Talk:Benny Peiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Benny Peiser article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] Peer Reviewed

I do not wish to question that the majority of papers support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Even so, it is simply untrue to claim that no sceptical papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. [1]

Please, a page from Google cache? I don't need to mention the reasons why this isn't compelling evidence and can't be used in the article do I? FeloniousMonk 03:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search Terms

The original Dec 2004 essay in Science reported the words "climate change" in two places. "That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9)." "9.The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change."

This reportedly was corrected by Science to "global climate change" in the Jan. 14 2005 issue, which requires login on the site so unfortunate, I can't quote it or see if it was a change or a retraction instead. That information is from Dr. Pieser's letter on his website where Etta Kavanagh, an Associate Letters Editor said "A correction dealing with the mistake in the search terms ("global climate change" vs. "climate change") was published in our Jan. 14 issue." It's also been reported on the RealClimate blog as well as a Washington Post Editorial by Dr. Oreskes.

Does anyone have a copy of the correction article that is available publicly to read? Or a copy that can be noted from or linked to or quoted from? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5724/952 Science itself has made the essay available, but for some reason not the correction. Sln3412 22:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have found it here [2]. --NimNick 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah. No, the actual page from the Jan 14 issue of Science, rather than the one on his website, I mean. Sln3412 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a biography, right?

People here need to make up their minds whether this article is going to be the biography of Benny Peiser or an article his views on Oreskes' study. If the former, add biographical material. If the latter, rename the article to get it out of the Bio namespace. As it stands, it's a transparent vehicle for global warming skepticism aimed at discrediting Oreskes's study, not any identifiable form of biography. Actual, bona fide biographical content that goes into some detail needs to be added soon. FeloniousMonk 04:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer the article to focus on his work and views. He seems to think he has quite handily discredited Oreskes's study; certainly he draws opposite conclusions from the same data. Her group of abstracts yields exactly zero challenges to GW; he says he found three dozen. She says 75% of abstracts support GW (at least implicitly). He says it's a couple of percent.
I would have moved it to Peiser study or (better yet) Oreskes study (in a criticism section), but the last time I moved a similar article you had voted to delete you nominated the renamed article for deletion to as some sort of 'evasion of process'. So move it yourself, or at least work with me on this. --Uncle Ed 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, one aspect to take into consideration is that Peisers criticism of Oreskes essay is likely why he can be considered notable enough to have a page on wp. And It's not a great idea to move the detailed critique to the Oreskes page because the critique in itself is not particularly notable in comparison. And this section is already as big as the section on Oreskes essay on her bio page, this would take up about 1/3 of that page which is completely out of proportion. If anything one could create a standalone "critique of Oreskes essay" page, but I'm not sure that's a much better idea? --Apis (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography and as such should include broad information on Peiser, including articles written about him and complaints about those seeking to discredit him. All articles that reference Peiser should be considered valid for a Peiser Bio page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This *is* a biography - and as we can see from the Orsekes page - if we start throwing in too many articles to "prove a point" we end up losing the biographical elements that are important (Peiser's work was important and contentious at the same time) into back and forths on *how* important or *how* contentious that end up being more political in nature. Grazen (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some (primarily Apis) are attempting to slant the biography to highlight a general negative bias against Peiser's work. This is a biography on Peiser, as such it should highlight the importance of his work in the greater community. The relative merits of that work will be reflected on Oreskes page or on the global warming pages - but on this biography, let's keep it to the balanced facts.Grazen (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What negative bias, I've read the sources, and actually spent a great deal of time and effort on trying to reflect those sources as fairly as I could. And I'd appreciate if you didn't accuse me of trying to "slant" the article, vandal was quite enough. Thank you. --Apis (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you aren't able to see that you are slanting the article with a negative bias with your changes should be cause for concern! Let Peiser's work speak for itself for what it is - it was significant for highlighting some methodological errors in Oreskes description of her search parameters. Her statements were widely circulated, and lo and behold - the results were not being replicated by third parties because there were errors in how Oreskes' described her parameters. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT. You might argue that it's irrelevant or that it didn't prove Oreskes' wrong or that it doesn't matter or that you don't care - but on a page about Peiser, well, this is why he matters to scientists, editorial writers and skeptics who don't agree with the so-called global warming consensus. There is no need to discuss Peiser and then to say ... "but he was proven wrong", or that "but it doesn't matter", or "most people disagree"... you will never have agreement on this page on those issues because it is the very essence of why Peiser and his work is considered important. To minimize one's importance on their biography page is just not kosher, during the passover season or other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you are referring to my edits, i haven't written any of what you quoted. --Apis (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The given reason why Science didn't publish the papers

