I am amazed that all of you are so quick to dismiss what Prof Carter has written based, not on the facts of the matter or the strength of his argument, but on who you think might have funded who and what you think might have motivated them? I guess none of you drive cars 'cause you wouldn't give your money to big oil?
I reckon Al Gore is making a lot of money out of the movie and the crusade ... so why do you believe him? Particularly given he does not practice what he preaches: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm .
How are about starting from the beginning ... testing a couple of Al Gore's claims versus a couple of Bob Carter's claims against the available evidence?

So did the London Institute of Spivs make that statement about avoiding the facts, or not? It is all very well to be looking up gossip blogs but did anyone bother to confirm such a clearly damning quote? No, and you all made your own political biases perfectly clear.

As a past member of the Australian Greenhouse Office's Consultative Pannel on the Land Use Change and Forestry part of the Greenhouse Inventory, I have first hand experience of the way this process has such a scant regard for the distinction between fact and speculation.

One couldn't call it idle speculation because there was no shortage of plainly ideologically driven people who were very actively trying to distort the picture for their own political objectives. And given that so much of the IPCC methodology has a blatantly European bias, with serious detriment neatly apportioned to those outside the club, these actions by the AGO have bordered on treason.

Deceptive conduct is most certainly a moral issue and that makes the spin and deception of the greenhouse goons a major moral issue.

Some commenters have asked for a scientific rebuttal of Carter's claims against the film. Here is one. Carter claims that "it is noteworthy that global temperature has not risen since 1998". 1998 was the hottest year on record but that does not mean that the overall trend of increasing global temperatures has stopped. For a detailed scientific critique, including a graph of Global Mean Temperature over Land and Ocean since 1880 see: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html (US National Climate Data Centre)

This particular claim is an example of a spin technique known as cherrypicking (choosing only the data that suits your argument) and does nothing for Carter's credibilty.

Carter says "Nor does he (Al Gore)present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change. This is not surprising, for no such evidence yet exists."

Professor Carter seems to have conveniently forgotten that one of the most significant indicators of climate change is the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere which seems to be rising exponentially. Hardly "constant change", and according to my calculations, at the present rate of our burning of fossil fuels, it will double within the lifetime of many of us.

I will put my money on Al Gore.

Better start thinking about the forewarned global change, you office armchair critics,
'cause surely you are the ones out to make hay while the sunshines - shares in the big coal companies most like.

Bet most of you have never considered that the biggest change in the whole last thousand years of global existence has been that of man and his technology - using anything that can produce combustion, most of which in turn pollutes the atmosphere.
s a veteran farmer who has cleared out big trees not only to produce more crop, but also because he could now see Dalwallinu over forty K's away. Makes one really feel good and grand - really like a man.

Young wife thinks different though, telling him if he knocks down any more beautiful salmon gums, she's leaving...

Oh, she'll be jake, says the hubby, we can fix it. We can make up for it. And f- it all, too, says the young wife, already beginning to swear.

But it is a story about the environment that is typical, as shown by John Howard, who though he has knowledge of how noxious discharges can be sent miles underground, and old-fashioned discharges can be metered and payment made accordingly, he'd rather kid to the public that something is going to be done.

But because it means slowing down production, John Howard like the young cockie, just keeps on at the same game

Guess Bob you haven't got a house by the sea ... just in case!
And no relatives living in Tuvalu either?
I find it almost incomprehensible that anyone – especially a scientist – could argue that changing one variable factor in an equation that has been in equilibrium for over 100k years will have no impact – to borrow a phrase “it’s the CO2 stupid”!
It must be an interesting world to live in where human impacts are unimportant to the environment – are you and John Howard the only people in it – no wait … you must have Exxon-Mobil in there with you!
It doesn’t matter if the overall impacts are hotter or colder – it is the sudden change that will impact live forms.
It must be quite a hoot being on your campus.
All the best, Bruce.