Are you implying that climatologists can do for global climate change what oncologists can do for cancer?
A closer analogy may have been to compare climatologists to laboratory researchers but the fact you tried to strengthen your case by muddying the waters, tends to confirm that you are a man with, perhaps, an uwarranted commitment to a cause.
I would repeat the suggestion that a generalist, like Peiser, is quite capable of reviewing the literature and making a sound judgement on it. That hardly requires dexterity with the tools of climatology but merely the ability to check out the validity of the observations, the assumptions and the mathematics.
Peiser's conclusion is that there is a body of climatologists from various related disciplines, such as the earth sciences and oceanography, who do not accept that global climate change is significantly a function of human activity.
That Peiser is much more than an anthropologist should be obvious, given his involvement and leadership in scientific societies. The real issue of course is not Peiser, who essentially is merely a reviewer of the specialists who do not accept the conclusion that global climate change is significantly impacted by human activity, but rather the expert opinions and the validity and quality of the undergirding research. (The fact that opponents bother to engage in debate with Peiser surely indicates that his opinion and stature is significant. That your opposition degenerates into ridicule says more about your understanding of science than Peiser's inadequacy).
One valid criticism of the observed increase in ocean water temperature at depth, as a measure of global warming, is the very short time span (40 years?) of the observations. If you like to check the expert contrarians, there are other criticisms but that for another time.
There are a significant number of oceanographers that are not impressed by the observations and conclusions of Dr. Barnett. One such is Rob Carter a marine geologist who is research professor from James Cook University Marine Geophysical Laboratory and says in part:
".... the Kyoto Protocol........ will deliver no significant cooling - less than 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2050,"
"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby . . . Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific body."
"We are in a relatively warm period today but 20,000 years ago, it was as cold as it has ever been - that was the peak of the last glaciation."
".. the earth was now at the end of a warmer period, and reputable climate-change scientists agreed that the climate was going to get colder. The debate was whether it would take tens, hundreds or even thousands of years to occur.."
.."A cooling trend took place between 1940 and 1970, when temperatures began to rise again, reaching a peak in 1998. This coincided with the biggest El Nino in the 20th century. However, research by the climate research unit at East Anglia University in Britain has shown that the average global temperature had declined since 1998..."
"... greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are not causing the earth to warm up. On both annual and geological (up to 100,000-year) time scales, changes in temperature preceded changes in carbon dioxide. This was true even in the famous 1960-1991 graph showing rising amounts of carbon dioxide..".
"Water vapour made up about 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for 3.6 per cent of the total greenhouse effect. Of this, only 0.12 per cent, or 0.036 degrees Celsius, could be attributed to human activity....."
Now all this may be debatable but it really does require an act of faith, without one having some understanding of the underlying research and methodology used to reach his and the radically different conclusions of the other side.
You may like to correct my opinion that Dr. Barnett has long been an advocate of human activity as a significant cause of global climate change. Which tends to support my general contention that we should also examine his research and conclusions on the basis of the quality of that research and methodology rather than the conspiratorial proposition (a proposition you seem to so readily adopt with respect to any opposition to your own viewpoint) that he discovered what he wanted to find.
Y, Are you implying that climatologists can do for global climate change what oncologists can do for cancer?
A closer analogy may have been to compare climatologists to laboratory researchers but the fact you tried to strengthen your case by muddying the waters, tends to confirm that you are a man with, perhaps, an unwarranted commitment to a cause.
I would repeat the suggestion that a generalist, like Peiser, is quite capable of reviewing the literature and making a sound judgement on it. That hardly requires dexterity with the tools of climatology but merely the ability to check out the validity of the observations, the assumptions and the mathematics.
Peiser's conclusion is that there is a body of climatologists from various related disciplines, such as the earth sciences and oceanography, who do not accept that global climate change is significantly a function of human activity.
That Peiser is much more than an anthropologist should be obvious, given his involvement and leadership in scientific societies. The real issue of course is not Peiser, who essentially is merely a reviewer of the specialists who do not accept the conclusion that global climate change is significantly impacted by human activity, but rather the expert opinions and the validity and quality of the undergirding research. (The fact that opponents bother to engage in debate with Peiser surely indicates that his opinion and stature is significant. That your opposition degenerates into ridicule says more about your understanding of science than Peiser's inadequacy).
One valid criticism of the observed increase in ocean water temperature at depth, as a measure of global warming, is the very short time span (40 years?) of the observations. If you like to check the expert contrarians, there are other criticisms but that for another time.
There are a significant number of oceanographers that are not impressed by the observations and conclusions of Dr. Barnett. One such is Rob Carter a marine geologist who is research professor from James Cook University Marine Geophysical Laboratory and says in part:
".... the Kyoto Protocol........ will deliver no significant cooling - less than 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2050,"
"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby . . . Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific body."
"We are in a relatively warm period today but 20,000 years ago, it was as cold as it has ever been - that was the peak of the last glaciation."
".. the earth was now at the end of a warmer period, and reputable climate-change scientists agreed that the climate was going to get colder. The debate was whether it would take tens, hundreds or even thousands of years to occur.."
.."A cooling trend took place between 1940 and 1970, when temperatures began to rise again, reaching a peak in 1998. This coincided with the biggest El Nino in the 20th century. However, research by the climate research unit at East Anglia University in Britain had shown that the average global temperature had declined since 1998..."
"... greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide were not causing the earth to warm up. On both annual and geological (up to 100,000-year) time scales, changes in temperature preceded changes in carbon dioxide. This was true even in the famous 1960-1991 graph showing rising amounts of carbon dioxide..".
"Water vapour made up about 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect.
Carbon dioxide was a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for 3.6 per cent of the total greenhouse effect, he said. Of this, only 0.12 per cent, or 0.036 degrees Celsius, could be attributed to human activity....."
Now all this may be debatable but it really does require an act of faith, without one having some understanding of the underlying research and methodology used to reach his and the radically different conclusions of the other side.
You may like to correct my opinion that Dr. Barnett has long been an advocate of human activity as a significant cause of global climate change. Which tends to support my general contention that we should also examine his research and conclusions on the basis of the quality of that research and methodology rather than the conspiratorial proposition (a proposition you seem to so readily adopt with respect to any opposition to your own viewpoint) that he discovered what he wanted to find.
