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.