Naomi Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts
she found listed on the ISI Web of
Knowledge database (1993 – 2003) using the keywords "global climate
change." However, this claim is incorrect: while the ISI database includes
a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts.
It is thus impossible that Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts.
In my original critique, I used the same ISI
database and the same key words as Oreskes but used all documents listed
therein. While Oreskes did not specify the method she applied in her study, she
later confirmed that she had limited her search to “articles”,
while I included “all document types” in my initial assessment.
This difference appears to explain the discrepancy between the “928”
abstracts Oreskes claims to have analysed and the 1117 documents I found
and considered, although her figures don’t add up, one way or another.
Some commentators have
argued that these differences undermine my main criticism while they validate
Oreskes' claim. However, as I have stressed
repeatedly, Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set
includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.'
In fact, the vast majority
of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change.
I have posted all documents and
abstracts listed in the ISI database under the key words “global climate
change” (for the period 1993 – 2003) below, arranged by year. Check for
yourself! Make sure you differentiate between implicit and explicit
endorsement of the IPCC consensus (“[M]ost
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to
the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.")