Isn't Prof Carter simply fantastic!
Thank you all for the websites – I've added them to my collection for bedtime reading.

It is said that a group of five economists will give you at least six or seven different opinions as to what is likely to happen to the economy. Well, I guess the same must be true of climatologists.

He certainly raises doubts about the validity of the current received wisdom on climate change, and places a major question mark over the stance being taken by the IPCC and our political leaders.

I wonder how long it will be before we are all being exhorted to produce as much CO2 as possible in order to mitigate the effects of the coming ice-age.

I was left thinking that the only thing we can be absolutely sure about is that the climate WILL change, possibly dramatically, in one direction or the other.

Perhaps we should really be preparing ourselves for a world that will just be very different to what we are experiencing now.

Prof Carter's lecture is on YouTube as four separate segments:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Alarmists here seem to be retreating into their laager shouting "consensus". Firstly there is no scientific consensus as the Oregon petition of 17,000 scientists opposing warming catastrophism proves, though there certainly is a political & media one. Secondly science does not proceed by defering to authority, that is religion, it actively tries to pull apart theories, using evidence.

I don't want the BBC to become some extended Any Answers type debate where we have uninformed people shouting at each other. I want informed debate and programming.

You might say that they haven't educated the public enough about the causes, problems and solutions of climate change but they are not there to give equal voice to the people who disagree with the vast body of scientific knowledge that supports global climate change. To do so would be similar to bringing on the flat earth society each time you spoke to NASA.

Despite the rhetoric under Labour, emissions have been going up. Because of Labour, people see green tax as just another stealth tax. It could be a way of using market forces to force efficiency.

Its not rocket science, consider the carbon cost of an action as well as the financial one. Look up carbon calculators to work out your impact, then work to reduce it. No need to live in a cave; start by reducing waste and fly less.

it should be emphasised that these are merely hypotheses; they are not established fact. Indeed the supporting evidence is weak and there is a growing body of evidence contradicting these ideas. Why anyone wfould base economic policy on such tenuous propositions beggars belief. Unfortunately our leaders in the 3 main parties and in the eu have failed to do their due diligence, again!

"2. This is caused by the human element in CO2 production, which is increasing." – the first part is unproven, particularly since only 3% of CO2 is manmade. It is however certainly the fact that CO2 is increasing. This makes plants grow faster but may have some negative effects to & does deserve study.

"3. There has to be a substantial reduction in human CO2 production to save the planet." is unjustified by any evidence. Current temperatures are less than in the Medieval Warming Period & significantly less than the Late Roman warming. There are also a number of technological solutions which we could do now for far less than the

Bob Carter, as his name implies, is a no nonsense sort of a chap and his scientific presentation is well worth the 37 minute time investment for those who had been frustrated in their desire to understand this issue before having their own opinion.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/1…

"Recent dramatic changes in the Arctic climate – melting sea ice, warmer ocean, green fields in place of icy wilderness, etc – might not all be directly related to global warming.
The more clement Arctic climate of recent years could have been triggered by shorter term circulation changes in the oceans and atmosphere.

According to a team of NASA scientists, decade-long variations in ocean circulation, known as the Arctic Oscillation, have an effect on the oceans' salinity. A very salty sea is heavier and circulates differently than a less salty one, the team says. This can affect the temperature of the water in the region and thus the local climate."