The author says:

"Despite having just had the hottest year on record and every monthly Australian record being broken"

The author either doesn't know what he is talking about or is a liar:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15904

3 other more reliable temperature sources ALL say 2013 was NOT the hottest year in Australia. BOM's records are flawed and politicised through AGW.

There is also nothing exceptional about the weather. Even the IPCC says there has been a downturn in extreme weather. Alarmists are like vultures just waiting around for the next catastrophe so they can ghoulishly claim it is due to AGW.

Cohenite I can assure you I am not a liar and I do have some research-based knowledge of climate change. Climate Change Generation ISBN 9780957943650. I have also read the article to which you refer and find the graphs actually show the warming trend rather than deny it. It may also be interesting for you to consult Wunderground as well as BOM and get it from a global organisation.

I love this bit in the authors profile:

"He came to Tasmania in 2008 to make a documentary...and decided to stay and help in the fight to restore democracy..."

Makes him sound like someone on a secret CIA mission behind enemy lines --is "Tasmania" here a misprint for North Korea or Lybia?

David has his democracy in Tasmania. It is a mendicant State and has to rely on the rest of us to pay them for doing less and less. Whenever I have been to Tassie I have always been impressed by the cheery and lovely people but the politicians, well that is a different story.
Go out and get a real job Dave, the weather is not changing despite the corruption of the BOM. Tony Abbott should ensure a whacking reduction in funds to the BOM and the ABC but with a twist! No sacking the tea ladies all executive salaries have to be reduced by 30% and all super is to be arranged by the executive. No massive salaries and even bigger pensions allowed.

"I have also read the article to which you refer and find the graphs actually show the warming trend rather than deny it."

Are you nuts? The first graph clearly shows 2013 was not the hottest in Australia according to 3 other best practice temperature indices!

As to whether temperatures are still going up, globally they are NOT:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/22/hadcrut4-is-from-venus-giss-is-from-mars-now-includes-november-data/#more-99765

And it's not just Brozek saying that but all these pro-AGW scientists as well:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/scientists_talking_about_no_warming/

This is terrible; alarmists want to change reality!

Let's have a bit of fresh air on global warming.

Let's start by assuming that the theory is correct. That means that if you take a cubic kilometre of atmosphere, and pump 100,000 tonnes of CO2 into it, the temperature will rise.

However that atmosphere has no brain, and cannot distinguish between one person pumping 100,000 tonnes and 100,000 people each pumping one tonne.

It follows that the relevant figure is CO2 per cubic kilometre of atmosphere, not CO2 per person.

On this basis Australia comes 34th in the world, with 1.24% of the total, and what we do here just doesn't matter.

Of course this doesn't suit the guilt industry (remember all successful religions are based on guilt) which shares the left wing obsession about the fact that we have a higher living standard than the third world.

It isn't even consistent, as the highest emitters per person are the people at Antarctic bases, which should therefore be closed down.

The truth is that the real problem in the world is overpopulation.

The third world is responsible for this, as most of the increase over the last 50 years has come from there. If the population peaks at 10 billion, this is where the increase will come from. Trouble is, we can't even handle the current population of 7 billion.

If the developed world wanted to mitigate this problem, it should force the underdeveloped world to adopt Chinese-style one child policies, but of course that is politically impossible.

Everyone agrees that the current position is unsustainable, and nature has a very effective solution, involving four horsemen.

It should be an interesting century.

Plerdsus,

You nailed it!

<< atmosphere has no brain, and cannot distinguish between one person pumping 100,000 tonnes and 100,000 people each pumping one tonne...
Of course this doesn't suit the guilt industry (remember all successful religions are based on guilt) which shares the left wing obsession about the fact that we have a higher living standard than the third world.>>

But watch out --in any brave new green world they would knocking on your door about now to cart you off to a re-education camp.

I was under the impression that the left had lost the election, so that means its concerns go on the back burner.

As for using the climate models to drive policy basically in the last few years they have been shown that they are of no use - and that's irrespective of the science.

For a start there is no reason to think that the models have anything like the accuracy often attributed to them (get to this temperature if we get to this level of CO2 in the atmosphere), and all the rainfall models have proved useless in the short term.

In any case, without an international agreement on limiting emissions there is simply no point in Australia doing so. Its a complete waste of money, and voters are beginning to realise this.

What is it about Tasmania? Wasn't it just yesterday we had another Taswegian rabbiting on about some bee in her bonnet.

Is it something in the air that turns people into kooks? Is it that there are now so many kooks down there, that they have developed a new form of gravity that draws them from all over the country, & the known world, & even from outer space if one of them, Bob Brown is to be believed?

I wonder if there is a time that is safe for sane folk to visit, or if even a few days is enough to unhinge the innocent tourist?

But then what is it about greenies? Why is it that none of them can ever tell the truth? Why can they not argue a case on the facts? Why must they spin everything so heavily that sane people roll their eyes & mutter "Oh god" as they move away?

I guess all this is good for the sanity of the world population. It makes it easier for the borderline Kook to see the fallacy, & avoid being conned.

'The climate is fighting back and we are entering unprecedented territory faster than we would like. '

I did not know I was at war with the climate. Those who reject Christ certainly are at war with God (unwinnable battle) but climate? I still think Australia has one of the best climates in the world. The poms would do anything to have our sunny days.

*It should be an interesting century.*

As the Chinese say "may you live in interesting times".

If you live.

It isnt that the Coalition were elected, its that the whole world is catching on. Climate change is transitioning from a popular hysteria, to something everyone but the invested activists can treat as science.

The last days of Tulip Mania...

Prepare for a wave of professional liability lawsuits to try and recover some tiny portion of the billions wasted on uneconomic renewables, carbon trading folly and subsidies poured into the crony capitalists of 'green jobs'.

Yes! Pleadsus, correct in what you say on overpopulation, having returned to India last year after 20 years, nothing in the population stakes had changed since the first visit, the beggars, the cripples lying in the middle of the road wanting money, poverty everywhere, their rich do not seem to care and I felt it was not my problem at all, it all comes back to what is in ones pants, if you want to fornicate and have six kids that you cannot afford for goodness sake do not have them, of course we have the male mentality in third world countries to make every bang a winner. One also notices the refugees are breeding rather well at Inverbrackie S.A. and possibly will continue to do so, one would think they would wait until they have a clearance to become citizens.
Climate change has just been discussed on OLO with the for and against, so will not get involved this time, I do agree with the writer silence seems to be the order of the day within the Abbott Government, the media have obviously been silenced.

*Prepare for a wave of professional liability lawsuits to try and recover some tiny portion of the billions wasted on uneconomic renewables.*

These 2 million households obviously do not understand that reducing your power bill to zero or having a credit is a fools game, is uneconomic and it does not produce any of that lovely CO2 that is so good for the environment.
*Giles Parkinson, REneweconomy 13.01.14
Clean Energy Regulator says Australia now has 2 million small scale renewable energy systems – enough to power Perth, Hobart, Darwin and Canberra.*
Australia has now installed more than 2 million small scale renewable energy systems – reaching the target just eight months after the country achieved its first one million rooftop solar systems.

I think most people, politicians as well, have come to the realization that it is pointless trying to save the worlds climate from little ol Ozland where we as a nation would hardly be missed if we were to turn the machines off and put out the lights.

Sure there is a case for action on climate change, but it's a global problem and as such must be fought with a global solution, otherwise we simply run the risk, as proven, of making our industries so anti competitive that they (industries) are left with little choice other than to pack up their bat and ball and go elsewhere.

Furthermore, you know you are push it up hill when the likes of China, a huge omiter pays a few dollars per ton on carbon, and we, a minute omitter in comparison pay $23 per ton and growing.

We have not yet seen the effects of this huge impost on our transport sector yet, due to kick in 1 July this year. Brace yourselves!

Well, I guess it had to happen, the deniers are out there in full swing and with such intelligent comments, very constructive, Your master will be pleased with your performance. The thing that gets me are the names... cohenite, plerdsus, SPQR, Curmudgeon, Hasbeen (that's interesting) runner, ChrisPer... Are you ashamed of your given names or just hiding in the shadows? The only genuine comments are from Robert LePage but then that is a real name. Does this sort of spin doctoring pay well, I wonder? If the answer that is yes then Abbott must be running scared. I also think comments about Tasmanian people being kooks are so passé and factually incorrect Hasbeen. I did stand and fight with thousands of hard working people who do have real jobs and we did overturn what was a very destructive and corrupt situation and restored normality... And democracy. You see, sitting in comfortable offices in big cities you tend to take things fore granted. You go to work, you play and you know that tomorrow you have a job, you won't get chemically doused or get your house torched by a mob. You won't get sued out of existence for saying things like you have been saying in this thread. That is because you have, for want of a better word, democracy. That did not apply in Tasmania as little as two years ago. I was proud of what those people achieved and I still am. You can take a look for free by checking out this link: www.theage.com.au/tv/Environment/A-Worm-in-the-Apple-4262515.html

And, by the way, it has gone very quiet on climate change.

