(cont.)

Let’s have some consequences here. If it’s true that I can prove you categorically wrong and – like all the other warmists I have encountered - you either can’t or won’t answer questions that prove it, what negative consequence will you accept? Sign over your house? What consequence?

“Your 'challenge' is not at all clear.”

To repeat: Will you undertake to answer the questions that no warmist dares to answer? What will you give us if you can't and just slink off like the rest of them?

Surely if the future of the planet is at stake, and other people are to be expected to accept the infringements of their freedoms and property and livelihoods, your house must be a relatively small but worthy consideration?

It is now pretty obvious that only those with complementary tickets on the global warming gravy train, those applying for those tickets, greenie ratbags, Barack Obama, & those genuine folk easily led astray are still promoting the fraud of Global warming.

Yes the elites are still hoping to use it to prize the peasants off the good life, which was never intended for them. Those elites are aghast that we managed to grab a share of the wealth we generated, & can't stand the thought at all the lowlife should have it so good.

It is obvious in the way they cannot disguise their disgust at having to converse with these upstarts, they were foolish enough to educate.

Roll on the western worlds cultural revolution.

Now that the truth is coming out, it is obvious that the BOM has been playing games to shore up the human-induced climate change ideology, rather than being serious about employing scientific method.

Regrettably, such unprofessional behaviour on the part of the BOM and other members of the AGW cheer squad, has influenced both Labor and Coalition governments into believing that AGW is dangerous, and consequently implementing policies that cannot be justified on scientific or economic grounds. Implementation of bad policies can never be in the national interest

Dr Bill, I choose to remain anonymous on this site, primarily because I have no axe to grind and no position to promote. My commentary has to live or die on the evidence I can bring to the discussion, not on my reputation (real or imagined).

It is clear that you have used your association with Rutherglen to argue from authority. It has also become clear from information provided elsewhere that this authority is somewhat less than you have made out, or has been made out on your behalf.

It is obvious that the relationship between average annual minimum and annual rainfall is a red herring. You just have to think about it for a few minutes. Annual rainfall is often dominated by a relatively small number of events, whereas average temperature is contributed to by every day of the year. In fact over most of Australia there is no relationship http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/journal_articles/AMM_1998.pdf

Of course, I would never rely on the data set from a single station to infer what the trend in temperatures is over a large region.

NASA and NOAA, lefty feral weirdo organisations if ever there were any are at it also, published earlier this year,

"America's two top scientific agencies have released separate reports on last year's climate, confirming the global warming trend is continuing.
The American space agency, NASA, releases a climate report each year - alongside a separate report from its sister agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The two agencies collect their data separately and their reports show slightly different results. But the trend is clear.
At least nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000."

Anyone with half a brain realises Jennifer Marohasy knows more than these two flimsy groups of no-ones.

Agronomist, I don't understand axe-grinding in a data-context; and I stand by my comments.

What blew-up for Rutherglen, is, there was an unreported station move around 1965, which I detected in data; and which has been confirmed by BoM.

So the series was NOT strictly linear. Other ACORN data may also be mis-specified

Rutherglen's weather-experiment was shifted to a different paddock. Agronomists ought understand the significance of that. (Perhaps you are pinching the title).

It is also conundrum that for Rutherglen's minimum temperature, wet years are warm-years. You've not solved that yet!

I suspect you have no idea of how the climate there behaves.

(Not only do I know the site, but I've enjoyed an almost life-long association with a farming-family near Burrunbuttock; so I know the region and its climate well!)

At an annual scale many Australian temperature datasets show a relationship with rainfall and rainfall shifts.

At a station-level, variance explained simultaneously by those 2 variables (hint use dummy variables), can be as high as 60%. This applies particularly to Max temp; for Mins, R-sq varies on a station by station basis. You could check it out for yourself.

Not important you say; and you point to "authority". A red-herring you say; without even having a look.

You may not get-it; but it could be important, that when you look at temperature data, you could be measuring a rainfall-response.

Unfortunately authority did not consider the shift issue, however, other 'authority' has, and I'm sure if you are truly interested you could find that out; or analyse some data for yourself. (Use Rutherglen for example!)

It seems to me that anyone who looks even side-ways at data; and discovers something that conflicts with hard-held preacher views; is automatically vilified as some sort of unbelieving half-wit.

When you've sorted Ruthertglen, try a station that has moved lots, like Alice Springs or Eucla; or one with peculiar data, like Gabo Is. or, Bridgetown PO, where slabs of its data were measured in whole-degrees. Then work out what it all means for trend-detection!

Cheers,

Dr. Bill