I noted this week that the media has again been pushing the oceans are rising propaganda via some report from a UN delegation, followed by a Labor politician declaring it is all over bar the shouting.

The report shows a 1.7mm sea rise, but our own Fort Denison’s records that stretch for 90 years reveals this:

“The Fort Denison data clearly shows a period of reduced sea level rise over the period
1986-2007 of 0.4 mm/year as opposed to 0.9 mm/year over the length of the dataset.”

Denison shows half the rise, and you need a 90 year average to get that. Sea levels in Sydney harbour went down for a ten year stretch…..DOWN…..

How can one justify the belief in the propaganda against simple truths such as the Fort Denison daily readings?

The exaggerations and lies that come from Green Headquarters and the Global Warming Industry in the Northern Hemisphere is easily refuted? Remember the hockey stick graph, they fudged the numbers and had to rename their religion from Global Warming to Climate Change.

Dear sonofgloin,

Just to quickly deal with your post;

“Figure 4 shows monthly average and yearly averaged water level data from Fort
Denison. The record has not been adjusted for anomaly drivers (such as MSLP), so
represents the measured water level at the gauge. The long-term sea level trend of
0.94 mm/year is clearly apparent, as are variations to the average rate of rise.
The last 20-year period, covering the data range of the other MHL gauging sites, is
associated with sustained El Nino conditions, generally associated with drier, less
stormy conditions in Australia. This causes a depressing of regional sea levels and is
seen as a slowing of sea level rise in the Fort Denison data to 0.4 mm/year for 1986-
2007 (MHL1881). This would imply that gauges across NSW with datasets of
approximately 20 years will underestimate sea level rise.”

http://www.coastalconference.com/2011/papers2011/Ben%20Modra%20Full%20Paper.pdf

Now to attend to the interesting point raised in the thread title. At what point do the AGW deniers become the modern day equivalent of the Flat Earthers?

The FE guys still persist even today in a vastly weakened state but they were still incredibly prevalent even in first half of last century. I read a rather captivating book on the topic a few years ago and will have to dig it up again. What will be our 'photograph from space' moment or will the nature of the topic forever deny us a definitive point when the majority of those who supported the deniers cause quietly walk away en-mass leaving the mentally feeble and the embarrassingly eccentric on the barricades?

Some of the more vocal opponents of AGW will have invested too much ever to admit their folly but there is enough evidence that once strident supporters and now being more equivocal with their pronouncements.

Ah what interesting times we live in.

Even a decrease in the rate of rise is still an increase in level.

The sea level did indeed drop between 1980 and 1990 but then rose rapidly back toward the trend line.

Taking a convenient part of a graph to suggest an overall result is not a valid argument.

This is what wingnuts like Andrew Bolt base his bogus selective claims on -
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Also, the term “Global Warming” was deliberately changed to “Climate Change” (both terms are valid but not entirely interchangeable) – not by the AGW supporters but became more frequently used in the media by the denialists.

Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming' and advised the Bush Administration to adopt that term . He has since reconsidered his position and now believes that humans have contributed to global warming.

csteele,

"..What will be our 'photograph from space' moment..."

Hows this for starters?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80152

Yeah snap up the bargains at the Beachside resorts. Oh that's right their are none. Hmm!

Sonofglion I take it you researched the subject?
Put as much research in to it as you did in backing arjay up about America blowing up the twin towers.
Have a good day bloke.
But like any comment, from any one, including me, do not get too upset if folk laugh at this or any one.

It is interesting to note that, despite the current minimal readings on sea-level rise, Greenland's land bound ice sheet had a 98 percent melting spree earlier this year. It took just 48 hours to turn ice, kilometres thick, into mush. In the Southern Hemisphere, the West Antarctic ice sheet, which is fractured and a giant section is poised to slip into the sea, is melting from below, because of warming rock. Now, sea water is passing underneath the ice and warming it quicker than before and the whole ice sheet (somewhere around the size of the European Alps in area and thickness) is pushing the rock apart, to form a huge canyon. Those two babies will force the global sea-levels up by 7 metres. Now that is a rise and it will wipe out most cities in Australia and in many parts of the world. Say goodbye to London, Paris and Rome. While people in Australia are still arguing that climate change is an invention and in any case, is definitely not anthropogenic, the world is bracing for the worst. Just throw another shrimp on the barbie and get me another beer.

That waterfall at the edge of the world could be used to produce clean hydro electric power !

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/ This site is a good source for credible info.I've met Malcolm Roberts several times and he is genuine in his search for the truth.

Wow! That's really great David Leigh.

I always did want to keep the boat at the foot of the garden, even if that garden is a little smaller.

I crossed Lake Alexandrina in SA once. Before crossing you had to be briefed on conditions.
The level of the lake on this particular day was measured and given to us as a reference as to depth.
We were told to expect an additional foot of water depth once we lost sight of land. Just keep inside of the buoys.
The extra water came from a slight south easterly breeze holding up the water and would not subside until night fall and the wind drops.

Dear Poirot,

Indeed. It is interesting that the Chinese government has made reporting of the air quality in Beijing illegal once it exceeds certain levels.

I thought you might enjoys this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI6awWqHsOY

You may have seen it already but this type of planning for the future leaves us for dead, especially in the light of the threat of AGW. It makes the responses of so many look petty and selfish.

'So what if we get over a metre sea level rise in a hundred years, I'll be dead then! So why on earth would I want to pay for any mitigation?'

Csteele, all that you said is in the Coastal Conference site page.

As you are aware I took the last paragraph of that report and simply quoted it.

The report gives reasons for why the figures should be higher than the recordings at Fort Denison…all suppositions….then they close with the facts:

“The Fort Denison data clearly shows a period of reduced sea level rise over the period
1986-2007 of 0.4 mm/year as opposed to 0.9 mm/year over the length of the dataset.

"As you are aware I took the last paragraph of that report and simply quoted it."

But you now seem to be forgetting, sonogloin, that you also editorialised:

"Sea levels in Sydney harbour went down for a ten year stretch…..DOWN….."

That is the way sea level has been behaving some places the sea level is up and some are down. But overall the sea level is rising.
Pacific Islands are feeling the effects now.

David Leigh>> It is interesting to note that, despite the current minimal readings on sea-level rise, Greenland's land bound ice sheet had a 98 percent melting spree earlier this year. It took just 48 hours to turn ice, kilometres thick, into mush. In the Southern Hemisphere, the West Antarctic ice sheet, which is fractured and a giant section is poised to slip into the sea<<

David, most people are simple souls, they want three meals a day and a modicum of happiness. Then there are those such as ourselves (pro or con CAGW) that think about tomorrow.

With the ice sheets melting, glaciers reverting, and low lying islands swamping, how come the Fort Denison records record no increase. Why do folks who live on the waterfront see no change in their moorings or the high tide mark? Why hasn't the shellfish industry seen a pulling up of stumps and move towards shallow water?

I have a whole side of my family in that have lived on the waterfront for five generations and when I asked them has anything changed, they answer no.

Where is the influx of Polynesians and Micronesians, forecasted thirty years ago as being imminent? The only boat people that land here are from land locked nations.

Wm Trevor>> But you now seem to be forgetting, sonogloin, that you also editorialised:
"Sea levels in Sydney harbour went down for a ten year stretch…..DOWN….."<<

Wm, I may have editorialized it, but unlike the thoroughly discredited GW scientists, I did not set false parameters and knowingly use concisely exaggerated models to achieve the result my masters wanted to see.


Belly>> Sonofglion I take it you researched the subject?
Put as much research in to it as you did in backing arjay up about America blowing up the twin towers<<

My china, is this the new strategy, divide and conquer?
Arjay and I are not a double act. He rarely adds to my thoughts or I to his. Re 911, Arjay is big enough and ugly enough to take on all comers, and he does.

579>> Pacific Islands are feeling the effects now.<<

Yes I have heard some lnfo along those lines recently, we can only keep fully aware of what unfolds and change our judgments if it makes sense to.

Wobbles…thanks.

sonogloin,

I believe the alteration from "global warming' to 'climate change' was more likely to have emanated from the "skeptics" camp.

Here's a "real" scientist on the subject.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-we-stand-at-the-start-of-2013/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-we-stand-at-the-start-of-2013-part-2/

Slightly off topic, but in keeping with the satellite pic I posted on Beijing's smog - get a load of this story:

http://www.care2.com/causes/chinas-smog-so-bad-a-huge-fire-burns-unnoticed-for-3-hours.html

The atmosphere over the Arctic has hit a troublesome milestone: the concentration of CO2 has surpassed 400 parts per million. Stations across the region in Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Iceland have recorded the measurements that have surged since the winter and spring have brought a decline in CO2-absorbing vegetation. While the downswing in carbon absorption happens every year, this is the first time in 800,000 years that the CO2 concentration anywhere in the world has been 400 ppm or above.
Before industrialization, global CO2 levels were about 280 ppm but in recent years global levels have reached as high as 395 ppm. The fact that any area of the globe has climbed above the 400 ppm mark concerns climate scientists that even with many countries rolling out carbon reduction measures, it's not making a difference fast enough.
Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said, “It is an indication that we’re in a different world.”
To that end, scientists have recently discovered that the loss of Arctic summer ice and accelerated warming of that region are altering the jet stream, which is likely to increase extreme weather events around the world.

On the Murdoch press "misinterpretation" on sea-level rise:

http://www.readfearn.com/2013/01/the-australian-admits-it-misinterpreted-research-on-sea-level-rise-linked-to-climate-change/

Whether the seas are rising or not it makes good sense to develop renewable sources of energy. It also makes good sense to clean-up the environment. And if the case was framed around that there might be more support.

Another thing which works against consensus is the gimmicky and harebrained nature of “climate change initiatives”, like:

1) Hyping the need for “urgent”action. Then introducing incentives for people to adopt solar, only to withdraw /wind them back when they get too popular. Or signing-up to protocols like Kyoto which allow many of the worst polluters exemptions and the worst overpopulators to freeride, and

2) Arguing that short term trends mean little, when they don’t go to support the AGW line. But then, milking short-termism to the max.by choosing to release the latest Climate Committee report in the middle of Australian summer with the predictable result that every Steele, Poirot and Wobbles will shout “Wow! This hot weather conclusively proves AGW” and then link us to some childish cartoon, that only a devotee would find any humour in.

Qanda made an interesting point the other day about the need to sideline the extremists from both sides of the debate.And he went on to name Lord Monckton and Tim Flannery as two such unhelpful parties.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14511#251373

Now I’m not sure about these two, but I can’t help but feel that if Qanda had not been constrained by the OLOs 350 word limit he might well have gone on add CSteele, Poirot, Wobbles, 579…to the (name and shame) list of unhelpful participants.Though to be fair, he would have been likely to have slotted them in well ahead of either Flannerly or Monckton!

____________________________________________________________________

@ David Leigh
<< It took just 48 hours to turn ice, kilometres thick, into mush>>

WOW!

How many of these have you had: << Just throw another shrimp on the barbie and get me another beer>>

<< It took just 48 hours to turn ice, KILOMETRES THICK into mush>>

Can you give us the link to this?

SPQR,

Here's yer link.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

You know very well that "short-term" trends are ,merely that,"short-term" trends. They don't conclusively prove anything - yet they all go to make up "long-term" trends

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

Just want to add for SPQR's benefit that the term "thick mush" was probably overstating the scenario...yet it can't denied that it was significant melt in very quick time - an "extreme melt event".

quadratic acceleration factor
semi-empirical models,
global temperature curve
residual trend
process-based sea-level estimates
a 95th percentile value
range of 144 synthetic timeseries
abstract culminates
weighted global sea-level history
non-linear time evolution

Dear Poirot I wish the REAL scientist that you linked was not so verbose.

In a nutshell he said:
“This increase in the rate of sea-level rise is a logical consequence of global warming, since ice melts faster and heat penetrates faster into the oceans in a warmer climate.”

I buy that, its physics, aint it.

“Global sea level is projected to rise 8-23 cm (3-9 in) by 2030, relative to 2000 levels, 18-48 cm (7-19 in) by 2050, and 50–140 cm (20-55 in) by 2100”

Yet the mean in Sydney harbour has been 0.9mm over the past 90 years. In fact we just came through a 10 year period where it was half of that. By 2030 the max projection is 23cm….that’s 230mm.

We have 17 years until 2030 and at the current rate (if no anomalies like the half the average decade crop up) we will rack up 1.5mm. Poirot do you know the linear that 1.5mm is? It is less than the width of my thumb nail, I just measured it.

When is this deluge going to kick off? They have been calling it since 1980.

@Poirot,

1) << SPQR, Here's yer link.>>
2) <<Just want to add for SPQR's benefit that the term "thick mush" was probably overstating the scenario...yet it can't denied that it was significant melt in very quick time - an "extreme melt event".>>

Nice try mother hen
But I want the link that shows/says << It took just 48 hours to turn ice, kilometres thick, into mush>>

The whole “KILOMETRES THICK” ice sheet was turned to “mush”

Not “thawing at or near the surface”
Not surface “run-off”
BUT MUSH! (and not even “thick” mush!)

Which the dictionary defines as: 1. A thick porridge or pudding of cornmeal boiled in water or milk/ 2. Something thick, soft, and pulpy.

But I want the link that shows/says << It took just 48 hours to turn ice, kilometres thick, into mush>>
Crickey !
It even takes our Universities longer than that to turn bright young minds into wide-eyed, open-mouthed, disorientated Academics !

Sonofgloin, your post to me was a sign you surrender.
Why do we post? I think most of us want to first put our opinions, then see others, maybe learn on the way.
I think those who come post and read very little of others thoughts, are not getting the best from the site.
I also think to post as you did, is OK but do you think first then post?
That putting evidence on the table, that your views may not be shared by most is wrong?
You constantly inform arjay here in print, that he knows much more than most.
I have my doubts, I too do not believe a word you print on this subject.
So very many posters,like me, target the views and policy's of the Greens.
Yet post thoughts and ideas, as is their right, every bit as silly as theirs.
In matters of climate change you have it down to Pat.
Do you under stand?
Your rebuttal of my words, says you do not want me to post an opinion, yet you would execept no such view about your rights.

sonoggloin,

Here's an easy to digest and reasonably clear and concise round up of Australia's recent heat anomaly - food for thought:

http://theconversation.edu.au/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628

Poirot, in real terms almost all we know comes from second and third parties. That is not an issue if the source is reliable. After the J curve hoax I have had little faith with numbers emanating from the Global Warming Industry.

But in first hand terms I know a ten year drought had the states building desal plants and the likes of Professor Flannery stating that the empty dams will never fill again. Prof Flannery declared sea level rise will imminently (in generational terms) devastate waterfront properties. Flannery then invests in waterfront property. The rains followed his purchase and filled our dams.

I consider the statement of fact that Dorothea included in her passionate sonnet:
“I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.”

A historical statement of meteorology from generations of observation. Here and right now I see no change in the pattern that Dorothea identified. Re the “record temperatures” as exampled in your link, here is an opposing link that casts doubt on the validity of the BOM.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/
What to believe and why to believe it is a value judgment we all make.
TBC

In regard to man induced Global Warming I can recall other ten year droughts. I can recall other bushfires followed by floods. I can go to a generational family home with an 80 year old jetty and find no change in high tide marks.

Yet islands are sinking, ice caps are melting, glaciers are flowing again and sea levels are rising. Perhaps it’s a cycle, but is it CO2 induced, I can’t see it, and the ones that do cannot prove it without fudging the numbers.

Poirot, Thanks for caring about our environment but I sincerely believe that some of us are barking up the wrong tree. Our problem is POLLUTION and that will not be solved with the “cost effective” technology that industry now employ only because of legislation.

As I said previously 10% of the globe owns 80% of its wealth and resources….I want them to pay to implement the high cost technologies we have to capture and break down pollutants. We do have the technology, but it would double the price of manufactured goods destroying the economy……but the 10% who own everything have the money to do it, at the cost of a fair portion of their obscene wealth and ongoing profit margin.

Well our ABC is at it again.

Their environmental reporter last night, [I think she was court reporter last week], has picked up & is running with the nut case predictions of one of our government flunkies, that temperature "could, possibly, perhaps, might even" rise by 6 degrees by end of century.

I notice she is a lady journalist, so by definition requires a calculator to work out the change from 5 dollars for a bus ticket. You have to have no math to be able to make such statements, without choking on the words.

When even the OPCC, & the UK met have downgraded their forecasts for temperature increases, we still get these silly little girls prattling on, as if they knew what they were saying.

I wonder what the formula, dictated by out lovely Julia might be. I suggest something like one million extra funding, for every 10 mentions of global warming. Does that sound fair?

Brilliant, Hasbeen!

I love Mr Trumpet's habit of denigrating women....

"I notice she is a lady journalist, so by definition requires a calculator to work out the change from 5 dollars for a bus ticket...we still get these silly girls prattling on, as if they knew what they were saying."

That's about as reasonable as your announcement that you've "got the maths"(but not the scientific knowledge) to debunk the climate science.

Sorry, but you need more than an out-sized ego and a touch of misogyny to form a decent argument.

Belly>> Sonofgloin, your post to me was a sign you surrender.<<

Like Hitlers orders to Manstein...."no retreat and no surrender" still luv ya Belly.

>>That putting evidence on the table, that your views may not be shared by most is wrong?<<

Belly if I was pro sea level rises and someone posted ridgy didge figures that showed no significant sea level change in a 90 year period in my backyard, including a recent straight 10 year period having halving of the average to boot…..I would consider my position…..they who do not are wrong in premise.

>>You constantly inform arjay here in print, that he knows much more than most.<<

Belly Arjay is no dill, that’s all

>>I have my doubts, I too do not believe a word you print on this subject.<<

……and most other subjects I sprout on about, I might add….but I still luv ya mate.

>>Your rebuttal of my words, says you do not want me to post an opinion, yet you would execept no such view about your rights.<<

Belly I have been rebutting you for years, but you still respond…..many thanks.

Poirot>>I love Mr Trumpet's habit of denigrating women....<<

Hasbeen>> I notice she is a lady journalist, so by definition requires a calculator to work out the change<<

Thanks for pointing that out Poirot, I was just about to send Hb a nasty post for hooking into our journo's.

Belly,

I think it's time you got over your notion that if someone rebuts your opinion, that they're attempting to stop you posting.

This is a site for debate and discussion - involving opposing points of view. Just because someone disagrees, they shouldn't be charged with trying to shut someone else down....it's a disingenuous assertion.

I just can’t imagine what the warmers would be like if any of their alarmist predictions had ever eventuated. It would be insufferable.

I don’t understand why they don’t take their “science” up with the people who gave them their “science”.

Tell it to those who walked away from Kyoto, tell it to the emissions trading markets, to the renewable energy industrialists, write to the UNFCCC, the IPCC, the Met Office and complain that the science you bought doesn’t work.

