JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

The Conversation — cleansing skeptical thoughts — Read the banned comments here

Comment deletion at The Conversation

The Fake Conversation where Bill’s informative, polite comments are removed, but the replies are left there.

Last week Bill Johnston posted a detailed, comprehensive analysis of Sydney Observatory thermometer record here that shows that most of the warming recorded there is due to buildings and freeways. But photo’s and graphs are “denier” stuff, and The Conversation is so afraid some its readers might see those historic photos they ban links to Bill’s work and joannenova.com.au. Apparently when the Bureau of Meteorology discusses “Australia’s hottest decade” it is off topic to discuss the condition of their thermometers.

Bill Johnston was happy to defend his work in comments at The Conversation, but Blair Trewin, who wrote the post itself, was entirely absent. Cory Zanoni had to close the dangerous thread. He removed scores of comments, but left replies to Bill Johnston intact. Some “conversation”.

At least 46 of Bill Johnston’s comments were deleted from Australia’s climate in 2016 – a year of two halves as El Niño unwound   and 19 deleted from Australian climate politics in 2017: a guide for the perplexed. As Bill says: They obviously want to stay perplexed; uninformed; scary-cats, without a paddle for their leaky canoe.

Some skeptics will say “don’t bother writing comments there” — but that is exactly what The Conversation editors appear to want, so don’t! It’s a fake conversation when half the views get censored. Copy your most informative, considerate comments and put them here so the world can see what The Fake Conversation is afraid of. Tax dollars were used to set up a site that appears to be non-stop advertising for the academic grants machine. A lot of the contributors are funded by tax dollars, and the site is still supported by universities which also get tax dollars. Unless the Conversation allows dissenting voices the Liberal Coalition are crazy to let it get away with being a propaganda outlet for “Big-Gov”. Let it run on private funding and donations.

Bill may have set a new record for censorship at The Conversation. He wrote to me yesterday with this (examples of the hot and banned comments are below).

Jo,

Here are their community standards. The truly wonderful thing about this particular post, is that its Author, acclaimed Bureau climate scientist Dr. Blair Trewin didn’t come near the thing. The outcome is entirely embarrassing for Trewin, the Bureau, the Minister and the politics of climate change generally. It is also embarrassing for those associated with the Technical Advisory Forum, who could not be bothered researching any data.

Homogenisation has an interesting history. While there are reasons to adjust data to account for weather station moves and other discontinuities, the way it is done assures that if suitable trends exist they are preserved in some form; if they don’t, they become implanted by the process. Unfortunately, historical records are poorly documented and researching their history like I’ve been doing is tedious work. (Try getting a research grant LOL).

Staff working in the Sydney Weather Bureau office would notice that the site moved from the northeast to the southeast corner of the cottage yard in 1949; that the Cahill Expressway opened in 1958; that the 1.8m high brick wall was built in 1972/3; later that instruments moved to a relocated single large screen (possibly around 1974); and that the large screen is replaced by a small one in 2000.

The default position with homogenisation is that if data changes are not explained by metadata (or someone forgets what happened), they are due to the climate; which as a fall-back position is absurd. Combined with opening of the Cahill Expressway, the 1949 step-change is the one the professors tell us evidences “unprecedented climate warming in the latter half of the 20th century”. The 1973, brick wall, caused accelerated warming; while moving sensitive instruments to  the small screen caused increased frequency of extremes and trends in extremes. The story is absolute bollocks.

While the girls and boys over at the Conservation lap it up and in obnoxious haste slap down anyone or any evidence that challenges their fantasies; Blair Trewin is missing in action.

The real significance of undocumented changes at the Observatory site, is that although data are not used directly to estimate Australia’s warming; the homogenisation process spreads the embedded faults far and wide. Potentially, they infect ACORN data as far away as Alice Springs (via Tibooburra).

Many sites have undocumented faults that are detected statistically then carefully researched. Homogenists prefer to tell the data what changed and then invent an adjustment using other data that are not homogeneous. Homogenisation of Williamtown RAAF involves numerous datasets that are faulty; same for iconic sites such as Broome, Laverton RAAF; Alice Springs; Mount Gambier; Geraldton; Melbourne; Rockhampton; Launceston. Across Australia no data are useful for detecting unambiguous climate-related temperature trends.

The whole thing is a carefully contrived myth which should be openly investigated (and not by the CSIRO).

Cheers,

Bill

—————————————————————–

Comments The Conversation don’t want you to see

Claims are made by the Bureau, that Sydney has just experienced its hottest ever year.

There is indisputable photographic evidence available in the public domain, that the Stevenson screen was moved to a more exposed position within the enclosure in front of the cottage in 1949. This caused minimum temperature to step-up (not trend, but step).

It is unarguable that the Cahill Expressway opened in 1958. This caused warm air to wash-over the site; Tmax stepped up abruptly in 1958.

Photographs also show a brick wall was built immediately south, and within metres of the relocated screens, most probably in 1972; possibly 1973. Tmin stepped-up indicating the wall trapped heat within the enclosure, which is not dissipated by advection to the local atmosphere, or radiation to space during the night.

A Bureau publication confirms that a small screen replaced the former large one in 2000. Both Tmax and Tmin stepped-up. The small screen is more sensitive to transient heat eddies, than the large screen and the sensor is more sensitive to slight temperature changes, than thermometers.

Google Earth shows vegetation close to the site (trees etc) were removed in 2006; which is also confirmed by site metadata (Page 7 vs. P.8), causing an abrupt increase in exposure to the east; which of course warms the site. Since 2006, the site has been kept fairly clear, except that there is now a hedge along the front fence, which matches the one on the western (cottage) side of the enclosure.

With those changes NOT adjusted-for by homogenisation (which can be verified by the ACORN adjustments file), how can it be that:

Claims are made by the Bureau, that Sydney has just experienced its hottest ever year?

That is a fair question; Blair Trewin is the homogenisation expert; he should be in a position to answer.

Claims are not extraordinary. Evidence, which is in the public domain, is presented in my essay at Jo Nova’s site. (I offered to do an article here once!) I deny being a denier (whatever that is);

I am an open-minded scientist asking a reasonable question.

As you say Ben:
“ When you ask a genuine question, you’ll see people make an effort to answer it – which is one of the great positives of this site.”

Cheers,

Dr. Bill

(Zap …

—————————————————————–
Hello Bill,Your comment on ‘Australian climate politics in 2017: a guide for the perplexed’ has been removed.There are several reasons why this may have occurred:

  1. Your comment may have breached our community standards. For example it may have been a personal attack, or you might not have used your real name.
  2. Your comment may have been entirely blameless but part of a thread that was removed because another comment had to be removed.
  3. It might have been removed for another editorial reason, for example to avoid repetition or keep the conversation on topic.

For practical reasons we reserve the right to remove any comment and all decisions must be final, but please don’t take it personally.

If you’re playing by the rules it’s unlikely to happen again, so feel free to continue to post new comments and engage in polite and respectful discussion.

For your reference, the removed comment was:

I don’t have “a side of politics.”

Furthermore, I pointed the group to a post that I did on Sydney Observatory,
(http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/sydney-observatory-where-warming-is-created-by-site-moves-buildings-freeways/) and apparently no one could read the pictures. Others dug out a report that I wrote seeking an independent review into the Bureau and its methods. It was not accusing anyone of anything; it was a fair request supported by evidence.

Again the few who giggled-over it here, couldn’t read the pictures, let alone the text.

And hear you say “ If you post extraordinary claims, you’ll be called upon to provide extraordinary evidence. If you post outright misinformation, it’ll be fact-checked and you’ll be called out on it.

So far you’ve failed on both counts.”

What nonsense; you do yourself a disservice and I don’t see any concern for those whose livelihood are under threat. Married people with mortgages and the rest; what a crushing blow for them. “Green jobs” is myth – just name one. Go and ask a bloke in overalls who greases the boilers if he wants a “decarbonisation job”; she’d probably wack ya one.

Cheers,

Dr. Bill

For more information you can read our standards.

Kind regards,

The Conversation

And the banned stuff continues:

Hello Harry,

Staying right on-topic, there is only one weather station around Sydney that has a long record, which happens to be the one surrounded by the Cahill Expressway, AKA Sydney Observatory.

Sydney AP is from 1940; daily data for Richmond, Bankstown, Cambden are later. There are a couple of other broken records (Prospect Res., Riverview) and a few monthly ones (Manly and Blue Mountains POs); the rest are recent AWS and few of those datasets are reliable.

(I’ve researched all of those by the way.)

Over at Jo Nova’s you can see the station changed in 1949, 1958, 1972/3 using your very own eyeballs. Provided they work, the evidence is unequivocal as they say. (The change to a small screen in 2000, is in a Bureau publication.)

Cheers,

Dr. Bill

_______________________________________

Hello Bill …

For your reference, the removed comment was:

I have asked the moderators to reinstate the comments they removed. Even in this post-truth world, it is unfair to deny me freedom of speech and open inoffensive discourse, is whet is said to be a “conversation”. Standing by itself, your reply is both patronizing and inappropriate. I’ve provided links to the Jo Nova essay three times; each time they are removed.

Again:

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/sydney-observatory-where-warming-is-created-by-site-moves-buildings-freeways/

It bothers me deeply that many on this site make unsubstantiated claims. I have gone to a great deal of trouble to analyse and research climate data from all over Australia (Sydney is the example I focus on here); and I say categorically, there are temperature data useful for tracking climate-related trends. (Sydney Observatory data embed two undocumented site changes, which I’ve shown have happened using aerial photographs. Those site changes result in faux-trends, that have nothing to do with the climate..

So although I am not in a position to dispute claims about CO2; there is no empirical evidence that temperatures are increasing.

Thus the hypothesis that CO2 is affecting temperature in Australia is unproved.

Cheers,

Dr. Bill

—————————————————————–

For your reference, the removed comment was:

For a bloke with qualifications, it is difficult to believer that you are so passionate about a cause that is not proved. I have looked at data for most of Australia’s so called high quality weather stations; visited some and spent months researching what there is to know.

The whole network is a shambles. It is not possible to determine trends from data that is in-filled; from sites whose history is not known; sites influenced by station moves; telephone exchanges being built in post office yards; aircraft movements; traffic; urban in-filling.

Homogenisation is a trick. At Sydney Observatory, the Bureau ignored a site move in 1949, and building of a brick wall within metres of the screen in 1972. The case is unarguable – aerial photographs show those changes happened.

See: http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/sydney-observatory-where-warming-is-created-by-site-moves-buildings-freeways/

It makes a difference to all these debates that no real trend exists in Australia’s temperature record. The warming is fabricated from the bottom up.Given the state of the data, it can’t be proved.

Its not just Sydney Observatory; its also the case at Alice Springs, Darwin, Devonport, Onslow everywhere – Rockhampton, Tennant Creek; the original Stevenson screen at Laverton was on the roof of the met office; swimming pools are built, trees grow or are chopped down, some stations have been all over town and more – to the army base, the ag-farm, back to the bowling club, where a three-story hospital is built next door!

If there is no no unambiguous trend in data, then what difference will any “renewables” make?

Cheers,

Dr Bill

__________________________________________________________________
UPDATE:  More censored Conversations

Paul Matthews

This is a common occurrence at the so-called “Conversation”. It seems that comments that link to sites like Jo Nova or WUWT are usually deleted, in an unstated censorship policy. See Censorship at the Conversation where numerous comments were deleted and then Geoff Chambers was banned completely from the site.

___________________

@BarryJWoods reminds us the winning censorship prize goes to a Lewandowsky/Cook article

Not the record?  There is one where 100 comments removed out of 187. Cook/Lew article

@JoanneNova Record for most deleted @ConversationUK comments? theconversation.com/establishing-c… Wayback captured a lot.

___________________

Geoff chambers

I was banned from the Conversation several months ago. Details at https://cliscep.com/2016/07/06/censorship-at-the-conversation/

One of their first and most farcical acts of censorship on me was to ban a comment for linking to WattsUpWithThat. When other commenters objected, the environmental editor intervened to state that comments could be removed for linking to sources he considered unreliable.

I’m particularly irritated that my old University is financing this Soviet style propaganda machine. I thought of writing to them pointing this out, but decided it would have little effect.

What about a petition addressed to all those universities in Australia and the UK which are financing the Conversation, pointing out that there’s probably some rule in their university statutes that forbids supporting organisations that practice censorship? Anyone there with a legal mind who could formulate such a petition statement? We’ll publicise it at cliscep.com and no doubt others will too.

——————————————————-

UPDATE: DavidR in comments supplies this link as proof that Bill J can still comment, but we never said he couldn’t and the link shows deletion after deletion.  80% gone.  Thanks David. :- )

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (101 votes cast)
The Conversation -- cleansing skeptical thoughts -- Read the banned comments here, 9.1 out of 10 based on 101 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/jd5c9fu

284 comments to The Conversation — cleansing skeptical thoughts — Read the banned comments here

  • #

    Whenever anyone suggests that we need a ‘conversation’, you know immediately what that means (it’ll be one-sided). We can no can longer have a discussion, debate etc, it has to be that Green-Left virtue signalling thing called a ‘conversation’. The Conversation is exactly one-sided.

    481

    • #
      john karajas

      Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) or George Orwell (1984) could not have written more bizarre scenarios and, yet, here we are confronting the activities of academia. Night after night I watch the news bulletin of “Our” ABC and get the benefit of their group-think time and time again. Better to laugh really: to get upset is definitely not conducive to keeping the blood pressure down.

      401

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        It is amazing how consensus (group-think) scientists, one-world politicians, and the mainstream news media convince themselves of their own lies.

        1. Members of the mainstream news media actually believed Hilliary Clinton would win the election.

        2. NAS Predident Dr. Ralph Cicerone apparently thought Earth’s climate warmed more from CO2 released from industrial nations than from CO2 released from plants in China.

        3. After slanting news reports for months to make it appear that Hillary would win the election, news reporters really thought she would.

        FOOLS

        231

        • #
          Oliver K. Manuel

          LIES, LIES, CONSENSUS SCIENCE LIES

          1. A single neutron entered the nucleus of U-235 on 6 Aug 1945 and triggered the self-sustaining chain of nuclear fission events that destroyed Hiroshima.

          2. A single neutron entered the nucleus of Pu-239 on 9 Aug 1945 and triggered a self-sustaining chain of nuclear fission events that destroyed Nagasaki.

          Each additional neutron expands the nuclear volume and reduces Coulomb repulsion (a long-range force) between protons.

          After WWII, nuclear physics textbooks reported that neutrons attract other neutrons but protons repel other protons and Coulomb repulsion between protons causes nuclear fission.

          3. The volume of space occupied by an interstellar hydrogen atom is 10^39 times bigger than the volume of space occupied by a single neutron.

          After WWII, space and cosmology textbooks reported the universe expands as interstellar clouds of hydrogen collapse into stars that fuse hydrogen into iron and collapse further into neutron stars and black holes.

          63

          • #
            Phil C

            The 10^39 appears to relate to the distance between atoms, the mean free path. An atom is about 10^-15m. Neutrons rarely react with anything, unless they happen to hit the nucleus of an atom nearly dead center. The cross section of a neutron is 10^-28m. So the likelihood of a neutron hitting a hydrogen atom would be on the order of 10^-67.

            The structure of a nucleus in some ways mimics the structure of the cloud of electrons around it. Essentially they both are governed by interactions of a number of different forces the results of which are a probability density function of where each particle might be. Electron don’t orbit a nucleus the way the earth orbits the sun. Until it interacts with another electron it isn’t in any particular place. When it gains energy, say by absorbing a photon, the size and shape of the its orbital(PDF) changes.

            The nucleus is solidly packed together, most cases, modeled as a drop of liquid. That model seems to have done fairly well, with modifications of course, to explain bombs and reactors.

            40

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        The good news is there seems to be a growing awareness of “Aunty Pravda” and a willingness to defund it and sell it off amongst older australians. This can only be a good thing, as listening to a bunch of galahs vomiting out soviet era agit prop at our expense , isnt the definition of democracy…..

        Pass it on….

        140

        • #
          Oliver K. Manuel

          At the end of WWII, Joseph Stalin apparently had the world’s total supply of atomic bombs (captured from Japan’s atomic bomb production plant at Konan, Korea in AUG 1945).

          See books on this topic by Robert Wilcox and Bill Streifer.

          Stalin apparently offered frightened world leaders a deal they could not resist: Unite nations and national academies of sciences under the UN on 24 OCT 1945 to hide the energy in atomic bombs if you agree, “Better Red Than Dead!”

