THE CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology [BOM] are the peak Australian scientific institutions. Various governments in Australia rely on the scientific conclusions from these government-funded scientific institutions. The assumption is that the scientific advice from the CSIRO and BOM is not only reliable but reasonable. But is it?
A regular contributor to this blog, Anthony Cox, also known as Cohenite, examines the scientific evidence presented in the two most recent reports from the CSIRO and BOM: the BOM Annual Climate Summary 2011 and State of the Climate Report – 2012.
Cohenite is not a scientist, but he is interested in the evidence.
Download Cohenite’s note as a pdf here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/BOM-CSIRO-article.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well done Anthony – here’s another snippet you could include:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056
Good work, Cohers.
But rest assured, our Green Betters will find or confect or spin some data somewhere or other (see Skeptical Science et al), then put on their best golly-gosh expression, and announce:
“It’s worse than we thought!”
Thanks cohers,
I forwarded that on to our local editor who has been singing the praises of BoM-CSIRO with their latest unsientific reports.
Sigh – more nonsense – fancy quoting Jaworowski – http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
– and Waiting for Godot, the unpublished Salby and then Tom Quirk (gads) as source. Sigh and sigh …
Don’t give me Quirk as a cite Cohenite ! Want a published reference.
And bizarrely even Wattsy has slayed this stuff http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-2/#comment-464165
And ocean temps – Karoly meant around Australia – sheesh ! and Cohenite plugs in the world
Jeez I even blogged on that here http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2011/01/blog_La-NIna-VP-and-SST-graph.jpg
And that was just a preliminary scan – do better Cohers
Might do another drive by shooting later.
‘And ocean temps – Karoly meant around Australia – sheesh !’
That was my impression at the time, the Klimatariat Troika (Karoly et al) got it right and squeezed what they could out of it.
Nonetheless, good work cohers.
Ho hum luke; Jaworowski is confirmed by these studies:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/SangamonianCO2.png
“Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284 no. 5422 pp. 1971-1973…
In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene carbon dioxide concentrations were well above 300 ppmv.
[…]
Most of the Holocene ice core records from Antarctica do not have adequate temporal resolution.
[…]
Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were .300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.
The ice cores cannot resolve CO2 shifts that occur over periods of time shorter than twice the bubble enclosure period. This is basic signal theory. The assertion of a stable pre-industrial 270-280 ppmv is flat-out wrong.
McElwain et al., 2001. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 17 pp. 21–29. ISSN 0267-8179…
It is possible that a number of the short-term fluctuations recorded using the stomatal methods cannot be detected in ice cores, such as Dome Concordia, with low ice accumulation rates. According to Neftel et al. (1988), CO2 fluctuation with a duration of less than twice the bubble enclosure time (equivalent to approximately 134 calendar yr in the case of Byrd ice and up to 550 calendar yr in Dome Concordia) cannot be detected in the ice or reconstructed by deconvolution.
Not even the highest resolution ice cores, like Law Dome, have adequate resolution to correctly image the MLO instrumental record.
Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis o fTsuga heterophylla needles . Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 33–36…
The discrepancies between the ice-core and stomatal reconstructions may partially be explained by varying age distributions of the air in the bubbles because of the enclosure time in the firn-ice transition zone. This effect creates a site-specific smoothing of the signal (decades for Dome Summit South [DSS], Law Dome, even more for ice cores at low accumulation sites), as well as a difference in age between the air and surrounding ice, hampering the construction of well-constrained time scales (Trudinger et al., 2003).
Stomatal reconstructions are reproducible over at least the Northern Hemisphere, throughout the Holocene and consistently demonstrate that the pre-industrial natural carbon flux was far more variable than indicated by the ice cores.
Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews. 23 (2004) 1947–1954…
The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO 2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years. To address the critique that these stomatal frequency variations result from local environmental change or methodological insufficiencies, multiple stomatal frequency records were compared for three climatic key periods during the Holocene, namely the Preboreal oscillation, the 8.2 kyr cooling event and the Little Ice Age. The highly comparable fluctuations in the paleo-atmospheric CO2 records, which were obtained from different continents and plant species (deciduous angiosperms as well as conifers) using varying calibration approaches, provide strong evidence for the integrity of leaf-based CO2 quantification.
