Well, the article sounds reasonable. It does raise questions worth discussing. It does imply a question :
"If the human contribution to greenhouse gases is not a significant cause of global warming, or even in fact, is somehow a benefit for the future - then how come scientists across the world don't think this? Is there some grand conspiracy to dupe scientists and the public?" That seems to me to be unlikely, - so then I would be asking questions about that Swedish conference “Climate Change - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability” – I’d like to know more about who organised it, who paid for it – are there some other agendas going on here?

And, my own simple question – not answered in that article, is: "If the current global warming is troubling to us, but is just a natural event, why is it OK for us to not worry , and to continue pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?"
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

Professor Carter,

Thank you for your observations and report of the Swedish climate conference. Many years ago I was advised by a senior figure to be aware of fashion in science and medicine. Today we talk of “paradigm shift”, but the meaning is the same.

I always believed that the greatest support for the human induced global warming hypothesis was media bias, inspired by support from the anti-development and anti-industrialisation red-green lobby.

As they say in science as well as in the garment industry; fashions come and fashions go.

“... Professor Erland Kallen, director of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, who noted that the late 20th century Arctic warming does not exceed earlier natural warmings in magnitude, such as the one that peaked in the 1930s.”

This, if true, is extremely important, given that much of the worry about global warming is based on the recent Arctic warming, the loss of habitat for polar bears etc. Anybody know where the details can be found?

Dr. Carter;

Were you not given grants from the Australian Research Council (ARC) which is an Australian government entity? The same government of PM Howard who dismissed Gore's movie and has been totally immoral in its policy on climate change? Therefore, are these your own opinions, or opinions shaped by the government which gives you grants?

Bob, why do you continue to make stuff up?

Mann's "hockey stick" results have not been "scientifically discredited", they've been confirmed:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions".

You arguments would be more compelling if you told the truth.

Dear JayM, Are you saying that no-one can have a legitimate view on climate change if given government grants - or presumeably, any money from anywhere? Even that may not be enough to get your foot in today's door. I paid my own fare, accomodation and registration for the 29th Annual Conference of the International Association for Energy Economics; no tax deduction either. (Dr Rajendra Pachauri, now head of IPCC, is a some-time IAEE president.) On arrival at Potsdam on 6 June, I was given a letter confirming I was a conference speaker entitled to discounted registration. But on reaching my room, I found that my two-page summary was not in the 480-page book of summaries, and my presentation wasn't listed in the 53-session conference program. This huge event was like a revivalist meeting - for academics and bureaucrats from around the world - about carbon-credit trading, stack-gas geosequestration, wind-power subsidies, hydrogen economy etc. My paper "Global warming or cooling: it's still the Sun" was off-message. The world NEEDS people like Prof. Carter. Hang in there, Bob.