Australian Broadcasting Corporation Endorses More ‘Junk Science’

ELEANOR HALL: Australian delegates to an international conference on global sustainability delivered a warning today that the earth is reaching a point where it’s changing beyond our control.

  Almost 3,000 scientists have been in London for the conference to discuss the relatively new field of earth system science.

That’s how the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) began a story today on ‘The World Today’.

Want to really know what the conference is about and how qualified the scientists delivering the message about tipping points are?

Read ‘The Royal Society’s Blatherfest’ by Donna Laframboise here:

Donna Lafromboise is the author of ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ all about the IPCC and how unqualified its ‘experts’ are.


80 Responses to Australian Broadcasting Corporation Endorses More ‘Junk Science’

  1. spangled drongo March 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    Sooner or later it’s gonna catch up with them. The IPCC SREX is just out and that doesn’t agree with them.

    Surely they will quote the IPCC:

  2. spangled drongo March 29, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    But good things from some junk science:

  3. koalabear March 29, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

    Pretty scarry to be told that Australian rainfall is declining so much. Then I had a look at the plots you can create very easily at the Bureau of Meteorology site:

    Since 1900 the trends are:

    Australia – increasing rainfall
    Queensland – increasing rainfall
    South Australia – increasing rainfall
    Western Australia – increasing rainfall
    NSW – increasing rainfall
    Northern Territory – increasing rainfall

    Why are they telling me that Australia is becoming dryer?

    Now I get it. The last 110 years were an aberration!

  4. spangled drongo March 29, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    More from that same emission blatherfest:

  5. Luke March 29, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    That’s why Koala Bears sleep in trees and sometimes come out to surf da intertubes and do regression.

  6. John Sayers March 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    The =T add trend

  7. Luke March 29, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    You must be a koala bear too, time for another nap – when you’ve read the SEACI reports come back and talk some. Isn’t it amazing that koala bears can type on keyboards without thinking.

  8. koalabear March 29, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

    Well Luke,

    I may be just a koala bear, but I can at least interpret a graph

    Apparently you are struggling with this, so I will come down from my tree and try to help you.

    To start with, look at the plot for annual rainfall for all Australia from 1900 to 2012. Add the trend line – it slopes UPWARDS – that means rainfall is going UP!!!!!!

    I know its difficult, but I am sure you can do this.

    Mr Koala

  9. John Sayers March 29, 2012 at 11:04 pm #

    Luke – So someone puts up a chart with coloured divisions

    so what

  10. John Sayers March 29, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

    koala – it’s not only going up , it’s going up after a major aussie drought.

  11. Luke March 30, 2012 at 4:59 am #

    Dear Mr Baaar and JS – I know you’re squeezing those lil’ brains so hard – that it may surprise you to know that Aussie is a big place. Koala might think it’s a long way to the next tree but the continent is much bigger than that. In fact the nice lil’ piccie at shows you what the various BoM analysis regions cover.

    Now the boys and girls at SEACI and IOCI – had been a big worried about Figure Four here

    Because they can do maths and keep off the gum leaves they actually have worked out that there is a TREND decline autumn rainfall across LOWER southern Australia and a TREND decline in SW WA. Other smarty pants had noticed that NW Australia was getting wetter.

    Now I wonder what happens if you average a nice chubby koala with an emaciated koala about as hydrated as a dead dingos donger. Funnily enough you get a completely average koala. Maybe even a real good koala if the chubby koala was a porker. (although if it was a pig it wouldn’t be a koala I guess). Isn’t that amazing.

    So doofuses – you have simply misrepresented the science for about the millionth time. Averaging Australia or the whole MDB does not reveal areas that have had persistent regional and/or seasonal declines. But you might have to read what scientists call “a paper” or two to get that.

    Now we could discuss why this may be happening but we don’t want Mr Koala to fall out of his tree.

  12. koalabear March 30, 2012 at 6:56 am #

    Dear Luke,

    I can see you have not grasped the concept yet. IWewill try to help you. We will show you a graph or two later today and explain them to you in simple terms. Simple steps at first from the beginning.