Labor and the Greens are going to cop a flogging in the forthcoming Tasmanian State election.

*Labor and the Greens are going to cop a flogging in the forthcoming Tasmanian State election.*

As they did in the federal election and boy are the people going to be p&^%*d off in the next 3 years.
Just think about THAT when you vote for Abetz and his puppets.

The last days of Tulip Fever.

The whining is intensifying... and Ad hominem is all they have.

Firstly , I have to admit that I look forward to Davids' Novellas here on OLO.

Most amusing !

With the Election now being called , here in Tasmania,the only interest in it will be in seeing how low the vote for the Greens will be..

Based on what I am hearing , here in the North, it will be damn all.

Only Battery Point ex-mainlanders will be supporting them.

I don't about anywhere else but in the region I live in it hasn't been as hot as I remember from 35-40 yeas ago & the wet seasons have all but disappeared. I recall days so blinding & hot in summer & pourng rain for days on end, nothing like that in the past 30 years.

David Leigh,

Like most believers in AGW appear to have a vivid imagination.

Your opponents are all deniers" à la Holocaust deniers.
Yet, no one here is denying climate change, just you peculiar take on it.

Your opponents have "masters".
Yet, no one here is on any payroll --but, if you are aware of anyone paying money for comment please pass-on their contact details!

And you seem to have this far fetched fantasy that you are fighting to restore democracy ...in Tasmania!

PS I dont really think the Robert LePage is a real name, in an age when one can so easily change a name by deed poll, why on Earth would anyone persist with a name that means Robert the little servant --unless, he was a masochist!

Corrected version

David Leigh,

Like most believers in AGW YOU appear to have a vivid imagination.

Your opponents are all deniers" à la Holocaust deniers.
Yet, no one here is denying climate change, just youR peculiar take on it.

Your opponents have "masters".
Yet, no one here is on any payroll --but, if you are aware of anyone paying money for comment please pass-on their contact details!

And you seem to have this far fetched fantasy that you are fighting to restore democracy ...in Tasmania!

PS I dont really think the Robert LePage is a real name, in an age when one can so easily change a name by deed poll, why on Earth would anyone persist with a name that means Robert the little servant --unless, he was a masochist!

David you are indeed a brave man posting about climate change on OLO.

The Coalition is trying hard to get Climate Change off the agenda and will not enter into discussions so to speak, they are too wedded to industry and owe too many favours to the big end of town.

Whomever is in government controls the information and sets the agenda. Australia won't see much in the way of environmental programs and responsibility for a while.

David
We agree.
The climate is changing. But:
Your warming terrorist say narrowing DTR is evidence of warming.
Your warming terrorists say rising surface temps are evidence of warming.
Your warming terrorists say receding polar ice caps are evidence of warming.
Your warming terrorists say extreme weather events are evidence of warming.

My cooling terrorists say widening DTR is evidence of cooling.
My cooling terrorists say stable or falling surface temps are evidence of cooling.
My cooling terrorists say expanding ice caps in summer are evidence of cooling.
My cooling terrorists say extreme weather events are evidence of cooling.

How do we decide who is accurate?

Lets see:
NASA photos show expanding ice caps in summer.
The IPCC now acknowledge surface temps are not increasing sccording to their models.
Statistics show irrefutably the DTR is increasing dramatically.
Well I don't know if extreme weather events are increasing but all the warmists say they are. But temps are no higher than they used to be and there haven't been any cyclones ib Qld this year. The warming terrorists at the Bom predicted 12. That means there needs to be more than 1 a week for the next 10 weeks.
My cooling terrorists claim there would be none.

Please respond without abuse as we both share the view climate is changing. It is just we see the change dramatically opposite.

Please state your case for warming in light of the emerging facts..

Oh and David
The boats have stopped even though there is no monsoon this year.
Lol.

"He came to Tasmania in 2008 to make a documentary...and decided to stay and help in the fight to restore democracy..."

LOL

We had Labor Federal Goverments and Tasmanian had Labor and Greens Government at that time.

David you've been wonderfully successful.

We now have a Federal Liberal Goverment and Tasmania about to have the same.

Well done. lol

What ever happened to climate change in Australia? That's easy...know one cares:)..........gessss its been getting hot and cold lately around the world...I wonder what's happening...oh dear:)

planet3

'The Coalition is trying hard to get Climate Change off the agenda '

yes Pelican BOM, the ABC and all those with a vested interest are desperate to make a huge fuss about it being hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Thankfully or hopefully the funding will go to a more worthy cause.

....if you want to fornicate and have six kids that you cannot afford for goodness sake do not have them..

Yes Ojnab, it's a pity we here in Oz have the mentality that you can have as many kids as you wish, because someone else will provide for them, so much so, that we have all these immigrants, no race mentioned, coming here, having their 11 kids and being paid to do so.

Any wonder we must seem like an easy target.

The sad part is, often the parents don't even work, and if they do, it either in drugs, or for cash from one of their non Australian friends.

Another frustrating issue is that I seriously doubt our tax system was introduced to fund this type of ever increasing expense.

Robert LePage, I have said all along that while it fine to find a fossil fuel free sours of energy, what do we then do with all this who are all of a sudden out of work, because our energy sector is a huge employer, both directly and indirectly.

That's why I have always said, find a way to deal with carbon, rather than reducing it to unsustainable levels.

BTW, I have installed solar in two of my properties, and the savings, with the in feed credits, are huge. I will pay back my $16,000 in about five to seven years and the system is guaranteed for 25 years and, once the 44cents runs out I will install batteries, charge them during the day and pay ZERO power bills. Sweet!

PS I don't really think the Robert LePage is a real name, in an age when one can so easily change a name by deed poll, why on Earth would anyone persist with a name that means Robert the little servant --unless, he was a masochist!
Posted by SPQR,

Well SPQR, I can assure I have a birth cert that says that is my real name and I am not ashamed to use it unlike the people here who ARE ashamed to use their real names.
So I will show you mine if you will show me yours.

* what do we then do with all this who are all of a sudden out of work, because our energy sector is a huge employer, both directly and indirectly.*

Well a good start would be to throw out any so called level playing field trade agreements. Restart our own manufacturing and retrain coal miners to produce instead of dig and burn.

What ever happened to climate change in Australia?

People wised up.

They realised that the greatest infestation of con men, & elitism is in our academia, & just stopped listening to the bull.

I've lost count of how many times we've been told there is no need for a hell, we are all going to fry on earth. It must be thousands, all told by people with their hand out.

It is a bit like those from the 3 marine research groups in Townsville. Combined they have come up with well over a hundred ways the Reef is dying, & asking for more money.

You know, I reckon if we closed one of those research groups, we'd find the reef is 33.3% less likely to die. Strange isn't it?

Abbott really is running scared if he has to employ people to fight his battles. You still haven't answered the real point of this argument (with the exception of a few stupid comments like 'nobody cares') Climate change really is not being discussed politically, is it!

Robert, removing trade agreements won't allow us to compete with the two dollar per hour being paid in the likes of China, so how do you propose we reboot our manufacturing.

You must remember we did have quite a healthy man industry, but continued pushing from unions and the like, ever increasing life style demands saw us become simply out of the game and for anyone to think we can regain that type of industry, in a way that would provide the jobs required, is simply dreaming.

Yes Hasbeen, as they say if you keep funding researchers to research, they will keep researching.

Sad part is, all too often their research over turns previously funded research.

David Leigh, climate change is not being discussed much at present, but then again, when it was, we saw the likes of the waste of both time and resources, not to mention money, when the Rudd government whet to Copenhargen in search of a trophy, which turned out to be a tax payer funded holiday achieving what most of us expected
! - ALL.

The amount of billions wasted on climate change could have been better spent on researching and trialimg ways to deal with carbon, rather than hide our heads in the sand thinking we can reduce it without economic ramifications.

More timber for building is one such way. By no means the answer, but certainly a step in the right direction as hardwood, usually weighing about 1300 kilos per cubic meter, stores about 50% of it's weight in carbon for as long as the building stands.

Hasbeen mentioned the Great Barrier Reef

Remember when we were told it was a sure goner--well, I Just noticed this in NewScientist [4 January 2014 -p14]

"[previously it had been theorized that] Corals [would be] unable to grow and survive [in acidic waters --which might result from increased CO2-- however researchers] were surprised to find coral reefs around the Palau archipelago ...were dense and diverse even though the PH of the water and the amount of carbonates were usually low"

Looks like another one bites the dust!

*so how do you propose we reboot our manufacturing*.

