JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Oops Climate Commission graph: Queensland warmed nearly 3 degrees in 50 years?

If Alan Jones needs to get “educated” because he got the level of CO2 wrong once, the Climate Commission surely needs to go back to do high school maths, because anyone who has done junior high can see that the running average in the graph below is an impossibility. The latest Climate Commission report: “The Critical Decade: Queensland climate impact and opportunities” starts with blatantly incorrect figure. Since when do “averages” run outside the extreme highs and lows? Thanks to reader Ian E.

Eyeballing this graph suggests Queensland’s average temperature has risen by 2.7 C since the 1950′s.

Queensland warming, Climate Commission, error in graph

The text on the same page says: “The average temperature for Queensland has risen by about 1°C since early last century”. So at least the writing matches the official (if exaggerated) records.

Who proof-read this document?

Three professors (Will Steffen, Lesley Hughes, Veena Sahajwalla) and Mr Gerry Hueston, all Climate Commissioners, signed off on it.

The correct graph should look more like this.

 (Graphed by Ian E)

Even the 1 degree trend in this graph above is likely to be exaggerated

Ken Stewart and the others in the independent BOM-audit team found that even the 1 degree of warming claimed in Australian temperatures relies on high adjusted data like this graph in Brisbane (described in this post).

The BOM also used data records that were as short as 12 years in their High Quality network. Compared with the raw records, Ken Stewart found the trends in the raw data were adjusted up by a whopping 40%.  (Which still isn’t as outrageously adjusted as the boys at NIWA in New Zealand managed.)

Warwick Hughes has also noticed the error.

My other posts related to Australian Temperatures:

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (97 votes cast)
Oops Climate Commission graph: Queensland warmed nearly 3 degrees in 50 years?, 8.9 out of 10 based on 97 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cfw4338

147 comments to Oops Climate Commission graph: Queensland warmed nearly 3 degrees in 50 years?

  • #

    I also see that this same Australian Climate Commission has wrongly used data from the U.S. to claim Climate Change exacerbated Superstorm Sandy.

    The Australian has a Login article about it, but there is a full link to the article, and get in quick, because these usually disappear in quick time, back to the Login article.

    Type this short phrase into your search engine, and it’s the very top link for the whole article.

    Climate link to Sandy invalid

    Also, and while related, it’s off the main topic here, and I apologise for that, but please read this article as well.

    Anarchy Along The Jersey Shore And On Long Island In The Aftermath Of Hurricane Sandy

    I can see the lefty’s saying right now, scoffing, that this is only Alex Jones, but read very carefully.

    I know that some of you think of me as a scaremonger for even mentioning what life without electrical power would be like, and saying that it will never come to that.

    It has come to that for these people, up to 4.7 million of them, still without power, and in most cases, will stay that way for at least another week and maybe more.

    This is positively frightening.

    Tony.


    Report this

    360

    • #
      cohenite

      Yep; blackouts for sure unless Gillard and the greens get booted out AND the coalition wake up to themselves and abolish the RET.

      There is not one bit of evidence to support either AGW or renewable energy, particularly wind and solar.

      Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool or both.


      Report this

      430

      • #

        Also, and ho ho ho!

        One of the more than 100 promises ACT Labor promised the sole Green, and then signed off on, along with a seat in the ACT Ministry, is that ACT Labor has promised The Greens that 90% of all ACT power will be sourced from Renewables by 2020.

        And they say that Abbott was willing to sell his, umm, fundament to get power after the last Federal election.

        Tony.


        Report this

        290

        • #
          elva

          Easy peasy. Canberra is so close to hydro power in the Snowy Mts. Mission accomplished.


          Report this

          91

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            elva says:
            Easy peasy. Canberra is so close to hydro power in the Snowy Mts.

            Not so easy. Under the definition used (from Macquarie Dictionary?) hydro power isn’t counted as renewable. Neither is nuclear.

            Just because a method doesn’t release CO2, doesn’t mean its is acceptable to the Greens. Now if it is expensive, unreliable and causes increased CO2 release elsewhere then it gets the tick of approval.


            Report this

            240

        • #
          Dennis

          No, the far too often mischief maker Windsor lied, as he does to make his sick point.


          Report this

          01

      • #
        Peter Miller

        The Australian Climate Commission is clearly a classic case of yet another, government funded, gravy train operating totally out of control.

        It is clear the only things the individuals it employs are concerned about are: i) the continuation of their own personal status quo, and ii) growing their organisation like a malignant tumour.

        So they churn out the usual scary research papers full of the same tired old unsubstantiated BS, with pretty pictures, lots of pal reviewed references and more ‘coulds’ and ‘maybes’ than you can shake a stick at – but probably no one senior there could ever be bothered to read the article and correct the glaring mistakes it contains.

        With good reason, throughout the western world the word ‘commission’ has come to mean an out of control, unaccountable, undemocratic, bureaucracy that does nothing useful, but just grows and grows.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … throughout the western world the word ‘commission’ has come to mean an out of control, unaccountable, undemocratic, bureaucracy …

          A friend of mine once remarked that people who sit on a Commission, are often on a commission.

          Which highlights that Commissioners are often paid relative to how well they achieve the aims of the Commission.

          “Tell me how I’m to be paid, and I will show you how I’ll perform”.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            GlobalHysteria

            I also note, as is the way of these publications, the disclaimer at the end absolving the authors from any responsibility related to the content.

            In the 21 pages of content I counted:
            26 statements of probability (ie strong guesses) using the word ‘likely’
            eg. from page 14: “As Australia moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, levels of investment, employment and income are likely to continue to grow strongly.”

            20 statements of probability (ie weaker guesses) using the word ‘may’
            eg. from page 5: “Changes in temperature, rainfall and humidity in Australia may allow mosquito-borne infectious diseases, … to become more widespread.”

            No need for the disclaimers with that level of statement qualification – surely no one can hold you to account for such vacuous content in an overwhelmingly meaningless paper.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            GlobalHysteria

            This is an old thread already, but reading deeper into the report I note that one of the references concerning innundation of islands in the Torres Strait is listed as a paper by D. Green (2006). In this paper the author notes that due to climate-change induced flooding and innundation by sea water, residents were encouraged to build dwellings on stilts. On page 8 of the paper there is a photo of a ‘traditional house, taken in the late 19th century, which was built on stilts, with a caption alluding to the fact that stilt houses were a traditional design.

            Was there rapid global warming / CO2 levels in the 19th century? Is this paper to be taken seriously with such self-evidently contradictory information?

            You decide.

            Not too sure how to link but type in the following to google to find it :
            “green d. (2006). how might climate change affect”


            Report this

            00

          • #
            GlobalHysteria

            And on a final note, Jo posted this report over a week ago. Yet a quick check of the Climate Commission’s website today shows that the report has still not been corrected. First year undergraduates are admonished for such a lack of rigor.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi Peter,

          You have just described the play book of the average government department – well done.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      ianl8888

      Frozen food in supermarkets spoils – hunger makes people more desperate

      ATM’s, credit card terminals don’t work – you cannot access your money to buy what food there is

      Relying on renewabubbles like wind and solar is such a good idea … you can experience this every day instead of just after a disaster


      Report this

      150

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        But one of the publicised ADVANTAGES that was taken into account in the COAG decision to have smart meters was that people like householders could turn off their electricity at time when it was priced high. I’ve not bought this smart meter thing. It’s claimed to be merely a replacement for the existing meter, but it is much more. It allows data collection that can be hacked and allow robbers to work out a pattern of when you are not home. It allows the authorities (about 5 layers of them) to turn off power to an individual household. And more. So, I’ve stated to my Minister that a smart meter can be installed, provided that it does not take any of my property rights that were not taken by the old meter. If the new meter is installed, it must come with an agreement about who will recommpense me for lost food, lost electricity, damage to medical equipment in the home and so on. I can only encourage similar thinking about property rights losses as major equipment like desal plants and windmills are installed without anyone asking me if I wanted to join in the merry game of ‘pay the high bill’.


        Report this

        150

        • #
          Bite Back

          It will not only come to smart meters but eventually smart thermostats in your house that allow some bureaucrat to set the temperature for you.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          John Brookes

          Well, if you don’t like the terms and conditions on your electricity contract, either do without electricity, or vote for a government that will change things.


