August 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Olaus Petri
    August 28, 2014

    Dear Lionel, I’m sure stations are moved, and for the reasons mentioned, but this isn’t the topic hear, is it? It is if stations haven’t been moved, which also is common. ;-)

  2. #2 BBD
    August 28, 2014

    But you lot have no evidence of this. In fact it is almost certainly a lie. Lies prove only that the person repeating them is dishonest.

  3. #3 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    August 28, 2014

    Sorry to repeat myself, BBD, but I will do so very, very slowly so try to read it without moving your lips:

    “And let’s not forget Rutherglen either. This time there is a living breathing witness who testifies that the measuring site has never moved:
    “Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there. He, and many others, can vouch for the fact that the weather station at Rutherglen, providing data to the Bureau of Meteorology since November 1912, has never been moved.”

    Go on, BBD, try again . . .

  4. #4 BBD
    August 28, 2014

    Hearsay. It means absolutely fuck-all, Duff. And since you are all proven serial liars, you are going to have to do much better than hearsay.

  5. #5 BBD
    August 28, 2014

    And Duff, you are peddling a crank conspiracy theory which is trivially debunked by comparing BoM records with everybody else’s. They are in excellent agreement, so do you argue that not only BoM but all other major meteorological organisations worldwide are conspiring to fake data?

    As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

    Which is it? No dodging now, because you have no choice but those outlined. Make your position clear by return response.

  6. #6 Lionel A
    August 28, 2014

    Duffer repeated, in a confused manner:

    “And let’s not forget Rutherglen either. This time there is a living breathing witness who testifies that the measuring site has never moved: “Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there….

    Now this is for OPs benefit too, a site movement is not the only reason for adjustment for a change in the character of a site could necessitate such, as has been pointed out. With that last point in mind what do yo think AWatts has been making a song and dance about over recent years?

    However WRT the record in question something else was going on;

    I wasn’t able to find out why there is a five year gap in the records for Rutherglen in the first half of the 1960s. I’d have thought that researchers at the centre would have been monitoring records throughout, though its not beyond the realms of possibility that in some years the records were kept more diligently than others. It was in the 1960s when the research centre was rebuilt, so it could be something to do with that. Nor do I know when the weather station came under the ambit of the Bureau, which I think it is now, rather than the agency responsible for agricultural research, which it was originally. (There were quite a few gaps in the daily records in 1958 and 1959 as well.)

    Source: Weather in Rutherglen with WUWT, Jennifer Marohasy and Australia’s denier newspaper, to which you have already been pointed.

    Go on Duffer, try again.

  7. #7 Lionel A
    August 28, 2014

    Now Duffer, there was something else entirely going on with Amberley records can you tell me what that is?

    Hint, it is a situation that has been repeated elsewhere in the world with post Cold War defence adjustments for one.

  8. #8 BBD
    August 28, 2014

    I’m waiting, Duff.

  9. #9 BBD
    August 28, 2014

    Hours have elapsed.

  10. #10 cRR Kampen
    August 29, 2014

    #100, he sez he saw an UFO therefore you believe in alien occupation of earth?

  11. #11 FrankD
    August 29, 2014

    Amberley has an obvious step change in 1979-1980. Its almost as if they had to move the station away from some large object with a high thermal mass that was influencing the data. Something like concrete. Or tarmac. Gee, I wonder where you would find something like that on an airbase?

    Stations are badly sited and its whinge, whinge, whinge. You move badly sited stations to better sites and correct for the move and its whinge, whinge, whinge. Just no pleasing some people…

  12. #12 Lionel A
    August 29, 2014

    Looks like Duffer has done his toodle-pip stunt again. Given his level of comment here I figure he is still trying to understand the story lines in ‘Biggles’.

  13. #13 Lionel A
    August 29, 2014

    Marohasy, and others like her, could be charged with behaving in an immoral manner because of there efforts clearly aimed at muddying the waters, over trivia, in order to delay action on hauling back on the primary cause of AGW – CO2 and CH4 emissions. The fact that she has been a recent speaker at Heartland’s annual bash makes it clear that truth in science is not her aim.

    The language being used is tightening up Climate Scientists Spell Out Stark Danger And Immorality Of Inaction In New Leaked Report.

    Unfortunately the Huff Post article linked to in the article cited above gives climate contrarian John Christy oxygen and then they mention his minority status as if that covers their arse, it doesn’t. Pointing out false balance is not an excuse for using it in the first place. Christy being the John in mind when I wrote ‘…the Richard and Judy club, also Pat, John and Roy too should they feel left out‘ earlier.

  14. #14 Wow
    August 29, 2014
    Listen, dickcheeks, the only person who thinks that is my logic is YOU.

    On the contrary,

    On the contrary, you’re the only one who has claimed I’d never accept the results of R&D, so therefore the ONLY break in logic is in your own fevered raving imagination, darling.

    And saying “on the contrary” only works IF YOU PLACE A CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENT AFTERWARD. It is NOT merely to place an unsupported claim of winning, bumfluff.

    FFS, EVEN YOU claim the result of the R&D for the Chernobyl station was not safe enough to be used.

    However, in your own mad little world, only YOU are allowed to offer bad tech as a claim, and ONLY IF it’s used to “explain” why a newer tech isn’t going to blow up.

    AND THIS IS WHY Fukishima is such a butthurt to the nuke fellatios like yourself.

    Chernobyl blew up because of government incompetence. They’re commies, right? And therefore such an accident would NEVER happen here in the technologically competent Capitalist West ™.

    Except the complete and utter ball-sup (mistype there seemed so appropriate I put it back in) in Japan indicates that the west is absolutely NOT immune to the same sort of monumental cock-up.

    Thorium reactors are proving to have catastrophic modes of failure that were not considered at the R&D stage.

    Pebble bed reactors are showing they are not “default safe” as proposed when on the draft board.

    It takes 10-20 years to see if a design *actually works*. And we will still make shit up as to how states we don’t like cannot be allowed to have it (or admit that they’re not safe).

    And that’s one expensive design.

    So having to wait 50 years for nuke power has FUCK ALL to do with nimby luddites, but actual rational sensible responsibilty, rather than an idiotic blind faith in the techno-utopians of the west.

    But more, ANY response to converting power structures off carbon based fuels would have to be the cheapest as well as quickest to roll out.

    Since no nuke will be built without promises of INCREASING *GUARANTEED* returns for the power, whereas even Solar PV is cheaper than nuclear power in most of the world (including those we’re least likely to let have nukes) AND IS FALLING EVERY YEAR.

    This is yet another reason why nukes are not the answer to AGW.

    YOU, with your insane dribblings will proclaim this as me saying “I will not accept any result of nuke R&D”, but that’s because you’re only willing to inhabit a realm inside your own head, where external reality has no chance to enter (much like Duffski, OhLap, StuPid, et al, except in different realms).

    There is no forseeable result of nuclear replacing our current power in a timescale of mitigating the worst of AGW. This doesn’t mean that nuclear power can never be used.

    A point you steadfastly refuse to see because you’ve a raging hard-on for inserting nonsense into your reading of anyone not sucking nuclear cock.

  15. #15 Wow
    August 29, 2014

    Pfft. Come on, this is hardly new ground for deniers.

    It’s been “Urban Heat Island!!!!” and “You’ve changed the RAW DATA!!!!” in tandem, changing each mutually exclusive claim like an insane see-saw in all “arguments” against the facts.

  16. #16 BBD
    August 29, 2014

    Wow

    I thought this all felt a bit familiar…

    * * *

    This is yet another reason why nukes are not the answer to AGW.

    As I pointed out with uncharacteristic delicacy back at the beginning of this little spat, this is a strawman. White-hat holists simply argue that nukes are very likely to be a part (~30%) of the global energy mix by ~2050. A part. Not “the answer” and not in competition with renewables. Just used where appropriate, which will be mainly in developed economies.

  17. #17 Lionel A
    August 29, 2014

    This doesn’t mean that nuclear power can never be used.

    That was my point exactly, so why the word blizzard covering points that I understand only to well. Why do you think I cited Nuttall? Nuttall mentions problems with pebble bed and other issues both regulatory and historical when it comes to waist management, with the UK being in a particularly delicate spot here because of the technology and fuel stock implemented.

    Not every where is suitable for wind or solar or any other renewable and nuclear can provide large amounts of power in a comparatively compact footprint.

    Compare the dangers of nuclear with those of fracking and coal bed methane extraction. I know which I would rather chose.

  18. #18 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    August 29, 2014

    Still chanting away at the Tabernacle, I see, jolly good show! When you stop the ‘I belieeeeeeeeeeeeve’ chant you may care to read this with my emphasis added:

    “While the number of positive and negative adjustments made by the creators of Acorn may be balanced or nearly so, their effect on the minimum temperature record is enormous. **Analysis of a not insignificant sample of 83 of 104 Acorn sites shows a warming bias in adjustments to minima of 45 %, which has the effect of increasing the network-wide temperature trend by 66.6 %**. The adjustments have predominantly cooled pre-1971 temperatures and warmed post-1971 temperatures. For maxima, the increase in trend is 13 %. This result casts doubt on the veracity of the Acorn temperature record, and its usefulness for climate analysis.

    Please note: I make no judgement about the justification or lack of it for the individual adjustments. Nor am I claiming that my calculation of +0.63C per 100 years is the true trend in minima for Australia. Far from it: that figure is based on only 83 stations, not evenly distributed, many of which have much less than 100 years of data and/or many years of missing data. I’m saying no one knows for sure, but that the adjustments to the ‘raw’ data at CDO, in order to create the Acorn dataset, result in a massive and unexplained difference.

    I welcome any comments or arguments that can show how I may remove errors from this finding, or how I may improve my analysis.”

    No, no, not me, the writer of that conclusion to his own careful investigation:
    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-australian-temperature-record-revisited-a-question-of-balance/

  19. #19 BBD
    August 29, 2014

    Duff, you are peddling a crank conspiracy theory which is trivially debunked by comparing BoM records with everybody else’s. They are in excellent agreement, so do you argue that not only BoM but all other major meteorological organisations worldwide are conspiring to fake data?

    As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

    Which is it? No dodging now, because you have no choice but those outlined. Make your position clear by return response.

  20. #20 Stu 2
    August 29, 2014

    BBD.
    The ‘entire world’ is made up of far more than BoM’s agreement or disagreement with other data sets.
    Even though they may have the purest of intentions it is increasingly likely that BoM may have made some incorrect assumptions about historical temperature data.
    If those underlying assumptions are incorrect then the incremental warming trend is a result of the assumptions in the applied algorithm and not the actual averaged temp.
    As I previously commented, there are many acceptable reasons to homogenise.
    It should not be difficult for BoM to explain why homogenisation has been applied to the data sets that have been questioned by Abbot, Marohasy et al.
    Further, dismissing people based on your opinion of their past employment is highly irrelevant.
    That accusation can be applied to numerous scientists around the ‘entire world’.
    Karoly & Flannery being 2 simple examples from Australia.
    To be clear.
    This particular question being asked of BoM is not an accusation that there is a ‘conspiracy to fake data’.

  21. #21 BBD
    August 29, 2014

    Even though they may have the purest of intentions it is increasingly likely that BoM may have made some incorrect assumptions about historical temperature data.

    If this were true, then BoM would diverge from other data sets. It doesn’t. And while we are back in reality, wtf about this?

    Stop wasting your time denying the evidence and the science and come out of the closet. Argue policy.

  22. #22 BBD
    August 29, 2014

    This won’t do either:

    Further, dismissing people based on your opinion of their past employment is highly irrelevant.

    You may not be able to tell the difference between a think tank shill and a scientist, but the rest of us can. It’s not a matter of ‘opinion’. It is a fully documented matter of fact.

    Go ahead. Carry on denying matters of fact. You are nailing yourself to the floor.

  23. #23 Stu 2
    August 30, 2014

    BBD:
    This is what Marohasy has today been reported saying ” wtf about it”
    This one refers to yet another set of ACORN SAT homogenised data sets.

    Note particularly that BoM is making a fuss about accusations re tampering, not Marohasy.
    She is actually talking about ‘matters of fact”.
    You know, really simple stuff like dates etc.

