mkpdavies

Don't expect an answer to this anytime soon. Here watch this while we wait.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Clippo

Poptech wrote:-
Well, I find the gender terms confusing here but also I think you are confusing 2 separate issues.

Firstly, Ms Oreskes did offer an apology – not to Peiser but to Schulte (who tried to debunk Oreskes’ study by only using Climate change in searches whereas Oreskes did indeed use Global Climate change. Trouble was that Schulte’s own research, (not even publishable by Energy & Environment – ha ha) was subsequently stripped of all credibility here:-
Stranger Fruit: Oreskes offers updated response to Schulte

Now back to Mr Peiser:-
I suggest you look at this link to save everybody a whole lot of hassle :-
Benny Peiser | Logical Science

& while you’re there go to the sceptics page ( direct link :- A Rundown of the Skeptics & Deniers )

Then perhaps you can begin to appreciate why serious scientists question the credibility of these people.
(ps – I’m sure you will notice some of the names highlighted in your previous posts )

g hall

The problem is that Al Gore and his fellow travellers are doing very well financially out of all this MMGW and of course politicians and bureaucrats can then fund (out of OUR taxes) further "research" to support it and hence start increasing taxes and controlling the population more - and this is what is happening NOW

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Poptech

No I am not confusing two separate issues. Due to Dr. Piesers work Oreskes was forced to write a correction stating that she used the search term "Global Climate Change". I made no mention of an apology or about anyone else.

Yes I am well aware of your alarmist nonsense links. You are still wrong.

Benny Peiser's paper has NOT been refuted. Propaganda sites continue to intentionally distort Dr. Peiser's clear position on this:

"I have stressed repeatedly, Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view'. In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change." - Benny Peiser

The fact remains that Oreskes deliberately and deceptively called a paper "The scientific consensus on climate change" while using the search term "global climate change" thus leaving out 11,000 papers! Oreskes cleary cherry picked papers. This alone debunks her study. Even still as a direct criticism, every part of Peiser's study stands except that when you criticize only Oreskes' cherry picked papers (928 not 12,000) the 34 papers Peiser found doubting AGW may not have been included in Oreskes' paper. No kidding! So he withdrew only this as a direct criticism of her paper. The rest of his criticism remains such as only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. Removing the 34 papers is irrelevant as Peiser's study cleary shows that no consensus exists and Oreskes was not looking at all the papers (928 out of 12,000). Conclusion: Oreske's paper is debunked and worthless.

BonnieDundee

I really think these pale in comparison to the amount of peer-reviewed papers which support MMGW, I'm afraid.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Poptech

First of all there is not an extensive amount of pro-AGW papers, second this is to demonstrate that these papers do exist. I am afraid no one does any research but simply latched on to media propaganda.

Clippo

So, can I be absolutely clear that I and others understand the point you are making Poptech, please unambiguously answer the following question -

Do you think the review of Peiser’s study in my earlier link is flawed and that Peiser’s own admissions are mischievously fabricated ?

I reproduce below the section from the link :-

I afraid I’m beginning to smell troll-sh*t with your posts Poptech.

I thought new posters weren’t allowed to link to other websites for the first month of their membership of this forum. I accept I may not be correct in this assumption but if a moderator reads this would they clarify please ?

Poptech

Funny you quote a big section about Peiser that I already posted - him withdrawing the ONE criticism and why. That does not make him 97% wrong as you are trying to propagandize. Dr. Pieser has not withdrawn his other clear and obvious criticisms nor does it change the fact that Oreskes' paper has been thoroughly debunked. I repeat:

"I have stressed repeatedly, Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view'. In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change." - Benny Peiser

I had no idea linking to websites that debunk all the alarmist BS you are spreading was offlimits but then again you would want that to stop as silencing your opponent is the only way you can win.

mkpdavies

It isn't Poptech, he is just trying to shut you up because you are kicking his ****.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems