Right On The Right

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of the climate denialist rag Energy and Environment to which Schulte had submitted his "study" for publication, has confirmed that the study will not be published after all. Seems Schulte's work "was a bit patchy".

bwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm going to stop reposting those other comments here now, Justin. I don't think you could be smacked down harder than this, you poor gullible little thing.

Unfortunately Justin, meanbrain is correct. His assertion ("I pointed out that FOX News argued in court that it has the right to distort or even lie in its stories") is correct.

FOX News did in fact sue for the right to lie to its viewers and what is even worse is that Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co. Inc., Media General Operations Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations Inc filed briefs of Amici Curiae - or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position.

This is a stunning indictment of the mentality behind some major media outlets.

Just for the record, I found the actual opinion of Florida's Second District Court of Appeals (which took me about five to ten minutes) and here are two relevant parts:

We agree with WTVT [a subsidiary of Fox Television] that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" – does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.
...
Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation"
under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's
statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a
judgment in favor of WTVT.

Meat-head (Why is there a space in you ID? Is something missing?)

Also, for your "jkassel POLL", you need a third choice:

(1) imbecile
(2) ignoramus
(3) both

I vote for "both" because why else would I waste 2 minutes replying to you??
JK

You've answered your own question, anonymous. Oreskes is a historian specializing in the history of science, studying the history of a scientific idea. Schulte has no expertise in climatology, yet pretends to be able to pass judgement on scientific papers written in a field he knows little or nothing about.

My question to the blogger who defended her criticism of Dr Schulte was to see how he would respond. The point is if Dr Schulte were being criticized by Ms Oreskes, the blogger would have defended him.

That's a truly jaw-droppingly, mind-numbingly stupid thing to say. It's not really surprising, of course, coming as it does from jkassel. All that's happened here is that jkassel has proven that he/she/it simply hasn't been paying attention. He/she/it hasn't read a word of what Ms. Oreskes wrote.

It's plain to anyone who has read what Ms. Oreskes wrote that she did, in fact, criticize Schulte. And it's plain to anyone who's read this thread that I haven't leapt to Schulte's defense. jkassel once again demonstrates his/her/its ignorance.

For that blogger, new information about whether a consensus among a majority of scientific researchers exists, or not, as of 2007 unnerves him.

Purest unadulterated horseshit. jkassle is pretending here to have telepathic powers that allow him/her/it to read someone else's mind. He/she/it stumbles from stupidity to outright fantasy.

Studies of researchers' articles on the specific topic of "global warming" suggest that the scientific community is no longer 90% sure that humans and CO2 are likely to be the only factors causing moderate temperature changes since the 70's.

What mainstream climate researcher has ever claimed that the scientific community is "90% sure that humans and CO2 are likely to be the only factors causing moderate temperature changes since the 70's". this is another of jkassel's bullsh*t strawman claims that it won't be able to back up with one solitary shred of fact.

Go on, idiot: Quote a mainstream researcher who's made that specific claim. RUN AWAY NOW! PRETEND IT'S MY JOB TO FIND FACTS TO BACK UP YOUR BULLSH*T!

Both of them are highly respected and both of them have had to deal with major criticism.

Show us where Schulte has 'dealt' with Oreskes' criticism. RUN AWAY NOW! PRETEND IT'S MY JOB TO FIND FACTS TO BACK UP YOUR BULLSH*T!

You're a fool and a coward, jkassel. Thanks for the laugh.

Anonymous - I am very familiar with Naomi Oreskes. Her credentials are stellar! I admire her greatly! My question to the blogger who defended her criticism of Dr Schulte was to see how he would respond. The point is if Dr Schulte were being criticized by Ms Oreskes, the blogger would have defended him. For that blogger, new information about whether a consensus among a majority of scientific researchers exists, or not, as of 2007 unnerves him. Why? Studies of researchers' articles on the specific topic of "global warming" suggest that the scientific community is no longer 90% sure that humans and CO2 are likely to be the only factors causing moderate temperature changes since the 70's.

That information does not fit with the bloggers' preconceived notions and acceptance of the "dire" consequences of man's continuing his activities as that relates to the release of CO2 as proclaimed in Al Gore's movie. If the World does not begin taking drastic measures, according to Al Gore, the World is doomed. That blogger refuses to look beyond researchers Ms Oreskes and Dr Schulte, whose credentials are widely aclaimed, also. Both of them are highly respected and both of them have had to deal with major criticism. Both have earned their colleagues' admiration. JK

Anonymous - Good question! The correct spelling is "consensus". OOPS! No SpellCheck on this blog. JK

Is that the English spelling?

Naomi Oreskes (Ph.D., Stanford, 1990) is Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego. Her research focuses on the historical development of scientific knowledge, methods, and practices in the earth and environmental sciences, and on understanding scientific consensus and dissent.

Read the rest of her resume at the UCSD website.

http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/profile.html

My goal is to challenge you and many others to read and study the research on various topics.

False. jkassel's goal is to deny the fact that Schulte's "study" does not refute anything Oreskes did, since Schulte did not examine the same research question that Oreskes did.

The fact that jkassel refuses to address this point demonstrates clearly that he/she/it is not willing to conduct an honest discussion of the topic.

Thank-you for referring to me as a "he/she/it/ or his/her/its". It really does not matter, so you are obviously trying to remain neutral and not expose whether you are a sexist! Good for you! My suggestion for you, Mean-head, oops, Meathead, is to re-read very slowly my first message, "Chris is Right!"

First, the scrutiny (look it up) used by Dr Schulte refined the search topic to "global warming". Ms Oreskes used "climate change" for analyzing the research papers dated between 1993 and 2001! Have I mentioned that more than three times, yet? Research suggest that repeating something seven times results in 80% retention! For mean, nasty, opinionated, and brainwashed persons, the research conclusions are still pending!!

By the way, look up "edict". Also, missing is a reason for wasting my time with telling me "anything you choose". "Anything you choose" to write to me is perfectly fine with me as long as you don't abuse Justin's blogging standards. Such ugliness will only serve to call attention to your unwillingness to do your own research! I choose to have the option to respond or ignore. I really find such a statement amusing!

Some people want to create their own reality and use their blogs to bully others. Not you, right? I prefer to challenge you to use your talents to search for many opinions about GW. It is too easy to throw a "cyberspace" tantrum! Shame on you! Get to work on the GW subject or something else. You are getting tiresome and redundant (look it up!).

By the way, do you know anything about analyzing scientific articles? Do you realize authors of scientific research can be easily identified? Those who are researching and publishing works after they have been vetted (analyzed for accuracy) have distinctive "fingerprints"! I can analyze a paper and identify the author. That's the work I do, plus I write summaries of conclusions in precise, concise, easily understood terms for those researchers who may, or may not, want press releases written before publication. My job is NOT to try and convince you of anything! Believe what ever you want. Close your eyes and cover your ears. Find with me!

One thing for which I should be grateful is how curious you have made me about how bloggers like you are willing to spend so much time yelling at those who challenge your preconceived notions. Direct that energy to searching for evidence that confirms or refutes your notions. It is not flattering to watch you "stand your ground" when Earth studies are "moving ahead" with or without you. Ha! Well, it is a tiny bit humorous to me!

My goal is to challenge you and many others to read and study the research on various topics. It doesn't have to be about GW. Educate yourself about solar energy or whatever!! Even though I have some days off, I will probably still check back on Justin's blog. It has been a BLAST! JK

Dr Schulte and Ms Oreskes'former research teams analyzed more recently published (2002-2007) articles with more "scrutiny" to learn IF Ms Oreskes "consenses" conclusion (on papers between 1993 to 2001)still exists.

False. As already explained, Schulte did not examine the articles he found for agreement with the same question as Oreskes. He therefore cannot have determined if any consensus on Oreskes' original research question still exists. His study in no way invalidates any of Oreskes' conclusions.

By using updated search engines (high-speed technologically enhanced equipment)...

jkassel is frantically making things up to support his/her/its arguments. He/she/it has no idea what equipment Schulte used, nor can he/she/it explain how this speculatory "high-speed technologically enhanced equipment" in any way affected the results of Schulte's search.

Don't tell me that my comments need specific "citations" and references. Look for the evidence yourself!

jkassel has no way of enforcing his/her/its edict. I will continue to tell jkassel anything I choose.

But I thank jkassel for demonstrating clearly that it is incapable of supporting his/her/its claims with facts. He/she/it chooses instead to run away from those claims, pretending that someone else is responsible for supporting his/her/its arguments.

Have you read Dr Klaus-Martin Schulte's paper, Meathead? Dr Schulte and Ms Oreskes'former research teams analyzed more recently published (2002-2007) articles with more "scrutiny" to learn IF Ms Oreskes "consenses" conclusion (on papers between 1993 to 2001)still exists.

By using updated search engines (high-speed technologically enhanced equipment) and more specific topics (Ms Oreskes searched papers using "climate change" as the topic which she neglected to mention and Dr Schulte used "global warming" as the topic), he and the analysts found that their "updated research"(YES-"Updated" is the operative word when searching the question of whether "consenses" still exists since the 2001 UN IPCC Report)
does not confirm Ms Oreskes' 90% consenses claim.

"Consenses" in the scientific community's published works about the catastrophic affect man and CO2 can have on GW no longer exists. Yes, reputable scientists agree that Earth temps are changing (70's - cooler to the present - est. under 3%). If Dr Schulte's research confirmed that the vast majority of the scientific community sustained a "consenses" that man and CO2 emissions are threatening humankind's existence, that would ALSO be very important information!! The entire issue is: How is scientific information when applied to the industrialized and developing countries going to affect the quality of life?

The UN IPCC would like for all industrialized nations to sign onto the Kyoto Accords, be subject to world-wide regulations/penalties etc. For 30 years or more, applied technology has been and will continue to lead in developing industries that will meet the challenges to provide alternative energy sources and practical applications of scientific discoveries which will decrease any activities by man that will harm our Earth.

For readers who know how to read statistics, diagrams, and charts, look deeper into the GW issues. You don't need a degree. You need an open mind and a willingness to adjust your perspective one way or the other when you begin to understand the nuances associated with research. My motto: How scientific information is used by policy-makers and law-makers is crucial to every living thing!

Another idea I believe is that humans are perfectly capable of using their talents and ingenuity to improve the quality of life. The United States is far ahead and other nations are improving rapidly. Put your own ideas to work!

Again, do not attack the messengers who have "new" messages. Attack those who would limit their ability to share those messages. There's so much more to say, but I am sure some of you will be up late attacking my blog.

Don't tell me that my comments need specific "citations" and references. Look for the evidence yourself! I have plenty of work to do already - that is transcribing scientific information into terms everyone can grasp! Luckily, I have some days off coming to think about why I do what I do??? JK

His paper is not yet publicly available: however, it is known that he did not challenge Oreskes' research, but merely updated it...

As Ms. Oreskes herself already explained, chris' claim is false. Schulte did not in any way "update" Ms Oreskes' research:

The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that.

chris continues:

If the media reports are correct, Schulte has (unlike Oreskes) actually quoted several papers which demonstrate his conclusion that the supposed "consensus" is no longer unanimous.

Irrelevant. No serious climate scientist claims that the consensus is "unanimous". By definition, consensus does not require unanimity.

Oreskes is likely to find herself in trouble with her University if Mr. Schulte decides to complain, because just about the only thing you can be instantly dismissed from a University for these days is making a false accusation of "misrepresentation" against another academic when you have not in fact read what that academic had written.

Cite examples of individuals who have been "instantly dismissed from a University" for the offense you have stated.

Note that any speculation you have made regarding hypothetical disciplinary action against Ms. Oreskes has no bearing on whether Schulte is correct or not.

It is also telling that chris denigrates Ms Oreskes for criticizing Schulte without (allegedly) having read his paper, yet chris is perfectly willing to declare "Schulte is right" without himself having read Schulte's paper!

Oreskes has made the cardinal error of criticizing Mr. Schulte for "misrepresentation" and for being "foolish" before she has read what he has written. His paper is not yet publicly available: however, it is known that he did not challenge Oreskes' research, but merely updated it to cover all scientific papers on "global climate change" in the period from 2004 to February 2007. Her "head-count" review of the literature had run from 1993 to 2003 inclusive. If the media reports are correct, Schulte has (unlike Oreskes) actually quoted several papers which demonstrate his conclusion that the supposed "consensus" is no longer unanimous. It would be wisest not to follow Oreskes in attacking him until we have seen what he actually says. Oreskes is likely to find herself in trouble with her University if Mr. Schulte decides to complain, because just about the only thing you can be instantly dismissed from a University for these days is making a false accusation of "misrepresentation" against another academic when you have not in fact read what that academic had written. Expect fireworks on this one.

For note, jkassel is a woman.

Do you seriously expect me to do more of your homework?

jkassel resorts to a typical ploy of the denialists: pretending that it is someone else's job to provide the evidence that supports his claims. This means that jkassel has no evidence to support his claims regarding Schulte's methodology, the alleged "studies conducted and completed since the 2004 UN IPCC", the alleged "quoted FACTS released by the scientists", or the alleged "new predictions".

Dr Klaus-Martin Schulte(You should be respectful when referring to him, also) updated Ms Oreskes'research...

