This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ThomDoughty (talk | contribs) at 14:02, 22 November 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:02, 22 November 2007 by ThomDoughty (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego. She has been at UC San Diego since 1998.
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 EPA and NAS, 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.
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 analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change’”. . The essay stated the analysis was 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% of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. The keywords Oreskes used in the ISI database search were 'global climate change' in order to remove articles about local climactic fluctuations. The database was limited to articles which had appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals, i.e., journals where articles are cleared for publication by an expert or panel of experts.
Her conclusions were directly challenged by Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist who enumerated the figure of backing the consensus view at closer to only 30% . However, Peiser’s letters to Science on the subject were rejected by the editors, who stood by the integrity of the original paper. Peiser claimed that he had repeated Oreskes' search and had found 35 articles that supported the position that global warming was not caused by human action. It was subsequently revealed that his search criteria were not the same as Oreskes's, using different search terms and including articles which had not been peer reviewed, which resulted in his finding more abstracts than Oreskes had. Most readers of Peiser's list have claimed that most of the papers he cites do not in fact contest the IPCC's position on anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, the only article which clearly contests the consensus position was published in the journal of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, an oil industry publication which has no peer review system. Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms.
As such, the original article and its author appear to have been vindicated. Indeed, the now withdrawn criticisms serve as an example of what she refers to in her article as the media debate over climate change, which stands in contrast to the scientific consensus.
Oreskes has responded to criticisms, including those from Richard Lindzen, with a later editorial in The Washington Post.
Challenge to Consensus View
A recent paper due to be published by Consultant Endocrinologicst Klaus Martin Schulte FRCS , and leaked to the website DailyTech, updates Prof Oreske's previous literature review on climate change. Using the same database and search terms as Oreske, Schulte reviewed publications from 2004 to February 2007. In contrast to Oreske's research, of the 528 papers on climate change only 7%(38 papers) explicitly endorsed the consensus (that man is contributing significantly to climate change).Furthermore, while only 32% reject the consensus outright, 48% neither accept nor endorse the consensus. The overall conclusion of the paper is that there is no concensus. --ThomDoughty (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
References
- 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 for an exchange of letters to Science)
- Benny Peiser’s critique of Oreske’s essay on climate change consensus
- Peiser, Benny (October 12, 2006). "Email RE: Media Watch enquiry" (PDF). Media Watch: 1.
- Oreskes, Naomi (December 26, 2004). "Undeniable Global Warming". Washington Post: B07.
- http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
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.