I think Leo Lane should also try his misinformation on http://www.skepticalscience.com/
All the persons you have mentioned have been totally discredited, by creditable scientist.
All you do is to make assertions without anything to backup your statements each can be pulled apart with a little research.
There is no point in responding to your requests as you really do not want to know anyway.

Leo Lane
An analogy for you and other deniers of AGW.

I have a sick child and I take him to the doctor and his opinion is that urgent surgery is required.

I decide on a second opinion and third and eventually get them from a 100 doctors, a very few (less than 5%) say no problems do not worry.

Will I take the risk?

Especially when I know the 5% (names of the people that you mentioned) have been discredited by their peers, researchers and others.

I am surprised you did not put in the ‘expert’ Monktons name is a well.

I will also point out some of the names you included are speaking out of their area of expertise they are not climate scientists.

Coming back to the analogy, the problem with my child is an appendix and the doctors who said not a problem are surgeons specialising on breast augmentation.

Talk about grasping at straws! The names Carter, Plimer, Nova, Marohasy are certainly well known, but not as climate scientists, merely as contrarians with some significant links to the mining sector, and a long record of hostility towards conservation. LL wants the IPCC to assert as absolute certainty that human activities influence climate. Sorry Leo, that's not how science works. There are levels of confidence, and accumulations of evidence, and the IPCC has conservatively stated 90% certainty. There are thousands of published scientific papers addressing different aspects of the research. Before the 2009 Copenhagen meeting, of ill memory, a group of eminent climate scientists (including several Australians) compiled a booklet intended to summarise the latest in climate research. It is called The Copenhagen Diagnosis, published by the University of New South Wales. The six pages of expert references will give you a good place to start with the real science, rather than the politico-economic protestations of mining engineers. See: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

Talk about grasping at straws! The names Carter, Plimer, Nova, Marohasy are certainly well known, but not as climate scientists, merely as contrarians with some significant links to the mining sector, and a long record of hostility towards conservation. LL wants the IPCC to assert as absolute certainty that human activities influence climate. Sorry Leo, that's not how science works. There are levels of confidence, and accumulations of evidence, and the IPCC has conservatively stated 90% certainty. There are thousands of published scientific papers addressing different aspects of the research. Before the 2009 Copenhagen meeting, of ill memory, a group of eminent climate scientists (including several Australians) compiled a booklet intended to summarise the latest in climate research. It is called The Copenhagen Diagnosis, published by the University of New SOuth Wales. The six pages of expert references will give you a good place to start with the real science, rather than the politico-economic protestations of mining engineers. See: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

Oh Leo, try the US National Academy of Sciences - a more careful and conservative - and competent - assessor of the state of climate science would be hard to find. Try every leading scientific institution in the world that studies climate. SkepticalScience is a good place too - every assertion includes links and references to peer reviewed scientific papers and climate data. You could find all the supporting science yourself - if you really wanted to and didn't consider claims that climate science is wrong to be self evidently true with no skeptical critiquing (those like skepticalscience being self evidently wrong too).

The hottest decade on record, following the next hottest decade on record, following the next hottest decade on record, rising sea levels, rising ocean heat content, glacial retreats, accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets .... and you reject outright the only scientific explanation that successfully explains it all. Plimer, Carter, Nova and Marahosy? But never the US Academy of Sciences, CSIRO or NOAA? And you think I'M gullible?

So, PeterA, and nicco, you have no science to back the assertion of AGW, and resort to the usual alarmist farrago of misdirection, misinformation, and sliming of reputable scientists.

The IPCC approach is not science. It is not science to produce a summary setting out a political statement and then, months later, produce the science and conceal and misdirect, to hide the fact that the science does not match the mendacious summary.

Only when this nonsense comes before a Court, which compels disclosure of facts can this be clearly seen.

In the XStrata case the fourth summary was shown not to conform with the very science attached to it. A swatch of colour had been added to a graph to distract readers, but the graph was able to be read and showed that the assertions in the summary were incorrect.

That is science the IPCC way.

Do you pair have any facts or science to back the AGW fraud?

A rhetorical question, because if you had any, you would have put it up.

Why not spend your time on a ratbag site, like sceptical science, where they all post nonsense, instead of making fools of yourselves on a sensible site like this?

Ken Fabos has disappeared, as he routinely does, when questioned, and is no doubt posting nonsense somewhere else.

We need a Royal Commission to put a stop to this madness.

Once enough petitions hit the desks in Parliament House, the politicians will face the inevitable, and this sick game will be stopped.