Typically of conservative thinkers/tea party types, [and is that an oxymoron or what,] of shooting the messenger, if they don't like the message?
Rhrosty.

A very fair, pithy article that I enjoyed reading. Things that needed to be said.

Thank you.

Good article.

The obvious question is why has the Abbott Government not abolished this pernicious propaganda machine.

It should be dismantled immediately

I really don't know why Don Aitkin devotes so much more emphasis on his climate change scepticism that on the so-called 'commitment' of the international community to reducing carbon emissions. After all, even he must concede that the science in its current state might be right, or at least close to the truth. And anyway, the scientists, as I keep saying, will sort it out, even thought that might be a painfully slow process.

As for the claimed global commitment on carbon emissions, surely Don could argue convincingly on that single point. He could and should take the line that there is no chance whatsoever of genuine global agreement to reduce living standards, which is an uncontested and inevitable consequence of the higher energy prices that result from trying to 'decarbonise' an economy. Why take a gamble on the climate science being wrong? In maybe five years his argument might disappear while the zero prospect of global agreement is a certainty. When have nations all agreed on anything? And if by some miracle all nations were indeed of a mind to agree on one thing (for the first time in history), would there not be far more valuable results than avoiding two degrees of global warming? War? Religion? The list could go on.

With real events taking place in the world it is refreshing that Abbott is acting on his first instinct (man made gw is crp). Billions already given to the Green religous high priests and those on the public trough. Planet would be spotless had the money gone on cleaning the planet.

Leo, the 'Climate Change Authority' is no longer funded by the government but is acting purely as a private lobby group -- which gives its assumption of the term 'Authority' a particularly ironic tone. Authority is what they are singularly lacking, but desperately wish they had.

But full marks to Tony Abbott for his accurate pre-election prediction that Tim Flannery doesn't need to be paid to pontificate; on the contrary, perhaps we should pay him to shut up.

Tombee, you appear to be unaware that there is no scientific backing for the assertion that human emission have any significant effect on climate. The basis of the requirement to reduce human emissions is simple fraud, not science.

The IPCC, when it could not produce any scientific basis for any effect on climate by human activity, simply made the pathetic assertion that it is “94% certain”.

How could you overlook this, Tombee? Of course, if you are aware of any scientific proof of the assertion, please let us know immediately. Otherwise I have at least made you aware that you are supporting a. baseless fraud.

Thanks, Jon J. I thought Flannery and his supporters had formed a separate entity, but he appears to have control of the statutory body.Possibly part of the burnt earth tactics of the harridan, to enable this to happen.

Abbott needs legislation to abolish it, and the bill passed by the Government, has been rejected by the Senate. It will not be considered again for three months.

Unless there is a mechanism to remove him, Flannery will remain until the necessary legislation is passed.

I think TA should use the budget to reduce costs. The caveat being start at the top not with the tea ladies. All PS heads take a 30% cut in salary and make their own super arrangements. We only furnish the required amount.
The public service will say pay peanuts get monkeys but if we did pay peanuts it would at least make us feel better. All the Climate rubbish either goes or the relevant PS heads go. Watch them abandon their religion when they have to pay for it!
The ABC should also have a very large axe taken to them. I say this when I use the ABC virtually exclusively. Again strip the money and watch them all cry, run and get some balance back.

Perhaps Leo Lane would like to argue with the American Institute of Physics http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm. Anyway, why pick on me? I said nothing that would indicate what I am aware or unaware of. I guess Leo just wants to be sure that everyone knows what he thinks about scientists.

A point of clarification.

The former Climate Commission was set up by Ministerial direction, and was as easily abolished. Its members appealed to the AGW community for financial support, and they have reformed as the 'Climate Council'. That is where Professor Flannery sits.

The Climate Change Authority was established by legislation, and the bill to abolish it has just been rejected by the Senate. Professor Flannery is not a member of the CCA.

Along with the CCA the climate change departments of the BOM and CSIRO should be abolished. The 2014 State of the Climate Report is a disgrace:

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe671670756d047e7d16&m=fef51c747c6401&ls=fdf61170776d077d7d167770&l=ff3416727167&s=fe201c7373660275771c74&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe3016767464017a771577

Antarctic and Greenland land ice is not disappearing at an accelerating rate; the oceans are not warming nor rising at a rate consistent with AGW, if at all.

Even fanatical AGW supporters like Santer, Trenberth, England and Schmidt now concede that global temperatures have paused but are still mind-locked and looking for some other excuse other than the obvious which is they were wrong.

In short any money spent on AGW, renewables and carbon taxes is money wasted.

Tombee, blind unquestioning faith in authority is not "science". Science *never* goes by what authorities say, *always* what the data says.

If you can't prove what you're asserting then you either need to have the honesty to admit it, or shut up. Posting a link is not any kind of proof, it's just appeal to absent authority, which was identified as a logical fallacy over 2,300 years ago.

Obviously propositions that are fallacious cannot be science. But that's all you've offered.

There is no science that says we should reduce carbon emissions because science does not supply value judgments, whereas policy requires them.

Just because you haven't thought through the issues, doesn't mean everyone else is using the same fallacious conceited up-yourself methodology.

You are only showing that:
a) you don't understand the first thing about science
b) you have not been following the debate about global warming.

