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.