Quote:While William Kininmonth is respected by his former colleagues at the Bureau of Meteorology and they agree about the climate's natural variability, they disagree that recent warming is natural. In a review to be published in March in the Australian Meteorological Magazine, University of Melbourne associate professor of meteorology Kevin Walsh will argue that Kininmonth has failed to present the case for natural warming. "Some of his detailed arguments are a little bit curious," Dr Walsh told The Age. "Some of his statements actually contradict well-accepted work."
But strangely enough, the Lavoisier Group heard that message on Monday night. In what seemed like a coup, Hugh Morgan had secured the respected John Zillman, former head of the Bureau of Meteorology, to launch the book. Dr Zillman agreed, but made it clear that there were significant parts of the book that he disagreed with. Dr Zillman, who is known to be quite conservative about climate science, said he was concerned about appearing at a Lavoisier Group book launch, but did so in the interests of debate.
He says he is not aware of any sceptic argument that has invalidated the mainstream science, and is now convinced - although would not have been 10 years ago - that it is mostly humans changing the world's climate. "I won't be expecting to be invited back as a regular," he said.
Does this man Kininmonth have the confidence to publish his studies for peer review?
I find it paradoxical that the denialist camp would site galileo's example of one man fighting the common belief of the flat earth, yet their behaviour is like that of the diehards who refused to accept that the earth was not flat, even after nearly all the other scientists had examined galileo's work and agreed with him.
I do not pretend to understand the science, but I do believe that those that do, agree on all the important principles and findings which attest to global warming.
Now, the odd voice, with the emphasis decidedly on the word 'odd', that choose to swim against the tide, for whatever reason, have the right, if they have the ability and the data to back themselves, to publish studies for peer review, by the scientific community, which always maintains a healthy skepticism.
Now if they choose not to do that, but instead seek funding from industries whose focus is on maintaining the staus quo, to spread disinformation through media events, then they deserve to be ridiculed as the charlatans that they appear to be.
Forum
Pages: 
More facts for the deniers.... (Read 30366 times)
