Last week I wrote about
how Bob Carter was out by a factor of 20 in an estimate of how much
warming could be attributed to human activity. He has now posted the
text of another
talk where he
gives a source for his bogus claim. It’s href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123013,00.html"
rel="nofollow">this FOXNews opinion piece by Steve
Milloy. Carter is a
Research Professor at James Cook University, so you would have thought
he would be aware that opinion columns by non-scientists aren’t the
best source of scientific information, but I guess not.
Some highlights of his talk: He said:
Their assertion is a symptom of a disease called Hansenism which has
gripped western media sources and political, business and public
opinion in a deadly grasp. Hansenist climate hysteria is driven by
relentless, ideological, pseudo-scientific drivel, most of which
issues from green political activists and their supporters, and is
then promulgated by compliant media commentators who are innocent of
knowledge of true scientific method. Opportunistically, and sadly,
some scientists, too, contribute to the Hansenist alarmism. Sir
Roderick Carnegie was quite correct when he formerly identified such
environmental lobbying and emotional propaganda as a greater threat to
our society and way of life than, in its heyday, was communism.
James Hansen. Worse than Stalin and Mao COMBINED!!
Why Hansenism? Because James Hansen was the NASA-employed scientist who started the climate alarmism hare running on June 23, 1988, when he appeared before a United States Congressional hearing on climate change. On that occasion, Dr Hansen used a misleading graph to convince his listeners that warming was taking place at an accelerated rate (which, it being a scorching summer’s day in Washington, a glance out of the window appeared to confirm).
What actually happened was
that Hansen presented to Congress a graph showing scenarios for high,
medium and low CO2 growth and said that the medium growth
scenario was most likely. The medium growth scenario has turned out
to be a good prediction of the subsequent increase in temperatures
When Michaels testified before Congress ten years later he
erased the medium and low curves and claimed that
because the high prediction was wrong, the climate model was faulty.
And while we are on the subject of misleading graphs, Carter presents
that shows average temperatures falling since 1998. Oddly enough, he
uses a 25 month moving average to smooth the curve instead of the
conventional five year moving average. If you smooth it in the
the average doesn’t fall, but increases steadily.
Carter goes on to say that “Hansenism” is like Lysenkoism, only worse,
cite Bray’s bogus survey and the Oregon petition and to suggest that
Australia hire Bjorn Lomborg to run an Institute of Environmental
Assessment because CSIRO and BOM can’t be trusted.
I dunno about the last one, maybe Philip Cooney would be a better choice?
I have rewarded Carter with his own category on my blog.