Print

Print


*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

In today's LA Times, the author of the original study responds to the 
WSJ op-ed piece...

> I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the 
> journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. 
> The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an 
> Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal  the 
> normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal 
> didn't even get my name right!)
>
>  My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement 
> within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that 
> human activities are the principal cause.
>
> Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been 
> addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of 
> course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my 
> findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed 
> scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus 
> position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most 
> of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been 
> due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-oreskes24jul24,0,823343.story

On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Valdis Krebs wrote:

> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>
> Opinion piece in today's WSJ claims that SNA shows that the scientists
> whom agree on global warming are all a tightly-knit group -- a mutual
> admiration society -- that dismiss all contrary findings without
> consideration.
>
> Here is an excerpt... Wall Street Journal; July 14, 2006; Page A12
>
> > In addition to debunking the hockey stick, Mr. Wegman goes a step
> > further in his report, attempting to answer why Mr. Mann's mistakes
> > were not exposed by his fellow climatologists. Instead, it fell to 
> two
> > outsiders, Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick, to uncover the errors.
> > Mr. Wegman brings to bear a technique called social-network analysis
> > to examine the community of climate researchers. His conclusion is
> > that the coterie of most frequently published climatologists is so
> > insular and close-knit that no effective independent review of the
> > work of Mr. Mann is likely. "As analyzed in our social network," Mr.
> > Wegman writes, "there is a tightly knit group of individuals who
> > passionately believe in their thesis." He continues: "However, our
> > perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback
> > mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized
> > that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing
> > credibility.
> >
> > In other words, climate research often more closely resembles a
> > mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search
> > for scientific knowledge. And Mr. Wegman's social-network graphs
> > suggest that Mr. Mann himself -- and his hockey stick -- is at the
> > center of that network.
>
> Since this has become a political issue, is the opposing group also an
> echo chamber? Similar to the red-blue political divide we see in the 
> USA?
>
> Would be interesting to run Mark Newman's community algorithm on all
> scientists/papers involved in global warming, eh?
>
> Valdis

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.