The Antarctic ice cores lack adequate resolution because the firn densification process acts like a low-pass filter.
Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus 57B (2005), 4…
AtmosphericCO2 reconstructions are currently available from direct measurements of air enclosures in Antarctic ice and, alternatively, from stomatal frequency analysis performed on fossil leaves. A period where both methods consistently provide evidence for natural CO2 changes is during the 13th century AD. The results of the two independent methods differ significantly in the amplitude of the estimated CO2 changes (10 ppmv ice versus 34 ppmv stomatal frequency). Here, we compare the stomatal frequency and ice core results by using a firn diffusion model in order to assess the potential influence of smoothing during enclosure on the temporal resolution as well as the amplitude of the CO2 changes. The seemingly large discrepancies between the amplitudes estimated by the contrasting methods diminish when the raw stomatal data are smoothed in an analogous way to the natural smoothing which occurs in the firn.
The derivation of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to atmospheric CO2 is largely based on Antarctic ice cores. The problem is that the temperature estimates are based on oxygen isotope ratios in the ice itself; while the CO2 estimates are based on gas bubbles trapped in the ice.
The temperature data are of very high resolution. The oxygen isotope ratios are functions of the temperature at the time of snow deposition. The CO2 data are of very low and variable resolution because it takes decades to centuries for the gas bubbles to form. The CO2 values from the ice cores represent average values over many decades to centuries. The temperature values have annual to decadal resolution.”
H/t David Middleton, who concludes:
“The plant stomata data clearly show that preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher and far more variable than indicated by Antarctic ice cores. Which means that the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the 1800′s is not particularly anomalous and at least half of it is due to oceanic and biosphere responses to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age.”
Engelbeen is good but not god.
And Karoly only meant around Australia! Good one. Tisdale puts that nonsense in perspective:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/october-to-december-2010-nodc-ocean.html
And comparatively the Indian and South pacific, the oceans around Australia are not warming as much as the others, which are effectively not warming at all:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2eexa8w.png
When you come by on your next drive-by shoot, don’t forget your car, gun and cap on backwards as you did this time.
why would you bother reading either with the disclaimers that each offer
here’s the BOM disclaimer eg http://www.bom.gov.au/other/disclaimer.shtml
AND CSIRO http://www.csiro.au/Legal-Notice-and-Disclaimer.aspx
I agree about the disclaimers; unfortunately the policy based on the reports has no such disclaimers!
My point is that the Govt is always blathering on about the best scientific evidence and as is mentioned in the foreword the peak Australian scientific institution and these peak scientific institutions (and consequently the Govt) bear no professional liability because of disclaimers which clients of other professionals (such as accountants, lawyers) are covered by professional indemnity insurance for
Why take any notice of professionals or institutions who rely upon those disclaimers, in the real world they would have no clients
Cohers – don’t talk dogshit with sceptic bilge material from the usual suspects. You have to be frigging kidding. Anyone knows SSTs around Aussie are up and up http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=sst&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0
you can cut it by region if you like on same site.
Some very hot temperatures in La Nina – in 2011 a period really high VP as a result and great onshore flow.
Fancy being so dishonest as to put up global SSTs for a regional event – the cheer squads ninnies here so easily taken in.
All your CO2 stuff is just bogus sceptic dribble that has been put to death elsewhere. Publish or perish. Where’s Salby’s crappola anyway? waiting for Godot …..
Take your “calculations” down to Aspendale and give them a guest seminar – they need a laugh.
for a wider world view see
By Dr David M.W. Evans (republished here with permission, PDF link below)
We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message – here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/
….Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree just about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?…
Just as I predicted luke; you’ve come back with a Woolies cap-gun, loaded with cherries; as I note the idea that Australia is seperate from the world is nonsense, and if Australian waters are going through a warm phase then that means the rest of the world is going through a disproportionately greater cooling phase:
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
Or do you deny that globally the world SSTs are cooling? Which means that Australia is just an outlier in a general cooling trend. Must be the carbon tax, eh?
