Saturday, December 5, 2009

Professor Bob Carter on CO2 and Climate Change

I recently came across this interesting four part series where Professor Bob Carter looks at Climate Change and asks the fundamental question: Is CO2 the cause?

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

They are informative and worth a watch.


  1. Great videos, but that 50 Hz hum sound other-worldly.

  2. To Smokin Leroy who left a message to be moderated, I thank you for your message. I am also glad you like the videos.

    Alas, due to a technical glitch (Blogger seems to be rejecting it) I wasn't able to upload you comment - sorry. If I can overcome the problem I will post it later but I just wanted to let you know why it hadn't been posted at this time. I'm also not sure about the 50Hz hum you mentioned in the videos, as I wasn't getting it at this end.

  3. Interesting videos that have made me think about my current views on anthropogenic climate change. However he does unforunately totally miss the point I think that although Gloabl temperature variation is a nautral thing, the real question is wether our current warming faze is natural or anthropogenic. The evidence strongly suggests unfortunately that it is man made, it is scientifically excepted that gases absorb different electro magnetic radiation wavelengths, this absorption leads to a warming effect, on top of this from measurements since the 1960s and from ice cores it is clear gas species which cause this absorption, radiative forcing, have been increasingly hugely. All this is scientific fact, unfortunately at the same time there has been a large temperature rise as mentioned in this video, the true question is wether that is natural, or wether these gases in there much larger concentration than ever recorded in 800,000 years of ice core data are the reason or not. I accept a significant proportion could be natural, but I believe it undeniable our own influence. ..... I wonder if this post will make it past moderation.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Thom,
    My intent here is allow a discussion of views so unlike other blogs (ie RealClimate) I will allow views that differ from what I am presenting provided they are not abusive or offensive to others. Your's is a well thought out and considered response and you are entitled to hold those views. As I have said earlier in my blog it is to show the other side of the story that is rarely seen in the media and to provoke some thought and debate on these issues.

    The only reason your second post was removed was that it was a repeat of the one already shown and therefore was surplus to requirement.

  6. Thanks for these. Useful to see these points summarised in such an accessible way.

    On a stylistic note, one thing I would say is that the combination of graphic at the page top and coloured text make it something of a slog to discern.