Cont'd

Indeed, CO2 is not increasing in response to the current warming (and like all “trained scientists”, you would know how to separate the signal from the noise), but is due to human activity.

Ergo, we are the driving force of the current warming – it has been defined as the Anthropocene.

Just to be sure, Geoffrey, about the current warming (not the glacial/interglacial warming concocted by Ball):

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect.

However, there is much literature that shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide equivalent - the enhanced greenhouse effect.

I commend this text;

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5562946/?site_locale=en_GB

to any undergraduate who doesn’t want to come across as a complete idiot when spruiking their opinions.

Why am I not astonished?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3455#82044

drum roll ...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154719

Perhaps Geoffrey can get one of "his girls" in his "environmental physiology" business to reply to Bugsy:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154894

Dearest Geoffrey,

You are not a scientist, you are just a grumpy old political ideologue (no offense intended)

Dear Poirot,

I must apologise. Monckton was not the barrister for this court action.

He was a prime mover in backing Mr Stewart Dimmock to take action.
Here is the URL to that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills

and another to Monckton’s “35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie”

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

You will read the following: “The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown, but it had a degree of political bias such that teachers would be required to explain the context via guidance notes issued to schools along with the film. The court also identified nine of what the plaintiff called 'errors' in the film which were departures from the scientific mainstream, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these items specifically.”

My question to you Poirot, as you appear to be a teacher, is why our schools teach these lies to our schoolchildren whilst the kids in the UK are protected by their gov’t?

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

Dear Bugsy,

I am sorry for the delay in answering your post, which I recognize has been posted twice.

I want to emphasize once more I was trained as an environmental physiologist! I have great difficulty in trying to follow the science that you fellows are throwing at me. But, I have sufficient training to know when scientists or climate activists or politicians tell porkies.

The first graph I posted was constructed by CR Scotese and the website was updated fairly recently; see “This page by Monte Hieb Last updated: March 21, 2009”

You can see it at:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

This graph was not cobbled up by Tim Ball. CR Scotese constructed it.

The second reference is to the “IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007”. When I try and find the references that this assessment was based on, I find the science to be quite similar. For instance, if you look at the references for Fig 6.3 among the papers used are: “Also plotted are the plausible ranges of CO2 from the geochemical carbon cycle model GEOCARB III (Berner and Kothavala, 2001).” So the CO2 graph is form the same source as my graph.

See the graph I presented for CO2 at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3.html

I can only assume that the IPCC has drawn the graph to different coordinates, either expanding or flattening the curve. It reminds me of the Hockey Stick graph of Michael Manne.

Bugsy, the mistake you “warmists” have all made was believing the map was cobbled together by Tim Ball. Had you read my references to the work of Scotese (2002) you would have perhaps treated the graph with a little more respect.

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

Geoffrey, while I would appreciate a reference (a PROPER reference, not a website, you do know how to reference peer reviewed publications don't you?) for "Scotese (2002)", I couldn't give a flying fig who constructed the graph.

It does not matter who constructed it. It doesn't matter if it is peer reviewed or not.

The question was how do you reconcile the two pieces of work presented?
Your proposition was that CO2 is not at all correlated with temperature. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I'll put my question is more simple terms: how did you come to the conclusion that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2, and how did you dismiss the contrary data?

By what criteria do you base your conclusions of thoroughly reading the literature?

Why did you choose to believe one set of data and not the other?

If you want to play dumb and pretend that you are a dullard that cannot understand how scientific conclusions are reached, then I will be only too happy to treat you as such.

Dear qanda,

You say,” “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.”

I asked you, “Posted by qanda, Monday, 28 January 2013 4:59:24 PM” where you got this statement from, “FWIW, the [CO2] contributes about 30% to the glacial-interglacial warmings and coolings, or about 50% if you include other GHG’s like CH3 and NO2.”

It was my understanding, and I did post it before on this forum, that water vapour was by far the greatest GHG and accounted for about 95% of the greenhouse effect. The elephant in the room is that you and the IPCC ignore water vapour entirely and only refer to Long Lived GHGs. Am I correct in assuming your 50% figure is actually 50% of 5%, or 2.5%?

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.