I know I’ve said it before, but I just get such a kick out of saying it different ways.
Climate models are not merely wrong. Climate models MUST be wrong. Climate models cannot NOT be wrong. But let me put it in sciency-sounding, Warmie language:
“We’ve looked at the results and, frankly, we are surprised by our findings. Climate models are worse than we thought!”
Karoly may have been looking at this…
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom_new.gif
Cohenite caught out bullshitting on Australian SSTs. Also did a runner on extreme events.
Global SSTs cooling – not unless you’re a wiggle watcher. Or selective wiggle trend cherrypicker.
Look at Val go – quoting Evans- ” They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that?” what a moronic statement. Mate do you enjoy being led around the ring by the nose.
“Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2” no they don’t Val – all manner of wack jobs don’t agree at all. Don’t let Evans bluff you about appearing to be “reasonable”. “Guvmint” – don’t reckon da guvmint sein-teests did that work myself. You guys just wander round in a fog.
Certainly if you squeeze your butt cheeks really hard it looks like cooling. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl
“Extreme events”. The wonder bra for collapsing CAGW theories.
“Certainly if you squeeze your butt cheeks really hard it looks like cooling.”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend
luke’s butt cheeks:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/286373/
Poor Luke, all he can do is the internet equivalent of a monkey climbing a pole.
Cohenite how many times in that graph could you have drawn that line? Now it’s desperate stuff. Great wiggle woggles batman.
Robert – of course instead of spending your time sending protest emails to Getup – you could have taken the 10 minutes to peruse the reports and learnt that number of hot day extremes seems to be going up and cold day extremes (yes Virginia they still happen) are going down. hmmmm – could that be a key sign of a warming climate.
Of course the “guvmint” scientists that have crafted the reports have been clever in their portrayal of the mean temperature data doing a decadal average comparison – which leaves me uneasy. I imagine Stockwell would be most unamused.
Butt (haha) this is obviously a state of the art scientific analysis and hunter has elevated it to dizzy heights suggesting complex statistical analysis of primate behaviour in a warming world – so let me assist this intellectual discussion by sharing my latest video about the state of the arts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGcEmFSRcQ0 good advice for sceptics at 1:15
“Of course the “guvmint” scientists that have crafted the reports have been clever in their portrayal of the mean temperature data doing a decadal average comparison”
Exactly, which is why I use the decadal period on the graph; the ‘scientists’ at CSIRO and the BOM are nowpolitical advocates and should not have the due deference that impartial scientists would normally expect. In short they are talking garbage and perhaps need a stint on the dole to recapture their scientific integrity.
Luke always trys to con us that our present climate is unusual and unprecedented, but of course its not.
Here’s just more recent research showing that the MWP and LIA were present in the northern and southern hemisheres at the same time.
Mind you they didn’t use the most suspect tree proxies from the most suspect areas and refuse to include modern tree ring data because it wouldn’t correspond with modern temps. No Mann etc indeed had to” hide that decline” as everyone and his dog now understands.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/22/more-evidence-the-medieval-warm-period-was-global/#more-59877
Don’t forget that Luke and his fellow numbskulls think that the perfect climate occured during the LIA because they are so disappointed that the planet has warmed slightly over the last 300+ years.
Little Lukey,
argument from Consensus is so passe. Try to do better?
Of course old coots like Neville would have just loved the MWP – unless you weren’t growing grapes in Europe. Gotta love those mega-droughts. I wonder how 6B humans would cope. Come over to Nev’s I suspect. “Stop the Boats” oooo ooooo
I’m awaiting fro Neville’s “recovery” from the Little Ice Age twaddle. Did the widdle planet catch a cold and now needs to “recover”. Pullease.
Kookers – such little content. Go home yank.
Cohenite – you only think you’re clever. Doing mini-regressions on a mega-trend is a tad norty. As I said get Stockers and go give them a guest seminar.
