Very honest article, however the logic of voting for Labor at the end of it, is a white flag of surrender.
That move only entrenches the duopoly by giving the rest of us more of the same.

We need a revolution in politics.

Dan

As a person gets older you can only shake your head in pitying wonder at how entire generations of younger people seem to have been brainwashed into accepting ideologies guaranteed to utterly destroy the very prosperity and peace that preceding generations had worked and died for to create.

I think it gets down to the ancient Chinese proverb, "Third generation no good."

That is, generations who inherit the wealth created by preceding generations have no idea of it's value and simply accept it as a natural law of nature. Then they either immerse themselves in profligacy while at the same time cultivating the pose of virtue signaling to alleviate their guilt at never having to do much to earn their legacy.

Human Induced Climate Change is the biggest con since the idea of racial equality, or the so called stolen generations. It would take no more than a day or two on Youtube listening with an open mind to both sides of the argument, to figure out which side is obviously telling the truth and which side is lying it's head off.

For thirty years the alarmists have predicted immanent doom and gloom and nothing that these fortune tellers ever came to pass. Undeterred, they simply push the date for the End of Times ever further back. But it is always just around the corner.

When those Taliban morons blew up the 2000 year old Babiyan Buddhas because Mohammad decreed that no physical representations of life was acceptable, it amazed me that anyone could be that stupid. Still, we expect that from that bunch of uneducated, superstitious, illiterate religious nut cases. What we do not expect is that there are supposedly "intelligent" people in the west who think exactly like the Taliban.

Anybody with even half a brain can figure out that "net zero" emissions is a physical impossibility. It would mean no smelting steel, copper, aluminium, or any other metal. No concrete. No diesel trains or semi trailers. We would not even be able to cook our food using firewood as we huddled for warmth in our caves.

Of course NZ Emissions is just the latest scam element offered by globalist activists and the investors who see great power/wealth for those at the top of the global wealth mountains. The Liberals ( and now it would seem the Nationals) are letting down their base by attempting to avoid debate and face up to the stupidity of the IPCC and those luvies who are alarming the world at COP 26.

It is ironic (in fact sad) that the only common sense are the minor independent like the Clive Palmer/ Craig Kelly for common-sense over the climate change cult that is hobbling western economies. NZD is just the latest example of the west's self-flagellation in the vain hope that they Wests's " crimes over the colonial history will be forgiven by the Chinese and all those countries who demand climate remuneration packages such as the current $100billion claim coming from Cop26.

On a technical point, do not fall into the trap of accepting that any se-level rise is due to CO2. It is due to isotatic/eustatic adjustments that have seen sea-level rise and fall around the globe during the last 10,000 years. In Australia, it is well known that the east is sinking and the West is rising (in general). I fine example of this can be seen if you take a look of the bathometry of the coast along Sydney. If you do this, you will see that the Hawkesbury river (which enters the ocean at Broken Bay) can be seen to have once extended many kilometres of shore. Current Broken bay is a drowned river valley that has been formed due to the slow adjustments of the eats coast side of the continent. These current sea level rises ( miniscule) are geologically driven, not CO2.... but then why let actual real science get in the way of the predictions of flawed mathematical models and Screams from " the third generation.

Its about time the Liberals woke up and stopped pandering to their internal wets (spurred on by 'Emperor Mal McTurnball').

It's good that you responded and told him why you wouldn't donate, Graham. The Coalition needs to know what is thought of their capitulation. Who cares if pro-renewables candidates are to stand in Coalition seats when the Coalition is going to surrender to climate madness anyway.

As for the Coalition’s arrogant belief that they will still get the votes they need because the other mob is even worse, well there are three right of centre parties gearing up for the next election that, while not being a able to form a government, can make it difficult for the Coalition or Labor to screw us as they obviously intend to do; if voters pull their heads out of their backsides. Unfortunately, that's a big if. The dictatorship that has arisen from Covid, and been accepted, shows that Australians are ready for soft totalitarianism.

"Now their document declares net zero will actually increase wealth".

It will - the wealth of the already wealthy. Big Business touting for zero 2050 is not mere virtue signalling: it's 'good' business. They are the ones making and selling electric cars and unreliables. And, if the cost of business goes up, they can absorb it, while their smaller rivals cannot.

Climate change has nothing to do with climate; it's about the transfer of wealth - not from the rich to the poor as commonly believed, but from the poor and the relatively poor (most of us) to the rich. It's the likes of Prince Charles and other obscenely rich billionaires who are all for Zero 2050

Zero 2050 which is just an incentive to wind down industry and buy things from China instead, where the carbon footprint, per gadget, tends to be far higher

LEGO @ 6.32am says -

"...Human Induced Climate Change is the biggest con since the idea of racial equality, or the so called stolen generations..."

String theory and alternate universes must be correct. Lego is obviously living in one of them.

