The author certainly has some sort of agenda with climate-related sceptic stories going back at least 12 years on this site alone.

In that time no doubt the scientific data and evidence has become even more refined and pronounced and the consenus even stronger within the scientific community.

The IPA is (among other things) a cheer squad for the fossil fuel industry with funding coming from BHP-Billiton, Western Mining, Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon)and Shell and Woodside Petroleum and many others.

Like all lobbyists and pundits disguised as "think tanks" they don't study facts and draw conclusions, they try to distort the facts to match their beliefs and support their financial sponsors.

For example - In June 2004 it was revealed that Australia's largest irrgation company, Murray Irrigation Limited, contributed $40,000 to the IPA.
The IPA's environment unit director Jennifer Marohasy played a critical role in persuading a government committee to overturn recomendations to increase the volume of water released into the Murray River. However, Marohasy did not disclose the donation to the committee.

Meanwhile, here's another assessment of the latest climate claims.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-public-affairs-paper-claim-global-warming-natural-junk-science

They are really starting to look like "flat-earthers" when it comes to science - but only for a price.

Considering her decendents will be living in the same world as everybody else's I wonder what they will think looking back.

Rache, are all your posts as bereft of science, or pertinent reference as this one?.
You have attacked the author, without spelling out any rational basis for your attack, or how it relates to the topic.
You also make a gratuitous attack on the IPA, with no hint of how it relates to the topic.
The topic, which, in case you have not noticed, Rache, is the obstruction, or non-cooperation of the BOM in the checking of the climate information which it supplies to the ABC.
Your post contains nothing relevant to this. It contains material irrelevant to the article, and appears to be nothing but the output of a troll.
You might care to clarify your position, particularly if you can show how your post bears any relation to the substance of the article, which you purport to address.

Do you have any scientific basis VK3AAUUfor your unsupported statement about Greenland’s “melting ice sheets”
If you reply, you can exclude any conjectures by fraud supporters as to future “expected outcomes”, Just give any scientific observations you have of the current observed situation. Then tell us how it has any relevance to the article on which you purport to be commenting

Jennifer the clearest demonstration that the ABC needs to accept your challenge is the desperation to smear and distract from the thermometer science by these easily fooled green religious trolls. You lured them into this trap to dance like puppets so well. Very funny.

Amazing none of these activists seem to be aware of the latest science from the Arctic showing that the Aurora lights are powered by moving electrons from the solar wind. This in combination with the anti correlation between solar wind power and Arctic ice anomaly shows that neither TSI or CO2 have much to do with it. The Arctic is being melted by the tremendous overhead electric heat lamp power that was forgotten in the faulty radiative balance equations.
https://www.sciencealert.com/pulsating-aurora-northern-lights-electron-microbursts

With their controlled and limited knowledge coming via the ABC and other unquestioning regurgitators of the climate cult bull edicts, simple knowledge of what this means is a complete mystery to them. For example ""A Birkeland current is a set of currents that flow along geomagnetic field lines connecting the Earth's magnetosphere to the Earth's high latitude ionosphere. In the Earth's magnetosphere, the currents are driven by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field and by bulk motions of plasma through the magnetosphere " wiki

Jennifer

Your article is indeed about temperature ... temperature is one way of measuring how Earth is warming. Displaying the results of temperature increase through objective examples is another way of displaying rising temperature. David, rightly gave Greenland as an example where melting is happening quite quickly; it is clearly temperature related. The melting in Greenland, and melting of Arctic sea ice and thawing of permafrost are also obviously related to temperature.
It is an academic argument about the efficacy of how temperature is measured; when, there are objective examples showing warming is happening.

If you do write about Antarctica you might consider what is happening in relation to the Pine Island glaciers, the Totten glacier, Larson A, B and C, and Ross Ice Shelf. What is happening in relation to grounding lines?

GrahamY
If trolling is about referencinging articles in relation to science with hyperlinks to science research; then, I'm a proud troll.
In relation to how temperature was measured in the 1890s, a reference was given quoting Meteorologists of the 1890s vs speculation around 120 years later. I mentioned this situation to a scientist; her comment was "so?", meaning the comments made by the contrarian didn't make a jot of difference. Trying to generalise from one example to the general provides a logical inconsistency, over the last years there have been huge temperature anomalies measured.
The Arctic is one of the biggest red flags flying in relation to climate change displaying temperature change.

The alternative way of showing temperature clearly does not fit into a contrarian point of view and so needs to be discarded. Interestingly, it was a contrarian who once responded to me suggesting that the small changes in temperature from year to year were so small as to be meaningless.

Continued

Leo Lane,

The scientific assessment is in the included link, which describes the apparent flaws in the assertion.

It's not up to me to prove what has been generally and widely accepted as scientific fact, it's up to the deniers to convincingly disprove those facts and this claim has shown to have failed to do so. The consensus about AGW stretches far wider than remarks made by the ABC.

Cherry-picking only six out of 692 available proxy records is a pretty flimsy basis for argument and even the conclusions are not supported by those facts selectively presented.

My remarks about the IPA are included to suggest there is an ongoing financial motive behind the blurring of scientific data even down to having a personal business interest in the Climate Modelling Laboratory that produced the "report".