          Report this

          36

          • #

            Well, if you don’t like the terms and conditions on your electricity contract, either do without electricity, or vote for a government that will change things.

            Or you could perhaps install rooftop solar panels and have every other Australian pay for them for you!

            Tony.


            Report this

            100

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Good for you John! You can offer good advice. That’s exactly where the battle needs to go.

            Keep it up. :-) No sarcasm intended, at least on my part. I gave you a green thumb.


            Report this

            03

    • #
      Bite Back

      Don’t think this can’t happen to you. It can.

      Anarchy Along The Jersey Shore And On Long Island In The Aftermath Of Hurricane Sandy

      During the 1979 – 1980 gas “crisis” here we did have a murder over a few gallons of gas. And there was only a shortage of gasoline. No one was hungry or cold or desperate for anything except a fill up at the corner gas station.

      If I have any observations to make about Katrina and Sandy — or any other disaster — it’s that you can’t count on outside help. You have to be able to withstand what hits you for as long as it takes for help to finally reach you. Local people have to be the first responders. If you’re not able to help yourselves, no one else will be able to get the right help to you soon enough. The next level of response has to be the city or county then the state. Federal government help, like FEMA, is never going to be able to do the immediate relief job. The closest people to the problem have to be ready. Those farthest away can’t even know what’s needed or where, much less mobilize and get there soon enough.

      With all that said — what the SOBs who govern us want is just the opposite; depend on them instead of yourself. I think there’s a good lesson there.

      You can find lots of good advice about how to prepare if you just go look for it.

      With both our governments hell-bent on making this a daily reality we need to be organized for survival. I don’t know how far it will go. But it’s no problem at all to see how far it can go.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        John Brookes

        Yeah, but that was in the US. They are a bit different to the rest of the world. Many more of them have the means to kill with ease.


        Report this

        07

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Which is all the reason why forward planning, at all levels of the community, is important.

          As soon as the situation gets violent, you have lost all other alternatives. But if the social structure of the community is supportive, rather that aggressive, then whether you have weapons, of any description, or not, becomes immaterial.

          What Bite Back is pointing out, as far as I can see, is that there is a tremendous disconnect between those in power, and those who feel disenfranchised, in the U.S. In such a situation, violence is a very early option.

          In much more egalitarian New Zealand, the initial reaction to the Christchurch earthquake was one of communities coming together to pool what resources that had, until help arrived.

          New Zealanders are allowed guns as long as the holder is licensed, and the guns are registered, and they are kept locked away. The vast majority of rural families have several guns, but not one firearm was presented during either Christchurch earthquake.

          Having the means to kill, is totally unrelated to having the will to kill.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Richard Schaefer

        I would submit that I did not bring up the killing. John Brooks did.
        J.B. inmplied that Americans are blood thirsty killers simply because we have refused to give up our God given right to defend our selves and our families. I was simply pointing out the error of his disgusting statement.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Angry

      Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: ‘Blaming Hurricane Sandy on Global Warming or ‘Climate Change’ is shockingly ignorant or shockingly deceptive

      http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/15298


      Report this

      70

    • #
      John Brookes

      I see no problem with attributing some of hurricane Sandy to climate change. Warmer waters cause hurricanes, and AGW causes warmer waters. Munich re (an insurance giant that is in on the AGW scam) has noticed that weather related disasters are increasing compared to seismic disasters. They assume that AGW may be to blame for this.

      Anyway, maybe the last couple of feet of storm surge was due to AGW. I wonder if that is the sort of thing figured into the cost benefit analysis done when looking at mitigating global warming rather than preventing it.


      Report this

      025

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …assume…???

        And then just down the page a little ways you go off the rails again. John, it seems like you can’t even read and comprehend the discussion just in this thread alone. Then there’s the National Weather Service that says a rather emphatic NO to all this nonsense and backs it up with records going back to before the industrial revolution became something noteworthy. You ignore even the details pushed by your own side of the fence.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Ross

        John, even the high priests at the IPCC have come out and said that AGW had nothing do with Sandy.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi JB,

        Ross is correct, the position of the UN IPCC has been summarized by Roger Pielke Jr here

        Sorry – John, your position doesn’t fly.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          John Brookes

          Well, I’m joining you guys and saying that the IPCC is wrong. Sea level off NY has risen about a foot in the last hundred years. That is mostly due to AGW. The storm surge caused the most damage from Sandy, and because of AGW it was about a foot higher than it would otherwise have been.

          So I say that AGW did contribute to the amount of damage Sandy did.


          Report this

          07

          • #

            Sea level off NY has risen about a foot in the last hundred years. That is mostly due to AGW.

            That’s just a claim. SHOW PROOF

            I’ll have a go as well….

            Claim…Sea level off New York has risen hundreds of feet since the depths of the last ice age, NOTHING TO DO WITH IMAGINED GLOBAL WARMING.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi JB,

            As far as I am aware even the most ardent AGW supporters are not claiming that AGW has been in effect for 100 years.

            The only period which is claimed as being actually affected by AGW is the period from approx 1975 onwards.

            Don’t forget that the world exited the Little Ice Age (LIA) prior to the onset of the industrial revolution (of any size), hence the warming over the last 180 years began as a natural phenomenon.

            The questions is – how much of the warming over the last 180 years has been due to human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs since the onset of the Industrial Revolution and how much has been due to nature?

            The likely answer is “next to nothing due to human activities” with climate sensitivity to human originated CO2 somewhere close to 0.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        kraka

        John, say your right and the warmer waters contributed to Sandy. There is still no evidence that it was caused by man-NONE. There is no correlation between the amount of human emitted co2 in the atmosphere (or indeed co2)and the average global temperatures of either land or sea. You can safely say that since the industrial revolution that human co2 has increased virtually every year, and yet we still see periods of stagnation (as it is now) and cooling (40′s,70′s). Epic fail.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Adam Gallon

        Only problem there, is that there’s been no increase in SST along Sandy’s track over the past 70+ years.
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/
        And, of course, ACE levels are low.
        http://policlimate.com/tropical/
        New York Harbour’s tide guage, has shown a steady rise for a century or more, no acceleration, no “AGW”
        http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/12_high.png


        Report this

        10

    • #
      ExWarmist

      People forget how important refrigeration is for food supply.

      Plus there are a number of drug dependencies such a diabetics for insulin that require refrigeration to manage the availability of their medication.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    More outof date old hype! Seems to be all over now.
    Click here.


    Report this

    70

  • #

    They’re truly embarassing to watch.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Keith L

    I thought the new QLD premier had gotten rid of that little parasite. What is going on? Why does that ridiculous waste of tax money still exist??


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    It’s time to stop being surprised at the strokes these people pull.

    They are following an emotional agenda — usually something to do with ‘injustice’ and ‘unfairness’ in society, which they want to address by the kind of dirigiste regime a climate crisis would help to bring about.

    So far, they only have the Carbon Tax, which is itself absurd, but then all their ‘solutions’ are equally absurd, especially when applied to a non-problem.

    Unfortunately, blind emotion knows no ethics, so the climate crusade is where emotion turns into politics, without a stop at Rationality, Integrity, or common sense, on the way.

    And it will continue.

    Occasionally, one of them steps so far over the line that they get called out (Gleick, Lewandowsky, Gergis and Karoly), but does this stop them the next time around?

    No.


    Report this

    290

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      So is it inevitably downhill or do we have a road back to sanity?


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Rick Bradford

        Well, the world keeps turning, and I am sure there will at some stage be a growing emphasis on notions such as personal responsibility and meritocracy, and less on feel-good narcissism and politically correct ideology.

        It will take quite an upheaval to bring this about — perhaps when the progressives have run out of other people’s money to spend, which isn’t an impossibly distant prospect.

        We will retain the good parts of the progressive message, such as care for the environment and greater tolerance all round, but governments will find themselves obliged to consider the views of the majority of the people and not just those of the multiple minorities, as at present.

        As one philosopher puts it: “Egalitarianism is complemented with natural degrees of ranking and excellence. Knowledge and competency should supersede power, status, or group sensitivity.”

        It can’t come soon enough …..


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Sonny

    They did a good job IMO


    Report this

    11

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    If it’s anything like in the UK, official bodies only pay lip service to any form of quality management systems. Nobody bothers to check anything, they just sign on the bottom. It will be interesting to see the correction and the abject and grovelling apology of the four commissars.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Yep. Just ask Queensland Health, or the nurses that haven’t been paid in 3 years because of their new payroll system.

