Keep the articles coming Prof.

There is no "solution" to natural occurrences. The climate alarmists are just looking for more money to keep themselves in cushy jobs scaring gullible people. Governmments go along with the human cause nonsense because the maintenance of fear gives them more control over people. Businesses love it because the they can add the increased cost of services to their profit margins.

Professor Carter is to be congratulated for his tireless effort to expose the fraudulent anthropogenic global warming claims. The problem is how to convey this message to the likes of K.Rudd and M.Turnball etc.

The human species will continue to muddle through as usual. Humans are one of the toughest of biological species. Thus we can absorb almost limitless amount of green and/or environmental drivel and continue to prosper and grow.

Sock it to 'em Bob. By the way a 'spline' is a type of curve that can be made to twist and turn as you please. I have one proving that I grow younger every day. The big problem now is those pesky coincidences like ice shelves breaking off or heatwaves more than offsetting the cool areas. You might have noticed that coal, oil and gas are all getting rather expensive. By some incredible good luck the IPCC's advice to cut back turned out out to be spot on.

How is a non-scientific person to wade through and make sense of the literature when the scientists cannot themselves agree? It is a big ask but the best we can do is read, read and read some more.

Scientists appear to agree that global warming is occurring (the evidence is too great) but the disagreement is to the cause and with it the solutions (if any are to be had).

Is it man-made or natural evolution of the environment, or a combination of both and if so what percentage can be attributed?

I have chosen a greener path because regardless of the global warming debate man does have an impact on his environment:

1) through the over-utilisation of natural resources (aided by our high growth consumerist economies);
2) pollution of waterways, land and air;
3) genetic manipulation in regard to GM crops without proper caution and evidence based research regarding the impact on other species (cross-pollination and potential medical consequences etc); and
4) uncontrolled and poorly managed land clearing and logging.

As a layperson, do I know absolutely without hesitation that global warming is largely caused by man? NO but neither do the detractors.

What we do know is that for many reasons we have to reduce man's impact on the earth - global warming gets more media attention than the others and certainly by reducing our contribution to green-house gases cannot do any harm and only more good.

To pretend that we can go on in the unfettered exploitation of natural resources exacerbated by our increasing populations without having any impact is just as foolish as the label you are applying to the global warming believers.

Here's a question for all the 'climate change is rubbish' boofheads of the world - why would almost the entire global scientific community exaggerate or even make up the fact that climate change is happening and it it caused by humans? Do you seriously believe that this is one big scam being perpetuated on us by the entire global scientifice community? Just so they can convincingly argue for a few more research $$?

Oh please. Think it about it rationally. An entire section of the human population, people who have brought an untold number of advances to humankind, are now all secretly conspiring to con us out of a few bucks.

give me a break

They are normal people, just like you and me. There are some dodgy losers amongst them, just like you and me and some of them are dishonest, just like you and me. but don't expect me to believe it's all just one great scam. Let me guess - the brains behind the entire operation is a sinister force known only as 'Mr Green?'

For Pelican: I think you hit the spot. There seems to me little doubt that we have to learn how to manage water, energy and ourselves more sensibly, not because of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming', about which the evidence seems to me uncertain, but because there are 6.5 billion of us, and we are running out of some of the resources necessary to sustain our present way of life.

For Countryboy: You may not know that the IPCC was set up on the basis that humans have in fact caused present climate changes. Its job is to provide advice as to how to stop it. There is growing evidence that human effect on present climate is at the most very small. The IPCC seems to me not to take much account of contrary evidence, but I am not surprised at this behaviour. I've seen its equivalent before.

Countryboy

The answer to your rhetorical question is a resounding yes.

The Framework Convention which everyone signed in 1992 and as constructed by the incompetent UN, pre ordains it as a fact that co2 induced global warming was occurring, and that was before any real science had been done.

Everything that has occurred since that time has been to make the science fit the agreement.Even the precedural way the IPCC operates is designed to give effect to this, despite the evidence.

There is an abundance of other science and analysis that has been done in the meantime to show that the IPCC advice is grossly overstated, and it as an organisation is incompetent

1. Do you really expect anyone to believe that even with the largest computers in the world that one can model climate with any degree of reliability,when you have three interacting complex and chaotic systems, and then say the temperature will be 5-6 degrees higher in 80-100years. Rubbish.

2. If you had 1 million molecules of dry air and only 370 of those were Co2, but last year we added 3 more,that that is going to sustain such a huge increase in energy. Rubbish.

3.How do you explain the fact that the correlation between Co2 and temperature is about half that of the relationship between the Suns effects and temperature.But still they persist.

Give me a break

The real problem is not enough people in the wider community are bothering to do their homework, and question the orthodoxies

Why dont you for example listen to the audio tape of David Hendersons speech to the Heartland Institute Confce last month in NY. It is frightenting to comprehend how we have all been conned by bunch of high school drop outs for UN officials and african thermometer readers.

Nice to read another article that does indicate some facts.

For some time now I have believed that it might take 5 years for the human caused global warming hoax to be exposed. With articles like this one and another you might like to read at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html we might just see the whole thing unravel a lot sooner.

Let's hope so before we embark on costly "solutions" like carbon trading schemes implemented.

The difficulty is that media people, politicians and a lot of business people have been hoodwinked by the Carbon Dioxide theory and will try to prolong it to delay their eventual embarrassment.

Of course humans have got nothing to do with it – any more than diminishing lettuces in a well-watered lettuce patch have got to do with an increase of rabbit numbers fenced inside it: of course varying solar radiation should be the major cause?
And Don Aitkin – yep, we should be cautious and conserve our limited natural resources. But why - so that a few more rabbit numbers might be squeezed into the lettuce patch? We must not mention those rude words rate of reproduction! But, not to worry - there is certainty that the rate of dying will at some future time increase naturally to swing things back into line.

Nobody has yet explained the individual scientists individual personal motivation for wanting to 'hoodwink' the entire world.

A whole bunch of different people, with different beliefs, from different nations, are all conspiring together to perpetuate a lie? Why? Why would they do it?

Bob, you do yourself a disservice with these articles. Most of the words are spent gleefully skewering the personalities and politics of those championing the other side. The tone in all of them is the same, and after reading a few I wondered how someone who attacks the issue in such a non-scientific way could possibly keep their job at an Australian University.

Seeing you in that ABC debate was a bit of a revelation. The Bob Carter in that debate brought up some of the best points, and did so with none of the polemic seen here. Amazing given the tone of the debate. So I started reading the articles you post here again. Its hard going. Extracting the relevant facts you are presenting is worth the effort, but I find it an unpleasant exercise.

