Geoffrey,

In Cook's article, take note of the bit about the construction of strawmen.

Nearly all your questions in your penultimate post here today were constructed in that manner......

You present as the quintessential denier.

Your recent points:

* They don't. He didn't.

Is this about Rudd? He lied when he denied the UN wanted to form a new world government! Not 'governance' as one warmist claimed I said, but the word 'government' used by the UNFCCC.

* They aren't lies.

Are you defending Gore here? The UK courts found Gore's film contained many lies, half-truths and controversial but not conclusive facts. Gore deliberately lied and the courts found that he did. The barrister was none other than Monckton! Yet our schools still teach Gore!

* They don't.

Not sure what this refers to, but does it refer to Phil Jones?

* They don't. (Here's a polar bear to give you a few pointers :) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-wagner/lets-get-real-about-global_b_2571504.html

This Huffington Post article is absolute nonsense and not relevent to any of our conversations.

Prof Bob Carter proves that using the science of the IPCC Polar Bears do not exist!

* You bounced in here hurling ad homs, matey...

* Why should qanda waste his valuable time spelling out the science here. If you had bothered to investigate his links, you would have found all the "science" and "references" you requested.

All qanda needed to do was defend is statement which I did not believe. His references did not address my request at all.

Have another read of this - it sums up your stance perfectly:

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 2 February 2013 9:47:19 AM

Cook's article is again not relevent. I did not set up a straw man, but my opposers did repeatedly, eg. not correctly acknowledging the source of my graph!

Sticks and stone poirot.... you carry on like a kid in a state school.

Geoffrey Kelley

Geoffrey,

Was your mention of "Lord" Monckton supposed to be a game changer/ show stopper - or were you deliberately giving me ammo?

Holding whacky Lord Monckton up as a trump card is uncommonly hilarious.

Here's some relevant commentary on "Lord Crazypants of Brenchley":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton

and

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/monckton-banned-un-climate-process-offensive-stunt

and

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/09/lord-monckton-heads-down-under-to-remind-australians-there-is-no-global-warming/

and (you'll like this one - it seems your "world government" script is from a denialist template)

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/great-video-the-view-from-moncktons-world/

"....none other than Lord Monckton."

What a joke!

Geoffrey,

Apologies for going in a bit gung-ho with the Monckton thing, but really if you're going to argue the "skeptic's" case on the science, mentioning him brings the whole discussion into an unscientific area.

Is Monckton a barrister?

Sourcewatch doesn't appear to think so:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

Monckton is a PR and event machine for the "skeptic" case - nothing more.

Anyhooo....it's pointless arguing the case, as you're so convinced it's all a plot to form a new world government.

Cheers

Geoffrey
Before you start chucking about accusations about not acknowledging some dodgied up graphs 'sources', and not having your questions answered, how about some reciprocation?

How do you reconcile graph A:
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3736

with graph B:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html

You use references like most non-scientists, as ammunition to support your preconceived position, not as tools to determine the likelihood of a hypothesis.

Geoffrey, you're not a scientist.

You're just a reader.

In the mood : (

“All qanda needed to do was defend his statement which I did not believe. His references did not address my request at all.”

Yes they did.

Just because you don’t understand them does not make my “statement”, or what is widely known in the ‘climate science’ community, including Severinghaus, wrong.

Just because you don’t understand attribution of LLGHG between glacial/interglacials does not make the science wrong.

Just because you confuse 200 years since industrialisation with a tectonic time series of millions of years make the science wrong.

Just because you don’t understand the difference between water vapour and a LLGHG make the science wrong.

Just because you don’t understand the difference between a feedback and a forcing does not make the science wrong.

Geoffrey, I will try and simplify this to a level even you should be able to understand.

Due to the Milankovitch Cycles, at the end of ice ages, temperatures rise first, followed by CO2 800 years or so later (and thus CO2 is an effect of temperature rise rather than a cause as you say.)

However, what you continually fail to understand, both temperature and CO2 concentration continue to rise for another 4000 years or so.

Ergo, the initial temperature increase at the end of an ice age is not caused by CO2, but CO2 did (as Severinghaus and many others have shown) contribute to the remaining temperature increase in the final 4000 years, or so.

CO2 acted as a positive feedback, similar as did water vapor.

CO2 can be both a cause, and an effect – something else you fail to understand.

The current situation of global warming (despite the shrill of fake sceptics) is clearly different from that at the end of ice ages.

We now know that the extra CO2 is brought into the atmosphere by human activity, and this is happening at a very much higher rate than on tectonic or geologic time scales.

Cont'd