Well there's plenty to be made by marketing "not-global warming" especially by those with a vested interest in oil.

But its obvious people don't care about their children's future - most people don't seem to care much about their children's present. People have become much more fixated on 'fulfilling' their OWN dreams - irrespective of the impact on others.

Kevin “But its obvious people don't care about their children's future”

Please substantiate that gross generalisation with some facts / stats and meaningful examples (ie not individual instances).

For myself, I do consider my children and my grandchildrens’ future. That is a big part of the reason I uprooted myself to come to Australia, because I believed it was in long term their interests. The feedback from my daughters and their mother is, it was the right decision.

Not all of us act in accordance with your expectations.

Sometimes some folk lack your insight and perception

Other times it is because, compared to you, some folk have greater insight and perception.

I always support the right of individuals to act for themselves in response to their own insight and perceptions. Sometimes I am bewildered at the dumb-assed choices they make but it is their lives and their choice.

I don’t know what you think about global warming and the plethora of likely horrors being talked up by those with a vested interest in creating an atmosphere of fear.

I do know the “science” is new and untested against actual observation.

I do know that aeronautical science has calculated that by weight to wing area and beat rate, a bumble bee cannot fly.

So, for the benefit not simply of myself but for my children and unborn grand-children and recognising that whilst comparatively new, aeronautical science has been around longer than climate science,

I believe the correct action is to be sceptical about the introduction of what will become the biggest tax change in the history of the world (carbon tax).

That tax change being based on the extremist speculation of potential climate change, supported by the hand-cranked pseudo science of global warm, the predictions of which are uncertain and untested to their reliability.

I believe my opinion is not only right and prudent but in the best interests my children and my unborn grand children.

“Bob Carter is a known contrarian”. Thanks for that information, Wiz. Known to whom, and how?

Does your lack of any basis to smear him make him, by default, a contrarian?

He is the author of more than 100 papers in refereed scientific journals. He
contributes regular letters, opinion pieces and interviews to newspapers, national
magazines and other media, and regularly engages in public speaking on matters
related to his research knowledge.

He has 35 years training and experience as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher,marine geologist and environmental scientist, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand; BSc Hons) and the University of Cambridge (England; PhD). He held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

He gave evidence before a US Senate committee on global warming, this time last year.

His current research is, amongst other things, on climate change, and sea-level change.

His research has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC). No research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.

This is the reason that the only smear the left is able to muster is ”contrarian”. If only he had done a job for an oil company or a tobacco company, they could spit their usual pitiful bile. They will never address his work, to which they have no answer.

Wiz, if you know nothing about it, just say so. It is obvious anyway. You are not on shaky ground, you just have no ground at all.

Q&A We agree. Over a reasonable period, like 1000 years the trend is down. That is all. No one wants you to extrapolate years ahead. As you say, that would be pointless.

We have agreement on a downward trend for global temperature.

Nick, I've been arguing with global warming deniers for over a year, and learned long ago not to waste my time on them (mind you, it took me 3 years of arguing with Creationists to determine the same thing).

All you ever need to know about Bob Carter and global warming:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

(FWIW Bob Carter may not have worked for a fossil fuel company, but his links with the IPA are on the public record, as are the IPA's links to big industrial players with the most to lose from a move away from fossil fuel dependence. A shame really, because if the IPA really believed in the power of market economies, it could truly get behind an effort to show just how dynamic and inventive they are capable of being, with the right incentives).

If you have something new to contribute to the debate, by all means do so.

Graham, unfortunately I haven't managed to get a truly satisfactory answer regarding the poor correlation between Greenland's annual mean temperature and the rate of ice melt over the last 4 years, however it seems most likely that the reason is due to the fact that while the annual mean temperature has declined slightly, the summers have been getting hotter, especially in the areas where the icesheets are located.

I see wizofaus is bringing statistical analysis into the debate.

That is a good move, something which at least sounds "objective".

First some definitions of “correlation”

“The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables:”

put another way

“A correlation is a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables.”

So how should we interpret statements like

“I haven't managed to get a truly satisfactory answer regarding the POOR CORRELATION between Greenland's annual mean temperature and the rate of ice melt over the last 4 years”

to mean?

Well, in statistics and measurement of “correlation” terms like “poor” does not exist, just as a null hypothesis does not prove or disprove anything.

I figure it simply means that NO CORRELATION exists between the sets of data analysed.

Therefore no conclusion can be drawn.

So if wizofaus suggest

“however it seems most likely that the reason is due to the fact that while the annual mean temperature has declined slightly, the summers have been getting hotter, especially in the areas where the icesheets are located.”

I would say his statements represent mere fanciful speculation and subjective personal opinion, unsupported by any evidence, statistics or reason.

I would, however, observe the Greenland icesheets have been around for more than 4 years.

Before I placed any reliability in any analysis of the causes and rate of melt, I would expect a measurement period to have a duration which exceeded the age of a someone not yet at primary school and I would certainly expect to see some significant degree of “correlation” between the differing sets of data.

I would suggest, reasonably, a correlation of +/- 0.7 (but, of course, not exceeding +/- 1).

(Gosh, I did not even have to go into the common and frequent incidences of “spurious correlation”, which I am absolutely sure are more than adequately represented in the mysticism of "climate Science").

Thanks Wiz, nice to see you found a way to smear Carter.

Tim Lambert never gives up.

He says that Carter is wrong about the temperature falling for the last several years, and produces a graph to back up his statement, which shows clearly that temperatures have fallen for the past several years.

He has a good precedent for that in the IPCC 4th Summary. The bureaucrats who prepared that, attached a graph to prove that the global temperature had risen, and despite a swathe of colour added to mislead, the graph was quite readable, to show the opposite of their assertions. The mendacity of the IPCC was made public, in the Xstrata case judgement.

Tim is a good trendie, so has followed the IPCC lead . They cannot work out a way to mislead sensible people, but it is fine for Tim’s following. They are dunces like him.