    “Bourke now forms part of a network of weather stations used to make up the national record known as ACORN-SAT. The raw temperature records are “homogenised”, a method BOM says has been peer-reviewed as world’s best practice and is used by equivalent meteorological organisations across the world.

    Independent research, the results of which have not been disputed by BOM, has shown that, after homogenisation, a 0.53C warming in the minimum temperature trend has been increased to a 1.64C warming trend. A 1.7C cooling trend in the maximum temperature series in the raw data for Bourke has been changed to a slight warming.

    BOM has rejected any suggestion that it has tampered inappropriately with the numbers. It says the major adjustment to Bourke temperatures relate to “site moves in 1994, 1999 and 1938 as well as 1950s in homogeneities that were detected by neighbour comparison which, based on station photos before and after, may relate to changes in vegetation around the site”.

    Queensland researcher Jennifer Marohasy, who has analysed the Bourke records, says BOM’s analysis is all very well but the largest adjustments, both to maximum temperature series, occurred in the period 1911 and 1915 with a step down of about 0.7C, followed by a step-up between 1951 and 1953 of about 0.45C. Of greater concern to Dr Marohasy is that historic high temperatures, such as the record 51.7C recorded on January 3, 1909, were removed from the record on the assumption it was a clerical error. In fact, all the data for Bourke for 40 years before 1910 has been discarded from the official record. If it were there, says Dr Marohasy, the record would show that temperatures were particularly hot during that period. ” Ends.
    BTW BBD.
    I am not interested in your nonsense about ‘think tank shills’. Abbot , Marohasy et al have come across this information while researching seasonal forecasting using ANN.
    It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that at one stage in Marohasy’s career she worked for the IPA.
    As I have also commented several times, I have no problem with the need to apply homogenising algorithms to large data sets.
    I also don’t think that BoM has ‘conspired’ to tamper with the data.
    It should be easy for BoM to clear this matter up.

  24. #24 Stu 2
    August 30, 2014

    BBD
    I probably should have supplied the link but it is behind a pay wall.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/weathermans-records-detail-heat-that-didnt-happen/story-e6frg6xf-1227041833824#mm-premium
    But on further investigation of that ‘think tank shill’s” site I have discovered she has had more to say about all of it here.
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/weathermans-records-detail-heat-that-didnt-happen-graham-lloyd/
    Also BBD.
    If you can be bothered to research Dr Marohasy’s career, you will discover that Dr Marohasy is indeed a scientist and has indeed been ‘published ‘ in scientific journals, did indeed at one point work for the IPA and AEF (among other things) and is indeed currently conducting research into seasonal forecasting using ANN at UQ.
    So even though Jeff Harvey has commented (rather egotistically) that she doesn’t come up to his bootlaces as a scientist, you and Lionel have inferred that she is some type of shill or even a ‘climate criminal’ and Sou has made similar accusations about Dr Marohasy’s qualifications . . .it does appear that you may be misinformed.
    I might also add that after looking at this site, she is very articulate, likes to use evidence in its simplest form, is concerned about environmental issues and, as a bonus via the photos, she is a pleasant looking lady.
    So none of the stuff I have found about her indicates that ‘everybody else’ (except me apparently?) thinks she is simply a ‘shill’

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2014

    Note particularly that BoM is making a fuss about accusations re tampering, not Marohasy.

    ROFL! Ah, Stu 2, you’re impressively naive, or gullible, or both!

    As to your wall of text attempting to tout Marohasy’s expertise to speak on climate records, she is indeed a scientist – but she’s a biologist. Being a biological scientist doesn’t qualify one to speak about climate science so scratch that one.

    And she does indeed have (as far as I can tell) a grand total of two peer reviewed papers on the application of AI to rainfall weather forecasting (with similar material appearing in three other non-journal settings). Woo-hoo! That’s good, and looks like interesting and useful research…except that those papers don’t demonstrate that she knows anything about homogenisation of weather station records over periods suitable for climate science either.

    She is indeed “concerned” about the environment, but from what I’ve seen primarily in the way that the IPA is “concerned” about it, i.e. concerned that concerns about the environment don’t get in the way of their corporate masters’ abilities to exploit it and people like you and me for as much profit as possible as fast as possible. You don’t get selected by the IPA to opine on environmental issues otherwise.

    And despite her lack of any apparent climate record expertise, she’s alleging (or maybe just JAQing off) – without publishing her allegations in a peer-reviewed journal, which as a scientist she knows is the appropriate place to establish their veracity – that those in a field who do have the expertise, and who do publish their methods in peer reviewed journals for anyone to criticise, have got it wrong. And this kind of attention grabbing allegation without bothering with the niceties of, you know, demonstrating their merit to the standards required in peer-reviewed journals dovetails very nicely with her record of activity on behalf of the IPA, and with their modus operandi. It’s no coincidence that allegations are sensationally made and then Murdoch-amplified before the allegations can be tested in the peer reviewed literature (and most often they never get around to that kind of testing at all – for obvious reasons, if you’ve a modicum of savviness).

    Now, technically there’s a non-zero chance she’s right about the BoM getting it wrong in one or two cases, as there is with practically any random allegation that is eagerly picked up by climate science denialists, but given their impressively low success rate in the past it’s about as big a chance as her revealing that she’s been a “green” mole inside the IPA for all of these years, denouncing them for being the faux-environmentally concerned corporate shills they are, donating all of the earnings she has derived from that association over the years to Greenpeace and publishing an insider’s expose of the IPA’s methods for deceiving and misleading the punters. And as other evidence already presented to you shows, even if she’s right in these one or two cases that has practically zero effect on the understanding of climate because BoM records are in line with all the other temperature records.

    Are you a betting man? If so, why do you keep chasing the dumb money? And do it about claims that, even if entirely true, have almost zero consequence? I suspect your faithful readers have a pretty good idea why, Stu 2.

    Wake me up when she has a peer-reviewed article that says either the BoM got it wrong and how or suggests an improvement to the BoM methodology. Bet you never see such a thing – and the smart money is on my side with that one.

