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knowing that you posted plagiarised data and knowing it was not what you claimed it to be, you have not apologised and withdrawn your graph.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.