Talk:Naomi Oreskes/Sources

Page to compile sources for Naomi Oreskes.

ABC Media Watch Transcript

Let us start with a source that should be uncontroversial since it has already been asserted by key players to be a reliable source.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

This source contains an email transcript between a reporter, Sarah Curnow, and Benny Peiser. What parts of this source, if any, are considered reliable for inclusion in the article (assuming that they meet other wikipedia standards as well)? --GoRight (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this somewhat more concrete, then, per Abd's suggestion on the talk page. This source includes the following quote from Benny Peiser:

"Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm"

Using this as a source I would propose to improve the Oreskes BLP by providing the following text to put her work into an objective context:

"In an October 2006 email correspondence discussing his independent assessment of Oreskes' December 2004 essay, Benny Peiser stated that less than 2% of the 928 articles analyzed by Oreskes explicitly endorsed what she has called the 'consensus view', that the vast majority of the abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming at all, and that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she called the 'consensus view'.

This is certainly a notable charge with respect to Oreskes' essay and worthy of bringing to the reader's attention in my opinion. Shall this be included in the article? --GoRight (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]