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?