…was a country and
western song, by Homer and Jethro connoting a ridiculous situation. They should
be the warm-up act at Stanford University on May 21 when they have “A
Conversation About Climate Change Research” presented by Dr. Naomi Oreskes.
This lady has a voice that can only be charitably called, “fingernails on
slate.” If you go and are over 60 wear Depends.
Dr. Oreskes, of UC San
Diego and Scripps Institute, is co-author of “Merchants of Doubt” about "climate change deniers." She is
famous for a study she did concluding 1300 scientists surveyed all agreed on
man-caused global warming. When the work was repeated by a noted statistician
there was a very different result.
Examining all 1300
peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to
2003, Oreskes reported unanimous support for anthropogenic global warming.
Oreskes' work is repeatedly cited by the IPCC, but scientists have never been
unanimous on anything.
Medical statistician Dr. Klaus Martin Schulte repeated the work personally rather than have tabulation done by students as had Dr. Oreskes. Using the same source and search terms as had Oreskes, he personally examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007 to get the latest thinking. We would prefer he had repeated her work precisely, but know why he did not; comity. He gave her a way out by saying, "Things must have changed," but she has not taken the exit. Naomi has true grit, a damn hard head, or a pending grant.
Of 528 papers on climate change, only 38 (seven percent) gave an endorsement of the anthropogenic cause. If "implicit" endorsements are used the figure rises to 45%, but such a standard is never used. While only 32 papers (six percent) reject the consensus outright, the largest category, 48%, are neutral, neither accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. That is not "consensus," but in academia a polite way of rejecting said hypothesis. Believe me, I know these people.
Medical statistician Dr. Klaus Martin Schulte repeated the work personally rather than have tabulation done by students as had Dr. Oreskes. Using the same source and search terms as had Oreskes, he personally examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007 to get the latest thinking. We would prefer he had repeated her work precisely, but know why he did not; comity. He gave her a way out by saying, "Things must have changed," but she has not taken the exit. Naomi has true grit, a damn hard head, or a pending grant.
Of 528 papers on climate change, only 38 (seven percent) gave an endorsement of the anthropogenic cause. If "implicit" endorsements are used the figure rises to 45%, but such a standard is never used. While only 32 papers (six percent) reject the consensus outright, the largest category, 48%, are neutral, neither accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. That is not "consensus," but in academia a polite way of rejecting said hypothesis. Believe me, I know these people.
Dr. Marten-Schulte found
of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only one makes
reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. And, some authors
were quite positive regarding such an event noting that during the Medieval
Warming period Europe thrived in a warmer, mild climate for 500
years.
Having been raised in
academia it is clear to me man-caused global warming is in its’ death throes.
Stanford is holding Naomi at arm's length. The meeting is in a small room,
Building 380, Room 380C, from 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM, the dinner hour, in a hall
without a name, or significance. It may be a warehouse or service building.
The message is “fuggedaboutit.”
As the sun sinks slowly
on Naomi Oreskes, from a distance in time we hear the old country and western
refrain, “Shut the door, they’re a comin’ in the winders.”
Adrian
Vance
ThoughtsjustoffCenter: I just "love" reading Adrian Vance's columns. So I thought I'd pass this one on to you. You can find his blog at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment