| Revision as of 08:50, 2 May 2008 editSlrubenstein (talk | contribs)30,655 edits this complies with V and NPOV← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:29, 2 May 2008 edit undoVanished user 47736712 (talk | contribs)2,050 edits No it doesn't, and there has been extensive discussion about thisNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| </ref> | </ref> | ||
| In the essay she reported analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ] database with the keywords |
In the essay she reported an analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ] database with the keywords ‘global climate change’”.<ref name="science-essay" /> The essay stated the analysis was to test the hypothesis that the drafting of reports and statements by societies such as the ], ] and ] might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions on ]. After the analysis, she concluded that 75 percent of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. The essay received a great deal of media attention from around the world and has been cited by many prominent persons such as ] in the movie '']''. | ||
| In 2007, Oreskes expanded her analysis, stating that approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that: "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities". In addition, 55 percent of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts) or to mitigate against predicted changes (5 percent). The remaining 25 percent either focused on paleoclimate (10) or developing measurement techniques (15) and Oreskes considered these to be agnostic on the reality of climate change.<ref>{{cite book | |||
| Oreskes' conclusions were directly ] by ], a social anthropologist who repeated her search, but specifying "all document types." This led to a different result than obtained by Oreskes, and one that discredited her finding. <ref name="Peiser"></ref>. Peiser found that numerous articles -- as many as 34 articles, depending on the standard met -- rejected Oreskes claims. When he later discovered that Oreskes had made her claims based on a subset of articles, Peiser repeated the search and found other problems with Oreskes study. Chiefly, he found that Oreskes has no basis whatever for her findings as the entire ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicity endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' Moreover, he found that the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change. | |||
| |author = Oreskes, Naomi | |||
| |editor = Joseph F. DiMento, Pamela Doughman | |||
| |year = 2007 | |||
| |chapter = The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? | |||
| | chapterurl=http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/Chapter4.pdf | |||
| |title = Climate Change | |||
| |publisher = MIT Press | |||
| |isbn = 026204241X | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | Oreskes responded to some criticisms, including those from ], with an editorial in ].<ref name="washington post">{{cite journal | ||
| Oreskes has not directly refuted Peiser's critiques, aside from pointing out that she had employed a narrower search than he initially had. Nevertheless, Peiser's letters to ''Science'' on the subject were rejected by the editors without explanation. | |||
| Peiser has recently explained in a letter to the Australian '']'' that his fundamental findings remain intact, although he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms.<ref>{{cite journal | |||
| | last=Peiser | |||
| | first = Benny | |||
| | title = Email RE: Media Watch enquiry | |||
| | journal = ] | |||
| | pages = 1 | |||
| | date = October 12, 2006 | |||
| | url = http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf }}</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | Oreskes |
||
| | last = Oreskes | | last = Oreskes | ||
| | first = Naomi | | first = Naomi | ||
| Line 83: | Line 80: | ||
| | pages = B07 | | pages = B07 | ||
| | date = December 26, 2004 | | date = December 26, 2004 | ||
| | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html }}</ref> |
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html }}</ref> | ||
| ==Selected Awards, Honors, and Fellowships== | ==Selected Awards, Honors, and Fellowships== | ||
Revision as of 09:29, 2 May 2008
| Naomi Oreskes | |
|---|---|
| Alma mater | Imperial College, University of London Stanford University |
| Scientific career | |
| Fields | Science History, Economic geology |
| Institutions | Stanford University U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S National Academy of Sciences Dartmouth College Harvard University New York University University of California San Diego |
Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego.
Background
Oreskes received her Bachelor of Science in Mining Geology from the Royal School of Mines of Imperial College, University of London in 1981, and worked as a Research Assistant in the Geology Department and as a Teaching Assistant in the departments of Geology, Philosophy and Applied Earth Sciences at Stanford University starting in 1984. She received her PhD in the Graduate Special Program in Geological Research and History of Science at Stanford in 1990. She received a National Science Foundation's Young Investigator Award in 1994.
She has worked as a consultant for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S National Academy of Sciences, and has also taught at Dartmouth, Harvard and New York University (NYU). She is also a member of the History of Science Society. She is the author or has contributed to a number of essays and technical reports in economic geology and science history in addition to three books:
- Plate Tectonics: An Insider’s History of the Modern Theory of the Earth, Edited with Homer Le Grand) (2003) Westview Press, ISBN 0-8133-4132-9
- The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science (1999) Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-511733-6
- Perspectives on Geophysics, Special Issue of Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 31B, Oreskes, Naomi and James R. Fleming, eds. 2000.
Sixth College
On February 5, 2008, it was announced that Oreskes would become the second Sixth College Provost effective July 1, 2008.
Science and society essay
Oreskes wrote an essay on science and society Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change in the journal Science in December 2004.
In the essay she reported an analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’”. The essay stated the analysis was to test the hypothesis that the drafting of reports and statements by societies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Academy of Sciences might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions on anthropogenic climate change. After the analysis, she concluded that 75 percent of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. The essay received a great deal of media attention from around the world and has been cited by many prominent persons such as Al Gore in the movie an inconvenient truth.
In 2007, Oreskes expanded her analysis, stating that approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that: "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities". In addition, 55 percent of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts) or to mitigate against predicted changes (5 percent). The remaining 25 percent either focused on paleoclimate (10) or developing measurement techniques (15) and Oreskes considered these to be agnostic on the reality of climate change.
Oreskes responded to some criticisms, including those from Richard Lindzen, with an editorial in The Washington Post.
Selected Awards, Honors, and Fellowships
- George Sarton Award Lecture, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2004
- American Philosophical Society Sabbatical Fellowship, 2001-2002.
- National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award, 1994-1999.
- National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship for University Teachers, 1993-94.
- Society of Economic Geologists Lindgren Prize for outstanding work by a young scientist, 1993.
- Ritter Memorial Fellowship in History of Marine Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1994.
- Listed, Who’s Who in American Science and Engineering, Who’s Who in the West.
References
- historyweb.ucsd.edu
- "Appointment of Sixth College Provost". University of California, San Diego. 2008-02-05. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science. 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618.
See also:
- Oreskes, N. Beyond the Ivory Tower, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (including corrections), 21 January 2005, (Retrieved 24 April 2008)
- Exchange of letters to Science
- Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we're not wrong?". In Joseph F. DiMento, Pamela Doughman (ed.). Climate Change. MIT Press. ISBN 026204241X.
{{cite book}}: External link in|chapterurl=|chapterurl=ignored (|chapter-url=suggested) (help) - Oreskes, Naomi (December 26, 2004). "Undeniable Global Warming". Washington Post: B07.
External links
- Oreskes page at UCSD
- Naomi Oreskes, 2007, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong? Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, edited by Joseph F. C. DiMento and Pamela Doughman, MIT Press, pp. 65-99.