Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist and climate change skeptic.  Peiser frequently cites a study performed by Dennis Bray which and claims “a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes.”^1,2,3  However, further analysis shows that was an anonymous online survey that had no way of confirming who or even what was filling out the questions.^{1, 2}  The real consensus is quoted and sourced here.  In 2004 Naomi Oreskes published a study claiming that not a single peer-review journal containing the words "global climate change" from 1993 to 2003 disagreed with the consensus.  Benny Peiser retaliated by performing a study of his own.  A study which the peer review journals Science and Nature refused to publish.  He had read 1,247 peer-review journals/abstracts on climate change and claimed that there were 34 that refuted climate change.  After being rejected, Peiser complained to the press.  He said there was a conspiracy against his work because he was a global warming skeptic.    When Tim Lambert and William M. Connolley reviewed the 34 abstracts Peiser provided, they found the following results:

 

            A quick look at Connolley's results shows that Peiser's study is seriouly flawed.  Only one of the papers disagreed with the consensus and it wasn't even peer reviewed.    Therefore Benny found ZERO peer-reviewed papers that disagreed with the scientific concensus.  Several of the abstracts (#34) dealt with carbon sequestration.  Carbon sequestration has only one purpose which is to fight global warming.  So how Benny Peiser came to the conclusion that a paper on carbon sequestration refutes global warming is a bit of a mystery.  Benny Peiser's work has been refuted on numerous other sites as well.^1,   William Connolley and many others debunked Peiser's study on May 6th, 2005 and Peiser admitted his mistakes on March 19, 2006.  Despite his study being refuted by numerous people, Peiser continues to use his discredited study to say a scientific consensus regarding climate change doesn't exist.^1,2,3  A science blog called “Backseat driving” has spent a considerable amount of time documenting what they call his “dishonesty” and “disinformation”.  Backseat driving even has a detailed and time stamped summary of Peisers reaction to the widespread critique of his study.  

        National academies from around the world including Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States of America, and every major American institution with relevant expertise disagree with Benny Peiser about the consensus.  The scientists at realclimate.org say “there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists.”  NASA's Gavin Schmidt even throws out a challenge: "Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

It took year before Peiser admitted that he was wrong about some of them:

"I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay."

Now he has admitted to Media Watch that the only one that belonged on his list was the non-peer reviewed AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) journal.  The black text is Media Watch and the blue text is Benny Peiser:

So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by? How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming? Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us... "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." -- Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one. (Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)

Since he thinks only one paper belongs on the list we can do a little math.  33 wrong / 34 total = 0.9705  So Benny admits he was 97% wrong.   The only paper he continues to stand by wasn't even peer reviewed.  Considering that was a requirement for Oreskes's study, maybe he should admit the last paper doesn't belong either.

More info:
Stoat: Dr. William Connelley
Crooked Timber: Prof Henry Farrel
Inkstain:  John Fleck
Chris Mooney
Deltoid: Peiser admits he was 97% wrong
Telegraph: Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
A Few Things Ill Considered: What about Peiser?
If you would like to contact us, suggest a topic to be covered, contribute a relevant commentary,
or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis, please email:




Unique IP visits: