TrashcanMan, you have really given yourself away now.

Here is what Harold Lewis said, in part, when he resigned from the APS:

“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion..”

This was after a petition signed by 50 members failed to have any effect on the governing body of the APS.

What you say arises from dishonesty, or that you do not know what you are talking about.

The purported refutation of the paper by McLean et al, by the Climategate miscreants, was an easily dismissed document, for which publication was unethically obtained in the Journal, through Trenbath’s approach to the President of the body which published it. It is amusing to read the email which he never dreamed would see the light of day, to reveal his dishonest and unethical behaviour.

“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

You did not read the link I provided, did you TcM?

The difficulty for people like you, is that the majority of the population are now aware of the fraud. They are not forgiving of people like you, these days

Rstuart, one of my pen names is Leo Lane. I use a different name when I subscribe on different issues on other blogs. I use my own name on uncontroversial sites.

I have a wide circle of highly intelligent friends, and relatives, all of whom share my views on the AGW scam.

A few years ago, I felt as if I was the sole representative of truth on a lot of the sites on which I posted, and was isolated and attacked, for having the temerity to oppose the scam, against the asserted “majority of scientists”, which has always been a lie, boosted by the deranged Naiomi Oreskes, who is peddling another weird line in support of the scam at this moment.

I wondered from the start how people were fooled by the, to me, obviously dishonest assertions of the fraud backers, but had no cogent proof until the Xstrata case in February 2007, where the Judge considered the IPCC Fourth Summary, and found that it misrepresented the very science which formed part of the document.

He also said; “a temperature increase of only about 0.45°C over 55 years seems a surprisingly low figure upon which to base the IPCC’s concerns about its inducing many serious changes in the global climate system during the 21st century.” This was my sort of language.

The main witness in the case for the alarmists was Professor Ian Lowe, who had to admit in the witness box that he had exaggerated his testimony by a factor of 15 times. This gave me an insight into the type of person backing the AGW scam.

The case did not seem to change public opinion much, and I remained feeling fairly isolated until some great benefactor of truth and decency posted the Climategate emails, and exposed the contemptible dishonesty backing the AGW fraud.

@Leo Lane: Rstuart, one of my pen names is Leo Lane.

Thanks for the reply Leo. I appreciate it. For the record, by nick is based on my name, and is how I sign it. I live in Brisbane.

You set me wondering who Ian Lowe is. So he is head of the ACF. His wikipedia page says he is head of all sorts of of other groups of very concerned individuals, but not actually a thing on what branch of science he has actually studied. I thought that was odd. It paints a picture of him being more concerned with being concerned than with science. His Griffith University says his interests lie in "policy decisions influencing the use of energy, science and technology". On thinking about it, that sounds similar to the picture painted on his wikipedia page.

Anyway, the important point here is whatever he is, he isn't a climate scientist. He is no different to Bob Carter, Al Gore, Ian Plimer, your or me - an informed layman. What's more an informed layman with a very obvious bias. Given what you say about him seems true, I'll tread anything he says with a some scepticism from now on.

I looked up your 0.45°C over 55 years reference as it seemed odd. The predicted rise is much higher than that. Turns out it was the 0.45 rise was for the last 55 years, not the next 55 years. It is of course the predicted rise the IPCC is expressing concerns over. I read the Judge's report, and it seems he thinks the sole basis of the IPCC's predictions is the historical rise. Clearly it's not. He said he read the IPCC report, so I guess the science was beyond him.

@Leo Lane: Climategate emails, and exposed the contemptible dishonesty backing the AGW fraud.

As you probably realise, many will disagree with this. Now that 6 independent investigations have failed to turn up any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, claims to the contrary have to be viewed with deep suspicion.

Thanks for your response, rstuart, I do not know why you think that the Judge would know less science than the authors of the Summary, who are politicians, not scientists. Any protest to the IPCC by one of their scientific authors, in relation to the material presented in the Summary as “science”, is ignored by the IPCC.

Even in 2007 it was obvious that the IPCC predictions bore no relation to reality, and it is even more obvious now.

The IPCC has no science to support their view that human emissions are very likely to affect climate. They should cease making such statements until there is a scientific basis.

What gave you the idea that Professor Robert Carter is a layman? He is Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist of more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. He is a highly regarded Climate scientist.

His status is further enhanced by the constant sliming he receives from AGW fraud backers.

There have been no proper enquiries into Climategate, just pretenced "clearances", by conflicted parties. A proper enquiry by a prperly constituted body with the powers of a Royal Commission would be most welcome. In the meantime, the emails are there to see, and any suggestion of innocence is laughable.

LeoLane, I wonder if you saw the piece on the TV over the week end about the sea level rise in the Torres Strait Islands. Methinks your denial of AGW is akin to King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in. I hope you don't live in a bayside suburb.

David

@Leo Lane: the authors of the Summary, who are politicians, not scientists.

That's factually wrong. From the report itself :

"IPCC 2007 This Summary for Policymakers should be cited as:

IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt"

Solomon S: Senior Scientist, Earth System Research Laboratort, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric research http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/solomon020807.pdf

I could go on, but I have looked up all the names on Google Scholar, and all the listed authors have published peer reviewed papers on climate science.

@Leo Lane: What gave you the idea that Professor Robert Carter is a layman?

Bob is a very credentialed fellow. So is Ian Lowe. Neither have published any peer reviewed papers on climate science, and both have very polarised views which in my book makes them equally credible.

@Leo Lane: There have been no proper enquiries into Climategate

They are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

One was in UK government committee enquiry, with members from a range of political parties. Others ran for 6 months.

If you are going to debate with me Leo you have to stick with the facts, not just repeat things "you know to be true". I will check your assertions, and if they are blatant falsehoods as is the case with your "the authors of the IPCC report aren't climate scientists" claim here, I will pull you up on them.