From: Albert Parker Date: 24 April 2013 10:55:13 AM AEST To: "Graham Readfearn" Subject: Re: Journalist - sea-level rise i know, the miners protesting during the eureka stockade where "evil possessed" and the important issue of the time (for some "model" citizens) were to discuss the evil possesion of the poor miners .... it is an old problem .... i am afraid  you assume wrong and as i previously told you i am not interested to discuss anything except science with any one .... i love freedom and democracy for me and all the mankind no matter what religion, race, language ... or the understanding of sea level accelerations may be..... On 24 April 2013 10:23, Graham Readfearn wrote: Dr Parker I have asked you simple and straightforward questions.  I do take it from your responses that you do publish under the name"Alberto Boretti" but that you are using the name Albert Parker for your new role at RMIT.  In relation to question 4, I'm sure you can see how confusing it is to be writing papers simultaneously about the same broad issue under two different names. I'm sorry that you think these questions are about "politics". They are an attempt to clarify some important points. Graham Readfearn Journalist XXXXX On 24/04/2013, at 10:09 AM, Albert Parker wrote: i am sorry to see that you are not interested to learn if the sea levels are accelerating or not, but only to deviate from the only issue of interest. i do not play politics and i write in my papers what i see without caring too much of political agendas. sorry can't presently support any sea level accelerating statement. On 23 April 2013 17:26, Graham Readfearn wrote: Dr Parker Thank you for your response.  Please though, can I ask you to  address specifically questions 2, 3 and 4. Regards Graham Readfearn Journalist XXXXX On 23/04/2013, at 5:09 PM, Albert Parker wrote: hi graham. i do not like politics in science and i only rely on facts.  if you go on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation you see that there are natural oscillations of period about 60 years this is very well known since decades on wikipedia, you may also find similar natural oscillations for the pacific  if you focus to the move from a peak to a valley of a sinusoidal function, you may say "the parameter is reducing" but if you focus to the move from a valley to a peak you may say "the parameter is increasing", but if you consider a full period about 60 years you conclude "the parameter is not changing" now, consider this parameter the rate of rise of sea levels (the subject of discussion is the acceleration and not the velocity of sea levels) what do you think of peoples who omit to remember past studies - in particular some of  NTC and NOAA  realizing the existence of multi decadal oscillations - and claim accelerations only looking at the short time windows that magnify the positive trend? i leave you the answer  again, i do not care about politics in science, and i can only answer questions about science  what is in the long term tide gauges is the lack of any acceleration so far  this means nothing about the future, i am not a wizard  but it means that so far models have been wrong or at least non accurate   On 23 April 2013 15:59, wrote: Dr Parker I'm a freelance environment and climate change journalist and would like to ask you some questions please. I'm writing a story highlighting a recent exchange in the journal Ocean Engineering and in particular a response ( here - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029801813001297 ) written by Hunter et al to a "comment" you had co-authored with Thomas Watson in that journal. 1. Hunter et al suggest that your "comment" should not have been published and that it was a reflection of the authors' "idiosyncratic views". What is your response to these criticisms? 2. I note that an "Alberto Boretti" has written several papers and "comment" articles critical of sea-level rise projections, also with Thomas Watson. Is it correct that your work is also published in journals under the name "Alberto Boretti"? If so, can I ask when and why you changed your name? 3. I note also that your co-author Thomas Watson does not believe that human emissions of CO2 are causing climate change and instead has a theory based around "magnetism" - see here (http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2013/thomaswatson/). Do you accept that human emissions are causing the climate to change? 4. Separately, you had a paper published in January in the journal "Natural Hazards" which argued against evidence for acceleration of sea level rise in the future on the North Atlantic Coast. Thomas Watson and yourself then in March uploaded to arxiv.org a "comment" to this paper, but under the name Alberto Boretti. Why did you use this name and not your current name? Was this paper actually submitted to the journal Natural Hazards? Regards Graham Readfearn Journalist xxxx