          My research mentor, the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda, risked his life to expose the lie that hid NEUTRON REPULSION from the public after WWII:

          https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/TRIBUTE_TO_KURODA.pdf

          41

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        John, you deserve a bravery medal. You watch the ABC News night after night? Wow.

        60

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Especially when you see this stuff happening as the “green dream” unravels when its broadsided by normal life….

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-11/sa-power-networks-to-pay-$20m-compensation-to-customers/8176530

      “South Australia’s electricity distributor will make compensation payments totalling $20 million to about 75,000 customers who experienced lengthy blackouts following a wild storm on December 28.

      About 155,000 properties were blacked out as wild winds, in some areas above 120 kilometres per hour, toppled trees and powerlines.

      Some homes and businesses in the Adelaide Hills were not reconnected until the new year.

      SA Power Networks spokesman Paul Roberts said it was one of the worst storms the company had experienced in 30 years.

      “It was probably about three times worse than any previous storm we’ve experienced, both in terms of the guaranteed service level payments we’ll have to make, and the minutes of supply lost for customers,” he said.

      “We’re going to be making payments … to about half the customers affected.”

      No mention of the fact the network had large ammount of renewables on it….

      70

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        OriginalSteve:

        It was a storm and nothing to do with renewables. Plenty of trees came down although I have yet to see the remains of one that fell across the power lines.
        As I have posted elsewhere the recovery was very patchy and hard to work out what went wrong in places.
        The big benefit is for generator sellers and installers. The Lobethal bakery (at Lobethal, they’re now a chain) installed a 149kV one. The local Cafe had a 37.5kVA waiting to be installed when the lights went out. They are OK now.
        I wonder how the Labor ‘government’ will deal with the emissions from all these generators? Probably ignore them and claim that wind drops emissions.

        50

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I disagree, yes there was definitely a storm component, however the underlying instability of the SA grid due to its heavy reliance on renewables is a significant factor in the whole mess…..

          I think the SA govt will say “nothing too see here…”

          50

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Steve:

            The Government can’t do anything; it would be at least 2 years before a new generation plant could be built. So they face a series of blackouts until the next election when hopefully they get blacked out. What the new government does is another problem.
            On the federal level I wonder what Labor will feel like with SA, Vic and Qld. all heading for the same disruption? Why, there may even be negative comments on The Conversation.

            40

      • #
        Graham Richards

        Have no doubt the energy price increases will be inched up to cover the $20,000,000.00 Outlay for the compensation payments.

        50

    • #
      Tony Thomas

      Anyone know what’s happening with Andrew Jaspan who was sent on leave from his boss job at Conversation a couple of months ago?

      10

    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      Pardon me butting in late.

      The Conversation does not discard the posts that it does not publish. If you get a post published, click on your name, and there you should find every post you ever sent.

      01

  • #
    el gordo

    Blair Trewin was the lead developer of the main long-term Australian temperature data set, ACORN-SAT.

    The faith is strong in him.

    170

  • #
    AndyG55

    Jo, Since Bill has all his comments on the CONversation banned, and Twotter seems to be a CONversation stalWART..

    …I think it would be appropriate to respond by ERASING ALL of Harry Twotter’s posts here and never allowing another post from it.

    I know you will probably get numerous WHINGING and PATHETIC emails from the pre-pubescence twerp, but emails are easy to blocked

    Put this worthless cretin in the BIN where he belongs.

    (He is already in Moderation BIN) CTS

    108

    • #
      Kneel

      Bad idea – the exact opposite of what is required, IMO.

      Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

      260

      • #
        Peter C

        I am with you on this Kneel.

        Let them post their nonsense. Then demolish it.

        Liberty and free speech is at stake here.

        190

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Let them post their nonsense. Then demolish it.”

          We have been there, done that.

          When is enough, enough? !!!!

          87

          • #

            I totally agree. It is war, and pretending it isn’t, isn’t working.

            62

            • #
              tom0mason

              Hold your friends close, your enemies closer.

              Or as Sun Tzu said –

              “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

              40

              • #
                tom0mason

                Climate Politics as a War of Attrition
                Where neither side will win a cleanly.
                Time is the adjudicator, what happens during (but not because of ) Trump’s Presidency and just beyond is what will determine the winners and losers.
                So patience is what is required. Skeptics have to be in for the long game, time favors us. The sun has gone to sleep and by all accounts it will be for a while. Global cooling is the only outcome to such an event. Not tomorrow, not probably this year but soon.

                90

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                The left are a bunch of seagulls after a bag of chips on the beach, with similar table manners….

                They love a fight, its about all they are good for. We need to hold the high moral and scientific ground – against such things there is no effective defence.

                This is why we need to make sure copies of un-tainted orginal temp data is safely copied & locked away somewhere wher eit cant be seized or destroyed…..

                40

              • #

                tom0mason January 12, 2017 at 2:28 am

                “Hold your friends close, your enemies closer.”

                True but how?

                OriginalSteve January 12, 2017 at 8:16 am

                “The left are a bunch of seagulls after a bag of chips on the beach, with similar table manners…. They love a fight, its about all they are good for.”

                Favorite entertainment for a sailor, is to throw bits of bread up for the gulls. Then throw up an Alka-seltzer. Watch the catcher puppy do a 6 meter/second Kamikaze into the ocean. :-)

                30

              • #
                tom0mason

                Will, how do you know what I used to do when I was a kid?
                Well very nearly, I used damp bread balled-up with a wad of bicarbonate of soda in it. Gullible seagulls would always take the bait, even after watching their mates hit the waves. Great fun for a 12 year old on cold days!
                ¯
                ¯
                “True but how?”
                Ha! Now the tough question…
                Attempt to engage their thought processes curiosity?…er, mean-spirited wish to win the unwinnable game of convoluted sophistry? Maybe.

                21

              • #
                AndyG55

                Will, I’m not one for cruelty to animals or birds.

                But if you can make something like that work with the far-left AGW trolls…

                I’m all for it !!!

                64

              • #

                tom0mason January 12, 2017 at 11:47 am

                “Will, how do you know what I used to do when I was a kid?”

                Sailors are like kids, eager to learn, especially how to get out of nasty work! Only then does one have the time to futz with seagulls. :-)

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Since you guys started this sub-thread …

                If you feed a piece of meat to a duck, it will swallow it whole. But the duck will not be able to digest it, so it passes right through. If you then wash the piece of meat, and feed it to another duck, the same thing will happen.

                People who sell live ducks for food in some parts of Asia, know this very well. So what they do, is tie a length of fishing line onto the piece of meat, before feeding it to the first duck … and then the next duck … and so on.

                It saves them the cost and trouble of building and maintaining cages. It is also the origin of the expression, “Keeping your ducks in a row”.

                40

          • #
            Kneel

            “When is enough enough?”

            When it’s over.

            When fighting unethical people, you cannot win by being unethical yourself – if you do, why did you bother fighting?
            Yes, they use tricks like playing on peoples emotions rather than appealing to logic – that is both their strength (short term) and their weakness (long term).

            I say, let them post in a forum (like here) where they can’t throw their posted opinions down the memory hole when the tide turns – it will be here for posterity and you can throw it back in their face at the appropriate time.

            Think about how you got to where you are – for me, this started about 20 years ago watching Steve McIntyre get pasted for pointing out math errors. Straight away, you could see the diversions (“Look! Squirrels!”). As time passed and “the pause” extended, we saw the period of “no warming being significant” stretch from 7 years to 10, to 15 to now 20+. People notice – most especially so now because i) this has been “mainstream” for 20 years; ii) it’s starting to bite in many ways (wallet, SA debacle etc) All that’s left for the warmists now is two things: political inertia (rapidly dwindling) and the lefts takeover of the MSM (rapidly being eroded by the ‘net) that guides public opinion. The majority don’t care enough to look at anything more than the headline unless it hurts them personally – when it really starts biting, they will push back: HARD.

            My advise is: stay calm, stay reasonable, ask your pointed questions clearly, concisely and most of all calmly. Let THEM rant and rave. Keep records. People notice this sort of thing. It may take a while, but it’s the only sure strategy.

            20

  • #

    The Conversation is at least inconsistent in the moderation of what it considers to be inappropriate.

    70

    • #
      Bulldust

      What I find amusing is the disclosure statement associating both articles Jo listed:

      Disclosure statement

      does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

      Sorry but both the authors rely heavily on the continued funding of climate alarmism to maintain their wealth.

      I also note that Harry Twinotter posted there under that name despite the site calling for real names only. But then he posts supporting the climate consensus, so that gets a free pass.

      Also, people using the term “denier” left and right don’t have their comments moderated. So name-calling is, in fact, OK as long as it is against the correct deplorables.

      The Conversation is a political joke.

      142

  • #
    Kneel

    “The Conversation is exactly one-sided.”

    No. Your mistake is in thinking that they want to talk about the warming – they don’t. They already “know” it’s real, they only want to entertain conversations on what to do about it. Note: “what to do about it”, not “should we do something about it?” and certainly not “Is it really happening?” – the latter two questions are already “settled” and the answer can only be “yes!”. Unless you are a denier, in which case your opinion is not wanted and will be removed.

    Simples.

    150

  • #
    Ursus Aigustus

    My basic position is that the suface thermometer record is not, never was and was never designed to be fit for the purpose of determining a properly representative ‘global’ or ‘hemispheric’ mean or representative value.

    Regarding the land based record, the growth of cities and towns and the dramatic increase in the use of bitumen and concrete in and around such urban centres and thus in proximity to a high proportion of the thermometers in question is prima facie a very basic and obvious possible defect in the data quality. The details regarding the Sydney instrument presented is just a single snapshot of what what must have occurred around the world. I read some research done by University of Melbourne quantifying the UHI of that city as around 5˚C!

    Regarding the sea surface temperature, a similar defect exists except the bias over time is likely in the opposite direction. At sea the temperature was taken of a bucket full of water drawn from the sea by a (canvas/wooden/steel) bucket. As much as recording meteorological data, a ship’s engineering crew wanted the information to assess the power production of their propulsion machinery, the cooling systems being the governing consideration and the temperature differential critical. Overpowering the boiler/engines would lead to machinery damage. Fuel feed rates and hence propulsion speed were linked to sea water temperature. Service speed was a key driver of voyage economics. The incentive was to understate sea temperatures to justify the fuel feed rate (=> power output) and cover the engineering staff arses from blame for machinery wear and tear.

    In both areas the implicit bias is a temperature increase going forward in time. I cannot see how on earth this bias can be quantified and therefore removed from the raw data record. What I do know is that it could easily be in the 1, 2, 3 dxegree range which would swamp any other ‘global warming’ signal, natural or man made.

    The basic case for ‘global warming’ is thus fundamentally flawed. The evidence is not fit for purpose and demonstrably so.

    142

    • #
      John Smith

      The “anthropogenic signal” in climate change?
      What, does it come from a different radio station?
      Sorry.
      I think it’s daft to think we can parse out what the weather would be if we weren’t here.
      What would the SST be without plankton?
      Not fundamentally flawed – daft!

      80

    • #
      Bob Fernley-Jones

      Ursus,

      My view is that SST’s are not an indication of heat content of the ocean. They fluctuate wildly as seen in the satellite data, e.g. hot and cold blobs and whatnot. Thus they are not useful for determining climate trends, if OK for determining some regional effects like weather. Even if the SST record were accurate, it should not be considered in determining global trends.
      I think satellite TLT data is more useful and the surface record should be for land only and treated with caution WRT to its “corrections”

      53

      • #
        Environment Skeptic

        Take care of those hot-spots around thermometers and temperature sensors etc, and the big hotspots around the climate/weather question will take care of themselves,

        I continue to remain skeptical about the empirical environment of temperature metrology today.

        40

    • #
      richard verney

      Ship data is thwart with problems and uncertainties.

      First, a ship draws its intake water at depth, not at SST. The depth depends upon the design specification of the vessel. its laden capacity and how it is being trimmed. There is no standard for determining at what depth sea temperature data is being drawn, and what impact that this might have on the true value of SST.

      Second, if data is coming from commercial/trading vessels, there are commercial considerations that may influence the recorded data. For example, the engine may be suffering from overheating problems, to help cover this up, the sea water temp may be recorded too high. The vessel may be trading in tropical waters and its antifouling coating may be poor and prone to marine accretion which will diminish performance. In these circumstances the sea water temp may be recorded on the high side so as to give a reason for excessive bottom fouling. The vessel may be carrying a heated cargo, which requires heat to be applied when it cools below a certain temp. In these circumstances the sea water temperature may be recorded low so that the vessel can consume bunkers for heating; it not actually using those bunkers but charging for their nominal use/offsetting them against excessive consumption of bunkers due to por performance of the vessel elsewhere on the voyage. etc.

      I would be very cautious at relying upon ocean temps obtained from commercial vessels.

      22

      • #
        Steve Richards

        Where has this nonsense come from? Vessels these days have data loggers recording all of the engineering data. Some vessels even stream the data back in real time. Flogging the log about a hot engine? Come on, we’re talking of professional engineers here.
        A ships main engine costs a third of the total cost of the vessel, they are looked after well.

        01

        • #
          ursus augustus

          Steve, I think you missed the point.

          You correctly describe how the data is collected now whereas historically the data was collected as I described. Presently engine suppliers are installing all the technology and streaming the data basically in order to protect their warranty liabilities and plan for maintenance based on actual service duty rather than a certain number of hours.

          The reason thay do that is connected in part to the historical practices where understated temperatures were recorded to conceal the true duty being asked of the machinery vis a vis cooling water temperature. That was the motivation for understating the temperatures. When you use that data in a global temperature estimate over the years, it produces an apparent uptrend in sea surface temperature. The data was never intended for the ‘global’ purpose.

          The Argo buoy system, actually designed for the prupose, is probably accurate, certainly more accurate than the ship based data.

          10

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    What we need is a response from the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP; Minister for the Environment and Energy.

    Minister how can the Bureau get it so wrong?

    How can changes at Sydney Observatory that actually happened, be ignored; while the homogenisation process applied adjustments for changes that did not impact on the data?

    And what about the myriad of other sites where site impacts dominate the data; not the weather or the climate.

    Cheers,

    Bill

    314

    • #
      AndyG55

      You mean “Fraidenberg.. get the spelling correct, Bill.

      Fraidy is a classic low-end pseudo LINO like Turnbull…

      … as soon as even the slightest heat is felt from the far-left, he melts like a marshmallow.

      166

  • #
  • #
    pat

    am surprised The Conversation still allows ANY comments – much of the FakeNewsMSM don’t these days – too much ridicule from their readers is my guess. none for either of the following…and no debate:

    11 Jan: HuffPo: Obama: Denying Science On Climate Change Betrays Spirit Of America
    “Without bolder action, our children won’t have time to debate the existence of climate change — they’ll be busy dealing with its effects.”
    Speaking to thousands of supporters in his hometown of Chicago, the president cautioned that without agreement on a “common baseline of facts” like the overwhelming evidence in support of man-made climate change, “we’ll keep talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible.”…
    “But to simply deny the problem not only betrays future generations,” he said. “It betrays the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem-solving that guided our founders.”
    Many Republican lawmakers in and out of Washington deny the link between human activity and climate change, despite overwhelming scientific evidence. Obama’s successor, President-elect Donald Trump, for example, has called climate change a hoax perpetrated by China.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/obama-climate-change_us_587595cde4b03c8a02d3f996

    Sundance “programmers” notice interest in eco-films is WANING, so devote their entire programme this year to eco-films! not political. totally political. take your pick:

    10 Jan: NYT: Brooks Barnes: At Sundance, the Theme Is Climate Change
    LOS ANGELES — It certainly reads like a political statement: Next week, one day before Donald J. Trump takes the presidential oath of office, the Sundance Film Festival will open its 33rd edition with a climate-change documentary starring Al Gore.
    Mr. Trump has mocked the science of global warming as a Chinese hoax and selected a climate-change denialist to run the Environmental Protection Agency. What better way for the very liberal Sundance to respond than to put forward “An Inconvenient Sequel,” the follow-up to the Oscar winner “An Inconvenient Truth”?
    Not so fast.
    “We stay free of politics,” Robert Redford, who founded Sundance, said by telephone. “It just happened to coincide”…
    “We don’t take a position,” he insisted.

    At the same time, his top programmers, John Cooper and Trevor Groth, say they are taking a specific stance, one that is political by nature: For the first time in the festival’s history, there will be a spotlight on one theme — global warming and the environment. Their goal?
    “To change the world,” Mr. Groth, programming director, said with a grin over lunch here recently. Mr. Cooper, Sundance’s director, added quickly, “Or die trying.”…

    As the pre-eminent showcase for American independent film, Sundance sets the pace for what art house audiences will be watching for the coming year. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Groth said that they decided over the summer to use that power to push eco-films because they felt interest in them ***was waning. “That seemed a bit odd, given how large and important the topic is,” Mr. Cooper said. (Mr. Redford, it should be noted, is a longtime environmentalist, although he said that had no bearing on the festival.)…

    A new Sundance subsection, the New Climate, will include 14 documentaries, short films and special projects, including a virtual-reality experience that turns participants into a tree that is violently chopped down…

    ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’
    Directors: Bonni Cohen, Jon Shenk
    “Because we are on the night before the inauguration, we expect a lot of very heated emotions,” Ms. Cohen said. “We’re hoping the film is a bit of a salve. There is great hope in what people can do individually about the climate. And certainly Al Gore’s relentless work has resonance. How you can come back from personal defeat.”
    Mr. Shenk added: “‘An Inconvenient Truth’ really turned out to be the beginning of a journey for him. I think what he’s been doing will surprise people.”…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/movies/at-sundance-the-theme-is-climate-change.html?_r=0

    62

  • #
    tom0mason

    O/T but…

    From the ‘It’s only weather’ file –
    “Last year, Perth recorded its coolest 12 months in more than a decade and its coldest winter in more than 20 years.

    The Weather Bureau’s annual climate report reveals Perth’s maximum temperatures were down and rainfall slightly below average.

    The bureau’s climate liaison officer Glenn Cook said given the past few years had been so warm, the cooler weather came as a “bit of a shock” to people.”

    http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/weather-2016-perths-coldest-year-in-a-decade/news-story/95e9c052e51166c48279176606a0b780

    100

  • #
    damon

    Those people who still visit the ABC website will have noticed that the majority of ‘Analysis and Opinion’ pieces are lifted directly from ‘The Conversation’. So much for the independence of our national broadcaster.

    170

  • #
    Bruce

    Thank you Jo, but, we must remember that we are dealing with Political Science, not, Empirical Science which is why the “science” is apparently “settled”.

    110

  • #
    John, UK

    Reply to Andyg55 #7

    Your photo referring to Iceland looks too remarkably like IS Yosemite, California.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_Valley#/media/File:Yosemite_Valley_from_Wawona_Tunnel_view,_vista_point..JPG

    Photo by Mark J. Miller

    50

  • #
    Robert O

    The ruling classes have decided that global warming is upon us, dangerous for mankind, and that it is caused by this alleged dangerous gas carbon dioxide: thus any dissent or discussion is not permitted.

    The fact that there hasn’t been any warming for 20 years, no significant correlation with increasing concentrations of CO2, a plethora of failed prediction based on these sacred computer models and alteration of temperature records cannot be tolerated for the public at large to see.

    161

  • #
    TdeF

    This takeover of debate by extremist journalists is wide. I love the National Geographic magazine and have read it forever, even buying and reading copies on CD from the first one.

    Today’s whole glossy issue it is all about how you choose your gender. Yes, you choose. Lots of genders and everyone has a special label. There is even a label for people with no gender. There is a label for people who accept their born gender, odd though they are. Everyone has a word and they have an impressive gender acceptance index for all countries.

    After years of wild support for Climate Change and rapid Global Warming and polar bears and melting glaciers, they are now pushing gender issues. Can’t wait for the windmills are the solution and Trump is the problem issue. Perhaps even an interview with lawyer Obama talking about the end of the Great Barrier Reef or the snows of Kilamajaro? Everyone’s a scientist.

    There is a new generation of pseudo scientists around. Zoologists, paleoclimatologists, paleosociologists, people who study depression in medieval Italy (Yes, an Australian $23Million science grant), whole earth scientists, paleobotanists and endless concoctions of non science people who get science degrees in paleobotany and proclaim themselves scientists. I don’t doubt their passion, but they are not rational scientists, more paleo scientists, medieval magic persons. Auspices, augeries, shamanists, druids. Then you get the ABC and the sacred convesation. Some say at night the ABC offices are lit by moonlight and the ancient fax machines receives messages from Gaia.

    152

    • #
      Robert O

      In olden times anyone who finished a B.Sc. had completed a minimum of two subjects from first year mathematics, physics and chemistry and usually the three.

      I remember explaining to an environmental scientist once a little about hydrocarbons: that up to C6 they were gases, C8 was octane and a component of petrol and about C14 they were tending to kerosene and getting more viscous.

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        In olden days, you could not get a PhD in Science with an undergraduate degree in English, as with Tim Flannery. No mathematics, no physics, no chemistry, no geology, no computing, no biology, no zoology, no genetics, no ecology in his Bachelor of Arts degree in English studies at a brand new University with no entrance restrictions. However he feels qualified to offer informed opinions on nuclear power, hot rocks (“The technology is straightforward”) and computer models of incredibly complex climate issues. He is part of a new breed of PhD scientist with no basic science training and an speciality in ancient kangaroos. Also Australian of the Year and Chief Climate Commissioner with no meteorology. Consider that under the same Labor government we had an Attorney General who had not risen past Clerk. Real qualifications are no longer needed to be an expert, apparently.

        221

        • #
          Robert O

          You are right, we live in a world where little or no knowledge is not an impediment as long as one can dance to the political tune promulgated by the media. Still difficult to be a doctor or dentist without qualification, but Minister for Health no problem apart from dubious travel expenses.

          80

      • #
        TdeF

        One of the founders of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore said only one person he knew, a German chemist, had any science qualifications in Greenpeace. The rest were ultimately communist political activists, lawyers and business people who loved the truckloads of donations and fought international battles over the trademarks. Nothing to do with science.

        151

  • #
    tom0mason

    What a fake comment
    “For practical reasons we reserve the right to remove any comment and all decisions must be final, but please don’t take it personally.

    If you’re playing by the rules it’s unlikely to happen again, so feel free to continue to post new comments and engage in polite and respectful discussion.”

    For practical reasons they reserve the right to remove any comment not honoring the sacred image of AGW and its sainted advocates.
    And remember feel free to continue to post new comments and engage in polite and respectful discussion reinforcing the consensus, as anything less is a waste of your time because it will be deleted.

    141

  • #

    This is a common occurrence at the so-called “Conversation”.

    It seems that comments that link to sites like Jo Nova or WUWT are usually deleted, in an unstated censorship policy.

    See Censorship at the Conversation where numerous comments were deleted and then Geoff Chambers was banned completely from the site.

    110

  • #
    Frank

    What The Conservation thinks is a diversion from the fact that BJ’s evidence has been ignored/rejected by scientists, that’s what really matters.
    And he still hasn’t reveiled their’ responses.
    Please explain ?.

    719

    • #
      AndyG55

      FRONK, those other scientists have refused to respond, because they KNOW that Bill is correct.

      Response would mean admitting that he has a case….. that they CANNOT answer.

      277

    • #
      tom0mason

      So Frank,

      “the fact that BJ’s evidence has been ignored/rejected by scientists, that’s what really matters.”

      “ignored/rejected by scientists”
      Please list all the evidence for this statement should be entertained as a factual representation of reality?

      “…that’s what really matters.”
      Does it? If true please show proof.

      161

    • #
      el gordo

      Frank we can settle this debate with a decent audit of the homogenisation and adjustments carried out by BoM.

      We already know the outcome, so lets move on to the Royal Commission ….

      192

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      Frank,

      If “scientists” can’t be bothered checking and you can’t read pictures, what hope is there for the climate?

      Cheers,

      Bill

      124

      • #
        Frank

        Dear Bill,

        You STILL haven’t answered my question – what were their’ responses ????
        Please be a good scientist and present both sides.

        No cheer,

        Frank
        [Dear Dr. Bill, could you please answer this inane question so that our Troll Frank will move on to some other mindless line of questioning? Thank you!

        710

        • #
          Frank

          ED

          What’s inane about expecting Bill to be accountable for his work ?, you constantly accuse others for their poor science yet Bill gets a free ride here in topsy turvy land.
          [I accuse you Frank, of poor science because it is apparent. You've done nothing yourself to demonstrate that Dr. Bill is not correct in his methods.] ED

          75

          • #
            AndyG55

            Fronk, I can’t imagine how anyone could accuse you of bad science….

            ZERO science, most certainly !!

            77

          • #
            AndyG55

            And I’ll bet you get a free ride at the far-left rubbish bin that is the CONversation, despite NEVER producing one iota of anything resembling science or rational thinking.

            57

          • #
            Frank

            ED
            It’s up to the BOM ,The CSIRO ,the people who know what theyr’e talking about , etc to decide.
            Lots of people here think they know better – but that’s why they’re stuck here with you.

            –So sayth Frank, obediently, farming out his thinking. — Jo

            44

            • #
              AndyG55

              Still waiting for Fronk to come up with something, anything, that shows Bill is in the least bit incorrect.

              Come on Fronk.. you must have something other than baseless empty comments.

              Just once.. !!!

              Or is Bill’s REAL INFORMATION causing you brain-failure !

              26

          • #
            Glen Michel

            Thick.I can’t recall anyone being as obtuse as you Frank.What manner of dullard are you?

            32

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      Waddaya squarking about Frank?

      I tried to lead your little beady eyeballs across to Jo’s to see some categorically, unequivocal evidence that Sydney Observatory data changed because the site changed; not because the climate changed.

      The science in this case, was tracking down the evidence that demolished the hypothesis that changes in data were clinked to changes in the climate.

      Which words don’t you understand?

      Cheers,

      Bill

      85

      • #
        Frank

        Very nice Bill,

        Yes, I understand what your article is driving at but as a good scientist you also understand that you must heed any responses, hence -

        You STILL haven’t reveiled what they where ! , talk about censorship !

        Cheers, and in anticipation that you may actuallly tell us wtf they said.

        Frank

        44

        • #

          Frank, you can bet if they had a good response they would have given it to The Conversation, the ABC, someone, anyone to make the deniers look silly.

          Don’t hold back if you think of something all by yourself…

          74

          • #
            Frank

            Jo,
            Even ED concedes that Bill a avoiding the question. [No Frank, I do not concede that at all. What I do concede is that your questions are inane.] ED
            The deniers don’t need any help looking silly, IF the scientists haven’t responded it’s because :
            They’re afraid to admit their mistake and need to continue the global scam etc
            Or, they don’t have the time to entertain every vexatious submission .

            45

            • #
              AndyG55

              “They’re afraid to admit their mistake and need to continue the global scam etc”

              You said it, Fronk !

              Well done with the realisation of the facts.

              13

          • #
            DavidR

            Jo, as pointed out in response to Bill below, for at least two days Bill posted facetious attacks on other commentators with every post. That was almost certainly the reason his posts were removed. He has also had 24 of 27 posts removed on other issues since then. In this case I believe it is the poster not the moderator causing the problem.

            Bills response to the following post was apparently removed because of a personal attack on me: As always nothing in my post warrants a personal attack.

            re: Sydney Observatory data are used to homogenise ACORN sites at – Bill you have failed to identify how the homogenisation process compromises the high quality data set. You have claimed it but not justified your claim.

            The comparison sites are only relevant for the ACORN-SAT data when attempting to identify whether a discontinuity on the ACORN-SAT site is local or environmental. It is only when the discontinuity is local that the other comparison sites are used to homogenize data. According to BOM the homogenization process does not alter the long term rate of warming when considered across the data set. You have neither challenged this statement or attempted to prove it wrong.

            The Conversation has clear rules and we all breach them from time to time. However they are not unreasonable about it.

            31

            • #

              David, there is no reason to block the comments Bill wrote that I posted above.

              It’s not Bill, but the BOM that needs to justify why using stations with such an obvious UHI effect should be used in homogenisation or that homogenisation is improving the climate data.

              Bill isn’t charging the Australia taxpayer and recommending expensive policies because of procedures that are unreplicatable, and unscientific.

              23

            • #
              Bill Johnston

              Good morning DavidR

              Down at the Conversation, I raised valid issues which were not (NOT) contested or explained by the Author of the post, Blair Trewin. For a scientist, that is bad form; and for whatever reason, there was a similar problem with Authors of other recent posts, although Jacky Croke did turn-up in the end, somewhat after the thing had gone off the rails.

              A small group of seemingly clueless self-praising posters that seek attention eventually disrupt sensibly commentary.

              I don’t know what your background is, so I’m not sure how skilled you are in data analysis, thus the level I need to pitch in order to hold your attention. However, I’ll try:

              Sydney Observatory is NOT used to calculate Australia’s warming; however, because it is one of the longest series in the S. hemisphere, its data ARE/have been used in many scientific papers, in the context of trending temperature. Because the data embed changes that have nothing to with the climate, which are miss-specified by homogenisation; by Blair Trewin, previously by Della Marta et al. (who allegedly undertook further QA); previously again by Nicholls and Torok; and originally by Torok (i.e. 4 iterations), data are not fit for that purpose.

              End users, that is people who used the data, never checked the data’s suitability, but instead depended on this small cabal of “experts” to have done their job. For instance, it is claimed by Trewin and the Bureau (perhaps that should read Trewin and Trewin), that Sydney has just experienced its hottest year evah … which is demonstrably false and misleading; it is a miss-truth perpetrated by the Bureau, which leaves people to believe something, which is demonstrably wrong.

              Despite three post-1910 step-changes in Tmin caused by site changes; Tmin is homogenised for a time-of-observation change in 1964, which was not significant on the data. I’ve analysed the nine sites that were used; only two are broadly homogeneous; photographs show that some sites have changed dramatically; however, its not worth my time to look into each site; it is sufficient to show their data embed significant inconsistencies and are therefore also not fit-for-purpose.

              T max is also homogehnised for changes that did not make any difference to the data; while real changes are ignored.

              Lets move on to the scenario, where data which are not homogeneous are used to adjust other data that are not homogeneous.

              The basic flaw across all homogenisation methods is the use of cross-correlation (of either raw (anomlaly) series, or first-differenced data) to select comparator series. The process results in serious selection bias, which offends just about every statistical principle. Data that are not independent of the target station, are used as comparators. In Sydney’s case site changes now documented using aerial photographs are ignored and smoothed-over using sites selected as having similar faults.

              Everyone has uncritical faith in the process because its peer-reviewed,and done by experts. But it is demonstrated to be biased nonsense – faith is misplaced and whatever passed as peer review did not work. (Bear in-mind how many PhD’s have been gained either relating to the process (Torok and Trewin) or using the data (many).

              Moving on to how Sydney’s data are used; aside from the Bureau and Trewin creating fake news about record temperatures; together with other faulty (inhomogeneous) station data; homogenised Sydney data (which are faulty), are used to “adjust” other faulty data to produce ACORN.

              I have analysed that first tier of sites: Cobar, Walgett, Gunnedah, Williamtown RAAF, Bathurst, Richmond RAAF, Nowra RAN and Moruya Heads Pilot Station; and many of the various second and third tiers; and Alice Springs and sites that are homogenised by Alice Springs as well as sites that also homogenise Alice Springs. I also chased-up sites used to homogenise Williamtown RAAF; and ACORN stations in WA, SA, and NT.

              You see DavirR, the process can be un-wound; however, investigation is very time consuming. It is clear to me that Australia’s have been grievously misguided by the Bureau’s claims of record hot years, extremes and trends in extremes, and I’m working to expose that.

              Cheers,

              Bill Johnston

              34

              • #
                DavidR

                Bill, the statement from BOM included the following:

                2016 was the warmest year on record for mean temperatures at all Sydney stations, and the 24th consecutive above-average year at Observatory Hill
                At several stations including Observatory Hill it was also the warmest year on record for daytime and overnight temperatures.

                http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/nsw/sydney.shtml

                Note that the claim referred to measurements made at all BOM sites in Sydney not just Observatory Hill. Individual sites had records as well so it was not just a record based on an average.

                As you claim the BOM statement is “demonstrably false and misleading” please feel free to provide some evidence for that. Your article about the historical discontinuities at one Sydney site, that confirms what BOM already recognises, does not even begin to address the issue.

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                Urban warming and uncorrected placement issues.. as proven by Bill

                Meanwhile we can look at UAH Australia, instead of a highly urbanised city site, to get the real warming trend over Australia.

                https://s19.postimg.org/bu42tbw1f/UAH_Australia_20_years.png

                13

        • #
          AndyG55

          “that you must heed any responses”

          You haven’t given any response, Fronk

          We are still waiting for you to come up with a response to Bill’s very strong evidence.

          Have you got anything to counter it, or NOT?