Interesting approach to debate Aries56, maybe you are the one in a different universe. Do you actually understand the failings and issues with Global Climate models, can you explain the discrepancy from actual global temperature records (only available from Satellites since 1980) and the wide range of 0ver 40 model types? or; do you understand that despite claims that CO2 causes raised temperatures, yet when no physical evidence (even at the atomic level of study) has been able to demonstrate a causal link between temp and CO2?

It is clear that as you have to result in insulting and slandering LEGO, I suspect you are just a believer who defends the klimate khange kult. AS a practicing scientist ( Earth, Enviro, Meteorology and hydrology) of over 40 years experience, I can confirm, you are living in aversion of the universe that makes you happy. Enjoy. Maybe one day you will be brave enough to step out of you KKK universe and read some real science rather than swallowing model predictions and the rantings of adolescents like Greta, Gore, Johnston, Flannery,......!Who haven't a the capacity to understand the material they spit at the world.... " How dare they?"

Here's the thing. Decarbonising the economy doesn't have to equate to tanking it!

It's the bloody-minded obsession with coal gas and oil that's the problem for both parties, if for different party political reasons?

Climate change denialists tantamount to flat earther conviction? Given both simply ignore inconvenient truths and incontrovertible evidence!

Claiming that an increase of 1.4C is nothing much to worry about? The climate change denialist equivalent of claiming tobacco as benign or asbestos did no harm or was not carcinogenic?

That said, if we would decarbonise the economy without tanking it? We need to transition to nuclear power! And without foreign money or ownership! But rather, fund MSR thorium projects off-budget and then set the leger straight via income earnings! Very doable when 3 cents PKWH is around 200+% profit!

And the capital required for the building phase, (free money) available by accepting other folks nuclear waste in return for annual millions or even billions!?

And that waste in MSR technology, simply unspent fuel that still retains as much as 90% as recoverable free fuel/energy! The trick here is to keep out of foreign hands and foreign control! And done by funding and facilitating Australian co-ops! And as such, every one dollar of taxpayer money invested in the proposed paradigm returns 2.5.

Moreover, this model makes every one dollar do the work of at least seven via well known economic flow on factors! And given we exclude foreign investment and ownership that money stays here in the local economy, beavering away, until it exhausts!

And by then in an economy at least 7 times larger than at present, replete with a booming manufacturing sector and self-reliant, self-sufficiency like we've never ever had!

There's no downside here, just win-win!
Alan B.

Most amusing, never takes long for you to put the MSR angle on things. Unfortunately Alan B, you are playing the game and like most with a vested interest in this debate, you only see it as an opportunity to promote/float your own " hobbyhorse" boat... just like the profiteers, carbon credit entrepreneurs and the purveyors of all the subsidized renewable scheme. Mean while the rich and famous will prosper while the working class must pay through stifling energy coast rises, and the impoverished 1 billion third world souls will remain without energy supplies.

This KKK scam is getting to the point when all the promises and lies will start to hurt people, and act as a deflection for all the real crisis in resource misuse, particularly land, water forests.

If the coalition want to win the next election!? They need to remove the self-placed embargo on nuclear power!

This would be clever strategy given it would wedge labor between the voter 57% of who are now in favour and the obdurate (anti-nuclear) greens, who would die in a ditch first! And the anti-nuclear element inside labor!

It could even result in a split inside labor and divorce left and right factions? That would then expose a secretly, massively divided labor to the voter!

Moreover, it could cost the nats seats in the bush that could go to country libs or independents? Meaning the tail that wags the dog, national party would shrink to a troublesome flea in its ear? And the end of a divisive and demanding tomato head as a recycled leader?

Don't continue to be afraid of nuclear, but use it for the economy and in the political bun fight sure to emerge when it is proposed, as it should be! Any proposal can remain just that, indefinitely?
Alan B.

AJ. please engage brain before putting mouth into gear or words I didn't utter into my mouth! My proposal put the energy sector into numerous and competing for business, locally-owned energy co-ops!
And as history shows, co-ops were the only private enterprise, free-market business model that survived the Great depression largely intact!

Moreover, with MSR thorium deployed and in cooperative capitalist's hands, energy prices would and must come down to well below what is or was ever doable for coal! End of story!

You need to read prize-winning investigative Author and science writer Richard Martin's Thorium, Super fuel, subtitled, green energy and Professor Robert Hargrave's Thorium, cheaper than coal. And listen to Thorium in five minutes by NASA scientist and nuclear technologist, Kirk Sorensen for staters, before you start defaming or going the verbal!
Alan B.

Obviously we have a bunch of politicians on Oz who are very week at the knees, but are not very bright.

Both sides have fallen for the net zero scam, the libs bowing to international pressure, & Labor succumb to the Greens demands. This is down to total gutlessness, as I can't believe that either think the idea is feasible, or even desirable.

