Professor Robert Carter knows more than we do

Post Reply New Topic

Professor Robert Carter is recognised, internationally, as one of the world's foremost experts on the effects on climate of just about everything. He concludes that human impact is negligible at best and that before we do anything, we need more research. $100 billion has been spent trying to prove a causal link between human CO2 emissions and climate change. None has been proven. Yet, we deindustrialise and countries like Spain bankrupt themselves.

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=co ... ew&id=8232

I don't know if the link itself will work, but you can copy and paste and listen to what the man has to say for yourselves, without my interpretation to personal abuse and constant assertions as to the limitations of my intellect. You know who you are...

Know where you stand, people. That is the democratic tenet. If you won't research it for yourself, listen to both sides of the argument. This is the other, more rational side.

Enjoy.

While I totally agree personally with the evaluate all the arguments point,

we both know rationality will not win over hype and that experts not on the bandwagon are like would be bestseller writers ignored by Oprah.

See http://www.csiro.au/news/Climate-foreca ... ponse.html

If Godzilla showed up in Washington DC tomorrow, Al Gore would claim it was due to global warming. I believe Charles Krauthammer said something to that effect.

Warming, yes. Human-induced warming? According to professor Carter, world expert in these things and pariah for his unwillingness to tow the line, no. Did anyone who crows, like Sand, listen to what he said? The only discreditation you get in Sand's posted article, of course I read it, is obfuscation and anomalies. Here's the thing about anomalies. You can have thirty-seven days above the average with an unusually high temperature. Right? However, if the year is no warmer for this, then it logically holds that there were cooler days. Right?

Listen to what the man has to say and then make up your mind. Stop spouting disproven climate rorting. The IPCC is no more believable than Chicken Little. It's not scientific. It's science-based, but it is not scientific. As Professor Carter says, the IPCC, I was wrong in 1998, has been manipulated since 1995. That's right. Since its second report, it has been misleading the world. It cost Bush an election. Then the US, rightly, did nothing. The IPCC made Al Gore a lot of money. Has he actually done anything other than propitiate rumour and un-science? Professor Carter challenged the accuracy of the documentary, and won. That's right. He won.

You can have all the faith in science you want, but that doesn't make science reliable when it abandons the very basis of science. Which is what? Scrutiny and dissent and scepticism.

$100 billion has not been enough to prove anything near a causal link, I still prefer the word precipitative, between CO2 emissions and any increased level of warming above the long-term trendline. It might be logical. But this is science, not philosophy.

I ask again, why am I the flat-earther when I'm the one asking science to be scientific? How can you deny climate? What am I sceptical of again?

Oh, yeah. That's right. Hubris of the elite Left who tell us the only way to live is in deprivation, and the moral investment of too many scientists in their theory, which is a theory and absolutely nowhere near proven, of Anthropogenic Climate Change. As if somehow the more impressive titles they give it, the more I'll believe it.

Well, when someone actually bothers to explain, I repeat, explain the thing rather than irrationally demanding that I just accept and believe, I might. Science, in this ladies and gentlemen, needs to explain itself. Not me.

I, as everyone who has insulted my intelligence delights in pointing out, and a lay person. But then, so are you. Unless there are any proven scientists here, published in peer-reviewed journals, the same journals that refuse peer-review to anything that questions the dictated line, then let them speak. Until someone does, someone who can credibly show something other than "Well, CO2 in the atmosphere, warming, put them together and you get..." a philosophical reasoning, not a scientific one.

Anyone up for the lecture on Post-natural science and its nobility and morality overwhelming the need for scientific scrutiny and therefore, enabling it to deliberately manipulate data to suit its ends? This is real, people. Real. And the Climate crusaders with their CO2 extremism were the first on the bandwagon.

Philologos said that wisdom and rationality won't win over hype and spin and the emotional investment of the political movement in this - extrapolating his words. He's right. But that doesn't mean, as with the Hole in the Ozone Layer debate, which, too, was so heavily skewed no one knew what the facts really were until science explained itself and began anew, that rationality won't win in the end. It has to. There is too much at stake for it not to win. The entire Free World Economy is at stake.

To those who scoff, look to Spain. It bankrupted itself demonstrating that renewable energies won't work to support the full modern economy. And yet we're meant to follow their example? No.

To the flat-earth, science manipulating, everything logically holds in science, except science itself which still can't explain 94% of the universe, climate warrior, I won't listen to reason because PJW doesn't understand that he doesn't need to understand, just believe and everything will be okay, how is it rational to switch our economies from the base that made them strong to a base that we know doesn't work?

If I told you that wind farms actually waste more CO2 emissions, and posted this link

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed ... away-money

to prove it, I wonder, would you read it? Would you actually be able to defend the industry that is meant to make the situation better, but is only worsening the situation you seek to fix with its introduction?