>>Because of this continuing AGW fiasco

huh? what exactly are you calling a fiasco, and why?

>> Scientists and Science is unfortunately rapidly losing credibility

what's your evidence for that?

>> Any scientist, no matter how credible who doesn't believe in AGW

name one. give me a specific "credible scientist" who doesn't believe in AGW.
how do you determine that they are credible?

>> is immediately dismissed and personally discredited

evidence?

>> On the evidence to hand I am not convinced

i see. the overwhelming view of thousands of climatologists doesn't convince you. what would?

>> I suggest that the best forum to determine the issue is a “Royal Commission.”

why on earth would you trust a politically designed forum over the scientific method and the scientific community? which political party do you regard as having more integrity than the scientific community?

Examinator, there is no proof that emissions from human activity have any discernible effect on global warming or climate change. Australia’s emissions constitute less than one millionth part of the atmosphere.

The effect of human emissions is so small as to be negligible, which is the reason that despite applying billions of dollars to scientific research, those promoting the scenario have been unable to produce proof of something that is not happening.

To promote the scam, the IPCC put forward the assertion that it is “extremely likely”, which has the same scientific validity as an assertion that it is extremely unlikely.

We have a sprinkling of dishonest posters here saying that “thousands of scientists” back this nonsense, which is completely untrue. The pro-warmecile works are full of weasel words like “could”, “may”, “might”, “expected”, “would” and so forth. They are designed to mislead people into supporting the AGW scam.

When the support for the “very likely” proposition of the IPCC is analysed there are 5 independent scientists willing to support it, not 2500 as asserted by the IPCC.

Scientists, among the 2500 employed to contribute reports, who protest that the IPCC Summary does not represent the science which they have contributed, are ignored. Their names remain as contributors, despite their requests for removal, if the Summary is not corrected.

Climategate shows the calibre of the scientists who have contributed to the efforts of the IPCC to deceive people into backing the scam, designed to enrich, among others, Gore, Pachauri and the IPCC.

The East Anglia gang of scientists, have employed dishonest methods to "hide the decline" and pretend global cooling is not occurring, while CO2 is rising, and have reviewed each other's spurious science, in order to claim their much vaunted "peer review", which they have rendered meaningless.

Examinator, I have looked at the critique of Ian Plimer’s superb book.

Plimer’s book presents a difficult subject with remarkable clarity.

The reviewer has found 300 points of criticism. This is a sample:

“11. p. 22: Referring to the ‘hockey stick’ in the 2001 IPCC WG1 report: It was highlighted on the first page of the Summary for Policymakers and was shown another four times in the 2001 Summary for Policymakers. Since there are only five figures in the 2001 WG1 SPM, this would imply that all figures in the SPM include the ‘hockey stick’. This is quite simply false.

12. p. 22: The IPCC, without explanation, quietly withdrew the “hockey stick” from the Summary for Policymakers in subsequent publications and had it buried in a scientific chapter of the 2007 report. with the footnote 24 noting as one of the reconstructions of past climate. The reconstructions, including that from Mann et al., are also in the technical summary (figure TS.20) of the 2007 report — [DK].”

The first point is that Plimer said the discredited “hockey stick” of Mann (one of the East Anglia miscreants), which was featured in the 2001 IPCC Summary appeared 4 times in the document. The reviewer says it did not appear so many times. So what? It appeared in the IPCC Summary, and it was a false document.

The next point is that the document was withdrawn by the IPCC from subsequent Summaries. The point raised by the reviewer is that it had two mentions in the 2007 Report, and not one as stated by Plimer. What possible significance does that have? Is the IPCC twice as arrogant for having mentioned it twice, after it was discredited?

In 14 the reviewer says Plimer is wrong about global cooling, because there is a record from HADCRUT (East Anglia “hide the decline” crew) showing a couple of warm years. Plimer referenced an honest record.

You no doubt have not read the critique, or Ian Plimer’s book, Examinator, before wasting everyone’s time.

examinator: "Plimers contribution to this debate ..."

