Tuesday
Mar012011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Bob Carter in Quadrant
Mar 1, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Bob Carter has an article up in Quadrant, which is worth a look:
Run that past me again, Professors Garnaut and Flannery – your advice to government still remains that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming?Do you understand the meaning of the phrases “empirical science” and “hypothesis testing”?
Do you understand that the correct null hypothesis is that gentle warmings, such as that which occurred between 1979 and 1998, and equivalent coolings, are to be viewed as due to natural causes unless and until evidence indicates otherwise. Gentlemen, where is that evidence, and why is it not presented in the voluminous reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that you and the government so often refer to?
Reader Comments (24)
I have a great deal of respect for Bob Carter. He comes over in interviews as a very sensible and logical person. Seeing some of his interviews was one of the reasons I first started to investigate AGW and become sceptical of it.
There is a lot of resistance forming in Australia. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/galvanising-against-gillard/#comments
Unlike Phillip I came to Bob Carter late, through Larry Solomon's obvious regard for the guy in his book The Deniers - though it was through an exploration geologist that I was made sceptical of AGW around 1992. I agree that Carter's is one of the most balanced and logical voices in the debate, not least in arguing that we should be learning much more about and preparing for climate changes - of the kinds that we see in the geological record. Some of that is genuinely scary to think about - and we have no idea when it will become pertinent. But it certainly has nothing to do with global elitists twiddling the CO2 knob to aggrandise power to themselves and cause mass economic vandalism.
Well said that man!
Some of us down under who witnessed $20 billion of damage inflicted in 60 seconds during last week's quake are starting to wonder what all this climate malarkey is all about.
Go get em Bob.
" If you want to encourage alternative energy then by all means subsidize the introduction of clean, green nuclear power in Australia rather than frittering away scarce public resources on uneconomic eco-bling like windmills and solar farms."
Eco-bling. Spot on.
Bob Carter was interviewed by Chris Smith on 2GB today.
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8232
Eco-bling indeed. Actually I will defend the use of eco-bling in remote off-grid locations/islands where the cost of cabling or shipping in diesel is prohibitive. But to try and use solar, wind and wave to power even a small country like Scotland is expensive folly, especially if wind output rises above 15% of demand when grid balancing becomes a serious issue. We (UK) urgently need 15-20GW new gas and coal plant to keep the lights on for the next 10-15 years until we get some new nuclear (hopefully thorium) on the go.
Bish - I'm sure I heard on Radio Scotland 9am news that the Royal Society of Edinburgh has issued a new report into how we all must do more to save the planet [by building more windmills and more quickly] but there's no mention of it on the BBC website or on the RoyalSoc website. Or the 10am news.
Back to Bob - for anyone not familiar here's Prof. Carter on fine form: - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI ("An Analysis of the facts of Climate Change in a Balanced Context", part 1 of 4)
I used the term "eco-bling" when giving a talk at Wind Conference 2010. Did Bob Carter invent the term?
http://www.windconf.co.uk/index.html
Taxing energy means less economic activity, job losses, a drop in overall living standards and the poor getting poorer. There are no benefits.
Australians rightly view carbon taxation as a government inspired Ponzi scheme, where ordinary folk are taxed in order to produce a return for governments and speculators.
PS Love this story at the Beeb.
"Trio of electric vehicles end emission-free world tour"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12578749
An Australian electric three-wheeler, an electric German scooter and an electric Swiss Monotracer motorcycle took 188 days to travel around the world, in total 16,800 miles. That averages out 90 miles a day. They were obviously doing to this to make a point, but the point actually made was how pointless electric vehicles are.
"188 days to travel around the world"
That would have amused Phileas Fogg!
Mac, you're not thinking straight.
In the world of the eco-luddites, less economic activity and a drop in overall living standards are the benefits.
The concomitant inevitable reduction in life expectancy is also a benefit since it will have the effect of reducing the earth's population to "sustainable" levels.
@Philip - I see that the banner for the conference you spoke at reads at a first glance as "Wind Con" (with a very small f at the end). Was that intentional ? ;-)
Fred. I think it was meant to indicate that wind is a con.
Philip - Yes I realised that it was intentional once I looked at the list of speakers. Made me smile. Humour is sometimes a powerful weapon. ;o)
Do you understand the meaning of the phrases “empirical science” and “hypothesis testing”?
Reading this simple statement from Prof Carter reminded me of the clip of the late Richard Feynman outlining the priciples of the scientific method...
"Now I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don't laugh, that's the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is... If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
It's a shame that more of the present batch of computer-modelling "scientists" don't quite seem to grasp the import of the above.
@Mac:
I see from the BBC website on this that:
So, they don't say how many miles were actually covered in the 80 days of actual driving. And they also fail to point out that - and this is a fairly intelligent guess, I feel - the support vehicles that they must have had for such a venture would have had petrol/electric generators so that they could charge their batteries in the 'remote areas'. (I'm now laughing so much I can't write any more on this..........bwahahahaha!!!!
Prof. Bob Carter is one of several outstanding Australian 'scientists' fighting against the insane energy and tax policies being pursued by the Gillard government. Despite the relative small numbers the determination and scientific logic of this group will eventually win over the Aussie voters.
Convincing the voters that thorium is the future may be more difficult.
"Eco bling" is the perfect description of the useless frilly crap that eco-extremists and cliamte warriors demand for trophies.
Our landscape dotted with good for nothing windmills and solar arrays: the ironic environmentally damaging status symblos of enviro-insiders shaking down tax payers and rate payers to deliver less for more.
I agree.
Professor Carter is one of the persistent voices for sanity in Australia.
By the way, talking about amusing things.
Has anybody notice that both the Australian PM and the leader of her magesty's loyal opposition -
Both of them are denyers, flat earthers and so on.
Only they are playing at being true believers!
The PM persuaded Kevin Rudd, when he was PM, to drop tax on energy when she was his deputy PM.
She is very clever and must have seen through the scam.
Tony Abbott, in one of his very many (indiscrete) moments described it as a load of Cxxxx!
Julia is now trying to introduce a tax on carbon, whatever that means (she has not told us yet).
But we do know that it will not cost us a cent (Magic Puddin wise as Aussies will understand)!
Tony wants a kinder, gentler type of war on carbon dioxide although some have argued that his means would not achieve his (stated) ends. Strange that - he seems not to want to destroy our economy.
We all know that the real game for both sides is to stall just long enough for some kind politican to do the hard yards and pull the CO2 house of cards down, somewhere safely far away, overseas.
Nobody wants to be the first to pop their head above the top of the trench to be shot down in flames.
More credit to Prof Carter, Prof Plimer, Jo Nova, Jenny Marohasy and all.
Professor Carter is an outstanding individual, fighting against mass delusion. Personally, I blame the MSM for this AGW debacle.
Quoting John Eldridge; 'It is an informed citizenry, not simply an opinionated one, that is a prerequisite for a mature democracy.'
But there is hope, a recent poll indicated it was mainly the young who have taken the green pill, older Australians are more sceptical.