Apologies: the above was posted to the wrong thread but, then again, does it matter?

Let's go over that Golden Rule about climate change once again.

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.

As a climate sceptic, Richard Castles must know that this rule means he cant say anything he wants and have it believed on trust alone. It would remind people to check the facts. It explains to climate sceptics that there is a penalty for throwing mud around.

As Richard has posted to the wrong thread, readers will be interested in his article talking about the Canberra heatwave of 1968, which gave the capital its hottest recorded temperatures. This was used to suggest that global warming is not taking place. "Forward to 2068 ... a quaint exhibition in a back room about the global warming hysteria that swept the world in the early century." (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5543)

Richard Castles blames public interest in global warming on the Internet. He says it is like a virus, spreading "bad news ... faster and wider than ever before."

But what the Internet delivered was Bureau of Meterology reports stating the hottest Canberra year was 2006 and debunking the whole premise of Castle's article. (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/act/summary.shtml)

That's bad news for Castle's argument, but for the rest of us, it's the truth we need to know.

Had Richard Castles provided a valid or honest assessment of Canberra's climate it would be unncessary to criticise. He would not be able to dismiss global warming as mere "hysteria". And his article would not be added to the lost list of evidence for the golden rule.

Thankfully, Castles has not attacked science as Mark Lawson does with his description of sciencists as screaming, embarrassed, bitter, with gritted teeth, absurd and farcical. In particular, he has not tried to attack the BOM. I am happy to give credit to Richard Castles for that.

A small oversight in your post, David. You overlooked giving the reference to the scientific basis for the Golden Rule.

No oversight. All the articles posted on OLO and which have been read elsewhere follow the golden rule. In other words, they all have either misinformation, lies or attacks on science as part of their central argument.

An effective climate sceptic argument is one which misinforms in a way that cannot be easily-back checked. This was Castle's big mistake. I found the BOM view, which completely contradicted the story within a few minutes after reading it.

Mark Lawson's provided a shopping list of opinionated nonsense in his article, I could have written dozens of posts tearing down his house of cards, but quite boring for everyone. But essentially Lawson is making an attack on the scientific community, and this is most visible through the words used.

But just to demonstrate the nonsense, Lawson says it is "now known than climate changes naturally". At what point was this unknown?

Lawson says the Wegman Report settled a dispute about Mann's "hockey stick" graph, even though it was organised by an outspoken climate denial politican; and even though the US National Research Council found that Mann's basic conclusions were sound and backed by evidence.
(http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=3)

I could continue, but essentially the point is well made. To argue against climate change must involve lies, misleading information and/or an attack against science or the scientific community.

David, you accuse me of "lies" but have not yet once successfully pointed one out. On the other hand, here is a lie from you:

"This [1968 Canberra heatwave] was used to suggest that global warming is not taking place." Please show me where.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck on your merry-go-round until you admit either your false accusations or your own lying. Or, then again, I could just leave you to get dizzy, while I go and enjoy the roller-coaster. See ya later. (Nice that 'Latimer' is an anagram of "met liar")

Hi there Nick Lanelaw

I perused Tim Ball's article as you recommended.

Unfortunately, he gave zilch scientific data to support his claims, but simply blathered on about his own credentials and attacked his opponents. So what's scientific about this article?

I'll stick to authors such as Dr Rosalie Bertell, thank you. This woman has worked in the field of environmental health since 1969. She has a doctorate in biometrics and has produced two interesting books - "No Immediate Danger" (1985) and "Planet Earth, the Latest Weapon of War" (2000).

She was well-received by environmental scientists, many years ago, during her visit to Australia and long before the masses engaged in these sorts of debates.

This remarkable humanitarian has undertaken collaborative research with numerous organisations and has five honorary doctorates. In addition, she is the recipient of several international awards including one presented to her by the UNEP.

She is certainly not one of the many "johnny come lately" climate experts (many employed by those with vested interests) who are now emerging from their burrows for their day in the sun.

Bertell's scientifically based accounts warns of the damage already done to the ionosphere by man's activity and the resultant impact we have had on climate change.

Sceptics continually deny that climate change has anything to do with anthropogenic carbon emissions. Could these sceptics please produce just one scientist who dares deny the toxicity of these man-made emissions to all eco systems on this planet?