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.