Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
Well said siseman
now here is a balanced view of things, from one of the very few qualified to comment climatologists.
Actually Bob Carter is
not a "climatologist", having primarily researched ocean sedimentation. What limited research related to modern climate he has done in recent years has been done in conjunction with certain agencies and organisations whose background you'd be well off exploring, and in particular his main published paper with DeFreitas copped withering criticism from a large number of prominent scientists. Most of his recent "climate research" has been published in
economic journals (this is what you do when your opinion has little credibility or carries no weight in the scientific world) or "Energy and Environment" (the Marvel comic book of climate research). Or of course you have his address to the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Google Scholars can check all of this by simply going to Bob Carter's James Cook Uni webpage and carefully reading through his list of "research".
Bob Carter is the scientist who famously thinks CO2 cannot be harmful in any way because you can't see it or smell it. An argument so absurd that it still makes me laugh out loud. There are several egregious errors in that copy of Bob Carter's article. And a couple of outright lies. An example is this bit:
"Those who advise the IPCC, whose ranks are dominated by some meteorologists, geographers and computer modellers....."
Absolute rubbish. A quick check of the university pages of the IPCC lead and contributing authors will dispel this comprehensively. The fake-sceptics of course will not carry out such a background check, as Carter has already told them it's true, it's what they want to believe, and therefore
no further investigation is required. This is the standard pseudo-sceptical technique.
Also this bit following on:
"In the other camp are thousands of independent scientists, many of whom work in empirical disciplines like astrophysics, geochemistry and geology, who say “Good question, but no empirical evidence exists that the late 20th century warming was either dangerous or was materially caused by human carbon dioxide emissions."
Again, nonsense from Carter and easily disproven. The first bit is a classic straw-man. Scientists don't argue that it's "dangerous" in the sense that Ice Man accused Maverick of being "dangerous" in Top Gun. They simply argue that if unchecked, it could lead to significant adverse consequences. That is not the same thing.
The second bit is rubbish too. Well over 90% of actively publishing and researching climate scientists agree that human CO2 emissions have contributed. The empirical evidence for this is substantial: observed warming temperatures + observed increases in CO2 + measured input from human fossil fuel use + elementary physics of greenhouse gases. Carter is in a tiny minority who thinks that it's all still "natural" even though they have comprehensively failed to demonstrate how that can fit in with what we know and observe. Not once has he
ever published any substantial research which would justify overturning that consensus.
Once again though, the fake-sceptics don't know any of this, and frankly they don't care. And so it goes round.........