Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to no it didn't, here's the proof that Peiser lacks credibility

re: no it didn't, here's the proof that Peiser lacks credibility
gbaikie — (archived)

That's not proof that Peiser lacks credibitity.

It's actually proof that Peiser is credible: somebody ask Peiser for additionally information regarding his study and Peiser provides it.

And the person you linked to said, "Peiser asserts that these 34 reject or doubt the consensus position. Note that Peiser added “or doubt” to the category so it is logically possible for both of them to be correct."

In others words he is not claiming to be providing any proof that Peiser in incorrect. If he wishes to think that Oreskes is as correct as Peiser, that is his problem.
The point is that there was no an unanimous scientific consensus of the papers. There wasn't even a majority of consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Of the search results, an accurate assessment is there is a small minority of consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.
If she had instead talked to school teachers, then she probably would had found a large majority of consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. But if she had talked to scientist working in the field and who were very knowledgable in this topic, she would probably find that this view was rare.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (40 posts)