1. The science is NOT settled - hundreds of scientists in Australia and thousands more throughout the world are sceptical of the theory that human production of carbon dioxide is driving dangerous global warming. And the 102 computerised climate models have always predicted more warming than has occurred. (They got it right once, 39 years ago.)

2. There is no unusual global warming. Since the last ice age ended there have been warm eras hotter than today’s modern warming. The endless procession of scare campaigns about cooling, warming, ice melting, sea levels, ocean acidity, cyclones and droughts have all proved false.

3. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant – it is an invisible natural gas that supplies the whole food chain. More carbon dioxide is beneficial to the biosphere.

4. The populous world nations are unlikely to curb their CO2 emissions – China, India, Russia, Brazil, USA, Japan, SE Asia, Indonesia, Africa and the Arab world will ignore Paris limits.

5. Despite 20 years of favourable promotion, subsidies, taxes, targets and propaganda the contribution of the intermittent energy producers has been a trivial 3%.

6. Australian energy policies are making electricity more costly and less reliable, hurting consumers and driving industry off-shore.

7. With no nuclear power, no geothermal power, limited hydro potential and increasing barriers to gas exploration, Australia has few options except coal for cheap reliable grid power, and oil products for transport.

8. With a huge continent, a small population and heavy reliance on exports, each Australian will be heavily penalised by the Paris Agreement for the emissions associated with exports consumed by others.

9. Compliance with the Paris Agreement will destroy industries and jobs, encourage bureaucracy and transfer controls and money a to affiliates of the United Nations.

10.Should the world experience even modest cooling in the decades ahead Australia will urgently need increased supply of reliable power for homes and industry and the global atmosphere will need more carbon dioxide plant food.

The above has been slightly edited to 'fit'. The original, with graphics, can be sent in Catallaxy Files January 15th.

Add to that.

Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018.

http://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/comparison-of-first-fleet-and-modern-temperatures.pdf

References and Citations
Gergis, J., Karoly, D.J., & Allan, R.J., 2009: A climate reconstruction of Sydney Cove, New South
Wales, using weather journal and documentary data, 1788
–
1791. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal 58, pp. 83-98
McAfee, R.J., 1981 Dawes’s Meteorological Journal: Historical Note, Australian Bureau of Meteorology No. 2. Canberra, Aust. Government Publishing Service
McAfee, R.J., 2010 Discovering Australia’s first weather record : S.E.A.R.C.H, 4 March 2010

Compiled by Dr Geoff Derrick
G M Derrick Geology
Brisbane, Australia
7 .1.2019
___________________________________________

Amazing how these records can be countered by this asinine statement.

Belly Quote "this mornings Sydney Morning Herald Its advice yesterday the hottest 15 places on earth all took place in Australia
Not going out side until after 6, 5 pm eastern standard time
Much work to do but 38 on my veranda 30 inside
No science needed here just walk out the door"

Australia can save Billions of dollars get rid of all scientists, BOM etc, we can get Belly to walk outside and tell us everything "No science needed"

Belly can't remember that he said he wouldn't return to a particular thread, let alone the very similar high temperatures we experience every summer in Australia. He is a very useful idiot indeed for the mass hysteria initiated by the climate frauds.

Just lifted this from Quadrant Online:

"Funnily enough, global cooling is again on the agenda backed up by some science on solar cycles and past climate events like the “little ice age”. The Arctic ice refuses to die even though the climate change boosters have been giving it another year to disappear every year for the last 15 years. Greenland is amassing ice, glaciers are growing and Europe and the USA are enduring horrifically cold winters with “record” snow. This is apparently caused by carbon dioxide. The Great Barrier Reef is OK and Australian summer temperatures are normal despite all the “scientists” telling us they are not."

Dear Philip S,

You wrote;

“Amazing how these records can be countered by this asinine statement”.

Firstly Belly was not looking to counter 'these records'. You only just posted them.

To the quote you have grandly supplied;

“Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018.”

Why did you reference Gergis, Karoly, & Allan when the quote was from Geoff Derrick who put together a clearly amateurish document (it couldn't be called a paper by any stretch of the imagination)? A poor propaganda piece by a retired geologist, (a profession made up of more than its fair share of climate skeptics) as the sole author, yet he interestingly refers to himself as 'we'.

So what do Gergis, Karoly, & Allan really say about comparing the two sets of data?

“The ranges of daily extremes in temperature and MSLP from the Dawes data compare well with those from the modern observations for all seasons, except for Tmax in summer, when Dawes’s data are likely to slightly overestimate the highest maximum temperatures due to inadequate thermometer exposure. These results suggest that the record is useful for examining relative (rather than absolute) climate variations experienced during the first years of European settlement in Australia.”
http://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/32770/289363_A%20climate%20reconstruction_Aust%20Met%20and%20Ocean%20Jour.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

'Bugger that' thought your geologist, 'I'm going to quote from other sections of their work but leave that out completely. Instead I will boldly make the claim that “we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years” even though it can't be sustained'

'And blokes like Philip S will faithfully regurgitate my anti GW rantings as fact because that is what useful 'idiots' are for.'

Come on young fella its happened again hasn't it. Caught once again with your pants down. Time to step and attempt to do this stuff properly.

don't forget ttbn Kevin Rudd stated he was a fiscal conservative and that gw was the biggest moral challenge the world faces. You can't deal with this massive fraud with facts. Once people were embarrassed when they had egg all over their face. Instead now they dig in calling white black a straight gay. With no moral conscience the vast majority of those who hold to these dogmas are god deniers with no moral compass or reasoning capacity.

great post, I like this info session.

"So what do Gergis, Karoly, & Allan really say about comparing the two sets of data? "

Gergis is an example of all that's wrong with climate science.

Her 2012 paper was billed as Australia's hockey stick. Laughably it showed things like the average temperature in Australia around 2000 was a whole 0.09c higher than that in the mid 13th century. Her reconstruction had so few data points that used Fiji as a proxy for Sydney. Still, the press and the alarmist community accepted her 'findings' as further proof that we're all gunna die.

THEN...
the fellas at Climate audit decided to have a look at the methodology of what seemed to be a pretty shonky piece of work. And, wonder of wonders, they found a monumental error in the maths in the paper such that all the findings were utterly refuted. Because Climate Audit is an open community, everyone could see the error as soon as it was identified - including Gergis, Karoly etc.

But even more astonishing (chuckle!) Karoly then announced that indeed he and Gergis had found the same error just BEFORE Climate Audit. What are the chances, eh! A paper two years in the making where they'd had it checked by ten authors, who knows how many peer-reviewers and editors etc and they happened to stumble on the error just before their critics even though they didn't mention it 'til after their critics.

As usual, the alarmist community bought this unbelievable story. The paper was withdrawn, but most media who'd hyped the original claims didn't bother to tell their readers of the error. Big surprise!

They claimed the error was a mere typo and that they'd release the paper asap. But fixing the typo took 4 years!

So finally the adjusted paper, which looked nothing like the original, was quietly released. And guess what...no hockey stick.

And the usual suspects pretended not to notice.

Oh and Gergis, who'd made the error (or was it?) managed to play the damsel-in-distress card and demanded that those nasty men stop pointing out her errors.

Behold..this is called science.

SteeleRedux Quote "And blokes like Philip S will faithfully regurgitate my anti GW rantings as fact because that is what useful 'idiots' are for"

Please show me where this has been done?

If not like usual you speak lies.

Dear mhaze,

Now you see this is the difference between us.

I provide links. I could go and toil through google searches but I've already had to do that to pull apart Philip S's contribution, and even he had the decency to provide at least one link.

So how about you shoot a couple over that support your contentions and I will have a look. Until then all they are is unsubstantiated guff.

Dear Philip S,

You asked;

“Please show me where this has been done?”

Come on young chap, you know perfectly well you reproduced Mr Derrick's rubbish quote. If I must here it is again;

“Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018.”

For you to be claiming you didn't just shows the lengths of deep unmitigated dishonesty you are willing to engage in when it comes to GW.

You do understand what he has tried to do here don't you? Taken just 3 years worth of data over 200 years ago and correlated it to data taken at a different site, started nearly 70 years later with different instruments to pull some amazing conclusion out of his arse. No reputable climate scientist or even plain scientist would have a bar of such nonsense and neither should you have.

Ice cores taken from the Antarctic have revealed climate conditions going back 42,000 years. Today's temperatures are the same at their peaks as they were throughout history.

Climate change is cyclic. People have not changed that process with beneficial carbon dioxide, and they have not caused climate change. You won't find this in the Australian MSM.

SteeleRedux You are just as big a liar as paul1405.

1st You wrote Quote "And blokes like Philip S will faithfully regurgitate my anti GW rantings as fact because that is what useful 'idiots' are for"

** SteeleRedux Notice you claim "I will regurgitate my anti GW rantings" in other words I have to repeat what YOU say about GW.

2nd I replied. Please show me where this has been done?

3rd You claim Quote "Come on young chap, you know perfectly well you reproduced Mr Derrick's rubbish quote. If I must here it is again;"

“Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018.”

** You claim I copied the above text from YOU.

4th Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 17 January 2019 1:09:44 PM (3rd comment from top)
"Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018."