          We are all waiting… waiting……… waiting. !

          35

        • #
          Bill Johnston

          What actually is your issue Frank. What prickle remains under your saddle-bags?

          What actually is it that I have not answered? What are you contesting?

          Cheers,

          Bill

          44

          • #
            Frank

            My insidious charade ?.
            We dont know if the BOM or the CSIRO responded because Bill wont respond to my basic question, his failure to do this means in all likelyhood that they ignored him.
            You’ve illogically concluded that they know they can’t dispute Bill’s article and are hiding, hoping he wont pursue this further and bust the whole AGW scam wide open – dream on.
            The more probable reason for their’ silence is that Bill’s narrowly focused article doesn’t change the overall picture. I think they did respond but he’s too embarrassed to divulge.

            Cheers,

            Frank

            56

            • #

              They didn’t ignore him Frank, they went out of their way to snip and stop their readers from seeing his work.

              Says a lot really. If only they had a good answer instead, you think they’d stay quiet?

              74

            • #
              AndyG55

              Bill HAS responded, way more than he ever needed to, to your childish questions.

              Have you got ANYTHING at all to refute Bill’s evidence?

              Come on Fronk, you have been asked several times, but we are STILL waiting for YOU to produce something….. anything.

              Not a good look, Fronk.

              Are you refusing to respond because YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE. !!

              23

    • #
      DavidR

      Frank, Bills’ ‘evidence’ has not been rejected by the scientists. His study is just repeating what the scientists had already worked out ages ago. That is why they decided not to include the Sydney Observatory site in the ACORN-SAT data. Its a bit like Bill claiming to have discovered that Botany Bay is not a good site for settlement and, the first fleet should move to Sydney Cove. Old News!!

      23

      • #

        Ah, of course, the BOM worked out all the site moves and step changes then thought they’d keep them a secret. Then they used the data with secret methods to adjust other sites, but all the people at the BOM get the secret info during their BOM-baptism into the guild of “experts”, and take all the undocumented site moves into account (secretly).

        No documentation to back up your fantasy there eh?

        44

        • #
          DavidR

          Jo if you go to the BOM website the site is shown as not being in the ACORN set. Not much of a secret conspiracy there. Do I need additional documentation to refute your unsubstantiated claims.

          32

          • #

            You do. In May 2015 even the BOM itself admitted that only the BOM knows how ACORN adjustments are done. I’ll quote them (my bolding):

            The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 best correlated sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge.

            If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science: BOM admits temperature adjustments are secret

            PS: You keep pretending that we have claimed the Sydney Obs is an ACORN site, though you have quoted us saying it isn’t. We have the data from the BOM that shows Sydney Obs is used in changing some sites in the homogenized final ACORN temperature set. (They won’t reveal the methods, but at least we have the data). If you asked Bill politely he could tell you exactly which sites it was used for and when. Though I don’t see why he would — is there any chance you will admit you don’t know what you are talking about and that your BOM heroes have fooled you?

            Ignorance and condescension is a really bad combination.

            44

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Jo Nova.

              You have a scientific background. Why don’t you do an analysis of the data, and publish the results? The data is all there. It would make an interesting comparison with the BOMs result.

              It makes no sense for a scientific replication to follow the method exactly – otherwise they might get exactly the same results which, from a scientific point of view, adds little. Better the method followed be a little different, then it can be checked if the end results are similar or significantly different.

              Recall that the BEST team did this as a replication of the NASA and NOAA global mean temperature estimates.

              24

              • #
                AndyG55

                Twotter, you obviously do not have a science background.

                Yes, BEST did basically replicate all the fake methodologies of NOAA/GISS, just under a different guise… that is why they created themselves.

                Regional expectation… homogenisation… same, same, and both methods totally ignore urban heat by hiding behind the “can’t-find-it” anti-science.

                The surface station data in Australia is probably in as bad or worse state than that in the USA with large unaccounted for urban effects, and anything derived from the fake and biased adjustments, which for some reason make most sites have the same warming trend even when the data shows otherwise, is basically meaningless.. certainly not fit for any purpose except as propaganda.

                22

      • #
        Bill Johnston

        Not correct DavidR. I’m unwinding the process (which is a form of peer-review) and finding it is deeply flawed.

        There are statistical methods also of checking the veracity of step-changes in data caused by site changes; and changepoints imposed by homogenisation, which are available in the Bureau’s adjustments file. If you want, let me know and I’ll go into it.

        It is also viable to examine weather stations using time-lapse satellite photography using Google Earth and compare recent changes in data with site changes. You can go to Onslow, for example; Port Headland; Tennant Creek; Darwin; Adelaide AP; Ceduna; Penrith Lakes AWS; Halls Creek; Ti-tree bend (Launceston); Badgerys Creek AWS; Sydney Airport; Laverton; Cunderdin; Cranbourne Botanic Gardens. All of these and more I have analysed in detail.

        You can also get in the car with a camera and go visit; spend time in libraries; pouring over old aerial photographs; researching various archives ….

        There are no sites that are unchanged and no weather station data that are useful for detecting long-term trend.

        Cheers,

        Bill Johnston

        34

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    A note to the Minister:

    Dear Minister,

    The Bureau of Meteorology is making claims about record temperatures that are untrue.

    I have presented unequivocal evidence that changes at Sydney Observatory in 1949; 1958; 1972/3; and 2000, which caused up-steps in temperature data have nothing to do with the climate. (http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/sydney-observatory-where-warming-is-created-by-site-moves-buildings-freeways/)

    Subsequently I defended my case on The Conversation; here: https://theconversation.com/australian-climate-politics-in-2017-a-guide-for-the-perplexed-70526; and here: https://theconversation.com/australias-climate-in-2016-a-year-of-two-halves-as-el-nino-unwound-70758. Most of my well-researched comments were removed by moderated and I was grievously slandered and insulted. Authors of respective posts did not defend their cases. Moderators failed in their duty and the Bureau’s homogenisation expert, Blair Trewin was missing in action throughout the whole debacle, which is disgraceful and unprofessional.

    You are the minister that oversees the Bureau and in a follow-up post this evening I’ve invited you to respond http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/the-conversation-cleansing-skeptical-thoughts-read-the-banned-comments-here/ comment #6.

    How can it be that all over Australia changes at sites overwhelm what the Bureau claims is due the climate? How can it be that the Bureau has not databased or it destroyed data at the many Bureau-staffed sites where thermometers were observed in-parallel with AWS after November 1996? How is it that wind profiling radars are installed so close to small Stevenson screens that they cause temperatures to step-up at Adelaide airport, Tennant Creek, Ceduna, Esperance and other airports? What is going on, that small Stevenson screens replace large ones across the network without a replicated multi-site study and how come some of Australia’s leading statisticians never twigged to what has gone on? The whole issue of what passes for climate science needs to be investigated.

    It is quite clear that the Bureau has prepared a fake-news campaign aimed at messaging Australians living in capital cities (where most live), that summer temperatures are “records”. However, careful analysis finds they are not. There are many examples of automatic weather station temperature data that don’t reflect the weather.

    The Bureau has lost touch with its primary role and an inquiry into the mess they have created is urgently needed.

    As I have concluded (the Bureau’s) carefully contrived myth which should be openly investigated. Supported by numerous professors at Australian Universities; the Climate Institute; Climate Council; the Australian Academy of Science; the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and others, Australians have been dragged into the muck of compromised “science”. Global warming enthusiasts within the Bureau have created an untenable situation for the Bureau’s integrity and science in general. Australia’s climate-swamp needs to be drained.

    Feel free to comment at http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/the-conversation-cleansing-skeptical-thoughts-read-the-banned-comments-here/

    If it is a fraud it needs to be discovered and fraudsters and their promoters bought to account.

    So please visit http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/the-conversation-cleansing-skeptical-thoughts-read-the-banned-comments-here/ and respond.

    Yours faithfully,

    Dr. W.H. (Bill) Johnston.

    (Weather sleuth and former NSW natural resources research scientist.)

    395

    • #
      Robber

      I look forward to you sharing the minister’s response. And perhaps send another letter to the Universities that fund the Conversation seeking their comments on censorship?

      91

    • #
      DavidR

      Bill, As you acknowledged on the Conversation and here the Sydney Observatory site is not used in the ACORN-SAT dataset for estimating global warming.

      You have also failed to acknowledge here, that for two days at least, you included posted facetious attacks on the other commentators on all your posts. I expect this was why your comments were removed.

      33

      • #

        DavidR, so Bill was right about ACORN and you are not acknowledging it still had a role in homogenisation.

        44

      • #
        Bill Johnston

        You still can’t read DavidR. Uncorrected step-changes in Sydney Observatory data infect data that are used to calculate Australia’s warming.

        Your colleagues on the Conversation, also can’t read. They are absolute experts in ignoring evidence and the art of silly, facetious attacks. Most of what they say is utter, regurgitated nonsense.

        Cheers,

        Bill

        44

      • #

        DavidR how hard is it to grasp that Sydney data is used in the ACORN homogenisation process to adjust other sites?
        If too hard please fetch the person who normally does your thinking for you.

        23

        • #
          AndyG55

          “who normally does your thinking for you”

          Gees Sil, how did you know he owns a parrot or a chimpanzee ??

          34

        • #
          DavidR

          Bill I acknowledged several times that the Sydney observatory site is used in the homogenization process. You have repeatedly refused to explain how it ‘infects’ other sites.
          as in my comment on the Conversation that has been blocked here for reasons that I won’t bother to repeat.

          re: Sydney Observatory data are used to homogenise ACORN sites at Bill you have failed to identify how the homogenisation process compromises the high quality data set. You have claimed it but not justified your claim.

          The comparison sites are only relevant for the ACORN-SAT data when attempting do identify whether a discontinuity on the ACORN-SAT site is local or environmental. It is only when the discontinuity is local that the other comparison sites are used to homogenise data. According to BOM the homogenisation process does not alter the long term rate of warming when considered across the data set. You have neither challenged this statement or attempted to prove it wrong.

          So rather than claiming we are experts in ignoring the evidence how about providing some as repeatedly requested!

          31

          • #
            Bill Johnston

            DavidR, so is THAT your saddle-burr. Can’t you work it out?

            Sydney Observatory is left with a step-change say in 1950, because they forgot they moved the site; and instead claimed it was due to the “climate” Ha….Ha…… hahaha……. What a silly assertion anyway! Did you hear there is a bridge nearby for sale? Ha….Ha…… hahaha…….

            So they use that mythical climate-change-claim to test if the climate changed at other sites (Don’t forget they gather eight other cross-correlated sites to make a pretend series, which is used as the test series.)

            (Oh, yes, and all sites have faithfully reported metadata, just like they had for Sydney Observatory.)

            (Oh…. and just for the record, telephone exchanges are built in PO yards all at about the same time (1947 ~ 1960); aerodromes were taken over by the Bureau from the RAAF, at about that same time.)

            So using Sydney Observatory (anomaly) data, together with anomalies calculated for 8 other sites (including in many instances the target site), they straighten or bend other site’s data (of if it already agrees don’t change it!) to agree!

            Now isn’t that a remarkably independent, objective, unbiased process (NOT)?

            It is complex, interwoven and intended to create accelerated warming after 1950; more accelerated warming after the wall is built, metrication happens, protocols change and many sites are upgraded in 1972/3; increasing extreme temperatures after sensitive instruments are moved to small Stevenson screens at about the same time (around 2000) almost everywhere (including across the AWAP network); and of-course to the delight of Sarah Perkins at UNSW, increased trends in extremes. (I’ve heard she is about to awarded a medal for her “research”.)

            At UNSW, they have done seminars to explain how extremes have increased despite the “hiatus” (https://www.science.unsw.edu.au/events/extreme-temperatures-during-global-warming-hiatus).

            The whole thing is based on fake data; site and instrument changes and fake news.

            AGW is the most unproved, bizarre, dare I say f*******, totally wasteful application of research money in the history of Australian science.

            (Head back in sand DavidR, in case you suffer a fleeting thought.)

            Cheers,

            Bill

            [I have decided that you cannot use that word. That word requires proof of intent, and the exclusion of incompetence, neither of which we can provide.] Fly

            12

            • #
              DavidR

              Bill I take it you are unable to explain how the homogenization process causes the Sydney Observatory data to ‘infect’ the ACORN_SAT dataset.
              Perhaps you are confusing it with the process used for milk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_(chemistry)

              [This is stupid and dishonest. I have already told you Bill can provide the BOM list of sites that Sydney Observatory is used to adjust. I've also quoted the BOM explaining how they can't tell us their methods to accomplish the secret adjustments. Are you reading my answers? (Can you read?) - Jo]

              Tagged ***DavidR

              21

              • #

                DavidR, you need to admit that:

                1/it is only the BOM who can explain how the BOM homogenised sites,
                2/ that the BOM refuse to do that, and
                3/ that Bill has raised reasonable questions that the BOM should answer.
                4/ that your questions have been uninformed and unnecessarily condescending.

                03

  • #
    Egor the One

    Let me guess ….peer reviewed(pal revered) by ratbag et el and co!

    Come on Jan 20.

    When the Donald takes office, he will have to push a big broom to start clearing away all the nonsense.

    Maybe, the imbeciles(the esteemed one and co) here might take notice, if we’re lucky, and hit the well deserved ‘flush button’ on all this CAGW medievalism!

    50

  • #

    I was banned from the Conversation several months ago. Details at
    https://cliscep.com/2016/07/06/censorship-at-the-conversation/

    One of their first and most farcical acts of censorship on me was to ban a comment for linking to WattsUpWithThat. When other commenters objected, the environmental editor intervened to state that comments could be removed for linking to sources he considered unreliable.

    I’m particularly irritated that my old University is financing this Soviet style propaganda machine. I thought of writing to them pointing this out, but decided it would have little effect.

    What about a petition addressed to all those universities in Australia and the UK which are financing the Conversation, pointing out that there’s probably some rule in their university statutes that forbids supporting organisations that practice censorship? Anyone there with a legal mind who could formulate such a petition statement? We’ll publicise it at cliscep.com and no doubt others will too.

    191

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      The Conversation promotes itself as the voice of academia demonstrating its value to the public. It certainly is. I never knew such idiotic ratbaggery was going on. It serves a good purpose in opening a window so outsiders can get a better view of the weird wallpaper inside the ivory tower.

      140

    • #

      Maybe universities have signed up to some kind of declaration of free speech and against censorship put out by UNESCO or someone which they could be accused of violating by financing the Conversation? That would give a legal basis for complaint, but how would one find out?

      70

    • #
      DavidR

      Geoff, even Bill hasn’t been banned from ‘The Conversatio’n despite his repeated attacks on other posters. You must have been a seriously flouting the rules.

      33

      • #

        DavidR, has a belief — has no evidence.

        43

        • #
          DavidR

          Jo, Bill has had several posts accepted on The Conversation since his attacks on others were removed, he has not been banned.
          The evidence is here: https://theconversation.com/profiles/bill-johnston-22893/activities. He has also has had a lot of comments removed.
          As his attacks have been removed, I can not provide evidence of them without requesting it from the conversation, however three of the attacks were directed at me which is sufficient evidence for me.

          32

          • #

            Read the comments they won’t publish at the top of this page.

            Don’t believe your lying eyes. They removed polite comments they can’t answer. They allowed insults, ad hom attacks and incorrect replies in return. Quote: “trolling” “feverish” “denier” “anti-science”

            PS: Thanks for the link. I’ll add it to the post. It shows nearly all of Bills comments have been removed.

            33

            • #
              DavidR

              My eyes don’t lie Jo. I presume that Bill has provided you with all the comments he posted that were removed from the Conversation, on that topic. If so, do you deny that most of his comments in the two days before the topic were closed included facetious, virtually identical, attacks, on the other commentators where only the posters name was changed. There were eight of his comments to various posters listed consecutively under one of my posts alone, all containing the same repetitive attack.

              If he did not provide them all then you have been grievously deceived.

              31

              • #

                Always avoid the point – there is no reason to censor Bill’s comments published here — as usual, you try to change the topic and hope we don’t notice.

                If the Conversation were it a site of semi-decent academic standards, rather than a political agency or a religious enclave, it would invite Bill to post there.

                Instead they appear to be too afraid to expose their readers to his arguments.

                23

          • #
            Bill Johnston

            Why do you bother with DavidR?

            The real problems are that Trewin was missing in action and The Conversation is poorly moderated out-of-hours. I also don’t think it is useful for just one-side of a conversation to be slavishly supported. A lot of people have skin in it; like $300 worth; and they are unlikely to not support contrary views; even if they knew enough (or were capable to reading pictures) to make a sound judgement.

