Ironically by the logic of the opening of his article Jones seriously puts in a coma his own argument. When he says that the critics of Garnaut accuse him of using the “discredited science of IPCC” and answering this that “in fact the Garnaut review relied on the Australian climate science community to make its scientific case,” he does not realize that the deduction from his own answer is that the IPCC report is based on “discredited science”, since he ‘replaces’ the latter with the presumably better scientific credentials of Aussie science. And the relentless vengeance of his own logic leads him to administer the coup de grace to his own argument when he further states, “the science community stands by its science, particularly RESEARCH FOLLOWING on from the IPCC’s fourth assessment report.” Hence the Australian climate community science is itself based on the rotten cornerstone of the IPCC’s discredited science.

One would have expected from an objective scientist that with the dark cloud of contradictions and antinomies that is hovering over the debate of climate change to have had at least a modicum of doubt about his position instead of being a preacher of the Gospel of truth.

http://kotzabasis.vox.com

PHIL M,

When I went to school 10 parts of water made 11 parts of ice, but now you say:-

"As for where the water comes from JF - it comes from melting ice that lies over land (Greenland ice-cap for instance)and also from the expansion of water as it warms up.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Monday, 4 August 2008 12:00:53 PM".

Surely melting Arctic ice should reduce in area once thawed as most of an ice berg is underwater. Melted ice is not going to boil so precisely what contraction or expansion is proposed to occur over the surface of the whole world ocean at the same time, and where is relevant data?

God help Australian science if Roger Jones is a typical example. I prefer to take note of internationally acclaimed scientists re global warming. People such as Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Chris Landsea, William Gray and even people closer to home e.g. Bob Carter and Ian Plimer.

This is the well developed scientific discipline that has to engage in fraud and deception to get its views across.

Never mind the fact that they way they elected to represent temperature as an anomaly off a carefully determined base period eg 1961-1990 when temperatures were falling, which has the effect of exagerating the shape of the curve, to make it look hotter.

If one removes the bias created by using this approach,and use instead changes in annual temps,and plots these, the warming all but disappears. Funny about that.

http://i26.tinypic.com/2hmpw6r.jpg

But that is not all. This is the organisation, CSIRO, that was required to generate 25% of its income by selling its services. So what did they do but hawked their wares to all the Labour controlled State Governments, producing alarmist reports, which eagerly became political agendas and election issues. And the rest is history.

We have all been suckered big time.

Ten year trends?

Try a thousand year trend. Around FIFTY thousand years ago the Australian continent was much wetter than it is now.

So Australia has been drying out for around FIFTY that is FIFTY thousand years.

Sea levels have risen and fallen by a hundred metres.

Civilisations have fallen as a result of climate change. Climate change that is part of the cycle of this planet.

I should like to add this link to my previous comment
D K Johnston article in Spiked, Tuesday,29th July 2008 titled-"What are the odds that we're baking the planet?"
www.spiked-online.com