Well.....I'm still waiting for our resident AGW doomshouter TNO to give me specific recommendations on what should be done (with a cost/value analysis) to combat the mythical condition......
"tick....tick....tick...."
doc
He will complain that the findings lack peer review.
Of course with a "science" as politically and financially charged as climatology we have to wonder if the definition of "peer" is "one accredited by AGW alarmists."
I suspect that the discipline of "climate science" is very nearly the same age (and validity) as the only pertinent data on global mean temperatures......IOW a "discipline" that has grown out of the desperate need to legitimize the junk science that makes up the entire discussion of AGW.
Just because a university offers a degree in a specific field does not make that field "legitimate"....it simply reflects the desire of the faculty and administration to attract grants, students, and extort dollars from the alum's.
Having spent some time in the academy, I can attest to the fact that academic history is littered with the bones of "fields of study" that were launched for similiar reasons, and ultimately discarded.
doc