That is the final conclusion of William Connelly after reviewing all the material. His concluding blog entry on the topic can be found here. I previously posted about Atmoz view.
Roger Pielke Jr. also blogged about "Chicken Little" in Lies posing as history.
So far no blogger has concluded that there is anything worthwhile about Oreskes et al 2008.
That includes Eli Rabett who pretty much was ready to go with Oreskes about anything, but didn't try to defend this one. Of course he didn't retract his blog entry about the Times article which Oreskes admitted was false.
So, in my view this phase of the battle is done. Oreskes posted a paper on the Internet, and now the people who have reviewed that paper as well as our criticism have concluded that it was worthless.
Oreskes wrote an article for the Times, and the Times was forced to print a correction.
On to the published paper which must be dealt with differently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Nicholas, why not fold this into your new, main blog?
The story itself is interesting, and helps to explain your entry into the jousts (for which we have Oreskes to thank).
Post a Comment