jump to navigation

Professor Bob Carter’s new book – Climate: The Counter-Consensus May 11, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

Bob Carter’s new book

Via Quadrant Online, May 10, 2010

Climate: The Counter-Consensus by Bob Carter is due for publication in the UK in May, and release in Australia in June.

Click to order

The counter-consensus to quasi-scientific hype and induced panic on climate change is at last assembling. The argument is not in the first place as to whether or not climate change has been taking place, but whether any recent warming of the planet is appreciably due to human activity and how harmful it will prove.

Tom Stacey, in his eloquent and provocative introduction, investigates our tendency to ascribe this and other perceived planetary crises to some inherent fault in ourselves, be it original sin or a basic moral failing.

Climate Change goes on to examine, with thoroughness and impartial expertise, the so-called facts of global warming that are churned out and unquestioningly accepted, while the scientific and media establishments stifle or deride any legitimate expression of an opposing view. In doing so, the book typifies the mission of Independent Minds to replace political correctness and received wisdom with common sense and rational analysis.

Source Stacey International

See Bob Carter talking about his new book here…

About these ads

Comments»

1. Frank Hubbard - May 20, 2010

I think it’s great that “The Truth” is finaly getting out on this subject.
Now… if there were only a “Counter Consensus” on Evolution.
I know it’s out there, just not as widely known about.
I think the reason it’s not is that the “Evolution” debate doesn’t effect our wallets. Yet.

2. Mari Warcwm - May 30, 2010

People can believe what they like so long as it doesn’t cost me anything or harm anyone.

The global warming scam not only costs us all a great deal of money, it is likely to harm the economy and destroy jobs, and even worse, prevent a realistic awareness of the real possibility of the world cooling. We are at the end of the Holocene interglacial and a return to the next icy phase will be catastrophic for humanity. In the short term we need power stations. The prejudice and ignorance about CO2 is very damaging.

I look forward to reading Professor Carter’s book. Thank the heavens we have such brave independent thinkers amongst us.

3. roberts - October 9, 2010

AGW is not about an intelligent or scientific debate on the science of climate.
If there was any intelligence involved then the argument would have ended a long time ago in favour of the sceptics.
Instead we have the pushers of AGW who are about as intelligent as a goldfish in a bowl and yet as passionate as honey bees defending their hive.
Stallin had a name for them, he called them ‘useful idiots.
As an example of how brainless and idiotic these pushers are have a look at this most recent disgusting video they made.
Warning, it may make you sick.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/jamesdelingpole/100056586/eco-fascism-jumps-the-shark-massive-epic-fail/

4. Bert Robusto - October 30, 2010

Carter is a crank and has little to offer. No one takes him seriously.

See for example http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/27606.html

for the major flaws in his arguments.

5. Andrew Wyche - November 16, 2010

That’s interesting, Bert. A fairly typical attack on, once again, ‘deniers’, in December last year, notwithstanding that it’s from Barry Jones (MP, Lab. Vic.), and then 810 replies. I haven’t finished reading them all yet but it’s obvious that there’s no knock-out blow from either side – except to establish that there’s sufficent evidence to keep a debate alive. There’s just too much conflicting data, or evidence thereof, to assume that it’s all settled. And it’s pointed out that the precautionary principle applies for both arguments: save the planet or damage compliant economies.
It makes me wonder whether there’s not a more sinister philosophical underpinning the drive of the initiators.

6. roberts - November 16, 2010

Did you say ABC Bert?. Surely you jest. No one in their right mind can take this completely left wing biased media organization seriously unless of course you happen to be a completely left wing biased person yourself.
Name a single program in the last 12 months that has not been badly skewered to the extreme left of opinion even when it doesn’t make sense. They are stalin’s useful idiots.
Which one are you.

7. warmair - January 12, 2011

This book is full of errors and is just plain wrong in many of its claims. It makes the following claims which are easy to disprove.

The Earth has cooled in the last 15 years

The sea surface temperatures have declined since 1998.
(That’s a classic example of cherry picking)

The rise in the level of CO2 since 1860 is not caused by humans burning fossil fuels . He suggests maybe volcanoes could the the source.
( your kidding !)

The rate at which the average sea level is rising has not increased.

(numerous studies have been done that show the opposite and the satellites confirm the rate has increased)

The global ice volume is not decreasing.
(Just not true !)

