| Revision as of 02:30, 21 July 2006 editKane5187 (talk | contribs)Administrators15,907 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:34, 21 July 2006 edit undoEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,209 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| She has worked as a consultant for the ] and ], and has also taught at ], ] and ]. She is the author or has contributed to a number of books, the most recent being '']'' (with ]) ], 2001) She is also a member of the ]. | She has worked as a consultant for the ] and ], and has also taught at ], ] and ]. She is the author or has contributed to a number of books, the most recent being '']'' (with ]) ], 2001) She is also a member of the ]. | ||
| Dr. Oreskes wrote an ] in the ]'s in 2004 |
Dr. Oreskes wrote an ] in the ]'s in 2004. | ||
| *Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. | |||
| ⚫ | There has been some controversy on the essay itself. One of the reasons is that as originally published the essay had an error with the search term "]", used to derive the results, was originally written in the article as “]”. That error has since been corrected by ''Science'' and elsewhere. Further research into the major point of contention, the breadth of the search itself, has also been disputed. has been the most vocal critic of the essay and methods |
||
| Her conclusions have been challenged by ] and ]. | |||
| This essay has often been used to support the view that there is an obvious ] on the subject of . | |||
| ⚫ | There has been some controversy on the essay itself. One of the reasons is that as originally published the essay had an error with the search term "]", used to derive the results, was originally written in the article as “]”. That error has since been corrected by ''Science'' and elsewhere. Further research into the major point of contention, the breadth of the search itself, has also been disputed. has been the most vocal critic of the essay and methods. | ||
| Historian '''Naomi Orestes''' is best known as the author of famous '']'' article "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." | |||
| The debate on Naomi Oreskes and ], a faculty member at ] in Liverpool, is covered in more detail at ]. | |||
| Details and comments on this issue are on]'s blog], on , and in an editorial by Dr. Oreskes herself in ], | Details and comments on this issue are on]'s blog], on , and in an editorial by Dr. Oreskes herself in ], | ||
| See also: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
Revision as of 17:34, 21 July 2006
Naomi Oreskes is an Associate Professor, History Department and Program in Science Studies at the University of California San Diego. She has been at UC San Diego since 1998. Her home page at UCSD is here.
Dr. Oreskes received her Bachelor of Science in Mining Geology from The Royal School of Mines 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 was the 1994 recipient of the NSF Young Investigator Award.
She has worked as a consultant for the EPA and NAS, and has also taught at Dartmouth, Harvard and NYU. She is the author or has contributed to a number of books, the most recent being Plate Tectonics: An Insider’s History of the Modern Theory of the Earth (with Homer Le Grand ) Westview Press, 2001) She is also a member of the History of Science Society.
Dr. Oreskes wrote an essay on science and society BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change in the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science Magazine in 2004.
- Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
Her conclusions have been challenged by Benny Peiser and Richard Lindzen.
This essay has often been used to support the view that there is an obvious scientific consensus on the subject of global warming.
There has been some controversy on the essay itself. One of the reasons is that as originally published the essay had an error with the search term "global climate change", used to derive the results, was originally written in the article as “climate change”. That error has since been corrected by Science and elsewhere. Further research into the major point of contention, the breadth of the search itself, has also been disputed. Benny Peiser has been the most vocal critic of the essay and methods.
Historian Naomi Orestes is best known as the author of famous Science article "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change."
The debate on Naomi Oreskes and Benny Peiser, a faculty member at John Moores University in Liverpool, is covered in more detail at Scientific opinion on climate change.
Details and comments on this issue are onTim Lambert's blog, on Dr. Peiser's web site, and in an editorial by Dr. Oreskes herself in The Washington Post, Undeniable Global Warming.
See also: