"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.