Whale Oil cites a social anthropologist as a climate change expert

Cameron Slater continues his anti-climate change agenda at Whale Oil, yesterday posting TURNS OUT THE POLES AREN’T MELTING, NOT THAT OUR MEDIA OR GOVERNMENT WILL SAY ANYTHING.

He quotes from an article featuring claims by Dr Benny Peiser from Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF). Does Peiser sound like a well educated climate scientist?

Sourcewatch claims:

Benny Peiser (b. 1957) is a UK social anthropologist and AGW denier listed among the Heartland Institute “Global warming experts” despite having no evident expertise in climate science or policy.

Peiser was educated in West Germany and studied political science, English, and sports science in Frankfurt.

Although Peiser is described by Local Transport Today as a ‘climate policy analyst’, it is unclear what academic expertise Peiser brings to bear on his climate policy analyses.

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

Peiser also runs CCNet (network) to counter ‘doomsday scaremongering about the possible effects of climate change’.

Slater would ridicule someone with Peiser’s lack of relevant scientific credentials if they were on the other side of the argument. Ironically he concludes:

I can’t wait for the global fraud trials to begin…if you did in business what these so-called scientists have done you’d be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff or David Ross.

I doubt if he means Peiser as a “so-called scientist”.

And what about whether the poles are melting? It’s not hard to find alternate more scientific views to Dr Benny Peiser and Cameron Slater.

Smithsonian: Ice Melt at the Poles

It’s confirmed: both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice—around 350 billion tons each year—and, as a result, sea level has risen 11.1 millimeters worldwide since 1992. This photo shows a summertime channel created by the flow of melted ice, which ultimately carries the water away from the glacier to the sea.

It’s not easy to measure melting ice. But by using data from 10 satellite missions, an international team of 47 scientists put together the most accurate estimate of ice melt to date. Ice melt doesn’t just affect sea level, however: the influx of fresh water could change the salinity of the North Atlantic enough to alter weather patterns in North America and affect ocean organisms.

National Snow and Ice Data Center – Artic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Arctic sea ice extent for November was the 9th lowest in the satellite record. Through 2014, the linear rate of decline for November extent over the satellite record is 4.7% per decade.

Antarctic sea ice has continued to decline at a faster-than-average pace (approximately 122,000 square kilometers, or 47,100 square miles per day through the month of October, compared to the average rate of 112,000 square kilometers or 43,200 square miles per day), and is now about 650,000 square kilometers (251,000 square miles) below the level for the date recorded in 2013. Currently ice extent remains about 700,000 square kilometers (270,000 square miles) higher than the 1981 to 2010 average for this time of year.

But what would they know? They aren’t social anthropologists or agenda promoting bloggers.

But an alternate view has been allowed to counter Slater’s claims. See the thread started by Mythrandir.

Another comment, by Gaynor, remains unchallenged:

What would be so wrong with ice free poles? Don’t we need more land for our growing population?

An ice free north pole (Arctic) would not provide more land, there is no land there.

An ice free Greenland would raise sea levels by about 7 metres.

An ice free Antarctic would raise sea levels by about 61 metres.

That would flood a huge amount of land in more habitable parts of the world.

Source: If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world’s ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte­d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt

Of course it’s very unlikely all the world’s ice will melt in the forseeable future. But a metre or two of sea level rise would cause far more problems than it would help.

Leave a comment

34 Comments

  1. David

     /  7th January 2015

    NASA via their satellites have confirmed a 43% increase in arctic ice coverage over the last two years widely reported last year, it’s also no great secret that Antarctica ice is expanding. Slater is publishing nothing new even the climate change believers acknowledge sea ice is expanding and like the 17 year pause in warming are struggling to explain the fault in their models and this includes the IPCC itself.