However the Morrison government have another strike against them, their handling of the Covid great vaccination scam. It is tantamount to murder to open us up to international travel while depending on the proven incapable so called vaccines to keep the infection rate down.

To then totally ban the proven effective treatment offered by Ivemectin should open those responsible to a charge of premeditated murder.

I wonder if Morrison will be able to find another major mistake to make while in Glasgow, to make it 3 strikes against him & his mob. I'm sorry to say Scot, telling the French where to put Turnbulls subs lost it's brownie points when you decided to build them in South Australia, so you will need some very large tricks to pull out of your hat to survive this lot of mistakes.

Dearest Alan B, stop reading into every thing that the whole world is against Nuclear Power. I for one have supported and studied since the 1980's to reduce the wastage of coal/oil/wood etc which are far to valuable to burn. YES the libs should support it, BUT you saying that Nuclear will meet the Climate cultist needs is a waste of time... They hate it! Don't be like the liberals Alan, stand up for nuclear ( your obvious passion) and don't try and align it with the climate change cultists!

Its not about what they say its about....This brilliantly sums it up.

http://youtu.be/5U2UoR-oB1M

(ps neil Oliver is a treasure. Watch the rest of his docos...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=neil+oliver+documentary)

AJ. Not interested in the climate change debate, just simply decarbonizing our economy before it's tanked via impending carbon tariffs!

As for climate change, one would need to be blind Freddy not to see that it has changed!

Maybe that has something to do with carbon? Maybe it doesn't Maybe we can do something about it? Maybe we can't?

But whatever we do, do, it cannot include higher energy prices that make air conditioning unaffordable or force what's left of manufacturing offshore, when our goal needs to be to bring it back big time via sane energy policies and genuine tax reform!

The latter manifesting as an unavoidable flat tax set at 15% that every boy and his dog pay above a very generous, tax-free threshold! I'm not getting into the climate change debate with folk who are welded to coal! Given they have all closed their minds and refuse to look at the incontrovertible evidence!

Simply put, I see this as a once in a thousand years to get out from under foreign control and ownership and a Godsend economic opportunity to build an economy that is destined to be the biggest on earth!

And as with all western-style economies, supported by just two economic pillars, energy and capital! And by ensuring neither is white-anted by foreign interests or Chinese imperialists/Chinese capitalists/Chinese money/ownership! And the least costly available!

My way ticks all those boxes and sets us up toward the stated economic future!

I get that most posters commenting here are like you, totally devoid of any sophisticated understanding of economics, but like yourself, prepared to rubbish the hell out of those who like me, do!
Alan B.

That the Libs finally caved to the CAGW hysteria is hardly surprising - they've been desperately trying to find an electorally viable path to that end since 2013.

While the facts that GrahamY mentions in the article are correct and should be enough to, at the very least, give pause to the rush to de-carbonise the economy, the truth is the facts are no longer the issue. The CO2 fetishists decided long ago to stop arguing the facts and simply to repeat mantras. I saw one of the ABC talking-heads assert t'other day that scientists have determined that the climate is warming faster than previously anticipated. That is patently wrong on every level, yet went unchallenged by the balance of the supposedly informed panellists.

And that's the way the entire issue is now addressed - make claims based on the propaganda and deny the actual science while claiming to be supported by the science.

The Libs think that those on the right ultimately have no other home and will, due to preference voting, eventually number Lib ahead of ALP which is all that matters.

Since 2013, I've been advocating that the only way to get a Liberal party that has Australia's interests, rather than their own careers, at the forefront of their mind, is to vote for minor right-wing parties and then preference the ALP.

Sure, we end up with an ALP government. But seeing a difference between that and the current government will be difficult. So a term or two of ALP government may be the only thing that causes the Libs to return to their roots. (I say this more in hope than certainty).

Additionally, given the storm-clouds on the horizon, winning the next election may be a poison chalice. The ALP is even less suited to navigating that than the Libs and the quicker we get to the bottom, the faster we can start repairing the damage done to the country in the last two terms.

Alison Jane,

AlanB has been raving about his thorium fantasies for at least 5 years now. His entire belief is based on some dodgy Youtube videos he saw.

But the fact is that there is no working thorium power plant anywhere in the world. Not even 1 watt of commercial thorium power has ever been generated.

That might (MIGHT) change next decade (China is talking of having a proof of concept plant ready in a year or three) but in the meantime AlanB is talking rubbish.

it is amazing how the British conservatives strongly feel that humans are causing global warming, at least the vast majority of them, yet their Australian counterparts do not.

Who is wrong?

I suspect Australia's conservatives are wrong, but that markets will ultimately force Australia's hand in any case.

