Yesterday must have been the Climate Religion's equivalent of Easter as Tim Flannery and the faithful re-launched the myth our eastern shores are in eminent doom.

Dr Karl is a total idiot.

Dr DavidK, ever since I clogged my grandmother’s washing machine with my experimental blue-O-mud washing-powder ~60 years ago; I’ve been passionate about science.

Retired for 7 years; at my cost and inconvenience, just last week I hosted a drive from Canberra to our farm on the South Coast with weed specialists from NSW DPI; looking at the weed-corridor along the relentlessly-busy Monaro and Snowy-Mountains Highways; in a effort to convince them (and the Minister) of the stupidity of the LLS/NRC takeover of weed-enforcement; and the proposed NSW Biosecurity Act. The proposed changes trace-back to WWF.

With Bega Valley Shire weed-officers, we toured our farm. I outlined pragmatic aspects of biosecurity and weed management that the Minister, pressured by WWF’s Wentworth Group, doesn’t want to know about.

I’ve also written simple fact-sheets on the South Coast’s worst weeds; serrated tussock; fireweed and African lovegrass, from producer’s perspectives, and contributed to other’s advisory notes.

It’s true. I’ve done more research, including a Masters and PhD, on lovegrass than anyone else in Australia. Also, at more cost to me than MLA, I comprehensively reviewed fireweed.

I’ve also worked on native grasses with people from Rutherglen, Bendigo, Cowra, Yass, Canberra and Mt. Barker (SA.). For around 7-years, with funding partners, I ran a true team-effort and was regularly at Rutherglen.

Behind everything, has been an abiding and forensic understanding of climate. Agronomists should have climate-knowledge that works their reasoning for them.

I’ve observed climate; analysed it; used it for risk analysis and advised on that; modelled it, and published some of my understandings in peer-reviewed Journals.

The stuff I’ve seen of climate-science is inexcusable. Especially data manipulation. Its a can of worms that needs to be opened.

You may know that I submitted a paper to AMOJ, for which the editorial board would not organise unbiased peer-review. The paper was not rejected; it was faux-reviewed. So don’t lecture-on about peer-review; it can be a crock also.

I’m proud to put my name to my achievements. It’s shameful that you and your ilk have to hide behind pseudonyms, frightened of the light.

Cheers,

Dr. Bill

Dear Bill,

Seriously, I'll be glad to have a look at paper you can get published at any of the two below.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-9868/homepage/ForAuthors.html

or here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-842X/homepage/ForAuthors.html

Or, do you think they are involved in some kind of world wide conspiracy too?

Last post; I have better things to do now; and this is bordering on ridiculous.

DavidK: Which Journal does not have a submission-paywall for people who don't have research grants?

I'm over conspiracy-theory. However, it is a reasonable expectation that contrary evidence could be reviewed defensively or with bias; or even refused review. That has been my experience.

Climate science has its own special club, and the obvious pass-the-parcel echo-box game between BoM; UNSW; CSIRO, ANU, Melbourne and Monash Uni's and other faux-institutes and 'councils' speaks for itself. It may not be conspiracy; but it is undeniably very-well organised!

I've asked repeatedly that instead of throwing brickbats, you DavidK, agronomist and others, grab ACORN data for the numerous sites I mentioned and analyse it for yourselves.

Nobody did that; so we have not had a contest about data or their interpretation.

I could give you a longer list and set some homework!

I posed to you that if the base-data are faulty or questionable; conclusions based on them are spurious. You've ignored that as well.

I enjoyed being associated with Rutherglen, and there is nobody that I was associated with there, whose efforts I don't respect.
Despite people trying to turn it into a personal attack; my having been there was never the issue; the data and its published metadata was. You've all ignored that.

Agronomist has avoided Rutherglen's minimum temperature conundrum, which is a regionally important phenomenon.

Probabilistically speaking, some modelling would be needed to sort it out. However, if he/she is an agronomist, understood its significance, and did that; they may find it to be a predictive agronomic climate diagnostic. They may not as well; but it's still worth a go.

Unfortunately instead of looking at data; she/he is too busy defending a position by squabbling childishly.

Good luck!

Dr. Bill

Dr. Bill, I am guessing you mean Burrumbuttock? But you are still trying to argue from authority. Frankly, I am not impressed. My own connection, for what it is worth, is a suite of relatives in the Chiltern and Rutherglen districts. But I would never argue that made me an expert on the BOM weather data.

What I am far more interested in is the strength of the evidence. I have already pointed out why rainfall is not a good proxy for average minimum temperature. It is also not going to be a good proxy for whether stations have moved. Rainfall amount can vary pretty widely over a small area and annual rainfall is so dependent on a small number of events, that what looks like significant changes can boil down to chance.

As an example, looking at Rutherglen rainfall this year http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=082039 to the end of August, rainfall total was 390.6 mm. More than 45% of this was made up from just 6 days (2% of days) that contributed 20 mm or above.

ConservativeHippie, I am guessing you haven’t properly read the IPCC report, and are relying on what you read from others. The bit I am guessing you are referring to is this bit:

“Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)”

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Strangely, lots of people quote the number for 1998-2012 (and some add an extra year or two for good measure), but leave out the context.

The world is a year and a half on from 2012 and you can get the numbers I quoted re surface temperatures from the data here http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend

“Last post; I have better things to do now; and this is bordering on ridiculous.”

I agree.

“Which Journal does not have a submission-paywall for people who don't have research grants?”

Fee is $3000, a small sum to prove the “corruption” – ask Jennifer, Stockwell, the IPA, Heartland, Carter, Bolt, Jones, anyone that would support your cause.

“I'm over conspiracy-theory. However, it is a reasonable expectation that contrary evidence could be reviewed defensively or with bias; or even refused review. That has been my experience.”

Sour grapes. You know how science works - it just takes one sound and robust argument to knock a hole in the wall. It will be tested and critiqued. All else will follow (or not).

“Climate science has its own special club, and the obvious pass-the-parcel echo-box game between BoM; UNSW; CSIRO, ANU, Melbourne and Monash Uni's and other faux-institutes and 'councils' speaks for itself. It may not be conspiracy; but it is undeniably very-well organised!”

You would say that. That is why I recommend you go via another route - statistics! Hell, even David Stockwell should be able to help you - he is a member of the Statistical Society of Australia, isn't he? He could even get you past the pay-wall.

“I've asked repeatedly that instead of throwing brickbats, you DavidK, agronomist and others, grab ACORN data for the numerous sites I mentioned and analyse it for yourselves.”

I have. But you just don’t want to accept that ‘debating’ the technical nuances, on an opinion site (often frequented by fruit-cakes), word and post limited, is a foolish exercise.

“Nobody did that; so we have not had a contest about data or their interpretation.”

See above.

“I could give you a longer list and set some homework!”

Very childish, Bill.

“I posed to you that if the base-data are faulty or questionable; conclusions based on them are spurious. You've ignored that as well.”

You posed it, you certainly haven’t proved it. Write your paper Bill – Stockwell will help!