Dear qanda and Poirot,

I have copped a fair amount of flack from you two and some quite nasty comments, which I can tell you are like water off a duck's back. I am used to socialists fighting as hard as you two, sprouting more politics than fact.

qanda, I know you are a climate scientist but can you tell me at what level? Are you a research scientist at the CSIRO? Have you published papers in refereed journals? Are you a univ. lecturer? I would like to know at what level you operate please without asking you to identify yourself.

Poirot, I get the feeling you are are PhD. in some sort of humanity subject, possibly psychology? You do not trumpet science so I am not keen to expose you, just keen to find out the sort of fellow who has been slamming me so hard, and find out if your are what you claim to be?

Geoffrey Kelley

Geoffrey,

You said: "I have copped a fair amount of flack from you two and some quite nasty comments..."

You do realise that you came onto this thread with all guns blazing, labelling people and their commentary all sorts of things - in short, pulling no punches. Just what do you expect us to do? This is a forum for debate. It's sometimes robust in that you get as good as you give.

Your science has been found wanting - and your argument has been almost entirely predicated in alignment with your political preferences. Amazingly, for an everyday garden variety forum, we have the good fortune to have climate scientists in actual attendance, who have taken the trouble, here and there, to explain the science to you. You don't appear to have the good grace to acknowledge this, let alone learn from it.

My interest in the "climate debate" is purely from a lay perspective.

(And actually I'm a Ms Poirot - but don't let on :)

Dear Poirot,

It has been a fascinating experience arguing with you and others here. I did come out with all guns blazing because I was annoyed by the attitudes and behaviour of some on other places, so I apologise for the crime of stalking.

Most importantly I believe my beliefs are intact and that the socialist and ALP supporters continue to claim the high moral ground yet behave in an extraordinary manner.

They are incapable of answering basic questions and refuse to defend some of their more offensive policies. They still lie about some points, such as their support for the creation of a new world government by KRudd et.al. despite the reference I gave!

Poirot, if you are on that side of politics, then that is your problem. At least I proudly proclaim my beliefs and don't lie about them and pretend to be a Liberal voter, or a former Liberal voter, or to be unaligned, yet argue passionately in favour of the present Australian Gov't.

I will leave this topic now and leave you and your "climate scientist" qanda to get on with your mutual congratulations.

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley

Geoffry,

Your argument appears to be based solely on political/economic implications and your own bias.

The problem is that scientists continue to produce data which demonstrates that continued "business as usual" is not compatible with a healthy environment.

Arguing that scientists lie, that they commit fraud and that the whole of scientific consensus is a conspiracy is "not" examining the science.

These discussions are rarely about the science. Many "skeptics" toss in the odd cherry-picked science inquiry, usually out of context or in the shape of a strawman, however, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, they revert back to the "why do you lie?" narrative.

(qanda gave you a fair bit of feedback. That you still aren't willing to acknowledge that is telling)

It's for this reason that scientists don't usually bother with forums like this.

I think the "new world Government" line is merely a melodramatic load of bunkum.

Anyway, it was an stirring debate.

Regards

I glad you have reaffirmed your faith Geoffrey, it is one I sadly do not share.

Best to stick to policy (not science) discussions in future, as that is where the actual money is, so to speak.

I do not comment on nor defend government policies, so if you were having a little dig at me, then I think you had better look elsewhere.

I think you forget that Malcolm Turnbull is a Liberal MP, and has pretty much exactly the position as mine. That is, believe the science. Don't let your blind hatred of the Lefties blind you to the facts as well.

Dear Bugsy,

I have not forgotten that Turnbull is a Liberal politician. In fact as you well know, he was a leader of the party and lost to Abbott. One of the reasons he lost the leadership was because the Liberal voters rejected his stand on the climate change! There would be very few fellow conservatives that support Turnbull on that policy. Certainly not enough dissidents to alter the Libs prospects in the next election because, if they do exist, they are already factored into the polls.

Now he is our spokesman for communications and will dismantle the NBN if or when we win the next election.

Bye Bugsy,

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza