Actually it does seem to debunk a lot of the claims by the global warming community.
Does not state that there is a correlation between climate change and human activity. Also takes into account the limited time that there's been accurate measurement.
Makes a focused claim, and seems to back it up-- seems like good science, although the data may say differently. Should be easy enough to validate too-- they don't seem like they're particularly interested in hiding their data or playing mathematical tricks.
If they're right, and looking at climate change in such a limited sense is the right way to look at it, the man made climate change argument has suffered a pretty serious blow.
you're missing the main point. a climate change skeptic runs a well regarded study that says change is, in fact, happening. doubters position is weakened.
this had nothing to do with role of humans, only whether change is occurring. read this:
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/glo ... ot-a-hoax/
That does nothing to undermine my point. It's pretty simple:
1. If the climate change is due primarily to normal natural shifts, then we need to adapt to what Gaia is doing, not change our activity.
2. If the climate change is due primarily to human activity (pollution, etc...), then we need to change our behavior to save the planet.
It seems like the Berkeley study is saying that this is a normal shift-- there seems to be pretty strong evidence that shifts in climate have happened throughout history without human involvement and that they have often happened without some big natural disaster (not always because of a meteor falling or a huge volcanic eruption).
This undermines the urgency of changing human behavior, which is really the point of the climate change/global warming/global cooling hysteria. This doesn't help the 'Save the Planet' folks at all.