warmair: Your links to tabloid science fail to convince. Here is a rebuttal of the 'more sensitive than we thought' meme.

http://landshape.org/enm/files/2009/07/EE-20-4_7-Stockwell.pdf

Before you scoff at E&E, Rahmstorf admitted that he had probably used too short a smoothing and consequently conflated the 1998 El Nino with the overall trend. He blotted his special "more sensitive than we thought" climate report to the Copenhagen Conference over it, with misleading captioning on the graph. All captured at RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/langswitch_lang/wp#comment-127955.

I was unaware that conveyancing required a lot of evidence, but there you go. You learn something new every day.

cohenite, your whole article is a masterpiece of misinterpretation and and flat out misdirection. For example, pulling out records from December, to argue against a January record is not really on. Nothing you have presented contradicts what the BOM said. Even Watts/Colemans graph shows ocean heat increasing, and supports exactly what the CC said.

You complain you don't know how the BOM did their calculations (without apparently asking them), and then proceed to offer a patchwork of guesswork explanations as to how it occurred. Well done, explanation complete. It obviously is possible to get that answer, and it has even been admitted by "Researcher Ken" that is is certainly possible.

You are the one that needs to get their facts right, pick some that make sense next time eh?

So, it seems to me that you are beating the CC and the BOM with the proverbial piece of wet lettuce.

And if you are correct that blogs like this will inform the final decision makers at the next election, then God help us all.

PS, I think you've made a new disciple in Janama there, she's a keeper ;)

Anonymous rabbit and self-declared world's best scientist pops head out of warren for another spray, and spits out false teeth.

You're a true believer, aren't you Bugs?

It was the CC which claimed all time records which occurred in January and other months of Summer not just January specific records; the page 3 graphic describes Summer [hence title "Angry Summer"] records not just January records, therefore the criticism stands; the CC was wrong in the examples described by Ken Stewart.

Why should I or any other citizen have to ask a publically funded body, scientific or otherwise for information about such things as their record methodology? The information should be there as a matter of course. This arrogance is systemic; the CSIRO/BOM need a good dose of the salts to remind them of where their funding comes from; so do you Bugsy boy, assuming your stipend is publically derived and not from your paper delivery.

The CC/BOM has claimed a new National record but has not indicated whether this is new metric or when it was done before; they obviously haven't read Charles Todd's records from 1896, which, unlike the 2012-2013 heatwave which has an East/West dichotomy, show a uniform National temperature hotter than this record:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/davids-disinformation.html

"God help us all"

Another Hamiltonian who thinks democracy only works if it produces results which they agree with. The public is sick of being treated as mugs by you superior types; if you had levelled from the start and not drowned the public in hyperbole real environmentall issues would not have got sucked into the AGW scam.

This ratbag of an article brought out the ratbags, didn't it. Typical shameless display by a fake skeptic, not just showing off his ignorance about weather and climate but his innumeracy and lack of basic research skills. Cohenite's responses only emphasise the above - as well as being a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I mean take this for example: "an alleged National record could be based on an alleged Regional record of a different temperature type". Utter nonsense.

Or this: "The summer record is based on the mean temperature which is the average of the combined maximum and minimum temperatures for the period." Complete crapola.

Cohenite has done no research. There's more than enough explanation on the BoM website for any normal idiot to figure it out. Unfortunately fake skeptics are abnormal idiots.

He also lives a long way from a river, not knowing that a single river can meander through a fair bit of territory and can most definitely cause more than one flood in a single place at different times and can also flood more than one location along its route at the almost the same or different times. And you don't need a river to get a flood either.

Davids - your first link brings up a threat warning. Your second link doesn't seem to go to any particular comment. (And E&E is 90% garbage, if a rung or two above the dog astrology journal.)

Stop Press.

Climategate Mk 3 has hit the air.

This time, instead of hundreds of incriminating emails being released in a huge batch, & quickly ignored by our MSM, it appears they will be released over a period. This should prove like the old Chinese Water torture, with a constant drip drip, of evidence of their perfidy.

I wonder how long they will be able to brazen it out, when confronted continually with the truth. No wonder our lefties wanted to censure the net.

Lets have this subject again, in a few months, when one group or the other will probably have their tail between their legs, & be heading for the hills.

Sou: Link copied again from RC, lets see if it works this time.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/comment-page-6/#comment-127955

I don't get any alerts with the link, but here is the title and abstract.

RECENT CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS: DISAGREEMENT WITH PROJECTIONS
David R.B. Stockwell
ABSTRACT:
The non-linear trend in Rahmstorf et al. [2007] is updated with recent global
temperature data. The evidence does not support the basis for their claim that the
sensitivity of the climate system has been underestimated.