Janama, I have a bit of a problem here. Who do I believe? The Climate Commission with expertise in climate science, such as Professor Will Steffen, Professor Andy Pittman, Professor David Karoly, etc. or Anthony Cox, lawyer and failed climate paper author? It is a tough one isn’t it?

But I don’t really have to worry, because I can look at the evidence they bring to the table. Anthony Cox disputes the evidence of the Climate Commission with a fraudulent graph. Oh gosh, it is not going well for Anthony is it? He claims the Climate Commission is lying by reproducing a lie.

Anthony then claims evidence from “Researcher Ken Stewart” to back his cause. Except Ken is not a researcher. He is a retired School Principal. Oh gosh, I think it got worse for Anthony. But there is more…

Before drawing a conclusion, I should look at what Ken came up with. Ken claims that it can’t have been the hottest on record across Australia, because it was not quite a record in most of the parts he divided Australia up into. Somehow, Ken failed to realise that if all of Australia was close to a record, there would be a good chance that the country as a whole would produce a record. It is not often there are much higher than average temperatures across the country for an extended period of time. Weirdly, the graphs Ken produces shows just this. Ken must have found it hard to be a School Principal when he had trouble adding up.

In fact the graphs Ken posts fully support the claim made by the Climate Commission. I think this one might be an own goal for Anthony and Researcher Ken. Go, look, it is worth a read http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/a-tale-of-two-records/

Looks like a loss by an innings and 135 runs.

Well, I'm glad we've resolved that smoking is in fact extremely healthy.

But since I, like Anthony, am entitled to my own facts, I know that Perth's summer just gone was indeed the hottest and driest - and worst, most humid - in my experience. So Anthony is wrong and I am right.

And then add Melbourne making history with a record nine-day heatwave of temperatures above 30 degrees.

The mercury hit 30.2 degrees yesterday making the first nin-day run of 30 degree plus days since records began in 1856.

And yes this is weather, but add it to the long term trends Australia is experiencing and they become climate.

Just another nail in Cohenite's belief coffin!

Agronomist, you seem to have a little trouble with reading comprehension. As I pointed out in my previous comment, which appears to have passed you by, I have no problem with a national record being achieved without its constituent parts achieving a record. That is possibly the explanation for the "summer record", but we don't know as it cannot be replicated without access to BOM's methodology. If you want to trust the Climate Commission, CSIRO, and BOM, go right ahead, but I don't, and I have very good reasons not to. I choose to check the data for myself. By the way, the Australian regions I looked at are not of my choosing, they're the ones the Bureau uses. So what about the 6 "records" that weren't records? Haven't bothered to check them? Or are you quite happy to accept spin and half truths.
And R Ambrose Raven, it may be convincing to you that you had a hot summer in Perth. Brisbane’s summer temperatures were exactly- average. Which is one reason why a national average is meaningless.

Geoff persists with the Marcott paper which has disappeared the MWP and every other warm period for the last 100,000 years; it does so by using a low resolution statistical smoothing which excludes such warming periods as the MWP. By low resolution I mean data points which are longer in time than a particular climate episode.

The paper also does the infamous “Hide-the-decline” trick of simultaneously discarding temperature proxy data from the modern era when it diverges from the instrument record while relying on a cherry-picked and smoothed to pointlessness proxy data for the past temperature.

This is not just a bad paper it is deliberately misleading. Respond to these specific points if you can Geoff; your sanctimonious lectures are repetitive and empty of content, some substance would be good. In fact I challenge any of you superior types who believe AGW to justify this dreadful paper which is typical of AGW ‘evidence’.

Punter57 says January was warmer in the past because they only divided by 30 not 31.Maybe Punter works for the CC. The January 2013 monthly mean maximum was higher than the average over all the Observatory temperature record but similar to many other January averages above 27C over that record and well below the brutal month of January in 1896. In any event Observatory temperatures were higher in the 1800’s:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3534/3534-h/3534-h.htm

This record of early climate shows temperatures of 42.8C on the 27th December 1790. Punter should stick to losing on the horses; or make it plainer that he is taking the piss.

Bugsy has done a hit and run only there was no hit while Agro goes the ad hom against a guy whose shoes he is not fit to polish; so much for taking these 2 clowns seriously. And Agro, you just keep on believing whoever pays your weekly cheque. Ditto for the Raven.

And dear Poirot, groupie to the climate scientists like Foster and Schmidt; both competent statisticians who ably demonstrate the old saying, lies, damned lies and statistics. One day you’ll think for yourself.

Alan, buzz off; they don’t play cricket in France.