Not only that, but your *assumption* that someone, somewhere, somehow, must have the data to support you is NOT CORRECT. Years of demolishing your anti-human totalitarian pap on this forum has shown that, when challenged, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the WARMISTS' arguments ALWAYS comes down to NOTHING BUT one of the following three fallacies:
- appeal to absent authority (ho hum)
- assuming CAGW as your premise (ho hum)
- ad hom (ho hum).

And you've just done all three of the them in the one thread - situation normal, ho hum.

Just because your methodology proceeds by vapid circular slogans, doesn't mean everyone else is doing the same.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Prove your chain of reasoning by DATA. I will be particularly interested the workings by which you calculated the human valuations in the status quo versus your policy counter-factual.

If you can't prove what's in issue by data, then don't bore us with mere repetition of your superstitious incantations.

From cohenite: "Even fanatical AGW supporters like Santer, Trenberth, England and Schmidt now concede that global temperatures have paused..."

Concede? There isn't even an argument about this. What needs defending is why surface air temperature hasn't fallen significantly more given closely consecutive La Ninas, a solar minimum and high aerosol levels.

If ocean warming is as imaginary as AGW skeptics claim, then where has the heat come from to stave cooling from occurring to the extent it has in similar recorded circumstances past? If one blames natural variability for those occasions, but not for the recent hiatus, on what basis? It's also hard to see why 2000-2009 is the hottest decade since 1850, despite the pause. Is it just a coincidence of yet more natural variability coming at once?

Here's a nice data site: http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global
The temperature record shows cooling periods associated with events such as high aerosol levels, sunspots and La Nina's. Why haven't we seen the same dip now, rather than a virtual plateau? It's disconcerting.

From Tombee, "And anyway, the scientists, as I keep saying, will sort it out, even thought that might be a painfully slow process." Scientists have sorted it, the facts are in, we're warming http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html Furthermore, the 2 degrees of warming (by 2100) he is unconcerned about assumes an immediate commencement of global action which, sadly, seems remote. A 3-4 degree rise appears more likely as things stand.

JKJ, from someone employing proof by bold assertion as oft as you, your attack is somewhat rich and windy.

Thanks for that Luci; Climate4you is indeed a good site.

Your point about a "virtual plateau" and "hiatus" despite cooling factors such a neutral La Nina and reduced solar is a superficially good one.

But a closer analysis shows solar can explain all the temperature movement, up and down over the recent period since the LIA which finished about 1850 and that's straight from the IPCC and Wiki:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-5.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

It is true that TSI is now declining but it is declining from a high base which means its still above average which explains both the flat but still high temperature; see Figures 1 and 17:

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf

The connection between TSI and temperature is irrefutable, see figure 5:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0020v1.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113003651

There is good evidence that the relatively small variation in TSI can produce the observed temperature response through amplification mechanisms:

http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf

Anyway the point of this is that the decline in TSI can explain the stop in temperatures, just as the increase in TSI explained the increase.

It should also be noted that the AGW scientists such as Trenberth, England, Santer etc who are looking at winds, volcanoes and aerosols to explain the temperature halt can all be shown to be counter to physical observations.

Which leaves the point that temperature has halted for a climatically significant period despite the alleged main cause for temperature increase, CO2, continuing to increase. That is the point; the temperature halt disproves AGW.

Luciferase

"JKJ, from someone employing proof by bold assertion as oft as you, your attack is somewhat rich and windy."

I never employ proof by mere assertion, and I will prove any assertion that you or anyone cares to challenge by proving your challenge rests on logical fallacy, self-contradiction or factual absurdity. Go ahead.

Posting links and expecting me to go on an errand to construct your argument for you is not evidence or argument; it's just appeal to absent authority = fallacy = irrational. And these are the people who want to talk down to everyone else about "science"!

"What needs defending is why surface air temperature hasn't fallen significantly more given closely consecutive La Ninas, a solar minimum and high aerosol levels."

Nothing needs defending unless you have first established any justification of policy, even if you are right as to the climatology.

Let's assume, very much in your favour, that there's no issue as to the climate science, okay? What could be fairer than that?

Okay, show us how you have worked out:
a) that the benefits of warming do not outweigh the detriments. The usual tactic of simply ignoring all benefits, or assuming that any human action is instrinsically detrimental, is all we've ever seen on here, but perhaps you can do better?
b) the human valuations in the status quo versus your policy counterfactual
c) how government is going to acquire the knowledge and capacity to allocate scarce resources to their most valued ends, for all humans' subjective evaluations, both now, and indefinitely into the future
d) make sure you show your workings for how you have discounted futurity.

Go ahead. Notice I'm not telling you you can't do it? I'm *asking* whether you can do it.

But do you think we can't see that you're bullsh!tting? That all you've got is a false pretence of knowledge? That your pretended concern for humanity is fake? That your policies are killing millions and millions of people every year?

Thanks, Don, for clarifying the Flannery situation.
Tombee, the outstanding feature of the AGW movement is its dishonesty. The site to which you referred us makes the blatant assertion that computer models have made accurate predictions.

They have not. The reality is that there has been no global warming for at least 17 years. The fraud backing scientists assert that this is just a “pause”, and the globe is still warming. Every year they raise the cry, “hottest year on record”.
David Jones, the fraud backer from our BOM asserted 2013 to be Australia’s hottest year on record, ignoring a record which showed 1939 to be hotter.