    Reply
  2. ChrisM

     /  7th January 2015

    Disregard all the posthoc explanations (until recently all models showed Antarctic sea ice declining and they couldn’t explain it) and those done by people without “appropriate” qualifications. Here is the source data.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  7th January 2015

      Well said. Science works on measured data rather than appeals to authority which seems to be Pete’s modus operandi. That data also shows we will be waiting 300 years to see a metre of sea level rise.

      Ian is right. Slater knows a lot more about climate change than Pete judged by commentaries to date.

      Reply
      • And Slater knows a lot more about climate change than most of the world’s climate scientists and governments? Yeah right.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  7th January 2015

          The number of people with a sufficiently broad knowledge of all the sciences and mathematics necessary to assess whether climate alarmism is justified could probably be counted on one hand and then they would be too intelligent to claim a definitive opinion. The rest of the human population including every single climate scientist is dependent on second hand opinions and conclusions.

          In such circumstances it is important to hear and judge all sides of the debates as well as have sufficient skills to understand them.

          Otherwise you are a mere parrot.

          Reply
          • “In such circumstances it is important to hear and judge all sides of the debates as well as have sufficient skills to understand them”

            There’s no way Slater comes close to that yet he keeps promoting a narrow view usually backed by dubious expertise.

            He is a parrot. It’s fair to ask who he is parroting and why.

            Reply
  3. Ian McKinnon

     /  7th January 2015

    Cam Slater definitely has the better of you . . . continuous attempts to ridicule him have failed. It is pretty bad when you start aligning to lefties in your quest to discredit the man.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  7th January 2015

      @McKinnon. You appear to absolutely worship the ground Slutter walks on. I reckon that you should walk your arse over to his blog, and kiss his feet 🙂

      Reply
  4. Ian McKinnon

     /  7th January 2015

    “C” I don’t worship anyone, but I do respect superior intellect, that being the difference between Slater and George . . . Slater being the winner by a large margin. By the way, I also, am on the banned list.

    Reply
    • Cameron Slater is clearly not that bright, because he left about a decades worth of emails just sitting inside his computers, and didn’t do anything to safeguard the people he corresponded with. I do not condone the actions of the hacker, but Cameron Slaters negligence enabled and helped to facilitate the production of the Dirty Politics book, as well as Judith Collins losing her position on the front bench, and the National Party having a nightmare of an election campaign.

      Reply
    • ad hominem attacks.
      Yeah – that will win an argument Ian.

      Reply
  5. Mike C

     /  7th January 2015

    @McK. Slater is just a clever con-man, who sells his “opinion” to the highest bidder 🙂

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  7th January 2015

      Climate change alarmist funding exceeds that of sceptics by tens or hundreds of thousands to one. I would be amazed if Slater gets a cent of it.

      Reply
  6. Mike C

     /  7th January 2015

    @AlanW. Yeah, those Big Oil Companies are really strapped for cash, and couldn’t possibly afford to pay for Slaters string of posts de-bunking climate change. LOL.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/02/10/83879/with-only-93-billion-in-profits-the-big-five-oil-companies-demand-to-keep-tax-breaks/

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  7th January 2015

      The oil companies fund far, far more climate alarmism than scepticism. They also have big investments in alternative energies. BP was a major PV solar panel manufacturer until the Chinese took over.

      I would be willing to bet no-one pays Slater a cent for his climate scepticism articles. Most if not all of the major climate sceptic websites (eg Wattsupwiththat, climateaudit, etc) are entirely single individuals self funding with supporters donations. The myth that big oil funds climate scepticism is just another alarmist myth.

      I think this article well describes the reasons engineers and competent scientists regard climate alarmism as bizarre. There is a minor error in one of the equations as the comments point out but the fundamental reason why temperature feedbacks must be small or negative rather than large and positive is well made.

      Reply
  7. artcroft

     /  7th January 2015

    Facts are to Slater what carrots are to cats (totally irrelevant). He just isn’t interested in anything but the agenda he is pushing. And he’d certainly be denouncing anyone in the MSM who attempted to quote a social anthropologist on this topic. Complete hypocrite. Fun to read though.

