Not a nit pick, SHONGA. A correction of a grossly misleading claim. Of our 787 winners, about 330 were in Physics and Chemistry. Of those, a large proportion were deceased by 1991. Presumably, not all of those living signed your report, leaving, at best, a small fraction of your numbers. If you respect science, you wouldn't call that nit picking, nor would you brand Bob Carter a flat earther.

Two of those 787 laureates were Australia’s Robin Warren and Barry Marshall in 2005, who challenged a long held consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by physiological stress. The culprit is now believed to be bacterial. How did centuries of medicine miss that?Discovering this does not make "rat bags" of all those doctors who came before them. The best scientists can be wrong, but the best of the best openly invite others to prove them so. That's how science progresses.

"If someone can produce scientific proof that we don't need to act urgently to save the planet, let them come forth...." (SHONGA,4:38:22 PM)

Ah there speaks a true believer.

Climate changes all the time. The changes can be fast or slow. We would agree that human activity is making a difference to climate. Most of us would agree that keeping climate changes relatively stable or slow changing is a good thing to do. Now we have the ability to influence climate let us work towards trying to keep the climate about the same or if it must change let us try to influence is so that change happens slowly. We know that increasing green house gases will change the climate because it has happened before. We have the technology to stop the increase and even reduce greenhouse gases. It would seem prudent to do so while we work on the exact details of how great the change in climate will be.

Typical of Bob Carter, he continues to promote the ongoing pollution of the planet.

Clearly, he is opposed to any carbon tax or trading describing that proposal as ineffective and costly.

Whether one accepts anthropogenic carbon is interfering with climate or not, the continuing excessive man-made emissions are desecrating all eco systems and that's scientific!

Carter clearly has little knowledge of the science of carbon based emissions or other hazardous chemicals which pollutant industries are recklessly dumping on our environment, already struggling to sustain the health of all life forms on this planet.

Carter's irresponsible recommendation to keep polluting simply gives humans two choices:

1. All life forms will be struggling to survive due to climate change created by excessive CO2

AND/OR

2. All life forms will be struggling to survive due to anthropogenic pollution.

I'll put my money on the IPCC's recommendations, thanks! At least we may avoid having to wear gas masks and respirators!

I find it interesting in following Professor Bob Carter's links and published works that he appears to specialise in geology. As one who works in the energy sector, and who relies on digging up and burning coal for an income, I am curious as to Bob's motives in adopting the role of climate sceptic. I note that there is much to learn about past climate trends from geology. But I also know for a fact that folks such as he are well paid by mining, petroleum and energy industries to spruik long and often on dubious assertions denying that there may be a need to change tack. His publications are in journals well read by those carbon-reliant interests. So Bob, others have declared that their interests include human and ecological well being - what is yours?

It is widely acknowledged that the editor of this site is similarly minded, hence the 'balanced' postings. Similar sentiments are also found in the mainstream media, largely due to the fact that sustainability is not newsworthy, and will not get ratings or sell papers. A 1400MW power station rates better than 140,000 homes with panels and a little gas turbine.

The evidence is overwhelming that something needs to give – and the alternative is not detrimental to the economy, with current modelling showing that a do nothing option is actually more harmful. The petroleum and mining interests, who recently begrudgingly handed over a measly few hundred million bucks for a clean coal pilot plant (after Peter Beattie beat them over the head) have a lot more to lose.

So Bob, what is the harm in developing this nation as a leader in solar panel research and construction rather than letting the Germans provide them to us? What is the harm in moving away from baseload generation to more reliable, stable and diverse embedded generation from solar homes, local wind, run of river hydro, or even, dare I say it, demand management and energy efficiency. How can walking, riding or getting transit to work be worse than driving? Honestly, you are too much!

Bob,

You silly old bugger, why did you misrepresent Trenberth's post? It's very bad manners to misrepresent someone AND not give a link to the original. So first of all, here's the link:

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

What is Trenberth actually saying?

More investigation is required, and that:

"[we must] face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs"

However, lest anyone (and I am looking at you Bob) thinks that global warming isn't a major risk that must be addressed, Trenberth goes on to say:

"A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect."

Bob, finding that you have taken Trenberth out of context doesn't fill me with confidence that your other quotes aren't similarly massaged to conform to your pre-existing belief system.