Your site makes positive mention of Hansen the NASA scientist who used his position to corrupt recorded data to show warming. The data before his tampering showed a cooling trend for temperatures in the US.

What the site does not show is any scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions affect climate. All it presents is conjecture, in this regard, no valid scientific observation.

Human emissions do affect climate, but the effect is so trivial as not to be measurable.

We know that the ex Labor Minister for Lies about Sea Levels, Greg Combet, purchased a waterfront home on the sea, living there during his time in office. When he urinated in the ocean adjoining his home, he polluted it, but like human emissions into the atmosphere, it was trivial, and not measurable.

I will take your failure, Tombee, as an admission that, as far as you are aware, there is no scientific basis for AGW.

From cohenite: "....temperature has halted for a climatically significant period" and "...the temperature halt disproves AGW."

So we're down to ye olde "significant period" argument and solar attribution theory, which has already been more than adequately countered but here's the latest I can find:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/acs.2014.41008

To JKJ, in order:

a) What benefit is there in a 3-4 degree rise? We're not on a path towards less. If we were your question would deserve an answer, which you can find worked out by others , but not without conjecture.

b)Not sure exactly what this means, but someone is going to have to do the valuation when faced with the circumstances. We've lately come to a decision on rural hardship, but that will be but one of a myriad of future problems. My first act as dictator would be to round up all the deniers and get them to work on building dykes etc.

c)Given the trajectory this gov't has chosen, when TSHTF, there will be no choice but to acquire knowledge and develop emergency capacity.

d) Discounting futurity seems something this gov't has already chosen. We're living for now, not a future for our descendants.

JKJ: "appeal to absent authority = fallacy = irrational" I did not appeal to authority by my link and I do not need you to "..assume, very much in your favour, that there's no issue as to the climate science, okay?" That planet is warming is axiomatic.

Thanks luci, I have seen the Stauning effort.

This paper states that the temperature pause is a product of a reduced TSI which masks the real temperature increase due to AGW.

Can we stop and think about this? Stauning says CO2 caused temperature rise is continuing but the measured temperature is falling due to a reduced TSI!

So the cooling [!] effect of the reduced TSI negates completely the heating effect of CO2.

Seriously?

This takes me back to Foster and Rahmstorf paper:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

Among other natural confounding factors F&R removed TSI and found a 'pure' AGW temperature signal of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1.

The nonsense of this is that this 'pure' signal was constant from 1979 but during this time CO2 was increasing exponentially as it still is.

This means that for temperature to be flat and even cooling the natural warming factors including TSI must be also DECREASING exponentially!

TSI is not decreasing exponentially and this theory about TSI, along with Trenberth's and England's winds and Santer's volcanoes and aerosols as explanations for the decline in temperature, is contradicted.

The Climate Change Authority was a tax payer funded cheer squad for Juliar's carbon tax, to try and compensate for Juliar being such a lying and deceitful weasel in bringing it in after guaranteeing that she wouldn't before the election.

Luciferase

Is that your idea of proving the rational basis for policy action? (Your dream of being a dictator is all its proving.)

But seriously, are you suggesting that what you have just written is a basis for policy action?

Search my form on this topic on OLO, JKJ.

Why assume a 2 degree rise when we're headed into unchartered territory well beyond that? We either agitate for mitigative action on AGW or just enjoy the ride towards oblivion as best we can.

I have a policy on how to avoid future problems by attacking their source, not on how to rearrange the deck-chairs as the ship goes down under the policy settings of denialist governments you support.

Lucifer you really are off the air. You refer to Realists as deniers. There is no science, on the AGW side, to deny. Despite the great expenditure of time and money, no measurable effect on climate by human emissions has been scientifically demonstrated. You want human emissions curtailed. The planet is not warming. There has been no warming for 17 years, and prior to that a very moderate warming of about one half of a degree, as we came out of the mini Ice Age.

There is no warming which requires attention, and what warming there has been was not caused by human emissions.

Global warming has stopped, despite the increase in CO2. The fraud backers say that global warming has “paused”. It has stopped, and has remained stopped for 17 years.

The planet’s temperature trend is down. The earth is cooling over the long term. The only warming trends have been short term, and irrelevant to the long term.

Have a go at writing something rational, Lucifer. You never know until you try, whether you are too far gone to do so.

"I have a policy on how to avoid future problems by attacking their source,"

A pity that 7 billion people regard their liberty and property as more likely to satisfy their needs, than your wannabe dictatorial self-opinionated belief that you know better than everyone else in the world put together.

Hint: your gods-eye view is false.

JKJ,

Firstly you insist on a policy then, when I tell you I have one (tho' not one you're after), you call me a dictator (and the rest) for having it?

LL
Your logic is unassailable. I yield

JKJ, here's something from the great demon dictator himself, just to get you up to peak rage for today.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf

Policy proposals do not make one a dictator. Policy you may reject but which is arrived at democratically not dictatorial, from whichever side of politics it emanates.

Your usual bombast is anticipated.

Luciferase

"Firstly you insist on a policy then, when I tell you I have one (tho' not one you're after), you call me a dictator (and the rest) for having it?"

