Virtually every scientist, and every academic, has an economic interest in getting their work published. This is particularly the case where tenure depends on a certain number of publications per year, or where university funding depends on publication. If we were to ignore all scientific research that is not totally disinterested, we'd have to ignore virtually all science.

The judgement of the reliability of a scientific publication depends, not on disinterest, but on academic integrity. If a scientist misquotes sources, conceals evidence, falsifies data or argues irrationally, people will properly cease to read his/her work.

Every so often, there is a scandal where a piece of work on which other research has depended, turns out to be spurious. It is then often a large task to trace the full effects of the fault, through a succession of articles and books written by honest people who have relied on the spurious findings in their own work.

That apart, judgement of a particular piece of work depends on the correctness and reproducibility of the research procedure, and the cogency of the argument, including the reliability of the theories presupposed. So far as I can see at this time of night, that is all.

Arjay - I found this interesting. Not sure if the site is a good authority, but reads OK.
http://timeforchange.org/radiation-wavelength-and-greenhouse-effect

I'm delighted to read this article by his Lordship. Because it confirms what I'd previously only suspected - that he's not much bothered about the truth of what he writes.

In his blathering on the Australian Constitution, he says

Article 51 of the Constitution of Australia lists the 31st of 39 legislative powers of Australia’s Parliament as follows:

“The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.”

(this is correct)

The principle, therefore, is that if the national government (or, a fortiori, the government of a State or Territory) takes over a person’s land, it must pay just compensation, or else.

The "(or, a fortiori, the government of a State or Territory)" is complete nonsense. The clause in question gives powers to the national parliament (without the Constitution, it would not have any powers at all). It doesn't take power away from the State parliaments (only a few clauses in the Constitution do, and they are expressed clearly, and quite differently).

Since it's the work of 5 minutes to find the judgement in the court case Monckton mentions, and to observe that it doesn't mention the Constitution, an honest and responsible writer, who would have looked at the court case, might suspect that his knowledge of the Australian Constitution was somewhat lacking!

In any event, since when are land use regulations "acquisition of property"? Every landowner knows they're a perfectly normal aspect of land ownership, and suffers from them. What seems objectionable in the case of Mr Spencer is that they impact different landowners so unevenly (ie, no commensurate disadvantage for those whose land is already cleared)

Thanks again, your Lordship, for showing your true colours. I'll bear it in mind if I ever read anything else of yours!

Arjay: "Would Q&A or Keith Davies care to explain how CO2 acts as an amplifier?"

Right now it doesn't. CO2 acts as more of a trigger than a amplifier.

Back when Geoff described CO2 as am amplifier, the amplifying effect was caused by rising concentrations of CO2. I presume this was triggered by rising temperatures, which in turn look like they were triggered by changes in the earths orbit.

I don't know why arising temperature could cause a rise in CO2 levels. One possible cause is the release of carbon from the soils. We face this problem ourselves. There is a lot of carbon locked up in soils (1500 G ton now maybe?). But it only remains as carbon where it is cold - ie where the soil spends most of its time frozen. Of course during an ice age most of the soil is frozen so there is huge amounts of carbon locked up under the ice. When the ice starts retreating the soil heats up, the bugs become active and start breathing, and the carbon in the soil is released as CO2.

Another possible causes is release of methane trapped in ice and hydrates (a mixture of cold pressurised water and CO2). When the water heats up the methane is released. While methane is a potent greenhouse gas in itself it is short lived. In the atmosphere oxygen and sunlight transform it into water and CO2.

Whatever the cause, there is ample evidence that the end of the ice ages was followed by a rise in CO2. And no one disputes that a rise in CO2 will cause the earth to heat up if all other things remain the same. Thus it would act as an amplifier.

rstuart, I think you will find that the CO2 most likely comes from outgassing of the oceans. As water warms gases are less soluble in it. I don't understand Arjay's question. It is clearly established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and no-one serious in the scientific community disputes that. If the IPCC just went with the theoretical increase in temperature from the increase in CO2 there would be much less argument. The real argument is about climate sensitivity and the extent to which the small theoretical effect of CO2 is claimed to be magnified by water vapour.

I don't know how Geoff can claim as a fact that the CO2 is a singificant amplifier as it comes into the atmosphere. The interesting thing for me is that CO2 peaks on the Vostock temperature graphs after temperature does, indicating that its amplification, or forcing, is much smaller than other forcings in the system. I also have a graphing issue with the way CO2 is tracked against temperature in the Vostock graphs. As its relation to temperature increase is logarithmic it oughtn't to be graphed on the same scale as temperature, but on a logarithmic one - it's the heat effect that is significant, not its atmospheric concentration per se.

Jeremy is more or less correct about the states and acquisition of property, although property in the constitution doesn't just refer to real property. I think Monckton has garbled Peter Spencer's legal argument which, as I remember the relevant part of it, rests on the proposition that the states were acting on behalf of the federal government, and so should be subject to the requirement to compensate on just terms which does apply to the Commonwealth.

Irrespective of Monckton's sloppiness I think Spencer has a good point - if his land use has been changed to effectively create carbon credits for the rest of us he should get compensation. It is a blot on the Howard Government that it acted in this way.

I don't know what Vostock temperature graphs you are looking at Graham, but the CO2 peaks don't look like they "graph after temperature" at all, at least to me.
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

Perhaps you could explain which graphs you might be looking at?