4,500 years ago the Egyptians scratched high and low flood water marks on the walls. You will find similar marks in many Australian ports. It serves little purpose to tell us to ignore the tidal history records engraved in rock.

We all know that such engraved records must be fed into a computer model with socialized assumptions in order to obtain a weighted average of probable sea level rises that might be possible under the aforementioned probability. Then we take the result and apply this weeks adjusted anomaly drivers, divide by El Nino, have a conference with a sheet of butcher paper, throw up on it, agree that it represents last nights dinner and present it as a peer reviewed paper.

Then you people wonder why even those who sold you your dream have all moved on.

It seems entirely appropriate that the BBC’s “Expert CAGW Panel of 28 Advisers” (of 28 Gate fame) contained the BBC’s Head of Comedy? He he he he.

And you call us the deniers? Hello.

skepticism is for people desperate not to believe in real science.
Science is settled in numerous cases and ongoing in others.
To say co2 has no effect on the planet is wild to say the least.
Sea levels are rising and polar ice is melting at increasing rates.
Those that get their science from the Australian newspaper should wait for the apologies come out before using their conclusions.

Dear SOG,

Here's a few more websites:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/27/world-warming

And -

http://climate.nasa.gov/warming_world/

Makes for interesting reading.

How can anyone entertain the nonsense that Malcolm Roberts, Bob Carter and the rest of their cronies from the Galileo Movement spruik about sea level rises.

The satellite record indicates a current rise of 3.1-3.2 mm per year.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2012rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained

The record for Fort Denison was the subject of a major paper that indicated that the levels were still rising:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1

And The Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring is available for anyone to check the current trends.

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2011.pdf

The evidence is all there but some still refuse to countenace the facts!

It's all about head in sand syndrome, I believe there is a vested interest in delaying, projects and laws for personal gain.
The skeptics are pushing a barrow down hill, with junk science.
Anyone with half a noodle can feel change taking place, from the 70's till now the sun is really getting intense. Those that live in humid conditions may be sheltered from the intensity to some degree.
But here the heat is clear without humidity, I can see it coming that we will be living underground before much longer.

Poirot I think its time you get over the fact your leftist stance is shared by few.
Sonofgloin you time and again post negativity about climate change, this thread is such.
You are not alone but surely you know not every one agrees?
Sydney broke a record today, it may yet be broken again, 45.7 degrees hottest day since 1930 some thing.
Inside my home, 10 am, nine when accounting for day light saving.
Temp was 80 now? should be peak, 95 degrees in the old scale.
Now I am 35 klm from the sea as the crow flys.
And on Saturday the inside temp rose to 42, out side on veranda face up, reading was 50!
Yes records are made to be broken, know that, but so many word wide.
Poirot lets call it over, you and I are not going to ever recover from our differences.
SOG insulted me, you took the chance for a weak shot.
Csteele and you ended our passing friendship, I want to ignore you, can you do that for me?
I need to stay away from constant verbal combat, your willingness to intrude in an issue between me and SOG is unwanted.

The skeptic argument...
Sea level rise is exaggerated

"We are told sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. ...

Around 1990 it became obvious the local tide-gauge did not agree - there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands.

Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years." (Vincent Gray).

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate

A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.
Gavin Schmidt investigated the source of the specific claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise, and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise?
Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. Sea level rise mutually corroborates other evidence of global warming as well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments.
The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on.
Because the behavior of sea level is such an important diagnostic aid for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you may create almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart.

Belly,

"I want to ignore you, can you do that for me?"

Absolutely!!

I was just about to send Hb a nasty post for hooking into our journo's.
sonofgloin,
Why persecute HB for stating a fact ? Has PC gone beyond mad ? many young Journos are largely wingless parrots & cut & paste jockeys & the handful of realistic & good reporters are being overlooked. The SMH has a couple excellent reporters. T Allen comes to mind.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/9
Worth a read.
Time consuming but then again other sources may be read quickly but not get truth involved.

Lexi and Belly, we read a link with graphs and eminent names that proclaims “A”.

Then we read links with the same formats proclaiming “B”. As I said I just keep looking at the environment around me and base my stance on that.

579 mentioned Tuvalu so I found “Tuvulu is sinking” and “Tuvalu is not sinking” sites. I phoned a mate in Fiji this afternoon and asked if he has noted higher water levels over the past 25 years……He said the beaches seem the same and the jetties have not been swamped. The same qualification my relatives up the coast gave me. One based on individual experience.

To my mind it is about agenda and the CAGW lobby have a tax as the solution….that alone concerns me.

Indi, I wasn’t having a go at Hb, I was playing with Poirot, we like to play. Didn’t you mention something about smiley faces to convey intent a thread ago….I should have put lol at the end.

T Allen comes to mind.
I only just realised the predictive spelling conned me here. It should be Allard.

Anyone with half a noodle can feel change taking place, from the 70's till now the sun is really getting intense. Is the Sun getting more intense or is the atmosphere letting more UV through ? All I know from reading is that the Ozone layer takes a very long time to heal. Now with so many penetrations from space craft (going up that is) there must be huge holes in this layer which let the UV go ape$hit on Earth.
579,
I totally agree re this change. However, it appears to me that this change is heading towards where things were 40 years ago. I see it here in FNQ withe monsoons. In the late 70's it rained literally for days without a break. In fact I remember being in Weipa in 75 & we could not see the other kerb of the road that's how heavy the rain was. I haven't seen anything like it since. Also, the doldrums religiously started 16th -18th October but since the very early 80's they got later & later & now they don't start till late December. The tides haven't been as high since the 80's either. There is a change yes but it is contradictory to what the experts state. What can Australians do about it ? Probably hide somewhere & play with themselves.
If anything the Carbon Tax will make it worse because people/businesses need to find more money to compensate. What is the Carbon Tax spent on ? ALP Super funds is my guess.

sea level rise over the period
1986-2007 of 0.4 mm/year as opposed to 0.9 mm/year over the length of the dataset.”
sonofgloin,
I know science has made some mind-blowing advances but to claim to detect a half-millimeter change in sea level is stretching it a bit. If there is indeed any rise it isn't water , it'll be Urine from the population explosion. Both are salty though :-)

Some times I see posts that say I/poster get my views from the paper the chips come wrapped in.
Far worse it was the Australian!
A self serving slave to the interests of an ex Australian power broker big time.
I should control my urges.
To openly debate this issue.
I cringe at the localization of this world wide issue.
Some do you know, think its a Gillard plot.
I see changes, no not in climate they existed long ago.
But based not on the science, but on current international weather patterns, we will see public opinion change.
How may I ask many of us agree with indys view the carbon tax is going in to my super fund?
Comment without reason is no help at all.

This morning I awoke to the news that California is moving away from the Carbon tax. California's emissions trading scheme was to start in January 2013, but this morning I hear it is either gone or rejigged........Anyone have more information?

Belly,
I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough. I didn't mean you as a supporter I meant to refer to the hierarchy such as I witness here in Qld with my ALP cronie line managers. I'm not at all pointing the finger at any worker as they, as am I are just pawns.

.Anyone have more information?
sonofgloin,
No, but it certainly makes the Californian Government a hell of a lot smarter than ours.

individual,

Why am I not surprised by your last comment?

The last time I looked, California was bankrupt - how "smart" is that?

http://rt.com/usa/news/california-bankrupt-taxpayers-pensions-874/

The last time I looked, California was bankrupt - how "smart" is that?
Poirot,
How uncanny, so is Australia. (if you really think about it). Take the foreign debt out of the australian budget & see how much is left in the coffers. You'll find it's a lot less than in California's.

Poirot,
by the way, is there any info by how much the sea levels have risen in California ? :-)

individual,

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Global-sea-level-rise-could-hit-California-hard-3657131.php

I take it you're interested in reading future projections, if only for the fact that imbibing the information allows you the recourse to dismiss it.

Actually, individual, it's interesting. California has a GDP of 2 trillion (one of the biggest economies in the world)...yet its revenue is only 366 billion while its spending is 438 billion. Its debt to GDP ratio is only 20.5 percent.

I have no idea what California's foreign debt is, however.

Sea level rise on the U.S. East Coast has accelerated much faster than in other parts of the world—roughly three to four times the global average, a new study says.
Calling the heavily populated region a sea level rise hot spot, researchers warn that cities such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore could face a more flood-prone future.
(Also see "New York, Boston 'Directly in Path' of Sea Level Rise.")
Sea levels worldwide are expected to rise as global warming melts ice and causes water to expand. Those levels, though, are expected to vary from place to place, due to factors such as ocean currents, differences in seawater temperature and saltiness, and the Earth's shape.
Now it seems scientists have pinpointed just such a variance.
Analyzing tide-level data from much of North America, U.S. Geological Survey scientists unexpectedly found that sea levels in the 600-mile (1,000-kilometer) stretch of coast from Cape Hatteras (map), North Carolina, to the Boston area climbed by about 2 to 3.8 millimeters a year, on average, between 1950 and 2009.
Global sea level rise averaged about 0.6 to 1 millimeter annually over the same period.
"If you talk with residents of this hot spot area in their 70s or 80s who've lived there all their lives, they'll tell you water is coming higher now in winter storms than it ever did before," said study co-author Peter Howd, an oceanographer contracted with the USGS.
"We're now finally getting to the point where we can measure their observations with our highfalutin scientific instruments."

At New York City, the team extrapolated, sea levels could rise by 7.8 to 11.4 inches (20 to 29 centimeters) by 2100—in addition to the roughly 3 feet (1 meter) of average sea level rise expected worldwide by then. (Related: "New York Seas to Rise Twice as Much as Rest of U.S.")
For residents of New York and cities up and down the eastern seaboard, those numbers should become a lot more than ink on paper.
"The first thing people will see from this is an increase over the next few decades in the low-level coastal flooding that occurs now with wintertime storms," Howd said.
"Eventually you'll see coastal flooding events three to four times a year instead of once every three to four years."
But it's not just cities that are expected to suffer.
"The northeast coast of the U.S. is flat," said climate modeler Jianjun Yin at the University of Arizona, who did not participate in this research. "Even gradual sea level rise could cause rapid retreat of shoreline and significant loss of wetland habitats."
(Related: "Groundwater Depletion Accelerates Sea-Level Rise.")
Mysteries of East Coast Sea Level Rise
It's still something of a mystery why the U.S. East Coast is bearing the brunt of sea level rise. Maybe, the researchers say, fresh water from Greenland's melting ice is disrupting North Atlantic currents, slowing the Gulf Stream and causing East Coast sea levels to rise.
It's also unclear to what extent humans may be to blame.
"This could be part of a natural cycle maybe 100 to 200 years long. Or not," study ao-author Howd said. "We need more data over years to help build climate models and greater understanding."
The team cautions too that the East Coast may not be alone.
"We're now looking into extending our analysis to see if hot spots in sea level rise show up in other places around the globe," said USGS oceanographer Kara Doran, who co-authored the study, published June 24 by the journal Nature Climate Change.
Nothing to See Here.

The new findings come at a particularly interesting political moment in one of the states in the sea level hot zone.
Concerned over regulations that could result from recent sea level rise forecasts, some North Carolina legislators have drafted a bill requiring that future state sea level forecasts be based on only past patterns.
"Trying to ban the use of the best science for sea level predictions is absurd," said University of Pennsylvania coastal geologist Ben Horton, who wasn't part of the new study.
NASA climate scientist Josh Willis agreed, adding that such efforts "are sort of a case of human nature trying to outwit Mother Nature, and Mother Nature usually wins that battle of wits.
"It's really shortsighted to assume that the next hundred years of sea level rise are going to be like the last hundred years," Willis added. "We're already seeing glaciers and ice sheets melt more quickly, and the ocean absorbing more heat and expanding.

Sonofgloin, as I have told you I have a love of the Irish.
True my work life in every job I ever had bought a mate from Ireland.
Never found one who was not a bit mad, hugely funny and good fun to be with.
So do not say, as one other does I must hate you.
Only two, past not here now, posters came even near me using such a word, even then hate is harm full, to those who hate most.
Your admitting, up the thread, you base your views on personal observation, not science,makes you a life member of my mad Irish mates club.
You should consider the rock and string weather station, it was invented here in Australia, by an Irishman.
Hang the rock on the string, if it swings it is windy, if not calm.
If it is wet it is raining.
If water covers the rock? run!
sea is rising.

Dear SOG,

I've just had this interesting link sent to me
and I think that it's worth reading:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/01/17/wheres-our-australian-climate-plan

As the article states - "She'll be right mate,"
is no longer enough.

Sea level rise on the U.S. East Coast has accelerated much faster than in other parts of the world.
579,
?? Does that mean water does run up-hill ? Are you sure it's not the land subsiding ?
Puzzling indeed ! I always thought water is self-levelling ?

individual,

Perhaps it's a bit of both.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/3747-east-coast-sea-level-rise-accelerating.html

Lexi, I read the link, and some of the comments, this one had merit:

>>About half of the national weather stations are located in built up areas. Over the past century, and especially the past half century, urban density has increased, causing daytime warmth to be retained by the terrain and reradiated at night. Where once there were market gardens, dairies and urban forests there are now housing estates and industrial areas.<<

Yesterday in Sydney it was 45…today it is 23. The only pattern I can see is “erratic”, like weather has always been. I still want to know what conditions came together to cause the Medievil ice age.

Lexi, it is a bit like the religious debate, you need to see it to believe it versus believe the words of others.

Belly>> Hang the rock on the string, if it swings it is windy, if not calm.
If it is wet it is raining.
If water covers the rock? run!
sea is rising.<<

To be sure to be sure, my lot filled the ranks of the convicts and the gendarmerie with that logic.

.Belly>> Your admitting, up the thread, you base your views on personal observation, not science,makes you a life member of my mad Irish mates club<<

There is some data I accept. Take the Fort Denison Tide record I started the thread with. I believe those because it is local, I can walk down and take a peek myself. I have difficulty accepting the likes of 579 telling me that the water is deeper in the Northern hemisphere than here, Indy referred to it as akin to “water running up hill”.

Belly sometimes the rock is greater than paper.

sonofgloin,

"...The only pattern I can see is "erratic"..."

Um...that's because you're not a climatologist.

Anyhooo....like bonmot and a few others have realised, it's a huge waste of time blathering away here on issues that require a modicum of expertise - or attempting to support others who have it.

I'm sure I should be spending more time in the garden instead of getting into stupid debates round here (you guys wouldn't believe the bumper crop of tomatoes we've got :)...sounds like the perfect antidote to OLO.

Um...that's because you're not a climatologist.
Poirot,
I'll give you some food for thought. The world's oceans (according to Wikipedia) cover 361 million square kilometres. The total tonnage of world merchant shipping was 1.12billion tonnes in 2008. Keep in mind that doesn't include the Navies of the world. Let's say that's another quarter of a billion tonnes. Combine ALL that displaces water on the oceans & you'll find that a millimetre of sea level rise is purely due to all that weight. Take away all that weight & see what the sea level is doing.
Let's hear from our mathematicians & see if they're right or the climatologists. So far as the climate is concerned we'll have to stop getting cheap commodities from Asia. Cut back on what's not really needed & the climate will improve. Really does make that Tax look as silly as it's creators, eh ?

Sonofgloin yet a few more tips.
To see first open your eyes.
And an illness I have, a wish to learn, is of use.
Research, research.
You inadvertently, in saying as you have, explains why you think the twin towers was a set up.
And leave little room to defend you view on this subject.
A Scientist bloke is so far out in front of *I believe what I see*
That rock and string, along side your view is high tec.

individual,

That's the funniest thing I've read on the subject of sea level rise : )

Next you'll be blaming it on all those people who take a sly pee while swimming at the beach.

I agree with you on cheap commodities - however, in a society with a system that relies on growth and consumption to sustain itself, that ain't going to happen.

(I'm going out to the garden)

Weather station s are placed at airports, not in the middle of town.
With the ice melt going on in greenland, they say it is effecting the jet streams, which in turn effects our weather. It is predicted to get increasingly wild, with bigger deluges of rain, snow, heat and cold.
The predictions are not good, with more destruction, and floods.

Sonofgloin: "...The only pattern I can see is 'erratic'..."
Poirot: “ Um...that's because you're not a climatologist”

Now, where have I heard that before?

[HINT]

“Many years ago there lived an emperor who loved beautiful new clothes…

One day two swindlers [came to the palace]. They said that they were weavers, claiming that they knew how to make the finest cloth imaginable. Not only were the colors and the patterns extraordinarily beautiful, but in addition, this material had the amazing property that it was to be INVISIBLE TO ANYONE WHO WAS INCOMPETENT OR STUPID…

579>> The predictions are not good, with more destruction, and floods.<<

I totally agree with you 579, the predictions are not good, in fact they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Next you'll be blaming it on all those people who take a sly pee while swimming at the beach.
Poirot,
Hmmh let's see. 500ml/day x 60000000000 x 365 =wow !. for once you've got a point !
Congratulation.

Poirot>> (you guys wouldn't believe the bumper crop of tomatoes we've got :)...<<

Global Warming Predictions….gone wrong:

1.Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, March 20, 2000.

2."[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Dr Michael Oppenheimer, 1990.

3."Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen predicts a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. June 8, 1972.

4."Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

5."By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine , January 1970.

6."If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Dr Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

7."By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology , September 1971.

8."In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.

Poirot, you should have those tomatoes stuffed and mounted, they are a monument to nature over science. Or perhaps its the abundace of CO2 that heplped them survive the scientists.

sonofgloin,

If empirical evidence is the fabric enfolding the global warming debate - then it's the denialists who are parading around starkers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

http://theconversation.edu.au/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628

But arguing with you lot here is like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer - it feels so good when you stop.

I'm going to stop.....

<< But arguing with you lot here is like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer - it feels so good when you stop.
I'm going to stop.....>>

Well, that explains it – your kooky ideas, that is.
Too many hammer blows to the head

Yep! it might be a good idea to stop doing it.

I wonder if this, as with Poirot, will be the result with all warmists?

Will they all just fold their tent, & sneak off into the night, as they realise the error of their arguments, & not want to admit how badly they were taken in by con men & women.

Hasbeen,

Not folding tent and sneaking off into night...just have better things to do than argue with the likes of you (it's like a saloon bar around here - with the same level of veracity:).

I'll reprise this link - as it says it all quite bluntly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZdCfoDiMDg

SPQR, I have used the Emperors clothes analogy for decades, and how absolutely true it is in regard to CAGW devotees.

Speaking of fiction, the Global Warming Industry also fits the “Chicken Little” mind set.

Chicken Little…“The sky is falling, the sky is falling”.

Observer….“THE SKY CAN’T FALL”

Chicken Little…..“Then the earth is rising, the earth is rising”.

