Agro you are just not thinking just spouting the usual bile and "We are all going to die" nonsense. Cohenite is correct the Greens have much to answer for.
One question, why do Greenpeace have revolving spokespersons? So they can never be pinned down? They really are a disgusting scam and making millions. Putin showed how to deal with them and the Icelanders will be just as hard! Cannot wait to seem them get another blood nose although what will stop there gallop is a finance investigation. When people see the misappropriated millions the brown stuff will hit the oscillating blades.

Come on Agronomist, you can't quote from one half of the warmest bull dust, without recognizing the other half. You appear to have carefully forgotten the "flooding rains" bit. Remember, it will be drought & flooding rains, if you believe their crap.

If so, it's a win all round. Flooding rains fill dams, regular rains don't. So build those dams, [not desalination plants], & trust in the con men to provide the floods to fill them.

You've got to give it to the conmen warmists don't you? If it's drought, it's global warming, & if it floods it's global warming, but their last one must be the best rationalization in history. When there is record breaking cold, [US & much of Siberia] it's global warming. And you still claim to believe the lying bludgers. Come on mate, fair crack of the whip.

2 points: I forgot to include the word "troll" in my post. You will exactly where it should be positioned.
The second point is that it is very difficult to have a reasoned, calm and rational debate when 2 of the people who are contributing, but not listening, are paid employees of The Heartland Foundation or The Climate Skeptics?

JBowyer, I am just commenting on what has already happened http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=seaus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0305&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=T and what is predicted to happen http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.com.au/nswactrain20.php in south-eastern Australia. Even if the outcome is not as bad as the prediction, what has already happened is bad enough. Declining autumn rainfall in south-eastern Australia is going to make crop production riskier, because it will be harder to get the crops sown in a timely fashion so they mature before the earlier spring heat that is already happened http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=tmax&tQ%5Barea%5D=seaus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0911&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=T and is predicted to continue http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.com.au/nswacttemp20.php. Again, if the outcome is not as bad as the prediction, what has already happened is bad enough.

I have no love for Greenpeace, as a perusal of my posts will show, but I am competent with data and am conversant enough chemistry and physics to understand what the implications of the data are. And to know that Anthony Cox is ignorant of science and is deluding people.

Agro’s post is a sorry reflection on the alarmist position.

A cursory glance at the BOM graphs shows fatal discrepancies. The temperature record begins in 1910 while rainfall begins in 1900.

The arbitrary floor to temperature means the very hot periods in the late 19thC and early 20thC are excluded. There is no good reason for this exclusion. The argument that Stevenson screens were not ubiquitous until 1910 even if correct, which it isn’t, or that the Glaisher screens were defective, which they weren’t, doesn’t mean you exclude data from the many sites which had Stevensons prior to 1910 or from the Glaisher records.

Agro has shown that rainfall in the SE Australian area is declining. It is also declining in the SW area around Perth. Agro attributes blame to AGW without offering any mechanism why AGW should reduce rain there but increase it in the North of Australia.

In fact there is a cogent reason why rainfall is declining in the lower extremities of the continent; urbanisation and land clearance as David Stockwell clearly shows in slides 11-13 here:

http://landshape.org/images/StockwellCSP.ppt.pdf

Agro asserts that sceptics seek to mislead and misinform. Why should they do that? None get paid; all the money is flowing into the alarmist basket even from big business which is standing in line to get the government handouts for renewables and AGW research. It is a grotesque accusation and applies to the alarmist supporters not the sceptics.

For instance there are many examples of leading alarmists advocating lying and exaggeration:

“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

Can agro point to such a deliberate intent to obfuscate by any sceptic? Of course not; when agro or the irritating Brian complain about sceptics they are really looking in a mirror.

Agro I am extremely irritated by the current nonsense from the BOM & the ABC. I do not include you in this but I honestly believe that the weather in Melbourne has not changed in the last 40 years I have lived here.
I had to get weather data in 1989 from the BOM and the man said despite what people think our temperatures have not decreased over the years. Apparently we remembered hotter summers in our youth.
In the 1970's it was going to be another Ice Age? Well I think this tawdry little episode will hopefully result in a healthy dose of scepticism straight up the scientific clacker!