nicco, I set out clearly Carter’s background. Carter is a leading climate scientist. You cannot be as ignorant as you pretend.

Your assertion that “whole scientific literature has been nobbled, an improbable possibility”. Read the Climategate emails, and see the reality.

McLean et al prepared a paper which showed that climate was governed by natural cycles.

It took McLean a year to have his paper published in the Journal of Geological Research. It is not new science, but emphasised that climate follows natural cycles, leaving little room for the proposition that human activity affects climate.

The Climategate emails show the concern of the miscreants that this Journal published such material. Removal of the editor was proposed. (The editor who published McLean’s paper was in fact, subsequently removed.). This is the sort of influence that these people have been able to wield. Three spurious “enquiries" into Climategate, each purporting to “clear” the conspirators, show their influence has not waned.

The Climategate gang put together a “refutation” by Grant Foster et al, which was apparently embarrassing in its composition, considering that it was supposed to be a scientific document. One reviewer said as much, but the paper was expeditiously published in JGR. The improper obtaining of this treatment is evidenced in this email:

“Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. Mike is President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28, 2009.

McLean et al promptly submitted a dismissal of the criticism and submitted it to the JGR. The new editor refused to publish it. This was unprecedented conduct and eventually was reversed, so that the refutation was in fact published after a considerable delay.

This is one example of the scurrilous dealings of the Climategate miscreants, evidenced by emails.

Raycom says: "It is the politically-motivated climate scientists and science bodies that continue to promote the AGW ideology and act contrary to national and international interests." This seems to me to put the finger on the problem. If you believe in conspiracy theories, world government, socialist plots and all the rest, it is possible (just) to see the major scientific institutions around the world as being "politically-motivated". If, on the other hand, you take a more objective view, it is simply not possible to deduce the political leanings of any scientist just from the papers that they have had published in journals such as Nature, Science, PNAS, JGR, EOS, and so on. The scientists may have strong political views, but these views are not reflected in their peer-reviewed publications.

Conversely, if individuals associate themselves with (for example) the IPA in Australia, or the Heartland Institute or the Cato Institute in the USA, it is reasonable to conclude that they are politically motivated - these are political institutions after all.

Personally, I am much more inclined to accept the scientific credibility of individuals who have no overt political connections, and the scientific credibility of the major institutions and academies who also have no overt political connections. I do not believe that the Australian Academy, or CSIRO, or BoM, are corrupt.

Raycom gives away his/her own position, once again, by referring to climate science as an "ideology". It isn't. It's a scientific theory, with overwhelming evidence (observed and measured) in its favour.

Leo Lane continues to live in a fantasy land, and it is not worth anyone's time to respond to his farrago of discredited misinformation.

If individuals associate themselves with (for example) the IPCC, the UN, Al Gore, nicco, it is reasonable to conclude that they are politically motivated.

James Hansen, the father of the AGW scam is Al Gore’s adviser. Hansen is a scientist at NASA where he constantly adjusts the global temperature data, and any adjustment constantly favours alarmist assertions.

Hansen is a statistician (is that a climate scientist, nicco?) and he constantly has to make objective judgements. They have ceased to be objective, because his association with Gore, an acknowledged liar and fraud, prevents him from being scientifically objective. He is corrupted by politics. The data at NASA is corrupted by politics, so is NASA not corrupted by politics?

You say: ”I do not believe that the Australian Academy, or CSIRO, or BoM, are corrupt.”

Why, then , have they put forward corrupt information? For example:
“Bureau of Meteorology senior climatologist Andrew Watkins said that monitoring at Australia's Antarctic bases since the 1950s indicated temperatures were rising.” In fact they were falling, and Watson refused to release information, which showed the truth, when requested.

http://tinyurl.com/3vk9ng4

I have put forward facts and evidence in my posts.

nicco considers these facts and evidence to be fantasy. She gives no factual basis for any of her wild assertions.

You are an incredibly silly girl, nicco.

Oh for goodness sake! The Weekend Australian (not an unbiased source!) reported and interpreted an ongoing dispute between two researchers, neither of whom doubted global climate change, but who were both involved in Antarctic research. Even The Weekend Australian noted that the BoM researcher was reluctant to disclose data to them "because it had still to be fully analysed". Corrupt? Or merely cautious, after an unhappy experience with a journalist.

Antarctic weather and climate are extremely complex, but have significant effects on global climate. Antarctic land ice is decreasing (melting) while Antarctic sea ice is increasing. The gains and losses are also different across the Antarctic continent because of local wind and weather and increased precipitation. But the sum total is that the Antarctic continent is losing mass. See http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

And no, it is not reasonable to conclude that individuals associated with the IPCC or the UN are politically motivated. They may or may not be (that's their business), but it is not self-evident, as it is in the case of individuals who are publicly associated with overtly political bodies such as the IPA or the Heartland Institute.

And why this obsessive fixation with Al Gore (a retired politician, of little interest to anyone in Australia)?

If you believe renewable cannot provide continuous power generation on a national grid basis you need to look further. You could start here http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/03/05/worlds-7-biggest-solar-energy-plants/

So far as Nuclear, if there had been a military use for nuclear fusion then it would have been developed as quickly as nuclear Fission was (just 20 years after splitting the atom. In about double that time, slow progress on a process which has no dangerous aspects of the fission kinds, continues with the first plant due not before 2020. Had just a reasonable chunk of the resources applied to exploration of space which have given little more than fantastic new knowledge, we would have such clean and prolific generators already generating rendering fossil fuel history.(As if corporate America-Britain-Europe would have let that happen!)

Condemn nuclear Fission every way you can, but don't put Nuclear Fusion in the same anti-nuclear power station argument, it has no validity!

Carbon Tax? I agree, not at all required, just determination to live without producing so much of it JUST IN CASE IT WILL DESTROY ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET .... DER!

It simply does not require a carbon tax which has proven only that production of all the unnecessary stuff we (mostly "we" as in we western societies)think we NEED to live happy and fulfilling lives!

Warmists constantly make false assertions about the antarctic, which has not warmed for 35 years, and Watkins was caught out. He withdrew his assertion. It was not, as you falsely claim, nicco, a difference between researchers. You are simply dishonest in asserting that

William Kininmonth was formerly head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation. He is author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-science Publishing, 2004)(Is he a climate scientist nicco?). He sums it up:
“The suggestion that future hazardous climate events could in any way be mitigated by the control of carbon dioxide emissions is absurdity in the extreme.”

Is he corrupt, nicco?

Gore, in case you have forgotten won a joint Nobel prize with the IPCC for lying about global warming. Al (35 lies in 90 minutes) Gore gave this AGW nonsense a big start with his misleading 90 minute film. He wrought damage in Australia as well as elsewhere in the world. His own country woke up to him.

Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist of the CSIRO, says the organisation cannot be trusted:
"Sadly, over the last decade, CSIRO has transformed itself from a once-respected research institute into a highly centralised, government enterprise (oxymoron?), replete with intersecting layers of expensive management, focused on continual reorganisation. Scientific independence has been lost…"

Thanks for clarifying, nicco, that if someone tells the scientific truth about AGW, but have political affiliations, their science is political, but if it is a lie about AGW, issued by the IPCC, then it is not up to us to judge that it is political. That is what your post says.

I was under the impression that if a scientist issued a scientific paper published in a scientific journal then it was science, unless it emanated from Climategate miscreants associated with the IPCC, and can be shown by their own emails to be corrupt, in which case I would classify it as political. I gave an example of this in my post above.

Perhaps, nicco, you are simply beyond help.