Nice twist, Tim. I did not say I didn't care that the Stern critique science was wrong, or that I think it is wrong. I said there may be science that is wrong, naturally. Aways has been. That's part of the method, or at least, should be. Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Compare Dr Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia in a beautiful Sir Humphrey Appleby impersonation: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Mann has claimed intellectual property rights and you say "scientists are often very competitive". Now what's all that stuff about agendas again?

Well, if Peiser was correct, GrahamY should be able to point to the abstracts in Oreskes 938 that did not agree with the consensus. The search string is known. Go to it GrahamY, show us you are no neener.

FYI, you can find the needed information at Deltoid. <a href="http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/#comment-1652"> Meyrick tracked it down</a>

<blockquote> So to summarize, Dr Peiser has made 4 errors in his research:

1. Dr Peiser failed to replicate Dr Oreskes search properly. Dr Oreskes used (as far as I can tell) the following criteria:

TS=”global climate change” ;DocType=Article; Language=All languages;Database(s)=SCI-EXPANDED; Timespan=1993-2003

Dr Pieser used the following criteria:

TS=”global climate change”; DocType=All document types; Language=All languages; Database(s)=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI; Timespan=1993-2003

2. Dr Peiser compounded the previous error by assuming that Dr Oreskes got her figures wrong rather than contacting Dr Oreskes to obtain her search criteria.

3. Of the 34 abstracts identified by Dr Peiser that reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of the observed warming over the last 50 years”, 12 are not in Dr Oreskes sample.

Of the remain 22 articles, 21 do not fit that description (one argues that natural factors have been underestimated still does not reject or doubt that human activities are the main factor). In other words Dr Peiser has misinterpreted the abstracts of 21 articles.

4. Only one fits Dr Peiser's category, but it does not fit Oreskes'criteria of being a piece of published peer-reviewed research, but is instead a statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Dr Oreskes removed this from her sample partly because the statements by the AMS, AOG, & AAAS are not in her sample either.</blockquote>

Hedgehog “Col Rouge you are not a skeptic you are a Goose. Please remember that”

And you are, by name, “road kill in waiting”, the only problem, the truck is running later than anyone would wish it to deliver your deserved demise.

Of course to forget being a goose is difficult when there is a turkey like you around to remind me. As I stated before, since you apply avian terms to me, why should I not respond in kind, you are a turkey with the as much debating prowess as turkeys have flying prowess, at least when compared to geese of any variety.

There is nothing to be gained in arguing point one from Bolt’s list of 10. Let’s assume Lambert’s right about point one and take a look at the rest of his post to see how many more he gets right -- to see if he can achieve a passing score (50%).

Point 2: the only way Lambert can get this right is to assume Revelle would have changed his view had he lived longer. This assumption is unwarranted. Lambert is wrong.

Point 3: Lambert’s own source says ice cores show that temperature lags behind CO2 increase. Bolt is right.

Point 4: Lambert’s doing so poorly, lets be gracious and say he’s right about the snows of Kilimanjaro.

Point 5: to cut research time Lambert can have this one as well.

Point 6: as shown in previous comments, there is no evidence Tuvaluans have been forced to flee.

See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5382#67867

Point 7: Lambert offers no evidence that AGW is causing coral reefs around the world to bleach. Lambert doesn’t show Bolt to be wrong.

Point 8: as shown in previous comments the WMO is unable to link AGW to increased hurricane intensity or frequency.

See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5382#68774

Point 9: tropical diseases specialist Paul Reiter says (Jan 2007) Gore is “deceitful” in linking AGW to the spread of disease.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/news/edreiter.php

Reiter refers to a recent study to support his position.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no12/02-0077.htm

Lambert’s link to an old article doesn’t prove his case.

Point 10: Bolt might have chosen a poor example of “other possible explanations” for global warming but this doesn’t mean there are no other explanations; there are, of course, others. Bolt is right even although his example might be questionable.

So, lets see how Lambert scores. He was right on points 1, 4 and 5 and wrong on the rest; 30% isn’t a pass in anybody’s books. Surely a scientist should have done better when mismatched against a “hack” journalist like Bolt.

Tim Lambert’s post is a pathetic piece of points-scoring fluff that’s riddled with misrepresentations but there’s no way he’s going to admit it.

BB, Nice summary. But will Tim concede anything?

Tim Lambert-

Please, consider my message of 29 January.