The polemic probably appeals to the converted. But there aren't too many of them, and I suspect the rest find it distasteful as I do. Yet surely the people sitting on the fence are the ones you would like to target(?) Present the science in the manner we are told scientists supposed to do: clearly, dispassionately and concisely. If you want to discuss the politics do so in a different article that clearly identifies its topic. Do so would enhance the standing of you, and indeed all scientists that write for the popular media.

A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do." He said he was letting the fossil fuel industry off the hook.

As far as I'm concerned, the challenge to Bob still stands and he has failed to do this, which makes his, and the previously commentator's triumphalism patently absurd. If he is so certain, why hasn't he published anything substantial in the relevant climate change journals, which is open to him as a serious scientist? The fact is, his expertise is in stratigraphy not climate change, which is more of a passion project for him, motivated most likely by his position as a research committee member for the Institute for Public Affairs. In that sense his description is misleading as it should reflect that he has an association with IPA, is retired from James Cook, and has expertise marine geology, not climate science.

And btw - shouldn't there anyway by some kind of quota for how many IPA articles are admitted per week, or is OnlineOpinion going act as a platform for every single talking point and release? No other think tank gets this royal treatment.

What an unseemly feeding frenzy from the 'business as usual' climate change demialists! I imagine they'll be even noisier when both global warming and Peak Oil start to really bite not too far into the future.

Well said pelican, countryboy and especially BBoy and rstuart.

Carter should indeed submit his scribblings about climate change to peer review. One wonders why he doesn't.

And why so many IPA articles (acknowledging, of course David Sukuki's much better article also published today)?

Bob Carter has a bit of a history of being a dissenter on the matter of climate change. That's fair enough, science always does well to have to confront politically-motivated flat-earthers... If only to show how many mistakes they can make as a result of their motivation.

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

I think there should be a "Lysenko Award", and Bob Carter should be the 2008 recipient.

Gee I'm gullible, I believed SusanP when she told me that OLO practices a balanced approach towards topical issues and then this load of tripe is published alongside an article presented by a real scientist who has been studying the environment for decades.

For shame OLO.

Country boy

Dont be so naive. They did it because thats the way it was set up by their political masters with the Framework Conventions rules.The fact that there is co2 induced AGW was a given,the same way Garnaut has to take it as a given even now. You might like to ask him why does he just accept it as given as well.

There is a myriad of examples throughout history where similar circumstances have arisen. I am not saying there is any moral equivalence at all, but Nazi Germany would be an evocative example.

If that can happen then this is a doddle.

Like I said, get onto a web site and find the audio for David Hendersons speech, then you will comprehend why it is the way it is.

If I can find I will put it up here in next 24 hours.

BTW competent people who understand systems theory would appreciate that a badly defined problem will induce poor solutions, which will almost certainly have un intended consequences.

bigmal: "There is a myriad of examples throughout history where similar circumstances have arisen. I am not saying there is any moral equivalence at all, but Nazi Germany would be an evocative example."

Oh goody - can I invoke Godwin's Law now? [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law ] I think that's a record... even for an IPA article ;)

Lev: "Lysenko Award" - I love it!

The comments by BBoy that Bob Carter cannot be believed because he made his name as a Marine Geologist should be ignored. It is no coincidence that much of the dissenting voices first came from the Geological community as they deal with massive changes in all their work every day. An ocean core will tell stories about massive upheavals in the earths history – ice ages, warm periods, asteroid impacts, and tectonic uplift to name but a few. Continuous change in the climate is bread and butter for a geologist. They see it in the geological record on all time scales. They have a very different perspective in this regard to most scientists, who see any change in the weather as being, by definition man made.

Scientists with a background such as Bob look at the latest rather modest change in temperature as just a small blip. He can see such changes in the record repeated hundreds of time. Tell him that the latest one is caused by man and you should expect him to be skeptical. That is where he is coming from, and his skepticism is shared by many geologists.

Most importantly, he is a man who can use logic, and he can look at data to draw a conclusion. That is what all scientists are supposed to be able to do.

To claim that he is not an expert is plain ridiculous, but it actually does not matter if he is only the milkman - if the argument is good.

Peter Ridd Physics
James Cook University

Good to listen to the other tune at last!

I am glad Prof. Carter has pointed out the limitations of climate models etc. which indeed can be used to support practically any hypothesis. The hockey stick projection has been put forward as dogma, but generally without sources being properly referenced and with no details about the structure and assumptions of the underlying models which generated the projection being given.

Whether the alleged increase in CO2 levels is anthropogenic or not, reducing ghg emission RATES will not have any impact on climate at least for several hundred years, because the ghg sequestration rate is a very slow process. Reducing emission RATES does not equate to a reduction in ghg LEVELS. The CO2 and other gases that are already in the atmosphere will still be there. Those climate change processes, if any, that have already been set in motion by the current levels of pollution will consequently not be stopped. The glaciers, the polar and Greenland ice-caps, the permafrost etc. will continue to melt, methane will continue to be released.

Climate change is not all gloom and doom. Over time, whilst some nations may suffer, others will probably benefit as a result; as always happens, those that adapt will survive and be the winners.

If the climate is indeed changing,it is likely that it will be several hundred years before a new climate equilibrium, probably very different to what we have been used to, will be reached.

I guess it might be observed, the IPCC sowed the wind and is now reaping the whirlwind.

I wonder how much of that whirlwind is “anthropogenic” ,how much is natural and how much is being pumped out the backsides of cattle?

MICHAEL BRINCAT agree your post.

I have always doubted the veracity of climate change pseudo-science and the imposters who promote it. So I particularly agree your statement

“Climate change is not all gloom and doom. Over time, whilst some nations may suffer, others will probably benefit as a result; as always happens, those that adapt will survive and be the winners..”

Well said, Spoken like a true optimist.

I'll be happy to be shouted down by the alarmists, but here is my view on climate change:
1. It's happening and we should prepare for the consequences.
2. I don't care whether it was man-made or by nature or by divine intervention, see point 1.
3. We are running out of oil and should look for alternatives. Using our cars less is only one option but a better one would be reserarching alternative propulsion sources.
4. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is pouring thousand of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and we should invest in alternatives such as nuclear for base-load electricity and stored solar, wave or wind or even geothermal for peaks.

Point 4, does not even consider climate change. The reality is that it was as relevant in the 1970's as it is now.

It's not difficult to understand: the earth is a finite resource and so if we pollute less we can live longer, more productive healthier lives. I don't need climate change alarmists to convince me of that.

Don’t misrepresent what I said Mr Ridd. To say that I claimed Bob’s qualifications meant he should be ignored is a wilful and blatant distortion of what I said. I made several claims – but that wasn’t one of them.

