***** 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.