What he does debunk is the notion that there is a scientific basis and consensus for the Global Warming arguments put forth by the media and the UN bureaucrats. He argues as a scientist that there is no valid science to support their claims. Might their suppositions be true. Sure. It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of something and inductively very difficult. But the claims being made today are that the GW notions have a solid and widespread scientific foundation. This Carter debunks to my satisfaction.
Makes sense. I disagree with many of Carter’s conclusions, but I believe he is knowledgible, articulate, and a good counterbalance to some of those that ignorantly say “the debate is over.” I have only one real issue with him. Like his countryman Tim Flannery he seems to have “taken a side” and assumed the role of an advocate. It’s not what he says (which is often compelling) it’s what he doesn’t say. He calls himself a climate agnostic, and then talks about all the reasons that anthropogenic climate change may not be occurring, but simply dismisses the evidence that it could be occurring as theory rather than science. The problem with that approach is that, sometimes in life you need to act on theory, because if you wait for proof it is too late. If you accept that there is a GHG effect (which he does), and you accept we are increasing GHGs to a substantial degree (which he does), and you accept that temperatures have risen since 1850 (which he does)—is it enough to credibly demonstrate (as he does) that there could be nonanthropogenic causes? I mean if a man’s family was getting sick, and he thought there was a 40% chance that air quality in the home was the issue—would it make sense to wait until he could definitely show by scientific method that air quality was the issue before taking action?