It's really quite simple. If the record of the IPCC's restatement of scientific concurrence on climate change, along with the journal literature that goes with it, is demonstrably erroneous as Mr Carter claims, then he should have no trouble publishing a full throated peremptory retort of it through proper peer reviewed scientific journals of note to correct this malfeasance. That is the challenge climatologists like Mr Graeme Pearman set for him, in the quote I provided, and I note you studiously avoid this revealing ommission in an attempt to miscast my objection as complete indifference to him as a bonda fide scientist. But I am not at all here to claim that marine geology has nothing to say about climate change, or that Mr Carter hasn't done laudable science, I’m saying the totality of field of climate change science isn’t his specialist area of expertise and that op-eds, which offer a lot of swagger and polemic, are a poor format to achieve what the author is purportedly seeking – dispassionate science. On the contrary, here I see writer who has a distinct preference for the passion of anti-green rhetoric and is prosecuting a political case in association with a advocacy-based think tank known to be avowedly sympathetic to industry.

My personal opinion is that the triumphalist tone of the piece is poorly suited to the paucity of evidence provided, in contrast with the accumulated weight of scientific concurrence of climatologists.

And as for Mr Carter’s purported powers of logic – I see plenty of gaps in that record as noted previously:
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

So let me see whether I get this right.

According to some, if one is not a Climate Change Scientist ( a fairly recent breed ) one should not comment about climate change.

But of course, without 'climate change' there are no Climate Change Scientists. So who has a direct interest in pushing the barrel along?

No, Mr Brincat, you don't have it straight.

It's not that other scientists shouldn't comment - it's that they should jump through the same hoops as one another to have their views on any particular subject given the appropriate gravitas.

For those that want a climate science evaluation of climate warming try

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

It's a long but rewarding read, a little science is explained and it talks to plebs, like me, and some who post on this site, will want to read his qualifications to write as he does.
fluff

Understandably there is significant debate on this issue. Whilst I respect the right of individual or small groups of scientists to hold dissenting opinions, I do wish that people recognise the degree that the deniers (every scientist is a skeptic) are in the minority.

As per the creationist debate a challenge exists to see if those who oppose claims of anthropogenic climate change are greater in number than the number of climate scientists named "Steve" who support the mainstream claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

You must admit, it's an interesting test.

Like gravity, there is probably very few scientists of any ilk who deny that surface temperatures have increased dramatically over the past 100 years or so. Perhaps more importantly, and often misunderstood, is that these increases are more substantial that the natural phenomenon of the medieval warm period or the "little Ice Age". The following is a reconstruction from multiple data sets of surface temperature for the past 2000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The same follows for temperatures over the past 12,000 years as well. Note the inset for recent changes. Global temperatures are higher increasing at a rate which should be cause for concern.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Now how much of this is due to human activity? Well, we can ask the scientists - not individual 'blogs or oddities, but en masse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

The Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet and retained by its gravity. It contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor. This mixture of gases is commonly known as air.

Gravity draws three quarters of all the air (75%) into a skin only 11 Km thick -

- and half of the air (50%) into a skin merely 5 Km thick.

Compress the atmosphere into liquid - it would have only 1/500th the mass and volume of the Earth's oceans.

- the atmosphere is a very small thing indeed and I, like most other clever, conceited hairless apes, have spent almost my entire life NOT thinking about that cardinal fact. What do I tell my grandchildren? Should I plead insanity?

*

As the Solar System goes, the Earth's poles are very warm places. By the Solar System's standards, the Sahara is very cool. We exist within a very narrow band of temperatures.

Every interaction, be it organic or inorganic, behaves predictably only because we exist on this tiny familiar temperate "island" of warm / cool. The world apart from the island is beyond the abilty of hairless apes to conceive - so they choose to ignore it when it encroaches.

*

Long before the Internet or mobile phones. Long before hubris had been invented, living creatures conspired to make the planet a more hospitable place. How they managed it without loans, interest, the stock exchange or insurance premiums will always remain a mystery to yer average hairless ape.

I feel like I'm chasing my own tail. I think I'll scamper to the top of the tree and have a good shriek -

- aaaaaarghhhhhh!

Let us be quite clear: it does not matter a brass razoo how many scientists say something if that something is demonstrably false. Global warming theory predicts that global temperatures will rise steadily with increasing CO2 levels. But CO2 levels have been increasingly steadily for the last ten years and and the global temperature has remained steady. Therefore the theory as it stands is wrong. And even if all the scientists in the world get together and sing it in chorus to the tune of Handel's Messiah, it will still be wrong.

The 'global consensus' has been wrong many times before: about the proper status of women; about the intelligence of 'savage' (i.e. non-white) races; and about the sun circling the earth, to name a few. None of these issues were resolved by a vote: they were resolved by bright determined individuals who were more concerned with establishing the truth than with getting research grants or cushy jobs in the scientific establishment. So will global warming be, eventually.

Consensus is a way to do politics. It is not a way to do science.

Fluff4,

Thanks for that link, most interesting!

I did indeed want to read the ‘bio’ of the author and editor (better known as Jim or “Dad”) of the Middlebury Community Network blog site.

His “qualifications to write as he does” is very impressive!

Quote:
“Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere.

As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics.

He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database.

He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.” End quote.

I wanted to know more about this scholar, this exemplary luminary!

But, try as I may and searching “Google Scholar” … I couldn’t find him; and/or any of his papers, history, affiliations … anything. This was perplexing … what was I doing wrong?

Exasperated, I tried the less exacting ‘Google search’ … Eureka, I found him!

On various so called “global warming denial” websites … including, you guessed it … Jennifer Marohasy’s and the Institute of Public Affair’s, of which Bob Carter is their own luminary committee member.

Now, why do you think this is so?

This is long on hackneyed and juvenile abuse and short on logic.

Can we leave the sandpit and join the adults now?

What if someone somewhere had a plan to establish a "new" New World Order out of all of this global warming thing.
A "new" New World order that got rid of a few unwanteds that would inhibit the great plan?
They could rule and do what they wanted. I wonder if the world leader in Revelation 13:16-18 and 14:9-11 (the Beast) was behind it even though he hasnt popped up yet.

"This is long on hackneyed and juvenile abuse and short on logic.

Can we leave the sandpit and join the adults now?"

Are you talking about the thread or the sermon by Archbishop Bob, that luminary of the Church of Skeptology?

Fester, I was talking about the article being long on abuse and short on logic.

I have been trying to think what drives climate change sceptics. Much of their thinking seems to be reflexive defence of an economic system which seems incapable of developing long term solutions to immediate problems because its very essence is short term profit making. (The failure to immediately eradicate hunger is another example of its short termism.)

Now that the mode of production may threaten that very profit making essence, most see the problem. Some do not because the economic system for them is self correcting. This may express itself in global warming scepticism and its apologists in the media like Murdoch et al.

I'd have to think some more about this.

What concerns me about the debate on climate change it that we're no longer allowed to have one. Those that challenge 'The science" are labeled climate change deniers.

