We are now clear on three things:

1. Richard Castle's article about the mild weather of Canberra is misleading given the BOM analysis of 2006, saying that year was the hottest on record. (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/act/summary.shtml)

2. Richard Castle is happy to mislead people into thinking a list of eminent scientists supports his view that the IPCC is flawed and believe that their expertise is wasted. In fact, the eminent scientists on this list support action on global warming and have made valuable contributions to the Stern Report, the IPCC or both.

What is his explanation? "I had simply cut & pasted the complete list of witnesses" (RC 17Mar2007) This is an astonishing admission. Was any thought given to the reputation of these scientists and their valuable contribution to resolving the global warming issue?

3. Rather than be prepared to back away from these suggestions about either Canberra's weather or the view of these scientists, Richard Castles, muddies his response with a personal attack. He does the same for others.

Does this surprise anyone? Not at all.

As we have seen, in OLO and elsewhere, it is not possible to write a honest article or post while pretending there'll be no consequences of greenhouse gas emissions this century. Like all of us, Richard Castles has a moral choice to make and we can only hope these revolting personal attacks are the last refusal to make it.

An apology David. My last response was written in haste, and on reflection, I realise that you may not have been aware that the list was a complete list - I assumed that someone making your sort of accusations would check first. What I should have said was that someone reading motivation into such a list would be showing signs of a serious thought disorder

PS. The cut & paste function is very handy.

"Was any thought given to the reputation of these scientists and their valuable contribution to resolving the global warming issue?"

Evidently, more than you. Firstly, they are not all scientists.

"Richard Castle (sic) is happy to mislead people into thinking a list of eminent scientists supports his view that the IPCC is flawed and believe that their expertise is wasted."

Hilarious! The Chair of the IPCC itself is on the list.

Beware of generalizations, David. From yesterday's Australian: Richard Lindzen "remains highly critical of how the [IPCC] operates, claiming it is largely a political process underpinned by science, which carefully stage-manages the release of its reports to maximise political impact.

The IPCC made headlines across the world in February with the release of the executive summary of its assessment report, which Lindzen says was severely modified by the political session that writes it and which is now modifying the full scientific report to fit for release in May. "That's a very funny procedure by most standards," he said. "You don't appeal to consensus if you have a scientific argument.

"Very few of the models are independent and they all share certain profound difficulties. They all get clouds hugely wrong and a small change in clouds has a much bigger effect than doubling CO2."

That's it for me with you David. My only moral concern is whether I should be debating with someone who is...well, let's just say I have moral concerns.

Richard,
you’re slow in response so its time for me to summarise and end my side of this. AGW believers must choose between indulging in argument (which can be never-ending) and convincing the family to turn off the bl**dy lights, etc, etc : ) !!
.
Note 1: apparently Lindzen is involved in formulating AR4 so IPCC is more inclusive than you think.
Note 2: Stern’s procedure is correct. He’s an economist, not a scientist. He takes the most authoritative science as a given. Other economists can see his assumptions and do likewise if they want.

More on: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” This is valid for Einstein because he has the knowledge and the genius to recognize an invalidating experiment if he sees one. The trouble is that 99% of skeptics do not have the requisite knowledge to recognize this. I am sorry if this seems harsh on the intelligent layman but it is the biggest inconvenient truth of the advanced state of scientific knowledge on climate. Having worked hard on this subject for over two years now I have direct evidence from my efforts, stumbles, etc of what’s involved before one can start to intelligently criticize.

I admire you for having the courage to put your thoughts and thesis into the public arena. However to argue with amateurs like me is not fruitful. If you would argue that we with deep concerns about AGW are deranged: argue with a psychologist. If you disagree with the scientific institutions: argue with scientists directly. As I disagree with Lindzen, I should try and contact him. Unfortunately he is hard to track down. You, however, have countless climatologists with whom to take issue. You can go to realclimate and put your points there. I think you will find the commentors and practising scientists there sufficiently “alarmist” to debate.

I hope you don’t take the above as patronising, etc. I take you as an honest seeker after truth although from my perspective your approach is not the most productive

Richard Castles gets himself into darker territory with his latest postings.

He finds it "Hilarious" that he can cut and paste a list of witness to an inquiry and attribute his views upon them. Then he talks about the couple of sceptics on his list who share his views.

This is once again proving the point that global warming sceptics have to resort to misinformation. Don't try to pretend I was unaware of what you were doing. I am aware of the tricks. This is why you are quoting from Richard Lindzen -- trying to change take the heat off what you have said and your own article.

Clearly there are people on the list who have contributed to the scientific evidence, who have contributed to the Stern Report and who have contributed to the IPCC reports.

Let's be clear: The list of people and the attributed views are entirely seperate. These are your views. They are not the views of the all the list of witnesses. They are not the views of the House of Lords Select Committee as has already been discussed.

And let's be clear about Canberra: 2006 was its hottest year and it is the latest in a trend of ever hotter years. That turns your article into nothing but hot air.

And for the road: Make a personal attack, apologise and then repeat the same personal attack using indirect speech. What a hero!

Thank you SoS. There is a touching comment in there somewhere. I think the question of why we do anything was beautifully explored in the film Chariots of Fire – for the glory of God, for revenge, as a bourgeois indulgence, for money…? The question is another where ‘skeptics’ can’t seem to win – eg. if professional, they are just on the take; if amateur (i.e. for the love), they are ‘unprofessional’. Looking into myself at the moment, I suspect my motivation might be largely procrastination. You are probably quite right. A bit of a waste of time and energy - certainly with some - and I have other tasks to which I should be allocating my resources. So I think I’ll turn out my own lights on this one too and, for now, wish you well.

Let's hope David "Don't try to pretend I was unaware of what you were doing. I am aware of the tricks!" Fawlty doesn't keep us both awake screaming at the moon.