Hunting the white whale

Flawed new analysis purports to show that there's no scientific consensus on climate change

Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 11:37 AM on 02 Sep 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change skepticism

If those opposed to action on climate change are like Ahab, the scientific consensus is their white whale. The reason is simple: as Frank Luntz's famous memo pointed out, if they can convince the general public that the science of climate change is uncertain, they can drag the debate over policy to a grinding halt.

Thus, every so often, another argument emerges that purports to prove that scientific consensus on climate change does not exist.

This week, it's a blast from the past: an analysis of the "Web of Science" that shows that no consensus exists and only a minority of scientists support the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

First, some background. For those who aren't familiar, the Web of Science (WoS) is a massive database that includes the title and abstract of essentially every scientific paper published since the early '90s. There's also a ton of ancillary information in the database, such as how many times a paper has been cited. It's an invaluable tool to the scientific community, one I use on an almost daily basis to find papers in the peer-reviewed literature.

Naomi Oreskes, a Professor of History and Science Studies at UC-San Diego, searched WoS for papers that include the phrase "global climate change" in the title or abstract and found that basically none of these papers explicitly reject the consensus position (i.e., the earth is warming, humans are very likely responsible for most of the recent warming, etc.). See Coby Beck's writeup for more details.

A medical researcher, Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, has revisited Oreskes' analysis. Oreskes looked at papers published between the mid-1990s and 2003, while Schulte looked at papers published after 2004. I have not actually seen a copy of this new paper, but I've reconstructed its salient points from a description of the analysis found here (PDF). The abstract of Dr. Schulte's paper:

Fear of anthropogenic 'global warming' can adversely affect patients' well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on "global climate change" found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes (2004), who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 32 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to "catastrophic" climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.

This analysis is rubbish. First, consider the following abstract, from a paper entitled, "An analysis of the regulation of tropical tropospheric water vapor":

We use a simple trajectory model of mid- and upper-tropospheric H2O to investigate the mechanisms that regulate mid- and upper-tropospheric humidity. Our model advects water passively and contains no microphysics other than the requirement that water vapor is immediately removed so as to prevent the relative humidity (RH) from ever exceeding 100%. We demonstrate that our simple model accurately reproduces H2O measurements made by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder onboard NASA Aqua satellite. Our results show that, given the large-scale circulation of the troposphere, detailed microphysical processes need not be included in order to accurately simulate H2O. We have also identified three preferred regions where air parcels in the mid- and upper troposphere experience their final dehydration. The first is in the equatorial upper troposphere, and is associated with convective outflow at the top of the tropical Hadley circulation. Final dehydration of air that detrains at potential temperature above ~340 K predominantly occurs here. The other two regions are found at lower altitudes in the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres, and are associated with dehydration during isentropic excursions to mid-latitudes. Final dehydration of air that detrains at potential temperatures below ~340 K predominantly occurs here. Finally, we analyze the water budget of the dry Eastern Pacific subtropics and find that dehydration in both the equatorial upper troposphere and the mid-latitudes contribute to the dryness there.

Can you tell me if this paper accepts or rejects the consensus view on climate change?

You can't. It is impossible for anyone but an expert in this particular climate sub-field to be able to read this abstract and understand the implications for the theory of climate change. Most climate scientists could read the entire paper and understand the implications, but it takes a true expert in a particular field to be able to understand the implications just from the abstract.

Why? Because the abstract of the paper contains only what's new in the paper. Thus, the implications of the paper to our wider knowledge can only be understood if one is familiar with everything that's been previously published on the topic.

In this case, the paper strongly supports the IPCC view of climate science. I know, because I wrote it. But for non-experts like Dr. Schulte, it is just a bunch of gobbledy-gook.

The entire approach of determining whether a paper supports or contradicts the consensus view based on a reading of the abstract by a non-expert is flawed. Note that this criticism also applies to Oreskes' original paper. While she got the right answer, I have always been uncomfortable with the methodology.

Another reason the analysis is rubbish is the keywords chosen: global climate change. I did a quick search of the WoS for this phrase and found 683 articles published since 2004, similar to the number obtained by Dr. Schulte. However, if I limit my search to the journals in which the vast majority of papers on the physics of climate are published ...

Journal of Geophysical Research
Geophysical Research Letters
Journal of Climate
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

... I only get 18 articles. That's surprising, because these journals have published nearly 8,000 papers over this time period, and a significant fraction are on climate change.

It turns out that most papers on global climate change do not actually use this term in the title or abstract. For example, my paper above was not captured because it does not use this term. And even if it were captured, I'm quite certain that it would be categorized as agnostic, even though an expert reading shows it strongly supports the consensus.

Bottom line: Shulte's analysis is just another harpoon fired wildly at the white whale of consensus. Anyone who's read Moby Dick knows how how that hunt ends (spoiler alert: the whale wins).

As I have argued in the past, if one wants to know what the peer reviewed literature says, read the reports of the IPCC. Those reports are written by experts, peer-reviewed by experts, and contain an expert synthesis of what the scientific community knows about climate change and how confidently we know it.

Update [2007-9-7 15:18:41 by Andrew Dessler]:After reading Oreskes' reply to the Schulte work here, I think she makes a good defense and answers many of the critical comments I made. I suggest everyone interested in this question read this.

For story: Hunting the white whale
34 Comments | Post a Comment

Isn't it easier

Isn't it simply easier to dismiss it merely because it was published in an unreviewed social science journal,
rather than a peer reviewed physical science journal.

And I say "Unreviewed" because frankly Energy & Environment doesn't even spellcheck their documents before publication.
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

Peer review by qualified professionals is what keeps the bullshit out.

by GreyFlcn at 12:49 PM on 02 Sep 2007

OK, but

Doesn't the same criticism imply that the Oreskes paper was equally worthless for knowing anything about the actual state of the scientific consensus (if any)?

The 5% Project

by JMG at 1:25 PM on 02 Sep 2007

Implications for Oreskes

As I said, I have always been troubled by this methodology. I think Oreskes conclusions are correct, but I would look to the IPCC reports for a true reading of what's in the peer-reviewed literature.

by Andrew Dessler at 1:43 PM on 02 Sep 2007

Wait

He's a medical researcher?

So we have an article made by a medical researcher in an unreviewed social science journal.

by GreyFlcn at 2:03 PM on 02 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Energy and Environment

GrayF-

The journal that a paper is published in certainly does provide some information about the paper. However, I would not be so quick to reject a paper's conclusions solely because it was published in a certain journal. I believe that ideas should stand or fall on their own merits. In this case, I reject this analysis because of me many flaws in it ...

The same goes for arguments over who funds research. Again, I think this is overblown and we should focus on the ideas themselves and not the funding. I reject the ideas of Dick Lindzen not because they are funded by oil companies, but because they are terrible ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny.

by Andrew Dessler at 2:14 PM on 02 Sep 2007

Well while I have your ear

Well, while I have your ear, one of the bloggers I'm butting heads with keeps coming up with these questions, which frankly I have no answer for.

I just try to ignore it, but frankly he's rather persistant about it.

Any ideas what the answer might be, or if it's even relevant.

How many scientists in the IPCC have written peer reviewed work?
How many scientists are in the IPCC?

Thanks.

by GreyFlcn at 3:25 PM on 02 Sep 2007

Author & reviewer list

You can get a list of all of the authors and reviewers of the IPCC WGI report here. I would guess that every single author and reviewer of the report has published in the peer-reviewed literature. Otherwise, how could they get to be an author?

by Andrew Dessler at 3:33 PM on 02 Sep 2007

"the climate-change alarm

...that now harms patients."

That statement alone sets off my climate-fraudster alarm. I mean, it's really, really hard to determine the harm caused by most substances, yet alone psychological phenomena.

I wonder if the harm done by "climate-change alarm" is as well-documented as that done by second-hand smoke? I'd be interested to know "Dr" Schulte's opinions on the matter of environmental tobacco smoke. I wonder what other unproven assertions lard this paper. Sounds like a bad joke to me.

by Jones at 5:50 PM on 02 Sep 2007

Private Property

"Activists" rant in blogs about how people are always supposed to be "doing something" about climate change to help the Earth.