“As I said get Stockers and go give them a guest seminar.”
We are working on that very idea; just finalising the venue.
Oh, yeah, the past is so yesterday! It’s about NOW, pensioners. It’s about white-gangsta gravatars, about white-wanka modellers, white nerds rapping on Hungry Beast.
And, like, you pensioners have, like, totally missed how random it all is. You’ve got studies ‘n stuff, with all kinds of extremes which could easily mean stuff. It’s so random.
It’s worse than we thought!
‘Unfortunately the policies based on the reports have no such disclaimers’
And there is the problem!
Luke says ‘gotta love those mega droughts. . .’
Same problem Luke!
We are basing policy on what is clearly inexact or ‘dirty’ input data.
And yes I could supply even more references but there are already enough just at this post that point to that simple fact.
Everybody is ‘cherry picking’ to some degree because it isn’t really about ‘the science’. The so called sceptics are mostly pointing that out by demonstrating that the same data can be used in the same manner to prove the opposite.
How are we going to ‘manage’ the climate with current policy and how is that going to help us cope with ‘mega droughts’ or any other extreme wiggly weather event?
That’s the important question.
Most of the current ‘climate change’ policy in Australia is about shutting down or obstructing our ability to help feed and supply those 6B people in the name of mitigating climate/weather.
Publish or perish?
What does that have to do with the main points in Coher’s piece?
Dear dear Debs – if you think the MWP was just “luvly” check out the mega-droughts. Don’t be all Euro grapes and cathedrals centric. What happened last time the planet warmed – circulation systems move – winners and losers. Big losers. Of course there weren’t 6 billions humans, global interlinked economy, nuclear weapons and global superpowers.
Might there be any risk deserving analysis …. nah !
What does it have to do with Cohers ill considered piece – not much – Neville brought MWP up.
“Might there be any risk deserving analysis ”
The disturbing word “analysis” is pretentious, at best. Of course, all risk deserves assessment.
But who would be the absolute LAST people we should consult on such a risk? In fact, who are the people we should NOT consult at all, under any circumstances, about such a risk?
Exactly!
But that would be you assuming that something worthwhile is being planned to mitigate the risk Luke.
No one says that we are not vulnerable to changes in climate and weather patterns.
When you can supply me a link that shows the current political agenda is actually achieving anything that demonstrably and responsibly mitigates what you like to call a grand challenge and what we are told is ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’, then we might get somewhere.
All we have is ‘political spin’ at this point as well as observing an uncanny ability to assume more legislative power and accept less responsibility and less accountabilty.
That has very little to do with mitigating risk.
Totally unrealistic.
How do you argue with a fool? He agees that climate changes naturally and can mean mega droughts or whatever, but some how we’ve made it worse!!!
People in developing countries today have a higher life expectancy than anyone circa 1900 and there are more than 6b of us as well.
We haven’t done too badly through the use of science and technology plus modern medicine/ health sevices etc.
Debbie – at least quantifying the risk would be prudent.
Neville – whether nature changes the climate or we do doesn’t really matter. Consequences can be massive. If you’re eaten by a lion (natural) or mowed down by a safari bus (anthropogenic) it’s still a bad hair day. And OF COURSE you can make it worse !! What a silly statement that you would not even entertain the possibility that you could.
30 days global food supply. Global interlinked economy. Anti-biotic and pesticide resistance ever difficult.
In Australia the best science says anthropogenic forcing has affected the autumn rainfall in a strip across the bottom of Australia which is suspected to be a long term decadal feature. You should at least assess that information intelligently. (Which isn’t just throwing up maps from BoM’s web site.)
Try a mega MWP drought across the USA, Africa and China !
Humans make things better; Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist still remains the standard for refuting the gloom and doom of the AGW movement; if it were realised or accepted by the advocates of AGW that humans have made the standard of living better for more people then AGW would lose one of its driving forces.
Quatifying the risk????
Are you serious?
ROFL 🙂 🙂
You have made my day.