My greatest concern is the impact the current unquestioning belief that planetary disaster is nigh is having on the social fabric of life. My vision of apocalypse is for humanity. Knee-jerk reactions abound an policymaking is being shaped on the basis of 'shoddy' science. It will be a dark age if we continue to tolerate a one-sided debate

Countryboy asks “why would almost the entire global scientific community exaggerate…”

Well, it’s not the entire global scientific community which is making all the noise. Read the newspaper article referred to by the author. Scientists have had very little say in the warnings and waffling put out by IPPC. Some scientists go along with the human cause propaganda for their own reasons, others do not. The others are the ones the media ignores because their story of natural climate change doesn’t have the shock and fear value of the former.

Countryboy’s last paragraph clearly recognises that the people he believes are mere humans, so even he is not sure of whether or not they are right.

In a follow-up post, CB says: “Nobody has yet explained the individual scientists individual personal motivation for wanting to 'hoodwink' the entire world.”

It’s all about fear and control, CB. Democracy is becoming a little too hard for politicians to deal with. You seem to have very naïve ideas about the people we elect. The scientists are after funds and fame; the politicians are the ones using their dubious ‘findings’ to put the wind up us.

BBoy tells us that Graeme Pearman (don’t think he has ever put a view on OLO) says Bob Carter is not a “credible source on climate change”.

Bob Carter could probably say the same thing about Graeme Pearman.

The climate argument is good for another 50 years at least. At the present time, there seems to be more emoting than logical thinking on the subject.

get over it folks. There is always going to be disagreement about the aspects of the science - but to have over 2000 international climate scientists in agreement is extraordinary and virtually unprecedented (try and get that level of agreement on genetic engineering - another favourite of the IPA set. It is always true, even with the most basic of scientific issue that there will be disagreement. When we are dealing with an incredibly complex system that is poorly understood then the likelihood of disagreement increases dramatically. But the level of scientific consensus - not in tatters Bob! - and the evidence of our own daily experience suggest that we have a very large problem and it's time to stop debating with the expectation that we will reach a level of proof beyond any doubt - it's not going to happen. I would ask these shrill denialists to imagine that it was their child facing a long term and terminal illness. The diagnosis is not perfect, but strongly supports the need for immediate intervention. There are doctors that disagree (well, at least they are wearing white coats). The intervention isn't dangerous but demands serious life changes. Failure to intervene may be fatal. Is this a no- brainer or what?

Q&A
hello, I have posted his site now at least four times, yours is the first recognition of someone having read it?
Can it be that people don't want to leave their comfort zone of shock and horror?
Perhaps because he has retired he no longer is read? mores the pity.
His "playful" manner in educating ordinary people like me, instead of pandering to the convicted, is what I needed. He does try to explain why and who maybe behind the blind, by declaring the money flows so blatantly, to research people unable to get grants any other way.
I'm glad you read him, i will now not worry so much about the blathering that this site is so full of.
regards fluff

About 150 years ago Marx and his cronies espoused some socio-political mumbo-jumbo and some delude, restless souls, significantly lacking in analytical reasoning skills, thought it was what was needed to “save the world”, at that time.

After all we had Malthus predicting the end of life as was then known and Marx lurking, waiting for all to slide toward the abyss and for him to lead the revolution of redemption.

Today we have the product of Marx philosophy laying in tatters, discarded by anyone with more than half a brain, 100 million dead and billions who had lives seriously blighted by the force of revolution which Marx’s deranged thinking inspired.

Today we have the prophets of doom telling us “climate change” is about to extinguish life as we know it, the reincarnation of Malthus.

We have the same “Socialism by Stealth” brigade, a refined version of the Marxism of old, which will expropriate from everyones pocket the carbon tax to fight the fear of “global warming”, being massaged into a palatable pill for public ingestion.

We have the “climate” revolutionaries. The self-appointed commissars, willing to do the street fighting and thugery for this modern day Marxism. They come onto sites like this, full of hubris and post multiple links to dubious website, which supposedly support their agenda (in the 19th century they used paper flyers), claiming scientific credentials which they do not really have and then try to shout down anyone who opposes their view falsely accusing the opponents of anything derogatory from wearing brown shoes with a blue suit to eating the children of the poor, without being able to substantiate a word.

It would seem some of mankind does not learn from its mistakes.

Doubtless in another 150 years time people will look back and see the similarity of the cycle, that is assuming they are allowed to look back and are not under the tyranny of some future equivalent of a “climate-science” Stalin who was, after all, the result of Marx’s malignant philosophy

ad reducto Marxism Col?

Country Boy “ad reducto Marxism Col?”

Thankyou, CB, you have just illustrated my claim perfectly.

re “Nobody has yet explained the individual scientists individual personal motivation for wanting to 'hoodwink' the entire world.”

Check out Charles Dawson, William McBride or try this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

Public money and private ego make persuasive mistresses

And I will not ask where the science of “Eugenics” came from

Just for your info, today to disappoint, I wore black shoes with grey pinstripe suit and it being well before dinner, have still to anticipate munching on the right leg of an infant.

Col

"100 million dead" is a great fallacy (cf., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism)

Climate change is a fact. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists consider it "extremely likely" (i.e., 95% probable) that 20th century increases in temperature are due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration.

In any case, institutions like carbon taxes are actually not anti-capitalist. It was well recognised by the founders of capitalism that the "sacredness of property", "mixing of labour" etc, was not appliciable when it came to the value of common natural resources. If necessary I can provide direct quotations from Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, John Locke, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill etc which makes this evident.

A basic introduction can be found in the following

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/greenlibertarians.html

Yes Col, out of the hundreds of thousands scientists in the world, there are some out there are corrupt, dishonest and deceitful. Just like in the military, in the education department, in the hospitals, in the banks etc etc.

However, you're implying this vast conspiracy between enormous numbers of people who may have never met, who may operate in different fields and who work for different organisations.

Either the scientfic community as a whole, barring one or two individuals, is the most corrupt and grotesque bunch of individuals the world has ever seen, or we do indeed have a problem with climate change.

You can choose what to believe I guess.

Plus, there's a couple of things I don't think any of us can deny with a straight face -

I suspect we can agree that sooner or later, unless humanity develops some pretty drastic new technologies, if we continue on this current course, we will have some severe environmental repercussions.

I'd say this is pretty self evident - is there any who honestly rejects this claim? I mean, be it a few decades or a few centures, is it safe to assume that humanity's current practices aren't sustainable in the long term?

So if we can accept that sooner or later, our habits do come back to bite us, and that ecosystems aren't invulnerable, the question then becomes, what are the greatest threats. What is the form our environmental comeuppance will take?

Sure, you an point to the fact that Malthus's explanations didn't pan out - but I don't think you can pretend we don't have to face some pretty significant changes in habit.

The idea that global warming is taking place just doesn't seem that preposterous, given that the weight of scientific opinion is behind it. Cause and effect - you can't simply pump such vast quantities of any given substance into the atmosphere without having some kind of effect, sooner or later.

Sure, people might lie. People do that. Environments don't.

But the idea that no matter how much of a particular substance is put into an ecosystem, that ecosystem will remain balanced, seems preposterous.

The environment doesn't play politics - and if the vast majority of scientists are in agreement, then yeah, I'll trust them on this one, over the fringe voices of dissent.

TurnRightThenLeft said:

> Plus, there's a couple of things I don't think any of
> us can deny with a straight face -

Strewth, TurnRightThenLeft, are we reading the comments from the same forum? Some of this bunch seem to be capable of saying anything.

People are confused why scientists can't generally agree on such issues. We have an inherent belief in the "objectivity" of Science.

On closer inspection, Science is only objective, sometimes. Its conclusions are also deeply affected by financial incentives such as grants, political imperatives, social beliefs and perception of social equity issues as well as national and individual "agendas".

In the Great Global warming debate these factors coalesce with logical thought being relegated to a lesser place and hence confusion and emotions reign supreme.

What ever happened to the Ozone layer? Suddenly its a non-issue at least in the daily discourse as it has lost its "X" value.

In terms of objectivity I keep on thinking of those (including scientists, from memory) who denied any link between smoking and cancer.

Objectivity depends on where you are standing when the train speeds along.

Ozone depletion is still an issue, but it's less of a danger now thanks to bans on CFCs and the regulations introduced by the Montreal Protocol of 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

A similar statement can be said about acid rain in Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emissions_Reduction_Protocol

Scientists who denied a link with cancer and smoking? Yes, they did exist. Almost to an individual their research was funded by tobacco companies (see: http://smokingsides.com/docs/hist.html#aa15)

The following press release is also relevant. Especially the final line.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/su-tco021307.php

All your red herrings can't cover faulty data.

Truths we know from observation,

1. The seas are going down folks, not rising.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf

2. The sun got warmer/radiated more, but is now quite/cold and so are we.

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

3. The atmosphere is not heating, but their computers are.

The weather/climate science world has abandoned the second rule of thermodynamics and hands on science for computer modeling . Programmers or so called pseudo modern climatologist/ meteorologist/scientists, computer dependent, lacking in questioning or needing a firm and proven result or even keeping up new AND known science knowledge from over 30 years ago? What the hell? I was there and witnessed it all, warned about a up coming ice age because of trapped greenhouse gas blamed on cars. So we changed the system and bought smaller cars, reduced waste. Then it was the depletion of the ozone layer and we had to cut HFC/CFC and Freon because that was causing the hole in the ozone and cooling the earth. All lies and WE DID IT.
We replaced every refrigeration or home convenience unit to a more energy saving devise. At the same time we put new stringent laws on emissions, waste and water. Also begin recycling programs and clean up our environment.
Saving forests, planting new trees, laws for clean water and air and responsibility towards our mother earth.

We did this all……but that’s just not enough is it? It never will be. Why should our ancestors who left their homelands and countries because of fear of death, famine, tyranny, wars and no future to make a better life for themselves here. Away from the robber barons of the world, a free country. But here we are again with the flimflam and deceit. . You robbed me of my future back in the 70’s because of this BS, and now you’ll ask for more by guilt, taxing and robbing us into paying for the air we breath, the air we and our kids breath, for your greedy gain

AGW(manmade greenhouse gas) can only be observed

in a “isolated system (closed)” and earth “IS” an “OPEN SYSTEM”.
CO2 holds heat in a Closed system, once you “OPEN” the lid, the law doesn’t work. When you open up the lid, heat and gas escape, and it’s gone into the atmosphere. Hot goes to cold case closed, the second law.
The AGW CO2 was calibrated/concluded using a “CLOSED” modeling system, so what came first, the Chicken Little or the co2 egg?


I’m hearing and reading from some in the so called weather sciences saying the sun heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere heats the earth. And this is how their theory on how greenhouse gas was formed, by keeping the heat trapped in.

WRONG!



If this were true, there would be a heating of major per potions in the atmosphere and there isn’t much, only about .01c. Only heating seen in the atmosphere is on their computer model and they can't explain this phenomena, thus came the idea of using CO2. The real world doesn’t work like their model, they have to thrown out the laws of physic and become rapped up(or lazy) with using computer modeling.

Have they forgotten or become void of why these models don’t really work? I honestly think they thought they were right and have had one of the biggest scientific brain farts EVER. . Also using erroneous and left out data like Medieval Warm Period (about 800–1300) and the Little Ice Age (about 1400–1850) , CO2 levels being several times higher through ice core samples and a mountain of growing evidence of bad science is troublesome and suspect to say the least

Fluff

You raise some interesting issues … and for many people the science is difficult to understand.

It is important to check the sources of the claims being made because the web is rife with unsubstantiated guff. Just because someone likes what they read or the author is a ‘nice’ person does not make what they espouse right – science doesn’t work like that. Indeed, virtually all of what Peden says has been shown to be distortions or misinterpretations of the science.

So, it is vital that people be critical … even if you agree with the source.

Tell me, why do you think this thread is attracting 5:1 more posts than Suzuki’s? Have you read his article, why didn’t you post? Did you follow the link to Schneider’s talk? What did you think of the presentation? Is it out of your comfort zone?

You talk of the ‘money trail’. This is an illogical argument.

Do you want to stop scientific research because you don’t like what the research is telling you? Again, it doesn’t work like that.

Science is not absolute (we’d be out of a job if it were) ... we can be more certain about some things than others. True, scientists have big egos, but guess what … scientists stand to gain more (grant funds, kudos, tenure, etc) from showing a theory to be false than from validating it.

But, this is done through the scientific process and not through media columns. It is very important for people like Carter to publish his latest findings in the respected journals, he doesn’t … why not?

We may not like it, but the vast body of scientific research ‘backs-up’ the theory of AGW. This is NOT to say it’s 100% certain. This is why money needs to be invested in research ... to rigorously test and critique the theory.

In essence you are right, “people don’t want to leave their comfort zone”. Why … could it be more about political ideology and not science?

Country boy “Yes Col, out of the hundreds of thousands scientists in the world, there are some out there are corrupt, dishonest and deceitful. Just like in the military, in the education department, in the hospitals, in the banks etc etc.”

And I was merely answering your question

“Nobody has yet explained the individual scientists individual personal motivation for wanting to 'hoodwink' the entire world.”

You asked and I revealed for you. Nothing more.

“However, you're implying this vast conspiracy between enormous numbers of people who may have never met, who may operate in different fields and who work for different organisations.”

No, I am saying I am doubtful to the veracity of the processes being used to assert the “human causes as the primary driver of “climate change”, relative to other “non-human” influences which are continuously causing changes to climate..

All of that makes me skeptical and as you say

“You can choose what to believe I guess.”

Yes, and to express those views and skepticism and trust that others too are not so gullible to believe all that is said to be true is true, simply because some, possibly vain and ambitious, individual has a “science” qualification.

I would suggest the root cause of these and many other problems, as far as they are the product of human activity, lay in population numbers.

Want to chat about that, you will find the result will be far more productive than pretending anyone will benefit from the “Socialism by Stealth” of “carbon tax” as a response to “a theory on climate change based on dodgy science”

Passy “In terms of objectivity I keep on thinking of those (including scientists, from memory) who denied any link between smoking and cancer.”

Yes and the Church of Rome threatened Galileo with the authority of the inquisition, to renounce his claim that the world was not the centre of the universe.

It seems to me many who support the notion of human caused global warming are acting similar to the Church of Rome against anyone who dares utter the heretical skepticism which challenges "dogma".

BBoy said

" The fact is, his {Carter's} expertise is in stratigraphy not climate change, which is more of a passion project for him, motivated most likely by his position as a research committee member for the Institute for Public Affairs. In that sense his description is misleading as it should reflect that he has an association with IPA, is retired from James Cook, and has expertise marine geology, not climate science. "

Ahh, now the crystal ball becomes clear. The emotional ranting and "green"-hating makes sense. IPA is a conservative think-tank funded by such class as Murray Irrigation Limited [2], Visyboard, Telstra, Western Mining, BHP Billiton and the tobacco industry[3] (and also Gunns Limited and Monsanto).

All good people of course. No scientific bias here at all.

Piss off, idiot.

The P.O. comment was intended for the author of the article, if you hadn't twigged. no offense intended for others.

Can some kind person please explain?

Any journalist, two bit politician, man or woman in the street, vice president of USA and so on is licensed to speak in favour anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. The only qualification required is to claim, [evidence is not required], that AGW is “proven” and “settled science.” This can then be followed-up by alarmist and exaggerated prognostications. In other words fairy tales are allowed, provided the essential dogma is not violated.

On the other hand any critic of AGW is hounded by the true believers. Their scientific qualifications are questioned. Their affiliations, if any, to organisations with a link to industry is interpreted as proof of malignancy.

I am retired and have never been employed by an industrial complex. However, I have dealt in my professional life with industrial scientists and by government regulating bodies. Always I have found them to be extremely knowlegible and even more important to have had hands on experience. So I conclude; that an industrial association is an indication that the person concerned is more likely then not to possess true expertise.

I regard the ad hominem attacks on individuals because of their anti-AGW opinions as having no place in serious discussion. Therefore please explain why there is a double standard in response to pro AGW postings compared to anti AGW postings?

XY,

Contrary to your claim the sea levels are rising. These figures are based on observations at geologically stable tide gauge sites. The red line is based on TOPEX/Posident satellite altimetry recordings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Mörner's assessments have been rejected by the President of the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research) when he finished his period on their Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. The President was very annoyed that Mörner "misrepresented his position" in INQUA by claiming he was still president of the commission, when it was not true. The fact that he engages in misrepresentations for political reasons may cause some to question the veracity of his science.

I have already answered the matter concerning the ozone layer; the reason why it is less of a danger now is because of the bans put in place by the Montreal Protocol. You may wish to reconsider your views on Solar Variation as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation)

If you want a just tax system, I would strongly recommend one which is based on deriving public monies from the consumption of natural resources, rather than the provision of goods and services as we have now.

Anti-Green,

Any test of a scientific proposition must be in according to scientific validity. Whilst science is never a settled question, and nor should it be, there are far more people in the general populace who question AGW than there is in the scientific community. In the latter the matter is (almost) "proven" and "settled science".

Affiliations to organisations with industry funding is important. "Who pays the piper" etc. Many scientists are not in this category. They will receive their wages for their recordings and investigation regardless if they say there is global warming or not. Those who will not receive bonus cheques if they claim that there is no global warming (or vice-versa) are suspect and should be treated as such. Most of the organisations cited (e.g., the IPA) are not "industry associations" but rather organisations with a political agenda, and should be treated as such.

Lev

Most scietists rely on public funding. If there is no global warming requiring political involvment, then funding for their research will dry up as the money will be directed elsewhere. Therefore they may not get their wages unless they study something else that attracts funding.

You cannot, on the one hand, argue that someone who is a denier and works for, or is a member of, an organisation linked to oil companies etc is biased in their opinion and then say that scientists who rely on finite public funding are not.

I would love to see a list of the 500 worldwide scientists who support AGW via IPCC and where they work and who funds their research.

Tragedy, pardon but this argument of yours is very simplistic (see an earlier post to fluff).

Do you want to stop scientific research because you don’t like what the research is telling you?

If your answer is no, then the science can only get better by continuing to research the science.
Sheesh, it might even 'kill' AGW as a theory! Believe me, this should make everybody happy.

If your answer is yes, well just maybe you're blowing a lot of smoke.

Tradgedy

Incidentally, there were about 600 independent scientists for the AR4 who correlated the peer reviewed literature, journals and so on of the thousands of scientists who published.

These so called IPCC scientists of yours don't get a cent from the IPCC.

It would help if you understood the processes and procedures of the IPCC before you make such sweeping and misinformed statements.

As to your list, just look up the IPCC on the web, check out the various technical reports and eureka. If your really interested in the science, check out the references to the published and peer reviewed papers.

And if you're really, really interested in what the science is telling us, check out some of these papers themselves.

Having done this ... well, then you may be in a position to criticise the science.

Seriously, scientists are not involved in a world-wide conspiracy.

However, there are some vested interest groups who want to maintain the 'business as usual' - it is only right to ask why.

Q&A - my argument is not simplistic. On the contrary it goes to heart of what you and your ilk argue - if you are associated with IPA or a private company that wants to maintain 'business as usual' - then you have nothing to contribute to the debate because you are biased, yet scientists who publish peer reviewed ("peer" increasingly these days being their mates) papers and rely on a system of funding from the public purse to maintain their relevance you seemingly are not biased.

It has nothing to do with a world-wide scientific conspiracy. It has a lot to do with each individual milking the gravy train while they can. Nothing like being in bed with the media to create a bit of hysteria to achieve your aim.

I never suggested we should stop scientific research. I am only saying the bleeding obvious - there is an inherent bias in the current system - and if you disagree Q&A, I would argue you should remove your face from your arse and step into the real world.

If you read my post Q&A you would realise that I didn't suggest that the IPCC was paying these scientists so the rest of your post is irrelevant twaddle.

Lev

I think it good to see the debate focussed on the validity of physical observations as indicators of global warming. Sea level is the big one because of the huge asset devaluation that would result from a small rise.

A rising sea level is a strong indicator of a warming Earth. A stable or falling sea level would suggest that the Earth was not warming. I would change my opinion if the latter were the case. Out of interest, would xy's opinion change were sea level found to be rising at an accelerating rate?

I believe that were participants of the forum to make objective determinants of their opinions, then much of the squabbling about AGW would be eliminated. The interest would be in seeing what limits the participants would set for their opinions. My opinion would change were sea level shown to be stable or declining over a three year interval.

tragedy, you said: "You cannot, on the one hand, argue that someone who is a denier and works for, or is a member of, an organisation linked to oil companies etc is biased in their opinion and then say that scientists who rely on finite public funding are not."

Actually tragedy, I would argue that, and am rather surprised that you suggest it would be otherwise. People who work for say the AEF are paid to present a certain point of view. That point if view is what makes the most profit for the company that pays them - it really doesn't matter if it is true of not. They can not, publicly or privately, present some other point of view and remain with the organisation. So while I think Bob Carter does in fact think that global warming isn't something to worry about, should he have doubts has can't express them and remain with the AEF.

A scientist who works for the government is paid to report on his findings, whatever they may be. Those that work for the government believe they are being paid to do science. They are not the governments publicist. So if they change their views they can and do say so.

Occasionally governments try to censor what these scientists say because if doesn't agree with the line they are trying to follow. This has happened a fair bit under the current US administration. And as the US administration has learnt, gagging them like that tends to piss them off. They feel betrayed - hired under false premises as it were, and then go off whinging and whining about it to the press. They generally aren't fired when they do that, as they are after all complaining they aren't allow to do their job.

Bob Carter has no such come-back. Was hired to spin a certain line. He knows that. Right now it may well be a line he agrees with, but if he changes his mind then that's his problem - not the AEF's.

Rstuart I think you are a bit confused. The AEF is a not-for-profit, membership-based environmental organisation having no political affiliation and as far as I am aware does not employ Bob Carter. Professor Bob Carter is a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University.

I think you missed my point regarding scientists who work for institutions who rely on the public purse to fund their research (not necessarily for the govt per se). If a scientist wants more money he/she can, along with a compliant media, create hysteria in the community about an issue. It happens everyday. I read a classic on the weekend where the headline was "koalas at risk as trees lose nutrients."

Interestingly the scientist in that story was from the same University as the one that employs Bob Carter. And he arttributed his finding to climate change (what else- may as well get on the gravy train while it is running hot). Makes a mockery of your claims that Carter only says what his employer allows hinm to say hey rstuart!

tragedy, that would be the same AEF that shares its web site registration address and phone number as the Timber Communities Australia, who in turn shares the same Canberra office and director as the The National Association of Forest Industries.

As for Bob Carter, he retired from his position at James Cook a while ago. A position he does hold now is research committee member for the Institute for Public Affairs. And your right, that's not really the AEF. The AEF is a front organisation spawned by the IPA.

I certainly hope that you are right. With the BBC acting as an extra IPCC mouthpiece it may be difficult. They changed their story over the weekend about '08 forcast temperatures without explanation. We also have an expectation of atmospheric CO2 volumes being lower than last year despite increased output. Sure proof that the planet can look after itself as oceanic temperatures cool and absorb the increase in CO2. This can't be a bad thing, but what slant will the IPCC put on this? Something outside the real science I be bound.

Tragedy,

You clearly don’t understand how science works.

It has nothing to do with my “ilk” or you arguing I “should remove (my) face from (my) arse and step into the real world.”
Apologies to anti-green, ad-homs fly in both directions, sad really.

It certainly hasn’t anything to do with a “gravy-train.”

Scientists, no matter who pays for their work, try and refute hypotheses. They don’t try and prove them. Are you with me?

If they can’t refute it, the hypothesis becomes more robust. If a lot of research and testing can’t refute it, then a theory develops in strength.

You might call it bias if the theory becomes more robust. The fact remains, in terms of the theory of AGW, there is now a preponderance of research that does not refute it. But we should continue to try – be it by governments, vested interest groups, whoever (still with me?)

Why? … Because the consequences and costs of AGW (if true) are enormous. Indeed, the costs of inaction could far outweigh the costs of adapting to climate change and mitigating GHGs.

If AGW can be refuted, then we can all have a sigh of relief, save a lot of money and the scientist/s who can demonstrate this will become rich and famous, receive a Nobel (not for Peace, but one for real science) or a Fields Medal (maths).

(Sustainability issues are another topic).

And where do you get your info that Bob Carter “is a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University?” In another life maybe.

Carter certainly doesn’t publish climate science papers in the critiqued journals. He does however publish in popular magazines, newspapers and on certain blog sites. He even gives talks like the alarmist Gore, but from the 'denialist' perspective.

Carter is playing on peoples’ fears, and is using the IPCC as a ‘whipping boy.’

Well said Q&A. Though I suspect 'tragedy' will still reply with some comment that completely misses your point...

Q&A, with respect, I do understand how science works. Let me try in a more simpler tone so you and your disciples on this site can understand.

There are peeer reviewed papers that present evidence that the globe is getting warmer. There has not been much evidence to dispute this. However, some of these same studies are then taking a quantum leap and claiming, without the evidence, that this warming is due to human activit (Are you with me?). What I believe, and Bob Carter, and other posters to this site, is that the science in these "peer reviewed" papers does not provide the evidence for this link. Carter does not need to publish a peer reviewed paper to state his concerns on this.

For example, I was reading a paper about the dating of 1,000 year old Huon pines recently in SW Tas(can't quote its reference). As tree ring width varies with temperature, the analysis clearly showed that the last 100 hundred years have been the most variable with the coldest 25-year period being from 1890-1914 and the warmest 1965-1989 (Paper published in 2001 I think). However, the paper goes on to claim that the latter period is interpreted as an indication of anthropogenic climate change but didn't have a skerrick of data to back this up. Why isn't normal climatic variation that has occurred over millenia considered? (Are you still with me?).

This assumption is being made in almost all studies on climate change but they don't have any evidence to link humans to the change in climatic patterns.

The problem with the AGW debate is that there are punters out there arrogant enough to think that humans do or will know the answer to an extemely complex system. Everyone is demanding that governments take action but on the premise that we already know the answer or that we can even do something about it. Call me and the Bob Carter's skeptic, deniers all you like, but neither you or anyone else has the evidence to link variations in climate with human activity

tragedy, you said:

"Carter does not need to publish a peer reviewed paper to state his concerns on this."

