interestingly, bob carter is a member of, and has published papers for the Tech Central Science Foundation, with an anual budget of $150,00US, $95,000US consisting of grants from ExxonMobil.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf

"interestingly, bob carter is a member of, and has published papers for the Tech Central Science Foundation, with an anual budget of $150,00US, $95,000US consisting of grants from ExxonMobil."

Why am I not surprised? No wonder Bob is so keen to expose and discredit global warming "evangelists". Too bad your own credibility is shot. It's reminiscent of the natural progression of Bush climate change advisors - straight onto ExxonMobil's payroll. But I forgot, global warming denialists are completely apolitical, right? Let the rational discussion commence, just don't mention the responsibility of our corporate backers.

A couple of points-
Those ‘scientists’ that believe global warming due to co2 is a crock are vastly outnumbered by those who believe in its generally agreed impact, present & future.
The article is quite possibly the most inflammatory, rhetoric laden, non-factual pile of…..oh why bother it deserves no further comment….

Iteresting article .
I recall a news story only aired on one day in hobart , Then not mentioned again , not locally anyway . Something about a study of growth rings in deep sea kelp south of Tas indicating sea temperature increase fairly constant over past three hundred years or so .
You'd think that would inspire great discussion but it went quiet very quickly . Hmmm .

Bob Carter is just another of the mouthpieces for the global fossil fuel conglomerates desperately trying to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their means of wealth accumulation.

The presence of the greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere over the last 450,000 years has been determined by examination of polar ice cores. In the four interglacial warm periods prior to the present one the CO2 never rose above 300 parts per million and CH4 never went above 800 parts per billion. The current situation is that CO2 is approaching 400 ppm and CH4 is over 1700 ppb.

This is incontrovertible evidence that the present situation is not some natural phase but a massive climate change unprecedented in the past half million years. All the name calling by the oil companies' paid scientists will not alter that, but it may well discourage any efforts to make timely and sensible preparations for the inevitable impacts of global weather disruption.

Goodness me, Bob, "no evidence that capitalism exists", the greens must have put a call out to "rentadiatribe" by the nature of the invective that is flying about.

For the record, Sympneology, I have the graph of the Vostock Ice Cores in front of me, courtesy of Qld NRM. See: Gabriel. M and Wilcocks. J, "Climate Change, the challenge for natural resource management" Qld NRM 2004, (Fig 2 p2).

It provides what is termed a temperature variation from the mean which could not possibly refer to the mean over the 420,000 years as only about 5% of the data set actually matches that mean. The rest is all 5 to 10 degrees C below it. The usual sloppy work, they are probably referring to the contemporary mean temperature. Ditto for Fig 3 (p3) where the line attributed to an 11 year mean temp. actually precedes the data to which it refers. Could it be that someone simply moved the trend line to the left a bit to make the rate of change appear more dramatic?

About the only message the ice cores send us is that CO2 might be a really good way to avoid or reduce the catastrophic consequences of a 100,000 year ice age.