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