At least, the Treasurer understands this reality

Mhaze,

The 3 things that greenies use to protest against nuclear power are:

a reactor failure can spew out radioactivity. The MSR reactor fueled with mostly thorium is inherently safe, i.e. even if every single safety system is compromised the reactor will essentially shut itself down.
the waste material stays radioactive for thousands of years. The waste material from the reactor is mostly very short half-life isotopes that will almost entirely disappear after about 300 years.
the waste material can be used to make nuclear weapons. The isotopes from Thorium can be used to make nuclear weapons. (while U233 could theoretically be used it is so radioactive that it makes storage or handling of the weapons nearly impossible)

However, getting a new design accepted by regulators is so hard and expensive that such a new design will take a while to get accepted.

Typo

The isotopes from Thorium CAN'T be used to make nuclear weapons

shadowminister,

There might be all sorts of good reasons to wish MSR was available. But at the moment there is no working model for it and the only working model built was an environmental disaster.

"getting a new design accepted by regulators is so hard and expensive that such a new design will take a while to get accepted"

That isn't the problem at all. The Chinese likewise can see that if they can get a viable MSR power plant going it'd be a godsend for their economy and future. So they've been throwing money at it for a decade now and still haven't got anywhere near getting a viable model going. They are hoping to have a small thorium/salt reactor going by 2024 to see if it is viable.

But even they aren't holding out too much hope that a commercial plant will be operating before 2030, even if all the problems are resolved.

So talking about it now as though the only thing holding it back are regulatory road-blocks is just wrong.

Oh, well done, Aries54. Arrive on OLO out of cyberspace, make some sneery one liner comment inferring that I am completely wrong, then disappear back into cyberspace without bothering with a reasoned argument explaining why I am wrong. Fairly typical behavior from the young socialite socialists, who just know they must be right because the yuppee peer group they identify with requires absolute commitment to their dogma, so who needs to argue rationally?

I am sure that your virtue signaling was noted by your peer group. Who needs arguments backed up by logic, reason and facts when simply prostrating yourself to the chardonnay socialist ideological position is all that is required to be a card carrying member of the "superior" caste?

Come back and have a go when you grow up, do some reading, and develop a brain.

I regard hit and run artists such as yourself as easy meat.

Groan.

I get that the Libs and Nats are captured by fossil fuel interests and I get naked self interest, but why of earth would the ordinary pleb be fighting this?

I mean it's simple, if Australia doesn't step up on this issue then other countries will penalise our exports by placing a carbon tariff on them.

Keep in mind Australians have one of the highest proportions of homes which have solar panels mitigating at least some of their fossil fuel energy consumption.

It's been a while since I have run a comb through a climate skeptics article so let's have a tease through the first couple of links.

Roy Spencer's graphs:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/

Compared to this one:
http://web.archive.org/web/20201208022111/https://www.drroyspencer.com/

Yup. The baseline has been shifted up purely to lessen the visual impact of rising temperatures.

Sure there was a qualifier in the first:

“REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010.”

Agenda feeding at its best.

Next is a story about the reef by the Australian behind a paywall. From the title that it is an opinion piece.

If however you read the science there is a different story:

“The majority of recovery was driven by increases in the fast-growing Acropora corals, which have proliferated across many GBR reefs. Once established, these corals enter an exponential growth phase which rapidly increases measures of percent hard coral cover, as documented in this year’s results. However, the fast growth comes at a cost, the skeleton is less dense than other slower growing corals, making them particularly susceptible to wave damage, like that generated by strong winds and tropical cyclones.
They are also highly susceptible to coral bleaching and are the preferred prey for crown-of-thorns starfish. This means that large increases in hard coral cover can quickly be negated by disturbances on reefs where Acropora predominate.”
So biodiversity severely impacted and an opportunistic coral species has proliferated over a climate induced nuking of the reef.”

I could go on but it is boring. Enough already.

To Alon B.

If you knew anything about the fight against tobacco, which you obviously do not, you would know that the tobacco companies regularly trotted out scientists who would claim that their research, paid for by the tobacco companies, could not find any causal link between tobacco and lung cancer.

Then we have today Dr.Fauci and those virologists who backed up the article printed in Lancet, that anyone who thought that the Wuhan virus came from a lab was a conspiracy theorist. And that those who supported this conspiracy were arguing against science. Why? Because the Wuhan lab leak had the potential to do to scientific viral research what Chernobyl did for the nuclear power industry.

However much I admire science, I know from my reading of history that no organization created by humans can ever be beyond reproach. As soon as any organization is considered above reproach, you can bet that some person with no moral compass will take advantage of that.

The motivation of the scientists who sold their souls to the tobacco companies and todays climate Scientists is the same. Self interest.
Both were in need of research funds and they would do anything to get a sponsor.

Alarmists claim that 97% of climate scientists agree with HIGW. Well, 97% of ABC staff say that the ABC is unbiased. And if you are one of the 3% of ABC staff who think that the ABC is biased than you had better keep your mouth shut, of whenever there is a job cutback at the ABC that 3% will lose their jobs. And the ABC can then claim that 100% of their staff think that the ABC is unbiased. The same goes for climate scientists.

