Philip, your response was predictable. You denigrate the well-known independent scientist, Bob Carter, as one having "an agenda" and one who "slathers" his material with non-scientific, emotive language. It is typical of the approach that warmists use to denigrate global warming sceptics.

Ironically, you then use emotive language to dismiss Bob Carter's observation that there is abundant compelling scientific evidence that invalidates the IPCC's AGW hypothesis. It is evident that you have not read end-note 228 (it takes up 3 pages of fine print, and is thus too long to be quoted here) of his book, which undoubtedly would be available in a Brisbane library.

It is up to the IPCC, or any other scientist for that matter, to come up with the scientific evidence to validate the AGW hypothesis. However, they have failed to produce that scientific evidence.

Your recommended website, http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=climate+change+attribution , contains about 72,500 entries, none of which has produced the required scientific evidence.

Raycom, you call me a "warmist" while decrying the use of denigrating language. But let's leave that aside.

I'm not sure which book by Bob Carter you are referring to (I couldn't find it in any library catalogue here) but I found this http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/11899/3/11899_Carter_2010_front_pages.pdf extract on a publisher's web site. In the extract, he writes: "The IPCC is the United Nations hody that in 1995 allowed a single activist scientist, Ben Santer, to rewrite parts of the key Chapter 8 (Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Climate Change) of its Second Assessment Report in alarmist terms", a statement comprehensively rebutted by Ben Santer here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/

I wonder if Dr Santer has a case for defamation. The extract on the publisher's site is clearly the work of a person with an agenda, not a dispassionate scientist.

Read the book I referred to you. It's proper science, not conspiracy theory garbage.

Philip, the Robert (Bob) Carter book is entitled, 'Climate: The Counter Consensus', published by Stacey International in 2010.

The claim about Santer rewriting parts of key Chapter 8 of IPCC's Climate Change 1995 , has appeared in many publications.

S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery, in their book 'Unstoppable Global Warming' published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2007, give the following account (see pp 120-121):

(Start of quote)
"The IPCC's Climate Change 1995 was reviewed by its consulting scientists in late 1995. The 'Summary for Policy Makers' was approved in December, and the full report , including Chapter 8, was accepted. However, after the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers discovered that major changes had been made "in the back room" after they had signed off on the science chapter's contents. Santer, despite the shortcomings of the scientific evidence, had inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in Chapter 8 (of which he was the IPCC-appointed lead author):

"There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. (IPCC, Climate Change 1995, Chapter 8, 412)

The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. "( IPCC, Climate Change 1995, Chapter 8, 439)"

(cont. in new post)

(cont. from previous post)
Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data -- an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."

"Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

"While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."

"When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is, "We do not know."

Santer single-handedly reversed the "climate science " of the whole IPCC report -- and with it the global warming political process. The "discernible human influence" supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the "stopper" in millions of debates between non-scientists.

(Cont. from previous post)
The journal Nature mildly chided the IPCC for redoing chapter 8 to "ensure that it conformed" to the report's politically correct Summary for Policy Makers. In an editorial, Nature favoured the Kyoto treaty.

The Wall Street Journal, which did not favour Kyoto, was outraged . Its condemning editorial, "Coverup in the Greenhouse, " appeared 11 June 1996. The following day, Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, detailed the illegitimate rewrite in the Journal in a commentary titled, "Major Deception on Global Warming."
(End of quote from Singer and Avery)

If Robert Carter has an agenda, it is to expose the scientific facts about climate change and how AGW proponents have manipulated to keep those facts from the public spotlight.

The book you refer to may cover climate theory, but the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming has not been proved by scientific evidence. In the words deleted from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft of IPCC, Climate Change 1995, no one has quantified the magnitude of an anthropogenic CO2 effect in the observed data