(1957) A co-founder with Nigel Lawson of the skeptic think tank Global Warming Policy Foundation, he is a social anthropologist whose research focuses on the effects of environmental change and catastrophic events on contemporary thought and societal evolution. In addition, he is senior lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University and a visiting fellow at the University of Buckingham.
A one-sided and alarmist perception of risk
In 2005 he stated: "The lack of a balanced approach to the issue of global warming has led to an extremely one-sided and alarmist perception of risk. ... climate alarmists habitually ignore the potential economic and health benefits of warming temperatures. While magnifying the probable risks to health and mortality as a result of warmer temperatures, many underrate or simply discount the possible heath benefits of moderate warming". In a 2006 interview, he argued that concern about climate change had reached a level of "near hysteria" and was "poisonous for rational policy making."
The climate scare is over (A post Climategate interview)
Peiser fact-checks Naomi Oreskes
In 2004 Naomi Oreskes published a paper in Science that reported on the analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords climate change.” In this paper, she claimed that 75 percent of examined abstracts backed the AGW consensus, while none directly disagreed with it.
Peiser pointed out that the search key Oreskes used was global climate change not climate change. He also pointed out that after a detailed analysis of Oreskes' material he discovered that the majority of the abstracts referred to in her study did not mention anthropogenic climate change, and only 13 of the 928 abstracts explicitly endorsed what Oreskes called the "consensus view."
1. Click here to read Skeptical Science's attempt to rebutt Peiser's charges — but make sure that you read the comments.