If the undertakings given by the romantics to the rationalists; maintaining the existing approach toCO2 emissions to secure their support of the assassination, the rationalists should be at least a little concerned.

Because of the comments and demeanour of the Environment Minister Greg Hunt – firmly on the alarmist side of the ledger.

Firstly, why the necessity to boast that it was he who convinced the government not to investigate of the Bureau of Meteorology “adjustments” to the historical temperature record which to be generous, have not been well explained?

Is Hunt attempting to court favour with his fellow alarmists, soothe the offended bureaucrats at BOM or something else?

Secondly, isn’t there are a shred of concern from a party who expresses an appreciation of our current financial position, that the billions of dollars committed to changing the temperature,; should have a demonstrably scientific basis in terms verifiable scientific data?

BOM’s adjustments can reasonably give rise to suspicions when their effect is to reverse the contradiction between the observed temperature data and the models – the pause – at a time when it’s becoming particularly difficult for the alarmists to pretend it doesn’t exist.

It might well be that the adjustments can all be properly rationalised and the timing is coincidental.

If so, what’s the problem?

Why this this constant hysteria at the mere mention of the observed data?

Surely warmies and their propagandists in the establishment media, would relish an opportunity to rub the sceptics noses in a finding which validates an alarmist position?

Not a costly exercise financially – particularly comparable to what we are and will spend on this alleged future disaster.

It all just seems a little strange to me.

Thanks Jennifer, a great article. Ironically, the BOM are probably cutting their own throats. Your analogy of pedophilia and the church is very appropriate.

I have been following this with interest for sometime.
I do not know whether a Royal Commission would be the best body to take
all this apart, but we have Royal Commissions and other types of enquiries
where a lot less money is at stake. It is not billions that will be
spent on global warming but over some years TRILLIONS !
If we do not get it right it will send us stoney broke.
It likely will send us broke if we do get it right !

My particular concern is that we need to urgently find a new energy
system no matter what happens with temperature.

Jennifer frankly I could not care less whether the data for Rutherglen is a bit iffy. The fact that globe has lost so much ice over the past 40 years, and particularly the last 10 years, should be clear enough evidence for even the most die hard skeptic that the globe warming is real.

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global_ice_viewer

1. Read this sentence.
"For the true believer, it is too awful to even consider that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology could be exaggerating global warming by adjusting figures"
2. Looked at author name.
3. Read no further. Denialists just can't get a grip on reality.

Great riposte Mr Green #sarc The Global Warming Trolls used to complain that the skeptics (what you term deniers) weren't publishing in the peer reviewed literature. The assumptions were that they weren't good enough to do science, and that the peer review literature was always right.

Now you have an author who is skeptical and has published her skepticism in the peer reviewed literature, and all you can do is sneer.

How about you engage?