As I mentioned earlier the agenda is to take the pressure to clean up their act off the manufacturers, shift the blame to the consumers, fleece the tax revenue from sovereign nations and create a one way money funnel to the U.N.

That is the only part of their agenda that has not changed….everything thing else is elastic.

If it is consecutively hot…..it’s GW

If its unseasonably cold….it’s GW

If there is drought….it’s GW

If there are monsoon’s….it’s GW

Too much snow….it’s GW

Too little snow….it’s GW

If little Billy’s nose bleeds….it’s GW

Gosh, what can’t GW do….

Belly>>You inadvertently, in saying as you have, explains why you think the twin towers was a set up.<<

Yes china I use the same logic on 911 as I do on most issues.

Not on a single occasion has a modern sky scraper been “DEMOLISHED” by a fire. Then we get two that not only demolish, but fall into their own footprint. Not to mention WTC building 7

WTC 7 was not directly hit, yet it was “DEMOLISHED” but at the request of Larry Silverman, the owner.
The fire brigade tells him it’s alight and he says “PULL IT”. Then the NYFD “DEMOLISH” the building within an hour. Contract demolition companies take weeks to set up a high rise for demolition. Why do they bother….ask the NYFD how its done in an hour.

Silverman must have had too much Prozac that day because he told this ridiculous lie. He has never reaped it or commented on it again…..like it didn’t happen and he did not say it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

Belly, the unbridled construction of sky scrapers in South America from 1970 on saw sub standard insulations and flammable building materials widely used. The fires that eventuated burnt ferociously for days. None of them fell….not one…ever…then we get three within hours of each other. Give me a break….then you have Silverstein blabbing. Nah 911 like the Kennedy murder is an inside job, ask Blind Freddy

Poirot,
Just before you duck off could you please check your calculator re the figures I provided ?
How many millimetres deep would 1.5 billion cubic metres of water cover when spread out to 361 million square metres ?
ps. your link re the greedy oil crowd reminds of the greedy public servants who take as much as they can from those who work. Uncanny parallel.
Where're you heading anyway ?

Dear SOG,

I can't understand how anybody can ignore what's
happening on our own door-step. Heatwaves and
bushfires are the most obvious manifestations.
These weather events are getting more dangerous
(and costly) because more and more people are in
harm's way.

There's been a steep ramp in insurance payouts due to
extreme weather events in this country since the 1960s.
Our cities have sprawled out into rural areas and up
and down our coastlines. More and more people and
properties have been put at risk.

Severe droughts affect our agricultural centres and
as the link I gave you earlier states,
"SE Australia is getting hotter, drier, and more
fire prone. South West Western Australia is drying out.
The Northern Tropics may well get wetter..."
And the list goes on.

When the "climate really is changing for the worst in
most parts of Australia..." to suggest that "she'll be
right mate," does not appear to be an intelligent
option.

Poirot>> I'll reprise this link - as it says it all quite bluntly...<<

Poirot, those are the guys I want to pay for the pollution, I am not partisan to any, except to the common good.

What I do note is that even with a Democrat government in the chair; Obama does not push for legislation to have the polluters invest in expensive emission control technology. Everything we manufacture can be cleaned up and broken down into harmless components of the previous amalgam, excepting nuclear waste. But it costs.

I would be happy to share some of that cost, but the 10% that own 80% of the globes assets have to come to the table. If just 10% of that 80% of amassed wealth were spent on emission control and clean up we would have no issues. But the assets of the 10% have steadily grown since the 1980’s as has the push by the Green Industry to make the consumer responsible and pay the UN oligarchs.

Instead Obama compliantly helps move the blame and the cost to the consumer, leaving the Corporations to pollute and plunder while the Green oligarchs take money from us before it hits our pockets.

Poirot, I have talked about the modern environmental movement at length in past posts. I have talked about how the “Silent Spring” movement was hijacked from focusing on the polluter to focusing on the consumer. Not one reply at any point about the history and politics that hijacked the direction of the environmental movement that greens here will stick pins in themselves over.

Do yopu know who directs the movement? Do you know how a 180 degree change in focus came about. Well it started with a “Club of Rome” meeting in the 1970’s. Poirot my emerald, do you know who you support?

It aint the environment

Lexi>> There's been a steep ramp in insurance payouts due to
extreme weather events in this country since the 1960s.
Our cities have sprawled out into rural areas and up
and down our coastlines. More and more people and
properties have been put at risk.<<

Lexi, the more dwelling adjacent to the bush, the more dwellings lost. The hottest day “on record “in Sydney was reached on Friday; it was 0.44 of a degree hotter than the previous set in the 1930’s. The next day it was 26 degrees, today it is 22 degrees.

Don’t over focus on GW, we don’t control it, the sun does, and it controls the winds. The earth has sustained life during extended periods of global volcanic emissions. It has been hotter than it is now and it has been cooler, there has been more CO2 and there has been less.

We need to focus on manmade pollution and the reasons that “best practice” is not the most effective technologies we have to capture and neutralize emissions. But that takes money, and those that have it won’t spend on it….simple as that

There is ample room for middle ground on this issue. I doubt if there are many on the “skeptics” side of the house who would argue against the merits of reducing pollution, or developing alternative sources of energy. They might argue about the merits of a particular policy, like the “Carbon tax” via-à-vis another approach, but they are generally in favor of a cleaner world.

What we have been seeing –both here and elsewhere -- is a very dishonest campaign by the more extreme (leftist) elements. Who are seeking to exploit concern over climate change to further their harebrained agendas—well illustrated in Poirot's latest link –and in fact, most things Poirot links to.

We are meant to believe that unless we go along holus bolus with what the extreme left is selling we are part of a giant capitalist conspiracy. That absolutely nothing is being done, or has been done up till now, to control pollution or waste. And, if we signed up to a mega-Kyoto tomorrow (and sign away our wealth --and rights) the climate would magically enter a Goldilocks phase.

Well, none of it is true.Even if we stopped CO2 emissions tomorrow these extremists would still not be sated because their real purpose goes way,way beyond climate amelioration.

Say no to drugs.
Say no to violence again women(and men).
And most important of all, say no to climate extremists.

I say your summarization is all wrong. Why does climate change got to be political. Left, right doesn't make sense.
It is a matter of believing real science, or skeptic science.
Personally i believe skeptic science is driven by vested interests. Otherwise why would you bother. You can just say i don't believe the straight science.
Nasa is not deterred by skeptics, and rightly so, if they can not come up with the same conclusions as the skeptics, that makes the science dangerous.
Nasa is an exacting science, and for good reason peoples lives are dependent on it.
So i do not see why politics has to be involved.
The carbon tax paid by the top polluters, is a very good start in creating change, in line with real science. If we leave it till all sides agree, it may be to late to back out the problem, if one exists.
If you back the skeptics, so be it, the rest of us will ere on the side of caution.

Dear SOG,

The most far-reaching effect of air pollution is a
change in the global climate. As a result of the
burning of fuels and wastes and the razing of
forests, the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is steadily increasing. Any high school
student knows that. This gas creates a "greenhouse
effect" on the planet, for it allows solar rays to
reach the earth's surface but prevents heat from
radiating back into space. The consequence is global
warming. This warming effect is already under way,
polar ice-caps are melting and the average global
temperature is expected to rise by 3 to 8 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2030. This seems like a small change,
but minor fluctuations in global temperature can have
drastic consequences. During the last ice age, when
much of North America was covered with sheets of ice more
than a mile thick, average temperature was only about 5 degrees cooler than today.

After decades of carelessly dumping noxious gases and
particulates into the atmosphere, most of the industrialised
societies are now enforcing clean air standards.

This and other atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable
outcome of industrial technology. It derives also from
political decisions to tolerate pollution rather than bear
the costs.

Further control of pollution is politically difficult,
however, for the economic interests behind "smokestack"
industries are a powerful political lobby that is
reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the
task.

We need the right leadership and long-term planning to
counter this situation.

we don’t control it, the sun does, and it controls the winds
sonofgloin,
you're right we have no control but we're definitely aiding the extremes. By putting up ever more heat-reflecting structures (roofs), more concrete surfaces, more bitumen roads etc we're actually increasing the sun's effects to increasing temperatures & wind. Also, at the same time we're increasing rain run-off with this infrastructure & in turn decrease the ground's ability to absorb water.
We simply need to introduce restraint in putting up ever more buildings. we wouldn't need them if we curbed population. Everyone can still make a good living in sustainable no-growth economy. There just won't be so much obscene wealth but hey, get one of those wealthy people & let them go very thirsty one day & see how much they'll be prepared to pay for a bottle of water. Remember "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse".

I'm yet to find my book on the Flat Earthers but I do remember a wager involving Hampden and Wallace.

Here is Wikipedia's take.

“a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet. The crucial step was to set a sight line 4 metres (13 ft) above the water. Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel and threatening to kill Wallace. Wallace, who had been unaware of Rowbotham's earlier experiments, was criticized by his peers for "his 'injudicious' involvement in a bet to 'decide' the most fundamental and established of scientific facts" “.

Sometimes laying the evidence before their very eyes still isn't good enough. Beware the ardent deniers though as history shows threats of violence can be made.

Gentlemen the earth is round and the physics and impacts of AGW are real.

<<Gentlemen...>>

How very sexist of you, CSteele!

It sounds like you're still very much in the-Earth-is-flat era.

SOG I will continue to like you as an Irish bloke.
And laugh about your views and assurance you can contribute so powerfully to debate by ignoring truth, science and common sense.
Well done!

Let us take a slightly different tack.

Lexi, Belly, Csteele, Poirot, 579, Wobbles, Wm and others who believe that humanity’s CO2 emissions do change the climate. Do you agree with a Carbon tax? If so tell me what it has achieved and future prognostications.

The major players in wind and solar are the power generators, where there is no carbon tax.
There is no reason for this move to change, while we have a carbon tax and forecast to get dearer. That is a pretty good reason.

Belly>> SOG I will continue to like you as an Irish bloke.
And laugh about your views and assurance you can contribute so powerfully to debate by ignoring truth, science and common sense.
Well done!<<

Faster than a speeding acolyte,
More powerful than an indoctrinated babble,
Able to leap small minds with a single bound,
Look…., down in the colonies, it’s a bird, it’s a plane,
It’s the Irish Bloke,
Strange visitor from another continent with powers and abilities far beyond simple souls,
The Irish Bloke….who can change the course of mighty propagandists,
Bend policy in with his mighty keyboard,
And who disguised as Sonofgloin hangs around OLO because thus far his IPP has not been blocked.

Luv you Belly, you’re a funny bloke china….are you a protestant?

579>> The major players in wind and solar are the power generators, where there is no carbon tax.
There is no reason for this move to change, while we have a carbon tax and forecast to get dearer. That is a pretty good reason.<<

579 old fruit, wind and solar generators are subsidized by the governments of their host nation. Without the citizens taxes there would be no industry.

Financially, wind energy is a losing proposition for most everyone who does not directly profit from the manufacture, siting, servicing, removal, financing or taxing of turbines. So everybody in the loop gains except the consumer/taxpayer.

We would be better off taking the money spent on Wind Turbines incentives and devote all those resources to planting trees that would sequester carbon, and simply forgo the huge hidden carbon footprint associated with turbines.

But that won’t happen, because band wagon jumping has become a religion of itself, saves thinking.

Will take more than trees to sequester carbon, There is no sideline occupation to justify the use of fossil fuel.
Do the power generators get govt; assistance for turbines, i can't see that. One of them is a NZ power company.
Old growth trees take in little to no carbon, it's the newly generating growth that needs carbon. maybe we need more bush fires.
There is no quick fix, Stop the co2 quickly as possible, especially brown coal as it is worse than black coal.

Yet despite all of the benefits and precautions being taken, the fact remains that there are still too many uncertainties and potential dangers attached to carbon sequestration and this process should not be used or promoted. One possible threat is very important to consider, largely due to the fact that it is likely to manifest itself into a very real problem. Carbon sequestration has the capability of changing the chemical composition and habitable qualities of the oceans.

These alterations might sound impossible or extreme, but they have a very high likelihood of occurrence, and if they take place, the consequences would be severe. Even if companies check to make sure that there are no faults or weak spots within the areas where the CO2 would be stored, there is always the possibility of change. The earth’s plates shift and move, and pressures can build beyond expected measurements. Life and nature change. Such flexibility is part of their very definition. And if the security that an oil company was depending upon alters, the company’s actions will not only affect themselves, but the whole world. Deep-sea life is extremely sensitive to change. As Seibel and Walsh stated in their article “Potential Impacts of CO2 Injection on Deep-Sea Biota,” “…in the deep sea they [CO2 concentration and pH] have been stable for thousands of years, and organisms are highly attuned to this stability.” The steady leak of CO2 into this secure environment would throw this balance into chaos. An increase in CO2 would make it much harder for seas life to receive the needed amount of oxygen, which would put their survival under a strain. They would have to work harder to acquire the necessary levels of oxygen, yet higher CO2 levels also decrease their metabolism rate, and as a result, the rate at which they move and function. Creatures’ abilities to synthesize protein would also decrease, which could negatively impact their ability to use their muscles and their means of mobility.

If CO2 levels continued to be released into the water, deep sea life would be fighting to maintain cellular pH and chemical balance, but eventually the strain would become too much. The ocean’s chemical balance would be altered, and mass death of sea life would occur. Not only would these extinctions be a tragedy in themselves, but this change would also affect people around the globe. Fishermen might face an end to their occupation, and sea food, a large source of nourishment for much of the world, would become severely strained. This scenario might sound a bit drastic, but taking another look the situation shows it is possible. Many of the companies interested in using carbon sequestration are intending to store anywhere from 8,000-14 million tons of carbon underground. That is 14 million for just one company. There are multiple companies looking at carbon sequestration as an alternative to releasing the gas in the air. If all of this carbon was stored underground and under the ocean, the scene created above does not seem so absurd.
Not only is marine life potentially threatened by carbon sequestration, but human life as well. If CO2 rapidly escaped from its storage pockets, it “could result in low-lying areas near the breach filling with CO2 and people becoming asphyxiated” (Dow-Jones, 3). This sounds like a good premise for a horror movie, but a real-life threat? Come on, right? This actually has happened though, and the loss of life was incredible.
The year was 1986, the scene of the tragedy was Lake Nyos in Cameroon. People were going about their daily lives when death struck; a large amount of CO2 exploded from Lake Nyos and more than 1,700 people died. When medical examiners came upon the scene they found bodies sprawled everywhere, many with clothes shredded and half-torn, a last attempt to relieve the suffocation of asphyxiation. Cattle had died, and those who had survived had been a comatose state for hours. Skin was seared, bronchial tubes were burnt, and lungs filled with fluid. It was surely a quick way to die.

579>> The year was 1986, the scene of the tragedy was Lake Nyos in Cameroon.
a large amount of CO2 exploded from Lake Nyos and more than 1,700 people died.<<

What did you throw that in for? What does it mean?

A 400 year build up of CO2 generated by magma explodes into a cubic kilometer of gas weighing up to 300,000 tons and you are its neighbour...of course it going to kill you....in that volume so will the vast majority of gasses on the periodic table .

You heart string puller you 579.....Horrible CO2...no matter that it protects us against that vile rust and decay promoter Oxygen.

579, please stop plagiarising by "cutting and pasting" the sort of post on "Posted by 579, Monday, 21 January 2013 2:17:33 PM". Have the decency to also post a reference to the source of your material.

You plagiarism is easy to pick because your own literary style is so obviously different. For example, you said on another discussion, "

"Any one with half a brain can see Abbott has his own agenda, and wants to say nothing.
Chemo drugs, if the drugs are only a stop gap to prolong life for a few weeks,,, a lot of expense for what.
Can't single mothers pull their weight once their kids are at kinda etc.
Howard put the retirement age into motion."

Your personal style is full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, as distinct form the passages you have plagiarised.

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung.

GK is it your intention to stalk folk to abuse here.
You attempted it with me in another thread.
May I give you a tip.
It can be done with a little class, if you insist on stalking Labor contributors say so.
You slandered Lexi in a thread she was not active in.
I refuse to let such bigotry pass without comment.
Are on school holidays?
Maths, I highly recommend you study it.
you are trying to insult 48 in every hundred Australians, for? thinking other than you, out standing.

Belly, please grow up. I did not slander Lexi! I took her to task for quoting a left-wing source, the SMH, and calling Abbott vulgar. You Labor voters think you can say whatever you like about my side of politics and then you get a little precious! And Lexi then made the bigger mistake saying,"As for Sam - I'm not familiar with who he is or
his political inclinations." I suggest that Lexi ought to care who she is quoting. If I was to quote Larry Pickering I suggest you lot would attack me for being a friend of Pickering or Andrew Bolt.

Of course I want to insult 48% of the Australian people! You are fools who honestly believe you are always right. Yet, your vile party passed three horrendous acts affecting the poor and the weak. And you call Abbott vulgar? Get a life! In the last few years you have caused enormous damage to Australia and our economy. You have failed on almost every political front, yet you have the gall to insult me.

Keep it up Belly,

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung (on holidays)

Belly, I still am not sure why CO2 is demonised. I think it is a socialist plot to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Why do I think that? Because our ALP Gov't Resource Minister Combet said it TWICE on the National Press Club.

Rudd lied about his trip to Copenhagen in 2009 because on Page 18 of the Sept. 2009 IPCCC submission that Rudd went to Copenhagen to ratify,says near the bottom, that the UN wants to create a new World Government! That is the UN words, not mine, but Rudd assured the nation that it was not true. He lied, like Gillard.

I am a simple man and I believe in cause and effect. Please show me one graph that shows a rise in atmospheric CO2 precedes a rise in global temperature. You cannot. In fact you cannot show many graphs that show a relationship between global temps and CO2 other than some that show the rise in atmospheric CO2 TRAILS the rise in temp.

All you warmist science is politically motivated.

Geoffrey Kelley

geoffreykelle>>Of course I want to insult 48% of the Australian people! You are fools who honestly believe you are always right. Yet, your vile party passed three horrendous acts affecting the poor and the weak. And you call Abbott vulgar? Get a life! In the last few years you have caused enormous damage to Australia and our economy. You have failed on almost every political front<<

Yeah, that about sums the rabble up.

Some have opinions that go no where, i am glad i can help out with some commentary that commands a response, even if it has nothing to do with the topic.
In none of the sequestrian for carbon are trees mentioned as a first recourse. Trees are a converter from carbon to oxygen. A very important part of our world.
The only real thing to do is stop co2 from fossil fuel.

Dear Belly,

I've just stopped in to have a look at this
thread and read your post about me to
Geoffrey K.

However, you need not worry about me and
Mr Geoffrey. What Mr Geoffrey thinks
is of no interest to me.
I believe that sound reasoning will
conquer unreasonable generalisations every time.

Besides - we have to make allowances for
Mr Geoffrey. He appears to get his information
from such "reputable sources" as "The Australian"
"Herald Sun",
and I suspect - Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt.
So his posts are very predictable.