  26. #26 BBD
    August 30, 2014

    Stu2

    Nothing you can say will alter the fact that Marohasy is a shill.

    Do, please, read what Lotharsson has to say above. At least twice.

    Are you simply a gullible fool or is your apologism for liars and shills and deniers intentional and informed?

    And why have you ignored the question put before all you conspiracy theorists above?

    Your handling of this will be indicative of how dishonest you are.

    You are peddling a crank conspiracy theory which is trivially debunked by comparing BoM records with everybody else’s. They are in excellent agreement, so do you argue that not only BoM but all other major meteorological organisations worldwide are conspiring to fake data?

    As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

    Which is it?

  27. #27 Olaus Petri
    August 30, 2014

    Fellas, latest news from your two favororite gals:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/hiding-something-bom-throws-out-bourkes-hot-historic-data-changes-long-cooling-trend-to-warming/

    I know you, as priviledged white, midevilaged, heterosexual men, feel intimidated by strong independent women, but please read it through anyways. :-)

  28. #28 BBD
    August 30, 2014

    You too, Louse.

    Answer me this:

    You are peddling a crank conspiracy theory which is trivially debunked by comparing BoM records with everybody else’s. They are in excellent agreement, so do you argue that not only BoM but all other major meteorological organisations worldwide are conspiring to fake data?

    As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

    Which is it?

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2014

    “News”?

    Only if either of them demonstrates (1) they understand the published BOM methodology, and (2) that it is either incorrectly applied, or invalidly applied, in the cases they are talking about.

    (Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ROFLMAO, right?! Like that is gonna happen, given (particularly Nova’s) track records of making these kinds of allegations, none of which have turned out to have any significant impact on the understanding of climate science – and given that their schtick seems to rely heavily on unfalsifable conspiracy theorising! Once they make a falsifiable claim it’s open to testing – and we all, you included OP, somewhere deep down inside eve though you won’t admit it in public – know how well they’ve done with those!)

    While we’re talking about competency and commitment to accuracy, go ask Nova if she still has the page up where she claims that the IPCC doesn’t mention the tropospheric hotspot as being a feature seen in response to any driver of global warming in a certain section of the IPCC report – when it’s clearly and obviously mentioned in the section she herself references – and also argues that the hotspot isn’t shown in a certain IPCC image that she links to clearly that shows the hotspot when you bother to read the legend on the picture. When you do that, also ask her if I and several other people explained both of these facts to her several times over the years, and also ask her what happened to her promise to correct any mistakes pointed out to her (which is still visible over at Eli’s place), and why she disappeared from that thread right after mistakes were pointed out. Then there was the time where she asserted – to me, and others, on the ABC website – that greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere – and it was clear that she had meant “make it cooler than it would be without greenhouse gases”, not “emit some of the radiation that escapes from earth to space thereby playing a part in removing energy from the earth system”. Oh, the lulz!

    She’s NOT interested in accuracy, OP. It’s not even clear she knows what is bullshit and what is not when it comes to climate science. However she’s rather interested in cultivating an audience of gullible fools such as yourself and anyone else who is in a position to either help finance her activities or influence public policy based on her misleading claims.

    Speaking of which, one wonders if any of OP, GSW, Stu 2, Duff, Rednose and their fellow travellers financially contributed to Nova’s appeal to get her hubby’s groundbreaking “research” published on her website? I’m guessing that rigourous work has completely overturned the mainstream understanding of climate science by now and had all the climate scientists slapping their heads going “Why didn’t we think of that, and phew – nothing to worry about!” – so it would have been money well spent, right?

    I mean, you did put your money where your mouth is, didn’t you?

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    August 30, 2014

    Putrid and Stupid2,

    Every major scientific body on Earth verifies the reality and severity of AGW. The two shills whose web sites you link have no formal expertise in any relevant field. Every major conference I attend has sections in which the effects of AGW are examined. AGW is taken as given – the scientific community ahs well moved on, even if a few paid-up shills haven’t. Where are Nova’s and Mharosey’s well-cited articles in the empirical literaure? They do not exist.

  31. #31 turboblocke
    August 30, 2014

    So my denying friends, if the figures are manipulated, what are you basing claims of a pause in global warming on?

  32. #32 FrankD
    August 30, 2014

    it is increasingly likely that BoM may have made some incorrect assumptions about historical temperature data.

    I repeat my eaerlier request to Stu2 to provide us with the evidence that leads him to this conclusion.

    Hint: Marohasy’s fact-deficient insinuations are not “evidence”.

    Stu2? Evidence? Lets see if he knows what it even looks like.

  33. #33 Lionel A
    August 30, 2014

    Having mentioned John Christy at #10 above I am not surprised that his pal Roy has gone for more wingnuttery:

    What Part of Hot Air Rises Do You Not Understand.

    If a ‘scientist’ like Roy can get this wrong what hope for our resident twerps like olas, 2stupid and duffski.

  34. #34 BBD
    August 30, 2014

    S2

    One other thing:

    I might also add that after looking at this site, she is very articulate, likes to use evidence in its simplest form, is concerned about environmental issues and, as a bonus via the photos, she is a pleasant looking lady.

    It is advisable to avoid any reflection on how “pleasant looking” a woman is in a discussion of professional credibility. Consider this a meta-comment. Nothing to do with the specifics of our argument. Just well-intentioned advice for future use.

  35. #35 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    August 30, 2014

    I try very hard to avoid the personal but, honestly, isn’t Jeff a treasure? He’s a veritable Lady Bracknell, nobody does outrage better than him. Of course, Lady B was not actually a fully-fledged member of high society, she was merely a lower-class climber trying hard to be posher than the posh class! Every time Jeff waves his, er, scientific qualifications around (you know, ‘mine’s bigger than yours’) one wonders! After all, climatology is a very recent area of interest and it’s not exactly quantum physics.

    For example some swots, forced to explain what to them has been hitherto inexplicable, have just come out with an explanation for the fact that if you are 17 years old you have never experienced global warming. According to these peer-reviewed brain-boxes, it’s all because of “natural variability”.

    Whodathunkit?

    Well, me, actually, and I failed O-level Maths, Physics and Chemistry. I was saying exactly that years ago and thanking the fates for it because climate stasis would have been an unmitigated disaster for all living things. But on July 5th 2005, Phil Jones, one of Jeff’s demi-gods, said:

    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

    Who’s a very naughty boy then, Phil, letting the cat out of the bag? Well, it’s now 17 years and it *is* significant, well, significant enough to cause the journal ‘Science’ to publish the (peer-reviewed) paper trying to explain it.

    Er, how do you explain it, Jeff? And did you, on the basis of your superb degree from – er, ‘Uddersfield Poly, wasn’t it? – did you forecast that temp rises would halt? And what I want to know is, back in the day, armed with all their huge qualifications and their massive brains practically oozing out of their ears, did Jeff ‘et al’ forecast “natural variability”? A referenced quote would be useful!

    Stand by for a deep breath and the equivalent of “A HANDBAG!!!”

  36. #36 BBD
    August 30, 2014

    Duff

    Who’s a very naughty boy then, Phil, letting the cat out of the bag? Well, it’s now 17 years and it *is* significant

    Oh come on. We’ve been through this enough. Cherry-pick the peak of the 1998 super-El Nino as your start and you can make a nonsense argument about cooling (ignoring OHC as you do so).

    But what you wrote implies that there’s been 17 years of cooling.

    Click the link and look at the data.

    If you can’t even be bothered to check the facts, just stop now. It’s a waste of everybody’s time.

  37. #37 turboblocke
    August 30, 2014

    Duff and Stu2, one of you is claiming that the measurements are made up while the other is using those measurements to show no warming for X years. Could you fight it out amongst yourselves with the loser promising not to come back? That would halve the BS the rest of us have to deal with.

  38. #38 Shane
    August 30, 2014

    I’m amazed how wrong BBD has Marohasy. All the shill stuff is nonsense. She worked at the IPA as her views are totally compatible with such. She has also worked for Qld govt.

    Get back on task. The perimeter has been overrun. BoM are spending their days answering Ministerials on the issue. And you lot are here in your secure little echo chamber when you should be engaging them on their own sites – Marohasy and Novas. Stop squibbing.

  39. #39 Stu 2
    August 31, 2014

    Turboblocke.
    I can’t see where anyone has claimed that the measurements “are made up.”
    No one, including BoM, is denying that the raw data has been homogenised.
    Do you think ‘homogenise’ means measurements are ‘made up’?
    I don’t.
    I have even commented several times here that there are good reasons to homogenise and BoM should be able to clear this matter up easily.
    However, there is one (of many) rather simple answer to your stated conundrum @ # 34:

    ” one of you is claiming that the measurements are made up while the other is using those measurements to show no warming for X years.”

    One simple answer is that whether Australian homogenised figures are suffering from incorrect assumptions about historical weather data or global averaged /homogenised figures are demonstrating a hiatus are sound: it appears that perhaps nothing particularly alarming is happening to the Australian climate?
    As for evidence. It is Abbot, Marohasy et al who have come across this information in the course of their research and it is they who have supplied the evidence.
    It’s quite easy to access it.
    It’s even at the link I posted earlier.
    If you think there is something wrong with the evidence they have uncovered in the course of their UQ research into seasonal forecasting using ANN, then I suggest you could email them, or perhaps Graham Lloyd or you could even comment at Marohasy’s blog.
    I note Shane has just offered some similar advice.
    And BBD.
    Shane must be someone other than ‘everybody else’ as he too is questioning your comments about Dr Marohasy.
    Your comments about Marohasy are merely personal opinion, irrelevant and at best misleading but probably as Shane points out – amazingly wrong.
    And just as a meta-comment and some well intentioned advice:
    Me commenting that the photos at Dr Marohasy’s blog reveal that Dr Marohasy is pleasantly attractive is actually a compliment to the lady.
    Your unfounded “shill’ comments and your personal attacks via your ill informed opinion of her character and motives are most definitely not nice at all as well as being totally irrelevant to the very simple questions she is asking.
    And Jeff Harvey ;
    ” The two shills whose web sites you link have no formal expertise in any relevant field.”
    Perhaps you are unaware of the research that Abbot, Marohasy et al are conducting at UQ ?
    I also understand that Jonova’s husband has formal expertise in this particular field?
    What particular ‘expertise’ are you claiming that they don’t have?
    I note that some have claimed that Marohasy is not a ‘climate scientist’ and therefore should not be allowed to comment on ‘climate science’.
    I don’t believe you are a ‘climate scientists’ either are you? I also don’t believe Tim Flannery, John Cook, Lewandowsky and several others are ‘climate scientists’.
    You are however mostly well qualified scientists in different fields and all of you have expertise in using statistics and all of you would presumably understand the pros and cons of using homogenisation when dealing with large data sets?
    I would also presume that all of you understand that if the underlying assumptions are incorrect when applying homogenising algorithms, then any resulting trend could be a result of the incorrect underlying assumptions?

  40. #40 Craig Thomas
    August 31, 2014

    BBD: “White-hat holists simply argue that nukes are very likely to be a part (~30%) of the global energy mix by ~2050. A part. Not “the answer” and not in competition with renewables. Just used where appropriate, which will be mainly in developed economies.”

    Far out – you are much more of a pessimist than I am. I am only slightly optimistic, and yet I can’t even conceive that come the year 2050, populations will still be allowing their governments to foist nuclear plants on them.
    The balance sheet shows: nuclear is a non-option. It is massively expensive, unreliable in the scenario of a changing climate due to temperature and water requirements, carries risks that are non-insurable and produces waste for which there is no known treatment.
    It’s ludicrous to suggest that this failed 1950’s technology still has legs.

  41. #41 Craig Thomas
    August 31, 2014

    Stu2 appears very confusesd. Where to start?

    How about we start by repeating what the BoM pointed out: corrections and improvements to the science are carried out via the academic process of publishing peer-reviewed science, and NOT by employing the serially-wrong Graham Lloyd in the anti-science-biased Murdoch press.