Simple. Put a tariff on imported goods, especially ones from Australian companies that have moved offshore.
And before you say it:
Yes our mining and agriculture will be targeted but that can only be good because there is going to be a shortage of food world wide as well as here so they will not be able to be too picky.
As for our mines, we will benefit in the long run. Most of the profits from them go overseas and we are denuding the country to acquire a few digital dollars in exchange.
Our gas will be worth a thousand times more for us in later years when there is a shortage of oil the price is out of our reach.
Labour from these industries can be retrained to run out resuscitated manufacturing industry.

runner
What vested interests does BOM or the ABC have in the Climate Change debate? Please elaborate.

The only vested interests I can see are coming from industry and those who look after their own self interest rather than considering the effects of their actions on the environment and without a care about long term damage and its effect on the majority of the population. I am not talking just about CC but on the importance of the environment to human wellbeing and survival.

I am not religious, but I reckon if there was a God he would not want people trampling and demolishing the earth as some believe he made it. I have no idea how much climate change is caused by man or by nature but to not have a discussion because of pressure from businesses is just negligent in my view. Also the science community seems pretty much in agreement that much of it is due to human activity. I would trust the majority of scientists over business interestes anyday.

The Libs don't want to do anything about global warming really, we all know it, and talk of direct action is just that - talk.

Ok Robert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're suggesting is that we impose a duty on incoming goods, which makes them as expensive, or more expensive than locally made.

Well two obvious flaws I see, One, the likes of China, with 2 billion to feed and no welfare so as to speak just accepting such a huge hit to their economy and Two, the majority of our people who buy cheaper products, buy them because they can't afford anything else.

So, do we increase wages even more to provide the necessary funds for people to buy locally made?

The trouble is that for every action, there is a reaction, and the reaction to our out of control costs has been fo our manufacturers to either go outmof business, or go elsewhere, as has been the case.

The damage is done and can't be fixed in my view, unless of cause wages get slashed, but then no one will have money to spend anyway.

Manufacturing in this country is a loose loose, and all the previous government could do to help was to introduce a big fat tax. Pure genius!

And it's (the tax) is about to hit transport. Brace yourself!

To David Leigh
Yours is a terrific article. I don't see it as party political at all.Labor is pathetic, and yes, even the Greens have been quieter (but perhaps the media control what we hear from them)
Time was when even John Howard understood that something needed to be done about addressing climate change.
I am frankly astonished to see that the climate denialist trolls are out in force, damning your fine article.
I have to wonder about the readership of this fine journal, too. Where do all these troll commentators come from? True children of the Mont Pelerin Society, the Koch brothers, the Tea Party, and religious fundamentalism.
This would be funny, if it were not an issue about our grandchildren's future.

Noel

you omitted a group.

open minded democrats.

'I have no idea how much climate change is caused by man or by nature but to not have a discussion because of pressure from businesses is just negligent in my view. '

Hi Pelican

is not sending 1000 to CopenHagen not discussion (though it achieved zilch). We can discuss Flannery's or Gores predictions if you like. We can discuss honestly the cost of putting Aussies out of work while other countries laugh at us.

their is an obvious correlation between scaring people with propaganda and receiving funding. In my many decades of life I have never witnessed so much propaganda as that which has come from the warmist. The more their funding is threatened the more desperate they become.

Could you imagine all the money wasted on such nonsense having been spent on real environmental issues. God's planet would be much cleaner.

you write

'I would trust the majority of scientists over business interestes anyday. '

business is not the only humans full of self interest. Why are they any more full of self interest than the Greens or the Labout party or the Liberals. It is in no ones interest to see the environment wrecked least of all industry. The billions wasted already on Green nonsense shows that their is muc self interest by those on the gravy train.

'I have no idea how much climate change is caused by man or by nature
runner,
I thought it was God who designed all that. Does it say anything in the bible about all the climate changes we've had over the past several thousand decades ? If God thought ice ages were a good idea then why would he change now ? On the other hand if there really is a creator then isn't it about time to knock this idotic crowd on this planet out of existence ?
Perhaps this is what Atlantis was all about & the Egyptians & all the other civilisations of which there are only ruins left. Perhaps they were just as stupid as we are.

Well for good or for bad I'm back. Kind of got shamed into it really. One's children have a knack of doing that, especially when they talk about what they and their children will face once you have slipped the mortal coil.

A family discussion about GW last night had me dipping the toe back into OLO to see what the lie of the land was post Abbott ascension, and I must say it ain't pretty. Talk about the patients running amok.

This is most evident in the comments to David's article. The usual bullies appear emboldened - sneering, snide, bombastic, and pack driven even more than I remember.

But one shouldn't go missing just because the going gets a little tough, or to put it more directly, when the deniers hold the reins, therefore here I am, hardly reformed, hardly less cranky, but back in the trenches so to speak.

So let's kick things by looking at the first few posts.

Dear Cohendite, here the bloody hell do you get off telling David he is a liar or ignorant? He was referencing the work of our national Bureau of Meterology.

“Summer 2012–13 was the warmest on record nationally, spring was also the warmest on record and winter the third warmest. Overall, 2013 was Australia's warmest year on record: annual national mean temperature was +1.20 °C above average.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/

So you come in here as an upstart climate wannabe without climate qualifications of any sort and essentially call the good men and women of the bureau, the majority qualified weather and climate specialists, LIARS?

Who in the hell do you think you are?

And do not start simpering about 'my set of figures show that 2005 or even 2003 were cooler'. 13 out of the last 14 years have been the hottest recorded in Australia and you are using them to try and make your case?

The BOM figures have been taken from ground stations for over 100 years, not varying satellite records.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/20140103_Tmean_plot.png

Those figures, the bureau, and David Leigh have far more weight in any thinking person's book that whatever dribbles from your pen my friend. Perhaps you might feel I'm being a little harsh, well tell you what, calling someone a liar is far more egregious. Park it and I endevour to ease up.

Dear Jbowyer. Your next. When do you get off calling those who work for the BOM corrupt? What a bloody discraceful thing to say. You give no evidence besides them reporting the results of last years temperature collations from across the nation – specifically their job. Their only affront is to challenge your ideology. Well suck it up mate.

Dear SPQR, Ah attacking the man with the first salvo. True to form my good fellow. I see you have lost none of your distaste of doing the work and arguing the facts.

Dear Curmudgeon, a beautiful post, so true to the namesake I don't think I can add anything.

Dear Hasbeen, straight to the name calling I see. Kook? Pretty close to Gook. Good old serviceman vernacular. But what really got a laugh was when you referred to 'outerspace'. Now that brought back memories and a good belly laugh. Remember this little gem.
“Okay, let me get this straight, you want us to dismiss solid climate science and modelling and then recommend a site predicting weather patterns from the orbit of Neptune?”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5123#138493
Now that my friend was pure cuckoo land.

And now for my dear runner. Can't say I have missed you but I will give you credit for not going the man nor slandering our BOM as most of the previous posts had done.

How is this for a plan. If someone is prepared to write an article for OLO and make themselves available to argue the issue then calling them liars and kooks and all the rest is no way to honour that effort. Disagree strongly with their arguments if you will but treat them with some respect.

In noting the groups whose trolls post climate denialist comments - I did omit quite a few notable ones - Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation, Heartland Institute, The Heritage Foundation.There are at least 20 more such groups, all funded by Exxon Mobil and other polluting industries.http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt---the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/Dealing-in-Doubt-The-1990s-a-network-of-denial-is-created/

Linked to these American climate denial front groups, Australia has The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the Australian Environment Foundation, the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Lavoisier Group. Climate denialist articles and comments, with varying degrees of skill come from these industry-connected organisations, and from other paid shills of the polluters. http://www.cana.net.au/sites/default/files/DoubtingAustralia.pdf

Steele, Noel, how many years of the only true, trustable climate record, the satellite record, will it take to convince you that there has been no global warming? Even the addle headed at the IPCC have now admitted this fact.

Of course if you are on the gravy train, spending a billion a year on the fraud, I suppose nothing would get you to admit the truth. What is your excuse?

Rehctub….you have an interesting point there…..World population is the number one problem, not only in second and third world settings, first world countries are now realizing the costs of having to feed and so forth, with real time head counts…(Australia can’t be the lucky country for much longer) Centrelink populations that’s been high-lighted with the cash for kids, the answer that kills two birds with stone, is to put a cap of..lets say three children max, then every child after that, Centrelink will no longer pay for any further off-spring.

Just a thought.

Planet

Dear Hasbeen,

I tell you what records I trust, those accumulated over a hundred years by Australians all over this nation going out each day and diligently noting daily observations come rain, hail or shine. Some of this has been overtaken by automation but I'm prepared to trust the Aussie scientists who constructed, calibrated and maintained those instruments. These measurements were taken in the big cities and in the small towns across this land, done by people who where not driven by a profit motive nor beholden to the coal industry nor the ideologues within the Greens or the Liberal party. They were intent on doing their job and being as accurate as they could be.

