Leo Lane, you are, to put it politely, being thick. I will spell it out (again). (1) There are certain organisations, such as the IPA and the Heartland Institute, which are overtly and publicly political. (2) There are other organisations, including for example the Australian Academy of Science, the US Academies of Science, the Geological Society of London, the Royal Society, and many more, which are not overtly political, though being generally "establishment" they tend to be fairly conservative.
(3) Science which is associated with the first group is ipso facto associated with a particular view.
(4) Science associated with the second group has no obvious political association.

Clear?

For Antarctic warming, see:
Steig EJ, Schneider DP, Rutherford SD, Mann ME, Comiso JC, Shindell DT. Warming of the Antarctic ice sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year. Nature 457, p 459-462 (January 22, 2009).

" There are other organisations, including for example the Australian Academy of Science, the US Academies of Science, the Geological Society of London, the Royal Society, and many more, which are not overtly political, though being generally "establishment" they tend to be fairly conservative. " Nicco needs to be enlightened about the political games they play.

An enlightening account is given in Chapter 7: Noble Cause Corruption in Robert M Carter's book, "Climate: The Counter Consensus", published by Stacey International in 2010.

For instance, Carter describes how the Royal Society president, Lord Robert May (a politically-motivated high-profile former government adviser), in 2001 helped organise a statement (entitled "17 National Academies Endorse Kyoto") published in Science magazine that there was a scientific consensus on the danger of human-caused global warming. In 2006, the Royal Society wrote an intimidatory letter to Esso (UK) in an effort to suppress Esso's funding for organisations that opposed the alarmist view on climate change.

He describes how the US National Academy of Sciences has been infiltrated by environmental activist scientists, who were assisted in bypassing the conventional entry vetting procedure. Those elected to the NAS via this route included Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and Susan Solomon.

Congratulations guys - so much dedication and conviction is to be admired.

Now, if only we could come up with a cheap efficient green way to power our homes and office buildings, and to power our cars, life would be beautiful. I guess the Third World's idea of poo-power (methane converting compost digesters) wouldn't go down too well in Oz, but maybe on a grand scale it should not be dismissed. (I mean, Oz is just as full of it as anywhere else, and now most of it goes into the sea, along with a whole lot of other not so friendly stuff.)

Given that, in spite of any deficiencies in the AGW science, we are likely to be heading down the renewables path, the burning question becomes who is offering the best way forward - our PM and a carbon tax and ETS, or Tony Abbott and direct investment. Either way the taxpayer and the consumer will pay, but direct investment seems a lot less messy than the ETS ring-around-rosie. Plebiscite time. Where goes the bet?

Anyhow, I'd like to go green, if I could afford it, and I'd like a portion of mining royalties to go to the research and development of green energy alternatives - though I'm not in favour of a super profits tax, because I don't like the idea of singling out certain industries for "special treatment". If they need to increase the royalties on certain commodities, Ok, as long as it's not overdone.

Green Energy - hydro, geo, solar, bio and wind - I say bring it on!

Saltpetre

Agree with many of the points you raise. Although am concerned about how serious an Abbott lead government is in direct investment into renewables - more inclined to believe Turnbull. Neither party has a clear policy or set of procedures on just how we transition to sustainable technologies.

Raycomm

As for scientific organistions playings political games - that is what humans do from class rooms through to working life. The distinction is that multi-national industries have more clout in the political game than does say the BoM or even the CSIRO.

Big business needs to contribute as well, unfortunately those most threatened by the advent of successful renewable energy (oil, coal, gas and despite 'green' claims, nuclear) have been and are successfully blocking attempts towards the obvious rationality of cleaner renewable energy.

My comment to Saltpetre is that the above mentioned already have made themselves "special cases" - they actually have the dollars to invest in their own renewables, thus saving oil etc for limited use as we require. Unlike tobacco for which there is no alternative and the resultant campaign of lies put forth by the tobacco industry, BP, Exxon, et al have technology which could be better utilised to the benefit of all. However, I don't see that happening anytime soon without some form of incentive.

Saltpetre, your ideas are correct, but it seems to me that we should be able to deal with climate change by choosing to do so, rather than as a by-product of changing to sustainable energy production - even if the result, an excellent result, is the same in the long run.

Meanwhile Raycom's views verge on the paranoid, ascribing dark deeds and conspiratorial motives to the whole scientific establishment. The Royal Society did indeed write a letter to Esso (UK), requesting that ExxonMobil desist from funding organisations which "have misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence." Hardly intimidatory - simply attempting to keep the debate within the bounds of scientific rationality. And Carter is not a credible witness on the subject of climate. He is not a climate scientist, and he has publicly aligned himself with overtly political denialist organisations.

@saltpetre

"SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.—April 6, 2011—The solar photovoltaic (PV) project order backlog for the United States market has now soared past 12 gigawatts (GW), according to the latest edition of the Solarbuzz United States Deal Tracker report"...

"Utility-scale projects under development are found in 29 states, but four states account for 80% of this total, measured in terms of MW. This segment is increasingly being serviced by specialist project developers, but also directly by major cell and module manufacturers acting in that role. The top 10 developers account for 57% of the utility pipeline in MW terms. “The non-residential segment has traditionally been driven by corporate and government customers,” Craig Stevens, president of Solarbuzz. “As Renewable Portfolio Standards take effect, utilities have become a key driver of medium term market growth.”

So saltpetre don't worry the US is leaving Australia behind in use of renewables despite protestations from contributors such as LL who are spokespersons for the vested interests in Oz that obfuscate on every issue to ensure their profits.

We "fiddle while Rome burns"...tragic given we have arguably the world's largest supplies of renewable energy while even European countries such as Germany have more deployments than us and it rains most of the time over there!