Yeah Don, I read their work, and others.

It's mostly crap and the only stuff that they whinge about is just modelling.

They also produce prodigious amounts of opinion.

I fact if I search the Web of Knowledge database, using terms author: Plimer, topic: climate change, I only find one entry and it;s an opinion piece: 'Climate change, a geologist's view'. LOL

Robert Carter at least has 3 entries on climate change (one a conference paper), none of them on modern climate change except for the conference paper (that's about policy).

Happer has one entry: 'Petitioning for a revised statement on climate change' a letter to Nature in 2009

Lindzen of course fares much better in the publication department,with about 19 entries but it seems mostly modelling.

All their stuff put together would amount to a very tiny fraction of the climate change literature, if I search for 'climate change' (no author field), I get 490,333 entries!

I think your description of these guys as "prominent" is being exceptionally generous Don. Most of their work on climate change seems to be either book publishing or opinion pieces or blogs, or comments about models.

If they had any other publishing record, it wasn't on climate change.

If you base most of your position on these guys, I think the politest description I could muster would be 'biased'.

Bugsy,

I base my position on what I read, the questions I ask of it and the answers I get. I read a great deal in this field. About 85 per cent of it takes for granted that the orthodox AGW position is correct, about 10 per cent tries to reinforce it, and only 5 per cent is 'value free'. Much of that comes from sceptics.

In the policy field (you'll have to go to my website to see a piece I wrote the other day) I am on much surer ground. There much of what is written takes for granted that there is an AGW problem, and is focussed on how best to deal with it (Garnaut, Stern and the like). Only a few, and I am one, asks the other question: what if there is not much or nothing, to worry about? Or uses the precautionary principle against itself — why are we asking people to pay so much when there seems little likelihood that the threat is a real one?

I follow argument, evidence and data rather than people.

You are a policy wonk, as is your right.

To formulate policy, those questions do have to be asked. However, they should not rule your position.

I don't comment on policy, that's for the social 'sciences' boffins to work out.

Quote Don
"I follow argument, evidence and data rather than people."

I do so wish you would, unfortunately it is very clear that all you do is look for stuff to reinforce your view on climate change. The list of Authors you take note of are clear enough proof. Climate change science was clear enough 70 years ago, why is anybody even arguing about it in the 21st century?

Still wasting time and effort when it does not matter whether it is true or not !

Dear Bazz,

You are obviously correct, yet this "global warming" nonsense is part of an extended agenda to allow the rogues of the united-nations to control the whole world.

Even had I believed that there is any truth in their warming stories, I would still say: "better let the world burn than have us live under the tyranny of such evil world-government". If that's the alternative, then bring on the crisis, bring on the catastrophe by nature rather than by man.

{"

David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.”

Before David got up the next morning, the word of the Lord had come to Gad the prophet, David’s seer:

“Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’”

So Gad went to David and said to him, “Shall there come on you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me.

David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.”

So the Lord sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died.

"}

[2 Samuel, 24:10-15]