Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the
ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on
the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years
1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during
the decade in question. [...] ...she admitted that there was indeed a
serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study
was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate
change" [yet her paper is clearly titled: The scientific consensus on
"climate change" not "global climate change"] Her use of three
keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications
by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search
"global climate change" comes up with 1247 do***ents) [...] The
results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially
falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly
endorse the 'consensus view'. [...] 34 abstracts reject or doubt the
view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed
warming over the last 50 years". 44 abstracts focus on natural factors
of global climate change."
