@Leo Lane
Yes Robert Carter was 'a specialist in paleo-environmental and paleo-climatic topics'. He was not and has never been a 'specialist' in modern climate science. Carter has never published a single peer-reviewed paper in a reputable Journal on Climate Science in today's world. Carter was not and never has been accepted by the large body working climate scientists aka ~30,000 peers.

A simple search proves NO Peer-Reviewed Papers beyond doubt:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=30&q=%22RM+Carter%22+climate&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

The 'opinion piece/article' by Carter on wryheat was extracted from WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/

Opinions, Blogs, Forums, News, TV are not 'the science.' Carter's article is based on his 'book opinions' not The Science
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Counter-Consensus-Palaeoclimatologist-Speaks-Independent/dp/1906768293

Credible Science is found in peer-reviewed literature, no where else.

Another Palaeoclimatologist has opinions about Deep Time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4&feature=youtu.be&t=33m1s

He and ~30,000 others disagree with Carter.

Carter's 'opinions' on climate focused on politics, policy response, mitigation, media, public opinion, public debates, models & economics. A tiny part was about The Science.

Carter was a non-expert, non-climate scientist, political activist no different than Al Gore is. The only ones who agreed with Carter are other climate science deniers/ideologically opposed activists. Their 'beliefs/ideology/opinions' are irrelevant to The Climate Science too!
eg http://theconversation.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553

Review of some Carter statements:

"This phalanx of support notwithstanding there is no scientific consensus as to the danger of human-induced climate change."

FALSE

"In a democracy, the media serve to convey to the public the facts and hypotheses of climate change"

IRRELEVANT - a political social issue.

"Natural climate changes, both warmings and coolings, are indeed a societal hazard."

TRUE

"Attempting instead to ‘stop climate change’ by reducing human carbon dioxide emissions is a costly exercise of utter futility. Rational climate policies must be based on adaptation to dangerous change as and when it occurs, and irrespective of its sign or causation."

UNSCIENTIFIC OPINION ON MITIGATION - NO EVIDENCE

"The issue now is no longer climate change as such, the reality of which will always be with us."

FALSE - This time it's different - DENIAL of THE Science

Source: The myth of dangerous human-caused climate change, Carter 2007 http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/3130/
-

Thomas O'Reilly

What you're calling "infantile" is merely me holding up the mirror to your own ad hominem and appeal to authority.

Now. The difference between your beliefs and mine, is that
a) you have never done a reality check whether the government can achieve the *net* benefits you assume
b) your beliefs are unfalsifiable
c) you actively ignore and flee disproofs.

Mine by contrast identify how they could be falsified, and then challenge you and all warmist to falsify them - WITHOUT ANSWER.

Now hurry up and post your calculations showing how you have taken account of the subjective values of all those positively and negatively affected by your policy proposals, all over the world now and indefinitely into the future. Make sure you account for the counter-factual scenarios - in units of a lowest common denominator - and justify any discount for futurity.

Go ahead. Or admit you can't.

READ the posts that *completely and totally* disprove and demolish your infantile belief system, and POST the calculations that answer the questions your are trying, but failing, to wriggle out of.

Do you think the intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty of your evasions are not obvious, you squirming fool?

Stop posting irrelevance, and hurry up and answer my challenges. According to you, we're all going to boil to death if you don't HURRY!

While Aitkin's article is 'entertaining' it is erroneous, narrow minded, with ad hominem ridicule. It is not scientific, logical or true.

Smart people look past Aitkin's 'opinions & beliefs', the single paper to seek credible Resources that define Skepticism and Denialism.

Like Dictionaries - Skepticism or scepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. It is often directed at domains, such as morality, religion, or the nature of knowledge"

Like say A SKEPTICAL MANIFESTO
The following is excerpted from Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer, 1997, W. H. Freeman.

Skepticism is itself a positive assertion about knowledge, and thus turned on itself cannot be held.
Skepticism must be followed with something rational, or something that does PRODUCE PROGRESS.

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned (1956, p. 112) "An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. It’s passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/

Shermer: "These meaningful patterns become beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs" articles @ http://goo.gl/txZumu

"In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth."
Search http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=denial+vs+skeptical&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Why Is It Called Denial?
http://ncse.com/library-resource/why-is-it-called-denial

2009 Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? - WHERE Black is white and white is black!
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2

Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress
http://www.amazon.com/Denialism-Irrational-Thinking-Scientific-Progress/dp/1594202303

Lay denial of knowledge for justified true beliefs
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002771300036X

Skeptical Appeal: The Source-Content Bias
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12153/full

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks
"...study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs)."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644010802055576?scroll=top&needAccess=true
-

TO'R

Stop squirming and evading and answer the question.

Thomas O'Reilly,

What exactly do you mean by reef cover?.

Do you mean the top of the reef that has been bleached white by the sun
.
To my way of thinking, this looks more like the reef defending its deeper living self
by developing the equivalent of a white shield to reflect the sun away.

Kind of like human sunscreen.

@CHERFUL
Go away, read the paper, I'm not your kindergarten teacher, I don't tolerate trolls.

@Jardine
WHAT QUESTION? YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION? When you find it, take a year out to think about what you're going to say to make me answer it.

@Leo Lane extolls "more rabid lunacy" snipped

Re: "They do not define “denier”, without which, their paper is meaningless."

Source URL http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/604/html

Quotes:
"We outline the DISTINCTION between true skepticism and denial with several case studies."

"How can scientists facilitate debate but resist denial? We address those questions in three ways: We first describe the tools of politically-inspired denial.
We then report a case study that illustrates the path by which skeptical members of the public are able to contribute to science.
We conclude by underscoring the need for scientists to be transparent and to respond to legitimate public concerns, and how the triage between denial and skepticism can be achieved."

"Public Debate Versus Denial
- then those statements are more indicative of the denial of scientific facts than expressions of skepticism
- denial commonly invokes notions of conspiracies
- Attributes such as “hoax” or “biggest scam in the world to date” also make up the largest share of affective responses by people who reject climate science
- common feature of denial...involves personal and professional attacks on scientists
- People who deny scientific facts ... are by and large not skeptics.... they shy away from scientific debate by avoiding the submission of their ideas TO PEER REVIEW."

AND
"the discursive activity of those individuals is largely limited to blogs and the media, accompanied by complaints to institutions and journals which can have no purpose other than to stifle, rather than promote, scientific debate."

- Those individuals include Aitkin, Marohasy, Carter, Abbot, Nicol, Nova, Curry, Monckton, the IPA, and OLOs comments Forum.

The Solution for genuine people? READ the original Science YOURSELF FIRST, and then ask for help from those with more knowledge than you.
-