    Then you’ve got David Evans – why don’t you tell us *exactly* what “formal expertise” he has in what “field”? And once you’ve stopped been gullilble and shown some scepticism towards Evans’ claims to having expertise, ask yourself this: “What kind of people,
    – inflate their CVs
    – don’t conduct any genuine research
    – publish their unfounded, unresearched, and manifestly incompetent opinions in a biased Newspaper with a recent history of having to apologise for publishing lies about climate science

    Hmmm?

    Come on Stu2, show us you can be sceptical….

  42. #42 Craig Thomas
    August 31, 2014

    WoW:
    “Islam, like Christianity (Ask Rev Luther King), knows that rationality kills belief, and without belief, there’s no power in religion.

    In the 1300′s the Islamic World were centuries ahead of Europe. It took us three or four hundred years after the rise of Islam (and its quashing of the free thinkers that was rampant in most of Europe throughout even the Renaissance period, look at the life and times of Kepler) for us to CATCH UP.”

    This simply isn’t true, Wow.
    The pushers of Multiculturalism have been trying to revise history to create a positive gloss to put on Islam, but it’s an invention.
    The Islamic world experienced a brief period some people call “the golden age” when they had access to all the science, philosophy, and other writings from all the cultures they had just eradicated. This brief period didn’t end because Islam changed, it ended because the anomalous co-existence of Islam with progressive thought simply couldn’t last very long. And far from being “ahead” in the 1300s, the idea of a free, tolerant and inquiring society was a very distant memory by then.
    Your assertion about Islam/Christianity v rational belief is shallow and untrue. The reality is far more interesting.
    Read: Rodney Stark, “For the Glory of God”, 2003.

    I also wonder if you haven’t noticed the ability of Christianity to co-exist with secular and pluralistic governance and Islam’s inability to do the same. Slight difference there, wouldn’t you say?

    I notice Jeff has joined you on disbelieving the very real fact that Christian-spawned societies have produced virtually all of human progress.The figure for “Europe and the West (non-Ancient)” is 97% in science. The Arab world sits between South Asia and East Asia, all three on “3/5ths of bugger all”.
    Read: Charles Murray, “Human Accomplishment”, 2003.

    There is a very unfortunate tendency for people to indulge in wishful thinking, as Jeff and Wow are doing. I don’t have an obsession with Islam, Jeff, I am simply pointing out that you (and others) have failed to accept that Islam and the societies it spawns are narrow, rigid, and repressive and this isn’t good if you like the idea of intellectual progress and if you oppose anti-science activism.

    Read: HK Cohen, “How modern Science came into the World”, 1994. He summarises the history of Islam’s experience with, and retreat from, progressive thought.

  43. #43 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    What Part of Hot Air Rises Do You Not Understand.

    If the quote at Eli’s is accurate, it’s a LOT worse than merely forgetting that “hot air rises”. He’s apparently focusing on where the individual GHG molecules from different sources and sinks go, and then suggesting that maybe that means that the change in concentration is largely not due to human emissions (“outgassing of the oceans”). We have half a dozen lines of evidence that it is – and that the oceans are a net sink of CO2.

    This sounds like pure desperation…or reveals that Roy is really rather incompetent outside of his particular area of competence, or both.

  44. #44 Stu 2
    August 31, 2014

    Craig
    Here is a summary of Dr David Evan’s ‘formal’ expertise.
    It isn’t particularly difficult to find and doesn’t particularly look like it has been over inflated.
    Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. ” Ends
    Regardless of that.
    It appears I need to re iterate yet again that the questions being asked of BoM are not about peer reviewed research on homogenisation.
    No one, including Maroahasy, is claiming that homogenisation is bad or wrong.

  45. #45 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    You are however mostly well qualified scientists in different fields and all of you have expertise in using statistics and all of you would presumably understand the pros and cons of using homogenisation when dealing with large data sets?

    I’m pretty sure this is NOT a given for any particular scientist, as I already pointed out to you in the specific case of the biological scientist Marohasy. It’s a specific area of statistical/scientific expertise. A clue to that effect is that the methodologies used (for homogenisation in temperature records) continue to be researched and published in the peer reviewed literature – but not by Marohasy. You appear to be making unwarranted presumptions from a position of ignorance, as is your wont.

  46. #46 Stu 2
    August 31, 2014

    Now Lotharsson as well?
    What part of this comment:

    ” the questions being asked of BoM are not about peer reviewed research on homogenisation.
    No one, including Maroahasy, is claiming that homogenisation is bad or wrong.”

    are you all failing to understand?

    Also Lotharsson, I believe if you would care to look up the current research being conducted by Abbot, Marohasy et al at UQ, you will find that you may be misinformed here:
    ” A clue to that effect is that the methodologies used (for homogenisation in temperature records) continue to be researched and published in the peer reviewed literature – but not by Marohasy.”

  47. #47 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    I also understand that Jonova’s husband has formal expertise in this particular field?

    In terms of formal expertise, he has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering. Which “particular field” do you think is relevant here, and how does an E.E. Ph.D. provide formal expertise in it?

    And if you’re going to cite his expertise – which you raised without it providing any obvious support for your argument – then you also might want to check out how well his recent blockbuster “research” overturning half of climate science went, you know the one where he chose to demonstrate his expertise in that particular field by dribbling it out in installments on his wife’s blog whilst she solicited donations to support the “research”.

    But more importantly you might care to ponder why you KEEP raising the claims of people who don’t publish their claims in the peer-reviewed literature, and when that inconvenient fact is pointed out you fall back to trying to pump up their (sometimes dubious or non-existent) expertise and in doing so appear to employ the fallacy of argument from authority (and often the fallacy of argument from false authority). Readers might suspect that you do this because the claims themselves don’t stand up to scrutiny…

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    I don’t believe you are a ‘climate scientists’ either are you?

    It has been pointed out over and over and over again that those who are not climate scientists reporting the climate science consensus are not citing their own competence (or lack of it!) when doing so, but non-climate scientists asserting that the climate science consensus is wrong either are citing their own incompetence or are making a long shot bet on the anti-consensus position amongst climate scientists.

    You continue to fail to understand this asymmetry – perhaps because it indicates that almost all of the arguments you bring are the kind of long shot bets mentioned – which leads you to the kind of invalid argument you make here.

    Making it yet again won’t make it valid.

