I wonder how long Thatcher would have reigned if not for the Falklands War....nothing like a good war to focus the people's attention elsewhere - and triumphalism always works a treat.
Seems she was pretty much on the nose prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

Dear Col Rouge,

As I've stated previously - we're all entitled to our opinions.
Right or wrong. No matter how funny or ignorant they may
appear to others. And, of course we all see things from our own
political perspectives. It makes life interesting.
As long as we don't stoop to personal insults.
BTW - For such an apparently staunch anti-socialist like yourself
why did you choose a moniker like "Rouge?" Surely you know that
it's a colloquialism for bolshevik, red, communist, pinkie, radical,
extremist, and the lunatic fringe.

Bonmot

laughable.

I quote a peer reviewed Watsons literature and you attempt to negate it with a non-reviewed global warmers blog.

Then backed it up with a non-peer reviewed letter from some manager containing an assertion of misquoting. ie it didn't dispute the information of the statistical evidence of decelerating rises only that the reporter 'had not consider(ed) predicted linkages between sea level rise and global warming predicted by climate models.'

ie the reporter only stuck to verifiable facts and excluded the modelling guesswork. (Which btw is shown in the statistical evidence to be very very wrong so far.) Laughable!

Isn't this what you criticised us non warmers for doing in the past? Where's your insistance on peer review when the tide has turned against you?

Where are your climate scientists rushing into print to negate the evidence of falling average global surface temperatures, the natural historical occurances of ocean current movements and the now statistically evidenced deceleration of ocean level rises?

Just not happening for you lot now is it?

'climate is weather averaged over decades and has bumps and troughs,'

Wow, success at last, I've finally got though to you. Now all you have to do is accept there was a cooling period between 1945 and 1975, a warm period between 1975 and 2005 and the figues that show over the past decade an indication of a transition to a cooling rather than a continuation of the 1975 to 2005 warming. ie no rise in temperature (Average Global Surface Temps) between 1998 and 2008 with a warm bump over the last 3 years and the beginning of another cool trough with the current record wet and cool patterns of weather.

What's happened to your 'severe weather events' explanation/excuse?
Moving tack again are you?

btw imajulianutter because she's singlehandedly destroyed public belief in global warming in Australia and is leading the Australian Labor Party into total irrelevance and opposition ...forever.

I'm just nut's about her efforts of denial of cold weather and other cooling facts and I hope she keeps up the great work.

Bonmot, you're helping immensely too.

Lexi,

Even though you don't have a clue, you are entitled to your opinion, ill informed though it may be. Thatcher was also in power for about 10 years and took her party very successfully to 2 further elections.

Juliar's first attempt gave her insufficient seats to govern, only by making huge concessions to the greens and the opportunistic independents, did she manage to cling to power. The price she paid was to back flip on a solemn promise to the electorate.

She won power, but lost the trust and respect of most Australians.

SM,

You are the one who doesn't have a clue. You keep repeating the
"Broken Promise," mantra regarding the PM. However we all know of
the man you support - Mr Tony Abbott's self confusedly tendency to make things up under pressure. In recent weeks Mr Abbott has attacked economicsts for not supporting his risible "Direct Action," plan on climate change as well as scientists who have disagreed with his analysis. He's talked down the economy in a desperate effort to exaggerate the impact of the Government's carbon tax, even arguing recently it will cause house prices to fall. The man is driven by ruthless ambition to the point where he blatantly lies and is willing to use virtually any weapon available in his pursuit of the Government so that he can get the top job.

Much like the US Republicans, the Liberal Party in Australia has recently seemed surprisingly content with advancing positions that
clash with the legacy of the Party's more noble traditions of reason and prudence in a libertarian assault on the foundations of government itself. It's hard to believe Robert Menzies, with his firm
belief in the value of conserving and preserving social institutions and the common wealth of the nation, would support any of the current Liberal rhetoric.

Broken election promise? Yes, all parties promised things before the last election. But the electorate rejected a Gillard Government AND an
Abbott Government and gave the nation, eventually, a Coalition of
Labor, Green, and Independents. Surely it was obvious even to you, during the horse-trading after the polls had closed that whoever led whatever Coalition was formed would be unable to do everything they could do in majority government. The conservatives and the Murdoch media continually saying "Broken promise," does not make it so.
BTW - were it not for the coalition with the Nationals the Liberals would never be able to be elected on their own.

@Julia’s nutter

“Just not happening for you lot now is it?

@Moi: 'climate is weather averaged over decades and has bumps and troughs,'

@ Julia’s nutter:

“Wow, success at last, I've finally got through to you.”

Um, er … NO nutter. I didn’t get through to you, second paragraph:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12254#211663

Here are some more bumps and troughs of the 30 year trends:

http://tinyurl.com/3nfg3k9

There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). The other two are estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville)

Are they hoaxes too nutter?

Sheesh, even Roy Spencer from UAH agrees on the trends – see his grey line?

And Roy is a pin-up boy of "anti-warmers" like yourself.

http://tinyurl.com/32t2q27

Here are some more bumps and troughs nutter, depicting the global average sea level rise to 2011.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

See the bumps and troughs nutter, see the resultant bi-monthly averaging, and do you see the 30 year time series trend line nutter?

Before you go into apoplexy again, hold your breath … that dip this year is due to the diminishing La Nina. On trend, global average sea level continues to rise.

Not a hoax nutter, sorry. Hold your breath a bit longer.

Mr Phil Watson’s paper summates three (3) historical tide gauge data-sets from Freemantle, Sydney and Auckland in New Zealand (4 if you include Newcastle).

The Australian newspaper distorts the findings and nutters like you immediately think this one study of 3 tide-gauge sites overturns the projections by the IPCC. Take a quick breath and hold.

Depending on where and when readings are taken, readings can (and do) vary greatly. Ergo, 3 tide gauge sites don’t paint the full picture – as Watson acknowledges.

In fact, Watson's also acknowledges there has been an acceleration in sea level rise this century.

Cont’d