      Oh don’t worry, the department signed off that all the correctness tests had actually been done, so it’s definitely the subcontractor’s fault…

      But you didn’t hear it from me folks, because this is Queensland Confidential, where all the big deals are off the record, on the QT, and very Hush-Hush!

      A bit like the unadjusted temperature record really.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    With the Brisbane graph, I am now wondering how often the original records were adjusted before becoming the original records for this current comparison.

    It is like something out of Alice in Wonderland, “When I plot the current trend, the historic records have precisely the values I want them to have, nothing more, and nothing less, for what else is the point of adjustment?”


    Report this

    150

  • #
    pat

    as if anyone in govt or MSM cares if they get it wrong – in fact when will greg hunt bring up any such errors, jo, and there have been so many.

    the CAGW mouthpieces have already moved on to a new scare:

    3 Nov: SMH: Reuters: Rising seas prompt Panama’s islanders to move inland
    Every rainy season, the Guna people living on the Panamanian white sand archipelago of San Blas brace themselves for waves gushing into their tiny mud-floor huts.
    Rising ocean levels caused by global warming and decades of coral reef destruction have combined with seasonal rains to submerge the Caribbean islands for days on end…
    It is the largest of the Guna’s 45 inhabited islands, and its planned evacuation is among the first blamed largely on climate change. Scientists say worldwide sea levels have risen about 3 millimeters (0.12 inch) a year since 1993. Recent research suggests they could rise as much as 2 meters (6.5 feet) by 2100…
    “It’s another example that climate change is here, and it’s here to stay,” said Hector Guzman, a marine biologist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rising-seas-prompt-panamas-islanders-to-move-inland-20121103-28qdf.html

    and murdoch media – not only sky news channels & Newspoll – is so compromised, it’s not funny. a nice sporting analogy never goes astray:

    2 Nov: Herald Sun: AAP: Paul Osborne: Labor little more comfortable at crease
    The trend back to Labor began after carbon pricing started on July 1, when Gillard said people would be able to judge the decision for themselves.
    “You can look around and ask yourself: am I getting cash payments and tax cuts? Are my groceries 20 per cent more expensive? Does a roast now cost $100?” she said on July 4.
    “You can decide whether it is a wrecking ball or a sensible policy that charges big polluters to drive them to cut their pollution.”
    Four months on, the wrecking ball appears to be swinging back at Abbott.
    Climate Change Minister Greg Combet conducted a “price check” in parliament this week following the release of the September quarter CPI figures….and on and on…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/labor-little-more-comfortable-at-crease/story-e6frf7kf-1226509102073


    Report this

    53

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Multiplying the black average line by a fear-inducing scaling factor without putting a 2nd measurement scale on the right-hand side would do that.


    They've just finished using Will's Commission trick to hide the benign.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Sonny

    Has it ever occured to you all that these guys are blatantly abusing the scientific process just to piss us all off?


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Yes, I do have my suspicions that they are all sitting around, having a few beers, and laughing their socks off at us being so very sceptical.

      In fact, I am sceptical about them being serious at all.


      Report this

      141

  • #
    pat

    would ABC ever apologise for calling Karoly a Nobel Prize winner?

    Feb 2011: ABC: Climate expert says more extreme weather likely
    Nobel prize-winning scientist David Karoly says Australia’s current extreme weather is strong evidence of climate change…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-31/climate-expert-says-more-extreme-weather-likely/1891882

    would Hugh Riminton/The Punch/the smug commenters care to rewrite this with “Michael Mann” in the headline instead?

    5 Feb 2010: The Punch: Hugh Riminton: Good Lord, Monckton is no Nobel laureate
    Sorry Lord Monckton. You are a fraud.
    Committee secretary Geir Lundestat had never heard of Lord Monckton. I emailed him the Monckton website.
    “The claim is ridiculous,” said Lundestat. “He is not a laureate – no way, no way.”
    Thousands of people, he said, participated in the program of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 prize with Al Gore.
    “But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate.”
    No individual, no matter what their involvement with the IPCC, can pass themselves off an a Nobel Laureate…
    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/asc/

    there is one rule for the CAGW-ers and another for anyone who dares to question a word they say.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Bob in Castlemaine

      And I’m sure Monckton’s tongue was firmly in cheek when he made his “Nobel Prize claim”. Not so sure about the other Mann though.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo, Ken et al

    FYI. Did you see

    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/the-trouble-with-anomalies-part-1/

    andhttp://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-trouble-with-anomalies-part-2/

    ?


    Report this

    10

    • #

      I have now.

      Anomalies are a useful way of comparing temperatures, but as the article points out coastal and inland sites respond differently to the same “stimulus”. Inland and drier areas have much more volatile temperature trends than coastal/ wetter areas. This also appears in Australia when comparing northern and southern sites, as they have wet and dry seasons at different times.
      Diurnal temperature range is another useful way of comparing sites, as minima and maxima behave differently in response to humidity, rain, cloudiness, and vegetation.
      For the record, I have very little faith in land surface temperature data, adjusted or raw, as climate change indicators. Too much can go wrong.
      ken


      Report this

      00

  • #
    James

    As Tony has mentioned, Will Steffan was back this morning on ABC Radio’s Saturday AM spouting the reasons why Hurricane Sandy was consistent with AGW. His lamentable recitation of wrong facts and out-of-date data was straight from the Al Gore Inconvenient Truth Slide Show of years ago.

    Truly, has this fellow no respect for himself or science? What an embarrassing and god-awful performance.

    Of course, there was no murmur of dissent from the presenter, nor any sane and informed opinion to the contrary given. And not one of the historical precedents, of even greater magnitude, was cited.

    The ABC, dishing up bog-ignorance for breakfast.


    Report this

    250

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      He can’t lose. If a hurricane creates damage, it’s climate change that caused it. If there are no hurricanes, it’s climate change that caused it.
      Not sure how you argue with that.


      Report this

      210

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        You can’t argue with them. But you can educate people about what’s good science and what’s bad. You can educate people about the difference between facts and opinion. And you can point out that the dire predictions have never materialized.

        That’s what Jo has been doing for years now. And pretty soon they start recognizing the difference between the nonsense and the good, meaningful information.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Dennis

        Whatever, climate change, High Church of Climate Change says


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Whatever, climate change, High Church of Climate Change says

          Dennis,

          For some yes, for others no. There’s also another phenomenon, the one that’s had Al Gore in such a snit lately — when nothing bad actually happens people get bored with the scare and quit paying attention.

          The problem that worries me is how far climate change has managed to embed itself in popular and business culture. Once there are vested interests, even among those who don’t believe it but just saw opportunity, it’s hard to reverse the trend.


          Report this

          20

    • #
      Albert

      American Climate Scientists disagree with the alarmists here.
      There was a new moon, tides were high and that was a significant factor. The storm surge was like a Tsunami.
      The history of Hurricanes in this area records about 1 dozen per century and with higher intensity than Sandy.
      Anyone who believes alarmists should study history.
      About 400 people perished in most of the big hurricanes.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      morris minor

      I think we are missing the point here. A quick look at the Australian Government’s Climate Change Website announcing the establishment of the Climate Commission

      “Terms of Reference
      Purpose: The Climate Commission (the Commission) has been established to inform Australia’s approach to addressing climate change and help build the consensus required to move to a competitive, low pollution Australian economy.”

      The team is just trying to do what they are paid to do – It’s not Science, it’s called spin!


