How is it that Naomi Oreskes's study is considered credible?

Question

Okay, I'm seriously curious to hear someone's opinions on this, because I'm completely failing to understand the other side of this debate. Naomi Oreskes studied 928 papers dealing with global warming, written within a ten-year period, and found a 100% consensus that global warming is driven by humans. How the heck was only 928 papers written in TEN YEARS, and how did they all just happen to come to the same conclusion? Benny Peiser, another social scientist, says that her report excludes 11,000 papers, and while he does not deny a majority, man-made global warming does not have a unanimous consensus.

Basically, I just want to hear if anyone can explain to me why Oreskes can be considered credible by so many if her report lacked so much? If anyone can help explain this viewpoint to me, I would be very grateful.

Answer 1

The reason Naomi Oreskes' study is not credible is that it is not a study. It is a survey. Meaning she looked at 928 abstracts and gave her conclusion, and did not record which studies she looked at. So her results are not reproducible.

Regarding her results, 75% implicitly "agreed" with the consensus. Such a result seems odd being that 75% of 928 papers are very unlikely to be about attribution regarding global warming, so why they would mention humans as the cause is beyond me. Sounds a little fishy...

Answer 2

How old is this?  Not quite as lame as Global Cooling in the 70's, but lame nonetheless.

Answer 3

It isn't that 100% agree with the consensus, but that none of them disagreed.  75% explicitly or implicitly endorsed the consensus view, 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate (taking no position on anthropogenic global warming), and none disgreed with the consensus.

The reason "only" 928 papers were studied is because that was a large enough sample set to make a statement about the statistical significance of the consensus.  Examining every scientific paper that touched on the subject of climate change over a 10 year period would have taken a lot more time, effort, and money than Oreskes had for her study.

The word "consensus" doesn't mean universal or 100%. So it's not necessary to prove that not a single paper was published which disagreed with AGW to show a consensus is real.

Answer 4

The answer comes in the last paragraph.

The papers had to have the words "climate change" in their abstracts, and specifically address the overall issue.  Many papers related to climate change involved small pieces such as the temperature record.

Peiser researched this thoroughly and stated his disagreements with Oreskes.  But other scientists disagreed with him, and, when challenged, one by one, he retracted his claims.  He was finally left with only one he did not withdraw.  That turned out to actually be a letter to the editor.

So the reason the Oreskes study is considered credible is that it successfully withstood a very determined attack by Peiser.   A serious and knowledgeable adversary could not shake it.

Answer 5

He has no credibility. He started the entire "consensus" theory of AGW, even though no one can reproduce his results. This is why I find most people who use the "Consensus" arguement to be ill informed and rather slow.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...