The best, most robust of the data from those thousands of measuring stations has been collated by reputable scientists and statisticians within the Australia Bureau of Meterology and our own (thus far at least) CSIRO. The result is summed up in the graph I posted earlier and do so again.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/20140103_Tmean_plot.png

Some trumped up legal type comes in here and slaps down three sets of satellite date purporting to show that Australia is not warming, none of them agreeing completely with the others, and this is what you want me to believe in instead.
http://onlineopinion.com.au/images/article-images/Cox_14_01_10_I.gif

Well I'm sticking with the home grown. You go ahead and try and make the case why these diligent and dedicated folk across this land just happened to have stuffed it up so completely.

I'm listening.

There's no-one on this planet has ever lived long enough to live through a climate change to make a comparison although we have scientific evidence that such changes are occurring as part of the evolution of this planet. Obviously it can't do any good to our atmosphere to have so much emission but how did previous climate changes occur before man's industries ? Isn't it just a case of blabbering about something we have absolutely no control over ? Is it merely a case of simply a bunch of integrity devoid to get their grubby little fingers onto yet some more funding by alarming the crap out of everyone else ?
I don't deny that pollution does affect the atmosphere & I don't claim it does because I have no other evidence to compare it with. What I would like to have clearly explained so we can make a decision to either put more fundiing into the hands of the experts or stop all funding is to give us evidence that these experts can prevent a climate change & how.
Just ruining all industry & making the climate change bandwagon longer & faster without any explanation how it all can be solved is just throwing good money at bad people.

SteeleRedux, are you suggesting that an instrument for measuring weight, temperature etc, back in the 19th century was as accurate as one used today. Remembering of cause that One, celcius was not in use then, and Two, nor were grams, kilos or metric tons.

Now given that we are talking increases in temp of 1 Deg C, how accurate do you think the bench mark figures are.

Indi, I have to agree, as I have often asked what caused the last ice age, as it's wasn't man burning fossil fuels, was it!

Of cause none of the climate change supporters have bothered to answer my repeated question. No surprise to me by the way.

*what you're suggesting is that we impose a duty on incoming goods, which makes them as expensive, or more expensive than locally made.*
most of the "stuff" that is imported is junk that people could do without and if we had more manufacturing jobs, at least they would have wages to buy with.

*the likes of China, accepting such a huge hit to their economy *.
So we are to kow tow to China are we?

*So, do we increase wages even more to provide the necessary funds for people to buy locally made?*
The famous market forces will stabilize prices.

Other points are of no consequence

Haven't you noticed SteeleRedux, that the BOM, & the CSIRO keep correcting those records , & every single time, it is in a direction that exaggerated any recent increase in temperature, or actually creates an increase where one never existed.

This has been a very foolish policy, as in this computer age many other people have downloaded those records, before the riders of the gravy train thought to adulterate them.

People like you have thought they could push this barrow, collecting all that lovely cash, for ever.

Well it looks like the sun has a sense of humor, & is about to have a very big laugh at you all. All we need now is a government with the guts to give you the reward you deserve.

....most of the "stuff" that is imported is junk that people could do without and if we had more manufacturing jobs, at least they would have wages to buy with.

Yes Robert, but that 'junk' as you call it is what people can afford.

....The famous market forces will stabilize prices.

So how long will that take as i would suggest this would take years, if not decades and our manufacturing sector is in melt down now.

Besides, if and when anything is done, we will have run out of qualified personnel to train recruits.

I am afraid the damage is done and I seriously doubt there is any going back.

Dear butcher me ol salt, how have you been? I'm hoping you have been well and grown not only a little older but a little wiser as well.

Ah well the proof will be in the pudding.

Firstly you refer to me as a 'climate change supporter'. I am not such thing. I am of the firm belief, shared by many scientists, that human beings, while having been around for over 100,000 years in our current form, only progressed to civilisations capable of great science, music, art, thinking and literature because of the preceding 10,000 years of relatively stable climate. It is true that we will not have this 'blessed' period forever and that solar and planetary fluctuations will in likely cause to end but I for one have no wish to hurry the process.

You sir, on the other hand, want to see no action on reducing emissions and their impact on this 'blessed period' and that makes you most definitely a 'climate change supporter'.

Anyway to the instruments. The mercury bulb thermometer had been around for nearly 200 years before we were taking serious national observations in this country. Yes back in 1900 the measurements were taken in 10ths of a degree. Here are the records for Broome in Western Australia for that year. http://tinyurl.com/mpmqjn3

Dear Hasbeen,

Really? Is that all you have? Now you make the claim that the BOM have altered records to deceitfully show the country has been warming when it hasn't. What rot. Please furnish one shred of proof. Just because you want an excuse to ignore the evidence in front of your nose doesn't mean you get to slander the good folk at the Bureau with unsupported claptrap.

And you still haven't answered my question. Which set of data are you going to hang your hat on? Cohenite's or the work of thousands of Australians taking millions of on the ground measurements to a 10th of a degree for over a hundred years?

Interesting graph there SteeleRedux.

Now where's the real graph, you know, the one showing the original readings in F, not C.

Also, are you actually suggesting that the temp was read, at 9 am eveything single day without fail, rain hail or flood.

Sorry to be pedantic about this, but we are talking about a degee or two change.

As for me, I'm well, got a job paying $85K per year for six months, on/off roster. Life's great!

Ar, did I mention no landlord, not staff,and no hassles.

'I am of the firm belief, shared by many scientists, that human beings, while having been around for over 100,000 years in our current form, only progressed to civilisations capable of great science, music, art, thinking and literature because of the preceding 10,000 years of relatively stable climate. '

SteeleRedux

you are a man of faith. I am a firm believer that scientist have no idea what the climate was 100000 years ago. To base act on such theories is totally irresponsible.

SteeleRedux,

Yes you steeleee. I see you omited to include me among those who deny your faith in warming.

I can only conclude that is because you do not want to address my claims that we are now in a cooling period and that all the authorities you claim support warming are now backtracking on their tools of evidence.

You know increasing DTR, expanding ice caps, stable or falling surface temps and extreme weather events more easily explained in terms of cooling rather than warming.

I know I question your fundamental faith and I don't use abuse but you know ignoring me and my views is tantamount to refusing to confront the realities of the shortcomings of your faith.

So Reduxy you believe there was a good reason to suddenly correct the temperature at Darwin airport by 2 degrees upward?

You believe this when that temperature & all those within a couple of hundred miles have not changed if 4 decades?

You believe this when it was only Darwin airport, [the one used in calculating the national average] that was "corrected?

You must be either the most naive poster on this sight, or one of the conmen, I wonder which?

Fact is no one cares which, you are irrelevant. With the way the sunspots are going, we are bound for another Dalton Minimum which will freeze your warmists silent, just like the Antarctic froze Chris Turney & his bunch of clowns solid.

You will have to get better informed if you want to mix it here matey

Steeleredux, I 1989 I was involved in the building of a factory in Melbourne where the outside temperature and relative humidity were important. I received all the preceeding 100 years of data from the BOM. I did call to thank them and had a light hearted chat with the man there. He said despite what people think the summers have not changed. It is just as warm but people only remember the good summer weather not the bad.
So matey, there was no change and then some arse thought up Global warming and made a motza out of it. The BOM now realise what a nice little earner Climate Change is. I stand by my corruption charge!

of course temperatures are higher in built-up area from reflection & anyone who takes readings there is wasting theirs & our time with recording temperature.
Airports are the worst location with all the runways & aprons holding heat.

The selfishness of old men who know that they will not suffer the consequences of their greed and hubris.
And you wonder why the younger generations hate you!

I fear for you in your dotage.
When those same young people are tasked with caring for you.
Karma I suppose.

What a very sad life you must live mkk.

Why do you wish ill on people?

Why are you agiest?

I am not old. My family and friends love me for me. They know I will never ever be dependent on anyone. They also remember what I have done for others snd for myself.

How sad you haven't encountered those fantastically positive attitudes and behaviours in your life.

I fell very sorry for you. I sincerely hope you fine some peace snd happiness and you obercome those ill feelings and spite.

mikk & Imajulianutter,
you both have very valid points. All you need to learn now is how to weigh everything in context of fairness. You think you can do that ?

Individual

Firstly that lesson should have been directed at the warming terrorists when they started with their abusive labelling as 'Denialists' of those who opposed their stupid warmist ideas.

If you did not lecture them then, then you have no right to lecture me now.

Secondly please point out where I have abused mkk prior to his name calling, ageism, ill will and spite. All I did was point out his sadness. What you need to realise is that his attitudes are now a result of his stupid warmist point of views being totally debunked by fair and reasoned argument, statistics and reality. He is simply lashing out because his view was wrong. Like an unAustralian sore loser.

Direct your comments at those who deserve them. It is not right nor fair to lump people, like me, who are fair and who have behaved reasonably in the face of terrible obrium and abuse, with those who have sunk to those disgraceful behaviours.

I thought I had been pretty gracious to people like mkk since all the indicators are making it apparent we are in a cooling period.

I could have said something much briefer like, get ......., but graciously I haven't.

You blokes are amazing.

This reminds me of an analogy I heard in a TED talk. Hitler's armies are on the march and you want to know the number of stitches in the uniforms or the number of calories consumed by each soldier before you will believe the news.

Instead of Chamberlain declaring “Peace in our time!” imagining Hitler was going to stop with a bit of Czechoslovakia, it's you lot trumpeting 'Cooling in our time!'.

Rehctub wants to see the original invasion orders signed by Hilter himself. Without them there is no need to prepare for war.

runner thinks because the German Army's motto is 'God is with us' then they wouldn't attack fellow believers.

imajulianutter loudly proclaims there is no invasion because the army has stopped at the Rhine.

Hasbeen thinks that because of a report that a small runway had been lengthened for bombers turned out to be incorrect there will be no invasion.

Jbowyer thinks that because he got told over a quarter of a century ago by some army bloke the Germans would never invade again because they were given such a thumping last time that they couldn't possibly be planning to do it again. Plus he thinks the observers in the scout planes must be working for munitions companies.

Individual states that what some see as a pre-invasion build up of personnel at airports is because aviation is becoming more popular.

From now on you lot are going to be called the Munich Mob. A bunch of any excuse to do nothing' miscreants and Abbott is your Chamberlain.

Dear Hasbeen,

Trotting out the old 'Darwin temps have been fiddled with by warmists within the Bureau because they are corrupt and want a pay rise'.

Oh please.

It is called an homogeneity adjustment and there are many reasons for doing it. Station re-siting, instrument changes, missing records, etc. There are good scientific reasons for doing so.

Darwin before adjustment;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501941200000&dt=1&ds=13

Darwin with adjustment;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501941200000&dt=1&ds=14

It does indeed show an adjustment upward in later readings. Conspiracy theories would have it that it was to tweek the data to show a temperature rise that matched the global warming predictions.

There is a small problem with that. For instance if we look over to Broome we will see the opposite occurred.

Broome before adjustment;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501942030000&dt=1&ds=13

And Broome after the adjustment;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501942030000&dt=1&ds=14

Dang! So didn't the Broome boys get the message that the fix was on?

Or from the other side of the debate, had the Munich Mob got a mole in there adjusting the figures down because Gina and Clive had paid them off? Damn it! I want an inquiry now! Royal Commission at the very least!

So a bunch of climate sceptics pick out those that increased like Darwin and made a great song and dance about it conveniently ignoring those that dropped and you gobbled it up hook line and sinker.

So any conspiracy theory you want to tout out I have one to match. The truth is that the BOM guys are just doing their jobs the best they can. They are not being paid off by anyone. They are on public servant wages not coal miner's, and should not have to put up with being called corrupt by the likes of you lot of miscreants.

Steelee

You are a disgrace. You are unable to refute the increasing DTR, the expanding polar caps, non rising surface temps snd extreme weather events more easily explained by cooling so what do you?

You have no valid argument so you disgracefully compare me to Hitler.

I am going to complain to the modertor about your needless abusiveness. Your attitudes so sad and so wrong.

Hay Reduxy, I don't have to trot out anything for you. Some are just not worth the effort.

I don't give a damn if you are a fool, or a gravy train rider, it really doesn't matter. Which ever, you are about to learn the truth, as the quiet sun gets quitter.

I'm sure you will be able to come up with yet another name, after this one is trashed by facts, one where you can pretend to have always been a skeptic, rather than a sucker.

but graciously I haven't.
Imajulianutter,
Go ahead & say it, I had no idea I offended you & it was the last thing on my mind.
I take it back because I can see now it was unfair.

Dear Hasbeen,

You say “I don't have to trot anything out for you” but you already had. What a silly statement.

Next, you pugnaciously announce “You will have to get better informed if you want to mix it here matey”. The only problem is all the information being delivered is from this side. You have offered nothing, zilch, only some unsupported vague cliques. When you pinned down on them you do not offer any pertinent information in rebuttal rather you resort to ad hominem attack. My advice – go get yourself better informed and then we can continue because from where I sit you have nothing. This is an important issue and ignoring the basic rigour required should not be tolerated.

Dear imajulianutter,

You really are a piece of work. You drop in here slinging around the term “warming terrorist” then bleat about Is mise's post.

How self serving and hypocritical is this statement from you?

“Firstly that lesson should have been directed at the warming terrorists when they started with their abusive labelling as 'Denialists' of those who opposed their stupid warmist ideas.”

Then you run to the teacher claiming I had compared you to Hitler. Would be that I was so generous. No you slow of wit, I included you as one of Chamberlain's supporters, ignoring the obvious intent of the Nazi leader. You are one of those whose obfuscation is designed to stymie any action on emissions so why shouldn't those of us watching our country become more and more like a tinderbox as the decades roll on view you as “un-Australian'?

Okay. Now why don't you think about how much more constructive this thread could be without terms like 'warming terrorist' and 'un-Australian', 'corrupt', 'liars' etc. I'm willing to give it a try, how about you? If not keep dishing it out and I will hit them back with spades.

'warming terrorist' and 'un-Australian', 'corrupt', 'liars' etc.
SteeleRedux,
You forgot the denialists & academic experts.

Steelee

why is it that you haven't been able to refute my opinions.

You remember my post:

'Yes you steeleee. I see you omited to include me among those who deny your faith in warming.

I can only conclude that is because you do not want to address my claims that we are now in a cooling period and that all the authorities you claim support warming are now backtracking on their tools of evidence.

You know increasing DTR, expanding ice caps, stable or falling surface temps and extreme weather events more easily explained in terms of cooling rather than warming.

I know I question your fundamental faith and I don't use abuse but you know ignoring me and my views is tantamount to refusing to confront the realities of the shortcomings of your faith.'

You name calling, purile abuse and flaming are just a very simple attempt to sidetrack us all away from your obvious failure.

Won't work Steelee.

I'm pleased you underestimate my wit. That simply means you'll be easily bested.

ps I complained to the moderator about your 'flaming'. It detracts from the 'debate'. Well as much as it is possible to debate someone who ignores the arguments to concentrate on abuse namecalling and flaming.

You should be barred from this site.

‘imajulianutter loudly proclaims there is no invasion because the army has stopped at the Rhine’

I can find no reference to Chamberlain making any such announcement about any armies stopping at the Rhine.
Chamberlain became PM in 1937.
The British PM at the time of Germany’s re-militarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 was Stanley Owen. I cannot find any such announcement by him about any armies stopping at the Rhine either.

It was only Hitler who made any announcement anything like your claim, after his armies re-militarised the Rhineland and had crossed the Rhine.

"First, we swear to yield to no force whatever in the restoration of the honor of our people, preferring to succumb with honor to the severest hardships rather than to capitulate. Secondly, we pledge that now, more than ever, we shall strive for an understanding between European peoples, especially for one with our Western neighbor nations...We have no territorial demands to make in Europe!...Germany will never break the peace."

Adolph Hitler
March 7 1936.
After Germany’s re-militarisation of the Rhineland after her armies crossed the Rhine.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-rhine.htm

Steeleredux, I believe you unwittingly, compared me to your socialist mass murdering hero Adolph Hitler.
Now apologise for your witlessness.

Lol yep I’m laughing at you.

Nutter
Quote
¨You know increasing DTR, expanding ice caps, stable or falling surface temps and extreme weather events more easily explained in terms of cooling rather than warming¨.

And I my opinion there is absolutely no evidence for the above claims try an internet search the various subjects but please stick to reputable sites such as universities, governments or science organisations. Not some of the wacky sites we so often see referred too on this forum.

I can´t tell how offensive I find the term ¨warming terrorist¨, My family basically lost our business due to environmental vandals who´s only interest was short term gain. My father managed two salmon lakes in the west of Ireland, until fishermen using nets measured in kilometers discovered they could catch the Salmon off the coast of Greenland during their annual migration. They simply cleaned the place out. Some 20 plus men directly or indirectly employed on the lakes lost their jobs as a result, plus several thousand more in other parts Ireland.

I am well aware how dependant we have become on fossil fuels but we now have the capacity to reduce our need to use them by a massive amount. The only thing stopping us is those fools who chose to ignore the obvious evidence that we are causing a problem of truly global proportions. Let us be clear some 90% of the data clearly point to the fact that greenhouse gases and aerosols are having a potentially disastrous effect on climate. The remaining 10% is simply not clear, we don´t understand, or just plain wrong, but that does not stop an army of fools from pouring over the 10% and claiming it proves there is no problem.

Well said warmair, this thread is populated by spin doctors, set to discourage sensible comment.

Dear imajulianutter,

Lol mate.

I did not set out to be completely historically accurate in my analogies.

What I have objected to is the author of this piece being called a liar, people at the BOM being called corrupt, and those who oppose your mindset being called terrorists.

You bleat again “why is it that you haven't been able to refute my opinions?”, because they are just that my friend, opinions. You have furnished no facts, no sources, no citations, no links, nothing!

So when I haven't responded you have stamped your little feet saying I have “ignored” and “omitted" you, in other words 'give me some attention now or I will tell the headmaster'.

Time to grow up.

warmair: "...this thread is populated by spin doctors, set to discourage sensible comment."

This applies to the entire forum.

Steelee.

FIRSTLY

You open your mouth and you confirm your witlessness.

‘I did not set out to be completely historically accurate in my analogies.’

Then it would be reasonable to assume you use the same inaccuracy producing methodology in all your pronouncements... including those pertaining to warming.

SECONDLY

Terrorist; noun
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Now give me a dictionary definition of Denialist and take in the views contained in current reports IPCC and NASA August Polar photos as well as the simple maths required to calculate the DTR.

THIRDLY

‘David
We agree.
The climate is changing.
...
How do we decide who is accurate?

Lets see:
A. NASA photos show expanding ice caps in summer.
B. The IPCC now acknowledge surface temps are not increasing according to their models.
C. Statistics show irrefutably the DTR is increasing dramatically.
D. Well I don't know if extreme weather events are increasing but all the warmists say they are. But temps are no higher than they used to be and there haven't been any cyclones in Qld this year. The warming terrorists at the BOM predicted 12. That means there needs to be more than 1 a week for the next 10 weeks. (Oh and now 9 weeks left therefore more than 1 a week.)
My cooling terrorists claim there would be none.
(Some warmist terrorists got caught in expanding ice this Antarctic summer.)

Please respond without abuse as we both share the view climate is changing. It is just we see the change dramatically opposite.

Please state your case for warming in light of the emerging facts.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 16 January 2014 6:47:45 PM’

Steelee, simple research will confirm my claims? Oh but that’s right see FIRSTLY above.

LOL REALLY LOUD BELLY LAUGH LOL

FINALLY

Your intellect is such that you think you can use as excuse inaccurate factual witlessness in defending unwitting denigration.
You are wrong. FACT you witlessly compared me to Hitler not Chamberlain.

Show some courage and accept your witless error, its consequences and apologise.

Come on steelee be adult.

Warmair

try NASA, IPCC, logic and simple arithmetic.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/986 This is the website data to which you refer imajulianutter

September 23, 2013

By Maria-José Viñas&#8232; NASA's Earth Science News Team

“After an unusually cold summer in the northernmost latitudes, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum summer extent for 2013 on Sept. 13, the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder has reported. Analysis of satellite data by NSIDC and NASA showed that the sea ice extent shrunk to 1.97 million square miles (5.10 million square kilometers).”
“This year's sea ice extent is substantially higher than last year's record low minimum. On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average minimum extent from 1981 to 2010.”

I read that as the 6th lowest ice level on record. It is up on last years record low yes, but it is not a trend.

Take a look at the graph on this link: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus and show me a warming trend.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf

This is the IPCC summary for policy makers - Download it in pdf form and have a good read.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased“

“Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years”

“Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent“

And I never use abuse because it has no value in sensible argument.

Dear David Leigh,

It should be noted that the Antarctic sea ice is increasing rather than decreasing. However the over all mass of the Antarctic ice sheet is decreasing with higher ice velocities.

It presents a fascinating picture of the dynamics involved. Unfortunately it can be a little confusing for some who prefer their answers in black and white. This should never be prevent us from presenting the whole picture though.

Yes, it really does present an interesting scenario, Steel, one not seen in living memory. Human opportunism is there to take advantage of the situation, just in case there are minerals that were previously unavailable. It is that same avaricious grab that fuels denial, i'm afraid and the supposed lack of real understanding in some.

David
That is not the official NASA site. You have quoted work from a bunch of warming terrorists who supplied non peer reviewed material to warming terrorists at NASA environmental section.
Try harder. You are looking for NASA satellite photos of the polar ice caps in August 2012 and August 2013.

Well done with that IPCC executive summary. Now read on till it discusses how Surface Temps in the last 10 yesrs haven't risen as those in a previous period. (Ie they have fallen) but that the overall trend of both periods is increasing but not as fast as their modelling.
That you will see is an astonishing admission.
Now check out DTR.

Hey Steelee witless
Are your pronouncements on Antarctic Ice made using your usual inaccuracy producingcmethodology?

LOL
Impossible to take a boy like you seriously now.

Hey boys check these

jpgp://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_170-jun-15-11-10.jpg

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screenhunter_175-feb-12-10-35.jpg

thankyou cohenite

Nutter
Thanks for the links to prehistory I.e. IPPC Far report 1990. Thats only 23 years out of date.
For somthing just a tad more recent try AR5 2013
http://www.climate2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf
B.3 Cryosphere
Page 7 and while you are at it Page 8

Quote
"Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass,
glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern
Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see
Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}"

Quote

"The annual mean Arctic sea ice extent decreased over the period 1979 to 2012 with a rate that was very likely in the
range 3.5 to 4.1% per decade (range of 0.45 to 0.51 million km2
per decade), and very likely in the range 9.4 to 13.6%
per decade (range of 0.73 to 1.07 million km2
per decade) for the summer sea ice minimum (perennial sea ice). The
average decrease in decadal mean extent of Arctic sea ice has been most rapid in summer (high confidence); the spatial
extent has decreased in every season, and in every successive decade since 1979 (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3).
There is medium confidence from reconstructions that over the past three decades, Arctic summer sea ice retreat was
unprecedented and sea surface temperatures were anomalously high in at least the last 1,450 years. {4.2, 5.5}"

Warmair.

Oops I erred I'll dig out the 2013 IPCC report. I rather lazily and unsually relied on a link I hadn't thoroughly checked.

Nothing you wrote about ice caps trumps the graphs or the experience of sailors trapped in unseasonal expanding ice as occurred this summer in both the Artic and Antarctic.

Nutter
Ice volume is more important than area, but nevertheless September 2012 had the lowest ice area on record in the arctic.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png

Ice thickness
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png

Below is a link to ice area, now this is interesting because it demonstrates why we see the difference between the summer minimum and winter maximums increasing as ice is lost.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Could all who have posted on this blog, please, go to either Independent Australia or De Smog Blog and read the article by James Lawrence Powell before posting another comment about climate change.

Couldn't find your reference but if the juvenile rubbish on those sites is any indication then the article is likely rubbish also.

http://www.climate2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf

yes that's it. Now check and understand the astonishing admissions in the following

'• In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). 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)5. {2.4}'
P3

What global mean surface temps have fallen? surely not? Well even the IPCC agree logic and maths say so.

'The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence'
P13
What cooling not warming? Christ what idiot wrote this admission.

'and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing'
p13
Eh? Well I never!

'There is robust evidence that the downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 1979 is now reproduced by more models than at the time of the AR4, with about one-quarter of the models showing a trend as large as, or larger than, the trend in the observations. Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations. {9.4}'
P15

What? An actual real increase in Antarctic sea ice. No!
I wonder what they will make of the extent of the Artic ice in the summer of 13 and Chris Turney's misadventure in the Antarctic in the summer of 13/14. So Turney obviously believed the models rather than observations.

So the IPCC 2013 report is wrong?

Hello everyone,

Here is the link to the article In Independent Australia to the article by James Lawrence Powell, which I asked everyone to read before continuing to comment. You may have to cut and paste into your browser.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/only-1-of-9136-recent-peer-reviewed-authors-rejects-global-warming,6094

Brian, great article. Now please point me to one peer reviewed article that proves AGW.

Pretty simple request, you would think, since there are so many which claim evidence of warming. Hard and fast proof please.

SteeleRedux sounds like a character from a 1970's porno movie; anyway Steele, your support for the BOM is commendable but naïve. The BOM is an unabashed supporter of AGW and its homogenisation of the Australian temperature record has been found to be biased; Stockwell and Stewart detail this in their paper:

http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell[1].pdf

The previous High Quality temperature network [HQ] from BOM was replaced by the ACORN network after a request for an audit of the HQ network was made; see;

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/audit/anao-request-audit-bom.pdf

The background to the audit is described here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/

After the switch to ACORN it was found the same bias which the HQ network had was still present in ACORN:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/threat-of-anao-audit-means-australias-bom-throws-out-temperature-set-starts-again-gets-same-results/#comment-1070341

As for the process of homogenisation or adjustment by the BOM that process of homogenisation was called unreliable and subjective by Della-Marta et al:

http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf

The fact is the BOM is NOT producing reliable and scientifically transparent climate information. It displays the same faults, obfuscation and manipulation as AGW science does generally.

Brian of Buderim - and anybody really
When you read that that Bureau of Meteorogy's credibility is being trashed. Or CSIRO's, or the IPPC's - do you not just feel like giving up on this so-called "debate".
I know that I do.

We all still go along believing the accepted experts in medical science, and in many other areas, such as road safety, architectural design safety - and many others. We accept their expert opinions as valid - even though we ourselves have not thoroughly researched their field of expertise.

Along comes climate change. Even here, for what small amount it counts - our own anecdotal evidence shows us that things are changing - as well as current photographs and news items - about rising global temperatures, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels.
The authoritative climate agencies tell us that human caused global warming is happening.

Suddenly, along come these anonymous people telling us not to trust the climate scientists, telling us that they are part of a big conspiracy against us, or at best, are just stupid. I find both of these propositions quite unlikely.

Noel
'Even here, for what small amount it counts - our own anecdotal evidence shows us that things are changing - as well as current photographs and news items - about rising global , shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels.

The authoritative climate agencies tell us that human caused global warming is happening.'

Let's check

'Current Photos' of the Artic Ice cap August 12 and August 13 from NASA an 'authoritative climate agency...'show a 50% increase in ice cover.

surface 'global temperatures' are shown to be not rising by IPCC an 'authoritative climate agency...'in their 2013 report.

'shrinking glaciers' is a claim no longer asserted by anyone currently.
'rising sea levels' ask Chris Flannery why he bought a riverfront property in an estuary.

The BOM this year predicted 12 cyclones for Australia.

So far there has been one. There are about 8 weeks left in the cyclone season. There need to be one and half cyclones each week for their inflated warming terrorist prediction to be correct. Given there are none on the horizon ... and the monsoon is still very weak and patchy ... well you know.

'anecdotal evidence shows' we have had an unusual summer in Brisbane. We have had dry lightening, very few storms and little summer rain.
The BOM in line with warming terrorism keep predicting increasing and severe storms and more rain.
One only has to take a look at the prevailing winds to see how wrong that terrorism is. The SE Trades refuse to blow.

The anecdotal evidence and actual weather is the direct opposite of the predictions from the experts at the BOM.

As a sailor well experienced in meteorology as I saw a late and weak monsoon this year I predicted no or very few cyclones and as I realised the trades were not arriving I challenged the BOM every time it has predicted massive and destructive storms for Brisbane. Every time, not occasionally but every time, the massive and destructive storms did not arrive. In fact even weak rainstorms seldom eventuated.

How's that for trumping your unsupported assertions?

The BOM failed to predict the QLD 2010 floods; that should be sufficient in itself for a judicial enquiry into their predictions.

Warwick Hughes and Ken Stewart have been showing how dud the BOM is in their predictions for years.

And Jennifer Marohasy and John Abbott and their pattern analysis model put together for about $22 flogs the predictive might of the multi-million POAMA models from BOM:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/12/costly-climate-model-just-a-big-boys-toy/#more-10950

BOM is an activist front for AGW ideology and Australia is suffering because of its failures. It is a scandal.

"Brian, great article. Now please point me to one peer reviewed article that proves AGW."

Nutter, science does not work that way. Each article adds to the mass of evidence.

All that is needed is one article to disprove AGW but, and it's a big but, the meteorology and climatology scientific community has to accept that the theory behind the methodology is accurate, that the results were validly obtained using that methodology, and that those results were accurately and validly interpreted. Oh, and that the whole thing is capable of being repeated by different people and obtaining the same results i.e. the results are reliable.

All of this goes on in peer-reviewed academia which I will concede many on this topic see as a world-wide conspiracy.

All it takes is one peer-reviewed article to disprove AGW.

I am still waiting.

Wait no longer Brian:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

All the papers are fully referenced.

But let's face it, you wouldn't change your 'mind' about AGW if God himself settled on Earth and said AGW is garbage because you BELIEVE in AGW.

AGW acolytes BELIEVE in it; it is not an intellectual exercise for you but an emotional and spiritual one.

Brian

Why is there no peer reviewed article proving AGW?

If all it takes is one peer reviewed article to disprove it, and there are many, why can't one peer reviewed article prove it.

Peer reviewed articles stating increases in co2 historically follow warming are quite common. Wouldn't they suffice? If not why not?
Isn't AGW predicated on increasing co2 any more?

Cohenite, I will not argue with you if you cannot tell the difference between fully referenced and peer reviewed.

Nutter, look up Popper and Falsifiability.

I am out of here

Brian

Brian, the papers discussed are ALL peer reviewed! Just amazing; thanks for proving my point.

Dear cohenite,

You have just out nutted imajulianutter and believe me that would take some doing!

Peer reviewed? Properly referenced?

I clicked on the first one and you haven't even bothered to put your bloody name on it.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

You had my derision but now you have my sympathy. You really do need a Bex and a good lie down my friend.

Quote IPCC
'• In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). 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)5. {2.4}'
P3

From Nutter we have this:-

"What global mean surface temps have fallen? surely not? Well even the IPCC agree logic and maths say so."

How on earth could you possibly make such a statement ?
Everybody and his uncle in Australia, knows that 1998 was an extreme El Niño year. Now we know that El Niño years are some 0.2C or more warmer than average. The long term rate of warming according to the IPCC is 0.14C per decade as above, so over 14 years that means we should expect the surface temperature to have increased by 0.21 deg C on average, but by starting with a year which is already some 0.2C deg above average you have managed to totally distort the true situation, to artificially create the impression, that there is no warming in reality the figures are telling us that warming is continuing almost exactly as expected. I can't decide whether you genuinely don't understand this, or you are just propagating spin for purely political reasons.
The bottom line is that 2012 is estimated to be 0.05C degrees warmer than 1998 if you choose to use extreme values you are simply being extremely biased.

You are welcome to hold any opinion you fancy on climate change, but don't insult the Bom who provide a very valuable service to Australia and know far more about climate than you do. If you don't like the message then instead of shooting the messenger, you might like to consider doing something about the problem.

Well said Warmair. Look! all you doubters in this thread, the point of my article was not to discuss whether climate change exists or is anthropogenic. These facts are clear enough to see if you want to see them. If you want to take another oppinion that is your choice, we are after all (supposedly) living in a democracy. The point of the article is that nobody is discussing climate change either way. It appears to have dropped off the radar.

Countries like China, as an example, are continuing to industrialise and will not have that industrialisation process anywhere near what they require until 2020. They understand that their collective footprint will be considerable, with regard to the climate and have already started renewables programs that far out way what other countries are doing. In the UK and Europe generally, in countries that are already entrenched in industrial processes that create huge profits and employment, large sums have been invested in renewable energy projects. They all have carbon tax of one sort or another. These countries did the research, learned the facts and have been busily working out not how to avoid the subject, as though it is a killjoy at the party. They have done what clever business people do, worked out how to profit from mitigation. They all know the alternative is not an option and that to delay will cost more in the long run.

I say once again to those climate sceptics in this thread, stick to the discussion or find another article to attack that is about whether climate change exists or not.

Steel, you obviously can't read. The link is to specific papers beginning with Lindzen and Choi's paper which shows more radiation leaving the Earth than predicted by AGW; this means that the AGW prediction that the "missing heat" is not at the bottom of the ocean but, like Elvis, has left the building.

In other ways all the other papers at the link contradict a basic aspect of AGW. If you can't be bothered reading the papers, or can't understand them don't peddle snark to compensate.

Warmair, I'm still waiting for your response to the problem of IGA with GRACE which I raised on another thread. No matter, your latest quote from the IPCC shows that even they are now realising that natural variation can affect trend, something which was denied previously. One of the measures of natural variation is the PDO which clearly can explain the temperature trends during the recent period from 1900 onwards:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image0082.jpg

In fact compared to the effect of PDO and natural variation factors on temperature the effect of CO2 is minor. 2 recent papers have found this effect from CO2 to be less than 0.2C; see:

H.-J. Lüdecke, A. Hempelmann, and C.O. Weiss: Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records, clim. past, 9, 447-452, 2013

F. Steinhilber and J. Beer, Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years, Jour. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., Vol. 118, 1861-1867 (2013)

David the reason why there is less discussion about AGW is because unlike naïve people like you the real 'brains' behind AGW in the media and academia and especially the bureaucracy are shutting up because they know their theory is dead and the new government won't tolerate any more lies.

Except from the ABC, the Conversation, the climate council, the BOM, the greens etc. In fact you can see there is still a lot of TALK about AGW, it's just rubbish, like your article.

cohenite, did you actually read my article or is your piffle an automatic response to anything that mentions climate change. If you can't think of anything sensible to say... Say nothing. I'm sure other readers would appreciate that. Besides, you are wasting computer time and the Libs might want their machine back soon.

Brian,

yes it is best that you are out of here. You have revealed too much of yourself.
You obviously cannot reconcile your attitudes.

SteeleRedux
exhibiting your usual inaccuracy producing methodologies ... and vitriol as your faith positions are crushed by argument and reason.

Warmair

if average surface temps were rising as fast in a later period as an earlier period the overall average would be increasing. It is not it is falling.

Climate warmists are terrorists and the BOM is overrun by them.

My predictions re cyclones and storms have been more accurate than the BOMS forecasts... over the past few years... and the contrast this year is astonishing. I predicted no cyclones to the BOM 12. We have had one. There are only 8 weeks to go this season and the monsoon is already starting to recede. How can the experts have been so wrong when they 'know far more about climate than' me.

David
'the point of my article was not to discuss whether climate change exists or is anthropogenic. These facts are clear enough...'

We dispute your premise that the facts are clear. It is not clear warming is occurring. Why shouldn't we dispute the claims of you warming terrorists?

The very simple reason people have stopped talking about it because fewer and fewer believe in it anymore.

David writes and article about people not talking about climate change, and when BOTH sides start talking about climate change, says

" say once again to those climate sceptics in this thread, stick to the discussion or find another article to attack that is about whether climate change exists or not."

Strange!

David I did read your article but switched off after reading this:

"Despite having just had the hottest year on record and every monthly Australian record being broken and with the US having an unprecedented cold snap with temperatures below –34c the subject has conveniently gone quiet. This of course suits the big end of town, because climate change is expensive to mitigate. They should also realize it is far more expensive to ignore."

None of that is correct. I'll illustrate with the first point; BOM shows 2013 as being the hottest Australian year; but every other major land and satellite temperature indice contradicts this:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2613

GHCN is the data source for the other major land based temperature networks.

BOM has cut off temp records at 1910 and made unexplained adjustments to the records since. Their temperature and other climate predictions have been gross failures.

But that doesn't matter to you because quite simply you are ignorant.

I'm not; I have published papers and been studying the theory of AGW for a decade. Initially I thought it was right after seeing the Keeling curve of CO2 increase but since I can do the maths and have decades of legal training to recognise BS I have come to the conclusion that AGW is a failed theory.

The costs of persisting with this failed theory have been great and the supporters of it, like you, I now regard as either fools or liars.

I initially thought you were of the latter type but now see you belong in the first category.

Cohenite, if you have published papers on the subject perhaps you can give your real name to all of us ignorant climate terrorists, so we can read your work. I am neither a fool nor am I a liar and I resent the implication. I too have published work on climate change - ISBN 9780957943650 -and I have given my real name. My article is not about who is right or wrong on weather records merely that the very politicians who made it their platform have stopped talking about it. In fact, why don’t you write an article so we can learn from your wisdom.

Your book blurb says:

"The world we inhabit is undergoing significant changes right now and not at some future time convenient to political and industrial agendas. This book gives the what, the where, the when and the why of climate change. It even says who is responsible for the extreme weather events being experienced globally. Unless strong action is taken immediately, catastrophic events will quickly reshape our world. Climate Change Generation is about you, the people who are to bear the brunt of what is to come and will have to try and survive the outcomes ahead."

Name one of those "significant changes" which is climatically exceptional.

As for my work instead I'll give you a paper from a good friend of mine which looks at the correlation between the sun and temperature:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf

Consider Figures 4-7.

If the long version is too daunting consider the abridged version:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0032v1.pdf

There were 71 papers published in 2013 dealing with the effect of the sun on climate; along with the sun the other major climate factor, water, has been shamefully neglected by the IPCC and AGW science.

The fact is David, the scientific corner has been turned and even the IPCC is back-peddling. The idea that CO2 emissions, ONLY from humans, should be the major climate cause is grotesque.

But as I say I'm not going to change your mind. I am however interested in what you think is the most pressing proof for AGW and don't just say the IPCC, be specific, a particular paper or aspect of climate.

So, no name then cohenite? Pity.

Garth Paltridge is a retired Australian atmospheric physicist. He writes that the global warming pause risks destroying the reputation of science.

In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem … in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour…

http://www.thegwpf.org/gareth-paltridge-global-warming-pause-destroy-reputation-science/

You aren't helping the good name of science, David.

David Leigh, you asked, “What ever happened to climate change in Australia?” and then you opened your essay by making some untenable assumptions that defined your politics rather than added to your argument. You lost my interest in your first two paragraphs.
So let me give you my ideas on why climate change has virtually disappeared from the national agenda.
In 2009 KRudd lead an Australian contingent about 120 strong to support the IPCC conference in Copenhagen and ratify the submission of the UNFCCC. KRudd et al got such a hiding in Copenhagen that after he returned with his tail between his legs he never mentioned global warming or climate change again. Krudd’s political cowardice caused him to lose his job as PM.
After Copenhagen the ALP dropped ‘global warming’ and changed the cause to ‘climate change’. The pragmatists within the ALP moved on and only the committed nutters such as Wong continued to fly the Green flag. KRudd then tipped a big bucket of green ordure over Wong’s able lieutenant, Garrett, who copped the flack for some of the silliest Labor policies in memory that were doomed to failure anyway, and then Garrett faded from the scene.
David Leigh, the rest if the Australian electorate along with most of the world has moved on from the left-wing socialist experiment and left the political dinosaurs like you behind.
Abbott, very sensibly, has played down climate change, now that science is a lot clearer.
David Leigh, give up on climate change and find another drum to beat.
Geoffrey Kelley

Quote
Cohenite

"I'm not; I have published papers and been studying the theory of AGW for a decade. Initially I thought it was right after seeing the Keeling curve of CO2 increase but since I can do the maths and have decades of legal training to recognise BS I have come to the conclusion that AGW is a failed theory."

Yes and I have been following the subject for 50 years and seen prediction after prediction confirmed. I also see no evidence that you actually understand the AGW theory. I followed your blog link re last year not being the hottest in Australia. All I found was a pretty graph but no links to the actual data used, oh and the fact that the Blogger has links to the heartland institute which immediately suggests a heavy political bias.

Quote
Cohenite

"The costs of persisting with this failed theory have been great and the supporters of it, like you, I now regard as either fools or liars."

Now that reminds me of the old joke about lawyers and truth.
"Trust me I'm a Lawyer."

What your legal training seems to have taught you is to argue a case regardless of the evidence. I suppose when the evidence is so heavily weighted against your client that is about all you have left.

I actually suspect you are well aware that anthropogenic global warming is real, but are totally unable to admit you are wrong, which may explain why you are unable to complete a single post without at least one Ad Hominem attack on somebody.

Talk about ad hominems - What about this lot:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/what-ever-happened-to-climate-change-in.html

Thanks for the link Leo, I have just had my say on that little beauty. Firstly he has completely got me mixed up with another David Leigh, the former editor of the Guardian. He has opened himself up for defamation and I have asked for a retraction in the post... I wonder if they will publish that.

I think he has retracted the bit that you didn't like....

Sorry, he has changed the URL:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/what-ever-happened-to-climate-change-in_28.html

warmie I'm happy to engage you with the science, but you haven't got any!

Sorry couldn't resist.

Actually a couple of recent papers/articles really prove my point about AGW science back-peddling.

The first is by an AGW scientist I have ridiculed in the past for his hyperbole and gross alarmism; Steven Sherwood. Sherwood's latest paper deals with aerosols and the fact so little is known about their climatic impact that no predictions about AGW can be made with certainty:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6169/379.short

The second is a post by Professor Judith Curry who looks at the uncertainties surrounding the calculation of Ocean Heat Content [OHC].

http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/21/ocean-heat-content-uncertainties/

As you know the answer by AGW scientists, notably Trenberth, for the failure of temperature to rise for 17 years is because the heat is being stored in the bottom of the ocean. But as Curry shows the conclusions of the recent studies about OHC shows no increase in OHC since 2003 [the crucial date of the introduction of ARGO] by a majority of the studies, Levitus, Ishii and Smith with the studies by Dominques and Palmer having such wide uncertainty bands that their findings of an increase are problematic:

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/presentation12.jpg

A final point; a post by spectroscopic expert and astronomer, Dr Mike Sanicola confirms that backradiation, the mechanism of AGW, does not involve CO2 by is determined by H2O at Earth temperatures:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

Bear in mind that outgoing longwave radiation, OLR, which AGW relies on, is also increasing.

I really don't know how any sane person can support such a failed idea as AGW.

cohenite says:

" really don't know how any sane person can support such a failed idea as AGW."

but David does!

Does David do dependable discipline? or Is this Alarmist actually altering the actual accurate record of tumbling tottering temperature?