5th Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 17 January 2019 1:16:18 PM (on another thread)
"Gee Belly this absolutely demolishes your statement about the temperatures "No science needed here just walk out the door"

Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018."

6th You did not post that comment till
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 17 January 2019 2:45:37 PM (6th comment from top)

So you show me where you have posted that statement prior to the two times I posted it.
Thursday, 17 January 2019 1:09:44 PM (3rd comment from top)
and
Thursday, 17 January 2019 1:16:18 PM

If not you are a liar.

SteeleRedux
** You copied part of my post and claimed it was yours the timestamps tell the true story. **

SR,

"I provide links. "

Yes I well recall all those links you provided to show that the US had 12000 troops in South Korea and no nukes and that the Chinese were moving 150000 troops to the NK border etc etc.

Since you clearly can't Google "Gergis et al 2012" I'll give you a link to get started....

http://climateaudit.org/2016/07/21/joelle-gergis-data-torturer/

I look forward to you telling me that Climate Audit is a 'denier' site and therefore wrong. Have fun with the statistical jargon,

"Until then all they are is unsubstantiated guff."

Yep, if you don't want it to be true, it isn't.

"If not you are a liar".

'Liar' is the default for the Three Sneerers, Philip. They run their own mini fake news operation.

What has Australia done to itself, with its climate change hysteria and killing of industry with very expensive, unreliable electricity and mania about carbon dioxide?

According to the Brookings Institute Australia will do badly on just about everything: Gross Domestic Product, jobs, investment and in a fall in the value of the dollar. Australia is the biggest loser in the world, along with Russia and Opec, while our sacrifices to climate change won’t change the climate at all

Dear mhaze,

See mate providing a link wasn't all that hard was it.

I do remember our Korean exchange, it was highly entertaining. Lol.

Of course Climate Audit is a denier site. It is run by a bloke with no climate training but rather a “mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant”.

However I have absolutely no issue with he and others on the site reviewing climate papers. These have become some of the most pawed over publications in science precisely because there are highly motivated agenda driven people prepared to put in thousands of hours of unpaid work dissecting their methods, results and conclusions.

Your link is a perfect example. Nearly a staggering 6,000 words on our poor Joelle. Possibly could have done without the over 50 times the word torture or torturer was used but hey, when efforts like this serve to challenge and add further robustness to the science even in a small way as this appears to have done then all to the good.

And you are correct, a fair whack of the statistical analysis presented was out of my comfort zone. If you yourself are professing greater knowledge in that field then you will of course have an opinion on a quote from yet another mineral explorer presented to us by the erstwhile Philip S.

“Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018.”

Do you think this was a robust or even just a reasonable conclusion given the data available?

Here is the paper?

http://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/comparison-of-first-fleet-and-modern-temperatures.pd

Dear Philip S,

Well young fella, you certainly had me stumped for a bit. I just couldn't work out where you were coming from but I think I see it now.

I had written the supposed thoughts of your geologist including them inside single quote marks;

'Bugger that' thought your geologist, 'I'm going to quote from other sections of their work but leave that out completely. Instead I will boldly make the claim that “we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years” even though it can't be sustained'

'And blokes like Philip S will faithfully regurgitate my anti GW rantings as fact because that is what useful 'idiots' are for.'

You seem to have taken them as my own when you wrote;

““Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018.” 

** You claim I copied the above text from YOU.

I will accept a degree of responsibility because I should have perhaps kept the second line in the same paragraph rather than just putting it in single quotes.

I'm getting a handle now on your levels of comprehension and promise to be more mindful of them when I put things to you in the future.

SteeleRedux
** Simple fact you lied and are backpedaling. **

Dear Philip S,

Lol.

Adding petulance to being thick is not a great look.

Listen you clown, were there or were there not quotation marks around that sentence? I have explained why I put them there and you have yet to offer an alternative explanation just a simpering accusation of me lying.

Well you can shove that where it fits young fella. There is not any backpedalling here just an attempt to bring someone whose comprehension skills are atrophied up to speed. I now know you really struggle to keep up so I will be on my merry pedalling way.

good post,

SteeleRedux Sounds an epic fail to me, admit it you stuffed up.

Looks like you have a fan Bella Swan when he or she is not peddling wedding rings.

Quote "Listen you clown, were there or were there not quotation marks around that sentence? I have explained why I put them there and you have yet to offer an alternative explanation just a simpering accusation of me lying."

** If that is the case then explain exactly "will faithfully regurgitate my anti GW rantings as fact" what has been regurgitated? **

Dear Philip S,

The rant was this bloody quote you nincompoop;

"Despite a 68 - year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018."