The Earth warms and cools, warms and cools, in roughly 1000 year cycles. We are in just another warming cycle which just happens to be right on schedule. And every climate scientist knows it. But they need ignorant people such as your good self to propagate their self interested lies because they know you will never base your opinions on any research

Alan I am easily swayed. Just give me a single bit of proof that CO2 can do what the com men claim, & I will become a believer.

SR,
What have I told you before about numbers? Avoid like the plague

SR wrote: “Yup. The baseline has been shifted up purely to lessen the visual impact of rising temperatures.”

This from the WMO… http://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/updated-30-year-reference-period-reflects-changing-climate

“The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has updated the U.S. Climate Normals to the 1991-2020 baseline period to provide a most recent baseline for climate information and services to climate-sensitive sectors and a standard reference to compare variations in temperature, precipitation etc to the 30-year average.

The move is in line with a World Meteorological Organization recommendation that the 30-year standard reference periods should be updated every decade in order to better reflect the changing climate and its influence on our day-to-day weather experience.”

It feels like I’m piling on, but the man is so pompous in his ignorance.
Stand-by for a change of topic so quick it’ll make your head spin.

___________________________________________________________________

From Chris Lewis,

“it is amazing how the British conservatives strongly feel that humans are causing global warming, at least the vast majority of them, yet their Australian counterparts do not.”

Why is this always a binary? Humans are causing or not causing? Why can’t there be nuance.

This conservative thinks:
* Man is causing SOME of the warming
* There is no evidence the warming is currently dangerous let alone catastrophic
* There is no evidence things will get bad if warming reaches +2c (let alone +1.5c) over 1850 temps
* Few of the promises made in Glasgow will be kept.
* Accepts that the Transient Climate Sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is somewhere around 2c but that we’ll never get to a doubling of CO2 from estimated 1850AD levels.

The whole thing is performance art with the nett effect being the transfer of wealth from the already poor to the already wealthy.

My guess is that most of the so-called deniers would go along with that. That is, they don’t deny that warming is occurring and is partially caused by CO2e but that the problem is wildly exaggerated

Oh LEGO if you think I am going to engage with someone who expects to be taken seriously when they publicly proclaim that climate change is as big a con as "...racial equality, or the so called stolen generations..." you are sadly mistaken. I strongly suggest that rather than all the reading and brain development you claim to have done, perhaps you could do some soul searching and discover some humanity.

Of course you do not want to cross swords with me, Aries54. Like any good trendy lefty, you are required by peer group pressure to simply accept all of those concepts as indisputable facts. To question them would be heresy. It would violate your compulsive need to believe that you are a genuine member of the Brahmin caste, a class who possesses unmatched intellectual and moral superiority. Your need for a positive self esteem about yourself trumps any wish to impartially examine facts. And when somebody like me comes along and throws a spanner into your whole clunky belief system, it frightens you and you shrink away. Not without tossing a few insults as you back out of the arena though, as a way to maintain your ruffled dignity.

Come on Aries54. Man up. Try putting your precious values to the test by putting yourself up against a switched on opponent. If you wont do that, then everybody reading our posts will know that your beliefs are so poorly rooted in any reasoned argument or verifiable fact, that you fear to defend that which you so passionately champion. All you want to do is to chant the champagne socialist mantras while thinking this displays your shining virtue, your high intellect, and your membership of a superior class of people.

The planet warms and cools every thousand years and that is a verifiable fact. We are in a warming period, right now, and a bunch of public servants who know how ignorant of history people like you are, knew how to make a perfectly natural event resemble the End of Times, and present themselves as the new Saviours of the World.

And they knew how to make people like you believe in their greedy self interest. Just present the case for HIGW as a cause which the young Brahmins can use to display to the grotty working and disadvantaged classes how brilliant they are, and to the middle and upper classes (who are usually their parents), how morally superior they are, and they would gulp at it, hook, line, and sinker.

LEGO - The list of people you don't like is growing. From races not your own, aboriginal children stolen from their homes, young socialite socialists, chardonnay socialists, trendy lefties, and now it's the Brahmin caste. Unfortunately for you, your targets are so boringly predictable. Spoiler alert - chardonnay is so last decade. Get with the programme man, it's oat milk, turmeric latte now.

My wise old father, now long gone, once said never argue with drunks or idiots. Your long winded rants prove the wisdom of his words.

One of the dumbest comments I've read is:

"I mean it's simple, if Australia doesn't step up on this issue then other countries will penalise our exports by placing a carbon tariff on them."

Bollocks, most of our product goes to those with worse records than Aus, and export more taxable products to us on which we could tax.

Also this 'carbon tax' does not comply with WTO rules.