    Dont feel bad Luke, you are not alone. There are many out there in the same situation, particularly those poor lost souls in government offices. Most have not got a clue about these complex matters. They spend there lives going to conferences and meetings but really need some help.

    Latter today we will start right at the beginning with a graph or two, just for you. Even little koalas have to start somewhere and sometimes get angry and have tantrums when they dont understand, but I have learned to be patient.

    Mr Koala

  13. Neville March 30, 2012 at 7:47 am #

    As I’ve shown before Southern Australia has been drying out for at least 5,000 years, well beyond anything humans could have influenced or can mitigate in the future.

    There was a very high rainfall pattern just 1,000 years ago but since then this has rapidly decreased until the present day.

    This is entirely natural as De Deckker’s 20 year study shows and you can have a look at his graph here. Scroll down to graph.

    BTW Luke actually beleives humans can fix this problem by reducing our emissions of co2. You know like OZ reducing emissions by 5% by 2020. You see co2 isn’t well mixed and China and India can increase emissions using OZ coal by 1 billion extra tonnes every year and somehow that doesn’t count. These nuts actually beleive this rubbish, what an embarrassment to Australia.

    Our rainfall over the MDB today actually follows the PDO and enso phases and the IOD phases as well.
    Change to a cool PDO ( like now) and you get more la ninas and the cool phase IODs brings more rainfall over the SE of OZ plus STH MDB as well.

    Just curious Luke why did such a large area like the NT experience drought conditions for over 50 years from 1900, but is a much higher rainfall area today?

  14. Neville March 30, 2012 at 7:56 am #

    Sorry the NT was in drought conditions for nearly three quarters of a century from 1900.
    The anomaly shows below average rainfall for all that time but heaps more rainfall since.
    Please everyone have a look at this and always use the anomaly graph sometimes as well as trend etc.

  15. Schiller Thurkettle March 30, 2012 at 8:05 am #

    This is done under the aegis of sustainability. Mark my word, sustainability will prove to be a scourge far worse than ‘global warming’ ever was. Sustainability involves climate, agriculture, transportation, energy, urban planning and architecture, public utilities, biodiversity, endangered species, use of plastic bags, everything. It provides a unified vehicle for every single activist group out there.

  16. koalabear March 30, 2012 at 8:14 am #

    The trend for rainfall for the NT is really a beautiful example. Around 1900 the NT was getting around 400 mm per annum rainfall

    Over the past 110 years this has increased so that the trend line is now at over 600mm per annum.

    You can see similar trendlines for Queensland, NSW, WA and so on.

    Look Luke! Send it on to those friends in government offices and they can see the light too!

    Rainfall is not only sustainable – its increasing.

  17. Neville March 30, 2012 at 8:35 am #

    Retiring Future fund head David Murray has dumped on the Co2 tax and said it is the worst legislation ever introduced in Australia.

    Of course most of the sane people here at this blog understand his point of view but why are Juliar’s labor idiots so dumb?

    Today we are watching the huge economy of Spain trying to overcome economic meltdown and yet this country was the one that adopted all the green energy schemes known to man.

    It like California is an economic basket case because they have stupidly ridden this so called sustainability fad.
    The facts are sustainable ? green schemes are unsustainable when locked into a modern trading economy.
    If other countries don’t agree and follow your lead then you’re left stranded like a shag on a rock, completely uncompetitive facing ruin and a much lower standard of living.

    But of course Juliar couldn’t care less about increasing co2 emissions. If the emissions derive from countries overseas using our exports of coal that’s just dandy, but emissions from OZ companies are BAD and we must suffer the consequences.

  18. Luke March 30, 2012 at 9:09 am #

    Poor K Bear – that’s why they hit by cars and eaten by dogs. Don’t learn. See the headlights next time and move to one side.

    Drying for 5000 years – hahahaha Don’t wank Neville – why did it just rain then? Why is there no trend on stats you quote? You’ve pretzeled yourself.

