sjk

Many thanks for your informative post and the Trenberth link - a link which Bob Carter "omitted" to advise of in his article.

That link was enlightening and re-affirmed my previous conviction - Carter's a fraud!

Bob Carter has been tenaciously holding onto the 'there is nothing to worry about' view at least since 2003, when his first article appeared in OLO.

It would take a bit more than two researchers, as with the stomach ulcer rethink in Medicine, for a publically vocal scientist to modify or change a held position. At least in public.

Thank goodness, people like him are being ignored more and more by those who matter

Bob Carter, at the end of his waffle, says;

“Yet Australia has an Opposition and a Government that profess to set their climate policies on the basis of IPCC advice. Both also seem determined to impose an inefficient, ineffective and costly carbon trading or taxation system on the economy, for the aspirational absurdity of ‘stopping climate change’… Perhaps someone should tell Prime Minister John Howard that dangerous global warming has been called off.”

Bob Carter has to understand that countries of differing political ideologies all over the world are trying to address the problems of GW – not just Australia.

Maybe Bob himself should tell all their leaders “that dangerous global warming has been called off.”

Bob, you know all these countries are signatories to the UNFCCC, maybe at the same time you should tell the United Nations that they too have got it all wrong about GW. Bob, be brave, you might even get a Nobel!

Of course, Bob has tried before to tell our government that GW is a beat-up (through right-wing think-tanks who, like the Lavoisier Group, adopt strategies to subvert the science behind climate change for the purpose of power and control). Hey Bob, It seems that even our John Dubya is a climate change realist these days.

Bob, I appreciate your value judgements on carbon trading and taxation. However, some other learned people say the economy will be very resilient to these changes; they just need some goal posts to aim for.

Further, other learned professionals are saying our future economy would be really stuffed if we don’t act now – to me it would be absurd not to hedge your bets, even if you don’t believe in GW.

Some people have issue with the IPCC (like Bob Carter). Some scientists have a contrarian view to GW and GHG (like Bob Carter), so be it – I hope they get a Nobel one day too (like Bob Carter).

But Richard is right, even the best can be wrong sometimes, although they don’t like to admit it.

Thanks sjk for the link to Trenbreth's article. The fact that we cannot predict what is going to happen is even more reason to start to reduce emissions. Some of the other scenarios on what could happen are scarier than a mere rise in sea level by a 100 meters or so.

The only reason I have seen not to reduce emissions appears to be the so-called economic impact. If you think climate predictions are inaccurate take a look at the economic predictions.

My economic prediction is that changing to a non fossil fuel burning economy will bring significant economic benefit. The reason is simple.

Oil and coal are valuable compounds. Use them for plastics, food, building materials etc. gives greater economic value than burning them.

The ONLY reason that non renewables are said to be more expensive than burning fossil fuel is that non renewables require more investment money. The ONLY reason that investment money is expensive is the human invented discount rate. Change the discount rate and we change the economic argument.

A possible way to tackle climate change immediately is to make interest rates low on investments in renewables and to compensate the lenders with money from a carbon tax.

@dickie
"All life forms will be struggling to survive due to climate change created by excessive CO2"
Like they struggled in the Jurassic when CO2 was over 2000ppm? Hardly any life forms around then was there.

@Justin W
"with current modelling showing that a do nothing option is actually more harmful."
As Kevin Trenberth pointed out, the current models are very crude and don't actually predict climate. Maybe doing too much may be the more harmful option.

@sjk
"lest anyone (and I am looking at you Bob) thinks that global warming isn't a major risk that must be addressed"
You better look at Michael Griffin the boss of NASA...he doesn't seem to think its a major risk that needs to be addressed (much to James Hansen's chagrin). I personally agree with Griffins too.

@dickie
"That link was enlightening and re-affirmed my previous conviction - Carter's a fraud!"
Ha! As if you would ever think otherwise you sheep.

@yvonne
"Thank goodness, people like him are being ignored more and more by those who matter"
Sorry did you say something?

@Fickle Pickle
"The ONLY reason that non renewables are said to be more expensive than burning fossil fuel is that non renewables require more investment money."
Oh I thought it was more about energy in versus energy out. Maybe thats why they require more investment money. I think you'll find oil and coal are a long way ahead.

sjk,

Excellent post. You are quite correct. Bob is misrepresenting Trenberth's position. I recommend that everyone read Trenberth's actual blog using the link you so helpfully posted.

It's a case of here we go again.

There is only one way to be certain what will be the effects of adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. That's to keep pumping them out and see what happens. If we had a few planets to spare that's what we'd do.

Right now we're faced with the following situation.

The science of climate change is uncertain. We cannot be sure what will happen if we keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The weight of evidence available today suggests that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will do us damage. How much damage and who will suffer the damage is uncertain.

SO WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS UNDER UNCERTAINTY.

Guess what.

We ALWAYS have to make decisions under uncertainty.

We can almost never wait for certainty before making important decisions.

In business we have a term for people who demand certainty before they will take a decision. We call it:

ANALYSIS PARALYSIS

Right now the rational course of action is:

--Take steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions; and

--Adapt to possible climare change as best we can.

1% of GDP as suggested by the Stern report seems a reasonable insurance premium given the current state of knowledge.

Uncertainty is a reason for caution. It is not a reason for inaction or for ignoring what evidence is available.