not only is the quango of cli*mate change a lie
lets look at the gifting of billions of solar cells
to individuals...for nothing..

*yet still sold to us..*as infastructure

infastructure..NOW OWNED..
by those..with nice new solar cells on their*roof's

not us SUCKERS..paying for it ALL

look at ya electicity BILL
i cop a minimum cost..for off peak power..of 15 bucks 60 cents
also a service TO properrty charge of 22.41

yet these bludgers..
get 8000 dollars of FREE INFASTRUCTURE..THEY OWN*
free and clear...and dont EVER have to pay for*

then get access to our grid at night
[offest by that they put in at night
but im paying..their acces..and free gift's

SO ARE YOU..!

for what..so industry can GEAR UP..[producing much more co2]
building "infastructure"..
that will wear-out..in less than 20/30..years

talk about mad..[insane]...we still need that OVERNIGHT infastructure
run on coal...but those in the know..get their free lunch..and we get acces fees

WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR..

my bill has more than half its componant...
PAYING FOR THE BIG USERS...

cutting their costs
to get a free lunch..by doubling the cost of mine

how long this insanity of gift giving.[built on a lie
going to go on?

will we ever get those who got free solar
to pay-back..the "infastructure"..they get for mothing
that is costing us all the earth...bah

then they add on gst

Ozandy, since you raise the issue of modelling, take a look at the comparison of model retrodiction with actual temperature measures by Willis Eschenbach at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/02/testing-testing-is-this-model-powered-up/#more-28755

"The overall conclusion from looking at how the models stand, move, and turn is that the models give results that are quite different from the observational data. None of the models were within all three 95% confidence intervals (median and two quartiles) of all of the data (surface temperatures ST, change in surface temps ∆ST, and acceleration in surface temps ∆∆ST). UKMO and M_medres were within 95% confidence intervals for two of the three datasets.

A number of the models show results which are way too large, entirely outside the historical range of the observational data. Others show results that are much less than the range of observational data. Most show results which have a very different distribution from the observations."

He even provides his data, without being badgered by FOI requests or anything. How unusual!

To help us along in our understanding of so much conflicting data, Ozandy, could you please expand a little on this statement of yours.

>>These models also reproduce the ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) oscillations that occur pseudo-randomly (3-8 year cycles) as well as Indian Ocean Dipole, the Monsoon and several other important climate drivers.<<

Are these in fact "climate drivers" or "weather drivers"?

The weather here in NSW is wet and cold at the moment, due - I believe - to the operation of La Nina.

If La Nina is a climate driver, rather than a weather driver, how much has it changed over the years in which it has been observed?

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninacomp.shtml

Because so far, so familiar.

Ive been watching rainfall models, now available widely especially for NSW and Victoria, and have been amazed at how far out they have been over periods of one to four days. If computer models get it wrong in that tiny timespan, how is it that we are supposed to have absolute faith in models describing climate 100 years hence?

The fact that WA is sparsely populated yet still suffers water shortages is a testament to poor planning. The majority of WA's population lives in Perth and the SW. The northern part of the state, where few people live, has plenty of water. It's a bit rich blaming Perth planning on Colin Barnett- Labor had plenty of time to put proper planning in place for the expected population increase, which ocurred during their time in office. The stituation was exactly the same in SE Queensland- Labor allowed massive expansion without have the infrastructure to allow it, hence water shortages, now alleviated by timely rain.

I have to laugh at comments about Hobart being "such a cold place". Heading into mainland summer, it sounds perfect, low 20s most days. One wonders how people ever survived the cradle of Western civilisation, Europe, where even in summer, some places struggle to get over 15C.

Taswegian and Ludwig

We may well decide we want deeper cuts in emissions than can be achieved by substituting gas for coal, but we have to be realistic about the timeframe within which that can be achieved. We don’t have the technology or resources yet to substitute renewable for emissions-intensive energy sources on a scale or at a cost that is feasible. That’s why I described gas as a transition fuel – a step in the right direction but not the end-point in the move to a low-emissions economy. This will take decades.

We can’t compel China or anyone else to stop burning coal, nor are poor and developing countries likely to sacrifice growth in income for lower greenhouse emissions. We can, however, help by making their economies less emissions-intensive that they otherwise would be.

If we don’t sell gas to Asia, those countries will either buy the gas from somewhere else or burn coal instead. If they choose the former, there is no gain in global emissions from our refusal to sell them gas; if the latter, we make things worse