8. roberts - January 12, 2011

Hey Warmair, want a tiny example of what undersea volcanoes emit in co2, click on the link below.
Maybe it hasn’t occurred to you yet that there are heaps more active volcanoes under the oceans which cover 70% of the planets surface.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06fire/logs/may8/media/movies/nweifuku3_video.html

More for you to study…
On August 21st, 1986, between 9 and 10 pm, Lake Nyos suddenly released large quantities of carbon dioxide that proved to be fatal. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and can’t rise easily so this cloud of choking gas slid down the slopes of the crater and overtook the valley below. As a result, all living organisms within 15 miles of Lake Nyos died of suffocation

http://www.suite101.com/content/1986-limnic-eruption-of-lake-nyos-a111515

9. Phaedron - January 13, 2011

Bland statements, warmair. Why the tease?
Give us the benefit of your knowledge, the stuff that Bob Carter has no idea of. What’s YOUR evidence?
Not reams and reams of links, your words, with refs.

10. holbrook - March 10, 2011

Does “warmair” understand the difference between positive and negative feedback in climate models?
Does he know what the negatives are?

Has he never heard of the MWP? and how it affected Northen Europe?
According to an IPCC “scientist” called Michael Mann it did not exist but then again he has been playing around with tree ring proxies.
However sadly for you “warmair” it did exist and he has been caught fiddling the figures.
It gets worse, for having been cleared of wrong doing over “Climategate” new evidence has come to light pointing to his guilt after all as it appears emails were deleted and criminal charges may follow.
It is people like Mann that have given you a false impression of what is going on.

11. Robert Serf - March 12, 2011

The paragraph below was taken from the site re under water volcanoes, link attached.

What really stands out is the sheer stupidity of the statement,
“understand the potential impacts of increased CO2 levels in the marine environment caused by human activities.”

They make this ridiculous statement even after “saying that the high concentration of CO2 in the water is due to the volcano.”
These alarmists just don’t understand the meaning of logic.
I suppose if they did they would not be alarmists.

And another thing they don’t explain, why will the shells dissolve only after the mussel is dead.
If the acidity is dissolving sea shells then it will do so dead or alive.
Can anyone please explain that statement?
It’s got me beat.

Even though there are huge numbers of mussels living around the hydrothermal vents at NW Eifuku, we hardly ever find any dead shells, which is very unusual. We suspect that the high levels of CO2 being released from the volcano increase the acidity of the water and after a mussel dies its shell is quickly dissolved. Documenting this process at NW Eifuku may help us……

understand the potential impacts of increased CO2 levels in the marine environment caused by human activities. ………..

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06fire/logs/may8/media/movies/nweifuku3_video.html

Video courtesy of Submarine Ring of Fire 2006 Exploration, NOAA Vents Program.

12. Graham - April 3, 2011

I would like to get into the Global warming discussion but when the word “denier” is used(clearly attempting to compare anyone who so much as asks a question about global warming is immediately compared to a “Holocaust denier”) and ridiculed, it makes rational discussion almost impossible.

I don’t think anyone “denies” that the climate is changing, and I imagine that about 99.9% of intelligent people agree that over hundreds of millions of years global temperatures have fluctuated. If that is correct, I ask: “Why should we expect temperatures to be constant now? Why should we not expect temperatures to rise now, just as they have done repeatedly in the past?”

I am not a Climate Scientist but I do feel that my degree in Chemistry and working as an Industrial Chemist for many years may give me a little better background than someone like Al Gore, who upon his own admission, as a student avoided Science and Mathematics altogether and somehow managed to scrape through his degree in TV Journalism and Politics without having mathematics or a science subject at all. Yet his ideas about “science” are taken with religious zeal and woe betide anybody who questions anything that he says.

It disturbs me that it is almost forbidden to mention anything negative about the current “global warming” fashion without being ridiculed by left wing politicians with little understanding of science themselves – but are quick to jump to use the word “Science” to milk an idea about which the have little knowledge but something that they know can generate more tax.

13. CG - April 10, 2011

@Graham – I feel the same way. I am not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist, with strong mathematics. I initially believed in AGW because I was told to. But as I always had the nagging questions like ‘what about MWP, LIA and other historical cycles?’ As I looked into it, I discovered my skepticism was not isolated. There are lots of us who know that the debate is not settled at all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: