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