I'm not insisting on a policy, you are. I'm merely pointing out that you can't demonstrate it's rational, even in its own terms, which indeed you haven't done.

So that's a fail.

"I did not appeal to authority by my link..."

Yes you did? You posted a link asserting that "scientists" have "sorted" all the issues, no need for independent thought. Mere blind credulity.

DATA we want Luciferase, not appeal to authority.

" and I do not need you to "..assume, very much in your favour, that there's no issue as to the climate science, okay?" That planet is warming is axiomatic."

The question is not whether it's warming, it's whether man-made CO2 emissions are warming the planet to catastrophic levels, so stop lying.

You're the one openly dreaming of being a dictator, why are you blaming me for pointing it out?

You need to make your own argument. If you can't be bothered thinking for yourself, I'm not going to try to put together your argument for you by following links to people making the same ASSUMPTIONS.

We've already established you're wrong, because you don't know the values you are pretending to know and to improve on, so your proposed policy can't do what it's supposed to do.

Adding the usual serve of appeal to absent authority doesn't improve your position, it worsens it.

Luciferase, it all boils down to this. All you've done is enter the discussion having assumed that we face catastrophic global warming by man's CO2, and if you're so dumb that you can't understand that this mere assumption doesn't just pre-decide all questions in your favour, and so dumb that you can't understand that government can't be just baldly assumed to make everything better, then you don't have the intellectual capacity to participate in the discussion.

JKJ, It's not me insisting on a policy addressing your four points. Read your own posts, if you can plumb your own obfuscation. Perhaps you have read my position on a past thread, but not here.

My link was not an appeal to authority. I used a link to summarize points I'd make were I bothered to expend the keystrokes.

There is no alternative to the CO2 hypothesis that is sustainable and acceptable to the vast majority of the scientific community. It's the reigning hypothesis, like it or not, and we should operate accordingly rather than denying the evidence or hoping it's all wrong. Even Rupert was saying that for awhile, before he became President of Australia.

"...so dumb that you can't understand that government can't be just baldly assumed to make everything better,..."

If it is your point that Gov't may not be able to deal with the consequences of mitigation failure, and that setting policy will be difficult to impossible, I agree with you completely.

So you really think I aspire to dictatorship? Do I have to do smiley faces for you :)? Let go of the bone.

Luciferase

You said:
“My first act as dictator would be to round up all the deniers and get them to work on building dykes etc.”

And you’re *not* dreaming of being a dictator? You just wish you could put anyone who disagrees with you to forced labour – for the greater good of course?

“My link was not an appeal to authority.”

Of course it’s an appeal to absent authority. You haven’t shown your data or your assumptions or your working in here, have you? You’re relying on the people you refer off to, to make your argument for you, and expecting everyone here to just flaccidly accept it, for no other reason than that you refer to them as having it all sorted. What is that but appeal to authority?

That’s not science. That’s just mere credulity. You can't just assume you're right in the first place, and expect everyone to just defer to your opinion, which, on critical analysis, is all the CAGW argument amounts to, every time.

“I used a link to summarize points I'd make were I bothered to expend the keystrokes.”

The point is, if you can’t be bothered making your own argument, then you really should shut up. What if you’re as lazy in your thinking as you are in your typing?

“If it is your point that Gov't may not be able to deal with the consequences of mitigation failure, and that setting policy will be difficult to impossible, I agree with you completely.”

Thank you. That’s what we’ve just established by establishing government is not capable of the knowledge (let alone the virtue) to set policy, let alone carry it out.

Which is the end of the entire CAGW argument. Your side lost. We have just established that what you’re suggesting is not possible in theory, let alone in practice. Good-bye. Perhaps you could go and frighten children with hobgoblin stories. Tell them it’s based entirely on government-sponsored peer-review and they might implicitly believe you.

JKJ,

"... You can't just assume you're right in the first place, and expect everyone to just defer to your opinion, which, on critical analysis, is all the CAGW argument amounts to, every time."

Where is your argument specifically on"data" and scientific conclusions emanating from that data?

As far as I can see all you have is your line ".. it’s an appeal to absent authority."

That's the beginning and the end of it as far as your "argument" is concerned.

Fancy Luciferase linking to people who are actually trained and have expertise in the various areas concerned with climate science....that which you dismiss tritely as "appealing to absent authority"

The only thing absent here is your scientific rebuttal.

At least cohenite & Co, with their attempts to scramble scientific reality, don't fall back on the worn out and interchangeable rhetoric that you employ for every subject you enter into on this forum.

Furthermore...

JKJ,

Your rhetoric on this forum pertaining to any and every subject consists of the same argument.

It's as if you carry around a huge sack containing ideas akin to LEGO bricks - and you set about constructing the same argument consisting of the same themes - yet modelling each construction to fit the subject at hand.

Each thought brick is interchangeable and will fit each subject by aligning it carefully with the theme at hand.

You're another one who mistakes fluency with the ability to say something new.

Poirot

"Where is your argument specifically on"data" and scientific conclusions emanating from that data?"

What data are you talking about? In case you haven't noticed, neither Luciferase nor you have supplied any. My argument is that you can't prove what you're alleging by reference to data and reason, but only by bleating the word "science" as if this automatically decides all issues in favour of more taxes!

