fungochumley: "You repeatedly say this is a policy forum, so may I suggest that if you cannot, or will not, address the content of the article, that you proceed to another thread and stop wasting time and space here."

Of course, you may suggest it, even if ever so shrilly. However, I will continue ignore your advice and continue to keep posting my responses for the benefit of other readers. Not much you can do about that I'm afraid.

Seems you are yet another regular member of the pro denial team hiding behind brand new alias (since you bring up old threads that happened before your account was created). I guess I can't stop you from doing that either.

Last time I analysed one of Ian Castles articles, and put evidence in his face that he was completely wrong, he just kept repeating that he was right, and the I was "picking on him" (awww ...), so on that count I won't waste my time again. In fact, I didn't even read most of this current article, because I can predict its is going to be a crock, based on the experience of his other articles. Frankly, I have better things to do. However, it is still constructive to respond to the other posters in the thread and post background information about the author - just in case anyone with a shred of intelligence makes the mistake of taking him seriously.

Thank you for the article, Ian. I have not seen a similar analysis anywhere else, and it is very useful information.

So that'd be nothing from you then, Sams? OK, thanks.

Sams: 'so I'll just keep .....blah blah blah
Why waste our time? You have nothing interesting to say. PLEEEESE stop being boring.

Q & A,
I'm hoping you'll see this msg here as I've reached my limit at Lawson thread. Thank you, I did accept your wishes as sincere. Don't know how you thought I hadn't. But then I often don't understand your interpretation of comments (such as those of IanC here). All the best.
PS. I agree with Froggie's comment on Sams's ageism. His true colours are on show to all.

I'm yet to see anyone counter the points made in this article, which seem quite straightforward and well referenced, primarily that the govt is misrepresenting the IPCC's own science. It is not a climate science paper for a journal, but a clear and concise article on the govt's misrepresentation. No one seems terribly concerned, except, of course, our farmers. Just the usual ad hom smear from the usual suspects, who defensively read it as an anti-AGW threat, and can't respond to what is written. Why do they comment at all?