    And why would you even believe the PDO and IOD exist – they were created by warmists
    Neville as you have said – you’re not a scientist. Yes we know. BTW De Deckkers work is STILL unpublished.

    Why a higher rainfall today in NT – well I’ve told you before haven’t I. Anthropogenic impact but not AGW. CSIRO did the research and you can find out in the archives here.

  19. koalabear March 30, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    Congratulaions Luke!

    You are making progress.

    Now try the same thing for Queensland. THe trend is the same as the NT

    Now try the same thing for WA and NSW

    Its so simple! Even for government office workers
    Rainfall has significantly increased all around Australia over the past 110 years. The graphs tell us that. We did not even need all those CSIRO bureaucrats to help us figure it out.

    Well done!

  20. Debbie March 30, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    I won’t post it again but please go to my last post at the ‘Government Funding Corrupts’. It may help to re instate a little bit of levity here.
    It’s a humourous example of what we’re trying to discuss.
    The conclusions and assumptions are completely outrageous but there isn’t anything wrong with either the data or the statistical analysis.
    Hmmmm….I wonder what’s wrong with it?
    If we insert Australian data into that analysis we could be even more alarmed at these findings.
    It’s likely WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT.
    They MUST be banned immediately! Far Far more dangerous to us than guns!
    chuckle 🙂 🙂
    And BTW Luke….just asking….if Anthropegenic impact (and I do say IF) is the reason why we have higher rainfall in the NT….(which is mucking up those hypothesised trends BTW)….wouldn’t that be a good thing in the general picture?
    I asked because I’m getting very confused trying to obtain some ‘results orientated or purpose orientated’ comprehension between the lines of your blustering and ranting.
    What is the PURPOSE of all this?
    What are we trying to achieve?
    It’s still looking remarkably like that academic pissing contest that Walter Starck referred to.

  21. spangled drongo March 30, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    When we have had a wavy graph of climate throughout the history of the earth, it stands to reason that the mild waves that have been added since the Industrial Rev, must be our fault.

    Specially the droughts. Just ask Luke and the ABC.

    They speak with the same tongue. They have the same mindset. They are the new Qld opposition.

  22. spangled drongo March 30, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Luke, are you too, too ashamed to admit where you work? Like the staff of the Dept of Energy and Climate Change? Where they need cheering up to the tune of $175,000?

  23. spangled drongo March 30, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    When all else fails:

  24. spangled drongo March 30, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    I wonder if the DECC use the Craig Thompson solution in that $175,000?

    FWA seem to think it’s acceptable.

  25. spangled drongo March 30, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

    Luke, this might help:

  26. Magwitch March 30, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    I see that Flannery has been made a Fellow of the AAS

    Yet another example of the decline in the professional and ehtical standards of Instutions

    This man has no credibiilty except obviously with the like minded simpletons of the AAS

    What shame

  27. Neville March 30, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    I presume this will only be understood by the more sane people here, but here goes.

    I believe in climate change as in NATURAL CC.

    That’s why we have had rain lately and drought before the rain, DUH. Droughts and flooding rains, get it?

    The PDO and IOD were created by warmists? Well I’m not surprised that Luke would beleive in any/every idiot creation myth, but to beleive that there wasn’t a PDO or an IOD phenomena present in our oceans until the last couple of decades has to be the joke of the Holocene. NOAAs reconstruction of the last thousand years of the PDO just happens to support De Deckker’s work, but what would they know?

    Of course they weren’t NAMED until very recently and therefore not properly scientifically UNDERSTOOD until very recently but the beginnings of ocean oscillations like these would be a very long time ago.

    So Luke explain the anthropogenic impact on NT rainfall again.

  28. koalabear March 30, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    I think Luke was so impressed with the upward trends BoM rainfall graphs that he is now busy expalining it all to Tim Flannery and Mrs Bligh’s hubby. They will all see the light, as Luke surely has. Word will spread and eventually even the Department of Climate Change will disappear and save us all $100 million a year.

    Its all now in Luke’s hands.