    Reply
  8. Why can’t all these genius ‘scientists’ get off their asses and invent something???

    http://r1016132.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/science-says-wooly-mammoth-extict-due-to-manmade-climate-change/

    Experts at prancing around on their moral high horses is all in my opinion

    Reply
  9. So in New Zealand there is Cam Slater speaking for climate change deniers.
    And on the other hand, there is Sir Peter Gluckman, NIWA, MfE, and all the other CRIs and universities, who all say that climate change is real.

    mmmm Who to believe?

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  7th January 2015

      You don’t have to believe anyone and if you do your opinion is worthless received wisdom. Instead you can go and look at the data for yourself.

      Reply
    • Climate change and AGW are different things. I’d tend to believe people who don’t fudge their data sets.

      If you Google “wattsupwiththat data adjustment” you’ll see what I mean.

      Reply
  10. If the North and South Poles have grown in size between 2010 and 2014, then why did we still see this sad stuff on our screens in late 2014?

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  7th January 2015

      Because its silly propaganda from outfits like Greenpeace which have made scaremongering into a mega multinational business.

      Reply
  11. Because the bubbleheads are too vain to admit that they are wrong about climate change.

    Reply
  12. That solitary Polar Bear stranded on a 50 by 10 metre arctic berg, about the same size as a shipping container full of tubs of Tip-Top Icecream Tubs, was filmed by independent operators. If that is what you consider to be silly propoganda, then go for your life, AlanW 🙂

    Reply
  13. Alan Wilkinson

     /  7th January 2015

    @modelmiss: http://polarbearscience.com/2015/01/01/iucn-polar-bear-specialist-group-out-lived-its-usefulness-20-years-ago/

    And ..

    Abstract
    Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over deep-water pack ice for a female polar bear during a year of extreme sea ice retreat

    ….Between an initial capture in late August and a recapture in late October 2008, a radio-collared adult female polar bear in the Beaufort Sea made a continuous swim of 687 km over 9 days and then intermittently swam and walked on the sea ice surface an additional 1,800 km…..The extraordinary long distance swimming ability of polar bears, which we confirm here, may help them cope with reduced Arctic sea ice……

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24131717

    Yes, that heap of crap about polar bears in danger is indeed silly propaganda aimed at the ignorant and those too gullible to check it out.

    Reply
  14. Alan Wilkinson

     /  7th January 2015

    @Pete (because your website reply function does not work on iPads), yes, Slater is a mere parrot as are you. However he is parroting a sceptical website which allows a free contest of ideas unlike almost all the alarmist websites and therefore is exposed to all kinds of points of view and expertise.

    You attack Pieser personally but do not refute anything he said, most of which was anyway citing independent research. I conclude you have an agenda for which you seek only fuel rather than enlightenment.

    Reply
    • I try to enlighten at times Alan. I also try to fuel discussion and debate. That’s finda the point of blogging isn’t it? I’m not trying to be Wikipedia.

      Reply
      • Good job. Wikipedia is about pushing a particular political point of view, eg William Connolly using it as a base for AGW alarmism. Wikipedia has the same DNS roots as Wikileaks, which mostly only released information damaging to a particular set of countries.

        https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:How_to_identify_CIA_limited_hangout_operation

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  8th January 2015

        Climate change is not an issue amateurs can usefully debate. There is a huge amount of incorrect and misleading misinformation out there, much of it from supposed experts as well as many well-funded propaganda machines. The incentives for appropriating taxpayers’ and consumers’ money for the cause and industry are irresistibly huge. It is simply a horrendous massive mess somewhat equivalent in scale to Islamic terrorism.

        Reply
  15. Why can’t the brains-trust get off their asses and invent something better instead of prancing around on their moral high horses???

    http://r1016132.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/science-says-wooly-mammoth-extict-due-to-manmade-climate-change/

    It’s ridiculous!!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: