Peisners consensus-busting abstracts are now on display at Deltoid and... no, they aren't convincing. Some of them are so obviously not that including them is surreal.
He seems to have included things just because of the word "uncertainty"; or "testing models", or... well, I don't know. Lets look at one of them:
24. Regional climate change: Trend analysis of temperature and precipitation series at selected Canadian sites Clark JS, Yiridoe EK, Burns ND, Astatkie T Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne d Agroeconomie 48 (1): 27-38 Mar 2000
Abstract: Global climate change does not necessarily imply that temperature or precipitation is increasing at specific locations. The hypothesis of increasing temperature and precipitation trends associated with global climate change is tested using actual annual temperature and precipitation data for nine selected weather stations, spatially distributed across Canada. Vogelsang’s (1998) partial sum and Woodward et al’s (1997) bootstrap methods are used for testing for trend Both methods suggest no warming in the Canadian temperature series except for Toronto, Ontario, which had significant increase over time, along with Moncton, New Brunswick and Indian Head, Saskatchewan, which had marginal increases. There is no evidence of increasing trend in precipitation except for Moncton, New Brunswick, which had a significantly increasing trend, thus, public policies designed to address the regional effects of climate change need to be adapted for a particular ecological zone, based on knowledge of the climate trends for that region, rather than on general global climate change patterns.
Why is this in there as rejecting or doubting the consensus? There are many others of the same ilk.
Are you asking why the paper "Our data show that nearly whole Canada indicates that global warming theory does not work" is included among the papers that raise doubts about global warming? Are you kidding?
I don't understand why you're fabricating a quote - you're a scientist, you should know better. If you mean Canada, presumably you mean #24, which begins "Global climate change does not necessarily imply that temperature or precipitation is increasing at specific locations", which is perfectly true and perfectly in line with the consensus, and then goes on to demonstrate that Canadian obs support this. I can't see any way to interpret that as anti-consensus, in fact I'd say it was weak support for.
Read it again: "thus, public policies designed to address the regional effects of climate change need to be adapted for a particular ecological zone, based on knowledge of the climate trends for that region, rather than on general global climate change patterns." The paper is saying that global climate change does not effect every location on the globe in the same way. Notice that it doesn't say "regional effects of climate change which doesn't exist."
Post a Comment