Hi Mark,

Hmmm.... I'm not impressed. A few obvious things. Why start your plot at 1990? Your explanation that it's the Kyoto year seems a bit disingenuous. A quick look at your data shows that both 1989 and 1991 were quite a bit cooler than 1990. In fact 1990 was a record breaking year, the hottest year ever up until then, broken five years later in 1995 and eight years later in 1998 (a record that still stands). But why only go back 18 years? Why not go back to the 70s or even the 50s? If you do that the rise in temperature is quite spectacular and greatly dwarfs any putative downturn in 2008.

The second thing that I think is a big weakness of this article is that you are placing a lot of faith in just two months of data for 2008. I know the results look promising, but you aren't following your own advice - lay low for a while until you get a bit more data.

Finally, I am very unimpressed by your assertion, stated as if uncontested fact, that "not much has happened since the monster high of 1998". The facts (from your data) are that following the scorcher of 1998, every year until 2005 was the second highest on record until modest declines in 2006 and 2007. I suppose at least you didn't do what some people have done - draw a straight line from 1998 to 2007 to show that we are about to enter a new ice-age.

Like you I wish AGW would go away - be a false alarm, something we don't have to worry about or pay for. But I'm not that desperate that I'm going to cling to a straw comprising just two months of data.

Col,

I can’t help it … Erratum, “The Accountant’s Guide to Climate Change” – my deepest apologies to book-keepers.

You would have to concede you are not averse to throwing the odd condescending insult or snarky remark yourself. I guess we all have our sensitivities, I’m sorry Col … I fed you and you took the bait.

Seriously, I know you are an accountant and believe you are a very good one at that. One only has to view your comments on threads that require an understanding of things fiscal – the current general discussion thread started by pelican; “A New Taxation System,” a case in point.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1730&page=0

You have particular expertise in a certain field (accountancy) that one assumes is utilised in a very constructive and rewarding way. I am sure your clients/employers pay well, commensurate with the value they perceive your service/s to be – as you remind us all quite often.

Indeed, I would hope that these same clients or employer/s of yours would ask you for fiscal advice on confronting the challenges that ‘climate change’ is presenting to them (this is where your advice can/could be very constructive).

I sincerely hope you don’t respond with statements like;

“Argument based on fraudulent charts and bodgy climate models declaring we must all reduce our lifestyle to that of an 11th century subsistence farmer.”

Nevertheless, making statements like this on OLO just demonstrates that you are no different to the GW alarmists, but from the extreme opposite point of view – this can’t be helpful, in fact it is a very divisive road to travel.

I too have my expertise and would like to think (like you) that people defer to my judgement on certain matters. Due to the nature of my work, I have particular interest in the hydrological cycle, land/ocean/atmosphere climate couplings, clouds, feedbacks, etc.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Col, you keep stalking my “credentials”. I told you last year – although at that time you did not want them. Suffice to say I’m a grumpy old fart nearing status emeritus working in the water resources sector. I certainly am not going to give you (or anyone else on an open forum) my personal details, for obvious reasons.

You raise Marohasy’s article. I was accused of being dishonest by OLO’s chief editor when talking about the 3 cells of the Walker Circulation (pertinent to the article and Spencer’s research on cloud formation and feedback loops).

This very public statement by OLO’s founder and chief editor I found reprehensible, contravening the very standards he lays down for everybody else. It is akin to me calling you a liar in matters of accountancy, something I (and I hope you, as a professional) would never do.

Col, where you and I could have some meaningful dialogue (about ‘climate change’) is in terms of business risk management. I have tried before but as I recall, you did not want to engage. Exposure to risk is something that all businesses must address if they are to deal with the issues raised by climate change. Denying this won’t make it go away – indeed, some businesses will fail if they don’t adapt to the changing climate (pun intended).

Regards

Dear Col Rouge

So you continue your bullying tactics on other threads while refusing to acknowledge these last comments from me here.

Now I understand the type of person you are and have a compassion for the hurt that you must be bearing.

Best wishes.

Q&A “So you continue your bullying tactics on other threads while refusing to acknowledge these last comments from me here.”

? ? ? you must be near to wetting yourself with excitement, waiting for my reply.

I do not know what you are on about Q&A, what arrogance you display presuming I should reply simply because you expect it.

“Now I understand the type of person you are and have a compassion for the hurt that you must be bearing.”

I neither need nor want your compassion or seek your emotional support. You are wasting your time. Whilst sarcasm becomes you, your delivery of it, like most things is pitiful.

I have been busy the last couple of days, negotiating and bringing on a new government contract.

Things more important than bandying words with a deluded, intellectual narcissist like you.

I will attend to responding to your drivel all in good time, maybe after you have climbed down off that pedestal you pretend to occupy.

For some reason, I always difficulty picturing you as “nearing status emeritus”.

(“nearing” is a very un-scientific and imprecise term. Its use casts doubt on the authenticity of the response, “nearing” could mean “I had a junior chemistry set when I was 12”).

No, I see Q&A more as one of those old ladies a smart entrepreneur employs to go around office blocks and clean the telephone hand sets and computer key boards, although it might well challenge your cognitive skills.

Erratum, “Col's Guide to Climate Change” – my deepest apologies to accountants.

Whether or not you need/want my compassion, you've got it ;-)