Isn’t Prof Carter simply fantastic!
Thank you all for the websites - I’ve added them to my collection for bedtime reading.

It is said that a group of five economists will give you at least six or seven different opinions as to what is likely to happen to the economy. Well, I guess the same must be true of climatologists.

He certainly raises doubts about the validity of the current received wisdom on climate change, and places a major question mark over the stance being taken by the IPCC and our political leaders.

I wonder how long it will be before we are all being exhorted to produce as much CO2 as possible in order to mitigate the effects of the coming ice-age.

I was left thinking that the only thing we can be absolutely sure about is that the climate WILL change, possibly dramatically, in one direction or the other.

Perhaps we should really be preparing ourselves for a world that will just be very different to what we are experiencing now.

Prof Carter’s lecture is on YouTube as four separate segments:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Alarmists here seem to be retreating into their laager shouting “consensus”. Firstly there is no scientific consensus as the Oregon petition of 17,000 scientists opposing warming catastrophism proves, though there certainly is a political & media one. Secondly science does not proceed by defering to authority, that is religion, it actively tries to pull apart theories, using evidence.

I don’t want the BBC to become some extended Any Answers type debate where we have uninformed people shouting at each other. I want informed debate and programming.

You might say that they haven’t educated the public enough about the causes, problems and solutions of climate change but they are not there to give equal voice to the people who disagree with the vast body of scientific knowledge that supports global climate change. To do so would be similar to bringing on the flat earth society each time you spoke to NASA.

Despite the rhetoric under Labour, emissions have been going up. Because of Labour, people see green tax as just another stealth tax. It could be a way of using market forces to force efficiency.

Its not rocket science, consider the carbon cost of an action as well as the financial one. Look up carbon calculators to work out your impact, then work to reduce it. No need to live in a cave; start by reducing waste and fly less.

it should be emphasised that these are merely hypotheses; they are not established fact. Indeed the supporting evidence is weak and there is a growing body of evidence contradicting these ideas. Why anyone wfould base economic policy on such tenuous propositions beggars belief. Unfortunately our leaders in the 3 main parties and in the eu have failed to do their due diligence, again!

“2. This is caused by the human element in CO2 production, which is increasing.” - the first part is unproven, particularly since only 3% of CO2 is manmade. It is however certainly the fact that CO2 is increasing. This makes plants grow faster but may have some negative effects to & does deserve study.

“3. There has to be a substantial reduction in human CO2 production to save the planet.” is unjustified by any evidence. Current temperatures are less than in the Medieval Warming Period & significantly less than the Late Roman warming. There are also a number of technological solutions which we could do now for far less than the

Bob Carter, as his name implies, is a no nonsense sort of a chap and his scientific presentation is well worth the 37 minute time investment for those who had been frustrated in their desire to understand this issue before having their own opinion.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/15/ocean_currents_melt_planet/

“Recent dramatic changes in the Arctic climate - melting sea ice, warmer ocean, green fields in place of icy wilderness, etc - might not all be directly related to global warming.
The more clement Arctic climate of recent years could have been triggered by shorter term circulation changes in the oceans and atmosphere.

According to a team of NASA scientists, decade-long variations in ocean circulation, known as the Arctic Oscillation, have an effect on the oceans’ salinity. A very salty sea is heavier and circulates differently than a less salty one, the team says. This can affect the temperature of the water in the region and thus the local climate.”

Reply: I am proposing energy saving, as my blog made clear.

People keep claiming this. More accurately a few scientists once said this. Hardly something to compare with the masses of scientists at the IPCC.

“Some people think it may be caused by the much more voluminous natural CO2 and other greenhouse gases, some by changing patterns in the sun’s output.”

Some people believe in fairies. The vast majority of climate scientists believe that the primary cause is greenhouse gases.

“They do not feel they can have any impact on the problem, given the huge increases in CO2 likely from China and India in the years ahead.”

This at least is more reasonable. Polititians can have an effect by
not spreading ill informed tripe and by proposing policies which can make a difference. Individuals can make a difference by actually taking the time to check the facts and then voting the honest polititians into power.

Sticking our head in the sand and saying that it can’t be true because it would be really awkward to deal with it won’t help.

You go on to talk about the failings of many current suggestions out there. Well done. How about you do something about it, since you are in a position of some modest amount of power, rather than just throwing stones at a random set of people, in this case the BBC seems to be helpful. The BBC keeps attempting to remove bias by letting the other side have its say, no matter how scientifically un-rigourous they are.

Reply: You seem to misjudge the points I am making. I am making many positive suggesitons on how we can reduce our fossil fuel dependence - I did so again yesterday to the Chancellor. It is the government who have the power to do things, but they seem reluctant implying they do not really believe what they are saying about the seriousness of the CO2 problem.

Unfortunately the IPCC has undermined it’s own arguments through excessive spinning regarding the supposed unanimity of the views of the contributors to the report. This does little to help the climate change cause.

While the majority of the public may support the general principle of conservation of the world’s finite and ever-dwindling resources, I think most of us are confused as to what we, as individuals, can really do towards solving the problem (that is, if it exists and if it’s caused by something that we can actually control). Swapping light bulbs and not using the ’standby’ button in the UK will make damn-all difference when put in the context of the growing energy needs of China and India.

I had been ready to hear the usual litany of the world is going to end, but was very plesantly surprised. He obviously believes that human caused climate change is a fact (or he would have to resign). When it comes to solutions however, he was very upbeat. The equivalent of less than $10 per barrel carbon tax would solve the problem.

When you consider the orders of magnitude of this sum, that we already pay in the instance of Petrol / Diesel, this is not much. When you consider that such an approach, if taken by an economically rational government would be balanced by tax reductions elsewhere (income?) we are talking a costless solution (for society as a whole).

What is immoral is not doubting what you are told, after all the Spanish Inquisition finished centuries ago, but rather Left Wing politicians revelling in environmental damage, because they can increase their power. If its really a problem, lets solve it in the cheapest way, not by taking choices out of the hands of what we used to call, “free born Englishmen”.

Most people are starting to tire of this religion a bit now and I’m sure that public opinion will trend towards the ‘OK let’s deal with the consequences’ side more than the ‘let’s go back to the stone age’ end of the market.

The best way to undermine religious fundamentalists is to make them look ridiculous. Don’t argue with them just laugh at them.