Bob Carter's op-ed in The Age

Climate sense

Rubs eyes in disbelief. Yes, I did read that correctly. Carter gets published in the opinion pages of Pravda on the Yarra. That noise you can hear in the distance is all the urban-green trendy Age readers in Toorak choking on their organic muesli and skinny mocha soy lattes.

So here are Carter’s five “inconvenient” facts, which most Fairfax readers (or ABC listeners/watchers) would never have been exposed to:

Fact 1. A mild warming of about 0.5 degrees Celsius (well within previous natural temperature variations) occurred between 1979 and 1998, and has been followed by slight global cooling over the past 10 years. Ergo, dangerous global warming is not occurring.

Fact 2. Between 2001 and 2010 global average temperature decreased by 0.05 degrees, over the same time that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 5 per cent. Ergo, carbon dioxide emissions are not driving dangerous warming.

Fact 3. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial. In increasing quantity it causes mild though diminishing warming (useful at a time of a quiet sun and likely near-future planetary cooling) and acts as a valuable plant fertiliser. Extra carbon dioxide helps to shrink the Sahara Desert, green the planet and feed the world. Ergo, carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor dangerous, but an environmental benefit.

Fact 4. Closing down the whole Australian industrial economy might result in the prevention of about 0.02 degrees of warming. Reducing emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 (the government’s target) will avert an even smaller warming of about 0.002 degrees. Ergo, cutting Australian emissions will make no measurable difference to global climate.

Fact 5. For an assumed tax rate of $25 a tonne of carbon dioxide, the costs passed down to an average family of four will exceed $2000 a year.

There’s also a poll, which asks “Do you think tackling climate change is a priority for Australia?” – so far 74% say NO. Hmm.

Read it here.


  1. I did read the article today and it prompted me to do some searching on Bob Carter (which is how I wound up here!). Unfortunately most of the results seem to be of the opinion that his research, while rigorous, tends to pick facts to suit his hypothesis. It’s a shame that the IPA seemed to pick the wrong man to represent them – they should go with someone who can publish more credibly for a better representation of their views.

    • The consensus boys allege cherry-picking at the drop of a hat. Yet the standards in their own back yards is far, far worse. Follow the money, I’m afraid…

    • If by “tends to pick facts to suit” you mean cherry picking or bias, see what the InterAcadamy Council ( highest academic body on the planet) said about the IPCC and their Fourth Assessment Report HERE;
      AR4 is not a proper “assessment”” as the authors were not independent and did not consider the full range of available knowledge.”
      Selection bias was rampant – both in terms of personnel and the publications included for assessment.
      AR4 did not even get to the first step in considering the range of thoughtful views.
      Controversial issues did not receive appropriate consideration as even the weak existing procedures were not followed.
      There is no evidence that all thoughtful views were considered.
      The IPCC indulged in advocacy.
      Authors placed too much weight on their on views relative to other views.
      WG2 SPM amplified the negative impacts of climate change contained in the underlying report.
      Lead Authors were at liberty to reject critical review comments without justification.

    • Paul – it’s up to you to read both sides of the argument. All the slandering of Carter under the sun does not nullify his 5 facts. Those should be checked independently. Are they true or false? That is the only thing that matters. If you find someone responding to this article by villifying Carter, ask yourself why not respond in kind with facts?

      re : Carter – again decide for yourself. Of particular importance is ‘what does Carter gain from his point of view?’. Unless you want to believe in a secret bank account stuffed with ‘Big Oil’ money, he has very little to gain, as you have no doubt found reams of pages calling him every label under the sun. This is a guy who has actively shunned the IPCC gravy train, withered personal attacks and probably has had his career progression stalled. All because he wants people to truly practice science, and not activism.

      So if you’re really curious [snip], take the time to read both sides of the story and decide for yourself. Don’t look for articles slandering Carter – try and find out if what he says is true.

  2. I also could not believe this one I saw it, it is astonishing. Andrew Bolt interviewed Professor Bob Carter this morning (27th June) on MTR, and the Professor said that they approached him asking if he would like to write an opinion piece. I am just trying to get my head around this, I would really love to know the reason why they finally decided to do this, don’t get me wrong I think it was a great article, but I would love to know why they asked the professor to do this, the mind boggles.

  3. Reggieman says:

    Great to see something like this in the Age, although the title of the article at the top of my web browser says “Climate Change Denialist Bob Carter”. Even though they printed the article they still get their dig in

  4. fred nerk says:

    Good on ya Bob good to read someone fair dinkum for a change instead of Tim(all the brains of a flea circus) Bob(clown) AND JU-LIAR Dillard amongst others who don’t know their arse from their elbow

  5. The idea that we can fix world problems by our actions in Australia is ludicrous – whatever changes we make will be meaningless in the world context.

    I know in point 1 and 2 Carter contends that temperatures have not been going up since 1979, but I can’t find his stats. The first serious (objective?) graph I could find was from NASA.

    • Carter states that temperatures HAVE risen since 1979, but that they have stagnated for the past 10 years, since about 2001/2. As for the GISS dataset, it is run by vocal global warming advocate James Hansen, so there is a clear conflict of interest, manifesting itself in lots of adjustments (fudges). Check out the satellite record here, which are far less susceptible to human intervention.

      • It’s a shame the satellite data doesn’t go back any further – like you say, the period of the last 30 years is too short a time to say one way or the other. Even if the graph does trend slightly upward it’s barely statistically significant. Still, I don’t miss those killer hot summers here in the 2000’s! But that was an El Nino event and too recent to count as long term trend.

    • GISS = not objective, and based on extremely analog data collection and ‘cleaning’ techniques that would make your toes curl. Use Satellite data instead. UAH dataset is the one you want.

  6. Some degree of balance in the debate at last. I hope this goes some way to debunking the consensus myth in the minds of fairfax’s readers.

  7. BigFella says:

    Went to linked article. Hit RT on age page and guess what the link comes up as? “Climate Change Denialist Bob Carter via @theage” even ‘tho their article is headed, “An inconvenient fallacy”. Typical BS hypocrisy of MSM on this issue. Same sh*t, different day.

  8. Yes, a good article, but it’s a shame no comments section. Would love to have seen the litany of abuse and popping of heads that would have followed. Because it’s unlikely that any of the generated comment and abuse would actually, you know, rebut the 5 facts presented.

    My guess is that it’s an Age piece to be used as evidence of ‘balance’ when the question comes up.

    The title though ‘climate denialist’ – in his arguments he talks of temperature changes over multi-decade periods. I hardly think that’s denying climate change exists?

  9. There’s also a poll, which asks “Do you think tackling climate change is a priority for Australia?”

    True to form, The Age cannily designs the question to maximise the “Yes” vote because, conceivably, many may vote “Yes” on the strength of Carter’s penultimate paragraph:

    But natural climate hazard in Australia is so dangerous that nonetheless a need remains for a politically feasible, environmentally sensible and cost-effective climate policy. That policy should be to prepare for and adapt to all climatic hazards, as and when they occur and whatever their cause.

    Yet so repugnant has the debased term “climate change” become and so reviled is the alarmist religion that even readers of The Age are not having a bar of it.

  10. The whole ‘debate’ does remind me of the old Goodies episode…

    Tim Brooke Taylor: Look at this! “Nine out of ten doctors agree that
    when you don’t eat Sunblest natural bread, you’ll get squashed
    by elephants!”
    Graeme Garden: That’s right! Mind you, it did take us a while to find
    the right nine doctors. [makes loony signal] And the elephants.
    (Goodies: It Might As Well Be String)

    • The old fallacy – science isn’t counting heads. It is by testing of hypotheses. Remember the “consensus” of spicy food and stress causing stomach ulcers? Blown away by two dedicated scientists who carried out empirical research. And you also have to consider the climate science funding dilemma – that catastrophic conclusions will generate more funding than null hypothesis conclusions, which is why so many “sceptics” are retired from mainstream research.

  11. 2GB’s Ross Greenwood just played a recording of a Gillard rant to the effect that selling the carbon tax is like coaxing children to eat their vegetables. My God, what a revolting woman.

    • coaxing children to eat their vegetables

      Dog-poop yogurt, more like.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      My God, what a revolting woman.

      The vegetables thing blew me away. Who the hell does this woman think she is, and more to the point, who or what does she think we are?

  12. Interesting, there is a poll attached to the article. Yesterday the poll was only going to be open for 24 hours. The results last night were 27 / 73. Now today the poll shows open for another 2 days. Maybe the fairfax heirachy didnt like the result so are giving more time to enable them to rally the troops. Currently 33/67, so it has improved a bit for them, but it is still 2/3 that say that tackling climate change should not be a priority for Australia. Still dont like the way the question is worded, as I dont think that the Govts definition of climate change is the same as mine.

  13. I have a terrible suspicion that Bob has been allowed to comment, only so they can tear him down.. then claim.. look what the denier said – see we told you it’s all lies.
    Of course the rebuttal they produce will use cherry picked statistics (like Jones recent ‘statistical’ warming since 1998), and be light on truth, and heavy on rhetoric…
    Then, they will refuse Bob a chance to respond to the rebuttal.. leaving the alarmist tripe as ‘the last word’
    … I hope I’m wrong

  14. Update on the poll, now sitting at 46/54 with over 11,000 votes. Seems that Fairfax has done a fair job in mobilising the troops after leaving the poll open for another day.

%d bloggers like this: