Hi Dickie, I responded to you once, but I realise now, that you inhabit an alternate universe to me, on which it is not possible for me to comment. Nothing you describe happens in the world in which I live.

Yes indeed Leo Lane. You are correct. I do not live in a burrow, like you and our universes are indeed far apart.

Sadly, subterranean rodents rarely see the light.

Dickie, I am sure there are many aspects to you, vastly superior to the one you display here.

I am unable to relate to your posts, or the thought or sentiment which they express, so I cannot enter into any positive interaction. You have my best wishes for the future.

I was not able to finish my list within the 350 work limit. Here are the remaining authors that Nick Lanelaw says are not scientists:

- Mario Molina shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
- Neville Nicholls: expert on the El Niño-Southern Oscillation
- Jonathan Overpeck: Head of Geosciences, University of Arizona.
- Dr Dahe Qin, researched glaciology, cryosphere. Director China Meteorological Administration
- Graciela Raga, University of Mexico
- Prof. Venkatachalam Ramaswamy. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Princeton
- Jiawen Ren, Lanzhou Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academic of Sciences
- Dr. Matilde Rusticucci, Departamento de Ciencias de la Atmósfera y los Océanos, FCEN, Universidad de Buenos Aires
- Dr Susan Solomon Senior Scientist, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
- Richard C. J. Somerville is Professor of Meteorolgy at Scripps Institution of Oceanography
- Thomas F. Stocker, Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern
- Peter Stott, a climate scientist at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter
- Ronald J Stouffer, Senior Research Meteorologist, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Princeton
- Dr Penny Whetton, Stream Leader, Climate Impacts and Risk, CSIRO
- Richard A. Wood. Met Office, Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
- Dr David Wratt is a Principal Scientist with NIWA in Wellington NZ

There may be some unintended mistakes or outdated info in my list so please double-check any information, however I have confirmed that each is a scientist and that Nick Lanelaw had lead us "down the garden path". He has provided information and in this instance about 30 minutes of my time was wasted showing he writes unreliable nonsense. According to Richard Castles, my efforts to verify information is an exercise in "self-delusion and deception". Except that I had the golden rule. It already informed me that the IPCC report was written by scientists.

Nick Lanelaw has confirmed my Golden Rule: To make a climate denial argument involves lies, misinformation or an attack on science.

Thanks Nick wasting my time, but at least I've confirmed with evidence your lack of fidelity in this debate.

Next?

Leo Lane says (2-Apr-07 7:52PM) the "working group who have the final say are not named." How many times do climate sceptics want to prove the golden rule about lies and misinformation?

The names are easily obtained from the IPCC website. There's an attractive pdf brochure called Who's who at the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf

And I have already shown that Working Group 1 is entirely made up of scientists, its hard to see how Lanes claim that "there is one scientist in it" is anything other than nonsense.

Seriously, why does he expect to get away with it? It is so simple to show him to be outrageously wrong.

The golden rule is that for a climate sceptic to make their argument, they need to revert to lies, misinformation or personal attacks against science or the scientific community.

Thanks Leo Lane, Nick Lanelaw, Mark Lawson and Richard Castles for helping with the demonstration of the rule.

Anything further?

David's golden rule is called fundamentalism. It is also a defense mechanism that Freud called reaction formation. A common example is the 'gay basher' who is actually disturbed by his own homosexual impulses. In this case, David goes to the extreme of accusing anyone who disagrees with him to be a liar in order to avoid doubts about his own honesty.