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