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.’