  29. Luke March 30, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    PDO and IOD are not responsible for the southern Australian autumn rainfall decline. The PDO doesn’t support De Deckker’s STUDENT’s work at all It’s not even on that scale for a start. The PDO is in proxy records for at least 400 years. Just waffly poorly constructed ill-informed commentary Neville. And you’ll do everything to avoid reading the definitive study on SEA by SEACI. Anything.

    As for NE Australia–Atmospheric-Research/Asian-haze-impacts-on-Australian-rainfall.aspx

  30. Luke March 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Obviously baaaarrrs don’t do pattern analysis.

  31. spangled drongo March 30, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    And what a definitive study it is.

    “Dr Rotstayn says representing aerosols in climate models and understanding their influence on cloud formation and rainfall is one of the biggest challenges facing climate scientists.”

    When scientists don’t understand aerosols but you are happy to quote results from computer analysis of them, do you really expect anyone to believe you?

  32. koalabear March 30, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    Hi Luke

    Glad you have had the opportunity to look at all those upward trends on the rainfall graphs.

    Actually the bears have just completed a pattern recognition analysis of Queensland rainfall using a technique from artificial intelligence known as neural networks. The bears demonstrate that using this pattern recognition method the results are superior for rainfall forecasts compared to the BoM and their glorious forecasts using general circulation models. The bears study to be published in a climate journal soon.

    Best not to underestimate what bears can do.

    Mr Koala

  33. Debbie March 30, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    That study is from 2006. The deepest drought year for SE Australia.
    Rather a lot has changed since then and it is no longer statistically valid to say that it is ONLY the north of Australia that is recording increases in rainfall. Remember that pesky decadal influence trap?
    It is also full of mights and maybes and could indicates and likelies etc.
    It is another theory that needs to be tested by real time data.
    It may be right and it may not be.

  34. Neville March 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    Interesting info Luke but still using computer models and some doubtful language throughout.
    Perhaps those temp differences between Asia and Oz played a role, who knows.

    But as Debbie said time has now passed and because of changes in the PDO, IOD and enso we’ve now seen much heavier rainfall over most parts of OZ.

    Don’t forget if the PDO cool phase is more prevalent over the next decade or so we could/should double up on la ninas and less el ninos.

  35. Debbie March 30, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    And also,
    I know it could be just a wiggle woggle but look up the rainfall figs in Southern Australia for March.
    Last time I checked March was part of Autumn.
    It’s definitely going against that trend.
    Are you sure the PDO and IOD has nothing to do with it?
    BTW I do like some of SEACI’s work. Some of it is useful and thankfully the useful stuff hasn’t been hijacked and used inappropriately to formulate social policy.

  36. Neville March 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    More embarrassment for OZ and the AAS, fancy promoting that dill Flannery to anything involving science.

  37. Luke March 30, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Well blow me down – a sneaky bear. If you’re a pattern recognising baaar – not just a scratching and pissing one slumming it on BoM’s site – I thought you may have had some more discriminant in your analysis. So what’s your cross validation hindcast performance and your independent validation stats. How much data did you train on and what was independent for tetsing. Just fess up and we’ll all bow down.

    Debbie – I don’t you have a clue how any of this climate analysis stuff works – you have to dissect the stats, the seasonality, the rainfall making mechanisms and what circulation changes are affected. If you can do this without a GCM you’d be a very clever person. The GCM doesn’t prove anything but it does give weight to the veracity of claims – it’s a tool.

    SEACI have found a long term decline in autumn rainfall across southern Australia and their best detective work puts to an STRi change. The SW WA attribution studies are mixed and may involve SAM.

    Not SAM, IOD, STR position or ENSO (and PDO/IPO modulates ENSO and anit-ENSO behaviour not an end in itself

    See Timbal’s work

    Neville you can Google some more on Rotsyan et al. More recent work.

  38. el gordo March 30, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    ‘The PDO is in proxy records for at least 400 years.’

    True dat.

  39. Robert March 30, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    “…the relatively new field of earth system science.”