The Whole Earth Thing is a giant misconception. It presumes that the planet is a great shared game park with a vast commons and each of us has an equal share in it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Earth is becoming almost entirely private property, with a few vacant parcels in between that they can't quite yet figured out how to built an Interstate on.

As such, each and every square foot is owned, stamped, cataloged...numbered. I see this as clear as day on my place of residence, Kent East Hill.

I live in the center of the hill in a small one bedroom apartment with people of all walks of life. Southern Blacks, Indians, Sk8tr Whites, Thais, Ukrainians....We live in one of the most densely packed parts of Puget Sound (only Queen Anne has equal or higher density).

Yet just today I took a short (very short) drive of a few miles from here to scope out a trail, park, I had heard about. As I drove down the rural streets I saw construction of a size and scale that drawfed my entire neighboorhood. Vast "McMansions being built with 5 car garages on top of hills sheared of trees, Giant houses with acres of land being cut, landscaped, leveled...asphalted.

I don't own that land. I cannot decide what goes on there. I take care of my apartment an use CF bulbs. But what goes on there, dwarfs my efforts.

Therefore "We" don't have anything to do with it...in the same sense I cannot go traipsing across my neighbors' yard, it is also his responsibility to take responsibility for his care or destruction to the land.

I have nothing to do with it.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 5:51 PM on 02 Sep 2007

Re: Private Property

That's a very good argument John. Private property is the responsibility of the owner, therefore the owner should care for it, as you are doing with your CF bulbs.

However, what happens when something isnt so private and has to be shared by the fact that it is a commons? Take air for example. How can you claim the air in your house as yours. That same air flows in and out of your house, taking any air pollution you cause with it to the next place. The climate....we know earth's climate is a global system. How can you claim ownership of your climate? How can you ensure that any screwups you make with your climate wont spill over to other's climates?

In the end, Adam Smith was right...people acting in their own self interest will benefit society, but ONLY as long as there are no externalities. And when it comes to the environment, it's very hard to lay claim to what is yours and therefore your responsibility. It might be easy to own land, but air, water, climate, biodiversity etc are not purchasable things.

by kman at 6:42 PM on 02 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Actually

Adam Smith believed that government should regulate the commons and "public goods".
http://greyfalcon.net/smith.png

It's Froedrich Hayek, and his pupil Milton Friedman who believe "any regulation is bad regulation".

by GreyFlcn at 7:26 PM on 02 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

IPCC members

technically are governments, not individuals. That is one of those stupid questions whose answer can be both true and useless. The IPCC plenary appoints experts to prepare reports.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf

by EliRabett at 8:20 PM on 02 Sep 2007

How science works

I agree with Dr Dessler that scientists have to explain how science works in the normal day-to-day work to have people understand what the scientists are saying.

Individual papers only address small parts of the big picture. Thats how science is done. Big questions are only examined in synthesis reports like the IPCC. Also scientists should explain that the basics behind climate change will not be found in recent papers. These facts are so well established that to find them you'll need to look in basic climatology textbooks.

As far as the private property question, remember that nuisance, the legal term of art that means that one can not use their property in a way that negatively effects someone else's property, was on the books as long the US existed. It does apply to climate change.

by josullivan58 at 9:49 PM on 02 Sep 2007

Muted Group

none of these papers explicitly reject the consensus position

First of all, most scientific papers are not grandiose sweeping documents presenting vast analysis or theories. They are simple recounting of data and its analysis.

As such, there is no need to cascade upward all the time and put in things like "so therefore, Ohio will flood in 2020".

These are the kinds of ridiculous leaps of logic that are best left to popular science, to movies made by unelectable politicians...and, yes, of course Grist.

As far was why we do not hear from voices other than the "consensus" -- that is because they are quashed. I have presented the predictions of the Bailo Model many times in Grist. I take a divergent viewpoint on the cause and the results of Global Heating -- the result is that I am called names and downshouted.

