Watch Bob Carter’s Friday night interview by Alan Lee on New Zealand television’s “Nzone Tonight” on You Tube via Noel Sheppard’s blog on NewsBusters.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
An excellent and yet civil interview, with Bob Carter clearly exposing many of the AGW fables.
Another example of ‘liberal’ media bias here in Aust… Earlier last week ABC news and current affairs covering the Pope’s US visit,spoke with great expectation of his forthcoming statement on Climate Change, (which the poor luvvies thought he was going to come out and endorse!) Then nothing….Not a word….Did the Pope not say anything on the matter?…..All the mainstream media were silent!….Why?
Ah ha..At last on Internet news services I found the reason, in an article from the Daily Mail….
“The Pope condems the climate change prophets of doom…”
And thats why our news services ignored it!!
Bob Carter neatly states, that we can’t stop earthquakes,volcanoes,storms or tsunami nor can we stop climate change.
Adapt
Sid – what the Pope actually said was:
Excerpt:
“It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.”
The Daily Mail interpreted it, but the message seems sensible and clear to me.
Bob Carter, eh. It’s never too soon for a hasty generalisation by good ol’ Bob, is it?
Adaptation is a great feature of nature. It works by killing off the things that can’t adapt.
Nature kills off things that tried to control nature, but couldn’t, and failed to adapt as a result.
Spoken like a true alarmist.
Me, an alarmist!?
Keep emitting CO2 or you’re all gonna freeze due to global cooling and be eaten by polar bears!
SJT
Nature kills off those which can’t adapt – True, we have some 600 million years of evidence verifying this fact.
Lord Keynes once said that if the facts change, he changes his mind. What do you do SJT?
It is the religious who cannot change their minds and adapt. They have done so in the past, and when in charge, tend to deploy inquisitions to eliminate the inconvenient facts of herectics and deniers, whether on the stake, or in the pyschiatric hospitals and gulags of the old USSR.
That is why many of the religious and their holy orders remove themselves from society to live almost hermit like, quarantined existences, hoping the problems will pass away while they can maintain the luxury of their beliefs in splendid isolation.
I watched that Podcast and was impressed with the civility and respect Alan Lee showed towards his guest, Professor Bob Carter, allowing Carter to explain his position. By extension, by allowing the audience to hear Carter’s reasons for his views, so that they could form their own opinions, Lee showed civility and respect towards the audience too.
At complete contrast is the other link, to Dan Harris’ interview with Professor Peter Singer. Lee’s gutter hit job on his guest showed contempt and disrespect towards the polite Singer, and by extension contempt and disrespect towards his audience, who were not permitted to hear Singer’s reasons for his views.
Civility is influential. It matters.
[Lord Keynes once..] Careful Louis, “SJT” whoever he/she is doesn’t like Lords, having sneered at *Lord* Moncton in another thread here.
Helen: “At complete contrast is the other link, to Dan Harris’ interview with Professor Peter Singer.”
Shouldn’t this be “Professor Fred Singer”, Helen?
“Civility matters.” I agree.
Cheers.
I stand corrected. Thank you for your civil manner, peterd
In Nov. 06 I organised Prof. Bob Carter to address a Leaders Forum Lunch in Sydney. It was packed out with leading business men and women, Captains of industry, academics and so on. A full house with 60 odd on waiting list.
Bob spoke so well and bit by bit debunked all the AGW nonsense. He received a standing ovation. The only unhappy people present was one table of pink/greens, including a former ABC science show presenter.
That’s what I like about Bob, he speaks so well, he’s so reasoned. Too bad he’s wrong, but that’s by the by.
Fred Singer is prepared to sell himself to the tobacco industry. I don’t think you get much lower than that.
But nothing is lower than a coward who hides behind a pseudonyn to insult and vilify others.
So pathetic little leftwing twit.
SJT,
I’ve been fortunate enough to hear Bob Carter speak on a number of occasions and yes, he is reasoned and does speak well. Also he provides compelling evidence that CO2 is not the driver of climate that some suggest it is.