I think the current statement is misleading, in this article by the telegraph the very same statement is followed by: "A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel". [3]

Maybe the section could be updated to better reflect what reason Science have given? --Apis 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And I would appreciate if I weren't accused of being a vandal. --Apis 21:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason given is that it has been "distributed", if there are other reasons we would be speculating as to what they are. The point is, following the letters, Peiser uncovered some serious errors in Oreskes' work, he submitted them to Science, they considered them for publication and invited him to submit it in proper form, he did so, and by that time the information was widely distributed. No real story here, in fact there's possibly no reason to even mention Science ... is there? I think that it doesn't add balance to mention that he submitted it but that it was rejected (with no reason provided), or for a relatively generic reason, as is the current case. Are there any objections to removing the entire line relating to Science?Grazen (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If nothing else, I would annotate the Science line to say exactly that, and not leave the reader with the misleading idea it was rejected on other grounds. FellGleaming (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I tried to make the change, had to clean up a little to make it fit in, also corrected the section about the national post, I'm not sure we should add a column about wikipedia as a source though, it sounds silly and un-encyclopedian to me? --Apis (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned up your cleanup a bit. I don't see the relevance of Solomon's views to either a bio on Peiser or Peiser's views on Oreskes. Peiser's own personal viewpoint is relevant, and that I left. FellGleaming (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Tanks for helping. Yes, that was part of my point, but I didn't want to remove too much and be accused of more vandalism. Although, I'm not sure a column is a proper source anyway, and it's not reliable, much of the facts in it are obviously wrong if one check wikipedias page history.
Also much of the new material you added in your 'clean up' is lacking references, which I think is needed for some of those claims. --Apis (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, since what peiser is referring to according to solomon, is the naomi oreskes wikipedia article itself, I don't think any of that is relevant here at all. --Apis (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's only relevant if other editors continue attempting to miscontrue his position. In my opinion, both the Solomon and the Media Watch articles should be deleted as out of place in a bio. FellGleaming (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, part of the problem is that peisers critique isn't particularly notable compared to oreskes essay. And it would be nice to only make a shorter description of oreskes essay on her bio and not go into the details. Although many editors feel that would be the best thing to do, it's hard to reach a consensus about not mentioning peiser since that is perceived as censoring the opposition by many anonymous ip-editors and a few new ones. Anyway, so now we have peisers bio here which basically only consists of his criticism of oreskes essay. And to try and portray everything in a fair way is difficult. I don't really see a problem with the media watch email, since it explains clearly, in peisers own words, what he thinks about the consensus on global warming and what he feels is wrong with oreskes essay. (And that view is confirmed in other sources (although it may have been misrepresented when Solomon looked at the article)). Solomon mostly talk about what he perceives as problems with wikipedia, and not so much about peisers opinions. A columnist is a pretty bad source to begin with and the amount of facts he already have gotten wrong doesn't exactly strengthen his credibility as a reliable source any way. And Solomons article is actually not relevant to this article anyway, all he claims is that "The Wikipedia page [naoimi oreskes] had misunderstood or distorted his [peisers] comments". --Apis (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] description of correction

I believe this text from the current article is misleading and/or factually in error:

Peiser noted that Oreskes' original characterization of her survey was incorrect: the articles were drawn from the ISI database using the search terms "global climate change", though she originally claimed to have used the term "climate change". She also did not clearly specify that she had limited her search to just "articles" (i.e., peer-reviewed publications) rather than "all document types" (which would include non-scientific, non-peer reviewed publications). Oreskes later indicated that this was correct.