The "consensus" is a false one -- because the Pharisees block the dissent. Is Henrik Svensmark not a member of the community. Does not his work in every way contradict the findings of the IPCC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muted_group_theory

The basis for muted group theory comes from the work of two cultural anthropologists in the 1970s: Edwin and Shirley Ardener. Edwin and Shirley, in Perceiving Women (1975), made the observation that most other cultural anthropologists practicing ethnography in the field were only talking to the leaders of the cultures, who were by and large adult males. The researchers would then use this data to represent the culture as a whole, leaving out the perspectives of women, children and other groups made voiceless by the cultural hierarchy.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 11:44 PM on 02 Sep 2007

Public Enemy Number One

As far as the private property question, remember that nuisance, the legal term of art that means that one can not use their property in a way that negatively effects someone else's property, was on the books as long the US existed. It does apply to climate change.

Good point.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 11:46 PM on 02 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

dissent?

In science ideas that don't agree with physical reality are rejected. Jabilo submit the Bailo model to peer reviewed science journals. If it is not published it might be because your model does not accurately represent physical facts.

Please tell us what journals you submitted your model to. Perhaps your model is not accurate. If your side doesn't get recognition it isn't because you're being suppressed, your model might just be inaccurate.

To quote Senator Moynahan "You are entitled to your own opinion...but you are not entitled to your own facts."

by josullivan58 at 12:34 AM on 03 Sep 2007

Thanks Dr. Dessler

Andrew Dessler is fair and right-on. To fully understand any scientific topic one must know the community of researchers, their specialties, their previous work and papers, and so forth. it helps to know how scientists disagree and even fuss with each other. This takes years - it took me about six years on the circuit before the EPA would let me perform peer review on their mobile source models and PM standards - and those areas of comment were extremely narrow and technical. The actual community of scientists working on similar issues might be quite small, since each aspect is a specialty "niche" market.

Don't tell anybody, but we universally detest the mid-management "wonks" that attempt to put a synthesis policy view and what we consider to be sacred ground ... I had to laugh as I wrote those words! /sammie

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 9:29 AM on 03 Sep 2007

You're Being Unfair To Oreskes

Oreskes is an expert in studying the history of science, yet you seemingly just assume that she's not really competent in doing her job, essentially treating her work as if it's not much different than Schulte's.

As a journalist, I happened to interview Oreskes two years ago, and she made quite clear to me her purpose in conducting this survey: She has studied fundamental scientific controversies (did her PhD on the initial consideration and rejection of plate techtonics in the 1920s, and a subsequent book on the reconsideration that followed decades later), she knew what they looked like, and she knew that global warming was not an example.

You'll note that her own PhD research was based on a case where the scientific consensus was eventually shown to be wrong. So she's quite well aware of the sometimes painful difference between sound science (that much-abused term) and getting the right answer. She is not in any sense a naive investigator.

What she wanted to do was to demonstrate clearly, and scientifically for others what she knew intuitively from her own professional experience. So she devised an experiment, a sampling of data to illustrate what is going on in the field. It was not meant to be exhaustive, but it was meant to be rigorous enough to prove her point. And that point was proven by the fact that no paper in the sample of 928 abstracts rejected the consensus view.

Your misapprehension of Oreskes' purpose, methods and competence are visible in two passages:

(1) You say:

The entire approach of determining whether a paper supports or contradicts the consensus view based on a reading of the abstract by a non-expert is flawed. Note that this criticism also applies to Oreskes' original paper. While she got the right answer, I have always been uncomfortable with the methodology.

But this presumes, above all, that your concerns matter for the purposes of Oreskes' original study, when in fact they do not. Oreskes herself is aware of this problem and discusses it in her expanded discussion of her work here, for example:

A few comments are in order. First, often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of a paper do think about global climate change. This is a consequence of experts writing for experts: many elements are implicit. If a conclusion is widely accepted, then it is not necessary to reiterate it within the context of expert discussion. Scientists generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees.
This is clearly the case with the largest portion of the papers examined (approximately half of the total)--those dealing with impacts of climate change. The authors evidently accept the premise that climate change is real and want to track, evaluate, and understand its impacts. Nevertheless, such impacts could, at least in some cases, be the results of natural variability rather than human activities. Strikingly, none of the papers used that possibility to argue against the consensus position.

Furthermore, implicit in this passage is her choice of a categorization scheme that allowed the sorting of abstracts so as to avoid the problems you raise. While a more refined analysis--as well as a larger sample--could have certainly yielded a more precise picture of attitudes in the field, this was not her purpose, as she herself clearly explained.

(2)

Another reason the analysis is rubbish is the keywords chosen: global climate change.... if I limit my search to the journals in which the vast majority of papers on the physics of climate are published ...
1. Journal of Geophysical Research
2. Geophysical Research Letters
3. Journal of Climate
4. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
... I only get 18 articles. That's surprising, because these journals have published nearly 8,000 papers over this time period, and a significant fraction are on climate change.
It turns out that most papers on global climate change do not actually use this term in the title or abstract.

But limiting the search so severely is precisely what produces a manageable sample size. And it produces results from a wide range of journals--precisely what is intended, since Oreskes begins with noting the existence of the consensus in bodies such as the IPCC, and asks if there might not be a process of marginalization at work. If there were, it would likely show up in papers not published in the leading journals, so a sampling method that includes them is clearly called for, which is what her method does. This makes it all the more significant that she found no trace of an anti-consensus article.

In short, there are certainly many things one could do to "improve" on Oreskes' work. But the question is, why? Her original question has clearly been answered. The choice of how to improve her work--more refined analysis of papers, broader search terms, etc.--should be tailored to some further purpose (preferrably not beating a dead horse). What should that purpose be?

by Paul Rosenberg at 9:29 AM on 03 Sep 2007

There is little doubt in my mind that a

..."process of marginalization [is] at work." Such is human nature. I'm sure the same holds true for the theory of evolution. It is worthy of discussion but does not mean that global warming is not a reality. Countries are positioning themselves to drill for oil when the arctic ice melts for God's sake. On the other hand, the Bailo theory that "a world with runaway heating tipping points is a good thing" is not worth discussing.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:56 AM on 03 Sep 2007

Dessler Doesn't Understand Science

Dessler does not understand science at all.

He confuses the great number of scientists publishing simple papers reviewing findings and data and automatically assumes that they somehow "support global warming".

Most scientific papers don't support any overarching hypothesis -- in fact, they can be subsumed by one or many theories.

Example: before Einstein, there were papers reviewing various behaviors of light, energy, etc. These papers just reported the facts. They did not implicitly support a hypothesis, but they could.

Then Einstein came along and said, oh, what these papers are supporting is my theory.

So, these papers are like stones on a Go board they can be captured at any time by a superior explanation.

That is what I'm saying -- the old Crypto-Malthusian paradigm which has been around for way too long, and has transmogrified into the current AGM fallacy, is not implicitly supported by these papers. These papers can be used to support anything.

The Bailo Hypothesis is a philosophical understanding of the data, not data itself. The Model is open to inspection via email to me.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 11:16 AM on 03 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

LOL

"Runaway heating tipping points" combined with the Poison Darts in your signature - ouch! Please consider that my Labor Day Funny.

And yes, obfuscation IS a strategy! It doesn't mean boo to global warming, however. It's really called "radiative forcing," anyway. There is a cooling mechanism primarily driven by particulate and aerosol, and there is a warming mechanism mainly driven by gases such as CO2, CH4, and N20. Given that both processes are present at the same time, I don't see how a qualified scientists could pick one and reject the other. Plus, water (H20) works on both sides of the equation, a truly remarkable compound.

And if you look at departure from mean climactic averages, it's fairly obvious we're in a warming regime driven by CO2. How could one reject THAT? /sammie

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 11:19 AM on 03 Sep 2007

Climate Change Worries Harming Patients?

My patients worry about all sorts of things but I can't recall any of them reporting worries about climate change. Worrying about that would be an improvement over many of their worries. It's a problem they can do something constructive about.

Frances

by drfrances at 12:55 PM on 03 Sep 2007

It Lags....IT LAGS!!! AAARRRGGHHHH

And if you look at departure from mean climactic averages, it's fairly obvious we're in a warming regime driven by CO2. How could one reject THAT?

Easily...CO2 doesn't lead temperature...it lags.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 2:52 PM on 03 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

CO2-temperature relation

While I'm not sure what a "philosophical analysis of the data" reveals, an analysis based on physics shows that the ol' lead-lag harpoon misses the whale. See blog entry.

by Andrew Dessler at 3:26 PM on 03 Sep 2007

CO2 CAUSES Warming

It is fairly well known that CO2 causes warming, which was my point - whatever you say about lags and time warps is fine with me. Joseph Fourier discovered the effect in 1824, although it was not quantified until the end of the century. If is wasn't for CO2, our planet would be inhabitable.