Take care.

No telling what this GK is about to come out with. Somewhat unstable i would say. I have the feeling his come and go tactics are a plan, with pre thought answers. Sitting the power lines waiting for a worm to pop up.
Needs a good hose down if you ask me.

Dear 579,

Nah. Just ignore him.

Lexi, Belly and 579,

You can resort to ad hominem attacks on me, but why can't you attack me on the substance of my post? Why do you Labor lot demonise CO2? It is an odourless, colourless gas essential to life, yet the socialists of this world want to use it as an excuse to tax it as a means of redistribution of wealth!

Also take the time to defend you beliefs! Have the guts to answer the definitive questions I put, rather than rambling on with your desperate "green religion". Look at the disasterous fires in Vic caused by your stupid misunderstanding of the science of forestry. When are you lot going to accept the responsibility for your actions!

Sticks and stones is playground stuff, but I am used to playground arguments from you ALP supporters!

Try to answer these two questions.

Are any of you aware that your Labor political leaders are in favour of forming a new World Government?

Are you aware that the Rudd/Gillard Gov't would like to tax Australians up to 0.1% of our GDP per annum, or about $A15 Billion a year, over and above our current foreign aid obligations, to fund this new World Gov't? My generation fought hard to make our courts the highest in the land and we withdrew the right to appeal to the English Privy Council and now you dunces are willing to hand over the highest court in the land to mad bloody African communists?

Are you aware that the new World Gov't will have the power to fine individuals, companies and our separate states for violations of laws proposed by this new World Gov't? My generation fought hard to make our courts the highest in the land and we withdrew the right to appeal to the English Privy Council and now you dunces are willing to hand over the highest court in the land to mad bloody African communists?

Please have the decency to address these three questions above, and let us try to move on from name-calling and discuss these three proposals rationally.

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

Mr Geoffrey K.,

I do not enjoy inter-acting with someone
who labels people and makes sweeping generalisations
without knowing anything about them. Nobody likes
an illogical and abusive debater.
This is a public forum and it is my choice with whom
I interact. I choose not to do so with you.

Cheers.

Lexi,

You said, "Besides - we have to make allowances for
Mr Geoffrey. He appears to get his information
from such "reputable sources" as "The Australian"
"Herald Sun",
and I suspect - Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt."

You are the one who used labels, not me!

You are running from the hard work of defending the vile policies of the Rudd/Gillard socialist gov't.

Now tell me that you used to be a Liberal voter but you cannot bring yourself to vote for Abbott!

No. like all the other socialists you cannot grasp the hard stuff! You refuse to debate the issues. You are only interested in chatting lightly with your socialist mates. This forum is open to all voters and is not the demesne of the socialists.

Your sickening attitude towards Liberal such as myself has to be slammed down before we can debate anything of value, and you and your friends are ducking the issues.

Everything I said about a New World Gov't is true and on the record. Rudd and Gillard are lying to the people by denying the truth. Wake up to yourselves, you Labor voters.

My generation worked hard to make Australian courts the highest in the land, and you are willing to hand this right over to the likes of Kofi Annan? How can you! How can you be so disloyal to Australia!

I do not believe you are really a treasonous person, but you are willing to undermine all we have fought for to satisfy your socialist beliefs. And you don't even know you are doing it! You bury your head in the sand.

You cannot even debate the subject of this forum, CO2!

Geoffrey Kelley

Dear Geoffrey,

It was a marvelous occasion when good ol' Gough introduced the Privy Council Appeals Abolition Bill in May 1973. From what I read you would have been fully supportive of the action.

Anyway, happy to answer question on CO2. What did you want to know?

Dear old geoffreykelley.

You can't win an argument with a lefty. You should know that. Even when you get them to admit they're wrong, they run off with their fingers in their ears mumbling lalalalalala!

Hi RawMustard,

I know I am charting an impossible course but it annoys me the way the lefties always assume the moral high gorund and think that they can say anything that they like about the Libs and get away with it. I want them to know that I abhor their chosen gov't and also give reasons why I hate the left! Yet, they still will not debate the facts.

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley

csteele, you said (Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 7:49:06 PM), what do you wish to know about CO2?

For a start you could show me a graph of a rise in atmospheric CO2 PRECEDING a rise in global warming. Good luck finding that one!

Then you could answer the following three questions:
"Are any of you aware that your Labor political leaders are in favour of forming a new World Government?

Are you aware that the Rudd/Gillard Gov't would like to tax Australians up to 0.1% of our GDP per annum, or about $A15 Billion a year, over and above our current foreign aid obligations, to fund this new World Gov't? My generation fought hard to make our courts the highest in the land and we withdrew the right to appeal to the English Privy Council and now you dunces are willing to hand over the highest court in the land to mad bloody African communists?

Are you aware that the new World Gov't will have the power to fine individuals, companies and our separate states for violations of laws proposed by this new World Gov't? My generation fought hard to make our courts the highest in the land and we withdrew the right to appeal to the English Privy Council and now you dunces are willing to hand over the highest court in the land to mad bloody African communists?"

I appreciate that you are as proud as I am that Australians cannot be tried for crimes (committed in Australia) by a court in any other country, but if you are a "warmist", how do you feel about this gov't relinquishing our sovereignty to the UN?

Regards

Geoffrey Kelley

Mr Geofrrey K.,

I tried to explain to you earlier - if you
continue to make sweeping generalisations
about people you know nothing about - it's only fair
to assume that they will not want to inter-act
with you. You were the one who used (and continues to
do so) labels
like "leftie," "socialist" et cetera.

To clarify things for you. I do not belong to
any political party. I never have.
I prefer policies that make
sense and that I feel are good for my family and
for the nation.

Being of Lithuanian Ancestry -
I was raised in a conservative voting family.
And yes, I used to vote Liberal for many years.
Most of my family still does. However, like
Malcolm Fraser - I feel that the current political
parties have a lot to answer. I do find Mr Abbott
as a candidate for PM - totally unsuitable - but that
does not make me anti Liberal. Simply, anti Mr Abbott
as PM. As a voter I am entitled to my opinion. Also,
I'm not the only one as the polls indicate. Mr Abbott
is the least popular Opposition Leader in this country's
history and there's a good reason for that.

As for my not discussing CO2. I actually have on this
thread. Go back and check.

Until you're able to stop stooping to labeling people
and making wrong assumptions about them - I have no wish
to enter into any discussions with you.

Cheers.

Dear Geoffrey,

Whoa there young fella, lets take this one mouthful at a time.

Here is your graph.

http://zfacts.com/p/226.html

Now how about answering a question for me:

Do you think Gough did well to present that legislation to parliament despite opposition from the other side of politics and should he be congratulated for doing so?

>>You cannot even debate the subject of this forum, CO2!<<

Pot kettle etc.

Although personally I have no problem with discussions that meander from their original topic.

>>Everything I said about a New World Gov't is true and on the record.<<

Really? I'd quite like to see that record. All google has provided me with is bunch of websites run by al-foil hat wearing nutcases.

Cheers,

Tony

There is a tiger snake in the camp. Can GK start his own thread and topic, so he can air his views.

I do not think highlighting a persons posts is quite right.
I may get caned for it.
But GK has unmasked in a thread Why not Turnbull.
I think his own words will say what I want to but will show respect for the forum in not repeating.

Co2 is colourless, odourless, and ecential to life. That is true ; But nature has been compromised by our burning of fossil fuel, so unless we correct our ways we may be in for a hectic time.
Being around 400 ppm is some sort of milestone, how long before the next 100 ppm. It's taken a century to get from 285 ppm to 400ppm.
Where will we be by 2025, a mere 13 years. My guess is around 440 ppm
and in considerable more trouble. Unless we bring about change now, and work toward stopping our dependence on oil.

Here you go Geoffrey...

Warmings take around 5,000 years and the lag is only 800 years....there's nothing to say that 5/6 off the warming wasn't caused by the rise in CO2 acting as an amplifier.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Dear csteele,

You asked me if I applaud Gough for the legislation? Yes, I do. I also applaud Gough for purchasing ‘Blue Poles’, but my congratulations and admiration of Gough probably end about there. His disastrous gov’t has only been eclipsed by our current gov’t.

As for your graph, I am not impressed.

Firstly it is unattributed. I cannot determine from which source it was plagiarized because none is offered. As for the source of the website, I can see that it is a US left-wing think-tank set up to oppose GW Bush going into Afghanistan! Your graph fails the test of being good science. One of the main reasons scientists deplore plagiarism is because it denies us the chance to assess the character of the worker that produces the paper. Another reason is that is just plain intellectual theft.

But let us analyse your graph. From 1880 to about 1970 the rise in temp PRECEDES the rise in CO2. After 1970 the CO2 precedes temp rise. We have a conundrum, do we not? You see, I could just as easily interpret the massive rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from clearing of the rainforests in South America and Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. By destroying the ‘lungs of the earth’ (rainforests). We could be looking at an underutilization of the CO2 uptake by photosynthesis. You see csteele, my interpretation may not be correct, but at least it has a scientific basis and not a political basis for arriving at my conclusion.
(continued)

Now I would like you to look at my graph. It will be found at

http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3736

and you will see that is properly referenced. This is real science, unlike your poor graph! You will see that the relationship between CO2 and average temp is completely unrelated! You will see that we are also in an ice age and that ice on the earth’s surface is an unusual state. In fact, ice has only been present for about 20% of the time over the last one billion years.

The science I offer is work done by CR Scotese and RA Bernier. You can Google these names to find out their credentials. They are also the scientists who did the work, not some left-wing blogger plagiarizing another’s work, or even worse, making it all up!

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung.

Wow, Geoffrey,

You should be congratulated if you've come across denialist scientists who are peer reviewed on the subject...(are they peer reviewed?)

Now let's see...News Weekly?...oh it's the main publication of the National Civic Council....hmmmm...an ultra-socially-conservative organisation founded by B.A. Santamaria.....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/News_Weekly

Why am I not surprised?

And it's funny that you should mention "blogs" as a conduit for the dissemination of climate science argument, because that's really the main theatre for denialists to blather their fanciful and wholly non-empirical (some would say "fictional") stuff.

"Making it up" is the "skeptic" specialty.

Dear Tony,

You asked (Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 5:00:46 AM) for a proof of the New World Government. I have given the references before.

My reference is from the UNFCCC! It is the resolution PM Kevin Rudd took over 140 Australians (headed by that non-scientist Flannery) to Copenhagen to ratify! Rudd has consistently lied about the formation of a new gov’t and subjected those who point out the New World Gov’t to fierce ad hominem attacks. You ought to read this resolution from front to back like I have, before you comment about nutcases.

I refer you to the bottom of Page 18, Paragraph 38, of the United Nations, UNFCCC document labelled FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 15 September 2009

It says:

“38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.”

But I must agree with you that they are “a bunch…… (of) al-foil hat wearing nutcases.”

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung.

Poirot,

You are making the same mistake as the others. You mount an ad hominem attack on B.A. Santamaria and me but you cannot even be bothered to read the science of CR Scotese and RA Bernier. Did you see the graph? Did you check the bona fides of the scientists who did the work? Or, are you just mouthing off the opinions of bloggers that suit you argument?

As for your offering on the relationship between CO2 and warming, it is so laughable that it is insulting. Please explain the first 800 years and then we will move on to the rest. (Hint, what happens to beer if you leave a glass out in the sun? Now that is science most Australians know something about!)

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung.

Geoffrey,

Might I suggest that your bellicose attitude on this thread and your superlative ad hominems are both far exceeding anything that has been sent in your direction.

You appear to be all the denialists I've ever debated rolled into one exuberant package...(Hoorah!)

Dear Geoffrey...I support the climate scientists who are "actually" trained in the various disciplines - as opposed to the many "skeptics" who wheel out any and every sort of bunkum from people who have no training in the areas in question.

Dear Poirot,

Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono:
Seeking Sustainability," reminds us that Galileo
was put under house arrest by the Vatican for
saying that the earth moved around the sun.
In fact, in 1633 the Church made him recant his
theory of the universe.

As Hundloe tells us, "In case we dismiss this
religious intervention in science as a thing of
the past, be aware that on issues which require radical
solutions that are likely to harm vested economic and
political interests, censorship exists today."

Hundloe states that," In Australia in 2006, leading
climatologists with that country's pre-eminent public
research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the
organisation's management from publicly discussing the
implications of climate change. Management was acting on
behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the
standout countries in terms of human development status.
It is not corrupt. Its science is world class."

None of that mattered. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position as Hundloe points out, was to cast doubt on global
warming and refuse to enter into UN agreements such as
the Kyoto Protocol.

With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian Government's position changed - yet the then
Prime Minister remained half=hearted about a commitment
to counter global warming.

Little had changed in near to 400 years when ignorance and
vested interests are confronted by scientific facts.

As Hundloe says: "While Galileo's and other wonderful
discoveries were being made, not much had been learnt by
the political elite in 2000 years since Socrates' murder
by the state."

New ideas, instead of being welcomed for the opportunities
they opened up for the improvement of the human lot,
were threats to those who had become comfortable in their
ideologies (religious or otherwise). And as we know -
"smokestack" (where there's smoke there's jobs) industries
are a powerful political lobby.

Geoffrey,

We have to be little cautious with poirot, there is a history of taking the wickets home.

poirot is a victim here, like so many that supported the UN FCCC, IPCC, CRU, EPA, Met Office and NIWA to mention just a few, they have now abandoned him and no longer sing the song of alarmism, how would you feel? Yep, just like poirot.

You should ask him why the CAGW movement is based upon secrecy. In the USA the EPA is fighting FOIA requests and litigation hold notices, in NZ NIWA is in court, the BBC in London, the CRU and IPCC are all fighting tooth and nail to keep their secrets as to how and what they “adjusted” to arrive at their alarmist conclusions.

If their science is so good, surely it would stand scrutiny from its peers? If the science was so good, surely there would now be a replacement for Kyoto? Surely there would still be global markets for trading CO2 credits? Surely there would still be a growing renewable energy industry?

Without all these global entities, there in no possibility of a global response to their fabricated global problem. They should be taking it up with those from their own side who have now abandoned them and not squawking at us.

Sadly all that is left of this once global movement is pseudo-scientific spruikers trying to convince someone, anyone that the dead cat can bounce.

Like I said, poirot is a victim, be gentle with him.

"We have to be little cautious with poirot...."

You're darn tootin' you do : )

My favourite indulgence is eating denialists for afternoon tea - with a spot of Earl Grey and a few sweet pastries.

(As you know....)

Dear Geoffrey,

You said;

"For a start you could show me a graph of a rise in atmospheric CO2 PRECEDING a rise in global warming. Good luck finding that one!"

Well all I did was set google to images and searched for 'CO2 Temperature Graph' and clicked the first response. Not much luck involved.

I really had no idea of its veracity, all I did was find one for you which was what you wanted wasn't it?

If it isn't then you might need to be a little more specific.

Did you approve of Whitlam questioning the secrecy of Pine Gap?

Dear csteele,

You said (Wednesday, 23 January 2013 11:23:55 PM), “Well all I did …..searched for 'CO2 Temperature Graph' and clicked the first response. Not much luck involved. ……. I really had no idea of its veracity……”

I suspect there is a lot of comment on this forum that is offered up without checking the veracity of the source. But at the same time there is a lot of criticism of the science I put up without bothering to check the quality of the reference.

It confirms my belief that those of the socialist left will say anything they like to make a political point and bugger the science/truth! Or reading the UNFCCC resolution of September 2009! Yet you swallow the lies Rudd peddled. Why?

What is the point of discussing topics if you don’t care about the veracity of your sources?

Am I to assume that the Labor supporters have given up on the overwhelming science that proves the AGW warming mechanism is a myth?

If so, please be honest enough to say so and argue the politics and leave the science behind you.

Why do you support the formation of a new world gov’t that can tax and fine individuals, companies and the states of Australia for the purpose of redistribution of wealth?

On the other hand I am saddened by the quality of the debate on this forum. Every schoolchild knows that an essay must be properly referenced. Surely some of you (involved in this discussion with me) are educated enough to understand the importance of references and the illegality of plagiarism.

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

Dear csteele,

You asked (Wednesday, 23 January 2013 11:23:55 PM), “Did you approve of Whitlam questioning the secrecy of Pine Gap?”

No.

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung.

Geoffrey,

There's little "evidence" in the denialist argument that has much to with the veracity of the science.

When their greatest champions are bloggers who are not qualified in any of the disciplines - like Anthony Watts, the weatherman et al...when time after time "skeptic think" is blown out of the water and "shown" to be erroneous by "real" scientists, theirs are merely a bubbles of denialism continuously blown from the pipes of big oil and right-wing think tanks and disseminated by their minions.

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

It took the medical profession from the 1960s
to the present era to get the public and the
government we elect to act on the toxic,
life-taking effects of tobacco. Eventually
sanity prevailed although it took over 40 years.

What are the reasons for the apparent short-
sightedness? There are both psychological reasons
why humans favour the present and economic reasons
why humans favour the present rather than the future.
Risk aversion is understandable. People might not be
around to benefit from a good time in the future -
so let's have it now regardless of the long-term
consequences.

The threat of human-induced climate change, accepted
as a genuine and very serious consequence of the
Stern Report releaased in October 2006 (close to
19 years to the day since the release of the
Brandtland Report) changed attitudes worldwide, and
made it easier for our conservative (in the sense of
being hesitant to change) economists to act according
to the laws and understanding of their science.

Atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable outcome of
industrial technology; it derives also from political
decisions to tolerate pollution rather than bear the
costs. Further control of pollution is politically
difficult, as I've stated previously because the
economic interests behind "smokestack" industries are
a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit
the necessary resources to the task.

Yet nobody denies that the planet has a finite amount
of resources or that it can tolerate only a limited
amount of pollution. If world population continues
to grow rapidly, if industrialisation spreads around the
world, and if pollution and resource depletion continues
at an increasing rate - and all these things are happening -
where is human society headed?

The most optimistic answer to these questions
would be that, one way or another, sweeping changes await
us.

Poirot,

your argument lose a little of its 'punch' when you try to make a point that, "their greatest champions are bloggers who are not qualified in any of the disciplines - like Anthony Watts, the weatherman et al.....) and you then post a reference to a man trained as a psychologist and cognitive scientist with less academic training than even me! But at least I have a B.Sc. in environmental physiology.

Try and answer my other question: Why are you hell-bent on trying to form a new world gov't?

Why are you willing to throw away our freedom and allow the UN the highest court in the world?

If you can answer these two questions we might have a real debate on why the socialist left demonises CO2. You have not given one scientific answer to the CO2 debate and csteele put up a non-attributed plagiarised graph that DID NOT show cause and effect.

Please strengthen your argument with scientific evidence, as I do.

Geoffrey Kelley (between swims) Metung

Yes, Geoffrey - how remiss of me to link to a piece by John Cook.

His blog on the "actual" science is one of the best around - because it relies on peer-reviewed material and climate scientists for its information.

http://skepticalscience.com/

It may have escaped your notice that denialism, in all of it's embroided forms, comprises psychological devices - something which a cognitive scientist and psychologist may be able to shed some light upon....it's actually the aspect that interests me the most in the present "climate".

"Why are you hell-bent on trying to form a new world gov't?"

(Chortle)

Dear Geoffrey,

My dear fellow. I supplied you with exactly what you asked me for, simply a graph showing a rise CO2 preceding Temperature. It was adequate but certainly not one I would have chosen if I were to prosecute the case for AGW, but it admirably filled your requirements, and I am a little uncomfortable there were no words of appreciation.

Perhaps instead you really meant you wanted me to find you a graph that you might, after examining it, be more informed and possibly sway your position on this issue. We both know such a graph does not exist.

So this was just the first one I saw and had no intention of it performing any function other than fulfilling you request.

As to your position on Gough and Pine Gap I am rather confused. Gough wanted a better appreciation of what a foreign power was doing on our sovereign soil in the heart of this great land. You say he was wrong. Why? Was it because the Americans became very upset with him and some say had a direct hand in ousting him?

Or are your references to the Privy Council and Australian independence just a sham?

Are you just a sham Geoffrey? Do these supposed strong convictions of your really stand up to scrutiny? Some might conclude they are mere opinions delivered with vigour, nothing more and that any real substance appears decidedly lacking.

I invite you to convince them otherwise.

Dear csteele,

You said, csteele, Thursday, 24 January 2013 8:53:15 PM, “I supplied you with exactly what you asked me for, simply a graph showing a rise CO2 preceding Temperature.” That is not quite true, is it? Your graph was an unattributed and plagiarised piece of work that showed that a rise in atmospheric CO2 did NOT preceded a rise in average global temp, and I suspect that you know your way around a library well enough to know that your post is a sham.

I thought that this discussion was supposed to be about CO2 and its effect on the climate. My accusation is that the socialist left, lead here by Rudd and Gillard, are using shonky science to excuse their real aim of forming a new world government to redistribute wealth. I have given you the references proving my contention is absolutely correct. Your continued ignoring of the truth firms my suspicion that you know what I am talking about and are to embarrassed to respond. You dare not give the game away.
(continued)

(continued)
As for Gough and the Pine Gap, we allowed the US access to Pine Gap as a part of our obligations under the ANZAS Treaty. I am sure you are aware of that as well.

Why wouldn’t the US Gov’t refuse to disclose highly sensitive information with the Labor Govt. when they were not required to? Because the US knew they could not trust the ALP. And I think you also know why the US could not trust the ALP, but in case you have forgotten I will offer you a clue. Katherine Susannah Pritchard and her little gang of treasonous socialist released top-secret documents to the Russians (during WW II) barely twenty-five years earlier. Dr Herbert Vere Evatt’s personal private secretary obtained top-secret information (left around the office by her boss) and passed it on to the Russians. This resulted in a complete breakdown of communications between the OSS and MI6 during WW II, and ultimately the post WW II establishment of ASIO.

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

Poirot,

Obviously, some people don't understand the science, no matter how many times and in how many ways it is explained or pointed out.

To them it is just a communist plot - nothing to do with the science at all.

I think those same people confuse "government" with "governance"

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/01/23/climate-politics-moomaw-hamel

Dear qanda,

Well said.

I would have thought that conspiracy theories
were no longer as common as they were decades ago
and that we should all be concerned about
sustainable development in the 21st century.

The Brundtland Report (named after the Norwegian
Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland) introduced
sustainable development to the world in 1987.
The Stern Report did the same in 2006.

Yet some refuse to listen.

Sounds like an extreme weather event going on in QLD. Where is that bloke that can predict the next flood. Gone quiet.

Dear Geoffrey,

Look I'm more than happy to put the work in if I thought it would do any good.

I don’t so I didn't.

But I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt however you would first need to answer the following question:

Is your mind capable of being changed on this issue and if so what would you need to see in a graph I produced to make that happen?

As to your proclaimed nationalism it is hard not to see it being subsumed by your politics. Your call for freedom and independence for our nation only extends to those institutions you deem unacceptable, the UN obviously one of them.

It equally obvious to others that to you this ethic is not universal which then relegates it to opinion.

If you we're a true patriot you wouldn't have a bar with any nation setting up a secret military base on our soil, no matter who it was. I mean where is Australia’s secret military base on the American mainland?

Pity.

Thanks for the link, qanda.

I really believe that the denialist movement "isn't" about the science at all.

We know what happened when the realisation dawned that any effort to mitigate warming would produce a shift in the status quo....that people would be required to put the brakes on unfettered consumerism and growth.

We live under a system that requires growth at all costs. Environmental imperatives that would retard capatalist endeavours simply are incompatible with modern industrial sensibilities.

Canada is a good case in point. Of late, their conservative government has acted without restraint to stymy any moves in the direction of global environmental agreement. They possess the world's single largest industrial polluter in the Athabasca Tar Sands (If one needed an example of the worst of modern industrial environmental vandalism, it would be difficult to find a more pertinent example). When Obama put the brakes on the Keystone Pipeline to bring this oil into the US, Canada immediately began talking of selling it to China and Asia in general....Canada sees this dirty oil as their economic salvation. They will turn themselves inside out to keep production going.

My main point is that I believe it is pointless arguing the science, when it is so plain that the science is not the issue.(although playing along with the likes of cohenite is a tad entertaining at times:)

It's the psychological and social devices and strategies that are employed which need to be countered. They have been deployed, and they have caught the scientific community on the back foot.

Scientists and those who support them need to concentrate on the tactics, and fight fire with fire.

Dear qanda,

You said on Friday, 25 January 2013 10:09:41 AM, “I think those same people confuse "government" with "governance””

Do you believe that Yvo de Boer got it wrong in the UNFCCC resolution and meant to say “governance” and not “government? I have quoted the exact text on OLO more than once, so I assume you are aware of the intentions of the UN?

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley

Dear csteele,

You are right. Neither of us will change our minds on AGW. You offered a very silly graph and I gave you a reference to refereed science published by the authors and not plagiarised by another, but you would not acknowledge it.

I also gave you impeccable references from the IPCC and the UNFCC and you still failed to comment because my claims were proven to be true and you have no reasonable response other to agree with them.

I do not blame you because you do not understand science but you do have a committed faith to your socialist beliefs, as I do to my political beliefs and we are like oil and water. I do blame you for your lack of intellectual honesty and knowing that you posted plagiarised data and knowing it was not what you claimed it to be, you have not apologised and withdrawn your graph.

However I do take enormous exception to your comments doubting my patriotism! I will whack my service to my country up against yours any day, but not on this forum.

So I will desist from any more communication with you and we shall part agreeing to differ on any subject, be it politics, science, intellectual honesty and rigor, or our love for our country.

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

Hello again, Lexi

Yes, it really is in the interests of ‘humanity’ to embrace the notion of sustainable development – unfortunately, anchors abound and there’s plenty of sand.

I trust you are feeling much better.

--

Hi csteele,

The way I see it, people who opine here will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the science. Put another way, their socio-cultural and ideological preference negates any scientific or rational thought. This is a shame and exposes the inadequacy of “opinion” sites.

If Mr Kelley wants to take his ball home and not communicate with you, so be it – it is no loss, his self-declared “patriotism” has got nothing to do with it nor with the topic of this thread).

--

Dear Poirot,

Yes, I agree with you … http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154352

However, I do feel uncomfortable with “fighting fire with fire”, real scientists don’t do that – they just want to do science.

I take your point though.

--

AvogoodOzDayeverybody!

Hello Geoffrey,

Ok, I appreciate most people do not understand the UNFCCC “convention” – you obviously don’t.

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1349.php

That was the outcome of the latest COP, have you read it? Or do you still dwell in the past?

It was NOT Yvo de Boer, as you assert. That Article was agreed by the Conference of the Parties – do you know who they are?

Actually, I suspect you don’t know anything about the governance of the UNFCCC, perhaps you should browse the embedded links:

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Ok, you rabbit on about what the ‘Lord’ Monckton and the ‘denialosphere’ got their knickers in a knot about over what the COP said in 2009.

Thing is, you really don't understand the significance that ALL parties to the UNFCCC (i.e. ALL governments) endorsed the wording of the Articles.

I’m sure someone as adroit as yourself must acknowledge it is difficult, Geoffrey, in the best of times, to get ALL governments from ALL political persuasions to agree on anything – but they did then, and they did in Doha.

Nevertheless, the UNFCCC cannot change the science – it is what it is, despite your churlish and ignorant comments to the contrary – and despite you having “a B.Sc. in environmental physiology”? The colleagues I have who have the same ‘qualification’ are far removed from your stance, a politico-ideological one at that.

No Geoffrey, you do not strengthen your argument with scientific evidence … GMSLR is increasing with thermal expansion and land based ice-sheet melt contributing to it – you have not provided any evidence at all to repudiate that – despite your assertions to the contrary.

--

AvogoodOzDayToo!

Yes, qanda,..."fighting fire with fire" was perhaps the wrong term.

What I meant is that in order to address the denialist movement, a way has to be found to nullify its influence...although I don't think it's necessarily down to climate scientists to do that - as you say, scientists do the science. Although, it seems a fair bit of their time these days is taken up defending themselves against bogus claims and bogus science.

In the main, I suspect the right-wing think tanks and their minions will hold sway. It's much easier to carry on as usual and doubt the science than it is to do something about a potential threat. Human's tend to wait until the first storm before they mend the hole in roof - if you get my drift.

I still believe it's quite a phenomenon in this modern age to see climate scientists singled out, pilloried and held up to be frauds....don't you find that disturbing in a Western world shaped by technological and scientific expertise?

AvagoodOzDayYerself : )

Dear qanda,

I would appreciate you quoting me correctly and not making up prejudicial assertions. I clearly identified the UNFCCC Sep. 09 document as the treaty that Rudd took over 140 delegates to Copenhagen to ratify. Yvo de Boer was the secretary of that UNFCCC and resigned six months later in disgust. That treaty clearly documents the formation of a new world government. The new world gov’t was to be overseen by the COP; where did I get that lot wrong?

The problem with the IPCC is that is cherry-picks the science. The nature of the COP is that the science is chosen by a committee (the COP at the MOP) and is thus weighted by numbers. It is a political approach and not a scientific approach.

As an illustration I offer this reference, “J.M. Gregory et al.: Twentieth century global mean sea level rise: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?” discussed in the IPCC committee report, the AR5 SOD
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-20th-century-global-sea-level-rise/
You will see that different committees treat this paper by Gregory et al differently. Why is this paper important to one chapter but ignored completely by another?
(continued)

(Continued)
Why did I not “strengthen your argument with scientific evidence”? Did you look up the graph I offered as evidence that there is no scientific evidence that there is a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temps? Or, did you take more notice of the graph csteele offered as evidence? My evidence was properly referenced peer reviewed science. Steele’s graph was not referenced. It might be the drawn by Al Gore, but if genuine it was definitely plagiarised by the author. I offer science and csteele offered up crap!

Why don’t you offer up “real science” instead of the 35 lies, half-truths and contentious science in Al Gore’s silly film? If your side has to lie about your science, why should I believe it also?

Finally in an other message addressed to you mate csteele, you said, “If Mr Kelley wants to take his ball home and not communicate with you, so be it – it is no loss, his self-declared “patriotism” has got nothing to do with it nor with the topic of this thread). “

I have give up talking to csteele because he is incapable of answering my questions or of refuting my evidence. On all occasions he has refused to discuss my messages and instead he introduces questions of his own. Steele introduced the topic of patriotism and nationalism on more than one occasion. My defence of my patriotism was to refute his comment, “Or are your references to the Privy Council and Australian independence just a sham? Are you just a sham Geoffrey? Do these supposed strong convictions of your really stand up to scrutiny?”

How would you defend yourself against a personal attack as vile as this?

You ought to read the background to my messages before you dare comment.

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung.

Yeah, Geoffrey, about that graph you are so fond of. You say it is 'peer-reviewed science', and yet I cannot seem to find it in the scientific literature.

Could you please provide a reference to the original paper that published that graph in the scientific literature. Proper reference with paper (or papers) title, authors and year published would be very helpful. Just having an authors last name and year is not helpful. There are many authors with similar names and most publish multiple papers a year.

Anyway, I want to conform for you that you rgraph is actually peer reviewed and not juts 'made up'. Any help would be appreciated.

Dear qanda,

Yes it is a pity Geoffrey got the sulks up because I was starting to enjoy myself and I really did want to ascertin whether I should view him as “mentally feeble” or “embarrassingly eccentric”. Tis indeed a fine line. His limited grasp of science would indicate the former but the World government nonsense has dibs on the latter.

But it was the line “My generation fought hard to make our courts the highest in the land and we withdrew the right to appeal to the English Privy Council and now you dunces are willing to hand over the highest court in the land to mad bloody African communists?” that actually got me in.

Especially because I knew for a fact that many, on what I assume is his side of politics, didn't want a bar of the reform and fought it tooth and nail. It was Labour under Gough that got the job done.

For someone like to Geoffrey be claim his 'generation fought hard' for something that was actually achieved by those he loudly decries reminds one of those rather sad types who turn up on ANZAC Day pretending to be something they aren't and wearing someone else's medals. My father had a word for such folk and it wasn't complimentary.

Anyhow I did get a kick out of his 'peer reviewed' graph which appeared to be something tacked together by the infamous Tim Ball, not exactly top of the credibility list.

But it seems to be an universal trait, these guys come in here all guns blazing and when one returns a little of the same they get all huffy.

However something tells me I haven't heard the last of young Geoffrey. His type rarely leave these things lie.

Hi Bugsy,

Did a Google image search and didn't come up with anything but deniers sites. Could mean it originated in a small article somewhere, or Tim could have made the thing up.

The seas are rising, the earth is flat - and you can earn a quick and easy 20 bucks from protesting against wind farms....

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/01/25/mystery-company-posts-job-opportunity-anti-wind-power-protesters?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It seems the financial facilitators of denialism are becoming a tad brazen - they usually hang out in the backgound:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=1&

Dear Bugsy,

You said/asked on Bugsy, Saturday, 26 January 2013 1:10:55 PM for the peer reviewed references that the graph is based on. I have to fess up and admit that I am on holidays at our place in Metung and don’t have all my notes on me, but I have repeated my research as best I can.

The graph I refer to has been compiled from the results of two separate workers, CR Scotese and RA Berner (Geocarb III). The graph is produced on the website of CR Scotese. See

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Who is Christopher R Scotese? He is the creator of the Paleomar Project among other things. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Scotese

RA Berner created GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time. See:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/phanerozoic_co2.txt
and
http://www.ajsonline.org/content/301/2/182.abstract
The latter is only an abstract to the full paper, but should verify that it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, “The American Journal of Science”. It also offers a list of other workers who cite this paper.
Who is RA Berner? He was working in the Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109 when he did the work. You will find some of his CV here:
http://people.earth.yale.edu/profile/robert-berner/about
(continued)

(continued)
I would like to make a point about science and scepticism in general. I was trained as a scientist. An important part of science is being sceptical. Anybody who attacks me as a skeptic immediately identifies himself or herself as a science illiterate.
To brand people or sites as “deniers” or “skeptics” is both highly offensive and quite ignorant behaviour. To discuss AGW or Climate Change in general it is important to keep an open mind. Naturally you will not find this science on the IPCC or any other pro-AGW forum. The “warmists” cherry pick their science and refuse to accept science that does not fit their argument.
Finally, the formation of a World Gov’t was not my idea. It was the UNFCCC that suggested a world gov’t. If you want to ridicule anybody, try reading the UNFCCC Sept. 2009 submission to the IPCC at Copenhagen. To criticise me for telling nonsense is just a plain lie by ignorant people who cannot bother checking references.
Regards,
Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

Geoffrey, there are 190+ member states of the UNFCCC, each government is represented and as a whole, they all have to agree on its governance, now up to COP 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNFCCC

If all the governments of the world agree, so be it.

Anyway, you want to 'cherry pick' the words of one Article, in 2009.

Ok, go ahead, but most rational thinking people, indeed ... all the governments of the UNFCCC have moved on. You? Still stuck in the mud - get over it.

You also want to 'cherry pick' Tim Ball's 'cherry picking'? That is a joke, right. Even the most ardent of real sceptics (not fake sceptics) regard Ball as the outsider - for obvious reasons.

If you want to take your Ball home, go for it - you won't be missed.

Btw, the United Nations was instigated for a reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

Why do you think they are seriously concerned about global warming and humanity's influence? Wait, don't bother - it's all a communist plot, eh?

Oh yeah, there are a few others poking around here, Geoffrey, that are also "trained scientists" - you really should not play 'dibs' with them, you will come off very badly, in my most humble opinion.

Now, enjoy your holidays.

Thanks csteele, enlightening in more ways than one.

--

So too the New York Times piece, Poirot.

The same Koch brothers who helped fund Richard Muller's BEST project with the result - egg on their face.

--

Bugsy, fake sceptics often cobble together bits and pieces to confirm their bias, for motivational and ideological reasons of course (not scientific) - cognitive dissonance is strong, as you know.

However, Geoffrey completely lost it when he said:

"Naturally you will not find this (open minded) science on the IPCC".

Such a stupid and idiotic thing to say from a self-proclaimed scientist. Mr Kelley obviously does not know anything about the processes and procedures of the IPCC, particularly since AR4.

"Finally, the formation of a World Gov’t was not my idea. It was the UNFCCC that suggested a world gov’t. If you want to ridicule anybody, try reading the UNFCCC Sept. 2009 submission to the IPCC at Copenhagen. To criticise me for telling nonsense is just a plain lie by ignorant people who cannot bother checking references."

Or is it a question of lies from people who can't read accurately, geoffreykelley?

This is the relevant section you keep referring to;

"38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate."

The only government being referred to is that of the Convention On Climate Change and confirming that it will be by the Conference of the Parties (COP) involved.

"Did you look up the graph I offered as evidence that there is no scientific evidence that there is a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temps? "

Yes, I did… Did you notice this statement in your referenced paper? "Two special conditions of terrestrial landmass distribution, when they exist concurrently, appear as a sort of common denominator for the occurrence of very long-term simultaneous declines in both global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2):"

Certainly makes it sound like there is 'scientific evidence that there is a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temps'.

Or isn't that what you meant?

Dear qanda,

Thank you for your kind words re my holidays. I can assure you that I deserve them! I can also confirm that I am enjoying them. It is a pleasure to find some of you behaving in a civilized way.

I do not know who Tim Ball is. I did not have a copy of my graph or a reference to it so I googled the graph and his was the first I found. But I think you will find that Tim Ball used the graph because it is good science. He did not invent it. It is the result of good science and I have given adequate references in my last post.

You said, “Anyway, you want to 'cherry pick' the words of one Article, in 2009.” You ought to have read my references. I can see that you have not. I did not refer to “one article”. I referred to the submission of the UNFCCC, lead by Yvo de Boer that was presented to the IPCC. Rudd and his band of Merry Men lead by Flannery went to Copenhagen to ratify the resolution presented by the UNFCCC.

You see, Rudd and his mates wanted to form a world gov’t, the purpose of which was to tax all the nominated “First World/Advanced Economies” to compensate the third world countries. You and all the other Labor supporters were prepared pay a tax to the likes of Robert Mugabe and Col. Gadhafi! I believe that is sheer madness and so did many of the other countries and that is why Copenhagen failed.

If there are other trained scientists reading this message, let them criticise my references. So far none have.

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

Dear Geoffrey,

I am not a "Labor supporter" (nor a Green) - you got that wrong too.

What you demonstrate, clearly Geoffrey - is that people of your 'bent' want to turn climate change into some sort of politico-ideological debate.

Don't get me wrong, there are extremists on both sides. An open minded scientist would know that. However, going by your previous comments ...

Yes, the UNFCCC is political, and people of all persuasions have to come to some sort of agreement, very difficult.

However, what you continually fail to appreciate (and this is where your hypocrisy stands out like the veritable proverbials) is that science and the scientific method overcomes such politico interferences and indulgences.

As a "trained scientist" you would have known that - or you have blinkers on.

IOW, neither you nor any 'government' can change the science.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) scientists don't make policy responses to the science - governments and their bean-counters do. Hence the difficulty of the UNFCCC.

What do you propose as an alternative?

Dear WmTrevor,

You have hit the nail on the head, but your interpretation is different to mine. The UN clearly, by your own witness, proposed to form a government, the purposes of which were to exact taxes and fines on some countries including Australia. I find that completely unacceptable.

The second point of your message is again one of interpretation. The phrase, “appear as a SORT OF common denominator” is the key. The two special conditions are,
“1) the existence of a continuous continental landmass stretching from pole to pole, restricting free circulation of polar and tropical waters, and
2) the existence of a large (south) polar landmass capable of supporting thick glacial ice accumulations.”
neither of which occurs today.
The illustration on the left is worth looking at. It is attributed to Department of Environmental and Geophysical Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK and shows Gondwanaland during the Carboniferous Period about 350 million years ago.
See:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
I interpret the statement to suggest that there MIGHT be an association under certain circumstances and that relationship could bear examining. To interpret the relationship as a fact, as you have done, is playing with words and not helpful to the understanding of the science. It is at best a warning that a caveat might apply. But, I commend you for your scepticism and that you sought clarification and that is to be encouraged.
Regards,
Geoffrey Kelley

Geoffrey,

Here you go.....scroll down for the list of scientific references used in just two of the forty chapters in the last IPCC report (it's quite a comprehensive read):

http://www.desmogblog.com/common-sense-and-attack-ipcc

Btw, is hypocrisy in vogue around here?

You say:

"To brand people and sites as "deniers" and "skeptics" is both highly offensive and quite ignorant behaviour."

And two lines down you're dishing out precisely the behaviour you criticise in referring to AGW supporters as "warmists".

Add to that some of your other creative efforts on this thread.."fools", "socialist plot" "warmist science", "desperate Green religion", "dunces"...etc.

I must say that it's mightily entertaining, you lecturing qanda (who "is" a climate scientist) on the merits of scientific ethics and procedure. Those qualities are usually something skeptics tend to jettison in their rush to promote conspiracy and junk science.

Dear WmTrevor,

Further to my last post to you and my response to your comment, "Did you notice this statement in your referenced paper? "Two special conditions of terrestrial landmass distribution, when they exist concurrently, appear as a sort of common denominator for the occurrence of very long-term simultaneous declines in both global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2):"

That reference was to provide the source of the graph I am claiming shows there is no cause and effect relationship between the atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temp. It is a discussion, not a refereed journal study.

The refereed science references are the studies by CR Scotose (2002) and RA Berner (2001) that are the basis for the composite graph.

If qand a has a problem with the science i offer in my defence, let him attack it as a climate scientist.
Regards,
Geoffrey Kelley

Dear qanda,

I'm not sure there was too much enlightenment to be found amongst the inane, chest-beating/trolling Geoffrey and I have just engaged in, nor that either of us had much intention of seeking it, but at least the patriotism line seems to have been retired for now.

Not that I have too much problem with his graph even though it possibly hasn't appeared in any scientific journal. I'm sure that in the historical past temperature would have preceded CO2 rises. In fact that is what is being predicted for the thawing of the permafrost in our relatively near future. That this process would have occurred after ice ages is pretty obvious.

The graph is a combination of Scotese and Berner's figures put together by Scotese who uses terms like “To the consternation of global warming proponents “. Leaving that aside of course there are many factors to take into consideration when accounting for historical global temperatures including Milankovitch Cycles which deal with the changes in the Earth's orbit on temperature but Berner makes the point “This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.”

All pretty simple really. If you add more CO2 the physics says, given all other things as equal, you will raise the temperature of the planet, up to a certain point that is but well past what we would be comfortable with.

Though I'm more than comfortable with the notion human activity may well be staving off the world slipping into another ice age is just seems we are determined to don a mink coat when a shirt would be adequate.

And of course there is a cost to donning the mink, it is just that people like Geoffrey want to socialise those costs rather than have the polluters pay.

Get a load of this:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/monckton-returns-to-australia-book-now/

"Carbon tax, climate scam, Agenda 21: can democracy survive all three? Lord Monckton does due diligence".

"Lord" Monckton does due "ignorance" more likely.... : )

How wealthy industrialist deniers funnel their money to right-wing think tanks.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/25/key-findings-mashey-report-donors-trust

Science is certainly up against it on this one. It amounts to funding the spread of ignorance and conspiracy theory amongst a public who, all to often, is entirely receptive (even welcoming) of such rhetoric

Hello again Csteele,

Cobbling together graphs and taking them out of context is what ‘fake sceptics’ typically do to confirm their bias – and in Mr Kelley’s case, it is driven by politics, not science.

Mr Geoffrey Kelley is doing more damage to science (as a “trained scientist”) than he would ever understand, imho.

For example, as a "simple man" (his words) Mr Kelley plays the ‘cause and effect’ canard using graphs spanning tectonic and a geologic time series, of 100’s of millions of years … and then argues the lead/lag relationship between [CO2] and temperature of (say) only 1,000 yrs.

Even Dr Berner, in the paper Mr Kelley cites, says:

“there are substantial gaps in our understanding of how climate models distribute heat on the planet in response to CO2 changes on tectonic time scales”.

Yet this is exactly what Tim Ball & Co. has cobbled together.

Dr Berner concludes:

“it may be hazardous to infer that existing discrepancies between models and data cloud (distort) interpretations of future anthropogenic greenhouse gas projections.”

In other words, the (IPCC) projections could well prove accurate.

For Mr Kelley;

I do not have a problem with the science, you obviously do.

--

For others;

Mr Kelley assumes (although he doesn’t really know it) that ‘warmings’ and ‘coolings’ of the planet have a single cause ... in essence, his confusion over lead/lag times of [CO2] and its relationship to temperature.

Certainly, over tectonic time scales, the Milankovitch Cycles (MC) drive the warming trend (say 5,000 yrs) and cooling trend (say 80,000 yrs). Indeed, we are in a MC cooling trend right now, although over short time scales (hundreds of years) you would not think so.

Anyway, it is also wrong for Mr Kelley to assume (although he doesn’t really know it) that just because [CO2] does not cause the first thousand years (or so) of MC warming, nor the first thousand years (or so) of MC cooling, it cannot have caused any part of the many hundreds of years of warming trends, or cooling trends, in between.

FWIW, the [CO2] contributes about 30% to the glacial-interglacial warmings and coolings, or about 50% if you include other GHG’s like CH3 and NO2.

One thing is sure, and any “trained scientist” like Mr Kelley, would understand this;

Adding billions of tonnes of a heat trapping gas into the atmosphere increases the biogeochemical feedback mechanism to play havoc with the climate.

My last response, I've wasted enough of my time on Mr Kelley's holiday - I mean, vacuous and inane diatribe.

I would like to make a few comments in my defence.

The graph I showed was complied by CR Scotese. I gave the reference for that graph. I cannot help it if others including Dr Tim Ball use it! I don’t care who uses the work as long as it is attributed and not plagiarized like the science you fellows offered up. Please do not misquote me.

Where did you get the figure of 50% attributable to the three GHGs, H2O vapour, CH4 and N2O?

If qanda is a trained climate science why did he say that other GHGs were CH3 and NO2? Were these typos or schoolboy howlers?

I am perfectly aware of other systems that influence climate such as the albedo effect and the Milankovitch Cycle. I am also aware of the contribution of water vapour, which is the major contributor to the GHG effect. It is usually quite high; say as high as 95%, but obviously it less influential in dry climates such as deserts.

Why would you put a carbon tax on CO2 and not on any other contributors? Do you do it because you can?
(continued)

(Continued)
I don’t care if you want to redistribute wealth from the rich countries to the poorer nations, but do you think this is an effective method?

If you really believe you are correct, why is Martin Ferguson wanting to dig up and transport brown coal from the Latrobe Valley and ship it all the way to Asia where it will produce just as much CO2? Why not do the world a favor and burn it in situ?

If your science is as good as you claim, why do you have to lie about it? Why do we lie to our school children and show Al Gore’s nonsense, yet in the UK the gov’t has instructed the teachers to stop the film 35 times to explain the lies, half-truths and false claims in “An Inconvenient Truth”? Or the infamous Hockey Stick graph that is so pertinent to this discussion?

The only truth that we can all agree on is that this discussion will go nowhere if you won’t argue truthfully and logically. You are what you are; left wing ALP supporters. And I am a right wing Lib supporter who believes in the capitalist system and I abhor socialism.

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung.

Geoffrey,

Of course debating anything concerning climate is useless if someone is so certain that the thousands and thousands of scientists are all "lying" and involved in some sort of political conspiracy.

Michael Mann coined a term in his recent book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars". It's called the "Serengeti Strategy" - one which denialists employ to pick off and isolate scientists for scrutiny (and vilification) like lions would do to a zebra on the plains.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-25/opinions/35457117_1_climate-scientists-michael-e-mann-climate-change

He should know after his experience.

But guess what, scientists are at least waking up to the strategies employed that caught them on the back foot.

Pesky typos

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html

Interesting review Poirot :)

Earlier I posed the question, "Where did you get the figure of 50% attributable to the three GHGs, H2O vapour, CH4 and N2O?"

qanda gave a reference below:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html

but it was on a different subject and quite irrelevant.

Can anyone support qanda's contention by cutting and pasting the relevant statement and giving the URL for the reference?

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

Please stop distorting what I say, Geoffrey - it's dull.

I said (correcting for typos):

>> [CO2] contributes about 30% to the glacial-interglacial warmings and coolings, or about 50% if you include other GHG’s like CH4 and N2O <<

You follow with:

“Where did you get the figure of 50% attributable to the three GHGs, H2O vapour, CH4 and N2O?”

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or is it a natural trait, Geoffrey?

I know it might be a big (t)ask for you Geoffrey, but do try and understand the AR4 link in context with what I said about glacials-interglacials, CO2, CH4 and N2O.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html

Who knows, if you look close you might even see the words “Glacial-Interglacial” at the top of the 1st piccie too?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-1.html

Tell you what Geoffrey, try and extend yourself just a little further to terms like; “radiative forcing”, “energy budget”, so forth and so on - it will help with “attribution”.

Here’s something novel, why don’t you read the chapter on attribution or do some homework on a dude by the name of Severinghaus - JP that is.

You are very tedious Mr Kelley, good bye.

qanda,

Thought provoking article on blogging, commenting and moderation:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/

Dear poirot,

Interesting article thank you.

The notion that denialism is now regarded as trolling on respectable scientific blogs is heartening and not before time.

OLO is of course an opinion site and as such attracts, even welcomes, many diverse views and positions so I suppose they will always have a place to voice their recalcitrant take on the issue.

Just look at Geoffrey. Even when the claim “My evidence was properly referenced peer reviewed science.” was shown to be demonstrably false we did not see any retreat or apology. He shows such little respect for the scientific method it is no wonder reputable scientific journals such as Scientific America are quick to show these those engaging in such delusion/dishonesty the door.

What is interesting is the religious nature of their denialism or pseudo-scepticism and how closely their behaviour mirrors that of the 'spirit filled', young-earth creationist. The willingness to believe in the suspension of the laws of physics, the strenuous berating of those who don't believe those laws can be transgressed, the complete and utter disregard for contrary data and the uncanny ability to turn irrefutable evidence to support their position.

They are the ultimate 'Dark Suckers'.

Cont..

Cont..

Quote..

For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light, they suck dark. Thus they now call these bulbs dark suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a Bell Labs spokesperson, proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light.

The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck dark.

Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in this room. As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the black spot on a full dark sucker. A candle is a primitive dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the path of the dark flowing into the candle.

Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited range. There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't handle all of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark storage unit. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable dark sucker can operate again.

Cont..

Cont..

Dark has mass.

When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from this mass generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker. Candles present a special problem, as the dark must travel in the solid wick instead of through glass. This generates a great amount of heat. Thus it can be very dangerous to touch an operating candle.

Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper, you notice it gets slowly darker and darker. When you reach a depth of approximately fifty feet, you are in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats to the top. The immense power of dark can be utilized to mans advantage. We can collect the dark that has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it through turbines, which generate electricity and help push it to the ocean where it may be safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more difficult to get dark from the rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians recognized this problem, and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe travelling in the same direction as the flow of the dark, they paddled slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled against the flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the dark along its way.

Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in an illuminated room in front of a closed, dark closet, then slowly open the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet, but since the dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.

In conclusion, Bell Labs stated that dark suckers make all our lives much easier. So the next time you look at an electric bulb remember that it is indeed a dark sucker.

End Quote
http://www.siliconhell.com/humour/darksucker.htm

Thanks csteele : )

While not wishing to be "alarmist", I can't resist this meme:

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3srn3c/

Nice one csteele.

I'm still sticking with this elegant and simple theory: there's no such thing as physics, it's all done by gnomes.

Cheers,

Tony

Climate scientists Erring on the Side of Least Drama:

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-esld.html

What else can I but say ... I'm astonished!

Thanks C & P - On the fly right now, will catch up later.

Dear qanda,

I am sorry but I also got a bit confused! I said,“Where did you get the figure of 50% attributable to the three GHGs, H2O vapour, CH4 and N2O?” Instead of H2O vapour I meant CO2.

You see, I have seen some claims that water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect and that all the other only account for 5%, of which CO2 accounts for just over half or 3%.

Once again I asked you for a reference and once again you failed to provide a reference; only your usual bluster.

You confirm my belief that you are hiding something and you ALP supporters are only interested in the poltics.

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

Here is a naughty graph........ LOL

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/01/nasas-boiling-oceans-updated-empirical-evidence-confirms-absurdity-of-prediction.html

Geoffrey Kelley

Wow, Geoffrey.....linking to a denialist site is cutting edge stuff.

Where did you learn to be so dastardly clever?

Poirot,

You don't like empirical evidence from the NOAA? ( http://www.noaa.gov/ )

Or the data?

http://www.c3headlines.com/datasets-temperature-climate.html

You only like modelling from the warmists' sites?

Forget the science...... play the man!

Geoffrey Kelley

Speaking of empirical evidence Geoffrey, I was wondering about the graph you discussed and the one shown by qanda, that was published by the IPCC.

Your graph purportedly shows no correlation of CO2 with temeprature, and also has average global temperature remaining stable (i.e. flatlining) for timescales on the order of 100-150 million years.

The other graph of empirical measurements of gases trapped in ice core samples seem to show another story, in that CO2 is very closely correlated with temperature.

Now, how do you as a trained scientist reconcile these two differing pieces of 'empirical' scientific information?

Is one of them wrong? How do you decide?

Bugsy,

I'm not sure Geoffrey is capable of answering your inquiry.

Check out the "C3 The Skeptic" in this link -

http://www.c3headlines.com/

(Could be a whole site full of Homers!)

Bugsy,

Sorry but your comments are just plain silly. I did not say the first graph, going back 600,0000 years, was based on empirical observations. That is a ludicrous assertion you make. The last graph I referred to is based on empirical evidence over about 130 years and evidence based on studies by the NOAA.

Please nominate the peer reviewed studies that were offered up by qanda. You do know how to cite a reference don't you?

So far you ALP supporters have not offered up references for one piece of peer-reviewed data. Not one journal article.

Poirot, don't snipe from the sidelines like a clown. Join the conversation and hit me hard with your science :-)

Geoffrey Kelley

Ok Geoffrey,

The graph that qanda linked to that is in the IPCC reports comes from:

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica (1999), Petit, JR (Petit, JR); Jouzel, J (Jouzel, J); Raynaud, D (Raynaud, D); Barkov, NI (Barkov, NI); Barnola, JM (Barnola, JM); Basile, I (Basile, I); Bender, M (Bender, M); Chappellaz, J (Chappellaz, J); Davis, M (Davis, M); Delaygue, G (Delaygue, G); Delmotte, M (Delmotte, M); Kotlyakov, VM (Kotlyakov, VM); Legrand, M (Legrand, M); Lipenkov, VY (Lipenkov, VY); Lorius, C (Lorius, C); Pepin, L (Pepin, L); Ritz, C (Ritz, C); Saltzman, E (Saltzman, E); Stievenard, M (Stievenard, M)
Source: NATURE Volume: 399 Issue: 6735 Pages: 429-436 DOI: 10.1038/20859 Published: JUN 3 1999

I'm sure you can find it somewhere. Now, if these empirical observations don't seem to match what you are calling non-empirical observations, how do you weigh the evidence presented to you?

And are you calling me an ALP supporter?

Seriously?
Just because I like actual science?

Yeah, Geoffrey - who cooked up your graph - reference please.

Strangely enough, this "NOAA" link is in complete disagreement with you and your denialist cronies:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Funny that : )

Dear Bugsy,

I have asked qanda and any other interested person from your side of the argument to give me a specific reference for qanda’s statement, “Where did you get the figure of 50% attributable to the three GHGs, CO2, (I mistakenly said H2O vapour), CH4 and N2O?”

I would like to see the actual data presented. Instead I get a lot of silly references to the IPCC that have nothing to do with the reference I have asked for.

I wish to make it clear, I am not a climate scientist. I have been trained in most of the biological sciences including a degree in Environmental Physiology. I practise an applied science and spend many hours a week reading the latest science in my chosen discipline. That is why I am a sceptic! It is essential to scientific method.

I do not need to train as a climate scientist to know when your side of the science is telling porkies!

If you make specific claims you ought to be able to back them up with references. That is the sort of science I like.

So far your side has not given me one relevant reference. Some have offered up plagiarized and unattributed data as science.

I don't care what you politics are, but you are defending the Labor side by defending their policies.

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

But Geoffrey, you have done nothing but concentrate on the political aspect of climate debate....your entire spiel is peppered with political and partisan references and accusations in an effort to denounce your opponents.

You produce a "naughty graph" from somewhere called C3 - Climate Conservative Consumer" - says it all.

Btw, who did yer graph...and what fun "fake" skeptics have with graphs. It's cherry-picking and the misrepresentation or omission of data all the way with you guys. "Doubt is your product."

Case in point:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/spreading-like-wildfire/

Your scientific "skepticism" is worlds away from the true skepticism practiced by "real" scientists. Referring to your obviously entrenched denialism as skepticism is a linguistic device and nothing more.

And this is interesting too - on extreme fluctuations:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/extreme-weather-when-worlds-collide/

Geoffery, your "50%" question was to qanda, not to me matey. It's not my concern. That's why I am ignoring it.

Are you dodging MY question?

How do you reconcile which data you believe?

Do you believe this graph:
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3736

Or this one?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html

from the full text here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/full/399429a0.html

One you have used to state that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, and the other presents contradicting information.

How do YOU choose which set of data to believe?
You say you are a trained scientist, could you please tell me what your methods for critically evaluating the literature are?

You say that I am defending Labors policies.

Really?

Which policies are those?

I think you are confused, I'm defending science not policies.

Hello again Csteele,

Yep, he (Mr Geoffrey Kelley) shows such disdain for the way real science is done.

Geoffrey’s behaviour really is quite bizarre, particularly since he claims to be a “trained scientist”. All I’ve seen from him is ideological guff and half-baked cherry pies.

If he really was a sceptic, in the scientific sense, he would try and understand the AR4 chapters in context with what I have said.

Nope, he only sees what he wants to see. Case in point, Mr Kelley says:

“I have seen some claims that water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect and that all the other only account for 5%, of which CO2 accounts for just over half or 3%.”

That has got nothing at all to do with:

>> [CO2] contributes about 30% to the glacial-interglacial warmings and coolings, or about 50% if you include other GHG’s like CH4 and N2O <<

Which was in response to his fallacious assertions from Tim Ball’s cherry picked and distorted graph about lead/lag times in glacials/interglacials.

Hells-bells, there’s abundant literature on attribution of long lived greenhouse gases. The figures I quoted are well known in the scientific community that works with this stuff.

No, it really does seem Mr Kelley gets his ‘climate science’ from ‘denialist’ blog sites.

Geoffrey is too lazy to check out and validate Dr Jeffrey Severinghaus’ work, as an example. At least Geoffrey (not Jeffrey) has validated the truism: you can lead an ass to water, but you can’t make it drink.

My undergraduate degree prepared me well for postgrad and eventual post-doc work – seems precious petals like Geoffrey want to be spoon-fed these days.

--

Poirot,

LOL

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/files/2013/01/10yvf8m.gif

So, what’s the answer?

I'm so over people like Geoffrey. People like him are just jokes over morning teas round here and for the life of me, why should I or anyone else respond to such blatant inanity and stupidity except to show them up for what they really are: fake sceptics who can't dis-aggregate science and politics.

Bugsy

Our society is in deep doo-doo if they’re churning out ‘trained scientists’ like Mr Geoffrey Kelley, seriously.

Homework for Mr Geoffrey Kelley ("trained scientist")

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22author%3ASeveringhaus%20author%3AJ.P.%22

qanda,

(Double LOL:)

Yeah, I dunno what the answer is.

Arguing on blogs, I suppose, is something you scientists can either take or leave - depends if you're in the mood or not, I imagine.

I'm quite interested however, in how the denialist spiel will be translated politically if it's digested heartily by the populace.

However, interesting here http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/01/30/all-three-senators-who-voted-against-john-kerry-are-pro-keystone-xl-anti-science-climate-deniers?utm ....that the deniers were in the absolute minority when voting for a man who prioritises science based climate advocacy.

For me, it's the denialist phenomenon that's of interest - and how obviously it's connected with business as usual and the maintenance of the status quo.

You have a point Poirot:

"it's the denialist phenomenon that's of interest - and how obviously it's connected with business as usual and the maintenance of the status quo."

Some people just don't want to see/hear what they just don't want to see/hear.

Time and time again some people who haven't got a clue about 'climate science' tell the experts they are the ones who haven't got a clue about 'climate science'. Why? Because they heard so-and-so (insert your own non-climate scientist so-and-so) say it's all crap.

I've had an auto-mechanic scare the beejeebus out of me when they've found out what I do. From my POV, no way would I tell him he hasn't got a clue about auto-mechanics but there you go. Sure, I might have a question and if I don't like the answer, I can go to someone else. But it would seem silly (illogical) to go to 99 other mechanics before I find an answer I like.

What I find really disturbing is that people who are "trained scientists" can behave the same way as the auto-mechanic. Ok, I won't accept the prognostications of a pediatrician if what I really need is a cardiologist, but they should at least be able to "understand" scientific checks and balances.

Honestly, I really can't get my head around how 'climate change denialsim' has captured the brains of so many. A colleague of mine has described it as a deliberate dumbing down of our society - that's scary!

On that note I bid farewell, unless I feel in the mood : )

Apologies to the author of this thread, it seems to have been derailed. FWIW, the seas are rising and the Earth is not flat.

qanda,

I'm inclined to agree with your colleague that it is a dumbing down - or at least the deliberate promotion of ignorance. I can't think of an instance in modern times, however, where scientists have been purposely demonised to the extent they have regarding climate science.

All you can do as a scientist is apply your knowledge and training to the best of your ability and carry on with your work.

It's interesting that psychologists and communicators have begun to take a greater interest in the phenomenon, and that they now appear to working in tandem with climate scientists to counter the denialism.

Will catch you (when you're in the mood:)

tende ad astra : )

To any who care,

This whole discussion has been a very sad experience for me. I am not a climate scientist. I am a biological scientist with enough understanding of the science to know when science, politicians and journalists lie.

If your science is so good, why wouldn't you answer my questions?

Why does your side of the argument lie about your science? Why did Rudd lie to the people in 2009 and since then?

Why do our teachers still teach the lies of Al Gore?

Why does Phil Jones and the Univ. of East Anglia lie and refuse to publish their data?

Why does the IPCC cherry pick its science? For example, the lies about Polar Bears?

Why do you make ad hominem attacks and continually lie about the source of the science I presented?

On not one occasion did any of you "warmists" attack the science or give me on reference to support your statements!

It is the lies and the politics that I find so offensive.

I watch Bob Carter and listen to Jennifer Marohasy and I believe them. I listen to Labor scientists telling us that the lower reaches of the Murray and the lakes have been fresh for the last 7,000 years and I am amazed that this gov't can make a policy on the Murray Darling that is based on lies, but defended by the ABC as the truth!

Scientists such as William Kininmonth are ignored. Why do so many ex CSIRO scientists come out against the current CSIRO science?

Why does the CSIRO have disclaimers attached to their science?

I have so many questions that your side won't answer or even discuss. Your science is badly bent by your politics!

Like most of you, I am also retiring from this thresd.

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza

Finally, the topic of this thread is "The Seas are Rising, the Earth is Flat."

The extent of sea-level rise is highly controversial. Even the Vic ALP Gov't did not take it seriously!

Is the earth flat? The Greeks knew over three thousand years ago that the earth was spherical, as did all sailors. The Greeks even calculated the circumference quite accurately. The Catholic Church decided in the Middle Ages that the earth was flat. Was that science or politics?

We all need to decide if we are Greeks or Catholics!

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza

Geoffrey,

You present as the quintessential denier.

Your recent points:

* They don't. He didn't.

* They aren't lies.

* They don't.

* They don't. (Here's a polar bear to give you a few pointers :) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-wagner/lets-get-real-about-global_b_2571504.html

* You bounced in here hurling ad homs, matey...

* Why should qanda waste his valuable time spelling out the science here. If you had bothered to investigate his links, you would have found all the "science" and "references" you requested.

* If you digest and believe denialists (most of whom - like yourself - are not trained in the various disciplines comprising climate science) then it's clear you're not impartial....like qanda said, when "trained scientists" corral their sensibilities with politically inspired bias - we've got a problem.

"Your science is badly bent by your politics!"

Ho, Ho, Ho! (pot-kettle situation here :)

Have another read of this - it sums up your stance perfectly:

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

Geoffrey,

In Cook's article, take note of the bit about the construction of strawmen.

Nearly all your questions in your penultimate post here today were constructed in that manner......

You present as the quintessential denier.

Your recent points:

* They don't. He didn't.

Is this about Rudd? He lied when he denied the UN wanted to form a new world government! Not 'governance' as one warmist claimed I said, but the word 'government' used by the UNFCCC.

* They aren't lies.

Are you defending Gore here? The UK courts found Gore's film contained many lies, half-truths and controversial but not conclusive facts. Gore deliberately lied and the courts found that he did. The barrister was none other than Monckton! Yet our schools still teach Gore!

* They don't.

Not sure what this refers to, but does it refer to Phil Jones?

* They don't. (Here's a polar bear to give you a few pointers :) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-wagner/lets-get-real-about-global_b_2571504.html

This Huffington Post article is absolute nonsense and not relevent to any of our conversations.

Prof Bob Carter proves that using the science of the IPCC Polar Bears do not exist!

* You bounced in here hurling ad homs, matey...

* Why should qanda waste his valuable time spelling out the science here. If you had bothered to investigate his links, you would have found all the "science" and "references" you requested.

All qanda needed to do was defend is statement which I did not believe. His references did not address my request at all.

Have another read of this - it sums up your stance perfectly:

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 2 February 2013 9:47:19 AM

Cook's article is again not relevent. I did not set up a straw man, but my opposers did repeatedly, eg. not correctly acknowledging the source of my graph!

Sticks and stone poirot.... you carry on like a kid in a state school.

Geoffrey Kelley

Geoffrey,

Was your mention of "Lord" Monckton supposed to be a game changer/ show stopper - or were you deliberately giving me ammo?

Holding whacky Lord Monckton up as a trump card is uncommonly hilarious.

Here's some relevant commentary on "Lord Crazypants of Brenchley":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton

and

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/monckton-banned-un-climate-process-offensive-stunt

and

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/09/lord-monckton-heads-down-under-to-remind-australians-there-is-no-global-warming/

and (you'll like this one - it seems your "world government" script is from a denialist template)

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/great-video-the-view-from-moncktons-world/

"....none other than Lord Monckton."

What a joke!

Geoffrey,

Apologies for going in a bit gung-ho with the Monckton thing, but really if you're going to argue the "skeptic's" case on the science, mentioning him brings the whole discussion into an unscientific area.

Is Monckton a barrister?

Sourcewatch doesn't appear to think so:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

Monckton is a PR and event machine for the "skeptic" case - nothing more.

Anyhooo....it's pointless arguing the case, as you're so convinced it's all a plot to form a new world government.

Cheers

Geoffrey
Before you start chucking about accusations about not acknowledging some dodgied up graphs 'sources', and not having your questions answered, how about some reciprocation?

How do you reconcile graph A:
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3736

with graph B:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html

You use references like most non-scientists, as ammunition to support your preconceived position, not as tools to determine the likelihood of a hypothesis.

Geoffrey, you're not a scientist.

You're just a reader.

In the mood : (

“All qanda needed to do was defend his statement which I did not believe. His references did not address my request at all.”

Yes they did.

Just because you don’t understand them does not make my “statement”, or what is widely known in the ‘climate science’ community, including Severinghaus, wrong.

Just because you don’t understand attribution of LLGHG between glacial/interglacials does not make the science wrong.

Just because you confuse 200 years since industrialisation with a tectonic time series of millions of years make the science wrong.

Just because you don’t understand the difference between water vapour and a LLGHG make the science wrong.

Just because you don’t understand the difference between a feedback and a forcing does not make the science wrong.

Geoffrey, I will try and simplify this to a level even you should be able to understand.

Due to the Milankovitch Cycles, at the end of ice ages, temperatures rise first, followed by CO2 800 years or so later (and thus CO2 is an effect of temperature rise rather than a cause as you say.)

However, what you continually fail to understand, both temperature and CO2 concentration continue to rise for another 4000 years or so.

Ergo, the initial temperature increase at the end of an ice age is not caused by CO2, but CO2 did (as Severinghaus and many others have shown) contribute to the remaining temperature increase in the final 4000 years, or so.

CO2 acted as a positive feedback, similar as did water vapor.

CO2 can be both a cause, and an effect – something else you fail to understand.

The current situation of global warming (despite the shrill of fake sceptics) is clearly different from that at the end of ice ages.

We now know that the extra CO2 is brought into the atmosphere by human activity, and this is happening at a very much higher rate than on tectonic or geologic time scales.

Cont'd

Cont'd

Indeed, CO2 is not increasing in response to the current warming (and like all “trained scientists”, you would know how to separate the signal from the noise), but is due to human activity.

Ergo, we are the driving force of the current warming – it has been defined as the Anthropocene.

Just to be sure, Geoffrey, about the current warming (not the glacial/interglacial warming concocted by Ball):

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect.

However, there is much literature that shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide equivalent - the enhanced greenhouse effect.

I commend this text;

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5562946/?site_locale=en_GB

to any undergraduate who doesn’t want to come across as a complete idiot when spruiking their opinions.

Why am I not astonished?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3455#82044

drum roll ...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154719

Perhaps Geoffrey can get one of "his girls" in his "environmental physiology" business to reply to Bugsy:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154894

Dearest Geoffrey,

You are not a scientist, you are just a grumpy old political ideologue (no offense intended)

Dear Poirot,

I must apologise. Monckton was not the barrister for this court action.

He was a prime mover in backing Mr Stewart Dimmock to take action.
Here is the URL to that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills

and another to Monckton’s “35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie”

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

You will read the following: “The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown, but it had a degree of political bias such that teachers would be required to explain the context via guidance notes issued to schools along with the film. The court also identified nine of what the plaintiff called 'errors' in the film which were departures from the scientific mainstream, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these items specifically.”

My question to you Poirot, as you appear to be a teacher, is why our schools teach these lies to our schoolchildren whilst the kids in the UK are protected by their gov’t?

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

Dear Bugsy,

I am sorry for the delay in answering your post, which I recognize has been posted twice.

I want to emphasize once more I was trained as an environmental physiologist! I have great difficulty in trying to follow the science that you fellows are throwing at me. But, I have sufficient training to know when scientists or climate activists or politicians tell porkies.

The first graph I posted was constructed by CR Scotese and the website was updated fairly recently; see “This page by Monte Hieb Last updated: March 21, 2009”

You can see it at:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

This graph was not cobbled up by Tim Ball. CR Scotese constructed it.

The second reference is to the “IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007”. When I try and find the references that this assessment was based on, I find the science to be quite similar. For instance, if you look at the references for Fig 6.3 among the papers used are: “Also plotted are the plausible ranges of CO2 from the geochemical carbon cycle model GEOCARB III (Berner and Kothavala, 2001).” So the CO2 graph is form the same source as my graph.

See the graph I presented for CO2 at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3.html

I can only assume that the IPCC has drawn the graph to different coordinates, either expanding or flattening the curve. It reminds me of the Hockey Stick graph of Michael Manne.

Bugsy, the mistake you “warmists” have all made was believing the map was cobbled together by Tim Ball. Had you read my references to the work of Scotese (2002) you would have perhaps treated the graph with a little more respect.

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

Geoffrey, while I would appreciate a reference (a PROPER reference, not a website, you do know how to reference peer reviewed publications don't you?) for "Scotese (2002)", I couldn't give a flying fig who constructed the graph.

It does not matter who constructed it. It doesn't matter if it is peer reviewed or not.

The question was how do you reconcile the two pieces of work presented?
Your proposition was that CO2 is not at all correlated with temperature. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I'll put my question is more simple terms: how did you come to the conclusion that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2, and how did you dismiss the contrary data?

By what criteria do you base your conclusions of thoroughly reading the literature?

Why did you choose to believe one set of data and not the other?

If you want to play dumb and pretend that you are a dullard that cannot understand how scientific conclusions are reached, then I will be only too happy to treat you as such.

Dear qanda,

You say,” “All qanda needed to do was defend his statement which I did not believe. His references did not address my request at all.”

Yes they did.”

I asked you, “Posted by qanda, Monday, 28 January 2013 4:59:24 PM” where you got this statement from, “FWIW, the [CO2] contributes about 30% to the glacial-interglacial warmings and coolings, or about 50% if you include other GHG’s like CH3 and NO2.”

It was my understanding, and I did post it before on this forum, that water vapour was by far the greatest GHG and accounted for about 95% of the greenhouse effect. The elephant in the room is that you and the IPCC ignore water vapour entirely and only refer to Long Lived GHGs. Am I correct in assuming your 50% figure is actually 50% of 5%, or 2.5%?

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

FFS Geoffrey, I see English comprehension is even a difficulty for you.

650 million years ago (look at the time scale on your graph), the planet was very different to today.

650 million years ago, during the transition from a glacial to an interglacial, CO2 contributed about 30% to the warming.

650 million years ago, during the transition from a glacial to an interglacial, CH4 and N2O contributed about another 20% to the warming.

i.e. 50%

....

Today, 650 million later, you say:

“The elephant in the room is that you and the IPCC ignore water vapour entirely and only refer to Long Lived GHGs.”

Bullshite, Mr Geoffrey Kelley from Mount Eliza!

What I and the IPCC say is:

650 million years later, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect … say 50% & 25% respectively.

However, the planet's temperature today (650 million later, Mr Geoffrey Kelley from Mount Eliza) depends on the atmospheric level of CO2e ... currently contributing the remaining 25%, say.

Really Geoffrey, it is not that difficult – even Dr Berner knows this. You (and Ball & Co) misrepresent Robert Arbuckle Berner – obviously deliberately by Ball & Co, and by complete belligerent ignorance by yourself.

Now, can you answer Bugsy? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154971

It’s ok to say you can’t.

Geoffrey,

Here you are attempting to argue the science with two scientists....and you hold up Monckton as some sort of scientific authority on climate.

Let's have a look at the "court case"....

"The court ruled that the film was substantially founded on scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown."

WOW!!

"...a degree of political bias [such that] teachers would be required to explain context."

WOW!!

"...nine...departures from the scientific mainstream....guidance notes [required]....."

WOW!!

Here is your unmitigated "SPIN" from a few posts back:

"The UK courts found Gore's film contained many lies, half-truths and controversial but not conclusive facts. Gore deliberately lied and the courts found that he did."

