DL: "Richard Castles says that he is not misinforming people. But one person posted to the thread showing that they thought he'd satisfactorily showed that Canberra's climate was unaltered."

I am not responsible for others' misinterpretations, just as I am not responsible for yours.

DL: "Richard Castles worries that he is being called a liar."

No he doesn't. He worries about our standards of debate that such nasty behaviour is tolerated.

DL: "I have made it clear he is providing misinformation. For example, the heatwave actually happened in Canberra, but someone genuinely looking after the interests of their readers would not explain Canberra's overall climate by such a reference."

DL: 6th time. I did not explain Canberra's overall climate by such a reference.

You have still, not once, been able to demonstrate any information in the article which is incorrect. I would gracefully welcome and acknowledge any obvious error. You, on the other hand, are unable to admit when you are wrong. And yet you throw the lies and misinformation line about like you're Judge Judy.

...and writing the word 'plagerism' is known as misspelling.

If I did not put quotes around any words which were identical to those used by the Judge in the Xstrata case, and attribute them, then I would be guilty of plagiarism. The information itself is on the public record.

It would not, in any event, as David seems to infer, invalidate the information, so the IPCC remains guilty of misrepresenting the situation on global warming in its summary.

The summary is a political document which misrepresents the science, which will not be published for some months, although its purported summary was published back in February.

There is no evidence that any appreciable warming is caused by human activity. The contribution is negligible.

David Latimer obtained the reference to the Xstrata case from a post of mine in another thread of OLO, so do not be misled into believing that he has a clue about anything.

Leo Lane - Nick Lanelaw - whoever you are - why don't you address the questions I raised? They are relevant to your assertions in previous posts!

Thanks Allison. I should be mindful of spelling errors.
Indeed the word is plagiarism.

Speaking of words, my original contribution to this thread was to note how Mark Lawson described scientists using the following correctly spelt words and phrases, "screaming", " embarrassment", "bitterly", "gritted teeth", "absurd", "farce" and "theatre", to attack scientists. If Richard Castles is worried about "nasty behaviour", perhaps he can make a comment about attacks on the scientific community.

But in this thread, there is plenty more misinformation to address. How are we going to get through it all? Thank goodness we have the Internet, eh Richard?

Nick Lanelaw invites me do "Do some research" (19-Mar-2007 3:02PM), so I researched his claim that "The writers of the [IPCC Summary for Policymakers] are not scientists, but political representatives..." Not scientists?

Surprise! surprise! This is not true.

On the front page of http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf, there is a list of drafting authors. I did some quick research on each name:
- Richard Alley, Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University.
- Terje Berntsen Research Fellow, Uni of Oslo and CICERO.
- Nathaniel Bindoff, BSc, PhD ANU.
- Zhenlin Chen, China Meteorological Administration, China
- Amnat Chidthaisong, scientist from King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand.
- Pierre Friedlingstein at "Laboratorie des Sciences du Climate et de l’Environment".
- Jonathan Gregory at NCAS and Hadley Centre, University of Reading.
- Gabriele Hegerl, Assoc Prof, Earth and Ocean Sciences Division, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich
- Martin Heimann, Max-Planck-Institut für Biogeochemie
- Bruce C. Hewitson, Climatologist, University of Cape Town
- Professor Brian Hoskins, British dynamical meteorologist and climatologist, University of Reading
- Fortunat Joos, Professor at Uni of Bern
- Jean Jouzel, Geochemist, Director of the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, France
- Vladimir M. Kattsov, Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory, Russia
- Prof. Ulrike Lohmann, Full Professor for Experimental Atmospheric Physics in the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science
- Dr Martin Manning, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), NZ
- Dr Taroh Matsuno, Japanese meteorologist Carl-Gustaf Rossby Medal.

(Note: This list was compiled very quickly. Please double-check before relying on it)

continued...

David, as I said, I should leave you to it, but one last effort.

The working group who have the final say are not named. There is one scientist in it, the lead author, Dr. Trenberth, who is not named in the list you have. Some of the scientists who are authors, on finding they have no say in the final form of the summary, have endeavoured to have their names removed and a few have succeeded.

Following is the last paragraph of a letter by one of them:
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4. Sincerely, Chris Landsea”

Read the whole letter at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

You are determined to swallow nonsense from a disingenuous organization like the UN, so I will leave you to it. No further response from me, whatever you come up with. You are able to read and write words, but you lack comprehension.