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    Me commenting that the photos at Dr Marohasy’s blog reveal that Dr Marohasy is pleasantly attractive is actually a compliment to the lady.

    When she is being touted because she is a scientist, it is not. It is sexist and comes across as patronising and perhaps even demeaning.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    And you lot are here in your secure little echo chamber when you should be engaging them on their own sites – Marohasy and Novas.

    Interesting.

    Been there, done that, no need to do more.

    We used to have a particular commenter who was really hung up on this particular meme. It made no more sense back then either. See my earlier comment about the plain errors Nova espouses and continued to espouse even after several people corrected her. There’s no point “engaging” further once a deep and abiding commitment to error on the part of the site owner is demonstrated.

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    are you all failing to understand?

    No, you are. No-one here is claiming that Marohasy is “claiming that homogenisation is bad or wrong.”

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    Also Lotharsson, I believe if you would care to look up the current research being conducted by Abbot, Marohasy et al at UQ, you will find that you may be misinformed here”

    Sheesh, you are well out of your depth, and still don’t seem to understand how far out you are.

    I already looked her up on Google Scholar the other day when you touted her peer-reviewed research, and described what I found in an earlier comment that you don’t seem to have taken on board. In case you don’t recall what I’m referencing here, I pointed out in earlier comments that her entire body of peer-reviewed research related to climate appears to be two papers on the application of artificial intelligence techniques to seasonal rainfall forecasting.

    There are a couple of minor problems with claiming that this gives her expertise in temperature records suitable for climate science, and specifically homogenisation techniques for said climate-scale temperature records.

    1) “Artificial intelligence” is not “homogenisation techniques”

    2) “Seasonal” time scales are not “climate” time scales.

    If you STILL think she has expertise in the construction of climate scale temperature records, please cite some evidence to that effect. What you have cited to date is not evidence of that, no matter how fervently you wish it was or how stridently you repeat the claim.

  53. #53 Stu 2
    August 31, 2014

    Lotharsson,
    Are you attempting to imply that the Abbot, Marohasy et al research into seasonal forecasting at UQ would NOT require research into climate and/or climate timescales which would include testing and modeling climate data sets?
    Considering the Abbot, Marohasy et al research is relatively new and still very much a work in progress, your observations re the number of publications to date is just a tad irrelevant.
    Perhaps you need to take your concerns to UQ and the research team rather than taking all this up with me when you quite obviously think I am ignorant, unqualified and sexist etc ?
    I’m not particularly interested in your opinion of Dr Marohasy’s qualifications nor your opinion of me.The research she has been conducting has caused her to ask questions of BoM. I think you will find she has been asking those questions for quite some time. Well before Graham Lloyd & The Australian or Jonova & others got a hold of it.

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    Are you attempting to imply that the Abbot, Marohasy et al research into seasonal forecasting at UQ would NOT require research into climate and/or climate timescales which would include testing and modeling climate data sets?

    Yes, dear.

    I’m indicating that applying artificial intelligence techniques to seasonal weather forecasting does not require any expertise in creating (or even testing or modeling) climate scale data sets. One can presumably manage entirely well without even having access to a data set suitable for investigating climate in order to tackle that problem, because all of the changes of interest take place over timeframes much shorter than climatic timescales, a.k.a. the timescales of “seasonal weather”. And even if access to such a data set is required for some reason, one certainly does not need to be able to construct a robust climate quality temperature record oneself in order to try applying AI to the problem of seasonal rainfall prediction.

    Which is pretty much what I indicated in my previous comment.

    Considering the Abbot, Marohasy et al research is relatively new and still very much a work in progress, your observations re the number of publications to date is just a tad irrelevant.

    ROFL! You cited the research record to support your claim to her expertise. Pointing out the paucity of publications is therefore relevant – as is noting that you’re NOW characterising the very record you cited as evidence of expertise as “still very much a work in progress”, whereas previously it was sufficient to make her an expert. This suggests that you didn’t even know what her research record in the area was when you cited it.

    Perhaps you need to take your concerns to UQ and the research team rather than taking all this up with me when you quite obviously think I am ignorant, unqualified and sexist etc ?

    Certainly not, dear! You’re resorting to a lame gambit employed by those who can’t defend their position. Here’s the fallacy you’re employing: you made certain claims and cited her research to try to buttress them, and my “concerns” are about the claims you made and the fact that the research you cited does not support your claims. This has nothing to do with the entirely separate question of whether Marohasy’s research at UQ is solid. Furthermore, if you bothered to read what I previously wrote I already indicated that it looked interesting and useful and did not question its validity!

    I’m not particularly interested in your opinion of Dr Marohasy’s qualifications…

    …says the guy who’s been desperately touting her qualifications to support his argument. When you argue against yourself like that, which one of you wins?

  55. #55 Jeff Harvey
    August 31, 2014

    “I don’t have an obsession with Islam, Jeff, I am simply pointing out that you (and others) have failed to accept that Islam and the societies it spawns are narrow, rigid, and repressive and this isn’t good”

    Oh, but you do Craig. You also seem to be obsessed with the notion that Christianity was somehow involved in human progress. Notwithstanding its major role in precipitating the dark ages, Christianity had nothing to do with progress. In fact, if truth be told, many, and perhaps mopst of those involved in technological process were and are probably atheists, or at least agnostics. You are mistaking correalation and causation.

    Moreover, its this very technology, combined with its attendant political philosophy (free market absolutism and unregulated capitalism) that is driving our planet’s life support systems to hell in a handbasket.

    Not much else to say, Craig. Read some of Derrick Jensen’s works (Especially Endgame) and it becomes clear that we aren’t as civiized as you liek to make out. And again, its under so-called Christian societies that some of the greatest carnage has been infliected. One has only to look at the historical record since 1950 to see that.

    You will just have to accept that we are as barbaric as those you condemn; only we have better technology at our disposal.

  56. #56 Lionel A
    August 31, 2014

    Solar unalloyed good, well that could depend on the technology used:

    Can Birds Be Protected From Huge Solar Plants?

    the law of unintended consequences can hold many surprises.