My impression was the only feedback loop was water itself, either as liquid, vapor, clouds, or ice. Now you can talk about lag rates due to latent heat, or some accelerating effect because a warmer atmosphere means more water vapor (the "worst" greenhouse gas).

But I'm just a fruitcake ... carry on, gentlemen.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 4:49 PM on 03 Sep 2007

Will the whale be caught? Don't think so.

There is a useful running discussion, including a reply from Dr. Oreskes, in:

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_res ...

Tim Lambert at Deltoid has useful discussion:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

and a growing database of abstracts:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/clim/

More information keeps coming to light about the peculiarities of this whole business.

-John Mashey

by JohnMashey at 10:47 AM on 05 Sep 2007

The lag

I discuss the infamous CO2 vs T lag here:

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/missing-feedba ...

Its implications are not what you might have been led to expect.

mt

by Michael Tobis at 1:31 PM on 05 Sep 2007

re: climate change worries harming patients

drfrances: There actually may be some truth to this, in this particular case.

Recall that the Schulte report came to light via Lord Christopher Monckton, who is well-known in the UK for his views on anthropogenic climate change [ridiculous, not happening]. He is easy to Google, but the following is useful:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2073267,00 ...

It notes that Monckton has required a series of operations for an endocrine complaint.

Dr. Schulte is an endocrine surgeon, whose wegbsite says: "We are one of the largest centres in the UK for endocrine surgery...", at Kings College Hospital (a good place)

Now, I have zero evidence that Monckton has met Schulte, or been treated by him, but if so, then Schulte would have seen at least one patient worried about exaggerated scares of climate change....

This could be a coincidence, of course, but it has been a puzzle why a well-published endocrinologist suddenly charges off into the buzz-saw of global warming fights...

-John Mashey

by JohnMashey at 4:49 PM on 05 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Oreskes' reply

After reading Oreskes' reply to the Schulte work here, I think she makes a good defense and answers many of the critical comments I made. I suggest everyone interested in this question read this.

by Andrew Dessler at 6:35 PM on 05 Sep 2007

More details on SChulte & Oreskes

Well, more details appear (but reference back to #35):

1) DeSmogBlog has some interesting background on SPPI (where Lord Christopher Monckton published his piece).
http://www.desmogblog.com/the-endocrinologist-the-viscoun ...

Experienced people will not be surprised.

2) And SPPI has an "Open Letter in Response to Namoi (sic) Oreskes' Criticisms",
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/ope ...

3) and a comment by Bob Ferguson, who you will find mentioned in 1).
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Well-orchestrated, indeed.

Additional comments over at StrangerFruit thread mentioned by Dr. Dessler.

-John Mashey

by JohnMashey at 6:55 PM on 06 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

And furthermore...

Thanks to John, who also alerted me: my response and comments here:
http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/
I feel entitled to comment because I have read the Schulte paper.
regards,

Turned out nice again...

by Fergus Brown at 4:28 AM on 07 Sep 2007

Please add an update

Andrew, if you could please add your last comment as an update since most readers will never get down this far.

by Steve Bloom at 1:59 PM on 07 Sep 2007

White whales; harpoons, rusty butter knife

The white whale analogy is great, and I've often referenced it elsewhere. But particularly in the light of Tim Lambert's unequivocal finding of plagiarism at:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_replies_t ...

I think "harpoon" is wrong.

in this case, Ahab took a piece of a broken 2005 harpoon, handed it to a non-swimming landlubber, who turned it into a rusty butter knife. Ahab announced that the whale was clearly dead, and the blogiodicy reported it so all along the shore. The landlubber has yet to actually get in a leaky boat and assault the whale, but Anytime Now...

-John Mashey

by JohnMashey at 2:39 PM on 12 Sep 2007

A post script

It turns out the E&E declined to publish, i.e., "submitted" and "to be published" are different:

http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published ...

-John Mashey

by JohnMashey at 1:55 PM on 20 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.