    It’s a hoot how the conference-set have to watch their words as they wobble between new-and-exciting and settled-and-proven. Unlike all other areas of science, there can’t be too much emphasis on evolution and progress without giving the lie to the settled science claims. (A bit late for a change of mind, now Spain has gone broke converting itself to a pin-cushion for wind turbines.)

    Still, in the Age of Spin, there are no doubt all kinds of wordsmiths and dogma-dudes to help calibrate that delicate balance.

  40. John Sayers March 30, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    I’d love to …..but I’ll leave it to Debs.

  41. spangled drongo March 30, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    More climate “science” courtesy CSIRO to wreck peoples lives based on modelled and adjusted data:

    The real world shows a current SLR rate of less than 2 inches per century.

  42. Dallas Beaufort March 30, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    Give all of those planners and little stinkers at the csiro and bom a ton of cosmic radiation each and lets see who will service with real science.

  43. Johnathan Wilkes March 30, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    I don’t question sea level rise one way or other, but recently my parents property, on the very shore of PPhB (Edithvale Melbourne actually) was surveyed, because we put in an application for development.

    According to the old documents from circa 1910 the sea levels have not changed a great deal if any.
    Comparing the survey results and judging from old photos and landmarks on those photos we are as close to, or as far away from the beach as we ever were.

    Who do I believe now? The CSIRO, IPPC, or my lying eyes and surveyors?

  44. Luke March 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    There aren’t any planners or little stinkers at CSIRO and BoM Dallas (and may I say what a striking pic) Beaufort. They’re rocket scientists.

    JW – “One of the oldest tide gauge benchmarks in the world is at Port Arthur in south-east Tasmania. When combined with historical and recent sea-level observations, it shows that relative sea level has risen by 13.5 cm from 1841 to 2000 (Hunter et al. 2003).”

    So if that’s anything to go by the observed change would be about 8cm in that time. Your lying eyes and surveyors aren’t that good.

  45. el gordo March 30, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    Phil Watson said further research is required, “to rationalise the difference between the acceleration trend evident in the global sea level time-series reconstructions (models) and the relatively consistent deceleration trend evident in the long-term Australasian tide gauge records”.

  46. spangled drongo March 30, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    Yes Jonathan, my 49 year old benchmarks in SEQ show actually a fall in SLs over this time.

    Luke, that mark at the Isle of the Dead is still a MSL mark. If you can prove post glacial rebound in Tasmania then you may have some proof for your claim. Otherwise nothing has happened.

    EG, Envisat shows nothing for the last 8 years.

  47. Robert March 30, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Yeah, the 20th century sea level rise. I blame Al Jolson, Al Capone and that shocking new Charleston dance. Actually, the rot started when women stopped wearing bustles.

  48. Luke March 30, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

    And some fodder to boggle the woggles – major Australian climate change scientist attacked by mad greens.

    and rebuttal here

    It’s nuclear or it’s climate change. So much for sceptic framing.

  49. Robert March 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    And then, like the water wasn’t gettin’ high enough down at the wharf, they start sendin’ up them Sputnik things.

  50. Neville March 31, 2012 at 7:26 am #

    So unless we change to nuclear power we have to expect CC? Who dreams up this idiocy, I thought at least BB had a bit more common sense than that.

    For the zillionth time, “the climate changes naturally all the time”, get over it. We could close down OZ and the entire OECD tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the weather, climate or the temp.

    We shouldn’t be doing anything about reducing co2 via us or the OECD countries because simple maths tells us it just can’t achieve anything. In fact a zero return for spending all those billions for decades to come.

    But we should sensibly spend any spare borrowed $ on R&D and adaptation and who knows we may find or unlock some new cheap way of cutting back on co2 because it’s much cheaper to do so.

    Juliar and her lying numbskulls only worry about reducing co2 if it’s sourced from Aussie useage. They are quite happy to increase coal exports overseas every year to supply all those countries with the means to out compete Aust in the market place and produce more jobs and industry for anyone/everyone but Aussies.

    In the meantime we’re left using useless, unreliable, super expensive solar and wind power. This provides a guarantee that the Aussie economy must suffer and become more inefficient into the future. What a colossal fraud and con just to cripple Aust and Aussies.

  51. el gordo March 31, 2012 at 7:32 am #

    Thanx spangles, on your instigation I found a Envisat graph at Steve Goddard and it shows a downward trend in SL over the past few years.

    Nuclear won’t gain traction over coal in the minds of the electorate and Barry Brook is flogging a dead horse. Three cheers for La Trobe Valley common sense.

  52. Johnathan Wilkes March 31, 2012 at 8:26 am #

    Luke, I can’t be bothered with arguing with you, you are a natural born naysayer.

    There is an old concrete pier about 2Ks down the beach at the Chelsea Lifesavers, I talked to locals and they say the water at the highest tide used to run over the top, now it doesn’t happen unless there is a strong southerly wind is accompanying the tide.

    Are you telling them that the pier has risen a few inches?

    The sea is not at the same level everywhere, you should, and I know you know it, but you still can’t help but pushing your catastrophist line.
    Get out of the office a bit more Luke!

  53. Debbie March 31, 2012 at 8:35 am #

    Yes Luke,
    a long term decline in Autumn rainfall can be plotted, so can sea level rises.
    Problem is, those figures make sweeping assumptions based on long term averages that do not recognise that different areas behave differently and perform in direct contradiction to the long term trends.
    The more useful work is the work that drills down into specific areas such as catchment areas.
    The long term averages are almost next to useless as a tool because of the massive variabilities.
    That also applies to sea level rises.
    The assumption inherent in the PR is that we can control and manage the climate based on those long term average trends. Further claims are being made that it is getting out of control and we MUST do something about it.
    It is political rhetorical nonsense.
    I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t keep researching climate trends and climate variabilty but I seriously question the stated justifications for using long term average trends as policy making tools.
    The climate and the natural environment are not interested in conforming to long term average trends on a global scale.
    To some extent we can influence it at a regional scale but even that is subject to inexact ranges.

  54. Robert March 31, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    Some say the water hasn’t risen so fast since the A-bomb. Others reckon it slowed down around the time that Harold Holt went for his long swim. Hard to tell when you’re dealing with millimetres over long periods. Being scientifically inclined, I’d have to go with an ocean connection and say it was Holt.

    So, that’s the science all nicely settled. For more settled science, buy my book: Don’t Lower the Atoll, Raise the Ocean.

  55. spangled drongo March 31, 2012 at 10:19 am #

    Robert, it’s that soft rubbery bottom. Like a big bladder. Auto adjusts with the extra weight.☺ And Darwin worked out about the floating atolls 175 years ago.

    But seriously, with the atolls, why are they mostly circular with a central lagoon?

    Could it be that 10,000 years ago they were dead volcanoes that the coral has grown 100 meters upon since the end of the last ice age?

    Like they say, not a freeboard problem, just deck space.

  56. spangled drongo March 31, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    We don’t know how lucky we are [dum de dum]:

    “This generation has experienced more peace, freedom, leisure time, education, medicine, and travel than any in history. Yet it laps up gloom at every opportunity. Consumers do not celebrate their wonderful field of choice and, according to psychologists, say they are “overwhelmed.” When I go to my local superstore, I do not see people driven to misery by the impossibility of choice. I see people choosing.”

  57. Luke March 31, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

    JW , I can’t be bothered with arguing with you, you are a natural born denier. Sea level rise is complex with local effects, weather changes and decadal up and down signals. As well as channel conditions between Queenscliff and Portsea. Why don’t you trundle down the road to CSIRO at Aspendale and tell John Church where his life long research is wrong based on your little anecdote. I’m sure he’ll give up after your “science” input.

    Did I say say catastrophist – don’t verbal me mate

  58. Johnathan Wilkes March 31, 2012 at 3:53 pm #

    Don’t verbal me neither, I’m a not a denier.

    Whenever you make a good argument and prove a point most of us here gracefully accept and acknowledge it.
    You do make sense at times you know!?

