XDA

How far into the outback did you have to go to find this guy?

"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.

Of Senator Minchin's letter, he said: "I am worried that a federal minister would believe this crap."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html
 

I find that when the first complaint is an assault about the messenger and not a word about the message, it is easy to ignore the attack. Anything to say about what Carter said? Anything to dispute his statement that we're in a completely normal, slight and temporary upward perturbation in global climate not at all different from the usual ups and downs over the past 400,000 years? Anything at all? Good to know you're still out there, Pete.
 

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Pay no attention to the melting of glaciers in Greenland. Pay no attention to the melting of Arctic Sea ice. Pay no attention to the calving of Antarctic shelf ice. Pay no attention to later falls, hotter summers and earlier springs.
Pay no attention to upward movement of climate zones on mountains. Pay no attention to melting permafrost in Siberia. Ignorance is knowledge, er I mean bliss."
 

Duk, it is getting slightly warmer and some of the things you say are true (Of course the sea ice always melts during the summer so it's a truism there) but Antarctic ice is on the whole increasing and recently the sea ice around there was at a near maximum if not an absolute maximum. As is the general icyness of Greenland, the edge glaciers there (and on the Larson B shelf down south) notwithstanding. But it is a long way from noticing the recent slight northern hemisphere increase to 'it's the end of the world as we know it, CLIMATE CRISIS!' Lack of knowledge goes both ways here. The slight warming seems a lot less dire when put in context and I'll go with Carter's frame of reference over the Gore Warmie's anytime.
 

Come on Rog, theres only so much time in the day and theres a lot of blogs out there. We can't waste our time debating someone with no credible credentials. You're an attorney, if you want to support your argument use someone who has a recognized reputation. If you continue to use scientists with no standing in their community, don't blame me if I don't pay much attention to their message.
 

Come on Rog, theres only so much time in the day and theres a lot of blogs out there. We can't waste our time debating someone with no credible credentials. You're an attorney, if you want to support your argument use someone who has a recognized reputation. If you continue to use scientists with no standing in their community, don't blame me if I don't pay much attention to their message.
 

Pete, no offense, but what an elitist snob you are. Do you really think Einstein, Darwin or Copernicus had a "recognized reputation" when they were writing their seminal pieces? Did their lack of "recognized reputation" then mean their discoveries were wrong? Quit attacking the messenger and tell me what, if anything, our poor dumb Ausie professor said that was wrong, if you can.
 

Roger, I hope you meant no offense, but name calling or not, i won't spend time reading every Tom, Dick and Harry you bring into this argument. Don't have the time. Produce arguments by people who have the credentials and who have earned the respect of the scientific community.

And no offense, but you're a...., no, I won't do it.
 

Sorry, Pete, I look for truth in what's said and don't worry whether there are honors to the guy saying it. Life, as you say, is too short to waste time on blow hards with undeserved reputations and honors, like...well Al Gore springs to mind. Thanks for your helpful comments.
 

I've never read Gore's book or seen his movie. In fact it seems the ones who consistently bring up Gore when discussing enviornmental issues are the political right. Just like they need to consistenly bring up Michael Moore when discussing health care issues. Part of the bumper label mentality that we see so often from the right wing in this country.
 

Au contraire, pete. Any honest observer will point out that the left's affixing of bumper stickers outnumber the right's by a factor approachihng 10 to 1. Whether the right has a "bumper lable mentality" without actually using, well, bumper stickers, is a different matter. I see no point in trying to dissuade you from believing about the right what I believe about the left. The greater line of divide is that lefties in America seem to feel much more than they think. That's a cliche with which you probably disagree, too.