I said yesterday, "Leo said this morning: "I asked for an experiment, not another reference to Carter. Carter had been an eminent marine geologist, not a climate scientist."

Leo, what is your definition of a climate scientist? For instance, by your definition, is Tim Flannery a climate scientist?

Geoffrey Kelley"

Leo, I must apologise for directing the post to you!

It was intended to be directed to Ant. It should read:-

Ant, what is your definition of a climate scientist? For instance, by your definition, is Tim Flannery a climate scientist?

Geoffrey Kelley

Ant said yesterday:

I have seen a huge number of science papers Leo.

But, never have I seen a paper that purports to be serious science quoting an extreme right wing IPA person....John Roskam, or any other political person.
I think I have to say that the above statement is basically spot-on!

Ant, you have seen a lot of science papers, but have you read them and understood them?

Furthermore, you are probably correct when you say THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN a paper quoting an extreme right-wing person because if you did, you would immediately discount it as rubbish! You see, the nonsense of Climate Change and Global Warming is that is driven by left-wing politics! Those of us on the right recognize the political nature of the nonsense claims you make.

As Bob Carter said, what is a climate scientist? There are possibly more than twenty different specialties that can call themselves climate scientists, just as in any other field, say medicine, there are different specialties. For instance I did a science degree many years ago with a double major in physiology and biochemistry. My physiology major was largely in environmental physiology, which is the interaction between a living organism and its environment. Whilst I do not claim to be an environmental scientist, at least I have studied in the field.

As for Tim Flannery, I cannot find any evidence of him being an environmental scientist at all. He is better described an environmental activist. His primary degree was in English! Flannery is a missionary, an evangelical fool who has made some dangerous and very expensive non-scientific statements. Even a true believer such as you must be nervous of him.

Geoffrey Kelley

Geoffrey

It is a huge call to say climate science is driven by left wing politics. A very heroic statement to make without any proof. It sounds like conspiracy theory. In relation to Carter I stated that he used a quote from an extremist right wing person, I made no comment about Carter being right wing.
Any science paper published with quotes from political ideology left or right are suspect.
Where in Nature, AAAS et al do you find political quotations in peer reviewed work about science.

ant thinks the ARM 11 study is significant, a game-changer, only because he doesn't understand 'the game' that he thinks it changes.

In fact the ARM study merely observed, in the wild so to speak, that which is utterly beyond dispute. CO2 absorbs heat. OK, so what? That's been known for 150yrs at least and isn't disputed. But ant then assumes that since it absorbs heat that proves GW and therefore AGW and therefore CAGW and therefore that we have to up-end society.

The study is the equivalent of observing how having sex sometimes leads to pregnancy. That is also undisputed but clearly one doesn't always or even often follow the other. Yet the prudish will claim that since its been observed its proof that sex must be avoided except when the participants want kids.

CO2 absorbs heat. But what then. What happens to that heat? What would have happened had the CO2 not absorbed it? Would H2O have done so? With that absorbed heat, does everything else remain as it was or does the very absorption cause other changes?

In the same way as we know that there are a variety of reasons why sex doesn't necessarily lead to pregnancy, we also know there are a vastly greater number of reasons why CO2 absorbing heat doesn't necessarily lead to enhanced GW.

The global's climate system is a vastly complex system that even our most advanced computers struggle to model in a rudimentary way. Thinking that you can take one small part of that vast system and, by observing that small part, extrapolate to the whole is screwy (continue to sexual analogy).

As I've said over and over, this whole scare revolves around the purported feedbacks and if someone observes them in the wild and can tie down their magnitude and sign (which the IPCC admits can't currently be done) then THAT observation will be of value. But the ARM 11 observations are a mere curiosity.

The outstanding feature of the flea’s participation here, his abysmal ignorance of science, has been picked up by mhaze, citing the flea’s misconception of the importance of the interaction of CO2 and infrared rays.
The flea bleats endlessly about this, which, as mhaze points out, is one minor factor in the workings of the carbon cycle.
He says:” What would have happened had the CO2 not absorbed it? Would H2O have done so? “
The important point is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas with which infrared interacts. It reacts with all greenhouse gases, of which H2O is the major gas, and CO2 a minor one
It is important to the climate fraud that CO2 be demonised. The fraud promoters want to show that CO2, a substance vital to all life on earth, causes global warming. Its contribution is very minor. Water vapour if is the main greenhouse gas.
I wonder what the fraud promoters want done abour water vapour, now that CO2 has been cleared. Will they tell a pack of lies to demonise water, and call it "pollution"?
The flea in his ignorance, made the stupid assertion that I had commented that CO2 did not interact with infrared. I know that I have never said anything as ignorant as that. I only know about a thousand times more than the flea does about science, so I do not know much, but I certainly knew that.
If the flea is not lying, he only has to supply a copy of the comment and specify where it appears. He has been on notice to do this ever since he made the false assertion. Having failed to do so verifies that he is lying.
You have not responded in any way, have you, flea, you have just allowed the passing of time to show that you are a liar as well as an ignoramus

Geoff, I think the reason that support for the climate fraud is left wing, is that a virulent and vicious green movement was started of which the book “Silent Spring” by the toxic liar Rachel Carson, was the founding document.
Climate fraud promoters, with all the brilliance of shithouse rats, having demonised CO2 , labelled it “pollution”, and the bone-headed greens took up support of the global warming fraud, as part of the fight against “pollution” as CO2 was falsely labelled.
The left are attracted to fraud and feel-good lies like blowflies to a pile of stinking dung, so there is substantial left wing support for the fraud. I would not be surprised if the flea is left wing, so I wonder why he opposes the notion that the fraud has left wing support.
Would you please clarify your position, flea? Your assertion is obviously wrong, so I wonder what you see as your basis for making it.