    All I can say about sea levels is that if you have structure constructed 80 odd years ago and according to science, quoted by you, we had a sea level rise of 80 mm, which is close to over 3 inches, AND we cannot detect any sign of it on said structure, than I’m afraid I do believe my lying eyes. Due respect Mr J Church.

    Luke 2cm or less anyone can be accused of not noticing, but please 3 Inches???

    Ps I’m not lurking here all the time, I have other things to to do, I just checked in and saw your post.

  59. Debbie March 31, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    John Church’s life long research is being used to attack other people’s life long and often generational livelihoods.
    Is John Church doing that personally?
    Probably not.
    Why are you trying to make this about personalities?
    Who is verballing whom?
    It isn’t about personalities.
    That tactic is purely political and has absolutely sweet FA to do with genuine science or anything to do with using science to help us understand the world around us.
    The science is being used inappropriately. It has no more chance of delivering the political expectations than those who are being attacked and used as political footballs.
    In fact the scientists are being used as political footballs as well.
    Nobody has said that science is completely wrong.
    However, we have a political agenda claiming the opposite do we not?
    That is what is completely wrong.

  60. Luke March 31, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    Debbie –

    The evidence offered was “I talked to locals and they say the water at the highest tide usedto run over the top, now it doesn’t happen unless there is a strong southerly wind is accompanying the tide.”

    Well isn’t that scientific. So we’re being offered a SECOND hand anecdote as THE evidence when you have the research hub on such complex matters down the road. Next minute you’ll be making up half arsed cause-effect-correlation stories to make a science point.

    JW peeked – LOL !

  61. Johnathan Wilkes March 31, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    You may huff and puff all you like, but I’d still prefer hard, observed evidence to modeling.
    As I said, the pier did not rise out of the ground, my parents house is still as far from the shoreline as it ever was.
    Anecdotal schmanecdotal, if an object used on occasion to be submerged at times but not any more, then that is good enough for me.

    I mentioned this before, get out from your office and smell the air, look at the sea, listen to the boyds, they are still here you know?
    Maybe then you will get a new perspective on things.
    On the other hand, have it your way, who cares?

  62. Luke March 31, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    I’m not huffing and puffing and who is talking about modelling? I’m not rebutting with “modelling”. You have presented a second hand anecdote for a single location.

    There’s decadal variation from PDO/IPO – also El Nino/La Nina. Not all areas around the globe are showing rise uniformly. Port Phillip Bay is a shallow waterway where the outlet is dredged for shipping which affects tides and residence time. All makes for a very complex story. Just the dredging of the ocean passage is enough in itself.

    So if you think an anecdote about a datum point is a global analysis – don’t do science.
    And irrelevant as it is I was in the bush most of today? so what?

    Of course with all the erosion at Portsea – maybe it’s sea level rise ….. ooooo….

  63. koalabear March 31, 2012 at 8:58 pm #


    You will have to watch out for our paper. It will be published soon. The bears tested 19 locations in Queensland for monthly rainfall forecasts and had lower RMSE at 18 compared to POAMA forecasts. The bears used a laptop and neural network software costing under $1000. The BoM has supercomputers costing tens of millions and armies of people in there. The bears win.

    Just about says it all.

    Time for a big downsizing of the government. We could fire 75% of the parasites starting with the Department of Climate Change – an instant saving of $100 million a year. The Queensland Climate Change Office also goes – what an enormous waste of money!

  64. Johnathan Wilkes April 1, 2012 at 2:36 am #

    OK Luke I get it.

    I don’t see any sea level rising, SD maybe a thousand miles from here can’t see any, some of the Pacific islands actually growing in size, but generally speaking the seas have risen.
    Fair enough.

    We had longer and more severe droughts and bigger more devastating floods, more frequent and damaging tropical storms and cyclones in the past, but just we wait you say, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

    The last two summers were quite cool and pleasant as far as I’m concerned, but according to the spokesman from the BOM, I heard him a couple of weeks ago, these two summers were still above average.
    There must have been some really cold summers in the past if we can still mange to get the average up. Either that or the poor statistics get a nasty workout lately.