My understanding of events is that Oreske's published the survey initially refering to 928 articles on "climate change". Peiser tried to reconstruct that article set and failed (because the search criteria was wrong). He subsequently discussed this online and with Oreskes. Then it was Oreskes, who identified the problems (e.g. "global climate change") and specified what the correct search criteria were. She also published an official correction in Nature. The text, as it currently stands, appears to suggest that Peiser figured out what the errors were on his own and that Oreskes only subsequently confirmed it. I believe that is mistaken. If I understand the events correctly then a more accurate description would be to note that Peiser discovered that the criteria were wrong, leading Oreskes to announce the corrections. However, no one would have had a way to truly identify which 928 articles she looked at without her assistance. Dragons flight (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... an interesting point. I would not disagree with your clarification if you have some evidence to back it, it seems reasonable however. Grazen (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have evidence at hand. This is my recollection of events from following it at the time it was occuring. I'm hoping that others will read this and try to address it based on whatever records now exist. Dragons flight (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your recollection is correct, judging from Peiser's correspondence with (and original draft to) Science [4], although it seems to have been David Appell who talked to Oreskes. The Errata was published 21 jan 2005 [5]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is important to point out, I just moved some of that from the Oreskes page to this one since the specifics of the critique belongs here in my opinion. --Apis (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have tried to reflect that in the article. This is the current version: [6]. I've tried to be careful not to make any claim as to whether Peiser or Oreskes "was wrong" etc. --Apis (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Repeatedly stating Peiser "claims" this, "admits" that, whereas using terms which implicitly agree in relation to Oreskes (she "showed", "demonstrated", etc...) doesn't correspond with your stated goals above. Also, you keep deleting the heart of Peiser's rebuttal statement (which is that a steady stream of new research papers rebuts Oreskes claim of consensus), while loading it up with "Coat Rack" language such as Peisers statement on AGW. This isn't a global warming article; the issue here is Peiser's view on the state of consensus, or lack thereof in the scientific community, not the actual causes of warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I added this:
In Peiser's own words, "hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part of even some basics of climate change theory"
Originally added by Grazen, maybe it's fair to point that out as well? Although, as you say, this isn't a global warming article so the issue here is only how his critique affect Naomi Oreskes essay. Maybe we should remove this whole section since it's a bit silly on a BLP in my opinion, but it does seem to be Benny Peisers main claim to notability (for inclusion in wikipedia). Maybe this should be moved to some climate skeptics page instead?
As is clear from Peisers letter and other references is that he no more questions whether there is a majority consensus, only whether there is a unanimous consensus. And if you read oreskes essay, you see there is no mention of such a claim.
I say Oreskes 'showed' and Peiser 'claimed' in slightly different context (didn't write "admited" anywhere). Showed, because her work has been published and referred to so much and many have had the chance to criticize it, and yet it still seems to be valid, and many organisations of experts in the field appears to agree. And I say Peiser claimed, since his work has not had the chance to be reviewed to the same extent. (Not that there haven't been any review though: refused by science, criticized by several bloggers, and questioned by other sources etc).
Since as you say, this isn't an article about global warming, I think we could remove any discussion on his statements on AGW, and simply reduce this section to say that "Peiser was shown to be wrong" or "admitted to be wrong" or something like that, but then there where a lot of protests from you if I remember correctly.
And again, Peiser don't think there isn't a consensus, he just want to point out that there are skeptical scientists, although, "undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority". It's clear if you read the email. --Apis (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think adding that is a mistake after reading FellGleamings comment: "This isn't a global warming article; the issue here is Peiser's view on the state of consensus, or lack thereof in the scientific community". The fact that there are research papers that questions part of climate change theory isn't relevant and doesn't contradict that there is consensus. --Apis (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)