Dear mhaze,

Well that got a laugh. Really? Your failures with Covid statistics are infamous. This still very much holds:

“mhaze's approach to statistics:

"I see people wearing winter coats and hats. What a bunch of sheep! LOL! I did my own research and found out that only 1500 people die from hypothermia in the US per year. That's only 0.0005% of the population. They live in fear of something that 99.9995% of people won't die from. It gets better, a lot of the people who died from hypothermia were wearing coats and hats, and they still died! Coats don't work!"”

And here you are putting your foot in it yet again, still not fully reading nor understanding the article before cherry picking from it.

The adjustment isn't meant for historical comparisons like Spencer is doing at all.

But rather:

“NCEI generates the official U.S. normals every 10 years in keeping with the needs of our user community and the requirements of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and National Weather Service (NWS). The 1991–2020 U.S. Climate Normals are the latest in a series of decadal normals first produced in the 1950s. These data allow travelers to pack the right clothes, farmers to plant the best crop varieties, and utilities to plan for seasonal energy usage. Many other important economic decisions that are made beyond the predictive range of standard weather forecasts are either based on or influenced by climate normals.”

Short term stuff.

But as your link clearly states:

“However, for the purposes of historical comparison and climate change monitoring, WMO still recommends the continuation of the 1961-1990 period for the computation and tracking global climate anomalies relative to a fixed and common reference period.”

This is an example from the Canadian government site:

“Departures are calculated by subtracting the 1961 to 1990 reference value from the annual average.”
http://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/temperature-change.html

Hung by your own petard old chap.

Lol.

"Stolen children", Aries54? OK, I can destroy that little bit of socialist propaganda in five minutes.

Now, be a good boy and get out your Iphone. Punch in ""stolen generations High Court decision." Read it and weep. As one High Court judge remarked, "the removal of aboriginal children by the Federal government was a humanitarian obligation." And you know what, Aries? It still is.

Next, punch in "Gunnar-Cabillo vs. Federal government." Being so intelligent and progressive, you must know what THAT case was, mustn't you? Just in case you missed it, it was the only "stolen generations" case that came before the courts. And it flopped badly, old mate. The judge in that case said of Gunnar, "He had never been stolen but had been convinced by others that he must have been."

No matter how you cut the cake, Aries, the so called "stolen generations" is legally as dead as a dodo. But you would never know that from listening to "your" precious ABC or the fake news press, would you? You are being lied to, but you don't want to know.

Now, I doubt if you have the guts to check what I wrote and see if it is true, because your whole belief system which is built upon the idea that the class you identify with is so smart and intelligent, and it could never be wrong.

But just on the off chance that you are a real intellectual, instead of a pseudo, wannabee one, and you do check what i wrote and realise that this "drunk" is correct, then perhaps you might develop some skepticism about the propaganda you are swallowing as holy writ?

Then I would suggest you get angry at the people who thought you were a mug and would accept any rubbish as fact because they know how to lead you using your self esteem.

SR,

Still making up stories about what I've said and then telling me how wrong to have said things I never said. As Foxy is wont to say, perhaps this will help your understanding....
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity

You could do with some. But given that your last foray into statistics resulted in errors ranging from 300% wrong to 57000% wrong, perhaps get some statistical knowledge and then work on that integrity thingy.

As to the base-line calculations, again you demonstrate your lack of understanding. The current standard is to use 1990-2020 BUT when comparing graphs prepared in earlier periods then you should use the base-line from that early graph. I'd have thought that was reasonably obvious even to the clueless. That is, if you are comparing two datasets, you should use the same base-line on each. Stats 101.

But to some extent that is beside the point. You said Spencer changed the base-line to "to lessen the visual impact of rising temperatures" when, in fact, he changed it to make the data compatible with current standards. Sad that you don't get that.

Also sad that you failed to note the most important fact, being the trends, which, of course, are unaffected by baselines. Perhaps you don't understand that either.

And just for fun, perhaps I should point out that the trend using UAH for the last decade is a statistical temperature pause

Dear mhaze,

Well that was bulldust but at least a bit more inventive from you than usual. But yet we have again seen you without any clothes and it ain't pretty.

How long did it take you to make this up?

“The current standard is to use 1990-2020 BUT when comparing graphs prepared in earlier periods then you should use the base-line from that early graph. I'd have thought that was reasonably obvious even to the clueless. That is, if you are comparing two datasets, you should use the same base-line on each. Stats 101.”

What bunkum. Even when the very website you linked to explained it so clearly to you.

The 1961-1990 base line already has a lot of climate change baked in. Spencer is looking to advance that period and bake in some more. In a way, whether or not he realises it, he is acknowledging the accelerating warming of the planet by so quickly adopting though demostably misusing this standard.

To Steelredux.

Sorry to intrude on your ongoing feud with mhaze, but competition is a bit hard to find around here now that Aries54 has slinked out of the arena with his tail between his legs.