            I provided objective evidence that the Bureau has (I think deliberately) misrepresented the situation at Sydney Observatory and in the interests of scientific rigor and transparency, Trewin and others should set the record straight by explaining how that happened.

            The other brave person who ran for the exits was long-time climate scientist Dr. Barrie Pittock. His comment, which was supportive of AGW, was not in itself controversial. I replied to him as follows below. My comment was “moderated”; his comment was taken-down shortly after.

            REPLY TO PITTOCK:

            I have a folder of your research papers Barrie. You were there with Neville Nicholls, Simon Torok, and others when homogenisation was on the table.

            Homogenisation corrections in Torok’s thesis were changed in Nicholls and Torok’s paper. For some stations;changed again by Della-Marta et al and again by Blair Trewin. Science is not about shifting goalposts. I have all those datasets and I’m happy to put my years of carefully archived data on dropbox so everyone can access it.

            Why and how does the homogenisation process result in different trends? How were changes at Sydney Observatory in 1949 and 1972, which are verified by aerial photography, disregarded when the office was just 30 m away and everyone had to walk past the Stevenson screens twice a day to do their work?

            For “renewables”, what about the holes that need to be dug to supply manganese, nickel, cadmium; battery cases; and how are they manufactured and dispersed? How are they disposed-of after a few years? What about by-products like radium, thorium, heavy-metals? Climate scientists are wandering-off into dreamland and taking everybody with them.

            You are an activist on indigenous issues, but you are also a scientist that I regarded highly. Your contributions have provided many insights; however you are wrong on promoting that Australian data are useful for estimating climate trends.

            Cheers,

            Dr Bill

            END

            Cheers,

            Bill

            02

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    I watched The Conversation article with Bill Johnston’s comments. One of their pompous school prefects kept asking for an explanation from Bill, then almost instantly deleted it after declaring it off-topic, leaving just enough time for his cohorts to write comments telling Bill he’s a fool. Those comments are left in place of course. They’re a strange bunch there, so transparently biassed to the extreme tyrannical, yet they imagine that’s not in clear view. None of them demonstrate any capability to assess simple mapping and geographic information, let alone statistics. They don’t understand there’s quite a few hundred kilometers and terrain changes between Observatory Hill and the inland and coastal locations it takes part in adjusting.

    173

  • #
    • #
      tom0mason

      That stands in variance with their registration documentation. Link is at comment 21.2.1.1.2 above.
      “Size of Charity
      Medium: Revenue of $250,000 to $999,999″

      60

      • #
        Raven

        This from LittleOil’s link:

        The funding commitment of $1 million per annum over 3 years will safeguard the jobs of 32 employees – including 26 Melbourne-based staff.


        Imagine that . . a staff of 32!

        Imagine the reach and impact of JoNova, WUWT, Climate Audit, Judith Curry and all the others with a staff of 32 and a million dollars per annum between them . . . let alone each.

        Now that could be a conversation.

        70

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Woudl that be a breach of whatever laws govern charities then?

        50

        • #
          Raven

          OriginalSteve,

          Dunno, but it doesn’t fit the classical interpretation where the needy are catered for.
          I expect ‘charity’ is deemed an appropriate category. ;)

          Probably the universities would consider “The Conversation” as some sort of outreach exercise . . and as long as they control who get’s the option to reach in, they’re safe.

          40

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            It seems more like a donation exercise much like the Clinton Foundation.

            Does a charity have to do any community based work to be a charity?

            40

  • #
    steve richards

    It would seem appropriate to me that every post to ‘The Conversation’ requires a screenshot, and if deleted, posted here as a permanent record.

    It would then require some investigative journalists or a thoughtful politician to then investigate the situate: people, funding and links to see why the people who run these websites are so corrupt.

    100

  • #

    Dear Conversation,

    All your comments and opinions, along with that of the entire luvvie/posh left media, have been removed from my sight and my mind. I have performed this editing by never visiting your website or turning on the ABC (or other television channels except for Rugby League, cricket and vintage Dolph Lundgren movies). However I will continue to fund you via the various founding and strategic partners who have so generously provided you with my tax dollars. Feel free to try and hack through my automated deletion system…but I would prefer it if you could find “partners” who are parting with their own money, not mine.

    Please do not be discouraged by this elimination of all you say, write and think from my mind. Since the public found more effective ways to advertise real estate, wrap fish and line bird-cages than to buy Fairfax newspapers there has been a global (I know you like that word) shift away from factoids, click-bait, manipulation, deception, censorship and the pathologising of disagreement. I don’t know why!

    191

    • #
      bobl

      The “Conversation” AKA “the Monologue” Fake News in a VACUUM.

      Dontcha just love the “Fake News” label being used to attack the right at the moment, from what I have seen the majority of the “Fake News” is from the left, Like “Hillary is as honest as the day is long” and “I did not hand those debate questions to that woman”. If they were serious about stamping out “Fake News” then they’d have to shut down the Main Stream Media totally, the only network to survive would be Fox!

      70

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Bobl. The left invented the “fake news” moniker, which was immediately taken up by the right and thrown straight back at them! They are apoplectic about it, as everything put out by CNN, the WoPo and others is now immediately branded as “fake news” by the Trumpites. Loverley!

        20

  • #
    steve richards

    Those responsible at the conversation are:

    Michael Hopkin, environment + energy editor &

    James Whitmore, deputy environment + energy editor

    Both have a large social media presence.

    90

    • #
      el gordo

      For a closer look, they co-authored this story last year.

      https://theconversation.com/keeping-global-warming-to-1-5c-not-2c-will-make-a-crucial-difference-to-australia-report-says-64287

      In my opinion these characters should consider their future.

      60

      • #
        Allen Ford

        I love this quote from your link:

        “There are many benefits if warming could be limited to 1.5℃, with less frequent and intense extreme weather. On the other hand, we are entering the unknown if we allow warming to surpass 2℃, as tipping points in the Earth’s climate system make accurate predictions difficult to make,” Dr King said.

        If there is no established, demonstrable link between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, i.e., xppm increase of CO2 equates to YªC, how can they possibly make this claim?

        They have not been too flash on predictions in the past to inspire confidence!

        32

        • #
          AndyG55

          “we are entering the unknown if we allow warming to surpass 2℃”

          No we aren’t. Holocene optimum was well above that, RWP and even the MWP were probably warmer as well.

          We know that the Earth survived and prospered in times of that extra warmth.

          And let’s not forget that most of that extra warmth would have been in regions that are rather cold now. Maybe Greenland could see some useful farming again.. who knows !!

          I’m sure Siberia and many other parts of the NH would absolutely LOVE an extra 5-10ºC at the moment !!

          45

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘….tipping points in the Earth’s climate system make accurate predictions difficult to make,” Dr King said.

          Tipping points are not so difficult to predict when you know what the oscillations are doing and with CO2 out of the equation the modellers should be able to spot tipping points more accurately.

          21

    • #
      tom0mason

      Michael Hopkin
      Section Editor: Energy + Environment
      Based in Perth, Michael joined The Conversation after several years as a journalist with Fairfax, Sky News and The West Australian. Before moving to Australia from his native UK, he was a senior news and features writer for Nature.
      James Whitmore
      Deputy Section Editor: Energy + Environment
      James joined The Conversation after graduating from University of Melbourne. He has been sub-editor, feature writer and wildlife columnist for Farrago, and has presented on SYN community radio.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Lots of field experience there then. ;)

      120

      • #
        AndyG55

        Should be noted that James Whitmore has a BA.. just the right person to be “Deputy Section Editor: Energy + Environment”…. NOT !!

        Looking through “Their Team” all you see is rabid far-left journalists and activists, with nary a sign of science, maths or engineering in the whole lot.

        If anything it the culminated LEFTISM of the Guardian ABC, and Fauxfacts glued together with green slime.

        156

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Presumably asking questions via social media could be more eeffective than website?

      Nowhere to hide then…enjoy…!

      50

  • #
    CheshireRed

    The UK Guardian is exactly the same, although sometimes they take an even stronger stance by putting some readers on ‘pre-moderation’. (I should know…I’m one. I hardly post now because there’s no guarantee the post will be approved, so what’s the point?) Essentially almost any anti-AGW comment will be blocked appearing.

    The result is an echo-chamber of similar rabidly-pro AGW views from a small-ish number of high volume repeat posters. Must be working a treat commercially as the Guardian is currently begging readers for subscriptions or donations. Lol.

    120

    • #
      tom0mason

      Yes, I too am banned at the Gruadian for questioning why someone else was deleted (moderated away) and pointing out that they made a very fair point (which I reiterated).
      Since then I’m pre-moderated before deletion.
      I rarely go there anymore. Like the Conversation it’s just a monotone echo-chamber for the self-satisfied and self-righteous non-thinkers.

      130

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        There was one regional “Faux-facts” newspaper that I used to monitor. Its now shut down a lot of its climate related nonsense as it was generating a lot of negative publicity, as I consistently took them to task over the CGAW nonsense they tried to brainwash my old town with. I guess its a win, but you do need to be very vigilent…..

        50

  • #
    TdeF

    The democratic problem is that the ABC/SBS, CSIRO, Universities take money from all Australians to finance their very narrow point of view and their mad windmills. Sell these organizations. It is the only cure for what is a parasitic relationship like the Unions which represent only 12% of workers outside the public service, but hold the entire country to ransom repeatedly. Of course they all keep demanding more money.

    It is to be hoped that Trump turns off the cash. Then maybe our fake PM could find a pair.

    120

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Our fake PM has a pair….Goldman and Sachs.

      100

      • #
        TdeF

        I wonder how many millions are owed to Turnbull for the last election? As a banker, it would be a loan rather than a gift so what are the terms and conditions of the loan?
        Really can the Liberal party afford to dump Turnbull or does he in effect own the party? While Tony Abbott says MPs must stay with the party of Menzies, it may truly be Malcolm’s Liberals. Money and power. What happened to democracy?

        70

        • #
          Raven

          I wonder how many millions are owed to Turnbull for the last election?

          Probably a lot.
          But Malcolm also owes himself a million after donating his own cash to the last election campaign . . allegedly.
          There’s a lot to be mocked about Malcolm, that’s for sure, but Anthony Albanese got it precisely wrong deriding this.

          30

        • #
          ando

          ‘The Turnbull Coalition Team’. The name change seemed to coincide with the handover of said cash.

          00

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      You would shudder if you knew how much money some of these people suck-out of the science-sphere (ie. are paid); and how the behind-the-scenes employment gravy train operates. How do useless politicians find themselves in “think tanks” at Australian universities so they can continue to preach?

      Cheers,

      Bill

      105

      • #
        ianl8888

        Thanks for your input, Bill, but actually we DO know.

        What if anything we can do about it is really the point, isn’t it ?

        Being banned from The Conversation may be of virtual amusement but is of little practical use.

        People are pinning their hopes on the impending Trump presidency and this may help at the margins – but please observe what is actually happening in Detroit this week (as against whatever both the MSM and anti-establishment blogs tell you) to understand the limits to this.

        41

        • #

          “People are pinning their hopes on the impending Trump presidency and this may help at the margins – but please observe what is actually happening in Detroit this week (as against whatever both the MSM and anti-establishment blogs tell you) to understand the limits to this.”

          Can you please expound on your “limits to this”? Even in Detroit hope can spring eternal! Location, location, location!

          10

  • #
    Ruairi

    When warmist websites delete,
    A comment , a post or a tweet,
    And deny conversation,
    On a thermometer station,
    It’s a sign they are facing defeat.

    230

    • #
      Lewis P Buckingham

      No, it is an example of how they still control the narrative by advising us that their science is accurate and incontrovertible.
      Deletion is then OK because it allows them to continue in their analysis of Australian records without having to defend the analysis.
      So the science ends up in an echo chamber and we are left with dubious predictions.
      Judith Curry has some sober reflections on this.
      https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/09/skin-in-the-game/

      Where she is right it will be necessary to outsource climate science to people with skin in the game, who have a stake in being right.
      One touchstone of this is their openness to debate.

      31

  • #
    Barry Woods

    That Lew/Cook article.. It was a 100 comments deleted when I last counted… Now it is a 121 out of 187.

    Wayback machine caught some of them.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20140209191509/https://theconversation.com/establishing-consensus-is-vital-for-climate-action-22861

    110

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    Business as usual from the left media, environmentalist, Climate Scientists etc,
    Inconvenient Truth Delete Delete.”

    80

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    All this sounds a lot like Barack Obama — have great sounding standards verbally but then violate them every time you do anything and mostly just don’t do what you say you’ll do for fear it’s a mistake and makes your job of ignoring your responsibility harder than it already is. But this isn’t really about Obama. It goes far deeper than that. It’s about honesty vs. dishonesty. A read through The Conversation’s rules for commenting would make you believe you could voice an honest opinion, back it up with evidence or a sound argument if not both, and it would be there for everyone to see, even if the bigwigs at The Conversation think you’re wrong. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…. …..

    So it goes with the left, the progressive, the dishonest by whatever name you call them. You might almost get the idea that they’re afraid to air a dissenting view lest some hapless reader stumble on it and be tempted to think a little.

    The trouble is that they really are afraid of the truth. And they fear the truth because it shows them up every time, making them invent more excuses and an even more tangled web of, well…, there’s no other word for it but lies.

    For quite a while I have wondered if the change in direction of the political winds in America won’t turn into violence far worse that what we’ve already seen as they see their grip on society slipping away. And it’s not just climate change at stake for them, it’s nearly every standard western society has held near and dear for centuries.

    110

    • #
      TdeF

      The US election is not over according to hollywood or the ABC or BBC.

      As in Australia, the media, the stars, the personalities and the journalists are in charge and they hate Donald Trump and care little what the public want. The stories against Trump will headline and have started to headline before he is even through his inauguration. Stars begging electors to betray their jobs, their party. Stories about the evil Russians presented as fact without any verification. If Trump had looked sideways at a cat, it would be font page news.

      On the bright side, Trump knows his enemy is the media, not the public. He is attacking them and bypassing them at every turn. Then the stars. No one elected Meryl Streep or Charlie Sheen or Alec Baldwin but they think they are more than actors because they are rich and famous. It is interesting that Trump was visited by Leonardo Di Caprio and we have not heard a peep since. You must think they might themselves be victims of the media story in which they are only actors.

      How many people believe what they are told, which is why the Conversation will censor any contrary view.
      Propaganda presented as opinion and debate. It is just not true and the media organizations are starting to look like political organizations as while politicans are dependent on public opinion, the media control it. Trump is bypassing them.

      120

      • #
        Dennis

        2006 to 2015 in Australia the leader of the Coalition parties was subjected to smears relentlessly. And Christopher Monckton released a video warning Australians that our PM Abbott was being dragged down by forces external and internal aided by the MSM.

        70

      • #
        PeterS

        Hollywood actors should stick to what they are good at doing in their profession – fake movies.

        60

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Roy

      I listened to a speech by Obama yesterday and while that might seem distasteful there was an excuse and a reason.

      Driving back from the Sydney airport after returning from Vietnam and being alone, I went through the radio trying to find something worth my time. Eventually came across the Obama voice and listened.

      It seemed like half an hour but was possibly half that, whatever, the point is he said a lot and was cheered by what sounded like a rent a crowd of schoolkids at every sentence.

      He said NOTHING, but I learnt a lot.

      He is vacant and unconvincing at any level but two things stood out; he thanked the armed forces for serving while he was commander in chief, not sure what they felt about that, but at the end, the take home message.

      He stated that the most important Office in the United States was, wait for it,

      That of

      CITIZEN.

      His manner reminded me so much of the Conversation ethic.

      KK

      61

  • #
    nightspore

    Another fascinating episode in what seems like an endless saga …

    I’m so pleased to see this sort of thing being posted – I don’t think the participants here realize (yet) how valuable this kind of documentation is going to be (in what I suspect will be the not-too-distant future, since with the world cooling, there’s an inevitable train wreck coming not too far around the bend).

    122

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      But there is more.

      Many of the the Bureau’s ACORN sites started life as Aeradio stations. Aeradio was set up by AWA (on behalf of the Gov.) along Australia’s developing air corridors, linking from Tasmania to Darwin; onto Timor; Sydney to Broome; Melbourne to New Guinea up the east coast; and up the WA coast; and across the Indian Ocean. There are some fascinating stories to be had by digging around.