No, he doesn't. Nor do the rest of us. And as such he speaks with the same authority as the rest of us - that of intelligent layman. If he wishes to speak with the same authority given to a scientist discussing his area of expertise, then he has to play to play by the rules.

Those rules are reason western science are the most powerful method of enquiry seen to date on the planet, (with the possible exception of evolution I guess), and I am sure you are aware of what they are - you polish your thoughts to the point that they are accepted by a peer reviewed journal, then watch the resulting feeding frenzy as everybody who disagrees with you tries to tear it apart.

If your ideas survive that process then I and many others will put far more weight on them when you espouse them in a forum like this. I take it Bob Carters ideas have not been through that process. And to be honest, I was fooled. When he was introduced as a Professor of yada yada yada, I made the (in hindsight rather silly) assumption that he was speaking in his area of expertise, and so put far more weight on his words than they deserved.

Ok Tragedy, you understand how science works.

I’m no expert on the growth rates of 1000 year old Huon pines in SW Tasmania … or the feeding habits of a particular seed-eater in the high altitudes of New Guinea, or the breeding cycle of green sea-turtles and the impact of a 1.5 C temperature change during incubation and its effects on the gender of the baby turtles, or … well, you get the drift.

However, if their peers think they are “taking a quantum leap” then they will certainly let them know through the review process. Hypotheses are tested, conclusions may be modified or models tweaked, or thrown out altogether.

Of course there’s natural variability in ‘climate change’, what makes you think this isn’t considered?

However, the rate of change is really worrying no matter what models or proxies you care to look at. Take out GHGe as a major forcing and no other ‘driver’ can explain the changes we are now experiencing, ‘M –cycles’, solar cycle, cosmic rays, volcanos, ‘Carter farts’, whatever.

You know there’s a vast body of research, from all sorts of sciences, which point to a changing climate. You just seem unsure if this can be linked to human activity. Have a closer look at ‘attribution’ studies, radiation flux, energy balances and the like, or in terms of GHGs – Carbon and Oxygen isotope studies.

Some very interesting and challenging research will be done in the next few years, particularly in relation to ‘climate sensitivity’. A lot of research will be done on positive/negative feedback loops and coupled ocean/atmosphere/land systems. Argo in oceans and the continuing satellite monitoring systems will also add weight to our knowledge.

If Carter disputes some of the findings, he should publish or at least critique in the journals. He does not.

Carter’s method is to publish in newspapers, blog-spots and popular magazines, and gives talks to ideological think-tanks and industry lobby groups, and drum up controversy for ‘deny and delay’ on radio-talkback and television shows (much similar to Al Gore).

This is not how science works, but you know that.

Countryboy says "Here's a question for all the 'climate change is rubbish' boofheads of the world - why would almost the entire global scientific community exaggerate or even make up the fact that climate change is happening and it it caused by humans? Do you seriously believe that this is one big scam being perpetuated on us by the entire global scientifice community? Just so they can convincingly argue for a few more research $$?"

Yes one big scam is being perpetuated, but no, not by the entire global scientific community.

For all you CO2 climate change boofheads some supplementary reading might be helpful.

Don Aitkin's recent paper found here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/aitkin.pdf and John McLean's submission to the Garmaut Climate Change review found here: http://mclean.ch/climate/Garnaut_submission.pdf.

Thank you Bob Carter for your sane and sensible paper, always appreciate your contributions, the degree of levity appropriate to the oh so serious credulity of the intolerant CO2 induced climate change bigots who just can't bear to watch their beloved delusions taken apart.

When the costs of reducing CO2 emissions 60% or 80% by 2050, not least of all to the developing world finally sink in, while at the same time 1998 continues to remain the hottest on record despite continuous rising rising CO2 levels, even the politicians and their policy think tanks will start taking a hard look at the (lack of) evidence supporting CO2 induced global warming. My bet is on them finding a mirage! But don't worry there will probably be a global cooling scare or world war III or who knows what as the NEXT BIG ISSUE.

David Palmer “But don't worry there will probably be a global cooling scare or world war III or who knows what as the NEXT BIG ISSUE.”

The efforts to reduce CO2 etc will result in everyone trying to sell the “BIG ISSUE” on street corners because we will either

Not have jobs
Not have cars to drive to jobs or
The public transport network will collapse, as it does frequently already.

Tragedy, do not be deterred by Q&As patronizing and condescending posting style.
He suggested I had made “misguided statements” but has never ever been able to quote one back to me.

He is all bluff and bluster, just a pretentious individual who claims to have “scientific credentials”, which he is very vague about.

Just think of OLO as a village,

every village has someone like Q&A.

David Palmer, thanks for those links. They are the best summaries of the anti AGW position I have read, ever.

As for "Thank you Bob Carter for your sane and sensible paper" - we will have to differ on that. Noisily pointing to what amounts to a minor side issue effecting a small part of the planet and then claiming that it undercuts all of AGW does not count as "sane and sensible" in my view.

A pretty graph, Bob. Can I see one showing average temp changes over the Arctic?

The jury on the causes of climate change is still out. "400 scientists reported to the US senate last year that the average surface temperature has not changed statistically in the past decade. Global warming that we have experienced since 1970 is cyclical and nothing to with man's activities or C02."
This debate has become so muddied that some of us cannot see the wood for the trees.

http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issues/Environment/warning-is-green-the-new-red

Kollontai,

The debate is “muddied” in the media and blogosphere because of spin doctoring by political ideologues and vested interest groups that want to maintain the status quo.

Senator Inhofe's rhetoric is over the top. In his Senate speech on climate change he lists a swathe of “authorities” (including a number of mainstream scientists) who supposedly back his view of climate science. But some of these scientists have protested that they were misrepresented.

For example, in his Senate speech, Inhofe described the distinguished Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider as a critic of the IPCC, claiming that calculations published by Schneider in the journal Nature "cast serious doubt" on the IPCC's projections.

In a lengthy rebuttal submitted in response to questions from the Republican Senator and Presidential nominee John McCain, Schneider wrote, "It is misrepresenting my views to characterize them as even implying that the IPCC has exaggerated or failed to describe the state of the science fairly."

The most striking thing about Inhofe's climate-science senate submission is not the scientists whom it misrepresents (of which there are many) but the science it ignores. Inhofe does not even acknowledge the report by the National Academy of Sciences, commissioned by the Bush administration, which confirmed the reliability of the IPCC's work.

In its opening sentences that report states: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising."

This is why the Bush Administration is changing its strategies and policies in dealing with global warming.

Here are Professor Schneider’s views on the ‘trees and the forests’ of climate science.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html

Kollontai, to solve the problems that GW presents, it would help if people took their ideological blinkers off and worked together.

Did you do that graph yourself Bob? It looks nice. Almost like global temperature readings, but something seems to have been fiddled with in the averages.
Not you surely Bob?