I've started to add keywords to posts so they'll reinforce the Google search. Seems to work ok - the only problem is that site is archived a month at a time, so you don't immediately see the post you're searching for. That requires some other kind of fix, by someone better than me.

See what you'll never see - a few seconds from a filming of the last Tasmanian tiger (via Boingboing.net).

Vaguely related - videos of research on flying snakes.

Not related - a NY Times graphic on social mobility in the US. The Country-by-Country link doesn't look so hot for us.

Also not related - my favorite conservative website, The Volokh Conspiracy, hasn't said anything wrong about the environment in a while. They haven't said anything about the environment in a while. I'd give the various Volokh Corrections I've posted a low, but not zero, possibility of having affected this.


keywords: science, income inequality, Volokh Correction

I've seen way too many statements like "the President is entitled to his nominee for the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations." People who say things like that forget what the job of the presidency is about.

Okay, it's going too far to say the president is entitled to squat - he's entitled to a living wage, good benefits, maybe even a retirement package. But the job isn't about him, it's about serving the American people, and they're entitled to the best person they can feasibly get for whatever job comes under the nomination microscope.

The president was elected democratically (probably), but so were the senators. Nowhere does the Constitution say "the people's will in selecting Senators must defer to the people's will in indirectly electing the president." The only reason a senator should vote for even a mediocre nominee is if, given who the president is, a denial of confirmation would only result in the nomination of yet another mediocre candidate while the position remains unfilled. In this case, serving the people's interest would be better served by confirmation. But it's not about the president's "entitlement."

I thought conservatives were against entitlements, anyway.


kewords: politics, Bush

SUV sales down 15%, largest SUV sales down nearly twice as much, hybrids still selling well.

Really interesting post and comments (if I say so myself) over at Deltoid. Science magazine published an article by Naomi Oreskes describing how she surveyed all science articles mentioning "global climate change" in their abstracts, and found none rejected the consensus that humans are the primary cause of recent warming. Benny Peiser did another study that he claims found 34 articles rejecting or doubting the consensus, wrote a letter to Science that was rejected, and now claims a cover-up.

Peiser revealed his list of 34 abstracts to Deltoid. I and others go through the 34 in the comments and find they don't support his argument, mostly. Peiser attempts to defend his position, briefly attacks me as spouting a "canard", and then gets showed up by someone else for making yet another mistake.

I spent a lot of time on all that, but I figure being worth a condescending comment from a semi-prominent (apparent) denialist means it was well-spent.

UPDATE: my housemate adds that Peiser can "kiss her f***ing ass" and that she will kick his f***ing ass if he ever comes around here. She thinks her argument is more effective than mine.

keywords: global warming, Deltoid

Here are a few:

Stats on Americans killed in Iraq, by month: This is a good way to see how things are going from the American perspective. Things got much worse last fall, got much better in February, and it's not clear what'll happen now.

Iraqi police/military killed: Another reliable stat, by month starting this year. Seven hundred so far this year.

Iraqi civilian deaths - information lacking, due to the US refusal to help get the information. Two possibilities:
1. Iraqbodycount.org - I don't trust their methodology and they don't count all deaths. They would be much more reliable as a source of information on trends, but they don't break their information down by time period.

2. Deltoid's discussion of The Lancet estimated death toll - A survey published in The Lancet estimate 8 to 196 thousand surplus deaths resulted from the Iraq war as of last fall, with 100,000 as a conservative estimate. This survey has survived repeated attempts to discredit it.

And finally, Juan Cole, reliable as always.


keywords: Iraq, Lancet

NY Times has an article on chimeras, where cells of two different species are mixed together to see what happens. They've already created a mouse whose brain was 1% human, and they've thought about upping the percentage. There are some obvious and not-so-obvious ethical questions, but I'm interested in one idea mentioned in passing, "monkeys with human larynxes."

I've thought that giving great apes larynxes so they could speak instead of just using sign language would help us intuitively understand the ethical implications of treating apes like any other animal. I'd like to hear someone who thinks it's okay to treat apes as fundamentally different from humans tell me why other types of chimeras are okay, but this wouldn't be. The Times says "Evidently the first rule of chimeric chemistry is not to make creatures whose behavior straddles the perceived division between the human and animal worlds," but that straddling may exist naturally where apes are concerned - the larynxes would just help us hear about it.

keywords: science, apes