Which as I have demonstrated was concocted rubbish.

Please note you did not use quotation marks at all when you first posted it. Yet I was able to discern it was not coming directly from you. But some how you misconstrued something I actually did surround with quotation marks.

How does that work?

Anyway it looks like even mhaze has cut you loose. Time to move on?

SR,

"Of course Climate Audit is a denier site."

Well no, unless of coarse you think like you, that merely pointing out errors in the science is denying it. Just like pointing out errors in the bible used to be blasphemy. Well, alarmism as practised by some is a religion, n'est pas?

But the good folk at CA are primarily statisticians who point out that the statistics used by the consensus is wrong. They did it to Mann's Hockey Stick which now completely debunked and they did it of here to Gergis - twice.

When Wegman looked at the statistical practices in climate science he was shocked at how bad they were. Of coarse he was then labelled a denier because ...well because.

For the true believers, only climate scientists are allowed to talk climate. Solar scientists were excluded from the 97% survey because, obviously, the sun has nothing to do with the climate (/sarc).

But the study of AGW involves many disciplines. When renowned economist Henderson pointed out that the economics used in the climate models was entirely wrong he was told he wasn't a climatologist and therefore had no say...oh he was labelled a denier, obviously.

Gergis et al reached a conclusion and then tortured the data to support the conclusion. That's the way climate science is done.

Pointing out the emperor has no clothes doesn't make one a nudist.

"Do you think this was a robust or even just a reasonable conclusion given the data available?"

When you see a paper using statistical methods which says " no significant change" you need to be on guard. The word 'significant' is a value judgement not a statistical one. What each of thinks is 'significant' will vary widely.

If the words 'statistically significant' are used, then that a different matter because that's easily calculated and checked data which doesn't rely on value judgements. That this paper doesn't do it means its immediately suspect.

The reason it doesn't do it is because the comparison period is so small - 4 years. Were the author try to calculate statistical significance he would never get a positive answer - so he doesn't.

In climate determining averages for periods less than 30 or so years is basically invalid. For all we know, 1788-91 were unrepresentatively warm (or cold).

So no, I think the analysis is a curiosity, only with no real statistical value

Dear mhaze,

Don't get me wrong, I specifically referred to the site and not McIntyre himself who I think is one of the more even handed of those on the 'other side of the debate'. But one only has to go through the discussion areas to see it is pretty much wall to wall deniers for the most part.

It must be said though he hasn't always been a completely honest broker. However I repeat I feel his efforts help guard against sloppy work. There are big decisions around how to combat or mitigate the impacts of a warming planet and they have to be based on sound science. If McIntyre assists in putting greater pressure for climate scientists to get things right then that is a good thing.

Being a trained mathematician and statistician means he obviously has a contribution to make, but this easily turns into bullying if he uses that training to harass those whose specialities lay in other areas like climate science which may not afford them the degree of expertise in statistical science that he has. Obviously there will be an expected competency level for all scientists but some of the critiquing has often become just bloody pedantic and minor mistakes that shouldn't detract from the overall impact and implications of decent climate science findings are being totally overblown.

Anyway as to the quote Philip S provided it would seem you agree with the statement “These results suggest that the record is useful for examining relative (rather than absolute) climate variations experienced during the first years of European settlement in Australia.”

Thank you for furnishing your opinion.

SteeleRedux Your bias shows now.

Quote "concocted rubbish." So If according to you the statement is rubbish why do you not say the same for the statement made by Belly "No science needed here just walk out the door"
__________________________________________________
Quote 'And blokes like Philip S will faithfully regurgitate my anti GW rantings as fact because that is what useful 'idiots' are for.'

** You have still failed to explain exactly what anti GW rantings I have regurgitated. **

** Or are you now admitting I have not copied any of your GW rants as facts. **
______________________________________________________
Quote "Please note you did not use quotation marks at all when you first posted it."

** If you had half a brain you would have noticed by now with hundreds of articles copied, I never put quotation marks when the words are from an article and the link to to the article is included, I think that could be something you also have done.
______________________________________________________
Looks like you are wrong again "Anyway it looks like even mhaze has cut you loose. Time to move on?"

** I am not working in collusion with him so if he stops posting here proves nothing. *

Here's story which is almost too 'stupid for words' as used to be said by cynics. The NSW government is going to waste $37.5 million dollars of other people's money to plant 5 million trees over 5 years towards their absurd 'zero emissions by 2030' aim. When governments fall victim to mass hysteria, the game is pretty much over.

Bob Hawke was going to plant a billion trees in 1989.

Politicians and pledges = BS

SteeleRedux True to form the little troll slithered away, well another lie by SteeleRedux exposed.