As Ms. Oreskes herself already explained, jkassel's claim is false. Schulte did not in any way "[update] Ms Oreskes'research":

The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that.

jkassel also claims:

The earlier GW models were found to be inaccurate and overstated temperature increases etc.

jkassel makes another claim that he will no doubt be unable to support with specific citations.

Ms Oreskes' "interpretation of the severity climate question" (as she stated) contradicts herself, because she believes that "a typical contrarian tactic - {is to}- exaggerate or misrepresent the scientific claim" (Notice, she did not say scientific FACT!) She is a contrarian.

jkassel is lying. Citing the tactics used by denialists does not make Ms. Oreskes a "contrarian". Unlike jkassel, Ms. Oreskes is merely stating a fact.

Also, I caught you with, "Why do you give more credence to an historian over a Med PhD?" The reason you do is because you want to agree with her position that thousands of scientists' articles published in thousands of journals all prove the GW hysteria really is an eminent threat.

jkassel now pretends to possess telepathic powers. He is unable to explain why a medical researcher is a credible source for information on global warming.

jkassel has made several claims for which he can supply no supporting evidence. There is no reason to believe any of his claims.

m.e.atbrain, You have been busy, busy, busy! Your raves and rants are hilarious! Do you seriously expect me to do more of your homework? There's so much more Googling and reading you need to do! However, you will need to have someone interpret in simple terms any studies you read. That is part of my job, but I am not going to keep asking you to open your closed mind, because I think you threw away the key when you locked your reasoning skills inside your brain. With that said, I will address some of your questions. (Why? I don't know!!)

First, Ms Oreskes (You should be respectful when referring to her) developed her conclusions studying papers published from 1993 to 2003.

Dr Klaus-Martin Schulte(You should be respectful when referring to him, also) updated Ms Oreskes'research using Ms Oreskes' search teams ("...he examined all papers published from 2004 to early 2007." If you want proof, look it up! The 4th UN IPCC Report was presented on Feb 2, 2007. (Look it up!) The earlier GW models were found to be inaccurate and overstated temperature increases etc. (Look it up!)

Ms Oreskes' "interpretation of the severity climate question" (as she stated) contradicts herself, because she believes that "a typical contrarian tactic - {is to}- exaggerate or misrepresent the scientific claim" (Notice, she did not say scientific FACT!) She is a contrarian. (Look that up!)

Believe me, it is painful for me to listen to her and to read her articles and to study her theories and her papers, because while I have great respect for her past research, she is going to great lengths to "save face"(polite way to say she is in a struggle to save her ego and claims). It is not necessary! We are living in a very dynamic and technologically advanced World, today! (Can you understand that?)

Also, I caught you with, "Why do you give more credence to an historian over a Med PhD?" The reason you do is because you want to agree with her position that thousands of scientists' articles published in thousands of journals all prove the GW hysteria really is an eminent threat. If their positions were reversed, you would support Dr Klaus-Martin Schulte.

You only want to read what agrees with your pre-conceived notions (You have been deceived and are clearly brainwashed by Al Gore devotees). You are a push-over! I am an incurable optimist who believes that anybody who really wants to figure out the GW hype will do their own researching and use common sense.

If you want more studies and references about CO2 (I suspect you will, also, want to read their critics), Google: Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, Chinese researchers; and Stephen Schwartz, an Atmospheric Scientist. Start thinking!
Stop shouting at bloggers! Get a grip! That's All, Folks, for now! JK

PS Justin, I have now broken my word twice about posting about GW! Just can't ignore a donnybrook! Not that it will make an iota of difference to m.e.atbrain. If he is young enough, he will still be around in 20 to 30 years when the Earth begins its long cycle of cooling. Whoa is me! The Sun is going to burn-out in 20 billion years. I better get some more wool blankets!
It's after midnight, so I have to log off.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, Medical PH.D and his scientific team used the same data base and more sophisticated equipment.

What specific database did Oreskes use?

What specific database did Schulte use?

What specific equipment did Oreskes use?

What specific equipment did Schulte use?

If you cannot answer those questions, your claim is not credible.

That is what science is all about: replicating studies for accuracy and new information.

Schulte did not replicate Oreskes' work. He did not look at the same population of papers, and he did not evaluate their agreement with the same question regarding global warming.

Why do you give credence to an historian over a Medical PH.D?

Why would anyone give credence to a medical PhD who purports to evaluate the evidence for a hypothesis entirely out of his field of study?

Now, the 2007 studies conducted and completed since since the 2004 UN IPCC report are well-documented and supported by a large segment of the scientific community.

Which studies, specifically, are you referring to? Generalities of the sort you use here are worthless.

