And still no answer to the authors perfectly reasonable request ..

The conclusion is obvious, its just more CSIRO/CMAR bias and beat ups.

Who cares if some have already gone and done dentistry or whatever.

We would all be better off if they went and got real jobs that added real value to the community,rather than the destructive nonsense being peddled by people with too many toys and not enough common sense.

They could even try and read some history books as well.Now that would be enlightening for the poor dears.

McKellar is one,Ruth Park is another and then work backwards from that.

Typical; another succinct article by Castles, and the only criticisms he receives are the usual ad hom. Warwick Hughes has been revealing the dearth of accurate forecasting by BoM for years; John McLean ditto for CSIRO; Wendy Craik has written 2 reports on the MDB noting that current conditions are not historically exceptional; David Stockwell has shown the CSIRO Exceptional Circumstances report has the usual model predictive ailments; these institutions have been politicised. IPCC is much more interesting; at a time when Mann has tried to revitalise the wretched Hockey-stick, and following the discraceful Ammann and Wahl debacle, the fact is you can still find all you need to refute AGW in AR4; for instance FIG 6.10 clearly establishes the MWP and repudiates Mann's concoctions; FIG 7.3 of AR4 conclusively shows that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a natural process, and, combined with DOE data, also shows that anthropogenic CO2 cannot have an atmospheric life of more than a couple of years.

As a corollary to the above I note that Tim Curtin has been banned from Brook's blog for out-arguing him on these very points. As I say, typical; AGW is now bereft of scientific validity; all that is left is censorship and ad hom.

cohenite: "As I say, typical; AGW is now bereft of scientific validity; all that is left is censorship and ad hom."

There are just a few that disagree with you, such as the national science academies of every G8+5 nation, plus a cast of many more:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, CSIRO, InterAcademy Council (IAC), the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, National Research Council (US), European Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, International Union for Quaternary Research, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Geological Sciences, European Geosciences Union, Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia), Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), American Statistical Association, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, American Association of State Climatologists, The Network of African Science Academies.

Yes, thanks for reminding me SAMS; as well as ad hom and censorship, AGW is upported by 'consensus' bully-boy condescension and exclusion; so what if some clapped-out, pusillanimous, 'independent' organisations have toed the company line; what you can't understand is that IPCC was never formed on a basis of ascertaining whether the AGW thesis of anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming was correct or not; it was set up on the basis that AGW was a fait accompli and thereafter to act as a conduit for the apocalyptic ramblings of hansen et al; that it has degenerated into an obfuscating, contradictory mess is indicative of that; and again, I repeat, its supporters, like you, are systemically incapable of responding in an open transparent way to criticism.

Sams,

One could go through your list and raise doubts about many on it.
1. The Russian Academy (Putin) would be on-side because they are not going to give up on the massive carbon credits they can sell to the dopey Europeans as well as selling them oil and gas.

2.If these Academies where truly interested in the common good, and not the lowest common denominator they would do something about the flawed state of peer review for one.Just peruse this site for one eg.

http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/04/role_of_blogs_in_communicating.html

3.Many have vested interest in other ways, eg the Institutes of Engineering can see massive amounts of work for their members coming out of this.This is despite many of the their membership also being publically active in expressing serious and well founded doubts, eg W Alexander of South Africa.

4. Many of the organisations you have listed to puff up your list, actually dont have a common view. I bet NASA in general is not too pleased with Hansen, nor CSIRO with the CMAR.

5. How do you handle the credibility issue when most on your list have also backed Gores AIT, without qualification. Here is a total fraud with only a high school certificate,(peer reviewed no doubt) producing a great tome supported by these academies, and organisations, that has made him incredible rich. Not bad for a tome that has 35 major errors and is still being used as his "prospectus", ----and with the support of the same people/organisations on your list.

"Yes, thanks for reminding me SAMS; as well as ad hom and censorship, AGW is upported by 'consensus' bully-boy condescension and exclusion; so what if some clapped-out, pusillanimous, 'independent' organisations have toed the company line"

So you think that the key science organisations of the entire developed world are "clapped out" and involved in some global conspiracy. When you take a close look, that is the essence of what every AGW denier's arguments boil downs to.

It is interesting to note that these are the same sorts of arguments that the Flat Earth Society use: despite vastly overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they will continue along with their warped theories and try to undermine the validity every scientific organisation that refutes them, often with some vague and absurd conspiracy theory. The holocaust deniers use similar tactics as well.