You asked why plebs did not accept HIGW? Well, as a card carrying pleb/ deplorable/ bogan/ redneck I can answer that for you. It is because us plebs, although not possessing a university education, know when somebody is peeing on our legs and telling us that it is raining. How come you never developed that necessary skill?

To Chris Lewis.

Boris Johnson won the election very handsomely because the British working class rejected the ultra woke, immigrant sucking policies of the Labor left loonies. It was only AFTER his election that Boris suddenly became a born again Alarmist. What the working class thought of that I don't know? Other than you cant trust professional politicians.

That even the "conservatives" in Australia are pushing the HIGW B.S. is not hard to understand. They know that entire generations of school students have been brainwashed by their loony left teachers into total acceptance of this Gaian religious nonsense, and they know that these kids will soon be voters. So they have to go down the road at least partway, even though most "conservatives" know it is complete rubbish.

Its very much like multiculturalism. The left wing socialists knew they could not win office in western societies by dividing the classes anymore (even though they claim class does not exist), so they went after the immigrant vote to divide our society by race and ethnicity (even though they claim race and ethnicity does not exist.) The conservatives, who once staunchly opposed multiculturalism, now have to suck up to immigrant communities because they are a growing electoral force.

Gotta hand it to the Left. They know how to divide and conquer, brainwash kids, and invent "progressive" issues that they can pretend that they are the natural leaders of.

SR,

So you decided to skip that whole 'integrity' thing, eh?

WMO , as has been the practice for a long time, adjusted the baseline at the end of the decade.

NOAA likewise.

GISS likewise.

BEST likewise.

Climate.gov likewise.

RSS likewise.

WMO even explained it in relatively small words. "The move is in line with a World Meteorological Organization recommendation that the 30-year standard reference periods should be updated every decade in order to better reflect the changing climate and its influence on our day-to-day weather experience."

Yet SR has decided its all a conspiracy to deceive the him about the real climate. What a berk.

Alternatively, SR realises he had just shot his mouth of (yet again) but is unable to acknowledge error(yet again). I'm constantly amazed that SR is happier playing the bozo rather than admitting error.

Speaking of shooting your mouth off - how did your assertions that there'd be thousands of covid deaths in NSW by the end of October work out?

Dear mhaze,

What an utterly tosh with barely a word of it being factual. Did you even check even one of these before posting? Obviously not.

WMO's position is quite clear as I have already stated:

“for the purposes of historical comparison and climate change monitoring, WMO still recommends the continuation of the 1961-1990 period for the computation and tracking global climate anomalies relative to a fixed and common reference period.”

NOAA uses the average of the 20th century for any global graphs.

“The global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

GISS uses the 30-year period 1951-1980.

“For the GISS analysis, normal always means the average over the 30-year period 1951-1980 for that place and time of year.”

“Q. Why does GISS stay with the 1951-1980 base period?
A. The primary focus of the GISS analysis are long-term temperature changes over many decades and centuries, and a fixed base period yields anomalies that are consistent over time.
However, organizations like the NWS, who are more focused on current weather conditions, work with a time frame of days, weeks, or at most a few years. In that situation it makes sense to move the base period occasionally, i.e., to pick a new "normal" so that roughly half the data of interest are above normal and half below.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q102

I don't know who or what BEST is.

Climate.gov uses the 20th century average too. “Comparing the average temperature of land, ocean, or land and ocean combined for any month or multi-month period to the average temperature for the same period over the 20th century shows if conditions are warmer or cooler than the past.
http://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/global-temperature-anomalies-graphing-tool

Finally RSS appears to use 1979 to 2008. “Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008.”
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/

You really are a clown who repeatedly argues in bad faith.

SR continues his efforts to hide previous small errors behind current big errors.

NOAA - I've already shown data that they use the 1990-2020 where appropriate.

WMO - I've already shown data that they use the 1990-2020 where appropriate.

Climate.gov - "Earlier this spring, NOAA released the 1991-2020 U.S. Climate Normals—the new official baseline for describing average U.S. climate. "
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/new-maps-annual-average-temperature-and-precipitation-us-climate

RSS - the article you linked was written in 2018. I'll leave you to ponder why they weren't using 2020 data in 2018. Words fail me!!

I know this is difficult for you to follow but this isn't a black and white thing. Sometimes using 1990-2020 averages is right, sometimes other averages are more appropriate. So most of these climate organisations will use both depending on the circumstances.

But, although you clearly can't follow the logic, making these changes isn't a vast conspiracy to confuse the clueless, even though you are clearly confused. But then numbers always confuse you.

First Atlantic Warm Period about 7750 BC
Second Atlantic Warm Period about 7000 BC
First Saharan Warm period about 5800 BC
Second Saharan Warm Period about 5000 BC
Egyptian Warm period about 3200 BC
Sumerian Warm Period about 2200 BC
Minoan Warm Period about 1200 BC
Roman Warm Period about 400 BC to 300 AD
Medieval Warm Period about 1000 AD
Modern Warm Period about 2000 AD

Can ya see a pattern in there, Steelredux?

Question. How do you explain the previous, regularly occurring warming periods if you can't blame them on human industrial activity?

C'mon mate. Answer the question.

Dear mhaze,

You really are like a mangy cat on a hot tinn roof, desperate to deny the bleeding obvious, that you once again got caught out not reading the material you posted.

NOAA and WHO use changing normal in your own words "where appropriate".

It is not appropriate for global climate change monitoring.

Yet again:

“for the purposes of historical comparison and climate change monitoring, WMO still recommends the continuation of the 1961-1990 period for the computation and tracking global climate anomalies relative to a fixed and common reference period.”

Spencer's graphs are clearly marked as "global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly". As a global representation designed to represent "the computation and tracking" a global climate anomaly this lies squarely under the WHO recommendation.

That Spencer chooses to ignore this recommendation to suit his agenda is recognisable to everyone with half a brain. Both he and you are engaging in deliberate obfuscation and I have rightly called you both out.

SR

Yes Yes we all understand.
You made an error, and as in all other occasions when you make an error you use increasingly inane assertions to try to hide the error and are flabbergasted that others don't buy those inane assertions.

Climate.org called the 1990-2020 numbers "the new official baseline" and UAH are using that "new official baseline". That this confuses you is neither here nor there and certainly not surprising.

But here's the only take from this that need concern your half-a-brain...the new baseline doesn't alter the trend lines and the UAH data shows the trendline for global temperature is no warming in the past decade.

BTW the WHO have nothing to do with this. I think you meant the WMO. Good to see how conversant you are with all the facts.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

I do enjoy it when you squirm away like this. Your smoking gun that you produced with such fanfare at the start ended up being pointed backward didn't it. You really are a cartoon coyote aren't you. Good stuff.

So according to you: “UAH are using that "new official baseline"”.

For God's sake, did you really just go there? The main players in the University of Alabama in Huntsville team responsible for the record are two climate sceptics one of whom is Spencer himself.

So your evidence that this is widespread is to use the very same people who are being called out?

That is lame even in your book.

As to climate.gov they categorically state:

“The 1991-2020 Normals tell us what is normal in today’s climate. NOAA does other analyses that tell us about what used to be normal.

For its monthly and annual climate monitoring, temperature averages and precipitation totals are ranked since 1895, with many states ranking towards warm extremes recently. Also, U.S. and global climate conditions are compared to the 20th-century average.”
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-and-1991-2020-us-climate-normals

End of story old boy but do keep going, this is fun.

SR,

This is now beyond funny. You are amazed to find that Spencer and UAH are one and the same. Even though your original link was about UAH.

I keep making the mistake of assuming you have a modicum of requisite knowledge only to find that your level of understanding is lower than I thought possible. All of this and you didn't even know where your original link came from. Words fail me!!

Nowhere have I said the use of the new normal baseline was widespread. Indeed you'll note (well not you but someone with a modicum of understanding) that I've only mentioned US organisations. Being widespread was never the point although as usual your missed that. The point was that the new baseline was becoming acceptable and its use by UAH is just about keeping up to date. That it confused you is hardly surprising but that doesn't make it wrong.

After all, if the standard was to not confuse the likes of SR, then they'd never mention trendlines, since, as we've previously seen, that utterly confuses you.

Oh, did I mention that the trend for the last decade is no warming?

So enough. I can't go on trying to educate the ineducable.

Dear mhaze,

Unable to go on? Perfectly understandable old boy. You have rarely painted yourself into a corner so quickly in all of our exchanges.

So lick those wounds and I'm sure you will serve up better fare next time. Remember though, reading and understanding your links before posting is always going to be a good start.

"
Remember though, reading and understanding your links before posting is always going to be a good start."

Next time I'll try to find explanations that use small words so that you have a fighting chance of following the logic.

Far from it LEGO, far from it.

After reading your last rant to me I did indeed weep. I wept to think that despite all the evidence there is still someone in Australia who disputes the reality of the stolen generations. That is the Australian equivalent to being a Holocaust Denier in Germany.

And you wonder why I won't engage with you.

Of course you wont engage with me Aries. You know I will do you like dinner, so back to the sneery one liners you go. Which is about all you can manage.

The funny thing about the so called "stolen generation(s)" is that it is just so easy to disprove. You can do it yourself in five minutes. Just Google "Stolen generations-High Court Decision". The the famous Gunnar-Cubillo VS Federal government case and your entire argument is bankrupt.

But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Why, if you were to actually go and check you would find out you had been wrong all along, and what would that do to your precious self esteem? And your conviction that that your socialite socialist comrades are oh, so ferking smart and could never be wrong about anything?

You would be shattered. Better to avert your eyes and just keep sneering in a superior way so that you can keep pretending that you know what you are talking about.

The horoscope says that Aries people do terrible things to small animals.