Dear Bugsy,

I have asked qanda and any other interested person from your side of the argument to give me a specific reference for qanda’s statement, “Where did you get the figure of 50% attributable to the three GHGs, CO2, (I mistakenly said H2O vapour), CH4 and N2O?”

I would like to see the actual data presented. Instead I get a lot of silly references to the IPCC that have nothing to do with the reference I have asked for.

I wish to make it clear, I am not a climate scientist. I have been trained in most of the biological sciences including a degree in Environmental Physiology. I practise an applied science and spend many hours a week reading the latest science in my chosen discipline. That is why I am a sceptic! It is essential to scientific method.

I do not need to train as a climate scientist to know when your side of the science is telling porkies!

If you make specific claims you ought to be able to back them up with references. That is the sort of science I like.

So far your side has not given me one relevant reference. Some have offered up plagiarized and unattributed data as science.

I don't care what you politics are, but you are defending the Labor side by defending their policies.

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung

But Geoffrey, you have done nothing but concentrate on the political aspect of climate debate....your entire spiel is peppered with political and partisan references and accusations in an effort to denounce your opponents.

You produce a "naughty graph" from somewhere called C3 - Climate Conservative Consumer" - says it all.

Btw, who did yer graph...and what fun "fake" skeptics have with graphs. It's cherry-picking and the misrepresentation or omission of data all the way with you guys. "Doubt is your product."

Case in point:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/spreading-like-wildfire/

Your scientific "skepticism" is worlds away from the true skepticism practiced by "real" scientists. Referring to your obviously entrenched denialism as skepticism is a linguistic device and nothing more.

And this is interesting too - on extreme fluctuations:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/extreme-weather-when-worlds-collide/

Geoffery, your "50%" question was to qanda, not to me matey. It's not my concern. That's why I am ignoring it.

Are you dodging MY question?

How do you reconcile which data you believe?

Do you believe this graph:
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3736

Or this one?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html

from the full text here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/full/399429a0.html

One you have used to state that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, and the other presents contradicting information.

How do YOU choose which set of data to believe?
You say you are a trained scientist, could you please tell me what your methods for critically evaluating the literature are?

You say that I am defending Labors policies.

Really?

Which policies are those?

I think you are confused, I'm defending science not policies.

Hello again Csteele,

Yep, he (Mr Geoffrey Kelley) shows such disdain for the way real science is done.

Geoffrey’s behaviour really is quite bizarre, particularly since he claims to be a “trained scientist”. All I’ve seen from him is ideological guff and half-baked cherry pies.

If he really was a sceptic, in the scientific sense, he would try and understand the AR4 chapters in context with what I have said.

Nope, he only sees what he wants to see. Case in point, Mr Kelley says:

“I have seen some claims that water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect and that all the other only account for 5%, of which CO2 accounts for just over half or 3%.”

That has got nothing at all to do with:

>> [CO2] contributes about 30% to the glacial-interglacial warmings and coolings, or about 50% if you include other GHG’s like CH4 and N2O <<

Which was in response to his fallacious assertions from Tim Ball’s cherry picked and distorted graph about lead/lag times in glacials/interglacials.

Hells-bells, there’s abundant literature on attribution of long lived greenhouse gases. The figures I quoted are well known in the scientific community that works with this stuff.

No, it really does seem Mr Kelley gets his ‘climate science’ from ‘denialist’ blog sites.

Geoffrey is too lazy to check out and validate Dr Jeffrey Severinghaus’ work, as an example. At least Geoffrey (not Jeffrey) has validated the truism: you can lead an ass to water, but you can’t make it drink.

My undergraduate degree prepared me well for postgrad and eventual post-doc work – seems precious petals like Geoffrey want to be spoon-fed these days.

--

Poirot,

LOL

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/files/2013/01/10yvf8m.gif

So, what’s the answer?

I'm so over people like Geoffrey. People like him are just jokes over morning teas round here and for the life of me, why should I or anyone else respond to such blatant inanity and stupidity except to show them up for what they really are: fake sceptics who can't dis-aggregate science and politics.

Bugsy

Our society is in deep doo-doo if they’re churning out ‘trained scientists’ like Mr Geoffrey Kelley, seriously.

Homework for Mr Geoffrey Kelley ("trained scientist")

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22author%3ASeveringhaus%20author%3AJ.P.%22