Peter Taylor is an adviser, analyst & lecturer --and most importantly, he’s independent . He has recently published a new study of climate change.

His contention:
“the pattern of temperature rise provides no convincing evidence that the cause of such a rise is not predominantly natural” ( p203)

“The perception that human influence dominate lies entirely upon computer modelling” (p51)
“if [modelling] failed with regard to heavy metals, persistent organic chemicals & radioactivity [tracking] despite huge investments …what reason then to have faith in …ocean-atmospheric models [which are far more complex].
-- from 1945 -1978 ( the ‘global dimming’) temperatures were falling (despite the increase of CO2) modellers ascribed it to “sulphur particles from fossil fuels” – they were wrong.
-- IPCC modelling predicted 2007 to be a record warm year & an El Nino in the pacific – they were wrong.
--other failings are documented on page 71

Additionally, the IPCC data set is too narrow - “everything rests upon the period 1980-2000” ( p69)
“set against such natural variability [over a longer period] , the late twentieth century does not look unusual and could readily be assumed a natural cycle recovering from a low in about 1810”
( p40)

“ I do not believe [in the IPCC’s] incompetence . I believe there is a strong directional effort to find language that provides media and policy makers with simplistic statements they need to mobilize opinion, and that many scientists sincerely believe it is their responsibility to do so” ( p45)

His prognosis:
“We are already dangerously vulnerable to the natural climate, but not because of anything unusual the climate may do, rather because we as human society have changed drastically, multiplying out population and resource demands with each generation and becoming ever dependent on narrower margins of production, whether it be food, water or construction materials”
( p33)

Horus’s recommendation:
Redirect the money your were going to spend on “Storms Of Our GrandChildren” to buy “Chill”.

POP! [Not the sound of champagne corks…but, could just be the sound of bubbles bursting, Q&A et al ]

Dear Horus,

Can you direct me to a website that
specifically lists the author's
qualifications and expertise. By
that I don't mean one that deals
with generalisations like "science
analyst," and talks in sweeping
statements - like he's influenced
"several prominent scientists" to
change their way of thinking and so on.

I'd like to see specifics. What year
did he graduate from Oxford - and what
kind of degree exactly did he obtain.
Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorate?

If he's had over 30 years experience -
I'd like to see the list of precise
names - and years with each .

If he's lectured at universities - it
isn't enough to list the countries -
I'd like to know the names of the
universities that he's lectured in -
and the dates when he did.

From reading his general biography -
all I could come up with - are very
vague generalisations . It's a CV -
that wouldn't hold up very well
in today's market - when applying
for a job. Most employers are interested
in specifics.

Unless of course, this guy's already got
an employer - like a large multi-national
polluter - in whose interests it would
serve nicely to have climate change denied
by an "expert."

Foxy,

I presume this is him: http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/un-climate-change.htm

He believes the globe has been and is cooling, and the recent food shortages are somehow attributable to this cooling. He also seems to think our uptake of bio fuels is because of this same global cooling.

I don't normally take Horus at his word, but in this case I will. I have absolutely no doubt this is all Peter Taylor's invention, and thus he can truly be said to be completely independent.

Dear rstuart,

Thanks for that.

Much appreciated.

RStuart says: “ I don't normally take Horus at his word”

That may be so, but I do tend to take people at their word , and when you said this:

“ Carter's argument must boil down to 'the models are wrong'. If so, it should not be difficult to show it. Just present the output of a few models used by the IPCC and illustrate they are indeed wrong. As far as I am aware,he has never done that... The question is not whether "unexpected" [climatic events] are unusual or not, but whether we can predict whether they will happen"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9906#160597

I (naively, perhaps ) assumed you were fairdinkum.

But, when presented with sources that will show you the deficiencies in IPCC modelling, you drop the –I’m waiting for the evidence-- pretence, make a few snide remarks and show not the slightest inclination to examine the arguments/evidence – very scientific!

Carter's torpedoes et al miss the real issue as do 99% of the nay sayers and "natural" phenomenon sayers .
They are busy trying to destroy a workable theory not addressing the underlying issues.

I.e. "glaciergate" shock horror. Answer me this how has the "35 year" opinion altered the basic facts? specifically, That (note the detail carefully) due to (long term) climate change at the western end of the Tibetan plateau, the *feeder glaciers* to the 4 main rivers, are proven to be disappearing at an unprecedented rate. Fact and provable! These rivers are the major fresh water supply for *300 million* Chinese/Indians/Bangladeshis. The area is becoming dessert.

NB they took 1000's of years to lay down. All this has happened in 70 years.

My question is how has 'glacier gate' "scandal?" changing the actual looming disaster?

PS there's about 6 million currently and the world is failing most of them now. Think about it 300 million refugees on the move and we're not affected?

Alarmist no but this debate has overwhelmed the reality.
The truth is the above is one such problem.
The others do have clearer links to human interference, blundering and short term focused behaviour.

The mega conspiracy theory is emotional and unsustainable except in the mind of those for various reasons don't want to or can't grasp the reality. This includes the aluminum foil hat brigade.
Fortunately the latter are a small in number. 3rd. std deviations.