      Report this

      40

  • #
    pat

    wow. Calif admitting they got it wrong? facing up to reality? we’ll see:

    1 Nov: Bloomberg: James Nash: California Environmental Law Marked for Biggest Change Since ’70
    Brown, a 74-year-old Democrat, said he expects lawmakers to vote next year on changes to the California Environmental Quality Act, the 1970 law that requires the state and local governments to weigh environmental consequences when considering approval of public and private projects.
    California’s environmental laws place limits on development, require a unique blend of gasoline to reduce smog and will impose a statewide cap on greenhouse-gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The largest U.S. state by population, with an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent in September, is frequently accused of being unfriendly to business.
    Changes in the law are “very important” to spur economic development, Brown said yesterday in Los Angeles at a forum to promote Proposition 30, a ballot measure to raise taxes for education.
    “There are many people who work very well under CEQA and don’t want to change it,” Brown said about the environmental act, responding to a question from the audience. “And yet, changes are needed.”
    Brown didn’t disclose specifics. His aides referred questions to Rubio, a Bakersfield Democrat who is working on a bill to amend the law…
    Rubio said he wants to streamline environmental reviews to avoid long delays on projects such as the proposed extension of the subway in Los Angeles and student housing near the University of Southern California, which was stymied by a rival developer’s lawsuit…
    Brown signed a bill last year to waive provisions of the law for a proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles, arguing that environmental challenges shouldn’t be allowed to delay the project indefinitely.
    This year, Brown proposed exempting California’s planned $68 billion high-speed rail project from the law. Under pressure from environmentalists, the governor backed down from the idea.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/california-environmental-law-marked-for-biggest-change-since-70.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    meanwhile, in australia, creating ever more credits:

    2 Nov: Australian: AAP: Burning savanna creates carbon credit cash
    AN indigenous organisation could earn up to $500,000 a year by selling carbon credits it creates by deliberately burning savannas ahead of the fire season to reduce the amount of pollution.
    The Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) has gained approval to generate the credits on its 1800 square kilometre Fish River property which is a two hour drive south of Darwin.
    It’s the first indigenous project approved under the carbon farming initiative (CFI) which forms part of the federal government’s carbon price regime…
    The ILC will be able to generate up to 20,000 carbon credits each year. CFI credits are expected to sell for less than the current $23-a-tonne fixed price but Fish River could still earn close to $500,000 annually.
    “The ILC’s carbon credits can be sold to big polluting businesses that need to offset their carbon price liability,” Mr Dreyfus said…
    Carbon credits created under savanna-burning projects are Kyoto compliant and count towards Australia’s national emission-reduction targets.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/burning-savanna-creates-carbon-credit-cash/story-fn3dxiwe-1226509215115

    reuters point carbon has the savanna story & the following CO2 Group one today. how much did the federal grant and tasmanian commission add to the headline?
    their share price dropped 4.55% friday to close at 0.105AUD.:

    29 Oct: 4-traders: CO2 Group Limited : CO2 Group delivers a record $7 million full year profit: well-positioned for future growth
    CO2 Group reported earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) of $7.05 million – up from $2.2 million in 2011 – and net profit of $4.9 million, up from $1.5 million in 2011…
    CO2 Group’s CEO, Andrew Grant, said the company had profited from a well conceived strategy, from extending its products and services portfolio, and from international expansion. He said CO2 Group had continued to reinvest revenues in the best employees and R&D. Mr Grant cited several factors in the record profit for 2012:
    Introduction of Carbon Pricing, which created a need for products and advisory services,
    Creation of CO2 Asia and further expansion of CO2 New Zealand,
    ***A $3.8m research grant from the federal government’s Biodiversity Fund,
    ***A commission by the Tasmanian government to quantify carbon stored in forests,
    Growth in its carbon trading entity, Carbon Banc, which generated revenues of $38 million,
    An expansion of the carbon forests estate to 26,400 hectares for corporate clients,
    Transitioning major clients’ projects into the Carbon Farming Initiative,
    Successful acquisition of Western Australian Resources Limited, providing new opportunities for theCO2 Group with a diversified portfolio of businesses.
    “CO2 Group has successfully diversified its operations into environmental markets trading, carbon project design and management and carbon advisory services across three major markets: the Australian, New Zealand and European Carbon Trading Schemes,” said Mr Grant…
    Mr Grant said he expected more opportunities to arise once the market viewed the current carbon legislation as long-term. “We anticipate that the 2012 /2013 year will be a challenging one for CO2 Group,” Mr Grant added.
    http://www.4-traders.com/CO2-GROUP-LIMITED-6501027/news/CO2-Group-Limited-CO2-Group-delivers-a-record-$7-million-full-year-profit-well-positioned-for-fut-15439948/


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Pat:

      could earn up to $500,000 a year by selling carbon credits it creates by deliberately burning savannas ahead of the fire season to reduce the amount of pollution.

      This is madness. Lets burn everything early so we produce less CO2 to prevent CAGW and then the Australian landscape will be decimated as a result. The majority of cycads and the Myrtaceae family (eucalypts, banksias, leptospernums etc) will cease to exist. Frequent burnings will alter the life cycle of most native plant species. Then the flow on factor – native animals (reptiles, insects, birds etc) all gone. May as well put windmills everywhere.

      Lets burn every year just to make sure (in order to ensure an income stream)? Wet year – let’s burn anyway – more money.

      The world has turned to POO! It’s all about the money!


      Report this

      81

  • #
    pat

    Nov. set for record CER issuance of 62 mln
    LONDON, Nov 2 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The U.N. is slated to hand out a record 62 million Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) this month, data collected by Reuters Point Carbon showed, likely pricing further pressure on credit prices already languishing below 1 euro…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2045333?&ref=searchlist

    1 Nov: Bloomberg: Alessandro Vitelli: UN May Supply Record Number of Carbon Offsets in November
    Prices for UN credits for December fell to a record 71 euro cents ($0.92) a ton on Oct. 25 on London’s ICE Futures Europe exchange after the CDM executive board said in a letter dated Oct. 22 that it hired additional external experts to handle “historical high” levels of requests for registration of emission-reduction projects and credit requests…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-31/un-may-supply-record-number-of-carbon-offsets-in-november-1-.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    have u ever heard of business being concerned about cutting red tape. Californian business would seem to welcoming similar moves. never mind, lenore’s headline is blatantly dishonest, and i’m sure SMH won’t be apologising:

    3 Nov: SMH: Lenore Taylor: Coalition’s war on red tape raises business concerns
    While welcoming the anti-red tape crusade, the Business Council of Australia was less convinced about the initiative to dock public servants who could not find redundant red tape to cut…
    (IRONIC FINAL PARAS)
    And he promised a ”one-stop shop” for environmental approvals as another initiative.
    The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, yesterday released draft guidelines for deals with the states to implement a very similar idea. When signed, the deals would mean major projects would have a single environmental approval process.
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/coalitions-war-on-red-tape-raises-business-concerns-20121102-28phd.html

    business not concerned then, lenore.

    well, the damage to the construction industry has already been done.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    with pic of steam coming out of chimney; will MSM ever apologise for using these misleading photos?

    3 Nov: Sunshine Coast Daily: Council could be left with $1m carbon tax bill
    THE Federal Government’s carbon tax could bring a million reasons for the council not to take over Wide Bay Water.
    In the Public Benefit Assessment on the take over, the concern was raised that a bill of $1.1 million per year could hit Fraser Coast ratepayers if the council takes on responsibility for WBW’s carbon emissions…
    http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/carbon-tax-job-risk/1607712/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    could Hannam actually be daring to write about a potential carbon dioxide trading bubble? of course not. the headline is totally misleading.

    this is, instead, a story about a Greenpeace pawn of Big Oil, Big Business & the Military – isn’t it ironic? – who is willing
    to say anything no matter how preposterous, for a fee no doubt:

