I also attended the Prof. Bob Carter presentation but needed no conversion. I can't believe the Government is trying to still sell this myth which will plunge our economy into a deeper hole than the recession threatened to. Can someone tell me why? Yes there is a lot of money being invested into schemes to make more money at taxpayer's expense. I believe the ETS will bring this Government down at the next election, because we're not all that gullible, despite polls indicating Kevin Rudd is ahead in popularity.

It would not have been all that difficult to create "reasonable doubt" in a biassed jury. The analogy is skewed. The only futility in the analogy to earthquakes, is the futility to draw it between something humans have absolutely no influence and something on which they have. The arctic melt well precedented? The last time the arctic was ice free was 1 million years ago. We may achieve that feat during the next decade. When you say that CO2 is a difficult gas to measure, you're wrong; it's relatively simple and easy. The praise for Steve Fielding comes from a vision impaired leading the blind. Did it ever occur to you that the problems with water, bush-fire and food production are already the result of human induced climate change. Don't put the cart before the horse. All arguments of the sceptics side revert back to that great master, "The Economy"; we can't afford it, what we can do is too little. CO2 reduction is not a "glorious mission", it is erring on the side of caution. Mother Nature does not give refunds. Tipping points are just that; points of no return when the climate changes will outrun us, like the proverbial truck on a downslope with no brakes. When that happens, expect the next generations to shout a collective - WHY? PS Bob Carter is not a climate scientist, he is a geologist. There are no climate scientists just as there are no surgeon general's capable of doing all surgery. The issue is too complex with too many variables for one person. Therefore many scientists work on certain aspects and collectively they come to a consensus. It is not a conspiracy, which tends to have fewer rather than more participants. That's the natural law of conspiracy.

Reply to; helen on 2/07/2009 12:30:18 PM Your comment justifies the axiom "Preaching to the converted". Surely, Bob Carter would have been happier with 100 convertibles, to swell the cause. The use of the word "myth" is usually a lame reaction arising from an inability to refute or debunk. I rest my case refusing to reverse preach to the converted.

As the author of the original letter, I invite direct feedback via email: chris.poynton@gmail.com or mobile: 0410 553 225 My website is www.cp.org.au/research which includes Food and Water Security, alternative farming and group communication process. And also ... I invite feedback in person! The final line of my letter (strangely) was not published. It concluded: "I encourage the use of talking circles and a talking stick so that some new voices can be heard, and some new directions identified." I believe that in such discussions, we really make great progress. Regarding the on-line comments posted above: TO "Helen" I agree that the economic impacts of a carbon trqading scheme will backfire on the government. The agricultural sector in particular will be ropeable. They would be taxed not on "real emmissions" (as they are too intricate to measure), but rather on "alleged emmissions" generated by computer models which can be famously flawed and faceless ... ("who you gonna sue if they get it wrong? the programmer?") TO: "The Real Observer" I like the way you link together many issues, obviously with passion. I would like to meet and talk in the real world! Some feedback on pints you raised, in no particular order ... (1) The real precautionary principle relating to climate change would be to prepare for rapid climate change in either direction - warming or cooling - not to put all the eggs and trillions of dollars in one basket ... (2) In terms of assessing climate threats, Bob Carter promoted a system similar to NZ's GeoNet (www.geonet.org.nz) which systematically categorises geological and climate threats, and that "runaway warming or cooling" can simply be integrated into this as one of many threats that require adaptation ... (3) Bob Carter stated that there was significant shipping through the Arctic Circle in the 1930's, which I assume meant a greater degree of melt than shown in recent years. This does not necessarily mean an "ice free" Arctic ... (4) Bob Carter does not claim to be expert in the 100 or so fields related to climate science. He claims expertise in just two. He estimates that the famous and "pre-eminent" Jim Hanson of NASA is expert in just four. I wonder ... Tim Flannery? Maybe two? Al Gore??? In the end, I believe the CO2 question is a massive red herring ... or green herring? The fact is that we have hundreds of thousands of people in the Murray-Darling Basin (including Bendigo) who are on the very cusp of being turned into environmental refugees ("Internally Displaced People" in UN parlance) ... and we are going to need to run a radical new survival economy - largely on our groundwater resources. We need clever co-operation and identification of real threats and solutions. I reckon meeting in talking circles with a talking stick is a great way to "drill down" into the issues, including our own tendencies towards ego, self-sabotage, emotional baggage, fear and just plain human weirdness. So ... let's rise to some challenges, and keep the communication going.

David Klein is as off target as usual. Despite his pronouncements there is no evidence to support the hypothesis carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change let alone to support his contention “human induced climate change” is responsible for ‘problems’ with water, bush fire and food production. There is also no evidence to support his claim the Arctic will be ice free within ten years. To the contrary – temperatures north of the 80th northern parallel have yet to exceed zero degrees centigrade this year which is unprecedented during fifty years of record keeping. Ice extent is tracking along the mean for this time of the year. Hudson Bay is unusually ice bound which is raising concerns that the already short breeding season for Arctic birds is too short for breeding to occur this year. His ‘tipping point’ furphy is similarly fact challenged as is his disingenuous claim all ‘sceptical’ arguments revert to “the economy”. The only hot air in evidence is the increasingly shrill cry of “we’ll all be rooned - in accents most forlorn” from natural climate change deniers.

Bob Carter reminds me of the old fashioned snake oil salesman. We need to remember that he is a geologist and his area of expertise, indeed the reason he can be called “professor” is because he has specialised in a branch of science which deals with the rocks below the earth’s surface. He and his American “Heartland” friends get together for an all expenses paid gathering every so often to put to try to put a spanner in the works of those who are researching climate change. Of course it is their interests do so because now that the world has woken up to the fact that climate change is real, and its dangerous effects imminent, it will mean a winding back on the massive financial resources which currently pour into the oil, coal and petroleum exploration industry, from which he is and his fellow travellers are major benefactors. Well done to the Real Observer for pointing out the obvious fallacies in Carter’s arguments, and for taking the time to respond to Peter Wisemans’ ramblings. It’s more than I could be bothered with, to be honest. The world has moved on, and even private polling done by the Federal Liberal Party is telling them that a majority of their supporters are now demanding they take some action on mitigation the effects of climate change. Stand by for change in approach to the Senate vote on Emission Trading. Some science to consider... Firstly it needs to be understood that computer modelling of climate change is based on well established laws of Physics and they are as true as the laws of Physics which enable a Jumbo jet to fly. (Remember that some believed that ‘heavier than air” travel was impossible because it seemed so improbable to the casual observer). As computer power has increased over the past decade, so has the power of such predictive climate models. Unfortunately the IPCC’s research findings have been overly conservative, due to the need for the 140 member countries to reach consensus. The real measured tends are at the uppermost end of predictions which means we have even less time to act. Latest research has simply decreased the uncertainty in climate prediction. Carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere are easily measured but there is no danger of us being poisoned by higher concentration of it in the atmosphere. Climate scientists have never said as much, but deniers like to say they have, in a lame attempt to discredit other arguments. Andrew Bolt did a similar thing in a recent article called ten climate change myths. One of his myths was that climate change caused Tsunamis but Climate Researchers ever made such a ridiculous claim. Our troposphere, or the useful part of the atmosphere that we live in, is about 8km thick and hence is like the skin of an onion on the scale of the size of the earth. It is extremely fragile as shown by the creation of the ozone hole due to the release of Chlorofluorocarbons, gas commonly used in refrigeration. CFCs have now been banned and the ozone layer is slowly recovering as a direct result. This is clear and irrefutable evidence that human activity can and does have a large impact on our atmosphere and hence climate. The carbon dioxide molecule has a chemical structure which allows infrared radiation direct from the sun to pass though it, but when the heat from the earth is later re radiated outwards, it is at a different wavelength and this is absorbed by the CO2 molecules increasing its vibration and this means extra heat trapped in the troposphere. The CO2 molecules are everywhere throughout the troposphere and so it gradually heats up, as more and more carbon dioxide is added. This science has been well understood for well, over 100 years, so perhaps Bob Carter needs to go back and study Physics 101. The layer immediately above the Troposphere is the Stratosphere and it is indeed cooling and this is a direct and predicable result of global warming. Climate change deniers deliberately combine troposphere and stratospheric temperatures to come up the statement that the earth is cooling overall. Bad luck that we don’t live in the stratosphere! What a pity there was no time allowed for question time at the end of Carter’s speech. Perhaps he was worried that there might be some people in the audience who have an understanding of such matters and may have asked some questions that he could not answer.

Thanks Al, well said, great insight and I feel less alone. Your closing sentence were exactly my thoughts. The global cooling arguments is quite bizarre, because to come up with a graph that showed "cooling" he (Carter) also threw out all El Nino years and used the hottest year on record (1998) as a starting point. I have raised many of the points you made in a recent letter, which unfortunately is probably too long for publication; an occupational hazard on my part. (To his credit, the editor sometimes does publish long letters) Why do I bother to discuss Peter Wiseman? Good question and I guess it is to challenge undeserving authority, lest people unwittingly accept it as fact. I recommend a book "Climate Code Red" the case for emergency action, by David Spratt and Philip Sutton 9781921372209 www.scribepublications.com.au A good read, a sobering read, a frightening read, too realistic for comfort.

Al’s ‘ramblings’ are as fact free as David Klein’s. NASA’s Aqua satellite shows global temperature has dropped again and is currently an almost unmeasurable .001 degree centigrade above the average for the past 30 years. This continuing cooling trend has been in evidence for some time despite the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuing to increase. None of Al’s ‘computer models’ predicted this cooling. Climate models are unreliable and are based on assumptions, estimates and theories. This doesn’t prove the slight global warming observed since the mid 1800s is over, but it proves carbon dioxide is not the main driver of climate change. To say current trends in global temperatures, be they sea surface or atmospheric, are rising faster than the IPCC’s climate models predict is patently false. Arctic ice has recovered, Antarctic ice is exceeding records every year, sea surface and atmospheric temperatures are cooling, estimated sea level rise is slowing and hurricane activity is below the long term trend. The theory CFCs in the presence of ultra violet light are responsible for the ‘hole in the ozone layer’ is also on shaky ground, more recent research based on satellite observations of the ozone layer has revealed a quite different cause. The size of the ‘hole’ is cyclical with the 2008 ‘thinning season’ producing a near record sized ‘hole’ – there is no evidence of recovery. Al’s high school chemistry lecture regarding the infrared absorption characteristics of carbon dioxide omits the crucial fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb almost all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands – its ability to absorb infrared radiation is roughly a logarithmic function of its concentration. So even if the level of carbon dioxide was doubled (which is unlikely to occur until 2255) it would only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels. It’s a pity neither Al nor David Klein attended Professor Carter’s presentation, there was ample time for questions and it would have been to their benefit to have challenged Carter in person based on what he actually said rather than what they incorrectly imagine he said.

Sorry Peter, I'm glad to argue points based on fact or good science and Bob Carter does not qualify. Stop reading Jennifer Marohasy and her flight of fancy about arctic ice recovery. Like her, you have a two dimensional view of arctic ice. seeing only the extent (which fluctuates depending warm/cool summer and winter sequences) Add the third dimension, thickness, and the story becomes different, or shall I say realistic. Since 1979 there has been a dramatic reduction in multi-year ice. I have no argument about the arctic ocean freezing in winter, no sun and very cold, it happens. It's normal and will continue, no-one argues that the arctic will be ice free all year round. If the arctic sea ice has recovered, where has al the multi year ice gone? Don't tell me that you are comparing arctic sea ice extent based on sq/Km 30 years ago (5-7 metres thick) and today (1-2 metres thick) to make the claim that the arctic has recovered? Before jumping in, there is still about 30% of multi-year ice left, all confined to the western side, so I am not stating that there is no multi-year ice left, but it is vanishing at a rapid rate. Hurricanes below the long term trend? What long term trend? what's your flexible definition of a long term trend? You make a lot of use of very short term "trends"that don't deserve the qualification, because trends and short term are strange bedfellows. For instance when you say "temperatures north of the 80th northern parallel have yet to exceed zero degrees centigrade this year which is unprecedented during fifty years of record keeping." A curious phenomenon, north of the entire 80th parallel below zero? That's a remarkable temperature distribution passing over sea nd land. But even if true, does it matter. Even if it was cold (and I say that hypothetically) up until now, what if from tomorrow the temperature goes higher, much higher. The measured sea ice extent (15% or less ice per sq/km) is at present getting very close to the extreme low measured in 2007. What does your "mean for this time of the year use as reference?" It is tracking well below the 1969-2007 mean. You are using a once-off phenomenon to prove one hell of a lot. In the meantime the ice is melting fast, so at zero C or less, what's melting the ice so quickly. If it is not air temperature then it must be sea water temperature. Coincidence though, less ice, less reflection; hence more absorption of heat by the ocean and more melting. Could that be your answer? I forgot, the arctic has "recovered", something doesn't add up. You said; "To say current trends in global temperatures, be they sea surface or atmospheric, are rising faster than the IPCC’s climate models predict is patently false." Bring me some good scientific arguments; patently false doesn't do it. By the way, Al gave you a layman's view, to belittle him is cheap. By the way, just because some ships managed to pass on the russian side of the arctic, does not say anything significant about the arctic ocean in total. Your comment about CO2 "...its ability to absorb infrared radiation is roughly a logarithmic function of its concentration" Roughly logarithmic? Sorry, either it is or isn't, the function is well defined. So your comments are fact, proof and beyond dispute and ours (Al and myself) are ramblings? A little less disdain would serve you well.

Quite remarkable that Peter Wiseman now doubts that the ozone hole was caused by CFCs released into the atmosphere. If he cannot understand or take on board this well established fact then what does this say about his credibility re climate change or anything else for that matter? Does he believe in the theory of Evolution for example or Creationism? By the way, I have attempted to explain the greenhouse effect in layman’s terms because it is a difficult concept to understand in simple terms. Rest assured though, having studied Physics at University for a number of years, I am not just using “high school chemistry”. It’s often the difficulty to fully understand the science that leads to people thinking that they are being asked to accept results of research as a matter of faith rather than fact. I maintain that the likes of Bob Carter have deliberately spread misinformation to create a debate where there is really no need for one and to mislead the general public, for reasons unfathomable. Is it to gain a degree of relevance or notoriety that he otherwise would not have?