Also, The FoxNews segment by Brit Hume quoted FACTS released by the scientists from all disciplines who have actually studied the papers submitted to the UN IPCC.

The 'Special Report' link provided by Justin mentioned no scientists by name, nor made any mention of any supposed "facts" that have been "released". Kindly cite the source for your claim.

Perhaps the only thing that will save you from the GW hysteria is when government policymakers followed by law-makers hit you in your pocketbook with all the regulations and new taxes to decrease CO2 levels when new predictions point to a significant drop in CO2 levels in 20 to 30 years as part of the normal cycle of the Earth's atmospheric make-up!

Cite the specific studies that make these alleged "predictions".

m.e.atbrain, Wow! You actually checked out Daily Tech! Surprise! Surprise! You even copied Naomi Oreskes rebuttal to her decades + old data! She is an historian, while Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, Medical PH.D and his scientific team used the same data base and more sophisticated equipment. That is what science is all about: replicating studies for accuracy and new information. What if his study had corrobrated Ms Oreskes original findings. That would be very important data, too, but they discovered better, not catastrophic, more informed well-documented evidence for stopping "fearmongering". Why do you object that?

Why do you give credence to an historian over a Medical PH.D? Her original premises have been refuted, but a super ego will not allow her to stop thinking in "catastrophic" terms about GW. That does not make her a bad scientist, but it shows a very narrow point of view toward colleagues investigating the same questions.

Now, the 2007 studies conducted and completed since since the 2004 UN IPCC report are well-documented and supported by a large segment of the scientific community. Do you only read (or did you even read what you copied?)opinions of those with whom you agree?

Also, The FoxNews segment by Brit Hume quoted FACTS released by the scientists from all disciplines who have actually studied the papers submitted to the UN IPCC. Go back to Daily Tech and read Michael Asher's articles AGAIN or for the first time. Open your mind to the information about how editors for the earlier UN IPCC reports "shaped" reports to fit their premises! It was for political reasons, not for scientific purposes.

Stop attacking the messengers because of the "new" messages. They do not stand to gain one thing. Oh, yes, they will be slandered and criticized, but they can take it. I know that for a fact!

Perhaps the only thing that will save you from the GW hysteria is when government policymakers followed by law-makers hit you in your pocketbook with all the regulations and new taxes to decrease CO2 levels when new predictions point to a significant drop in CO2 levels in 20 to 30 years as part of the normal cycle of the Earth's atmospheric make-up! Wow! Didn't you know that? Of course not. Those with vested ($) interest in GW hysteria don't want you to know!
JK

-With all those links and facts. Yeah, find a brain cell!

find a brain cell...he argues about the most idiotic things, he nitpicks about stupidity, just like Ellison calling Bush "Hitler"...completely unable to connect the dots.

So now we know that Justin is referring to the Schulte "study". The DailyTech post claims that Schulte is "updating" an earlier study by Naomi Oreskes, which found broad agreement in the literature with the consensus view that greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed warming of the last 50 years. I have reproduced Oreskes' response below, as it appeared recently in the science blog Stranger Fruit. Some important points to note are:

   • Schulte misrepresents Oreskes' survey. It did not, as claimed in the DailyTech piece, defined the "consensus" as "humans were having at least some effect on global climate change". How can Schulte's work be an "update" of Oreske's study if he didn't bother to survey the papers for agreement with the same concept?

   • Schulte misrepresents both Oreskes' results, and her interpretation of those results. Why is so much misrepresentation necessary? Sounds like someone's trying to do a hatchet job, rather than an actual survey of the published work on the topic.

   • Schulte has no expertise in climate science. Do we go to a plumber to find out what the consensus is among heart surgeons?

You quote an unknown correspondent who bewails the inability of the general public to think critically, Justin. This is a skill that you apparently do not possess, either. Critical thinking requires the ability to look at a claim and ask yourself where its weaknesses lie. You can't do that, Justin... all you can do is republish what amounts to a press release for a fatally flawed "study", utterly ignoring any critique that might be made.

Here is Oreskes' response:

Administration Note: This comment was deleted because with the link added in the post above, it's absolutely irrelevent. I'll leave it now for posterity's sake. Also note that further editorializing of my decisions to delete comments will result in a permanent loss of comment-posting priveledges on this site. Thank you.

What "study" is Hume referring to, Justin? Do you know?

Do you care?

Or are you simply going to sit there, mouth agape, brain disengaged, and accept as Revealed Truth the claims of a news organization that has argued in court that it has the "the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves"?

Watch Justin run, folks. He simply does not have the balls to discuss his claims.

Run, little boy. Run away fast.