I agree with Luke that you could certainly make a climate shift worse. You could try affecting the climate through de-industrialisation, toy energy generation, a general and massive waste of money and resources, massive taxation to fund the waste that debt won’t fund, a specific and massive waste by diverting research to climate shamanism (modelling, duh)…and don’t forget brochures. When the going gets tough, the brochure-makers get going.
In short, you could go broke with nothing but a bloated government sector to show for it. Under those conditions, Conservation will not merely be neglected, as it is now, but forgotten. And the climate, which is never non-extreme for very long, will do its worst.
Rob, what is happening is insanity and in a decade or two we will look back on this era with shock at just how stupid supposedly intelligent people are. The science is actually irrelevant, when you know the benefit from an action is negligible/ non existent and the cost huge it should be obvious that action is crazy.
Why is common sense so uncommon?
‘Try a mega MWP drought across the USA, Africa and China!’
Unnecessarily alarmist comrade, nothing unusual is happening to our earthly climate, but its important that we remain aware of possible tipping points.
I took one look at that graph and shuddered at the above stories
gav
“I took one look at that graph and shuddered at the above stories”
You would gav, but don’t worry about it, just take your medicine, now there is a good boy.
imo Making “lite” of the BoM-CSIRO climate view as blogs do instead of “light” is nothing short of stupid.
Grounding the truth in our official climate service is easy enough when we consider asking a retired couple on the wallaby; where on the the whole East Coast would you want to park the van and stay a while, Townsville, beaches in SEQ or some little inland township on say the Murrumbidgee?
Says Debbie whose whole sector had been propped up for 30 years by Exceptional Circumstances – what a fucking joke ! And you guys have it under control. As bad as GMH
Climate alarmism is free-floating anger made semi-coherent by junk science. For such people, the attraction of collectivism and Big Lever government is irresistibly strong. They talk science, but, really, we’re dealing with emotion and private resentment. Luke’s shrieking obscenity says it all.
Climate scepticism is free-floating anger made semi-coherent by junk science. For such people, the attraction of irresponsible individualism and Big Lever business is irresistibly strong. They talk science, but, really, we’re dealing with sophistry and anti-science policies. Robert’s drivel says it all.
Nice comment, Luke. Amazing what you can do with a good template and no obscenity.
The higher Luke climbs up on his true believer pole the more and more his ass dominates everythign he says.
BTW, Luke can you post again those excellent you tube links of the rants by that Australian kid on the music reviews?
Who is propping up whom Luke?
You need to do your sums.
Agriculture and particularly irrigated agriculture in Australia has produced and given far, far, far more than it has ever consumed or received.
I would highly suspect that you are the ‘propped up’ demographic in this instance.
I am most definitely a net producer and a net positive contributor to Australia’s GDP. Are you?
Like I said, you need to do your sums.
BTW, your comment has nothing at all to do with the topic of discussion, it was just another ‘shoot the messenger’ avoidance tactic.
You pretend it is about science, however your comments and behaviour are defending the politics.
Debbie, notwithstanding your contribution to GDP, and, as you say the need to do your sums, how is your balance sheet on greenhouse gas emissions.
Now Debs – a whole sector can’t be that good if it needs billions ongoing over decades. remember you’re the “unconcerned” masters of climate. Au naturale – in the mode. Climate natives. (propped up by billions – hahahahahaha). Where’s my Paki rice?
Deb, reading Bazza’s solemn comment and Luke’s shrieking condemnation, you will conclude that, in the minds of our Green Betters, production is Original Sin, just as consumption is Venial Sin and profit is Mortal Sin.
Can we argue with the dogmatists and theologians of this New Puritanism?
Nah, just grow the rice. Even those haughty Puritans will eat it, having sniffed about the supermarket shelves for the cheapest price.
Luke and Bazza,
wanna bet which demographic would have lower net emmissions related to production and GDP as well?
And Bazza, who said there wasn’t any GHG emmissions?
I am commenting on the attendant political agenda which is achieving sweet FA.
And Luke, you still need to check your sums. Have a geek at the % of tax payer $’s used to prop up the manhfacturing sector like the automobile sector or the social security sector and don’t forget the publuc service sector. Then do a search on GDP contributions. Where does agriculture currently sit?
If a sector makes a positive net contribution, by its very definition it can’t be a burden.
It doesn’t matter how often you shriek otherwise.
REAL data says otherwise.
Sound familiar?
Debs – we just want you to be MUCH less of a burden and stop stuffing up the environment as you go.
Robert – Aussie ain’t the cheapest rice. Ding. Thanks for playing. And jeez you do go on – time for a Getup-ism surely?
You’re quite right, Luke. Your posh, disdainful, finger-wagging leftism is pure GetUp. Needs a frequent mention.
Rice, which probably feeds more human beings (remember them?) than any other crop, has its difficulties, limitations and regulations wherever it is grown, Pakistan included. I suppose we could clear some more hillsides in Thailand – the steeper ones not yet in use – so you could have the pleasure of seeing Deb out of the business. Narrowing the growing zone of the most strategic human food won’t seem like a great idea to everyone – but you’re not everyone. You’re part of an elite!
We could indeed adjust the whole world to your resentments. The MDB could be used exclusively for manufacturing government brochures or white-gangsta action figures called Lukes. Might make you happy for a few minutes.
Deb, thanks for the ten kilo bag of Oz rice I scored for ten bucks the other day. So handy when you’re living in the scrub.
You’re absolutely correct Luke,
Aussie rice is not the cheapest rice.
If you want cheap and nasty, we’re not your best bet.
I thought you wanted clean, environmentally responsible and efficient?
We’re reasonably good at that.
BTW what is your definition of ‘less of a burden’ ? Compared to what?
I’m fairly sure that if you had bothered to do your sums you may have discovered that we’re not a burden at all.
We’re actually a rather good investment.
I’m starting to think you don’t understand the difference between assets and liabilities or even the simple concept of ROI.
I’m sorry to labour on the point but I’m willing to bet that you are a far greater burden on our economy than I have ever been. I am definitely a net positive producer, are you? In my lifetime I have probably produced enough to feed the entire population of Australia. Probably clothed them too.
It’s OK, I don’t need your thanks. I am slightly over your smarmy pseudo intellectual attitude however.
I’m also wondering which environment you think I have stuffed up?
You may need to actually come out and have a look rather than repeating something you have read?
Seems you may not understand what you’re repeating?
Cohers,
Thanks again for your summary of these govt scientists spruiking govt ideology for more govt handouts. It sums it up very well.
One thing [from the first fleet journals] that has come up a few times to show how things were not so cool in our past [1790] is:
“at Rose Hill [Parramatta], it was allowed, by every person, to surpass all that they had before felt, either there or in any other part of the world…it must, however, have been intense, from
the effects it produced. An immense flight of bats driven before the wind,
covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment
dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state
of the atmosphere. Nor did the ‘perroquettes,’ though tropical birds, bear it
better. The ground was strewn with them in the same condition as the bats.”
Even darling Luke’s dopey fixation with medieval drought shows that current climate [and worse] has all happened before and will happen again whether we are around or not.
Debbie,
In the brave new world envirocrats are building, producers of things people need are the worst of all.
Hunter, the regulating classes are much more necessary than the producing classes but, even so, the producing classes have to be tolerated.
Assets and liabilities are great if you don’t pay the real price of your infrastructure and have 30 years of billion dollar subsidies to cope with your climate vulnerabilities. And a closed marketing system.
And the Paki basmati tastes better and you get a nice cotton bag too.
We’ll then just add up the national toll from farming induced soil erosion, soil acidity, soil salinity, land clearing, waterway pollution, species extinctions, ferals and weeds… nah will take too much time.
Surely time for another multi-billion “Murray rust-bucket rescue” package?
Since agriculture is not separable from towns and cities, we should also remove the towns and cities – which, after all, are total displacers of all species, especially those inner urban areas. And since cities are not separable from human populations…
That will just leave us with Pakistani fairies plucking wild cotton to weave bags to hold rice for other fairies.