If you can't see that appealing to authority, is appealing to authority, then it just means you're too dumb to participate in the discussion, simple as that. Merely assuming you're right = too dumb. Posting links in substitution of argument = too dumb. Blindly following what others say without question = too dumb. Assuming government is a selfless benevolent superbeing = too dumb. Posting links to the ABC or the Guardian = too dumb.

But that's all you've got, and all you've ever done, and your dumb assumption that there must be some clever person out there somewhere who has it all sorted is also too dumb because ... guess what? ... they're all just doing what you're doing!

It's like talking to complete imbeciles.

JKJ,

"If you can't see that appealing to authority, is appealing to authority, then it just means you're too dumb to participate in the discussion, simple as that. Merely assuming you're right = too dumb. Posting links in substitution of argument = too dumb. Blindly following what others say without question = too dumb. Assuming government is a selfless benevolent superbeing = too dumb. Posting links to the ABC or the Guardian = too dumb."

Well there you go, folks

JKJ's famous smack-down, "You're appealing to absent authority"!

JKJ, you might note that this is an ordinary garden variety forum, links are given because there exists a word and post limit, and the majority here are not scientists. Plenty of links are given to the work and conclusions of people who are scientists. According to you, that's appealing to absent authority.

And if someone happens to call you out on your blanket dismissal - they're labelled "dumb"

I'll tell you what's dumb - you dismissing scientific conclusions resting on your worn out universal LEGO-like thought bombs.

Poirot, the question is whether there is any science to back the assertion that human emissions contribute to climate change. The answer is that there is no scientific demonstration that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

In the absence of any science, support offered to the AGW fraud has to be based on ignorance or dishonesty.

JKJ is referring to ability to construct an argument when he characterizes the specimens as “too dumb”. The actual references to ABC and Guardian have to be classified as “dishonest”, as I do not consider that they could plead ignorance.

How about you, Poirot, in regard to your baseless assertion that JKJ is “dismissing scientific conclusions” do you plead ignorance? Your default position is dishonesty.

There is no science to dismiss. AGW is based on fraudulent assertion, not on science.

The climate change authority has yet to produce a single item of original research. Its prime purpose was to cut and paste the offerings of other organisations with the word Australia put in, to justify the disgusting lie that Juliar told to Australia before the 2010 election.

Now that Labor was tossed out of office for continuous lying, the CCA is now producing reports that no one reads and is as useful as teats on a bull.

Labor's refusal to let this fossil die, and preference to keep splashing taxpayer's money against the wall is testament to Labor's contempt for the voter.

A little test for JKJ,

I referred to a piece of research, to which cohenite responded, at http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/acs.2014.41008

Now, without saying "I'll just have whatever he's (cohenite) having", why don't you make your own refutation of the research and of my further analysis, which was:

"If ocean warming is as imaginary as AGW skeptics claim, then where has the heat come from to stave cooling from occurring to the extent it has in similar recorded circumstances past? If one blames natural variability for those occasions, but not for the recent hiatus, on what basis? It's also hard to see why 2000-2009 is the hottest decade since 1850, despite the pause. Is it just a coincidence of yet more natural variability coming at once [...along with the much lower than expected cooling...(my edit)]?

The temperature record shows cooling periods associated with events such as high aerosol levels, sunspots and La Nina's. Why haven't we seen the same dip now, rather than a virtual plateau? It's disconcerting."

Please put my mind at rest JKJ, with your analysis. Here's some rough data: in the late 1800's, cooling was approx 0.4 degrees, early 1900s approx 0.3, mid 40's to 1950 approx 0.4, early to mid-60's approx 0.3 degrees. There are more examples of these sorts of coolings which I'm sure you can find. The hiatus since 1998 is about a tenth of theses coolings, many with similar underlying circumstances.

I freely admit to not being a climate scientist, but I am capable of occasional critical thought, I like to think :)(smiley face!...smiley face!). I would hope JKJ might be allowed to stand on his own feet by his mates here, to prove himself not to be the dumb imbecile he calls anybody disagreeing with him.

I'm not expecting a particularly scything refutation, just evidence of serious critical thought, based on data, that he wouldn't mind being politely interrogated a little.

It would be nice to discover whether he is just a rude literary critic a rude scientifically-minded one, or both.

JKJ?

Luciferase
You have not made a case to answer. Mere temperature variation, of itself, does not justify coercion, it's a complete non sequitur.

further:
The error level of any thermometer used to measure temperatures is about 1 degree C. Any measurement than plus or minus 1 is a statistical construct.
The concept of the average temperature of the planet is meaningless.
The satellite measurements of the temperatures are not in agreement with the government-adjusted official average temperatures of the globe.
The “scientists” have falsified both their data and reports.
There have been repeatedly much greater global temperature variations during human evolution.
It has been a lot warmer in the past.
There is no proof that anything we’re measuring now is other than natural variability for which we do not as yet have any good explanation.
Your assumption that you know everything in the world, and outside it, that causes all temperature variation in the planet, as well as all the trends, is just simply nonsense.
The pretensions of “scientists” to know what temperature the planet should be are not science and are self-interested corrupt bogus nonsense.

Plus, you’re confusing normative questions with technical questions which are categorically different. Even if the temperature of the planet was warming, so what? That doesn’t mean
a) it would be automatically bad
b) you are capable of knowing what to aim at, even in theory, let alone practice
c) you can guarantee that the result will not be worse rather than better.

For example, where I live there is a notable micro-climatic difference from only a few kilometres away. Now suppose the globe’s temperatures rose by 3 degrees. Think of all the areas of Eurasia and North America which are now tundra or taiga, which would become arable. You are presuming to look on all that vast area, and just know that the total result would be negative, on the basis of … what? You know what the distribution and abundance of species
a) is,
b) would be, and
c) should be?
It’s complete bullsh!t, can’t you see that?

Plus you’re not taking into account the cost in terms of human lives. There’s just a big blank on the map of your intellect where the human values should be. It’s no use saying you’re doing it for the sake of benefit to humans, because whether or not they would benefit is precisely what’s in issue. You have to prove it, not just assume it. So just *think* about that for a sec. What would you need to know, in order for your belief system to be true? Mere airy allegations of aggregate statistical concepts, and vagaries about collectivist “who knows?”, won’t cut it, because you’re talking about the lives of real human beings.

“Please put my mind at rest JKJ”

Sure. What’s causing your concern is the simply irrational belief that government has the
a) knowledge
b) competence, and
c) selflessness
to fine-tune the temperature of the planet be decreeing curly light-bulbs and taxes. Your main problem isn’t in the climate science, it’s in the social science. At no stage have you considered whether government, in its nature, is capable of what you’re blindly believing it can and should do; nor whether the ultimate cost/benefit result – however you define the ultimate human welfare criterion – might not be worse under what you advocate, than without. It’s just simply an irrational belief system with no basis in reason whatsoever, let alone science.

There’s plenty of critical reasons to see that the whole superstition doesn’t stack up, and you’ve just ignored 3 stand-alone refutations to reply. I reject your whole approach that you know everything in the world, and your job is to fine-tune the climate, the ecology and the whole human economy. It’s stupid and evil.

You don’t like me saying you’re “too dumb” to comment, but that is exactly the argument of the warmists. The difference is you’re advocating policies that are killing large numbers of people, and I’m not.

Poirot
We’ve already established that you are too dumb to participate in the discussion.

How do you guys like it?

JKJ,

Talking of dumb....

Let's take a peek at some of your mutterings and see how they relate to a "civilisation" which has enjoyed a narrow climate niche comfort in which to evolve.

"The concept of the average temperature of the planet is meaningless."

...In the case of human civilisation, it's far from meaningless.

"The “scientists” have falsified both their data and reports."

...Bunkum

"There have been repeatedly much greater global temperature variations during human evolution"

...not since human civilisation got under way.

"It has been a lot warmer in the past."

...which may have suited molluscs and trilobites and giant tree ferns, etc, but perhaps not so good for human civilisation.

"There is no proof that anything we’re measuring now is other than natural variability for which we do not as yet have any good explanation."

...more Bunkum.

"Your assumption that you know everything in the world, and outside it, that causes all temperature variation in the planet, as well as all the trends, is just simply nonsense."

...a rubbish comment.Scientists work with empirical data. At the moment we have a plateau in air surface temperatures "at record levels". They don't claim to now everything, but they know more than you.

"The pretensions of “scientists” to know what temperature the planet should be are not science and are self-interested corrupt bogus nonsense."

....the pretension is all yours. They're merely pointing out that our activities are contributing to heating the planet and may put our civilsation in danger.

Gawd, if that's the best you can do when you chuck away your hackneyed argument, then I understand why you adhere to it so strongly.

JKJ: "You have not made a case to answer. Mere temperature variation, of itself, does not justify coercion, it's a complete non sequitur."

I always wondered what an ostrich thinks while it has its head in the sand. Thanks for the heads up on that, and for revealing you haven't got a scientific bone in your body.

So, it's all "mere temperature variation"? Sorry, but this doesn't account for the unprecedented, rapid rate of global temperature rise.

You are so confident that our planet can absorb anything we dish out and arrogantly assertive that man hasn't anything to do with this temperature rise. Yet I remind you of your words "I never employ proof by mere assertion, and I will prove any assertion that you or anyone cares to challenge......".

You have your hypothesis, "Man cannot affect global temperature and has nothing to do with its unprecedented rise". You've seen the scientific arguments against you. Respond in kind.

More is expected of you than claiming those opposing your hypothesis and striving for action are dumb imbeciles and responsible for "killing millions and millions of people every year" (How so, BTW?).

Maybe Abbott would have been better to stick with Flannery, if he thought the CSIRO was on his side he has made a mistake. They say it as it is.

Poirot’s position is clarified. She is neither dumb nor ignorant, she is dishonest. She projects her low self worth on to the community, and considers the disgraceful fraud of AGW to be what we deserve.

Luciferase has been made aware that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any significant effect on climate. That is why the mendacious IPCC, faced with the fact that despite massive expenditure of funds and time there is no scientific basis, come up with their pathetic assertion that it is “94% certain”.

You cannot plead ignorance Luciferase. You are either boneheaded or dishonest.
579, under this government, CSIRO may become a reputable scientific body again. Flannery will always be a mischievous clown.

