Dutchie...you are talking rubbish. Typical cherry picking AGW rubbish.
Bob is a palaeontoligist, stratigrapher, marine geolist, environmental scientis and who just happens to have been studying palaeoclimatology for a lot longer than the AGW debate has been going on.
In fact before he got going on the climate change debate he was working away quietly just observing until some moron came out with an outrageous claim about something relating to palaeoclimatology which Bob knew was 100% pure BS. Instead of just calling a press conference and making a spray he started to do his homework. The more he did that he realised he needed to be well versed in about 42 areas of science to be well heeled enough to comment on the various sectors of climate science. Something most others have never done by the way. So some 9-12 moths (i dont remember) later he started a rebuttal, of course this is where it all started.
Bob is more a climatologist than the vast majority on your side of the fence. Get over it.
If you want to put your money where your mouth is, go to Townsville and have a chat over a few days. If you need some help to make this possible let me know.
Bob Carter is the scientist who famously thinks CO2 cannot be harmful in any way because you can't see it or smell it.
I think you write the QF Spin Dr press releases. Get your facts and context in the same place, which is what you would ask of QF management would you not?
His words are CO2 is a clourless, odourless and naturally occurring gas that is a benefice to life. Sure go stand in a chamber of 100% CO2 and see how long you last, but if you won't do that how about a chanber of 100% Nitrogen??? Ok Dutchie that is stupid, so how about 100% oxygen? Nope did not think you would be in that either.
Here are Bobs words.....in context.
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the
atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative
carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence
that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise.
As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food
chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening
of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and
science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook
University
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.
I have to correct you again Dutchie, the IPCC and AGW's have always maintained a fear campaign on DANGEROUS......go watch the Al Gore movie again, without rose tinted glasses.
OK now to some meat and potatoes.
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.
Bob himself will tell you humans have contributed to CO2 levels, he will also add that the effect of that incrimental addition is real, however it is so small that it can not be measured from the background noise in the emperical data.
He will also agree we have measured warming, and cooling. He will also agree that CO2 levels have been on the rise over the last 30-50 years, but lets look at what happens. CO2 levels lag temperature, not lead it. Go back to Al Gores movie, find the graphs, and filter out the proven fraud and what do you see?
To put this in laymans terms if you take the effect CO2 has on the overall greenhouse effect, and then take into account man made CO2, it is like the difference between me taking my laptop with me on your B767 or leaving it at home with respect to fuel burn BN-SY. It has an impact, but it is hard to measure.
If we accept that the Al Gore and AGW camp mindset is correct, and that CO2 rose, and so did temperature, therefore they are directly related, which is what predicated the hockey stick, explain to me how when CO2 has kept increasing, the temperatures have done the opposite?
Here is a balanced comment, not cherry picked data or "facts in isolation".
The statement that “the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record” is a deliberately misleading piece of scientific trivia, for the “record” referred to is the instrumental record of the last 150 years only. This, comprising 5 climate data points, is a completely inadequate period of record over which to make climate change judgements in context. Records of an adequate length, for example for the last 5,000 years of a Greenland ice core, show that the late 20th century warm peak corresponds to a predictable temperature high on the well known millenial temperature cycle. It is no more surprising that temperatures were warm at the end of the 20th century than it is that, during the annual seasonal cycle, temperatures are warmest around and shortly after midsummer’s day.
Believe what you like, but data, uncorrupted data will be all I can follow. And of course Climategate 1.0 and Climategate 2.0 has shown that you can't follow the IPCC sources of data.