You are true 24 carat denialist. It's disgraceful that you misrepresent the UK court's decision as argument here.

Incredibly you run through the OLO town square shouting Liar! Liar! while yourself distorting the truth.

What is it with you guys?

You're doing a great job of mimicking Monckton - he who bends the truth habitually to promote himself and the denialist cause:

http://www.readfearn.com/2012/11/lord-moncktons-new-climate-role-for-the-ipcc-isnt-what-it-appears/

And Australian schools have their own work cut out countering rubbish from denailists:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2011/12/13/pilmers-new-book-aimed-squarely-at-sceptic-parents/

"

Dear Bugsy,

Bugsy, Sunday, 3 February 2013 4:49:10 PM

Geoffrey, while I would appreciate a reference (a PROPER reference, not a website, you do know how to reference peer reviewed publications don't you?) for "Scotese (2002)", I couldn't give a flying fig who constructed the graph.

(answer) You are right. I cannot find one peer reviewed paper for Scotese. He is working on the Paleomap Project and gives his Temp. Graph on the website. He gives references for the graph but they are not specific.

See: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

And Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204, February 2001.
(end)

It does not matter who constructed it. It doesn't matter if it is peer reviewed or not.

The question was how do you reconcile the two pieces of work presented?
Your proposition was that CO2 is not at all correlated with temperature. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

(answer) There is plenty of evidence on my side of the argument as well. (end)

I'll put my question is more simple terms: how did you come to the conclusion that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2, and how did you dismiss the contrary data?

(Answer) By looking at his graph and reading other interpretations. (end)

By what criteria do you base your conclusions of thoroughly reading the literature?

Why did you choose to believe one set of data and not the other?

(Answer) You will not like this answer, but I do not trust the IPCC. Their track record is poor and they only accept science from their side of the argument. The well-publicised Polar Bear incident is a perfect example. (end)

If you want to play dumb and pretend that you are a dullard that cannot understand how scientific conclusions are reached, then I will be only too happy to treat you as such.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 3 February 2013 4:49:10 PM

Geoffrey Kelley

Dear qanda,

I really give up! You win!

Before I go I would like to challenge you on the English language and comprehension, apart from your typos!

You said (qanda, Sunday, 3 February 2013 5:37:11 PM) “What I and the IPCC say is: 650 million years later, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect … say 50% & 25% respectively.” Qanda, when did you say this? LOL

Are you and the IPCC saying that water vapour contributes 50% and clouds 25% respectively? Are you admitting that the total water vapour/cloud contribution adds up to 75%? I am very confused by your responses.

NO, WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID was, ““Posted by qanda, Monday, 28 January 2013 4:59:24 PM” where (did) you got this statement from, “FWIW, the [CO2] contributes about 30% to the glacial-interglacial warmings and coolings, or about 50% if you include other GHG’s like CH3 and NO2.”

You did not mention water vapour.

So, I ask you once again, does CO2 contribute 50% of 5%?

Please do not answer this question. I am sick of arguing with you because you never answer the questions and you make things up as you go along.

We all know we will never agree, so let’s part on common ground; we agree to differ!

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

You are correct Geoffrey, I do not like your answer.

The graph from Petit et al (reference already given) was used by the IPCC, but not produced by them. But this is beside the point of why I don't like your answer.

While I disagree that the IPCC is not to be trusted and that "they only accept science from their side of the argument", you seem to think that it is entirely legitimate to do exactly this, and with references that don't seem to exist except on websites to boot.

Well, at least your answer was honest. You do not use objective criteria in assessing sources of information. I can't say we didn't already know this, but your answer is a hell of a lot more honest than what we usually get from your intellectual kin on these pages.

You seem to have found some finer point of climate attribution figures to argue about, as if it proves some massive conspiracy.

Good luck with that.

For Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

>> You said (qanda, Sunday, 3 February 2013 5:37:11 PM) “What I and the IPCC say is: 650 million years later, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect … say 50% & 25% respectively. ” Qanda, when did you say this? LOL <<

I said it on Sunday, 3 February 2013 5:37:11 PM.
I have also said it before - many times in many other forums, workshops and papers … so has the IPCC.

>> Are you and the IPCC saying that water vapour contributes 50% and clouds 25% respectively? <<

Yes, today it does… but not millions of years ago during the time-series of the graph you posted.

>> You did not mention water vapour. <<

Yes I did Geoffrey, here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154955

and here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154957

>> So, I ask you once again, does CO2 contribute 50% of 5%?. Please do not answer this question. I am sick of arguing with you because you never answer the questions and you make things up as you go along. <<

No.

CO2 contributed 50% of the total (+/- a bit) millions & millions & millions of years ago.

CO2 contributes 25% of the total (+/- a bit) today.

Errata:

"CO2 contributed 50% of the total (+/- a bit) millions & millions & millions of years ago."

Should be:

CO2 contributed 30% of the total (+/- a bit) millions & millions & millions of years ago.

CO2 + CH4 + N2O contributed 50% of the total ...

qanda,

Let me get this straight, you AND the IPCC say that today only 50% of the total greenhouse effect comes from H2O, and the other 50% comes from the LLGHGs?

Is that your position?

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza

Geoffrey, this will be my last post to this thread.

“Let me get this straight, you AND the IPCC say that today only 50% of the total greenhouse effect comes from H2O, and the other 50% comes from the LLGHGs?

Is that your position?”

No.

In today’s climate:
Water Vapor ~ 50%
Clouds ~ 25%
LLGHG’s ~ 25%

Perhaps this might help;
Science 15 October 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359, DOI: 10.1126/science.1190653

Abstract

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

If you can’t read the full paper, it’s concludes with:

“From the foregoing, it is clear that CO2 is the key atmospheric gas that exerts principal control over the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds are fast-acting feedback effects, and as such are controlled by the radiative forcings supplied by the noncondensing GHGs. There is telling evidence that atmospheric CO2 also governs the temperature of Earth on geological time scales, suggesting the related question of what the geological processes that control atmospheric CO2 are. The geological evidence of glaciation at tropical latitudes from 650 to 750 million years ago supports the snowball Earth hypothesis (9), and by inference, that escape from the snowball Earth condition is also achievable. On million-year time scales, volcanoes are the principal source of atmospheric CO2, and rock weathering is the principal sink, with the biosphere acting as both source and sink (10)

cont'd

cont'd

Besides CO2, methane is another potent greenhouse control knob, being implicated in the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximummass extinction 55 million years ago, when global warming by up to 5°C (12) occurred because of a massive release of methane from the disintegration of seafloor clathrates (13, 14). Methane is the second most important noncondensing GHG after CO2. Of the 2.9 W/m2 of GHG radiative forcing from 1750 to 2000, CO2 contributed 1.5 W/m2, methane 0.55 W/m2, and CFCs 0.3 W/m2, with the rest coming from N2O and ozone (15). All of these increases in noncondensing GHG forcing are attributable to human activity (16)…

The anthropogenic radiative forcings that fuel the growing terrestrial greenhouse effect continue unabated. The continuing high rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is particularly worrisome, because the present CO2 level of 390 ppm is far in excess of the 280 ppm that is more typical for the interglacial maximum, and still the atmospheric CO2 control knob is now being turned faster than at any time in the geological record (20)…

9 J. L. Kirschvink, in The Proterozoic Biosphere: A Multidisciplinary Study, J. W. Schopf, C. Klein, D. Des Maris, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 51–52.

10 R. A. Berner, The Phanerozoic Carbon Cycle: CO2 and O2 (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2004) - The same RA Berner, Geffrey.

12 J. C. Zachos, G. R. Dickens, R. E. Zeebe, An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics. Nature 451, 279 (2008).

13 G. R. Dickens, J. R. O’Neil, D. K. Rea, R. M. Owen, Dissociation of oceanic methane hydrate as a cause of the carbon isotope excursion at the end of the Paleocene. Paleoceanography 10, 965 (1995)

14 G. A. Schmidt, D. T. Shindell, Atmospheric composition, radiative forcing, and climate change as a consequence of a massive methane release from gas hydrates. Paleoceanography 18, 1004 (2003)

15 J. Hansen et al., Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophys. Res. 110, D18104 (2005).

cont'd

cont'd

16 K. L. Denman et al., in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007), pp. 499–587.

20 D. Archer et al., Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37, 117 (2009)."

Bye Geoffrey

Scientists playing "whack-a-mole" with the "no warming for 15 years" myth:

http://skepticalscience.com/dueling-scientists-oregonian.html

qanda,

I'm sure, like myself, Geoffrey appreciates you going to the trouble to explain things - and references too!

: )

Thanks for the thanks, Poirot - much appreciated, I could have spent time elsewhere.

Interestingly, I see a similar fake sceptic argument show up here:

http://www.ambitgambit.com/2013/01/30/own-goal-for-climate-change-deniers/

Looks like Ross at Comment 28 is of the same ilk as Geoffrey.

They just don't want to believe what they just don't want to believe, regardless of what the science reveals.

Unfortunately, Rhonda Jambe (the author) can't 'whack the mole' - and I've got whackers elbow :(

Seeya

Should have mentioned "that graph" at comment 24, looks familiar LOL

http://www.ambitgambit.com/2013/01/30/own-goal-for-climate-change-deniers/#comment-33488

Looks like Ross and Geoffrey are traveling the same anti-science road-show, eh.

qanda,

Actuuuaalllly...I think the "Ross" in question is our very own "Arjay" - as in "RJ".

A glance at comment 6 here http://www.ambitgambit.com/2013/01/14/gun-buyback-falls-victim-to-the-cobra-effect/ I think confirms my suspicions.

Fascinating isn't it : )

Dear Poirot,

qanda has made it quite clear he has done with me, and I am happy with that situation.

You posted a reference that intrigues me. The thesis is that the warming caused by CO2 over the last 16 years has been swallowed up by increasing the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) rather than increasing the average atmospheric temp. Your study looks at the rise in OHC from 0 to 700 M and from 0 to 2000 M.

I would like to know what the percentage of the volume of the total ocean volume is this sample?

You see, if we could see the total OHC for ALL the ocean we could be confident that the thesis of this paper is correct. In isolation, this paper contributes absolutely NOTHING to your argument.

Would you care to comment on the reference you offer in defence of your science?

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza

PS: qanda, would you care to comment, or will you leave your mate Poirot to hang out to dry?

Oh puh-lease ... you're telling me ... you really mean ... oh come now ... no ... NO ... NNOOOOO!!

Really ??

(had lots more ?'s and !'s but had to remove them to continue :)

So, it all comes down to a conspiratorial communist plot to over-throw the world as we know it!

(had more lots more !'s but had to remove them to continue :)

Ok, roger-that Poirot - now you're really tweaking your whiskers!

Hoodathunk, now it's all starting to fit into place.

Looked under your bed lately - commos, conservos, capitos, CCC's, whatever ?!

ROFLMHO

Somebody owes me a keyboard!

You are a fake, Mr Geoffrey Kelley from Mount Eliza.

A simple plain old grumpy stuck-in-the-mud, hypocritical past-it political ideologue.

You ask for references yet you can't give them yourself. Ask "your girls" Geoffrey.

You might say you are a real scientist, Mr Geoffrey Kelley from Mount Eliza ... but everyone now knows you are not.

qanda,

Confirmation I'm afraid:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14343&page=0#247719

They don't call me Poirot for nothing - my forte is taking note of minor details (although sometimes I'm off beam:)

Geoffrey,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html

(I'm sure qanda could add to that, but as you're in major denialist mode, why would he bother?)

Geoffrey,

Am I right in presuming - since you are happy to use your name and location when you sign off - that you are a dentist?

(unless there are more Geoffrey Kelleys in Mt Eliza)

Poirot,

I have been communicating online since 1985. I used to logon to AUSOM and we sent mail to bulletin boards. Then, in about 1992 the internet arrived. I have always used my own name. I have never hidden behind a pseudonym or nom-de-plume or any other gutless curtain. I have always identified myself and usually my location.

My dear Poirot, what a fantastic piece of detective work you have performed to identify me! You are a credit to your fictional heros. Finally after about four weeks for some reason you found it necessary to try and identify me! Did you suspect that I used a false name?

But, apart from being a dental surgeon I have carried out other roles in society.

Now, answer my question.

You gave the following URL as a reference:

http://skepticalscience.com/dueling-scientists-oregonian.html

It says that 90% of global warming goes into the ocean, yet it only examines the OHC to a depth of 2000 M.

My question is a simple one.

What is the OHC for the entire ocean?

2000 M does not seem very deep to me, and my guess is the volume of water to the 2000 M level is only a small fraction of the total volume of the oceans (and lakes?).

Can you answer that simple question?

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

Poirot

Does that mean Mr Environmental Physiologist is all bullshite?

I'm astonished, what would "his girls" think?

Geoffrey, many people wear false names on the internet, and if someone doesn't like you and they wanted to disgrace your name, they may take it and use it. I must admit, from the way you initially conducted yourself on this forum I certainly suspected as much, but now we know the 'truth', hey?

What are you suspecting here? That the oceans (average depth ~3700m) under the depth of 2000m are getting colder, while the levels above 2000m are getting warmer for some reason?

Really?

Is this what it's come to?

Geoffrey,

I'm sure you can find enough references in this skeptical science piece to pursue your own inquiries.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html

Btw, I worked that out yonks ago - it was obvious the reason you were so upfront with your details was that you desired that people might do a quick google....no biggy there...some people like to trumpet their identity (and it has the added bonus of their never failing to avail themselves of the opportunity to give themselves a self-congratulatory slap on the back because "they don't hid behind a pseudonym")

Well ,bugger, that should be "they don't 'hide' behind a pseudonym".

I say, qanda you seem find yourself perpetually "astonished" on this thread : )

I'm even more astonished that a "trained scientist" doesn't understand that heat going into the deep ocean has to start going in somewhere, sometime, to some extent - and will have an effect.

Now we know this, have shown this, have measured this (to the relief of Trenberth & others).

Perhaps Mr Kelley wants to see the collapse of the THC before he will acknowledge the reality of the anthropocene.

Nighty-night.

OK, "Girls will be Girls",

You have had your fun,snickered like girls in the playground but you still (as usual) have avoided and not answered my question.

Once again you argue on the assumption that after deducting all the "knowns", what you are left with must be the anthropogenic contribution!

Let's toss around a few other ideas?

Is it possible that the increase in the Partial Heat Content (possibly less than 1% of the OHC) is caused by ocean currents redistributing the heat, perhaps from below?

Given the number of volcanoes that erupt from the ocean bed, might not heat enter the system from another source? For instance, wouldn't it be curious if the glacier on the Antarctic Western Shelf was actually caused by a volcano under the ice?

An awful lot of your science is predicated on assumptions that suit your argument.

And, in the end, what can you suggest we do to reverse this AGW component?

Geoffrey Kelley

Ok Geoffrey, lets act like we're in a climate science workshop and 'toss around' a few ideas that noone seems to have thought of before.

Deep ocean heat content? Looked at.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Ocean%20warming%20DEEP%20Kouketsu%202011.pdf

Heat tends to get 'redistributed' from regions of higher temperature to to those of lower temperature, do they not?

As for the 'hidden volcano' theory, which volcano do you reckon is doing the job in Antarctica?http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/region.cfm?rnum=19&rpage=list

Is it the one that the new world government has been hiding from us to prove their global warming theories?

How many volcanoes do you reckon it would take to heat the ocean to the degree of heating observed? If the heat is coming from below, what should the change in ocean temperature below 2000m be? Would it be larger or smaller that the levels above?

If massive amounts of warm water is rising from the ocean depths, then that shouldbe observable from ocean current data, should it not? Come on Geoffrey, lets see some real data that suggests alternative theories. I know how you love real data.

"And, in the end, what can you suggest we do to reverse this AGW component?"

One suggestion has already been made: reduce human emissions of major greenhouse gases.

I believe what you are asking is how this should be achieved?

That is a question of policy. I have found that serious discussions on the most effective means of reducing emissions is nearly impossible if one side of the discussion refuses to believe that it is required in the first place and is all a conspiracy for enacting a one world government.

Spot on, Bugsy,

ON the road to policy formulation, there is a huge hump in the shape of "funded" climate change denial.

This is achieved by funnelling money into right-wing think tanks to disseminate junk science and to sow the seeds of doubt in the general population. Geoffrey's effort here precisely displays the sort of mindset desired amongst the general population by those who craft and shape the denialist machine. (There was a study done which showed that the more savvy and intelligent the "skeptic", the more they were spurred to argue in favour of the junk [see "cohenite"] - will see if I can dig that study up)

How is society supposed to get to policy without first getting around the roadblock?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-funds-contrariness-on

Here's a good case in point - on cognitive dissonance:

http://www.desmogblog.com/george-will-and-cognitive-dissonance

Mr Kelley says: “An awful lot of your science is predicated on assumptions that suit your argument.”

Poirot,

Apparently you can’t call someone on OLO a liar – but you can say they are telling porkies (as Geoffrey has done).
Does that make those that tell porkies a porker? Never mind.

Anyway, Geoffrey’s above assertion demonstrates quite clearly he’s neither a “trained scientist” nor a real “environmental physiologist” – he’s a fake sceptic at best, a lousy sceptic at worst.

Have you noticed Mr Kelley expects ‘the other side’ (as if science has sides) to produce answers, data, references and so forth – but gives scant regard to providing the same himself?

Moreover, when he is given precise references in answer to 'his questions' he does not acknowledge them? Indeed, he often repeats the same old guff or changes the goal posts (now on to OHC I see).

Yep, Geoffrey shoots from the hip and makes stuff up he can’t substantiate – typical from the anti-science brigade.

Yep, Mr Geoffrey Kelley not only shows complete disdain and disrespect to real science (and "girls" in general) but also to the perfunctories of OLO in particular - by hijacking this thread.

One could ask, why doesn’t Mr Kelley start his own thread?

I agree, if we want a healthier and more wholesome information environment then we need “naming and shaming” of people (like Mr Geoffrey Kelley from Mount Eliza) who go out of their way to mislead and distort ‘climate science’ through their own base ignorance and political bias.

I would find it repugnant to do to dentistry what he is doing to ‘climate science’ - the actions of a simple minded ideologue.

Perhaps we should just not feed the troll.

qanda,

Yes...it's telling that a few posts back that you went to considerable trouble to explain and to list references - and for that Geoffrey's response has been precisely "zilch".

As you say, it's all in the tactics, which are as numerous as they are fleeting (If one is not working, they switch to another).

I've often noted cohenite, whose tactic is to attempt to argue the science (although he's not a scientist) and who, upon finding his "science" rebutted, launches straight into abuse, calling his opponents idiots and liars.

The more I see fake skeptics in action, the more I'm convinced that the "psychology of denial" should be the main area of address.