ROFL, 🙂 🙂 🙂
How incredibly myopic of you Luke.
Of course you have paid real price for the use of all the infrastructure surrounding you.
And of course it was MDB residents who wanted the MDBP and the Water Act.
And of course, because you read it somewhere, you are an expert on the condition of the MDB river system and its true ‘environmental’ nature.
And of course those of us who produce are unfairly advantaged.
ROFL 🙂
Anyway, you have done an outstanding job of using diversionary tactics.
The main point of the post is that the climate has decided to NOT co operate with alarmist dogma and therefore is NOT assissting the current political agenda.
It turns out it is no more your friend than it is mine.
The difference is that most people who are not married to the dogma, already knew that.
History proves we are all vulnerable to shifts in climate changes and extreme weather events, if we have spent countless billions on pretending that is a new concept or that we could control it, what was the point?
The money and the time could be much better invested into projects that can make a real difference.
It isn’t about the science.
It is about the science. Debbie, if you carry on with giggles at graphs with statistically insignificant wiggles around ever increasing trends, then sure as hell you will continue to make frameless statements like : “The main point of the post is that the climate has decided to NOT co operate with alarmist dogma and therefore is NOT assissting the current political agenda”.
If it was about the science Bazza, I would be a happy camper.
I am a friend and supporter of genuine climate research.
This is NOT about the science and has not been so for quite some time.
It is most definitely about the politics and political PR spin.
No one is arguing with the trends Bazza. The correlation with C02 however seems to be getting weaker and weaker.
That was why I giggled at the graph. I’m sorry if my sense of humour is offensive to you.
It’s not changing anytime soon.
“It is about the science.”
An appropriately ironic end to this thread. Well done bazza!
Of course it’s about the science which seems to escape our favourite sceptics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/update-on-the-monckton-hadfield-debate/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/mathturbation-king/
ROFL
This glossy production of ominous rhetoric is the latest in a string.
It’s a propaganda blitz to sell the ‘party line’,
to an uninformed public through misinformation.
Yes, CO2 is increasing. But global temperature is not. This was pointed out
in the Wall Street Journal by Lindzen and a wide cross section of
internationally recognized scientists. They contrast with local puppets,
whose actions, through glossy CSIRO reports and rhetoric like this, are self serving.
Global temperature has not increased for over a decade, despite the fact that
CO2 has continued to increase. The inconsistent behavior of CO2 and temperature
has demolished the IPCC mantra for why temperature changes.
And there’s now reason to question even why CO2 changes.
As is evident from Salby’s slides at the Sydney Institute, total CO2 emission
has continued to follow its contribution from natural emission.
It did so even during the last decade when global temperature
deviated from CO2 and climate model predictions fell apart.
The inconsistent behavior of temperature and CO2 is now incontrovertible.
So is its implication. Whatever causes the minor changes of global temperature,
it’s clearly not CO2.
Nah Luke,
those 2 links are just more of the increasingly belligerent and emotional shrieking of ‘he said, I said’.
It has been a long time since it was about the science.
The science is not settled. . .not even close. . . and the genuine scientists know it isn’t.
We see the trends and not one sane person would argue that we are not vulnerable to either climate changes or extreme weather events.
We do not know enough about the way all the variables interact and current policy is not achieving any good results for the integrity of climate research or indeed any control over climate. All we have are ever increasing numbers of contradictory reports.
After the latest results in QLD it appears that much of the electorate knows that trying to implement policy by linking it to inexact science is a bad idea too.
It is just wasting a lot of money for no measureable or worthwhile result.
Debs best analysis. What a denier. Polly wanna cracker. Ark ! Ark !
ROFL!!!
You have once again made my day Luke.
Using your own logic….you therefore think that current policy IS achieving worthwhile results and IS creating good vibes for genuine scientists and WILL manage future climate?
Because that was actually my point.
ROFL!!!! 🙂 🙂