Professor Bob Carter

That was good. I've watched dozens of vids just like it, all poking gaping holes in the untenable position of the AGW fanatics. I wonder what sort of vids they watch to reinforce their mob hysteria.

"I wonder what sort of vids they watch to reinforce their mob hysteria."

Bugs Bunny cartoons.

John Christy mentioned in this vid#3, and in the CBC newsworld vid that was linked in readers tips today.
Both these vids made quite awhile ago.
The final torpedo, of course, is the release of data from CRU.

AGW is toast,
Copenhagen is just a city in Denmark.
Thanks for this and all your info gathering Kate.

Here is a nice article about Wikipedia and global warming propaganda: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

A-ha! That explains it.

Thank you for that,kate, I shall E-mail this to all local media outlets so some of the AGW acolytes there can possibly start to develop a little skepticism.

great videos. This will not be the end of it though. In spite of all the torpedos the religion of global warming will live on and the western world will send billions of dollars to terrorists and dictators because this debate never was about science but about politics, power and money

bluetech, not sure what you mean by "both these vids made quite a while go." In the series Kate has posted here, Dr. Carter mentions the Climategate fiasco, so this has to be very recent.

[sarcasm on]
Irrelevant! This is a denier site.
[sarcasm off]

Happened to be over at Bill Gairdner's site and found this link.

http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

Enjoy.

Very competent presentation by qualified scientist. The nattering left is right about the need for a Royal Commission, initiated by the fsderal government, but instead of investigating detainees purportedly beaten by shoes, the focus should be on the attempt to subvert the economy, and society, by the green lobby (of watermelons). " man induced global warming is an attempt by the left (socialists) to redistribute wealth"

Thanks louise. I missed his Climategate reference.
I was referring to the date at the side Sept/07.

Do we know when this was originally presented.He didn't mention Cop15 either.

This is the other vid I was referring to.
Posted in Readers tips, Dec.19, @5:00a.m.
knight 99
from CBC newsworld

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzZdAfx37d8&feature=player_profilepage

BTW it looks like Prof. Carter's presentation has been on youtube for 2 years.

The date September 11, 2007 is when the guy calling himself "Bushvision" registered as a YouTube user. It's not the date Dr. Carter series was uploaded. I'll have to go and see if I can stomach that CBC presentation.

This video cannot be new, because we discussed it
on January 3, 2008, here at Small Dead Animals:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007740.html#c227388

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDSnyz1Wytw

Are these the 2 guys that we are supposed to be following on AGW?

Heaven help us if we are.

Momentum has been swinging in favour of the realists or skeptics or "deniers" (denied in the b-ball sense of the word perhaps), ever since about mid-2007. I think this Copenhagen fiasco will embolden some world leaders to take a stronger stand, obviously they have to be mindful of being blindsided by the media if they act too openly before the groundwork is fully there.

Right now I don't think Harper would lose (net) any voter support if he started to drop hints that he didn't believe in global warming at all.

I wish Reagan or Thatcher were still around, their response to this would be fascinating (but perhaps not quite as direct as some of us might think).

Personally, having been at this for many years, I feel like the conservative blogosphere has finally won a major battle. Our attempt to discredit same sex marriage has not seen the same success, in part because it tends to divide the conservative camps into so-con and libertarian points of view. I think there are more subtle dangers involved in society's apparent acceptance of same sex marriage or perhaps more appropriately, public homosexuality, but since I figure we are in the very last stages of this age of troubles, I take solace in the idea that He whose opinion really counts is about to make an appearance.

But I'm glad we won this victory on this side of that great divide. It makes me think perhaps it's time to retire from internet blogging altogether, as the other big issues really belong to a younger generation. I don't really need to worry about freedom of speech that much, we can say what we want at the old folks' home, nobody understands it anyway.

Merry Christmas (if you don't mind that religious intrusion).

That was a great talk. I would love to see Professor Carter and Lord Moncton together. Now that would make some leftys explode.

Re: pmsh talking up AGW as being insignificant

This will be a very tough one to time correctly. I think there is little doubt that it will happen. Prentice is already making references in his speeches to investing in "adaptation" instead of reduction of output. This is clearly the sanest approach and the cheapest as catastophic AGW doesn't exist.

In what seem a few years the Gorestradamus predictions will be revealed to be so much anti-humanity wishful thinking by a senator's son. Currently there is no harm in staying put on the 'AGW does exist' stance and going forward I would expect PMSH to slowly bend his adjectives around AGW so that they minimize the risk and consequences of not acting more and more to the point of nothingness.

It is up to us and people like us to tear away the credibility of the AGW lobby until it collapses utterly and clears the way for politicians to pull away the cape and insert the blade.

What I'd really like to see is a transcript of all 4 parts along with the slides. I did watch the first part and Dr. Carter is a very good speaker but don't have time to watch the remaining 3 sections of this lecture.

What I find puzzling about the warmists is their incredibly short-sighted view of the world. To the warmists it appears that the remote past (100 years ago and more) was an idyllic static paradise that we are ruining by pumping plant food into the air. When one looks at the scale of the last 500,000 years what I would find very concerning is the fact that the temperature trend has been downwards for the last 5000 years.

I don't think that warmists can wrap their brains around the concept that all of Canada was under a mile or more of ice a mere 18,000 years ago and the presumption that humans with current technology can influence global climate is just laughable. I thought that science had abandoned homocentric views after Galileo, but obviously the lesson of this monumental scientific event has been lost on recent generations.

What I've sadly concluded after a half-century or so of observing people is that only a small minority of people are able to view reality objectively. There was an amusing map I saw some years back which was the US seen from the point of view of a New Yorker. This consisted of a non-linear mapping of the city of NY, cities very close to it and the rest of the US onto the US map so that the suburbs of NY were in the midwest and everything else was squashed against the W. coast. This is how the warmists see the earth's history except the distortion occurs in a temporal dimension.

As Dr. Carter noted there is a problem of pollution to deal with and the Chinese coal powered electrical plants are discharging large amounts of particulate matter and toxic chemicals into the air. CO2 is the most beneficial of the products of combustion from these plants. The earth is going to go into another ice age and this solar minimum might be the one which starts the process. The only urgency I can see is a crash program to dramatically increase energy production through a massive building program of breeder reactors and hopefully in another 20 years we'll have practical fusion energy happening. The whole notion of "renewable" energy looks particularly idiotic from under a mile of ice. We also need to get moving on having a much large human presence in space so that the next dinosaur killer asteroid can be deflected and also to serve as a place to emigrate for people who don't want to be around Gaians. I was hoping that I'd be living either on the moon or Mars by now (40 years ago) and the lack of technologic progress has been one of the most frustrating things I've had to deal with over the last few decades. Once the first space elevator is built a lot of dirty manufacturing can be economically transferred off the earth and the cost of climbing out of Earth's gravity well will be drastically reduced. These are things that I consider it important for humans to do and I'm willing to pay taxes to support them but there is no damn way I'm going to support programs designed to hasten the extinction of the human race (which seems to be the goal of warmists).

Lest We Forget.

Syncro

Thanks again, Kate, for posting this stuff for us. Watched all 4 & keep learning more and more.

Just watched all four videos.

Makes me wish I could take Gore, Suzuki, the usual msm reporters, and various greenpeacers, tape their eyes open / mouths shut, sit them in a room and make them watch these, over and over again.

@Peter O'Donnell

Don't forget that Prime Minister Thatcher had training in chemistry and was nobody's fool. I'm told she was an early leader in banning CFCs. Here's a speech she gave to the Royal Society in which she mentions global warming. Highlights:

"I confess that I am quite pleased that I didn't continue my work on glyceride monolayers in the early 1950s or I might never have got here at all! "

"Engineering and scientific advance have given us transport by land and air, the capacity and need to exploit fossil fuels which had lain unused for millions of years. One result is a vast increase in carbon dioxide. And this has happened just when great tracts of forests which help to absorb it have been cut down."

"Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some[fo 4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability...It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s—though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain!"

(Hint to the reader: that last bit is a joke and shows that as someone with a scientific background, Thatcher understands the difference between climate and weather (i.e. meteo en francais))

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107346

The basic science behind climate change has been well understood since the 1980s, the videos in this SDA post are a crock. But don't believe me, ask Isaac Asimov:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO0sCs8jI4k

Hey there Izzy, if you would watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" you'd find that Maggie Thatcher was promoting the AGW idea in order to nail the coal unions. She needed something bad to be believed about coal to help garner support among the populace. Strictly political, just like the rest of the AGW scam.

So the political leader of an entire country, who has a background in science, publicly endorses a scientific fraud in order to win a political battle against a single union? Did she also perhaps endorse alchemy as leverage against the chemical unions?

These types of intellectual contortions are not skepticism, they're pure credulity.

loki @ 11:09
people have short memories;eg the number of folks who ought to know better have told me "the Americans over reated to 9/11; we Canadians would never over reate like that". I then point out when a diplomat and provincial cabinet minister were kidnapped and the cabinet minster murdered, we really suspended civil liberties (ie arrest with warrant, detention without charge or trial)and put the army in the streets.

Ask a Vancourite why older homes have a half basement? They don't know. Then ask them where the homeowner of 60 years ago stored the coal for the furnace. "Homes were heated with coal?" is the standard reponse.

Yes, for some people 100 years ago was "like forever!"

"people have short memories"

That's an excellent statement.

Well folks, Izzy has spoken, the debate is over.
A person "best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books" spoke about global warming 20 years ago, so the rest of us should keep quiet.
If "the videos in this SDA post are a crock" perhaps you could refute some of Prof. Carter's carefully reasoned arguments, with, I don't know, maybe some actual evidence or something.

The big problem is that with the proponents of AGW the science is settled. Therefore no one of any credibility will step forward and engage in a real gloves-off debate with the likes of Carter and Moncton.

Climategate has been the biggest single event in helping to debunk AGW. Polls, in North America at least, are showing more folks doubting the theory and the science than say 3 months ago.

This presentation by Carter may be a couple of years old but is even more timely and effective today with the revelation that is Climategate and the utter failure of Copenhagen. Credible people like Carter and Moncton have to keep putting it out there.

With the Creation/evolution debate we are often presented with classy debates. I'm a believer in Creation yet I really appreciate when Hitchens and Dawkins get on stage and face the challenge.

Jones, Mann, Suzuki and Gore...and other big faces and names for AGW...went in to hiding this past month. The complacent MSM gave them a few 'outing' but they are too chickento debate the likes of Carter and Montcalm.

rmgk at December 20, 2009 12:50 AM
[....Just watched all four videos.

Makes me wish I could take Gore, Suzuki, the usual msm reporters, and various greenpeacers, tape their eyes open / mouths shut, sit them in a room and make them watch these, over and over again.]

My Dad instructed me on the anatomy of a lie.
First you must know the truth to construct the lie.
Gore, Suzuki,the usual msm reporters, and various greenpeacers already are well acquainted with the truth-----their spin proves it.

cooling during the Christian Era - who should be blame for that? I think hit up the Christian countries. oh yeah- that is the Copenhagen accord.

We are presented with an interesting opportunity (again) to observe how our modern culture handles truth. This video presents The Truth about climate change, and the data its based on have been known for many years.

Ice cores have been getting dug up in the Arctic and Antarctic since a loooong time, probably since the 1950's. I remember these ice age temperature graphics from my dinosaur books as a little kid. I have always known that it has been both -much- hotter and -much- colder right here in Southern Ontario. There are glacial moraines not two miles from here to remind me of both cooling AND warming, as they are formed by glaciers which are retreating. These facts are verifiable through ice cores, archeology, geology, countless methods to arrive at the same evidence: It has been warmer than today, and the world did not end. It has been colder than today, and the world did not end.

But over the last 20 to 30 years the entire climate science agenda has been bent on obscuring and denying this reality which we all know. Coincidentally TV became the dominant news platform during that time, and a lot of scholarly specialties have been taken over by post-modern leftists. I watched it happen in Anthropology as a kid, and am watching it happen in medicine presently.

Now, today, we finally have people willing to RE-tell the truth, but not on TV. Coincidentally we have the internet providing another news source independent of TV, radio, newspapers and wire services.

What will be most illuminating is the length of time it takes for decision makers in private industry and government to adjust to this re-revelation of what we all learned at school back in the day.

Cranky reactionary curmudgeons like Rush Limbaugh (and myself, and Kate, and y'all, sorry but that's our role in this narrative) have been raging on since the late 1980's that AGW is a freakin' fairy tale being told by real fairies, but we don't really count. We're just cranky.

What counts is the emergence of the non-cranky, non-conservative "reasonable" people. Meaning mildly left leaning liberal academics who looked at the data and said "Hey, wait a second... WTF is this?" These would be people who woke up one morning and realized that somebody spiked the koolaid they drank in undergrad Climate 101.

Right now we are about five years into the Rise of the Reasonable Climate Skeptics by my fairly sloppy rule of thumb, and the true believers are starting to get upset. Bets are starting to be hedged, Wall Street types are moving money around, the craftier politicians are very quietly making new deals in case the existing AGW deal falls through. How much longer will it take the rats to run off and the AGW ship to sink?

I've been making the prediction that Obama will be the last presidential candidate in the USA to run on AGW/climate change. The problem with that prediction is that it assumes a certain amount of common sense and self preservation on the Left side of the spectrum. This may not be possible for them though, because they have so deeply bought in to the ideological Green movement that they will go down with it. They are in this far, far deeper than they were with gun control in the 1990's and their own people probably won't allow them to escape. Obama (or much more likely his replacement, I don't see Bary getting the Democrat nomination in 2012 after the Hopenchangen FIASCO he just put on) may well be forced by the nutroots of the Democrat party to run on an eco-fiend-ly carbon-tax-em-till-they-bleed platform to Save The World!

I hope so. It'll be AWESOME! ~:D

Another good link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo&feature=channel

Phantom:
Well said.

Excellent presentation. But, by the time the msm, academia, Hollywood, bureaucrats, corporate rent seekers, ENGO hysteria pimps, and political whores have divested their interests in the AGW narrative, the next glaciation may be upon us. Time to rethink that Mexican condo?

Great presentation! My favourite line: "being a climate scientist these days is like living in a Dali painting."

Phantom...I would really like to agree with you.
This vid series has been available for 2 years, and many others have been providing the same info. Now the leaked CRU data. Those events alone should encourage us.
I am , however somewhat pessimistic. The left has been irritated. They are hissing. And the media and our own politicians continue to spout the AGW agenda.(I tune in to CBC and CTV just to find out the spin)
In my own circle of friends and family the majority are watching and drinking the spin.

We are a minority.

Great videos, the usual type of responses. Just as a check, I watched a response video to #4. It was a slick piece that prompted me to post back to them "Malthus. Ehrlich (Population Bomb). mjtable.
The predictions of the 3rd are about as likely as the predictions of the first 2 to come true. This is not a scientific based video response, it is a propaganda piece. When the current 10 year variation cannot be modelled you cannot make a case for future variations.

Oh, and science has never been about consensus. The idea that a patent clerk could take on the mighty Newton was foolish. The clerk's name was Einstein. He was right. You're not."

I don't expect the author to "get it". It would be nice if the merits of a scientific theory that has the potential to change all of our lives could be discussed in a scientific fashion. I don't expect it will happen in my lifetime.

That was an excellent presentation. Again, the problem is not entirely within the scientific community since, for the most part, I'm hard pressed to find anyone with a sound knowledge of science who, having reviewed the pertinent scientific reports, gives AGW any credence. The problem lies in the complete disconnect between solid science on the one hand the MSM and the political establishment on the other.

But if the masses believe in AGW .. then it must be true ... and the only way to alleviate the horrendous angst that resides in the minds of mostly women and children .. traumatically inculcated by the likes of Suzuki and Gore - a couple of believable people ... then the threat is quite real in the minds of the masses ... and the science be damned ... we must pay more in taxation to our political and governmental organizations, who will gladly take the taxpayer's money and assure them that all will be well over the next century .... but .... if they refuse to pay a 'carbon tax', all hell will reign down on them and their great-grandchildren ....!!!!

The masses have a mentality of a 12 year old and must be exploited by the political classes to maintain our society and civilization.

The neurotic fear over AGW mostly resides in the minds of women and exploitive men who figure they can make a buck over the scam ... just put the women on a guilt trip and scare the crap out of the children ... a la Suzuki ... believe it.