      Aeradio operated 24/7 and each office had a couple of radio operators and met-blokes, whose job it was to track aircraft and advise them of weather conditions. They let off balloons, and of course takeoff weight had much to do with local temperature. So this is where much of the data started from. Over-time things changed; met-services transferred to the RAAF during WW2; then back to the Bureau in the 1950′s. A lot of original documentation is probably lost; or very hard to find. Sites were moved, met-offices were built and for a good while we had a well maintained, professionally serviced network.

      Then it all started to fall apart. In 1975 the standard large screen started to be replaced with small ones; there is no multi-site study comparing screens; the Bureau decided to go automatic; did no cross-over studies (AWS vs. thermometers), and now thermometers are not even observed even if they still have staff.

      Ceduna Aeradio was still operating up to 1950. The Bureau built a met office on the south side of the airport in 1969. They built a new office there in 2010. “The office is state of the art and is constructed to be environmentally friendly while withstanding extreme weather conditions” said Don Farrell (ALP) in the Senate in August 2011. The office cost $3.1M, and Farrell opened it on July 20th 2011.

      They disturbed the site adjacent to the small Stevenson screen and built a wind profiler array (radar)too close to the screen. Consequently the climate warmed. It was Bureau policy that although thermometers were observed, staff there did not report thermometer data after the AWS became the primary instrument on 1st November 1996. A small screen replaced the large one in March 1999. Time-lapse satellite photography is available on Google Earth. A friend who was there several weeks ago found the $3.1M office unmanned.

      Tmax stepped-up in 1961, probably because the site at the Aeradio office was disturbed by developments; in 1999, when the new small screen was installed; and in 2007, which is when Google Earth shows the site considerably disturbed.

      Temperature trends; daily extremes and trends in extremes at Ceduna are due to site changes and have nothing to do with the climate. All this guff about climate warming is just a bad joke that is getting worse by the day.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      184

  • #
    Dennis

    It is important not to forget that after the internal inquiry at the BoM that was requested by the minister responsible, and the acknowledgement that errors and omissions had been found in climate change department media releases, PM Abbott suggested to his Cabinet that due diligence be conducted by an independent auditor. A major voted against this.

    Government departments are paid for by taxpayers and are there to serve taxpayers, as are our elected representatives. It’s time for due diligence at BoM and CSIRO, and that would just be the starting points.

    151

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Here is a hilarious look at the hypocrisy of the elite on Julie Kelly’s blog called “The HIll”

    70

  • #
    TdeF

    One of the absurdities of the all powerful media gian ABC/SBS is that they have a charter in which must be unbiased.

    However as in the US, they realise that politicians are dependent, even addicted to the media and the news cycle. So the ABC/SBS can utterly ignore their charter and our faux PM would not dare touch them. It’s a deal the Prince of Point Piper has with them. Similarly with the Labor party who refuse to criticize Turnbull. Why?

    Tony Abbott however was a mysogynist for looking at this watch. Violent wall puncher. Attacked aborigines on Australia day. Bit a raw union and winked on radio. Tony realises the ABC are the problem but not for poster boy Malcolm. Malcolm accepts their control of the media and the news as long as he is untouched.

    So the original politicians who set up the ABC missed the point that in a modern world, the electronic media control the story and so they control the politicians. The only way to break this is to stop using public money to fund private opinions. Sell the ABC/SBS and all the other cosy superannuated and utterly irresponsible government funded groups. That includes the CSIRO and BOM. All have outlived their original purpose and now tens of thousands of people are on long summer holidays from doing exactly as they please with our money. They need to get real jobs.

    151

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Sell the ABC/SBS …’

      In the short term that won’t happen, so they both need to be furiously ridiculed and mocked.

      After couple of years of this relentless torture they can safely be dismantled.

      90

      • #
        TdeF

        Needs must. ABC/SBS $1.3Bn. CSIRO $1.3Bn. Add them up. Meanwhile we (that’s the public) are borrowing a billion dollars a month, every month. If we stopped paying for things we did not need and stopped importing windmills and windmill engines, we could get out of this mess.

        Our weather comes from satellites or automated stations. Our news comes from overseas. Our research comes from overseas. Pepa Pig is British. Our rich ABC has moved to Sydney to live like princes and princesses of the realm on fabulous salaries which need to be increased to cover the cost of living in Sydney. Any pretence of presenting unbiased news is long gone.
        The ABC as feared now control the politicians and their charter is not worth a tinker’s.

        I heard the news last night that Donald Trump was controlled by the Russians by implied blackmail. The Channel 9 reporter said it was ‘unverified’. There was a time when this would have been disallowed, but no longer. Any news about Trump is true because the media say it is true. As Rita Pahani said, the same media think Roman Polanski is a saint. Creative seemingly people do not live by the laws of society and the ABC never ever criticize Malcolm. Why? Perhaps the best ABC PM ever?

        120

        • #
          el gordo

          A majority of Australians trust the ABC news, so if by some political miracle we could instantly dismantle the structure we would have a social uprising on our hands.

          Too early for major surgery, whereas a simple non invasive operation centred on the newsroom should see the return of balance. Nothing more is required, given the arguments from both perspectives the people will make up their own minds.

          The pseudo Marxists journalists need to be purged first, then you can dismantle it. SBS can go sooner than later, its well passed its used by date.

          80

          • #
            TdeF

            The ABC news should not cost $4 million dollars a day.

            70

            • #
              el gordo

              No, but all I’m asking for is a bit more time, think of the people in the bush.

              I just spoke to a couple of Canberrans and suggested the ABC should be dismantled and they were horrified. “Why?”

              In a few minutes I explained CO2 doesn’t cause global warming and aunty has been pushing propaganda onto a hapless population. “So you want to dismantle over a single issue?.”

              Yep, suppose I do. It would open up the whole market to new players and take the burden off the taxpayers.

              Imagine a world without state sponsored fake news, I feel liberated just thinking about it.

              91

              • #
                AndyG55

                There is absolutely NO NEED for a government funded broadcaster.

                It should be split up and sold as bits that have to meet the same requirements as other commercial station wrt number of channels etc.

                65

      • #
        Len

        Cultural Marxism’s Critical Theory used against them.

        20

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Last evening the wife was channel surfing and came across a movie on the ABC called “Fancy Boy”. I never watch ABC or SBS, but she landed on it and it was near the end.
      It was absolutely disgusting porn. Someone was [snip -- sex with an alien], a family was swimming with a corpse in a pool, and a couple had a girl hostage in the basement. The credits showed that this was produced by Screen Australia and film Victoria.
      IT is a crime that taxpayer dollars are spent on producing such filth, not to mention broadcasting it.

      [Disgusting enough that I don't even want to approve this. More so because it has nothing to do with the Conversation. Wait, disgusting and filthy? Maybe it is on topic.] ED

      [We may all be adults and we may all have strong stomachs but really, do we want to wallow in this kind of stuff? ... I wouldn't want to be the cause of someone throwing up all over the keyboard.] AZ

      [Rod did watch to the end of the credits - just saying.] Fly

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    Quote from “Who we are” section at The Conversation.

    “We believe in open access and the free-flow of information.”

    90

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    Last August, I posted a CON essay at WUWT “Cooking” up Denialism in some universities? in which the statistics of deletions on a John Cook story (part 1 of 3) were:

    After only six days of many unsympathetic comments, 61 …were deleted but that was out of a total of only 102 (or 60%). Activity then rapidly faded, to end with a total of 108 comments of which 64 were deletes.

    The Oz site is mostly similar to the UK site and they are unique amongst the alarmist blogs:

    • Oz is mostly funded by the universities and by several past grants directly from Oz federal and State governments.
    • The academic OPINIONS there are widely cited as the ultimate truth by the media and other alarmist blogs globally, sometimes virally.
    • Comments are accepted until deleted later by moderator and may stay visible long enough for many readers to see them. In the past, I’ve tended to post there on Fridays and they’ve stayed up until later on Monday.
    • The hardcore commenters, usually outnumber the rational commenters, but I think they are our friends because many readers must think they are bonkers. Furthermore, it seems likely that the number of readers greatly outnumber the commenters and ….. who knows, some may be shocked and regurgitate elsewhere.

    82

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      What do “The Conversation,” “rotten anchovies,” and fertilizer have in common?

      60

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      The moderators have a practice of closing comments, then instantly deleting those which cause them discomfort. That successfully removes those views and stops secondary discussion about the removed points of view.

      Among the more comic practices of the group-think ‘opinion correctors’ who regularly comment is to quote and link a past article on The Conversation as verification for the repeat of a folly. Once was enough to read that foolishness. Why bring attention to it again.

      70

      • #

        Conversation: A talk, especially an informal one between
        two or more people in which news and ideas are exchanged.

        Connversation: the pretense of conforming to the above
        ‘news and ideas exchanged.’

        The People’s ABC – pretending to conform to its Charter to
        represent the diversity of the people’s views and values but
        in reality representing the news and ideas of the progressivist
        left (funded by us.)

        100

  • #
    AndrewWA

    Your taxes at work
    Agitprop of the highest order.
    Is it any wonder that the academic elite are so surprised about events such as Brexit and the POTUS election and why La La Land getting the Golden Globe is no real surprise?

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Are all of the original unaltered temperature records for Australia still available for use by real evidence-based scientists or have some been conveniently lost or deliberately destroyed?

    What is the case for other countries, e.g. USA, Canada, European countries?

    71

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      I believe there is metres of shelf-space taken up by weather records in state and national archives. However, it is really the conditions under which observations are made that is important.

      Picture the situation at many coastal lighthouses (Cape Leeuwin, Gabo Island, Low Head, Cape Otway, Rottnest Island, Point Perpendicular,Cape Bruny, Cape Moreton (there is a long list and many are ACORN sites)).

      Howling gale; horizontal rain; Stevenson screens falling apart; everything vibrating. Screens all open to the south; some poor sod opens the door every 4 hours or so, scribbles something on the back of his hand, slams it shut and races for the nearest bit of shelter.

      It takes hardly any breeze on the ocean to become a strong wind at the top of a bluff. Raingauges are inaccurate when the rain is horizontal. Rain, sea-spray and sand blow into the screen affecting measurements. Maximum and minimum temperatures are supposed to be dry-bulb; if they are not they don’t reflect the weather.

      Tipping-bucket raingauges don’t perform well when they are buffeted; automatic weather stations are not serviced from one week to the next; salt builds-up on instruments, which end up producing random numbers. There are no cross-over studies that compare instruments and screens and now most sites are unmanned there is not much hope of that happening. Many sites have been relocated into up-draft zones; Low Head is almost in the sea and there is a note that indicates it is affected by sea-foam in rough weather.

      The whole network needs be independently audited.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      173

      • #
        Peter C

        Thanks Bill,

        Cross over studies between manual thermometers in a Stevenson screen and an automatic station would be useful and there is nothing to prevent them except resources. Given some funding I don’t see why it should not be a perfect study for a young academically inclined meteorologist.

        Your comment about the conditions under which observations were undertaken is also of interest. It seems to me that it relates to the error bars which should be applied to the observations, which likely should be larger than the 0.5C often quoted here (at least for some sites).

        Do Stevenson screens fall apart in your experience? There is a Stevenson screen at Waikerie airport, which is no longer in use. I seemed in quite good condition when I last saw it a year ago.

        60

        • #
          Bill Johnston

          Hi Peter C, sites, screens and instruments need to be maintained.

          Grass has to be mowed; screens repaired and painted and instruments kept clean. There are numerous examples in Simon Torok’s (Melbourne Uni.) thesis of screens being in poor shape; rotting; missing doors; painted green; being shaded, facing the wrong way; of rubbish accumulating near them; buildings being built in post office yards etc.

          It is difficult to get a composite picture of any sites, especially those established pre-WW2. Alice Springs 7-mile aerodrome (now the airport) was not built in 1938 when Aeradio was established, so it seems that some early data are possibly from the town aerodrome.

          Why this is important, is because overall (naive) trend is largely due to what happens at the start of a record and at the end.

          If a site is cool at the start because its watered (or like at Laverton, the screen is on the roof of a 3-story building), and warm at the end because measurements are made by sensitive electronic probes in a small Stevenson screen in the middle of an airport; then it cannot be argued that trend reflects the climate. In between we have all these other issues about screens, instruments and observers, which are largely not documented.

          The screen at Sydney airport is within 40 m (and up-hill) of the exit of the General Holmes Drive tunnel under the airport runway. The tunnel was widened in 2000; maximum temperature stepped-up, but it had nothing to do with the climate.

          I could go on .. Darwin AP; Onslow, Nobbys Head; Archerfield and Moorabbin; the site at Badgerys Creek is ploughed and cropped within several metres of the small screen; similarly at Cunderdin (WA) and Penrith Lakes AWS; the AWS at Bridgetown (WA), is overgrown with grass and weeds in September 2015; the site at Viewbank (Melbourne) ditto this year; at Rockhampton, instruments are on a raised mound, probably since Cyclone Althea struck in 1971. At Horsham, the AWS is on a bank beside an irrigation canal; at Ti Tree Bend (Launceston) the AWS is between two settling ponds at the water-works, the site plan notes “piles of shit to 1m high” just metres from the screen.

          All these sites contribute directly or indirectly to claims made about “Australia’s warming”.

          The point I’m making is that due to poor site control; site selection; instrumentation (sensitive probes in small screens); and the desire of the Bureau to run an entirely robotic, paperless network, not much of what they claim stands-up to independent scrutiny.

          Cheers,

          Bill

          74

          • #
            Peter C

            Thanks Bill,

            The point I’m making is that due to poor site control; site selection; instrumentation (sensitive probes in small screens); and the desire of the Bureau to run an entirely robotic, paperless network, not much of what they claim stands-up to independent scrutiny.

            I just responded to your comment. I was not trying to disagree.

            I see what you are saying. I agree that sites need to be maintained. Did any one really paint a Stevenson screen green? Was it still in use? I endorse your plea that the whole network be independently evaluated. Can it be independently evaluated? It seems to be such a morass.

            I do not think that the Technical Advisory Forum did a very good job.
            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf

            A few people need naming here:
            MP: Bob Baldwin
            Chair of the committee: Prof Ron Sandland
            Director of the BOM: Dr Rob Vertsey

            Members of the Technical Advisory Committee
            Dr Ron Sandland AM FTSE Chair
            Emeritus Professor Bob Vincent
            FAA Vice Chair
            Dr Phillip Gould Member
            Dr John Henstridge CStat, AStat, AFAIM, QPMR, FSS Member
            Ms Susan Linacre Member
            Professor Michael Martin PFHEA Member
            Professor Patty Solomon
            Member
            Professor Terry Speed FAA, FRS Member

            20

            • #
              Peter C

              More info on members of the committee:
              https://www.environment.gov.au/minister/baldwin/2015/mr20150119.html

              I might write to some of them!

              20

              • #
                Peter C

                I have written to Professor Patricia Solomon, University of Adelaide.

                Dear Professor Solomon,

                Were you a member of the Technical Advisory Form on the Bureau of Meteorology which investigated the Claims of the Bureau about Climate Change?
                http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf

                Were you satisfied that one day was sufficient to form a view about the methods used by the Bureau to assess the Australian Climate via their ACORN-SAT network of temperature recording stations?

                Did you agree with the BOM methodology?

                Did you agree with the report of the Technical Advisory Forum?

                Do you think that the information provided by the Bureau of Meteorology is sufficient to inform Government Policy about Climate Change?

                Yours Sincerely
                Peter C

                I will report back if I get a reply.

                20

            • #
              Bill Johnston

              Peter this is the only compilation of the state of historical climate data.

              https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/39449

              All other information has to be gleaned by searching historic databases (TROVE; state, regional and national archives; state libraries, museums, the Australian War Memorial, aerial photographs held by Geosciences and state departments).

              Get on GOOGLE Earth (pro, which is free) and investigate satellite photography, some go back to 2000; some later; some are good some bad; there is SIX maps with some 1945 photography over Sydney.

              There are RAAF base museums; the CASA museum at Essendon; there is radio technician there (Bill) who is 91, re-bulding WW2 radios. (CASA is only open on Tuesdays, but it is a men’s shed of dedicated people with lots of history and knowledge.)

              I’ve done this; it is a tedious process that turns-up leads and evidence in unexpected places. Then get in the car and take a trip to photograph sites that are hidden away. Be disappointed; not much is left at RAAF Laverton for example.

              Cheers,

              Bill

              12

      • #
    • #
      James Bradley

      I’m surprised some BOM/C$IRO lacky hasn’t suggested adjusting-up coastal temperatures to account for wind chill from offshore breezes.

      32

  • #
    DaveR

    Although this thread is about the refusal of The Conversation to post comments contrary to its own preferred scientific position, the science of Bill Johnston’s review is compelling.

    Rather than use the current Sydney Observatory temperature record as the basis for long term trends and climate comment, it should be further corrected against other near-by stations to remove the (now) well documented changes to the site that heve strongly influenced the record. It appears that BOM have not performed these corrections, or even properly documented the site area changes.

    Isnt this basic science what the BOM should be doing?

    102

    • #

      Dave, remember the day in 2013 that finally beat the Sydney max record set in 1939? It wasn’t so hot up here on the midcoast, but the city very briefly recorded a genuine 45.8 degrees before sharp relief which did not come in 1939 (or 1960, year of our longest heatwave).

      On that same day in 2013, just a paddle away from the Obs, the max temp on the harbour, normally a bit cooler than the city shores, was more than eleven degrees lower. That reading for Sydney Harbour (Wedding Cake West) still stands officially.

      Makes you think. Although, if you are a contributor to the Conversation, it would make you unwilling to think.

      92

      • #
        AndyG55

        “but the city very briefly recorded a genuine 45.8 degree”

        NO! it did not.

        I saw the AWS summary the next day, it stated a maximum of 45.3ºC

        I wish I had taken a screen cap at the time. :-(

        I even emailed BOM to ask where the extra 0.5ºC came from, but needless to say, I got no answer.

        54

        • #
          Dennis

          You would think that their climate change media release writers would keep a record of how they doctored BoM data.

          41

        • #

          Interesting. 45.3 would only have equalled the unassisted 1939 reading. I dare say the poor lambs thought they might have to wait another century to topple that embarrassing score for nature against theory. (1938-9 was actually a La Nina flanked by neutral years!)

          What they really need is an eastern heatwave on the scale of 1896 or 1939. Or a Sydney heatwave on the scale of 1960. Which would, of course, be unprecedented once the precedents were stuff neatly down that ol’ memory hole.

          71

  • #

    Well, I checked out the Conversation. It seems to be a place where persons who could never be mistaken for Fox anchors can nonetheless be exhibited like Fox anchors, irrespective of harvester-accident haircuts and Enmore op-shop fashions. Even the names are a hoot: Lauren Rosewarne, Liz Giuffre, David Glance, Laura D’Olympio…I’ll bet there’d be some brutal conselling ahead for anyone who dared mispronounce!

    Liz, a Lecturer in Communication at the University of Technology, shows a very special turn of phrase when discussing a “serendipitous” doco about Carrie and Debbie: “Sharp one-liners sparkling with winking self awareness are scattered throughout the film and serve as the most wonderful garnish.” And you thought those tertiary-ed dollars were just being flushed unserendipitously away! (Do you need to ask if UTS is a “founding partner” of The Conversation?)

    I thought I might get a comment published if I used a name like Anthea Mobuto-Kostakides, Alene Composta being taken. Who’d be game to snip Anthea?

    But no, the answer is not to keep up the good fight by pleading for equal space in our tax-funded slave media. The answer is to starve that slave media of all but ridicule. Make people feel embarrassed that they ever funded this echo-chamber for conformist inner-urban bleating.

    152

  • #
    gbees

    The Conversation should be defunded now. Taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for what is essentially a one sided echo chamber. After all isn’t the government looking for costs/expenses to cut? If Turnbull wants to win some brownie points with conservative voters, fleeing in droves from the Liberal party, he needs to demonstrate and reinforce conservative principles. Getting rid of The Conversation funding would be a good start in the healing process.

    60

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      Don’t be too hard. I think The Conversation has an underrated role in our segmented society.

      There are people who can’t get through the day without abusing someone. The Conversation provides them in particular, with a reason to get out of bed in the morning! Left to talk among their self; they may suffer attack withdrawal syndrome which may eventually weigh heavily on our already over-stretched mental health/wellness services.

      There seem to be two issues. Firstly, that only one point of view is acceptable, which from their point of view is acceptable; and secondly, if there is no one to abuse, there is no cut and thrust and the whole thing becomes mind-boggingly boring as they chatter meaninglessly to keep each other awake. Hopping in there as a scientist from the “other-side” livens up their day; gives them a wonderful sense of self-swooning worth.

      Fun really; I wonder where Blair was? Hope he hasn’t been homogenised.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      74

  • #
    Tony H

    Moderation is no better at the Guardian, as far as climate change comment goes they have a core alarmist group that will attempt to shred your points and if that becomes too difficult you very quickly either get blocked or notified that your comments are going into “pre-moderation”

    i.e. “Your comments are currently being pre-moderated (why?)

    ” and never come out again.

    30

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    Jo, you mentioned “… there are reasons to adjust data to account for weather station moves and other discontinuities,…”
    This is of course, correct.
    Yet I’ve long been afraid that the method used to identify site moves might inadvertently insert a spurious warming signal into the record.
    Here’s how it works: Firstly, though I can’t provide an exact citation, my memory has it that Anthony Watts observed some time ago, that cleaning the outside of a Stephenson screen can change its thermometer’s reading by up to one degree Centigrade. Secondly, my understanding is that the appearance pf a sudden change in the record is currently interpreted as a site move. Thirdly, society has a widespread practice of ‘cleaning things up when the boss is coming around’.
    So in the normal course of events, over time, standardized, originally freshly whitewashed screens, accumulate grime, dust, bird droppings, paint blisters etc. Gradually, this causes the internal temperature recorded to climb higher, creating a warming signal.
    Not every time, but many times, new ministers will come to inspect facilities, or new bosses will take over running these facilities. Groundsmen or middle managers, knowing the bosses are coming, will clean, repaint or re-whitewash the screens. Or perhaps pro-active managers will direct that this be done.
    This will cause a consistent temperature drop, identifiable from comparison with other stations. This drop will be identified by the data correction method as a station move, and the ongoing degradation of the screen by grime, dust etc. will be seen as part of an ongoing temperature rise.
    Of course, it’s possible these things are already taken into account, and my concern is invalid. These are smart people. Yet, unless it is specifically taken into account, it will result in an inflated temperature record. Someone who believes it is already taken into account might well be right about their specific site. Yet, I cannot feel confident of the accuracy of the record unless I am credibly assured that it is taken into consideration with EVERY adjusted station over time.
    Of course I’d love to have a BOM official proclaim “Oh wow, you’re right, we must immediately adjust the temperature record lower!” but I don’t really expect that to happen. Lacking that, I’d like to ask for the appropriate assurance that this is indeed taken into account across the data set.

    12

  • #
    RB.

    This is Australia’s maximum anomalies for 2016 -http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/temperature/maxanom/12month/colour/latest.gif
    I could only find one station with a good record in those areas, right on the edge and only going back to 1965 rather than 1961, the beginning of the base period, and while still open, there is no data past 2012 in BOM.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/wData/wdata?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=014612
    Then there is an area just south of the larger red spot that is 0-0.5 anomaly for 2016 that is about 200km away. The map for 2015 is interesting.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/temperature/maxanom/12month/colour/history/nat/2015010120151231.gif
    That same area was cooler than the base period by 1-1.5 degrees and the 2016 red patch was 1-1.5 warmer in 2015. That place is Elliot with no data before 1980. http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/wData/wdata?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=015131
    They have completely cocked up the infilling of data.

    22

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      Seems to be two weather station enclosures at Larrimah; station lat long points to a small enclosure within an area of bare ground just west of the village (Google Earth); 200m north, there seems to be another (bare) enclosure; could perhaps be an automatic weather station not yet on-line (the enclosure is not there in 2004 or 2006; but it is there in 2014).

      I have not analysed Larrimah, but I’ll bear it in mind RD.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      43

      • #
        RB.

        I couldn’t find a neighbouring station to Larrimah except the closed PO that has only one year of data so maybe they haven’t put the replacement station online yet. Sorry about deleting the sentence where I refer to the two red patches in the NT.

        10

    • #
      RB.

      I seem to have deleted the sentence referring to the two red spots in the NT. Sorry.

      20

  • #
    me@home

    I wonder what the various state Auditors- General think about the monumental waste of public funds involved in ‘The Monologue’. All university Acts in Victoria used to have a requirement that all university funds – i.e. from any source – could only be used for the purposes of the university. Since when did the propagation of deceitful, lying, one-sided propaganda in support of fake scares become a purpose of a university? Or, are concepts of honesty and responsibility for taxpayer funds just too too twentieth century in today’s post-truth, post-normal science world?

    Current Victorian university Acts include the following:

    “S44 Revenue – Subject to this Act, all fees and all other money received by or on behalf of the University under this Act or otherwise must be applied by the University solely for the objects or purposes of the University.”

    I expect other university acts would have similar provisions and, of course, these specific provisions are on top of the implied requirement for proper use of any public funds entrusted to the care of all public officials- such matters used to be understood!

    The auditors might also like to consider how well ‘The Con’ meets its Charter obligations including:

    • Inform public debate with knowledge-based journalism that is responsible, ethical and supported by evidence.
    • Provide a fact-based and editorially independent forum.
    • Support and foster academic freedom to conduct research, teach, write and publish.
    • Ensure quality, diverse and intelligible content.
    • Be open, transparent and accountable. Where errors occur correct them expeditiously.
    • Ensure we are operating for the public good.

    Like their friends at the ABC those in charge of ‘The Con’ proudly ignore their charter and actually actively go out of their way not to meet any of the above extracted charter obligations. The others are just motherhood statements.

    61

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    Here is the latest scholarly “masterpiece” on The Conversation.

    They want to ban flying.

    https://theconversation.com/life-in-a-post-flying-australia-and-why-it-might-actually-be-ok-70388

    This is nonsense. 1) A modern commercial jet aircraft uses less fuel to fly per passenger km than drive. 2) There is no shortage of oil to make aviation fuel, there is a proven 52 yrs at current rates of consumption. 3) There is no problem of anthropogenic global warming in the first place so no need to restrict burning of fossil fuels. 4) There is no need for jet engines to run kerosene, that is an historic accident and came about from a war time contingency to use the least valuable oil fraction. A jet engine will burn any liquid hydrocarbon as long as it doesn’t freeze at the expected temperatures and has a suitable energy density for the application. Cooking oil can be used if necessary.

    63

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Cooking oil can be used if necessary.”

      Fish and chips flavoured jet exhaust… YUMMMMM !!!

      44

      • #

        Cooking oil cannot because it would freeze and fail to lubricate adequately. The plane would crash because the fuel is not just the fuel; it’s also the lubricant for the engines and heat transfer medium for the cooling of the engine and heating aircraft fuel systems. That’s why “demonstration flights” have always had a spare engine running on proper fuel and the biofuel isn’t used at all during critical flight phases such as take-off and landing.

        The synthetic jet fuels made from biomass are typically produced by consuming the biofuel to make carbon monoxide and then hydrogenating (I think is the right term) by a high-temperature, process that adds hydrogen from external stock (usually sourced from natural gas extraction or steam reforming) to produce the molecules of the appropriate composition – with around 8 to 12 Carbon atoms per molecule to bind the many Hydrogens.

        40

    • #
      Peter C

      Cooking oil can be used if necessary.

      There is a problem there. Cooking Oil likely has the required energy density but it does freeze at the required temperature, which is quite cold (-50C).
      Just check the solidified oils in your sink after cooking.

      10

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      It got a bit hot in the kitchen; they could see the thing running low on fuel, so they shut the story down! (I don’t think it lived and breathed for a full 24-hours!) It was a dud anyway.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      22

  • #
    Another Ian

    I doubt this will get a mention at The Conversation


    Solid science built this house of cards.
    By lance on January 11, 2017 9:00 PM | 1 Comment

    But the whole does not equal the value of the pieces. Kinda what we’ve been saying for a decade or more.

    The paper discusses the phenomenal amount of adjustment that has been applied to the models in order to get them to produce what the scientists called an “anticipated acceptable range” of future warming. Among modelers, this is known as “tuning” an experiment in order to get a desired answer.

    Climate religion has for too long relied on models guesstimating the known unknowns and hypothesizing unknown unknowns.”

    More and link at

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/01/solid-science-b.html

    50

  • #
    Dennis

    Climate change con discussion now on at Andrew Bolt Blog if anyone is interested in answering some of the high and mighty;

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/pell-witchhunt-new-conspiracy-theory/news-story/208089094a8c684b3cc7f66bb1722c98

    30

  • #
    pat

    ***not a response to Trump; is a response to Trump:

    11 Jan: Nature: Erin Ross: US energy agency strengthens protections for scientists
    Revised scientific-integrity policy gives researchers more leeway to speak to the press and publish their findings.
    The US Department of Energy (DOE) has released new guidelines to protect researchers from political interference — a move that many say is long overdue.
    “DOE officials should not and will not ask scientists to tailor their work to any particular conclusion,” said energy secretary Ernest Moniz, who announced the guidelines on 11 January.
    The plan allows scientists to publicly state their opinions on science and policy, as long as they make clear that they are not speaking for the government. It requires researchers to notify their supervisors if they speak to the media or publish their findings, but does not require them to seek approval for such activities.
    “It makes it absolutely clear that notification is the only thing required,” says Wendy Wagner, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin…

    The plan — which applies to DOE employees, contractors and grant recipients — also calls for the department to appoint an independent ombudsperson to handle complaints…
    That is a major shift from the DOE’s previous scientific integrity policy, issued in 2012. That policy applied only to DOE employees, and required them to coordinate with their supervisors before talking to the media and receive approval before publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals.
    “The old policy was extremely vague, barebones and had no structure for implementation,” says Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “When rights are not explicit, scientists that share personal opinions can be retaliated against.”
    The revised guidelines come amidst concerns that president-elect Donald Trump’s administration will seek to limit federal support for science, including climate-change research…
    In December, Trump’s team asked the DOE for the names of employees who have worked on climate-change issues; the department refused and Trump staffers later disavowed the request.
    Moniz says the new policy is ***not a response to that incident or to Trump’s election, and has been in the works for a while.
    ***But Wagner thinks that the timing is significant. “The DOE might feel that if they don’t get this policy out now, it won’t be implemented,” she says.
    But implementing the full plan is likely to fall to the administration of president-elect Donald Trump, who takes office on 20 January…
    http://www.nature.com/news/us-energy-agency-strengthens-protections-for-scientists-1.21290

    41

  • #
    Another Ian

    The Conversationalists will be birthing tin foals in response to this!

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/11/the-recursive-cost-of-carbon/

    20

  • #
  • #
  • #
    pat

    good news…to us!

    11 Jan: CarbonPulse: Clean energy investment dips for 2nd year as tech gets cheaper, Asia cools -analysts
    New investment in clean energy worldwide fell 18% last year to $287.5 billion despite a record year for offshore wind financing, according to researchers Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

    11 Jan: CarbonPulse: Prices dip to $1.80/tonne in third PAF auction, with old N2O projects taking the spoils
    Sellers achieved an effective price of $1.80 (€1.70) per carbon credit at the third auction of the World Bank’s Pilot Auction Facility (PAF) held on Tuesday, well below the levels around $2.10 achieved in the previous two sales.

    11 Jan: CarbonPulse: Global CO2 trade volume down 4% in 2016, value plummets 31% -analysts
    Global traded carbon volumes dipped 4% in 2016 to 6.0 billion tonnes of CO2e while the overall value of the markets fell 31% to €34 billion ($35.8 billion) as prices plunged in the large European market, Thomson Reuters Commodities said in its annual market review.

    11 Jan: CarbonPulse: California makes smallest carbon offset issuance to date to kick off 2017
    California’s carbon market regulators issued just over 13,000 new offsets in the first issuance of 2017 and the smallest to date.

    11 Jan: CarbonPulse: Experts give Turkey an ETS blueprint but it risks gathering dust
    Climate policy consultants have laid out a roadmap for Turkey to establish an ETS, advice paid for by richer nations in the so-far vain effort to persuade the country to adopt tougher climate policies.

    21

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    An overarching issue is that there are tens if not hundreds of peer-reviewed papers written by Australian climate scientists that are now redundant. There were many box-tickers but no data-checkers. Some got PhD’s believing this stuff without looking at any real data.

    Awards, press-releases; much is falsified by discovering that at Sydney Observatory Bureau scientists (Blair Trewin in particular) did not adjust for changes that happened (the site move in 1949; opening of the Cahill Expressway in 1958; the wall in 1972/3, and the small screen in 2000); but did adjust for changes they thought were influential, but which did not impact on the data.

    The “science” may need to be re-written!

    (If they have a case it is flimsy in the extreme.)

    Good night.

    Bill

    84

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      BOM doesn’t understand the basis of the criticism. Putting it very simply, there’s no major disputes with BOM’s homogenisation general policies, but BOM’s practices don’t comply with those policies.

      32

      • #
        ianl8888

        BOM doesn’t understand the basis of the criticism

        I’m afraid it does, actually. This is why Hunt convinced the then Cabinet to refuse an independent audit on BoM’s statistical methods: ” … to protect the reputation of the BoM” (Hunt’s words as reported – maybe the report is accurate).

        42

  • #
    Dave Ward

    I’ve had a quick look into the UK arm of The Conversation, and downloaded their most recent accounts from this link:

    Here are a few extracts:

    Objects, Objectives, Governance and Management:

    The Objects of the Charity are to promote for the public benefit the advancement of education, including the provision of a platform for the creation, aggregation and communication of news and information services relating to the knowledge industries and the communication of all academic disciplines and their benefits as broadly as possible to enrich society’s foundations of knowledge, expertise and solutions.

    Activities and Achievements:

    During the year ending July 2016, The Conversation UK continued to
    grow its university membership; finishing the year with 65 committed members up from 42 at the start of the year. During this period, the Board of Trustees continued with its three-year strategy, that commenced on the 1st August 2015, outlined by three key objectives for the coming three years:
    1. Firmly establish The Conversation as a natural and obvious media partner for the HE and research sectors
    2. To grow monthly reads to 30 million
    3. To establish a sustainable long-term income base
    Additional restricted funding was received from the Lloyd’s Register Foundation and HEFCW, which enabled the creation of an additional post of Science Editor and the new post of Wales editor. RCUK continued to provide support for the core business.
    Readership continued to grow, and for the year averaged over 10.5
    million monthly reads — up 3089 from the previous year. The umber of UK academics continues to rise with now over 8,00 since launch having written.

    Public Benefit:

    As required by the Charities Act 2011, the trustees have referred to the Charity Commission’s general guidance on public benefit when setting up the Trust. The trustees will have due regard to the Charity Commission’s general guidance on public benefit when making grants in future. In shaping our objectives for the year and planning our activities, the trustees have also considered the Charity Commission’s guidance on public benefit, including the guidance ‘public benefit: running a charity (PB2)’.

    Financial Review:

    During the period, the charity received total income of 2938,075 (2015: 2839,418) for use by the charity in pursuing its charitable objects. As per the Statement of Financial Activities on page 7 this resulted in a deficit for the year of 2107,542(2015: 240, 078). This has arisen due to increased staff and operational costs required to attract increased university members, as the charity builds its sustainable membership
    model.

    20

  • #
    Dave Ward

    And from their “About Us” page: (my bolding)

    The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community and delivered direct to the public.

    Our team of professional editors work with university and research institute experts to unlock their knowledge for use by the wider public.

    Access to independent, high quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversations.

    We aim to help rebuild trust in journalism. All authors and editors sign up to our Editorial Charter. All contributors must abide by our Community Standards policy. We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article. Authors’ funding and potential conflicts of interest must also be disclosed. Failure to do so carries a risk of being banned from contributing to the site.

    The Conversation launched in Australia in March 2011 and in the UK in May 2013.

    The Conversation started in Melbourne Victoria and the innovative technology platform and development team is based in the university and research precinct of Carlton.

    We believe in open access and the free-flow of information. The Conversation is a free resource: free to read (we’ll never go behind a paywall), and free to share or republish under Creative Commons licensing. All you need to do is follow our simple guidelines. We also provide indispensable media resource: providing free content, ideas and talent to follow up for press, web, radio or TV.

    Sincere thanks go to our funders and members.

    Our newsroom is based in London, but our team is part of a global newsroom able to share content across sites and around the world. The Conversation UK is owned by The Conversation Trust (UK) Limited and is a not for profit educational entity.

    50

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    Other topics besides climate also attract extreme censorship. On The Absence of Consternation this, about the wonders of Islam, was closed down very quickly with 19 censored comments out of 20 – stomping on 80% might be their record.

    40

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    When you shut off discussion, you have lost the debate.

    50

  • #
    Clyde Spencer

    I had a run of a couple of years without censorship on The Conversation. However, they must be running scared now because I have recently had several comments removed. I have had some correspondence with the moderator and his rationalization was that I was attacking the author. I tried to explain that I was attacking the author’s argument and facts, not the author directly. But, he would have none of that and even deleted a more gently worded re-posted criticism of the claims of the author.

    I have been personally attacked with a statement by another commenter that I was “a fraud and had no science expertise.” Yet, the moderators let that comment stand. They clearly have different standards of acceptance for those whom they agree with compared to those they disagree with. I finally told the moderator that because he seemed to have difficulty understanding the difference between a personal attack and an attack of the claims put forward by their academic darlings, he should consider the following to be a personal attack: “I seriously question your professionalism and objectivity.”

    40

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    Note to Georgina Hall, Editor of The Conversation.

    Dear Georgina,

    I have been openly vilified on The Conversation on many occasions. Coleman does write soap operas, he says so on his profile. He is also generally abrupt and confronting to anyone he disagrees with. Even though I doubt he would be familiar with the piece he quoted, he has confounded “more than 3 million premature deaths per year are attributable to outdoor air pollution”, with “carbon pollution deaths” which is factually wrong.

    His post:

    Bill, according to a study published in Nature in 2015, more than 3 million premature deaths per year are attributable to outdoor air pollution.

    Where’s your evidence to support the proposition that carbon pollution deaths are ‘entirely imaginary’?

    My reply to him is gone; while Coleman’s factually incorrect claim still stands.

    I have repeatedly stated on The Conversation that claims made by the Bureau of Meteorology, concerning temperature in Australian are incorrect, or at least exaggerated. It is now in the public domain and uncontested by Blair Trewin, that my careful research has discovered that at Sydney Observatory, the site was re-located in 1949; that the Cahill Expressway, which encircles the site opened in 1958; that a heat-trapping brick wall was constructed on the southern side of the met enclosure in 1992/3; that subsequently instruments were moved to a single large Stevenson screen (a high-altitude aerial photograph suggests this happened in 1974/5 (the print is too grainy to reproduce)), and we know from a Bureau publication that the large screen is replaced by a small one in 2000. It is these exposure and instrument changes that caused temperature to increase, not the climate. (You can critique my evidence here: http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/sydney-observatory-where-warming-is-created-by-site-moves-buildings-freeways/)

    Results of my careful investigations are either rubbished out of hand by commentators, or censored by moderators. Joining dots between weather stations that are homogenised using Sydney’s faulty data, sites as far away as Alice Springs are potentially affected.

    This is a monumental scientific scandal, which seems to be protected by The Conversation. Why not demand an answer from Trewin?

    Because I’ve just informed you, The Conversation now knows there is a problem; you have a duty of care not to continue pretending a problem exists, without empirical evidence.

    (Further evidence is here http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/the-conversation-cleansing-skeptical-thoughts-read-the-banned-comments-here/)

    I ma very disappointed that Conversation applies different standards, depending on whether comments or supportive or not of the viewpoint being discussed.

    I look forward to your response.

    Yours Faithfully,

    Dr. Bill Johnston

    45

    • #
      Analitik

      Good luck with this but you are truly tilting at a mammoth windmill trying to get The Conversation to admit to any bias.

      I know a fervent climate change believer who had his posts removed because he advocated nuclear power for CO2 emissions reduction and presented arguments that showed renewable generation to be ineffective (at anything aside from grafting subsidies).

      62

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      Reply from Georgina Hall, Editor of The Conversation.

      Hi Bill,

      It’s not a matter of different standards, it’s a matter of not having the resources to monitor them all. Yours was brought to my attention and it does violate our standards.

      You may engage with the author without attacking them and that’s all I’m asking you to do. Please note I won’t engage further with you on this matter.

      Thanks,
      Georgina

      Her fingers are now firmly in her ears.

      However: thirty two staff; million dollar budgets; plus Authors who owe it to the kiddies to be on-hand to defend the stuff they write in-case an adult comes by; and Georgina says “it’s a matter of not having the resources to monitor them all”.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      23

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    I was wrong. It is not Michael Coleman who writes soap operas; it is Ben Marshall and I apologise for the mistake.

    Cheers,

    Dr. Bill Johnston

    34

  • #
    Speedy

    Rename the site – can I suggest “The Memory Hole”?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    30

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    “Bill Johnston was happy to defend his work in comments at The Conversation, but Blair Trewin, who wrote the post itself, was entirely absent.”

    The reality is Bill Johnston bombed The Conversation article with unrelated material, hoping for a free platform. The Conversation wasn’t having any of this, and put him in the Crank bin.

    Honestly people, be real. I know this is a Conspiracy Theory blog, but now you are making yourselves look totally stupid.

    [Harry, So you are taking it unto yourself to speak for The Conversation? Do you have their permission to do that? Or are you merely trolling on their behalf? - Fly]

    53

    • #

      It’s horrible isn’t it, when you have nothing at all to defend their bad behaviour? No actual reasons why they couldn’t have published some of them with considered replies. No explanation as to why such a large well funded blog is so scared of links to one solo voice …

      74

    • #
      Bill Johnston

      Hello Frank,

      Not true Frank. If you check, my original post was up a day before Trewin’s. It was obvious that the Bureau was again going to come out stoking their fires by declaring yet another record-hot year and choosing one of the State capitals as the torch-bearer.

      They had all the stuff prepared weeks ago; they just needed a couple of nice average summer days at the end of December; words like scorcher; record-heat; heatwave; maps colored in purple; and some photographs of kiddies splashing in the ocean at Bondi. Its always a slow news week after New Year, so the Bureau’s marketing branch gets busy putting out press releases that are sucked up by the gullible press with barely a glimpse to see if claims are credible. And who would know anyway?

      It takes a fair amount of diligent research to delve into bad data. Evidence I dug-up, mainly photographs, were found almost accidentally.

      What actually happened at the Con is that I got hammered by the usual suspects- Alice; Ben the soap-opera writer; the gnome in the paper hat; Georgina Byrne the farmer. Alice said: “The problem in assuming that good rain means something, is that all data has to be observed.” How profound and useless is that insight? Mr Wright is picked-on because he lives on the North Shore (with a couple of million other people); and of-course there is Felix hammering away; and you with your pussy in a cage!

      I am fascinated that none of you (especially you Harry) can read pictures; how do you get-on in the real world? Speaking of accidents, I did find a photo of our Cowra Research Centre Met lawn here: https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009; and of-course they are fiddling their weather data!

      Having such a flawed post run for as long as it did is disgraceful. David Rennie doesn’t understand that if faulty data are used to homogenise other faulty data; the result is invariably faulty. What a joke; his comment is still there, my reply is moderated-away.

      Thank goodness for Trewin that Zanoni finally turned-up and closed the farce down.

      Trewin’s pitch that 2016 was Australia’s fourth warmest year on record, capping off the hottest decade is pure manure. He either does not understand data; conveniently ignores site changes like at Sydney; or his work is dodgy. I think an open public inquiry into the Bureau is long-overdue.

      Cheers,

      Bill Johnston

      64

      • #
        John Wright

        Hi Bill

        My account no longer exists on TC, having being removed/blocked by the moderators without explanation following the exchanges on the thread. Obviously the moderators regard conservative people asking questions as a real threat to their delicate “çlimate alarmism” world, which is held together by a flimsy consensus. What I do find very amusing is that I’m the guy who gets banned for merely pointing out the data, whilst those supporting the most extreme climate scenarios, who embark on personal attacks are left to continue their tirades without moderation. It’s all too obvious the site is an extreme left-wing propaganda arm, trying to hide behind a curtain of academia.

        Cheers
        John w

        32

        • #

          Thanks for trying. Sigh! We need to be (boringly) methodical about recording what gets through and what gets censored. That’s the way we get ammunition to raise the stakes on the dismal site for “higher education”.

          23

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Bill Johnston.

        As I pointed out before, the article in The Conversation was about the BOM annual report they released. That’s it.

        35

        • #
          Bill Johnston

          But it was factually wrong and none of you had the knowledge or skill to point that out. You just greedily gobbled it up and defended it. Furthermore, Bureau-people stayed away in droves. Trewin, who is meant to be the expert was a total no-show. (In contrast I think I’ve dealt with every sensible issue raised in my posts at Jo’s; here I am still!)

          The folk who run the Conversation all go home at 5PM and seep-in the next day! They let the thing run too long and failed to moderate comments from you and others that breached their standards, which put me in the position of having to repeatedly defend myself. For the amount of money it costs, the Conversation is bizarre; issues raised are 1-sided; its role seems to be to entertain a close-knit group who have $300 to give-away and little else to do with their time.

          There is not point in batting away with people who can’t even read pictures is there Harry?; let alone do their own research!

          You have wasted enough of my time, I won’t respond further,

          Cheers,

          Bill

          13

  • #
    Clyde Spencer

    A recent exchange with The Conversation:

    My response was fairly technical and detailed, and directly addressed an assertion by the author. If I don’t know exactly why my response was removed, then I can’t be sure not to make the same ‘mistake’ again. I’d appreciate a less nebulous response.

    From: moderation@theconversation.com on behalf of The Conversation
    Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 8:55 PM
    To: Clyde Spencer
    Subject: Your comment on ‘Climate shenanigans at the ends of the Earth: why has sea ice gone haywire?’ was removed

    The Conversation Academic rigor, journalistic flair

    The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and …
    theconversation.com
    Curated by professional editors, The Conversation offers informed commentary and debate on the issues affecting our world. Plus a Plain English guide to the latest …

    Hello Clyde,

    Your comment on ‘Climate shenanigans at the ends of the Earth: why has sea ice gone haywire?’ has been removed.

    There are several reasons why this may have occurred:

    Your comment may have breached our community standards. For example it may have been a personal attack, or you might not have used your real name.
    Your comment may have been entirely blameless but part of a thread that was removed because another comment had to be removed.
    It might have been removed for another editorial reason, for example to avoid repetition or keep the conversation on topic.

    For practical reasons we reserve the right to remove any comment and all decisions must be final, but please don’t take it personally.

    If you’re playing by the rules it’s unlikely to happen again, so feel free to continue to post new comments and engage in polite and respectful discussion.

    For your reference, the removed comment was:

    Nerille,

    You said, “…when bright, white ice melts it is replaced with a dark surface…”

    I think that you overestate the effect of absorption on heating Arctic ocean water. For starters, the Arctic is in darkness or very low light levels for about half the year. The reason the poles are cold is that the light is always much weaker than over mid-latitudes. Further, the Arctic is notoriously cloudy, as even the Vikings were aware. Additionally, snow, and to a lesser extent ice, appear white because they are diffuse reflectors that appear bright no matter where one looks at it; it even reflects downward into the ice and water. On the other hand, water reflects primarily by specular reflection and one does not see any of the reflected light unless you are looking in the direction of the sun and are looking at the same angle of incidence as the sun’s rays. (Think of driving on wet pavement into the rising or setting sun to appreciate the intensity of the reflected light.) Any other viewing position and the water looks dark, not because it is absorbing strongly, but because all the reflected light is leaving in a very tight sheath of rays. Because of your statement, I’m going to presume that you are unfamiliar with Fresnel’s equation for specular reflection. At glancing angles (approaching 90 deg incidence) the reflected light can approach 100%, greater than that of snow.! Maximum specular reflection from open water in the Arctic occurs around the time of the Autumnal Equinox, and there is no light to be absorbed during the time around the Winter Solstice. So, there is only a relatively short period of time, after the Summer Solstice and prior to the Autumnal Equinox, when there might be some ‘anomalous’ heating resulting from open water. In any event, I question whether your explanation even comes close to being accurate. It reflects a poor understanding of why water looks dark. Simple fishermen comprehend what you don’t.

    For more information you can read our standards.

    Kind regards,

    The Conversation

    31

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Clyde Spencer.

      “Simple fishermen comprehend what you don’t.”

      That is an insult ie a personal attack.

      23

  • #
    Kneel

    “…doesn’t change the overall picture.”

    I’ve seen this said before – that if you check the raw data, there is hardly any difference after adjustments are made. Odd, then, that they continue to make the adjustments, always use the adjusted data and say using raw data is wrong.
    They also continue with the circular logic – “A must be correct because it matches B & C.” A is thereafter “known” to be good and is used when questions are raised regarding B & C, with “matching A” being the prime defense.
    It’s not that obvious and you need to dig into the references to find it, but it’s there.

    11

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Kneel.

      The adjustments are made to reduce the effect of non-climatic changes on the climate data. They do make a significant difference at the level of individual locations.

      22