Bob Carter has mischaracterized the IPCC statements on the amount of change that will happen for any given amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere. (In other words, he is lying.)

A simple Google search will turn up more. For example, from
[Link: www.smh.com.au...]

Senator Minchin also referred Mr Kiernan to a critique of the economic review of global warming by Sir Nicholas Stern. One author of the critique was the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

A spokesman for Senator Minchin yesterday defended the credibility of the material sent to Mr Kiernan. "The senator stands by his comments in that letter," the spokesman said.

Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.

"I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence."

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.

freetoken,

"Lying"? Good Grief.

Your comment is a typical warmist attack, intimidation and personal attacks, not a refutation of any of Professor Carter's very reasoned arguments.

It is well known that "publishing through the peer review process" anything that questions the Global Warming dogma is all but impossible, the papers are rejected and the authors subject to vilification, by contrast, the Global Warming industry is funded to the tune of billions of dollars.

If a scientist studies, say, the reproductive activities of a certain snail, funding is problematic, adding to the study proposal the key words "the effect of global warming on the reproduction of snails" results in access to a liquid stream of untold millions dedicated to supporting the Global Warming dogma, and a ready avenue to publication. As a result, science is unbalanced with countless such studies.

re: #2 Bagua

freetoken,

It is well known that "publishing through the peer review process" anything that questions the Global Warming dogma is all but impossible, the papers are rejected and the authors subject to vilification...

Typically denialist attack. Where's the proof? *crickets*

Basho,

Not so much an attack but a defense to the argument that papers disputing AGW are typically rejected, funding is far more scarce and taking a stand against AGW orthodoxy is chilling to a career. This is one possible reason why there is a lack of peer reviewed papers.

The "proof" of my comment have been published in a number of blog posts by various authors, but I would call it "substantiation" not "proof."

Also, why the label "denialist," its sort of like "heretic" or the "lying" I took issue with, these are terms more suited to religious or moral disputes, not science. If questioning science is condemned as a sort of heresy, then it is not science, it is religious dogma. Mind you, I will accept the argument that a religious belief or a dogmatic orthodoxy could also be correct, it is however, not the same thing as science.

I'd love to see the theory "proven" with reliable data, so far all I've seen are models and projections, none of which have been correct, they're always being revised.