"Climate, the Counter Consensus" ... Hahaha, you gotta be kidding!

http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2011/04/29/climate-the-counter-consensus/

"This book is a curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and poorly-documented assertions"

Maybe you can help me Leo, I'm trying to figure out who has less credibility, Bob Carter or David Icke, actually, I think Icke's lizard men are more believable than Carter's pseudo-science, don't you?

Here's another read for you, unlike Carter's lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations, backed by science ..... from climate scientists.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

As for John Cook, the bane of people like Carter, well respected, peer reviewed, and a master of debunking the kind of nonsense Carter pushes onto gullible fools like you. Not that there's anything wrong with what he does, if people like you are silly enough to finance him, good on him, no-one of any substance listens to a word he says, so no damage done.

You are lying again, donkey, here is a write up of Robert Carter:
"The only one in that chain at JCU who would always put science before politics was Professor Robert Carter. He was a rare and remarkable man, and I will keenly miss his wisdom and philosophical good nature.
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/bob-carter-a-great-man-gone-far-too-soon/

John Cook is not just a failure as a cartoonist.
His failures are generally at science. The failure of his peer reviewed lie about “97% of climate scientists supporting the AGW fraud was just one example of his failure.
“Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#4fe5c7055909

I answered your stupid, invalid question, donkey.
Here are 3 simple questions for you.
1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/professor-bob-carter/page/2/
No doubt beyond you, or you would not be a fraud promoter

Another positive write up of Professor Carter by an appreciative climate scientist, donkey.
Is there anything you do not have wrong, donkey?
“Professor Carter was a real expert on climate change. He was director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, an international co-operative effort to collect deep sea cores. From these cores, past climates for specific regions have been reconstructed.
We both presented to the Coalition environment committee at Parliament House on October 20 last year. Professor Carter eloquently explained, with examples, how modern temperatures were not unusually warm; that current carbon dioxide levels were low relative to geological time; that as industrial emissions were added to the atmosphere, the less was the “greenhouse” warming effect of each increment of carbon dioxide. Therefore, he concluded, “dangerous warming of this causation will not occur”.
Furthermore, he added, the addition of 50ppm of CO2 for 1981-2010 had fertilised an 11 per cent increase in plant cover. Thus CO2 was both a strong environmental (greening the planet) and agrarian (crop yield increases) benefit.
In this presentation, he also emphasised the importance of the scientific method. “To the extent that it is possible for any human endeavour to be so, science is value-free. Science is a way of attempting to understand the world in which we live from a rational point of view, based on observation, experiment and tested theory. Irritatingly, especially for governments, science does not operate by con¬sensus and it is often best progres¬sed by mavericks. The alternat¬ive to a scientific approach is one based on super¬stition, phobia, religion or politics.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bob-carter-a-rationalist-critic-of-climate-change/news-story/14e8fdc51917f6756d95508c5f7c5e59

There is a hiatus in the donkey’s flow of lies and dishonesty.
The flow has not stopped, it is just hiding in the oceans, like global warming, as any climate fraud promoter will tell you.

Your embarrassment is hilarious Leo.

Where to start ... your first link is an obituary, hardly an unbiased view, even so, it points out the FACT that his unscientific hogwash got him fired from his professorship.

Here's a better link Leo ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-09/27606

Your second link doesn't work, not that it matters, your sources have one thing in common, irrelevance.

And lastly you link another obituary, they are hardly likely to be anything but glowing, are they. Here's a quote to put your third post in perspective ... "Naturally, I would turn to geologists for advice on brain surgery, dentistry, accounting or religion, but in the field of climate science I lean towards meteorologists."

You are completely out of your depth Leo, you have made up your mind, based on dubious 'science' espoused by self proclaimed experts commenting outside their field of expertise, and there is little hope for you. But you're good for a larf!