    And I’m not even saying, that the sea levels never changed, we have proof that they were much higher and much lower in the past, we know the temperature and rainfall was different in the past.

    I’m not arguing any of that Luke. What I’m about is the constant haranguing and harassing us about our guilt of causing it all with our wicked CO2.

    You make sense sometimes but most of the time you are singing from your CC hymn book.
    It does get annoying.

  65. Luke April 1, 2012 at 6:31 am #

    Lower RMSE from a hyper-charged over-tuned fancy forced fit. If that’s the size of it we’ll just laugh.

    Where’s the independent validation stats and cross validation stats. Without which – not worth a bumper. Yet another wannabe effort – ho hum.

    Seriously if you haven’t done any skill testing it’s not even worth reading.

    POAMA’s not your mark. If that’s all you’ve compared it to another giggle.

    They’re not getting rid of the Dept of Climate Change – doesn’t exist.

  66. Luke April 1, 2012 at 6:53 am #

    JW so I guess looking out the window beats the tide gauge record from Fremantle and Fort Denison.

  67. Robert April 1, 2012 at 7:15 am #

    The Dept of Climate Change does not exist.

    Nor is there a DEPT of anything, if full names are to be required.

    We have a Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. (Mustn’t neglect the lie of CAGW and forget the lie of Renewables.)

    To advance any gigantic lie, you need statistics and factoids. Lately, something else called a model has been popular. Models make the distortion of statistics and factoids effortless.

    A real advance!

  68. Luke April 1, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    Robert – it doesn’t exist – prove it.

  69. Robert April 1, 2012 at 9:05 am #

    Well, Luke, you’ve got me. Maybe something wonderful has happened overnight and it doesn’t exist. Maybe there’s a trick here, and I’m missing it. But here goes:

    Top left, next to that emu.

    Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Combet’s the minister.

    Not a meaningless, manipulative factoid, like “The Arctic is melting” or “The planet is warming” or “Sea levels are rising”. Just a fact.

    What am I missing? What’s the trick here? I’m genuinely intrigued.

  70. Luke April 1, 2012 at 10:30 am #

    Robert – look don’t bluff me with your internet trickery – on here bigoted redneck opinions are much more important than evidence or science. Look a bloke down the pub said it was all bullshit and didn’t exist. So do you want to believe the internet or the bloke down the pub. it doesn’t exist.

    Who do you know works there? The only thing that exists is GetUp and they employ actors.

    So what happens Robert is you to make stuff up about people you don’t know. Right ! That’s how stupid sceptic blogs work.

    Then you do a bit of verballing. A gish gallop gatling gun is always handy. Pick on a few celebs. Bit of cherry picking. Ignore the general and pick an obscure exception. The ol’ commo world govt one is good if you run out of ideas too.

  71. Robert April 1, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Okay. so it’s satire! I’m being satirised as a flat earther and commie hater. (Half-right.)

    Yet I can’t help feeling that the original response to koalabear was some sort of major blunder, which is now to be covered up with much indirection and evasion.

    What about it Luke? Was your original remark a blunder, or are you pretending it was some kind of barely comprehensible, heavily disguised satire directed at koalabear?

    “They’re not getting rid of the Dept of Climate Change – doesn’t exist.”

    Are warmies always this wriggly? Is it always the dog that ate your homework?

  72. Luke April 1, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    I’m not a warmist. Don’t verbal me.

  73. Debbie April 1, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

    So what’s the definition of a warmist?
    Actually this is apparently a ‘sceptic’ blog.
    So a definition of that would be appreciated too.
    That way I could figure out these ‘ verbal me/you’ accusations 🙂

  74. Luke April 1, 2012 at 7:14 pm # Debs a binary test for sceptics – ROFL

  75. hunter April 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    Are believers dim enough to actually think the Earth has changed within our control?

  76. Luke April 2, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    Well yes dopey draws – agriculture changes vast areas of albedo, surface roughness and evaporation – like a duh !

    Of course humans can change climate. Check the clouds – a typical formation –

    Where – here – west of the fence is wheat for miles and miles

Website by 46digital