Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotNews
Yeah, like I said he was talking about the different search results which came about as a result of using different search terms. He wasn't disavowing himself of all his findings as you have proved yourself by quoting him here:
|
Your comprehension skills leave much to be desired.
He said he was wrong.
"I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included."
Furthermore, in a later email to Mediawatch, he also admitted that he only actually found ONE article which challenged the consensus, and this was an editorial, an opinion piece, published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. NOT a peer-reviewed paper, which were the subject of Oreskes' work.
in his own words:
"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique."
DID YOU GET THAT?
"...I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique."
He was "disavowing himself of all his findings".
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s1777013.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotNews
And thus, you have also proven my entire point which was:
Originally Posted by PatriotNews
Anthropogenic climate change is just a theory, and in fact, might as well be a myth. ... there are actually scientists who disagree completely with the theory, and its unproven cause/effect relationships, and the faulty data/science behind it.
Thank you.  |
So, let's go through this again shall we?
1. A non-scientist writes a letter to Science magazine, critical of a published, peer-reviewed paper describing a survey showing a 100% consensus regarding an acceptance of anthropogenic climate change in the scientific literature.
2.
Science rejects the letter. And the author later publicly withdraws his criticism.
3. The author later admits that the only one, single non-consensus view he really found was not actually a peer-reviewed paper - but an editorial published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
And this, you claim "proves your entire point" which was:
Anthropogenic climate change is just a theory, and in fact, might as well be a myth. ... there are actually scientists who disagree completely with the theory, and its unproven cause/effect relationships, and the faulty data/science behind it.
!!!?!?! Amazing!