Just as a slight aside I was keen to see the NOAA data for January given Adelaide's record breaking summer of 40 plus degree days and the freezing conditions experienced in Europe and the US.

Turns out while the Global land and sea temperature anomaly was the 4th highest on record the Northern hemisphere returned only its 7th highest (from 135 years of data).

In our hemisphere the combined figure was also the 4th highest but astoundingly the land temperature was the highest ever recorded, a whopping 1.13 degrees above the average.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1

At least I am comforted by the fact that the planet has stopped warming and may well be cooling so these figures are just an interesting, though technically insignificant, random spike.

Whew. Lesser people might be worried.

Leo Lane,

"Poirot’s position is clarified. She is neither dumb nor ignorant, she is dishonest. She projects her low self worth on to the community..."

Lol!

........

JKJ,

Yes, how do you account for the "unprecedented rate of temperature rise"? On a geologic timescale, human emitted CO2 into the atmosphere could be construed as a sudden outgassing - with an equivalent rate of warming.

This from you:

".... Now suppose the globe’s temperatures rose by 3 degrees. Think of all the areas of Eurasia and North America which are now tundra or taiga, which would become arable...."

Hmmm.....notwithstanding that the planet will continue to do as it has always done...little 'ol humans who ,geologically speaking, have been around for the blink of an eye, and who've managed to evolve civilisations in that short time have a fortunate climate niche to thank for that.

Your tundra narrative, brief as it is, has few kinks in it - not the least the prospect of increased CO2 emission and methane release from melting permafrost.

http://www.livescience.com/37359-nasa-carve-thawing-permafrost-gas.html

SR, don't forget the smiley face!
I'm thinking of moving my mob to the Ukraine, somewhere by the sea, to take advantage of JKJ's weather forecast.

I am not sure why Don thought it was worth airing these thoughts. Surely a Government who’s attitude to climate change research is to ignore all the scientists go with its own version of reality was always going to ignore the pronouncements of the Climate Change Authority.

The fact that they have done so should come as no surprise to anyone. The fact that they have ignored suggestions for monetary incentives to reduce carbon emissions in favour of their preferred alternative of planting trees should also be no surprise. Government follows its stated policy shock!

I don’t think anyone in Government has quite worked out how many trees are needed. And planting them is not the only requirement. They have to be cared for to grow and be kept alive – for ever.

Of course, the biggest joke being that the Abbott govt is supposedly going to plant lots of trees through their bogus policy to counteract AGW...

....while simultaneously chopping down lots of trees to keep their masters happy.

""We don't support, as a government and as a Coalition, further lockouts of our forests," Mr Abbott said."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/no-more-national-parks-as-tony-abbott-pledges-to-support-loggers-as-the-ultimate-conservationists-20140305-345zp.html

Hilarious!

Poirot, I suppose lol signifies a middle aged immature giggle of embarrassment at having no rationale for your unsupportable position in favour of AGW fraud..

Agronomist, our government ignores the fraud backing scientists. It does not ignore the science. As you must be aware, there is no science to back the assertion that human emissions have any effect on climate.

Please enlighten us as to the basis on which you support the AGW fraud.

The temperatures are rising,
The ice caps are melting,
The oceans are rising
My mates are stranded on tbe expanding Antarctic ice in summer,
So it's safe and logical to buy an estaurine property in southern Australia.

Lol that about sums it all up.

'At least I am comforted by the fact that the planet has stopped warming and may well be cooling so these figures are just an interesting, though technically insignificant, random spike.

Whew. Lesser people might be worried.

Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 9 March 2014 11:22:06 AM'

At last you've accepted the science.

Phew, you've just joined the more intelligent people. Well done. But I think you might still miss my little subtlety.

Luciferase

With a rational belief system
a) you first show how it can be falsified, and
b) try to falsify it.
c) You look for fallacies in the chain of reasoning, and once you identify a link in the chain of reasoning as fallacious, you reject it. If that requires the rejecting the whole belief system, you reject the whole, and keep looking for an explanation that is falsifiable but which, try as you might, you can’t falsify.

A good example is Charles Darwin. Origin of Species contains a chapter called “Objections to the Theory”, in which he diligently collected all the objections to his theory that he could find, and tried to show how that disproves his theory.

What you’re doing is the opposite. With a superstition, like yours, you
a) assume it’s true in the first place
b) you look for something, anything, that will tend to confirm it
c) you don’t look for fallacies in your chain of reasoning or disproofs, and when you find one, you ignore it. Faced with 10, as you just have been, you ignore them all, and just keep banging away at your original circular thinking.
d) when challenged, you first appeal to high priests – absent authority
e) When that doesn’t work, you just keep going round and round in circles – “ostrich” – assumes you are right; “arrogant” – assumes you are right; “scientific” – assumes you are right - fallacies, fallacies, fallacies, ad nauseam.

Consider this. Anthropology, and history, and all experience, have shown that human beings, while capable of rational thought, are also capable of believing things that are bat-sh!t mad. All creation myths and religions are a good example. Note they invariably JUST HAPPEN to act as a cover for parasitic and privileged behaviour?

What makes you think your belief system isn’t irrational? Aristotle, indeed, developed the necessary intellectual tools to distinguish mere fables from rational argument but YOU’VE GOT TO USE THEM. Your “science” consisting of endless fallacies that you cannot refute but ignore, is not science: it’s superstition which JUST HAPPENS to involve corrupt billions.

Your belief system is just a re-run of the age-old hoo-haa about original sin, a superbeing to fix it all up, and in the selling of indulgences.

With a rational belief system, one disproof is enough. Without answering every one of the disproofs I have just given you, you are not in a position to say more is expected of me. You have it precisely backward.

Poirot
Re-proving that you are too dumb or dishonest to participate in the discussion, does not advance your originally-noted incompetence.


Luciferase
“How so, BTW?”

HOORRRAAAY! HOOORRRAAAY FOR LUCIFERASE! HOOORRRAAAY FOR LUCIFERASE!

At last he has shown willing to take the intellectual step necessary to join the non-idiot part of the population. “Idiot: person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot?s=t&path=/

Tell you what, to avoid the distinct possibility of culpable intellectual laziness on your part, instead of me walking your through the basic concepts you are talking about, with you circularly resisting all the way, why don’t you lay aside your vice of revelling in fallacies, and actually *think* about it for once? Not by assuming your belief system is right and trying to confirm it. Do it the scientific way.

Start by *stating* the whole argument from the climatology, to the ecology, to the economics, to the policy assumptions in the counterfactuals.

Show how it can be falsified. If you haven’t done this, don’t bore us with any further comment.

Then try to falsify it at every step.

Do what I repeatedly asked you to do, and which you have deliberately evaded. Actually work out the counter-factual scenarios for the ecology, and for human evaluations in both the status quo and your counter-factual scenario.

When you’ve got up to speed on the intellectual groundwork you have been too lazy and conceited to do so far, we will then be in position to consider why you are promoting the killing of large numbers of people.

Lol!...Pete's back to his hackneyed style.

How many religious references has he slopped over that one post?

1. "What you’re doing is the opposite. With a superstition, like yours"

2. "...you first appeal to high priests – absent authority.."

3. "All creation myths and religions are a good example."

4. "What makes you think your belief system isn’t irrational?"

5. "...not science: it’s superstition..."

There are a few.

So your "scientific argument" is to go nah, nah, nah, AGW is a belief system.

That's it?

That's all you've got?

Okay

JKJ, a hypothesis is a belief statement.

If it is falsifiable it falls into the realm of science. If not, it is faith. e.g. God exists.

Your hypothesis, which distills to "Man cannot affect global temperature and has nothing to do with its unprecedented rise", is falsifiable and has been falsified. If you disagree, put up a scientific refutation, not a literary critique.

I was of the view that backing of the AGW fraud arose from ignorance or dishonesty. Poirot and Luciferase compel me to add stupidity as a factor.

The fraud backers have put forward the proposition that human emissions have a significant effect on climate. There is no science to confirm this . Our mentally challenged heroes say the proposition is that human emissions do not affect climate, and the Realists bear the onus to prove this. Like asserting that God exists, and requiring a challenger to prove non existence

Regardless, there is peer reviewed science to show that the warming which has occurred is accounted for by natural cycles, leaving no room for the assertion that any warming is referable to human emissions. [McLean et al., 2009 published in Journal of Geophysical Research.
Fraud backers, concocted a rebuttal of the paper, which although of no substance and easily refuted, underlined their dishonesty

A climategate email from Trenberth confirms the unethical dealings of this fraud backer in his approach to the publisher of the Journal, American Geophysical Union

“Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed
it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. Mike is
President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras,
and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28, 2009

The assertion is that human emissions have a significant effect on climate. . The requirement that those dismissing the assertion, because it has no scientific basis, should provide scientific proof is fatuous. This debate has run its course and descended into the stupidity of empty statements by Heckle and Jeckle, presenting themselves as Poirot and Lucifer.

We should start with his one Leo Lane http://rsclive3.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

When you have read and understood that piece of research, we can discuss the implications.

Agronomist, I pointed out that there is no science to demonstrate that human emissions have any significant effect on climate, for which reason AGW is a fraud.

If you have any such science, then let me know what it is, and the reference to it.

If you think that the link you provided discloses any such science then I understand that your support for the AGW fraud is based on stupidity.

Yup...that's it folks.

The latest "scientific refutation" from "skeptics" is to label their opponents "dumb" or "stupid".

So that's "sham, fraud, belief system, superstition, dumb and stupid".

Cutting edge stuff, you'll all agree!

Poirot, there is no need to make stupid remarks to remind us that you have no science or rational assertion to justify your position.

We will not forget.

Agronomist was that paper written before or after we stopped bleeding people as a standard medical treatment?

Looks a bit like desperation to me.

Here you all go again !
Arguing about the wrong problem !

Leo Lane, you asked for some science and was given some. Without addressing or even trying to understanding the science you have dismissed it stupid and a fraud. This says a lot about your attitude. It is akin to a religion, you have your beliefs and anything that does not neatly fit those beliefs you dismiss without bothering to understand it.

I shall leave you to your religion in company with runner and Hasbeen. You make an interesting triple.

Agronomist, there was nothing in that link that I had not seen before, and nothing that purported to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. We all know that human emissions affect climate, but the effect is trivial, and not measurable.

If you cannot understand the question, I am not surprised that you are a fraud backer.