    31 Oct: SMH: Peter Hannam, Carbon economy editor: ‘Carbon bubble’ looms for fossil fuel industry: Gilding
    Global business leaders have been warned of a “carbon bubble” that will pop as nations accelerate their move into renewable energy and send the value of coal miners and other fossil fuel industries tumbling.
    Paul Gilding, an Australian environmental activist and former head of Greenpeace, told the opening of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) that Asia was leading a drive into solar and other renewable energy sources that would leave countries dependent on coal exposed.
    It will be “game over for coal” as the price of solar photovoltaic panels collapses, said Mr Gilding ahead of Wednesday’s speech in Seoul.
    Australia’s plans to ramp up its coal exports would probably not be realised as international efforts to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases add to the technological advances already under way, he said.
    Advertisement “I don’t think that [export expansion] is going to take place because the world’s going to move away from coal before we get there,” he said…
    Members of the WBCSD include global business giants such as Toyota, General Electric, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Shell. Wednesday’s meeting was expected to include addresses by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak…
    ***Mr Gilding author of “The Great Disruption,” said his invitation to speak at the event reflected a shift taking place in business circles. “My message would have been too radical for them five years ago, whereas now it’s sort of the centrepiece of the opening,” he said…
    ***Events such as Hurricane Sandy – which has left a damage bill of as much as $US45 billion for the northeastern US this week – highlights the point that “mother nature doesn’t negotiate”, he told the gathering.
    ***Mr Gilding said as many as half of those in the audience “won’t make it” because their businesses were tied to industries, such as fossil fuels, that won’t make the changes needed…
    ***Mr Gilding said. “On current forecasts the entire budget — for burning coal, oil and gas — will be consumed in a little over a decade.
    “That will then leave around three-quarters of all the currently known, economically recoverable reserves unable to be burnt, reserves that are today the key assets of listed companies.
    ***”Just consider the consequences when the markets realise that financial carbon bubble could burst.”…
    ***”A US study found new renewable energy generation would create three times as many jobs per dollar invested as fossil fuels do.”…
    Government interest, though, may also come from their militaries. Mr Gilding said armed forces from Singapore to Germany and the US were aware of increased competition for water, food and other scarce resources — issues likely to be made worse by climate change.
    “It is a major issue of geopolitical power,” he said…
    ***Mr Gilding said the keen interest from armed forces showed such issues are no longer fears confined to environmentalists: “It’s a very good indicator that the issue has reached a different stage.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-bubble-looms-for-fossil-fuel-industry-gilding-20121031-28jb7.html

    my face is aching from laughter.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    the sheer arrogance!

    WifeMotherActivistBlog: Intelligent Life – Paul Gilding
    Fiona Stocker 2009
    This article appeared in TableAus, the magazine of Australian Mensa, in Nov/Dec 2009
    Paul Gilding has headed Greenpeace and advised the world’s largest corporations. He’s now a leading thinker on the planet’s sustainability…
    He ruffled some feathers by going on to set up Ecos, a consultancy which worked with some of the world’s largest corporations, hardwiring sustainability into their business planning…
    Mike Hawker, former CEO of Insurance Australia Group, worked with him from 2002…
    Ecos’ client list included DuPont, SC Johnson, Ford and several major Australian financial companies, some of whom changed the core nature of their business, recognising sustainability as a key factor in commercial survival…
    With fuel and resource prices spiralling upwards, he contended, the global economy had ‘entered the crash zone’ and was hitting its global resource limits.
    Gilding’s theory was picked up on by Pulitzer winning columnist Thomas L Friedman of the New York Times. He had already surmised that the Global Financial Crisis was more than a mere recession, describing it as the moment “where Mother Earth and Father Greed have hit the wall at once.”
    Fundamental to both Gilding and Friedman’s theorising is the now universally accepted theory that we are drawing on the earth’s resources at approximately 150per cent of its capacity…
    Rationality
    Gilding has been labelled a pragmatist, an idealist and a subversive radical in the press. Whatever the case, he has been interpreting the science for some 35 years, and is clear about distinguishing between science and opinion. “We have a scientific community that has analysed this issue to death, and come to a very clear conclusion by consensus…
    Gilding regards the reporting of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) as the adopted baseline, but adds that it is always out of date, because science is always ahead of it. The most recent science is no longer about reduction in the economy’s CO2 emissions, it’s about the elimination of net emissions in a few decades and removing billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year for decades after that…
    New reality
    There comes a point in talking to Gilding when his vision of the future slides into focus and you understand why he refers to it as ugly. It includes resource wars, economic calamities and geo-political tension. “I do believe it’s going to be catastrophic by today’s standards. Potentially billions will die in famine, there will be conflict between nations, there will be a dramatic change in lifestyle enforced by a war-like effort in response.”
    Gilding cites World War II as an example of our capacity to respond to a crisis when forced to. He believes that a war-like response is required now. “We should be on a war-footing, not setting policy.”…
    “We can fix this issue with all currently invented technologies. We know how to do zero CO2 energy,” says Gilding, a view upheld by the IPCC…
    Optimism
    Somewhat incredibly, considering the material he faces on a daily basis, Gilding has always maintained his position as an optimist. “I’m an optimist relative to people like James Lovelock, famous UK scientist who invented the Gaia theory that the earth is a self-managing system. He says it’s all over, and that we will now collapse as a society and end up with somewhere between 200 million and a billion people if we’re lucky.”…
    Gilding is now a member of the core faculty of Cambridge University’s sustainability focussed Business in the Environment Program, an invitation-only program for the upper echelons of the world’s corporate executives, and widely regarded as the premier networking forum for sustainability in business. He’s also still a regular speaker on the international circuit…
    Gilding continues to speak to tin miners and graduates, housewives and corporate leaders. And he continues to wait for us to catch up, in the hope that we can make the next extraordinary step together, sooner rather than later.
    http://wifemotheractivist.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/intelligent-life_03.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    lemiere jacques

    an Y axis mistake by superposing graph…
    Well, it should not be important but again and again the mistakes are always in the same direction.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    You seriously couldn’t write comedy like this. The first international carbon tax rate starts. Expect Oz to launch a complaint to the WTO about its neighbour NZ …

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/newzealand-carbon-idUSL3E8LP1E220121102

    Pointman


    Report this

    40

    • #

      Doh! “The first international carbon tax rate starts” s/b “The first international carbon tax rate war starts”

      Pointman


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The power of lobbying …

      The final paragraph in the Reuters piece is the key one:

      As New Zealand eases measures to curve carbon emissions, others in the region are rolling them out. South Korea is launching a scheme in 2015, while China is embarking on seven pilot programmes.

      China sees the carbon price as yet another point of differentiation in international trade. It is a cost on business, so ultimately impacts on price competitiveness.

      New Zealand has just sent a message, by lowering the bar. Now we’ll see how good China is at limbo dancing.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        OzWizard

        “As New Zealand eases measures to curve carbon emissions …”

        “Curve”???

        Perhaps they meant to say “curb” or “cure”.

        They clearly can’t find “dioxide” in their new electronic dictionary.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Good spot!

          Have a thumb from me …

          It is an ethical dilemma. If you are quoting someone, should you ignore their errors, or should you “adjust” them? Hmm, slippery slope there. :-)


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Brian of Moorabbin

            Rhetorical answer for you Rereke.

            If you’re quoting someone who has made an error you should put [sic] after the error to indicate that it’s an error in the original source material, rather than an error in transposition.

            That is, if you spot the error originally and not after it has been pointed out to you. ;)


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Joe V.

    It will be interesting to see the effect of these convictions of Scientists in Italy on the establishment science community.
    Scientists Jailed for Getting It Wrong on the Aquila Earthquake

    In some ways this might be seen as the opposite of the AGW scenario.

    In this account a researcher was warning of an imminent danger of earthquake, based on observations of Radon gas emissions, warnings which the official scientists were used to downplay.

    Will this make establishment scientists more forthright about risk, or just encourage more alarmist predictions?

    I certainly wouldn’t want to be associated with any temperature record ‘corrections’ anywhere near an Italian jurisdiction, which the European Arrest Warrant now extends into all Member States of the EU.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    phi

    With a moving average over 11 years you have ten years of data whose value is not defined. Usually, the curve is centered, ie you lose 5 years of data at the beginning and 5 at the end. In this case, we can see the 5 years lost at the beginning but the average is extended until 2011. This trick is common, I met him several times in peer-reviewed publications. This is usually an opportunity to boost a anemic curve in the end. See in particular Daux et al. 2012 (Fig. 6), Huss et al. 2010 (Fig. 3).


    Report this

    50

  • #
  • #
    markx

    I have realized this has probably become a government exercise to see how much you can adjust historically recorded facts , and STILL have people believing the feeble justifications put forward.

    They are probably completely astonished by now.

    I know I am.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Tim

    Since when did propaganda need to be factual?


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Always. All propaganda needs to be based on some elements of truth. In fact, propaganda seeks to distort the truth while avoiding any direct lies.

      Politicians are not very good at propaganda. It is far too subtle for most of them.

      They are, however, very good at lying, and they rely on the population having short memories in order to get away with it.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Dennis

      A government change of climate would be good for Australia


      Report this

      10

  • #
    David

    ‘The black line indicates the 11-year running average..’
    Oh, no it doesn’t. That should be about half-way up the bars (above and below the base line)…
    Climate Commissioners of Oz – I suggest you look up the word ‘average’ in Wikipedia, before signing off stuff like this…


    Report this

    30

    • #
      John Knowles

      The black line is probably some sort of cumulative averaging. I note that the pre 1980 data points are predominantly displayed as a -ve and the “average line” is accentuated in the -ve direction where-as the post 1980 data are mostly +ve and the “average line” is likewise accentuated away from the zero line. The clue is probably the choosing of the zero line. They’ve applied a statistical technique to accentuate changes and then conveniently forgotten to define what that black line actually represents.
      In the real world we call it “lying with statistics”.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bite Back

    This is rehashing the same complaint over and over. We already know they’re dishonest. Is this just a game, or what?

    It’s time for climate change in the halls of government. I wonder if we’re up to it.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Bruce

    Steffen et al are only doing their job: say anything, manipulate everything, slant all in order to support the case for the government that pays them. The sad thing is that if they tried to give an honest presentation they wouldn’t know how because none of them knows anything about climate science.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Warwick Hughes

    Australian Climate Commission bungles second temperature chart – already constructed for them by the BoM
    It just gets worse.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    reformed warmist of logan

    “WHAT THE…!!”
    How much longer do we have to put up with the inmates running the assylum??
    The scientists aren’t objective … the Greens aren’t just interested in greenery … the independents claim that a full term (regardless of how many poor decisions) is best … the ex-labor luminaries keep mum on next year’s train crash … and the forth estate (exc. bolt, mc crann, akerman & kosh) continue to make excuses for an amateur treasurer.
    Why is it whenever a climate change realist makes an insig-nificant mistake they have to totally recant (i.e. Alan Jones), & whenever a climate warmist(s) errs (like this Total Corker) the whole scientific community seems to do a collective ‘shoulder shrug’?
    Everyone start to prepare yourselves for all the lead-up “BULLTISH” for the up-coming UN/EU. Climate conference, at the end of this month!!
    Clearly this Climate Commission needs to be condemned to the trash tin of history.
    Regards, Reformed Warmist of Logan
    PS. Oh, and by the way, wasn’t this Climate Commission set up to contribute to a consensus outcome pre the legistlation being passed? Hasn’t the legistlation been passed for months now? Why do we still need this particular crop of bureaucrats? Why are the lame-stream media (again) not holding the government to account on this sloppy part of their administration?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    AndyG55

    When you start looking into the CAGW scam, you have trouble finding graphs that AREN’T fraudulent.

    So yes, we learn to recognise them.

    ASSUME they are fradulent… it saves time. !!!


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Oh, they aren’t really fraudulent, it is just that sometimes the scales are wrong, by mistake, or the wrong data was used, or the data scale factor was wrong, or the calculations used unsigned arithmetic, or the graph was plotted from the wrong baseline, or the error correction was applied twice (or multiple times), or the numbers were “adjusted” incorrectly, or …

      In this case, I suspect that the histogram was produced out of Excel (or equivalent), and the graph was produced by (ahem) another application that had different output scaling, and the two were then combined by hand (or photocopier).

      Quite an obvious mistake, when you think about it. I mean anybody could have done it. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to make a mistake like that.

      /sarc


      Report this

      100

      • #
        AndyG55

        Could just be that they have “accidentally” multipled everything by 3 (or something) like they do with theoretical CO2 forcing.

        Gives them a positive feedback from the government !


        Report this

        60

      • #
        John Brookes

        You are right, Rereke (but without the /sarc tag):

        Never attribute to malice that which could equally well be ascribed to incompetence.

        And this certainly applies here. Some poor junior is mortified by their mistake…


        Report this

        06

        • #
          Andrew Barnham

          That someone working in this domain could feel mortified by committing an avoidable error would be a remarkable precedent. I live in hope.

          Incompetence is hardly a lesser issue anyway. I do time series stuff all the time. Plotting a rolling average is so simple and full-proof, and the characteristic shape yielded is so visually obvious there is little wriggle room for human error. You would have to go do extraordinary lengths and use really convoluted and sub-optimal approach to make a mess of it.


          Report this

          50

        • #

          Incompetence? Simultaneously by FOUR. They aren’t supposed to be a choir.

          FOUR Climate Commissioners (generously-paid ones at that) who don’t understand the meaning of “average”? An error by one might be excusable.

          If they are incompetent, then they are sailing very close to malfeasance unless they resign.


          Report this

          50

  • #
    cohenite

    Well, NO, what is the TOB and what context are you saying they should not be made?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Winston

    Nice One,

    To defend a fraudulently constructed graph to sell a narrative not borne out by reality, by pointing the finger at someone else who you perceive has committed a similar “sin”, shows you are a patently dishonest human being. Clearly, truth and honesty mean nothing to you, unless it conforms to your particular belief system, as you seek only to detract from the evidence noted above with a diversionary tactic.

    Either you have integrity or you don’t. So, which is it? Is it Ok to distort and lie and cheat, or isn’t it? If you are going to be a liar and a cheat, then at least wear it with pride and be up front about it. Your response above proves that you are a lowlife, IMHO.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    who knows how often ABC have wrongly credited CAGW fanatic Gelbspan with being a Pulitzer Prize winner. will they ever apologise for this mistake?

    2 Sept 2005: ABC Breakfast: Katrina – Ross Gelbspan
    Ross Gelbspan is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author of the The Heat Is On and Boiling Point.
    He believes that instead of ‘Katrina’, the hurricane should have been nicknamed ‘Global Warming’. He spoke with Fran (Kelly) on the line from Brookline Massachusetts…
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/katrina—ross-gelbspan/3368598

    17 Feb 2005: ABC: In Conversation: Robyn Williams: Ross Gelbspan
    He collected a Pulitzer Prize in 1984 and has written 2 books on climate change, The Heat Is On, and Boiling Point.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/inconversation/ross-gelbspan/3435290

    April2011: Ross Gelbspan still not a Pulitzer winner
    JunkScience.com broke the story of Gelbspan’s Pulitzer fraud in this 1997 posting…
    http://junkscience.com/2011/04/19/ross-gelbspan-still-not-a-pulitzer-winner/


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    why is murdoch media carrying this nonsense?

    4 Nov: Herald Sun: AAP: Jean-Louis Santini: Sandy injects climate into US vote
    In a statement thanking Bloomberg, Obama called climate change one of “the most important issues of our time,” saying it is “a threat to our children’s future.”…
    But Republican challenger Mitt Romney on Thursday maintained his silence on the subject when speaking of Sandy’s victims – even after a heckler pressed him on the subject during a rally in Virginia.
    “What about climate? What about climate? That’s what caused this monster storm,” the man shouted, brandishing a sign reading “End Climate Silence”.
    He was immediately booed by the crowd, who ejected him to chants of “USA! USA!”
    Just a week ago, the issue of global warming was nearly completely off the campaign radar, Alden Meyer, head of the Union of Concerned Scientists said, noting that not a word was mentioned on the subject during three presidential debates.
    “Sandy has raised the stakes on this issue in the campaign and you see this now with the Bloomberg announcement,” he said.
    For many Americans, said Heather Taylor of the Natural Resources Defense Council, climate change worries just can’t compete with concerns over the troubled economy.
    “There is no doubt that for Americans, climate change is not a high priority, and that is problematic. Our job is to connect the dots,” she said…
    ***The Sierra Club’s Dave Hamilton blamed news media, in part, for the lack of public interest, saying news agencies are devoting less and less space on the issue.
    According to the DailyClimate.org website, the number of articles discussing climate change has shrunk by 41 per cent between 2009 and 2011, he said.
    Manik Roy of the NGO Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, argued that “once the Senate failed to pass the climate bill everybody stopped talking about it: politicians, business leaders, even most of the environmental groups in the US.”…
    The 2009 climate bill included a mechanism to create a market to sell credits for emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the principal greenhouse gasses, aiming to make it more expensive for businesses to pollute and entice them to invest in cleaner fuels…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/sandy-injects-climate-into-us-vote/story-e6frf7k6-1226509942051


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      why is murdoch media carrying this nonsense?

      Probably because Murdoch runs an honest news organization and this is, for better or for worse, actually news — at least much of it anyway.

      Sandy could not have happened at a worse time for Romney. He’s damned if he says anything and damned if he doesn’t. I have no clear idea where he stands about it either. Clearly his supporters aren’t buying it though.

      By the way, Fox News here hasn’t taken on “climate change” as an issue either way. I’ve been surprised by that lack of interest.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Bob in Castlemaine

    Slightly OT, from Climate Commission misinformation, to CFACT information. Some competition Jo in the Skeptics Handbook department. From CFACT Climate Change Issues for 2012.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    @Nice One

    Where in the post does it say the graph is fraudulent?
    The article asks who peer reviewed the report. It’s a very short article so there is no chance you misunderstood. That means you’re trying to bait people with misrepresentation cloked in a snide comment. I’m surprised this made it past moderation.

    Maybe Nice One believes the graph is fraudulent, is obviously so and assumes that that’s what the article says.
    Tell us Nice One, do you believe Will Steffan and the Climate Commission wantingly produced a fraudulent graph?

    If so, say so and own it, don’t project it onto someone else, that would be COWARDLY.
    If not, then you’re just trying to bait people with lies, a typical warmist tactic and not worth bothering with, a waste of time and bandwidth and Nice Ones comment should be (and would be at most blogs) thrown in the junk bin.

    [Baa is correct, Nice Ones comment should have been moderated but as most of you know moderation is very light on this blog performed by part time helpers such as myself. If Nice One admits to misrepresenting Jo in order to bait people, or admits it is he/she who thinks the graph is fraudulent, and apologises for his/her bad behaviour, I might think about releasing his/her comment from moderation. Mod oggi]


    Report this

    50

  • #

    Dr. David Kreutzer across at The Heritage Foundation makes a wonderful comparison between the perceived cost of Global Warming/Climate Change, and the perceived cost of Global Warming/Climate Change Legislation, and note the differentiation.

    He makes this comparison in response to the usual commentary from the media that Superstorm Sandy is a natural progression of this Climate Change, and that Climate Change exacerbated this storm.

    An average major Hurricane (Cat3) that actually makes landfall in the U.S. causes on average around $5 Billion in damage, and the last Major was Hurricane Wilma* in 2005, seven years ago.

    Now, when Sandy finally did come ashore it had been downgraded from Cat1. While other factors were in play here with Sandy, this storm may cost in the vicinity of $20 Billion in economic damage.

    However, Kreutzer then compares this cost with the economic damage that will be caused by proposed legislation to alleviate Climate Change, and here he has two further links to the methodology behind these costings. That economic damage comes in at around $300 Billion each year for the next 20 years. The proposed legislation Kreutzer refers to is a Cap and Trade form of legislation, similar to our future ETS, and in the U.S. this was the proposed Waxman Markey Bill.

    So, in effect, while this recent monster storm caused so much damage, the legislation to alleviate that probability is the equivalent of having 15 of these Superstorm Sandy’s every year, and for the next 20 years.

    This is the link to that article from Dr. Kreutzer.

    Hurricane Sandy Causes Foggy Thinking on Climate

    Tony.

    POST SCRIPT: With respect to the asterisk in the text above, there has not been one of these major Cat 3 or above Hurricanes in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, and here we are talking about the same area as Sandy, the U.S. Eastern Sea Board and not the gulf where Katrina came ashore, also in 2005.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      John Brookes

      Not that I’d want to contradict anyones calculations, but lets do a back of the envelope one. US population 300 million. Cost 300 billion. So cost is $1000 per person per year. At a carbon price of $30 per tonne, that is 33 tonnes per year per person. In 2009 per capita CO2 emissions for the US were about 17 tonnes per year per person.

      But, the carbon tax is not a cost. I may pay $1000 in carbon tax, but the government will give most of that back again (yes, I know it is counterintuitive, but it works). The actual real cost is the difference in cost between energy that used to be generated by old sources that is now being generated by new sources. And certainly in the early stage of a carbon tax or an ETS, that will be less than a fifth of total energy. So I’d be inclined to think that the figure is more likely to be $30 billion per year than $300 billion.

      But I’m no economist, and you’d have to let a real economist with no axe to grind do the proper calculations.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Hmm! John, this is interesting where you say:

        The actual real cost is the difference in cost between energy that used to be generated by old sources that is now being generated by new sources. And certainly in the early stage of a carbon tax or an ETS, that will be less than a fifth of total energy.

        Ho ho ho, what a laugh. Less than one fifth!!!!

        Hang on Tony, he is technically correct though.

        Less than a fifth.

        It currently stands at just 2.1% of consumed power, not one fifth John, but one FIFTIETH.

        So yes, I suppose that is actually less than a fifth, and we are already in the early stages of the Carbon (sic) Tax. (Source for this is the Federal Government’s most recent Energy In Australia document which shows Wind and Solar generating 2.1% of consumed power, and see page 34) and please no adding in Hydro or Bagasse which have already been in place for many decades, so that does not count as ‘new sources’ of electrical power as you say.

        Here’s a task for you John.

        Get back to use here with a ‘told you so’ when it does reach a fifth.

        Now Tony don’t be so unfair. One fifth will never be achieved (a) because it is virtually impossible, and (b) more importantly, because we will have come to our senses long before then.

        As a sidelight, Base Load Power, the power required absolutely 24/7/365 (and I know I always harp on about this) is currently between 65% and 70% of the total power available in Australia. Renewables CANNOT supply any of that power on that basis, another reason why renewables will never reach ….. er, one fifth.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        wayne, s. Job

        John when one lives long enough such as I have done, you see the natural climate cycles, nothing in my life time has seen anything extraordinary in the weather the climate or the temperatures. They cycle, we swam in the dam at easter in the fifties by the sixties and seventies, it was brass monkey time in the dam at easter. In the nineties swimming in the dam at easter was fine, now not a good idea. Do you see the pattern, it is cyclic, cold time ahead absolutely nothing to do with CO2.

        This time around we are in a longer cycle that seems to occur regularly but in a time frame longer than a life time, that seems to be way too much science for the promoters of the cult of AGW. This longer cycle with old Sol on sabbatical will challenge your belief over the coming years and see the likes of Al Gore some what diminished in stature. This belief that storm Sandy was caused or enhanced by AGW input is more than fanciful, it is BS.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    pat

    AndyG55 -

    the insurance cos are multiplying in more ways than one and it’s going to get much sexier!

    2 Nov: WSJ Blog: Tom Loftus: What Your CEO Is Reading: Global warming
    It’s global warming, stupid. Global warming is real, folks, writes Businessweek’s Paul M. Barrett. Don’t believe it? Then we have a bridge straddling New York’s flooded Zone A to sell you….
    ***Severe weather gives new urgency to risk assessment. Harvard Business Review’s Andrew Winston takes a slightly different tack, arguing that climate change or no, “in a deeply unpredictable world,” multinational businesses have the obligation to examine supply chains and operations for risks associated with severe weather. “Risk assessment is going to get much sexier and much more important to global organizations,” he writes…
    http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2012/11/02/what-your-ceo-is-reading-global-warming-pricing-out-innovation-apples-eddy-cue/?mod=google_news_blog

    not so sexy for those paying! sent this to a cousin in bowen, asking if it’s true, got an earful back immediately with figures from her friends who’d been phoning in recent days with horror stories:

    31 Oct: Herald Sun: AAP: Qld insurers accused of price gouging
    INSURANCE companies in north Queensland have been accused of “outrageous” price gouging, with premiums going through the roof…
    In one case the premium for a two bedroom home in Mackay leapt from $2642 to $13,616.
    In another the premium rose from $1992 to $8133 in a single year for another Mackay home that did not flood in the 2008 “one-in-200-year” rain event.
    Examples came from homes, businesses, and farms across the north, including Mackay, the Whitsundays, Bowen, the Burdekin and Townsville, as well as north to Ingham, Cairns, and Port Douglas…
    The Insurance Council of Australia said an independent Australian Government Actuary (AGA) report released on October 19 found no evidence of price gouging.
    The ICA said the report found the north Queensland market remained competitive, and current market conditions were more likely to attract new insurers to the region than at any time during the past few years…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/qld-insurers-accused-of-price-gouging/story-e6frf7kf-1226507751376


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Bob in Castlemaine

      “current market conditions were more likely to attract new insurers to the region than at any time during the past few years…”

      What does this mean I wonder? Does it mean that the scam is working, i.e. are insurers (more likely the reinsurers) better placed to make a buck from Joe public, scared s******s by the MSM rubbish they are deluged with? Or have they made an objective risk assessment and agreed with the “independent Australian Government Actuary” that there’s an honest buck to be made?

      I suspect the former is the case, driven largely by the international merchants of doom.


      Report this

      20

  • #

    [...] Check this out, culprits are identified, named and shamed: Oops Climate Commission graph: Queensland warmed nearly 3 degrees in 50 years? [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    llew Jones

    Heard English on “sunrise” today claiming that the Alarmists had never claimed there would be more storms or hurricanes because of AGW. Rather they would be more intense because of warming oceans. He obviously is not up to speed memory wise with what his Australian Climate Commission has said.

    Here’s a bit of evidence based rationality from a better credentialed climate scientist:

    “IT’S GLOBAL WARMING, STUPID!”

    That’s the bold declaration from Bloomberg Businessweek’s November 6th edition.

    Following Hurricane Sandy, several scientists and journalists have asked if the storm’s destruction can be blamed on climate change.

    Alabama’s top climatologist and UA-Huntsville professor, Dr. John Christy, does not agree with the conjecture. He said claims that the size of Hurricane Sandy may have been affected by global warming are not backed by the facts.

    “Hurricane Sandy was a minimal hurricane. So, it is no way indicative of arising trends in hurricanes that might be attributed to global warming,” Christy said.

    He said Sandy was unusual because a low intensity hurricane typically cannot survive long enough to hit such a large area.

    “It occurred during a high tide. The moon was full. It occurred at a time when a very cold upper level trough was coming through the east coast, which helped keep it alive after it hit the land,” Christy said.

    None of that, he added, is related to climate change. He said there is no evidence that global warming is causing more major storms.

    “We’ve looked at hurricanes starting in the 1850′s. There is no trend in hurricanes. In fact, if you look at the last seven years, there has not been a single major hurricane hit the United States. This is the longest period of such a dearth of hurricanes in that entire record,” Christy said.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Lance Wallace

    Pat #33

    The Pulitzer Prize Gelbspan is claiming was given to 7 reporters, not to an editor such as Gelbspan.

    Here is the official language for the award, from the official Website for the Pulitzer Prizes.

    Local Investigative Specialized Reporting

    Kenneth Cooper, Joan Fitz Gerald, Jonathan Kaufman, Norman Lockman, Gary Mc Millan, Kirk Scharfenberg and David Wessel of The Boston Globe

    For their series examining race relations in Boston, a notable exercise in public service that turned a searching gaze on some the city’s most honored institutions including The Globe itself.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    I think I’ve figured out the curve. They have mixed up their sciences. The black line looks very much like the topographic profile of a subduction zone coastal cross-section. Note the ridge on the left between about 1930 and 1940 – that’s the active spreading center. Then there is the spike down at about 1954 – that’s the trench where younger material disappears under the continental shelf (1960 to 1985). The rest of the right-hand side is the mountainous arc on the edge of the continent. I’m not familiar with the writers of this report but someone seems to be a geologist/seismologist. The curve would fit nicely to the Cascadia Subduction Zone of the coast of the USA State of Washington.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ross

    Here is a great chance for all those serious climate scientists we are all told about to make a stand for their science.
    Now is the time for them get on the ABC and the front page of The Age and tell their fellow Australians that this standard of work is not acceptable and should not be seen as reprenting their science.

    I’m not holding my breath.

    But the lack of any comment by them ( I’m sure there will not be much said) just shows up the hypocracy of their so called message.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Angry

    How long before this happens in Australia ????

    Street lights turned off in their thousands to meet carbon emission targets :-

    I’ll bet the CRIMINALS & LOOTERS will love this stupidity !!!!!!!!


    Report this

    70

  • #

    [...] fact checking on the Climate Commission, where they have exaggerated already exaggerated BoM data. Keep reading  → and Australian Climate Commission bungles second temperature chart – already constructed for them by [...]


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Warwick Hughes

    The third graphic in the Climate Commission report – the Figure 3 rainfall maps also present a slanted view.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael in Sydney

    Maybe OT. Is the Climate Commision hunting Andrew Bolt – or what other part of the Oz Team is at it?
    He has a cryptic posting today, 5th, which implies he is being muzzled.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Angry

      This communist “Climate Commision” can stick their global warming FRAUD where the sun don’t shine !

      Andrew Bolt needs to stick it up them all !


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ian Bryce

    Jo/Ken,
    Why have you chosen the MIN graph rather than the AVERAGE. What does the MAX look like?
    Regards,
    Ian.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Queensland and the Three Degrees.
    Whose fronting the tribute band now?
    Juliar?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Warwick Hughes

    Now the Climate Commission Figure 3 – the rainfall maps – is also shown to be misleading.
    The 1970-2011 map with its areas of brown – low rain – relies on fact that the 1970′s was the wettest decade in Qld history.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Basil Brush

    What a bunch of incompetent fools these manipulative and intellectually bereft these GW academics are.

    Strings of stupid acronyms after their names, and pompous titles before and the more of each there are, the more incompetent they are likely to be.

    This would be a sackable offence anywhere else…but in academe it would probably result in yet more public money being thrown at them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    macha

    Why do we still these these types of claims by the Climate Commission and of course the direct dial into MSM?

    Sandy ‘exacerbated’ by climate change By Ben Cubby
    Hurricane Sandy was a bigger and more damaging storm because of human-induced global warming, an analysis produced by Australia’s Climate Commission has found. The burning of fossil fuels had made a material contribution to atmospheric conditions that bred
    and sustained the storm, the report said, echoing international studies produced over the past few days.

    aagggh!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    That four commissars of the climate sign off on a document such as this, gives one two possibilities. A. They are incompetent and promoted way above their level and are paid way too much,, or B. They have purposely set out to mislead the public, which makes their actions fraudulent.

    In both of these cases and one can not imagine a third option, they need to be sacked and publicly ridiculed for blatant fraud or stupidity, what ever the case may be.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Frankly Skeptical

    If you go back to my post that shows the graph of the UK mean yearly temperature from 1659 to 2010 (I can’t find my post now) you’ll see that the graph that Ian E has drawn fits with the same pattern as the UK temperature graph for that period. But looking at that UK graph the linear trend over the 1659 to 2010 is only 0.25 deg C per century!. There are ups and downs right through the record. In fact from 1695 to about 1740 there was a rise of over 2 deg C.

    My advice to PM Abbott is to scrub the “Climate Commission” completely – what a bunch of W……..(that’s “Wonders” if you were wondering!.) A total waste of taxpayers spondulicks and worse than Yes Ministers Hospital without patients.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    In the first graph the black line looks to be the running average for the anomaly, not the temperature itself.

    In other words, it is the running average of how much temperature differs from the expected norm – whatever that may be.

    That being the case it looks reasonable against those temperature values.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sorry. It is me that is wrong. It happens.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Your data would be better presented as a scatter plot. What are the lines joining the samples supposed to represent? Bad visualisation, I reckon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Swadling

    It states under the graph that the black line average is a measure of the difference from the long term climate average and then tells us that average is from 1961 to 1990, so two questions: 1. does that explain the seeming deviance of the average shown – ie it is not an average of the temperatures on the graph, but of the difference between those temps and the stated long term average, so for example the low point at 1954 shows the difference between the temp for 1954 and the average between 1961 to 1990; 2. why has that period been chosen as a long term average when the graph shows temps from a much longer term?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark Swadling

      OK I’ve answered my own questions by checking BOM website

      ‘Climate Normals’ seem a reasonable proposition on their own, and it seems that the black line is not a representation of the average of that graph, but the variation from the 1961-1990 ‘Normal’.

      Any comments? Am I missing something?

      BTW for the record I am definitely a AGW sceptic, I do however believe in a calm, honest appraisal.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MadJak

    It’s all pretty simple wrt the BOM folks

    Whatever temperatures they predict, remove 5 degrees Celcius.

    Then decide based on that. Just shift every statement they make regarding temperature predictions back by 5 degrees adn we should be about right from here on in.

    It’s taking their overheated money burning furnace into account, that’s all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    James Sefton

    They ultimately re-published the report and the copy I downloaded was created on the 14 December 2012 fixing the graph… without any fanfare I would think!

    The copy of the original flawed report that I have was created 20 September 2012.

    Nice work…


    Report this

    00