Interesting, ironic and dogmatic best describes this post.

I note that there is not one credible scientific counter claim in this article (or rant if you prefer) for the basis of climate change. There is nothing backing up Professor Carter's assertion that this is "junk science". Citing a reference 24 years out of date in no way could possibly reflect the current state of knowledge with respect to climate science. To suggest that is the case is an appalling misrepresentation of the immense body of work that has gone into understanding our climate.

My understanding from direct contact with climate researchers is that the largest source of uncertainty in the modelling of climate science is not physical but economic. The questions of "how many people will there be? how much coal will they burn? how much petrol will they use?" are now the single largest source of uncertainty in the modelling.

This article is a testament to the dearth of peer reviewed science to "debunk" climate change. When the sceptics start trotting out science fiction authors to support their case in US senate hearings you have to think long and hard about their credibility.

There is indeed a moral issue. It centres around inter-generational inequity. I would say it is immoral to knowingly adversely impact on future generations' capacity to live a decent life. Spin has dominated the debate to protect vested interests in fossil fuels. Immense amounts of cash have been expended on lobby groups to counter the money spent on increasing knowledge. To suggest that climate researchers are on a gravy train to delude policy makers and the public is absurd. There has been a spectacular lack of action on climate change. I think it is time to liberally apply Occam's razor to the sceptics' arguments.

Runner,

Oh how the land you live in must be a joyous and wonderful place, in your gumdrop house on lollypop lane, where pollution is a myth and governments hell bent on world domination would NEVER attack its own people to justify pre planned military invasions

Please invite me to this magical land of yours.

Thanks Kveldulv for your post. You said it nicely.

I agree with your comment - "to suggest that climate researchers are on a gravy train to delude policy makers and the public is absurd". I'd like to further add that throwing doubt on the motives of researchers and others is a double edged sword. People can then look at your own motives. There is certainly advantage to be gained - in publicity etc. by taking an opposing view in a high profile issue like this and attacking the messenger.

However I have no reason to doubt that Bob Carter's motives are pure. I'm just using it to illustrate how easy it is to cast aspersions on someone's intentions.

I have just spent a few hours perusing http://www.cei.org/pdf/5478.pdf as referred to at the end of Bob Carter's article, and subsequently looking up some of the references.

I find it, ironically enough, an apparently "inconvenient truth" that the paper above relies extensively on sources and people with financial connections to Exxon. I say apparently inconvenient because the author does mention this as a possible conflict of interest.

A search on Google will bring up some interesting information the organisations http://www.co2science.org and http://www.worldclimatereport.org (both referenced extensively) and the personnel behind the organisations. The author specifically mentions Paul C. Knappenberger (who is associated with worldclimatereport.org) at the beginning of the paper: "The author is grateful to CEI Research Interns Jonathan Burns and Elias Dayoub for their help in analyzing economic and environmental data, and to Paul C. Knappenberger of New Hope Environmental Services and Willie Soon of the Center for Science and Public Policy for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper." Knappenburger's history with Exxon is not mentioned, while Exxon itself is portrayed as the victim of a "disinformation" campaign.

Hmm....

Apart from the above threads I've managed to tease out in just a few hours, I have issues with accepting of a paper that quotes Wikipedia as it's authority on "Greenhouse Basics". There are surely more authoritative sources available.

While I accept that the paper may well refer to some legitimate issues with "An Inconvenient Truth" (seeing that I do not have the time to research each and every reference), it does not in any way appear to be much more than a propaganda piece aimed at discrediting AIT, while conveniently "forgetting" to mention the vested interests behind all the "evidence".

Food for thought.

Isky

On ya Isky;

As it happens I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" last night. I used to be sceptic and thought the scientists were on the gravytrain until I met a group of csiro climatologists at a bbq last christmas. They simply had a reasonable and plausible answer for every doubt I could throw at them.

It is easy to throw a 110 page document critisising a 2 hour movie and come out looking more "official". The two media have different formats and a paper in a scientific format conforms to the stereotype of academic credibility and will thus be believed by many people. However in this age of spin we have to follow the money trail. A quick google of the author and the institute he represents reveals that they are funded by the oil and petrochemical industries:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2

A pity professor Carter didn't mention this.

It is ironic that the paper likens the movie to Zola's 19th century newspaper article "J'Accuse". In the artcile Zola condemns the prosecution of the jewish officer Dreyfuss on based on secret evidence and antisemitism. It caused a huge stir at the time and its echo resonates strongly in our times. We could do worse than read Barbara Tuchmans chapter on the affair in her book "The Proud Tower". On the centenary of Dreyfuss' rehabilitation Zola received wide praise in his fight against the forces of "darkness and injustice". It would be interesting to see how Al Gore is viewed in 100 years time.

Alas we live in an age of spin. Objective information is a rarety. Who do we believe; the "privilegded patrician" mr Gore or the "lackeys" of the oil industry. My vote goes with Al Gore.

The consequences of global warming are very serious. Even just the sea level rise can have a significant cost. I grew up in Holland and the dykes designed after the 1952 flood took 30 years to build and cost billions of 1980 dollars.

Finally in a "battle of facts" lets get them right. The little iceage occurred in the 17th acentury, not in the middleages.

Amendment:

"I say apparently inconvenient because the author does mention this as a possible conflict of interest"

Should read:

"I say apparently inconvenient because the author does NOT mention this as a possible conflict of interest."

My apologies for any confusion.

Isky