We are clashing elsewhere, and I am afraid we will clash here too. In the end I think Plimers contribution has proved very useful.

Normally when somebody with say an arts degree makes outrageous about climate science the scientists don't bother to dignify the claims with a reply. It is all very well for the scientists - they know what what is rubbish and what is not. It is not so easy for us to see behind the smokescreens.

Plimer, being a scientist himself, was different. People who he worked with came out and said he was outright lying in how it cited their work, and the conclusions they came to. At least one of there had been a friend of Plimer's for decades. Then of course we have Plimer's bombastic stonewalling of Monbiot's simple questions for all to see on Lateline.

So unlike our arts degree commentator's, the evidence that Plimer has set aside all objectivity in order to chase some personal daemons is plain. No one can read what has been said then claim the man represents his peers, speaks with authority, or is honest and forthright. Given that, no one with a genuine interest in debating the science would cite Plimer. It is not like there aren't many creditable sources out there for just about any point of view.

This is what makes Plimer is so useful. Anyone who quotes him as a expert is branding themselves as being just like him. As Monbiot discovered it is an absolute waste of time engaging such people. They should be avoided like the plague. Never before have I found such a good indicator of this attitude as Plimer. Whether he deliberately set out to do this or not, I think the man is a bloody legend.

If anyone here is unfamiliar with what I am talking about, here are some references:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm

It is a characteristic of the alarmist side of the climate debate to be selective in the references they quote, and Andrew Glikson is no different. He says the 2003 heat wave in Europe is well documented and quotes the estimate of 35,000 heat related deaths, a figure which originated from the green group Earth Policy Institute. He could of course be a little more wide ranging in his research and quote the World Health Organisation which estimates an average of more than 200,000 deaths each year from excess heat in Europe but 1.5 million deaths from excess cold. The reason he doesn't quote the WHO is of course obvious – it doesn’t fit his agenda to do so.
Sea level rise is quoted as 1-3 metres by the year 2100. But there has been no increase in the rate of rise during the last 100 years (about 0.2metre), and even the agenda-driven IPCC only estimates about 0.7 metre for the next hundred years. Since satellite data became available for sea level rise about 15 years ago there has been no increase in the rate of rise, and indeed no rise at all since 2005.
It is even suggested that should sea level rise by the amount quoted by Glikson and Pittock we will move inland to escape it because it will be too costly to build walls. What nonsense! We will do what the Dutch have been doing for hundreds of years and are still doing – prepare for natural events which sooner or later may happen.

Mention is made of the three megabushfires, 2003, 2006/07 and 2009 and attribution is made to global warming/climate change.
In fact, these blazes were the direct result of the cessation of fuel reduction measures in 1981 when the Minister for Conservation directed his Chief Fire Commissioner to cease fire prevention burns.
That Commissioner, Mr Hodgson is still alive and has told me of that event. He added that it was later confirmed by the next Minister, Mrs Joan Kirner.
Also, around 1993 or 94 a decision was made to close all fire access tracks as future fires would be fought from the air. I was at a meeting of the Government's Four Wheel Drive Committee when this was announced. In fact it was only the effective lobbying by the 4WD Clubs that prevented this.
History tells us that, at the 1998 Caledonia River fires, aircraft were found to be ineffective and bulldozers were brought in to re open fire access tracks. The main problem that followed was that, by 2003, the lessons of Caledonua were not given consideration and the results are now a part of history.
The three fires, as disastrous as they were to both human as well as native fauna lives, indicate that cool burning saves the lives of humans as well as native flora and fauna. Water supplies are adveresely affected by mega fires as regrowth uses available moisture.
Last month the USA's Association of Fire Ecology, in their Position Paper http://www.fireecology.net/ described cool burning (or whatever name you wish to call it) as essentia to preserve the old growth timber that is such an important part of the climate change debate. Destroy a 500 year old tree and a lot of CO2 is released.
Fuel Reduction Burning has never been needed as much as it is now; the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.