I do not know what your qualifications are to state categorically that Bob Carter is wrong in his thesis on climate change, however the manner that you comment on this issue suggests that it is unlikely that you have a science background, most likely a belief in environmental theology. So why should anyone accept your shrill assertions denouncing those whose understanding of the science differs from yours.
Putting on my civility hat, I’d like to share a comment or two on Carter’s interview, which I first viewed last night. Unfortunately, YouTube videos do not replay reliably on my own 256 K/s set-up at home, and it is hard to get all the dialogue, and the picture, without a lot of stops and starts. Be that as it may, I was able to pick up a little of what he was saying, and have a second try tonight.
Carter tries- on TV, at least- to come across as a polite, reasonable fellow. He was certainly helped in this by a fawning, complaisant interviewer who seemed unwilling (or was unable) to ask hard questions. Nevertheless, I must ask whether Carter was successful in “…clearly exposing many of the AGW fables” (Sid Reynolds).
It seems to me that there was some sleight-of-hand involved with figures to suggest that we have already had most of the expected warming associated with a doubling of CO2. Carter’s claim: only 1 Celsius rise is expected, and we have already had 75% of that! Here’s how the deception happens, and it is quite interesting.
First, he asserts that the expected temperature increase from CO2 doubling is 1 Celsius. He claims IPCC and various other respected physicists claim this. However, I don’t think this is the accepted temperature response to doubling with feedbacks included. As far as I can tell, this is a CO2-only figure, with no feedbacks. If you look at IPCC summaries, the “canonical” forcing for CO2 doubling is ~4 W/m^2 (and generally a bit bigger), and the temperature increase from an (IPCC-) assumed sensitivity factor of 0.5 K/W/m^2 is therefore ~2 Celsius. Recent IPCC summaries I have seen suggest a range of 1.5-4.5 C/doubling, with 3 degrees as “mid-range”, or “most probable”. So, Carter has already slipped in a factor of (at least) 2, in his favour.
Next, he combines this 1 Celsius/doubling with a dodgy estimate of the expected increase in forcing to suggest that we have already had 75% of the forcing (and therefore of the temperature increase) expected from CO2 doubling (from pre-industrial levels). Since we’ve had ~0.7 Celsius during the last century, he’s saying we should expect only “a few tenths of a degree” more, on the way to 560 ppmv CO2.
As we all know, radiative forcing by CO2 is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration. (See the formulae in the IPCC’s TAR, Chapter 6, Table 6.2.)
For an increase from pre-industrial 280 ppmv to the current 380 ppmv, the forcing is calculated to be approx. 44% of that for the doubling (280 to 560 ppmv). So where does Carter get his 75% from?
Any comments, Sid or Louis?
This is just one aspect of his interviews that rang some alarm bells for me. I hope to comment later on other aspects.
Cheerio!
“That’s what I like about Bob, he speaks so well, he’s so reasoned. Too bad he’s wrong, but that’s by the by.
Fred Singer is prepared to sell himself to the tobacco industry. I don’t think you get much lower than that.
Posted by: SJT at April 22, 2008 09:36 PM”
Slurs and unsupported claims are poor conversation makers.
Offer something substantive instead.
Pandanus67…. If what you say was correct and occurring as you have stated, it would be observable and identifiable as Anthropogenic. We could point to it and say, Eureka…. The fact that it is not there…. Suggests an incomplete knowledge of climate. To say the very least.
You would have to concur with Bob Carter’s conclusion that after 50 billion dollars there is no definite indication of warming or cooling due to the Anthropogenic effects that we definitely know are introduced. All we have is a continuing natural Warming trend… that in the last ten years has plateaued and cooled slightly. Despite increased Anthropogenic CO2.
It doesn’t matter what figures you use… there are no observations that fit the computer models… There is no observations that even suggest Human influence beyond the background noise of Natural variation…. That was Carters Point. You criticize Carter and say he should use bigger numbers… Well their effects would be even more apparent…easier to see… But they ain’t there.
To my mind and obviously Bob Carter’s. There is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions or have carbon credit schemes or stop ruminants from farting.
Well they belch the methane actually.
[SJT]: “That’s what I like about Bob, he speaks so well, he’s so reasoned. Too bad he’s wrong, but that’s by the by.”
[sunsettommy]: Slurs and unsupported claims are poor conversation makers.
sunsettommy: I have pointed out above where Carter is wrong. He also claimed in that interview that methane is decreasing. This, I believe, is incorrect. IPCC FAR: methane increased from 1732 ppb in the early 1990s to 1774 ppb in 2005.
Carter is wrong, as I said.
Singer is prepared to sell himself to anyone for a dollar.
I am quite happy for Carter to believe what he believes, since he seems to sincerely do so. Singer couldn’t lie straight in bed. What bothers me is that someone like Carter is prepared to give someone like Singer the time of day.
JHansford: “Pandanus67…. If what you say was correct and occurring as you have stated, it would be observable and identifiable as Anthropogenic. We could point to it and say, Eureka…. The fact that it is not there…. Suggests an incomplete knowledge of climate. To say the very least. You would have to concur with Bob Carter’s conclusion that after 50 billion dollars there is no definite indication of warming or cooling due to the Anthropogenic effects that we definitely know are introduced. All we have is a continuing natural Warming trend… that in the last ten years has plateaued and cooled slightly. Despite increased Anthropogenic CO2.
It doesn’t matter what figures you use… there are no observations that fit the computer models… There is no observations that even suggest Human influence beyond the background noise of Natural variation…. That was Carters Point. You criticize Carter and say he should use bigger numbers… Well their effects would be even more apparent…easier to see… But they ain’t there.
To my mind and obviously Bob Carter’s. There is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions or have carbon credit schemes or stop ruminants from farting.
J.Hansford: Obviously, you were replying to me and not to Pandanus67.
You do not even attempt to respond to my specific criticism of Carter’s manipuluation of numbers, and resort instead to vague generalities like “..there are no observations that fit the computer models…”. How do we *know* that there is an AGW? We can be reasonably confident about AGW because the natural causes of temperature change we know about (e.g., solar, volcanic), cannot by themselves account for the observed warming. It’s amazing to me that some folk find this concept so difficult to understand. Go out there and model the observed temperature changes of (say) the 20th Century based entirely on the Sun and volcanoes, and then perhaps I’ll believe you.
You are correct about incomplete knowledge of climate, but that’s hardly profound, and is also true of many other areas of science. We do already know quite a lot.
Luke has set you straight on methane.
Was Bob refering to the same period, peterd? Has there not been a rise in methane followed by a decline?
And it is just a touch precious on your part because we are talking about a rise of a whole 42ppb to 1774ppb. That is a 2.4% rise during a period when CO2 went up by 30ppm (8.5%) from 351ppm to 381ppm.
More importantly, we are talking parts per million of CO2 and parts per billion of CH4 when all agree that methane is only 20 times more greenhouse potent than CO2. And this means that the total 42ppb rise in CH4 has had the same impact as 840ppb (0.84 of 1ppm) of CO2. All up, the total change in CH4 has only been equivalent to 2.8% of the total change in CO2. It is much ado about sweet FA.
And on a slight tangent, there is promising technology for harvesting methane from Dams before it is released into the atmosphere. And this technology will be equally applicable to the capture of natural CH4 emissions from lake beds like the African ones that routinely wipe out all surrounding life.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/05/17/damn-dam-methane/
But wait, The IPCC accounting rules do not recognise the possibility that measures could be taken to reduce the level of natural emissions that would achieve the same outcome as a reduction in anthropogenic emissions.
Ian,
” The IPCC accounting rules do not recognise the possibility that measures could be taken to reduce the level of natural emissions that would achieve the same outcome as a reduction in anthropogenic emissions.”
Is this true.? I thought that one of the things Senator Hill as the Environment Minister at the time was able to do was negotiate a lower target rate for Australia on the basis that we would stop the land clearing the Qld etc.
If you are saying that from that point on, there is no ability to accommodate other changes,such as reducing deforestation,or bottling up the methane for dams,etc, then this mob are sillier than anyone could conceivably contemplate.
No Malcolm, it is more the case that we got a lower target rate because the IPCc refused to give us credit for the 90 million tonnes of annual sequestration by our native woodlands.
Reducing deforestation is allowed in the IPCC rules but going through a natural forest and removing trees that are about to start rotting (emitting CO2) and converting that wood into stable carbon locked up in someone’s house for the next century is not. According to the intellectual giants at IPCC, all the carbon is emitted at the moment the tree is cut.
Furthermore, when the other trees left in the forest increase their growth rate to occupy the gap left by the removed tree, this increase in sequestration is not counted either, despite the fact of its patently obvious anthropogenic nature.
And in most cases the bosted rate of forest growth will have replaced the removed carbon three or four times before the carbon stored in the house even begins to break down.
So the worlds forest owners and managers who;
1 reduce major sources of natural emissions,
2 convert natural carbon stocks into a form that is more stable and more durable, and
3 transform a slow rate of natural carbon sequestration into a much faster one, and
4 do so in a way that substantially increases the total capacity to store carbon,
Are not only not recognised for what they do, they will also be actively discouraged from doing so under the carbon trading systems. The same applies to any improved carbon storage that may be developed in our newly recognised territorial oceans.
See Landholders Submission on Carbon Trading 11/04/2007) at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/
Thanks Ian,
The AGW fraternity ARE stupider than it could be concievably be imagined, aided and abetted by a compliant media (with only a few notable exceptions).
I shall read your landholders submission over the week end, but this idiot arrangement cannot be allowed to stand without exposure of some form.
Don’t worry about it being challenged, Malcolm. It will eventually be meshed in with the tax arena where a whole industry of very competent tax advisors will go over it all and test every possible angle. No other piece of legislation has had the level of court tested scrutiny that has already been applied to the income tax assessment act.
The extraordinary part is that they want forest owners, alone, to pay their emissions tax 40 to 60 years in advance but have not cottoned on to the fact that discounted cash flow is a concept that is very solidly entrenched in legal principle.
What this means is that the present value of a $40/tonne of carbon that will not be emitted for another 50 years is only about $1.00 but the climate bogans seriously seem to believe that the Australian court system will allow them to levy a carbon tax at full value some 50 years before the actual emission takes place.
And they also seem to be under the impression that after paying this tax in full for trees that have been removed, and for stumps that are still there, that any subsequent growth by remaining trees will also be taxable when they are eventually removed. They seriously think the courts will allow them to refuse to give credits for the subsequent growth, that is only possible due to the earlier fully taxed removal, and then pretend that all the later removals are non-anthropogenic and have not grown there since 1990 and can be taxed again and again.
When the big end of town gets a sniff of this in the air they are going to set aside their best and brightest to completely pick it apart. And the team that trashes it first is going to make some gobsmacking consulting bucks while the bureaucrats will have some serious egg on their silly faces. As they so richly deserve.
Ian Mott: Was Bob refering to the same period, peterd? Has there not been a rise in methane followed by a decline?”
If you care to watch the video again, Ian, what Carter says is clear: “the world atmospheric concentration of methane has been decreasing for about the last 10 years”. (I transcribed as I viewed, so one or two may not be exactly right, but this is the sense.) This claim is contradicted by the IPCC source I cited (unless you want to suppose that the methane concentration went into sudden decline beginning in 2005, to fall to values below the 1998 value- only then might it be valid to speak of “decrease in the last 10 years”).
As for it being “precious” of me to raise the issue of Carter’s carelessness with facts (while he continues to recite the mantra of science being aout “demonstrated fact”- his words, I remind you that none of you have responded to my first- and more serious- criticism above.