  57. #57 Stu 2
    August 31, 2014

    At least you’re running true to form Lotharsson.
    You are simply arguing for argument’s sake and once again you have descended into an I said you said I said and I say you say litany of irrelevance.
    I have mentioned before that it is boring.
    I apologise for being so blunt.
    The issue is not about your opinion or indeed my opinion of Dr
    Marohasy’s credibility and neither is it about why homogenisation is used or even who you think may or may not use it.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2014

    You are simply arguing for argument’s sake…

    Fallacious gambit. You are not in a position to determine whether that’s the case. And quite apart from the fallacy, I can reveal that I’m not doing what you claim.

    I suppose I should note that you are “running true to form”. You routinely retreat to that kind of distraction tactic when you can’t defend your ill-thought out positions, and also to this kind:

    The issue is not about your opinion or indeed my opinion of Dr Marohasy’s credibility and neither is it about why homogenisation is used or even who you think may or may not use it.

    You disclaim the “issues” that you attempted to rely upon earlier, and throw in some that no-one has disputed to further muddy the waters and misrepresent other points made, all the while ignoring the issues that have been raised and the mounting pile of questions required to substantiate your position that you decline to answer.

  59. #59 turboblocke
    France
    August 31, 2014

    Stu #36 thanks for the demonstration of sophistry. You weren’t making accusations, you were just JAQing off. It’s a boring technique that only fools the gullible, please show more respect for the rest of us here.

  60. #60 turboblocke
    August 31, 2014

    How about sorting out the big killers of birds first? Cats, cars and buildings. Then how about habitat loss and hunters?

  61. #61 BBD
    August 31, 2014

    I notice that all the shill-defending pseudosceptics present have dodged my question.

    This demonstrates that they are all intellectually dishonest rather than simply confused.

  62. #62 Lionel A
    August 31, 2014

    How about sorting out the big killers of birds first? Cats, cars and buildings.

    Indeed those too, and in large numbers, of fatalities that is. I was simply bringing attention to something which could grow in importance as the type of solar installations that cause the fatalities increase. Perhaps the technology needs ‘tweeking’ so that birds cannot get in the way by accident.

  63. #63 Lionel A
    August 31, 2014

    Not trying to distract from BBD’s poking of Duff to answer a simple question. That he, once again adopts the ducking and diving speaks volumes – no bottom.

  64. #64 BBD
    August 31, 2014

    Comment away, Lionel. They aren’t going to answer me anyway.

    BTW it’s not just Duff now – it’s Olaus, Stu2, Duff and anyone else who attempts to defend Marohasy’s bizarre conspiracy theory.

  65. #65 Stu 2
    August 31, 2014

    Do you mean this question BBD?
    ” As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

    Which is it? No dodging now, because you have no choice but those outlined. Make your position clear by return response.”

    You do realise that is a very silly question don’t you? It has nothing at all to do with evidence about anything to do with the Australian climate.
    Along with Lotharsson you are arguing from a song sheet that is irrelevant in this instance.
    Abbot, Marohasy et al are asking BoM some simple questions about these data sets because they have come across the information in the course of their research into Australian climate and particularly using ANN to improve skill in seasonal forecasting.
    It is not necessary to have peer reviewed studies to ask these questions of BoM.
    No one is disputing the peer reviewed studies that BoM is referring to.
    And Lotharsson.
    Other than once again saying “I rest my case” re your tendency to descend into some type of psychobabble argument, your comments @#51 & # 55 is just your speculation about the nature of the Abbot, Marohasy et al research.
    If you could be bothered to check the actual research, rather than speculating whether they do or don’t use or require or understand homogenisation, you may find the actual answer.

  66. #66 BBD
    August 31, 2014

    Stu2

    You do realise that is a very silly question don’t you? It has nothing at all to do with evidence about anything to do with the Australian climate.

    If BoM is falsifying data better to match the global warming narrative it isn’t doing a very good job.

    Here, in the pages of the lying and corrupt IPCC AR5 SPM we find this graphic.

    Australia is humiliated on the international stage. Just look at the surface temperature trend slopes for North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Australian climate fakery is shown by no less an authority than the UN IPCC to be trailing the field.

    Perhaps Dr Marohasy’s conspiracy theory is intended to distract from this inconvenient truth. We may never know.

  67. #67 Stu 2
    August 31, 2014

    BBD.
    There is a whole world of difference between ‘falsifying data’ and the actual questions being asked by Abbot, Marohasy et al.
    The former would indeed be extremely concerning, the latter is easily corrected.
    As an Australian, I am more interested in the veracity of Australian record keeping.
    It’s important that the Australian data reflects Australian conditions, not whether Australian data matches:
    North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, any more than those countries should feel their data has to match Australia’s.
    There are so many locational and regional variables involved.
    Australia is a great country and our governance and regulatory systems are relatively robust.
    One of the reasons for that is it is not actually considered a crime in Australia to ask questions of our bureaucracies and our politicians.
    Another reason is that , relatively speaking, Australians are generally quite well educated and reasonably well informed.

  68. #68 BBD
    August 31, 2014

    S2

    It’s important that the Australian data reflects Australian conditions

    I agree.

    Let’s review. BoM sez:

    In the past 12-month period a large number of mean temperature records have fallen across Australia including:

    Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
    Australia’s warmest September on record
    Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
    Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
    Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
    Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
    Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013

    What do you think? Good fit or bad fit?

  69. #69 BBD
    August 31, 2014

    Remember, your government bureaucracy is less efficient at faking high trends that just about everybody else in the world.

  70. #70 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Sorry, Stu2. There’s an omission typo above. This will make more sense:

    Australia is humiliated on the international stage. Just look at the surface temperature trend slopes for North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Australian climate fakery is shown to be third-rate by no less an authority than the UN IPCC to be trailing the field.

  71. #71 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Eh.

    Australia is humiliated on the international stage. Just look at the surface temperature trend slopes for North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Australian climate fakery is shown to be third-rate by no less an authority than the UN IPCC to be trailing the field.

    Think I’ll call it a night.

    Happy Denial!

  72. #72 Craig Thomas
    September 1, 2014

    Stu2 says,
    “Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. ”

    Are you sure this is true? Who told you this? Have you used any scepticism towards this claim?

    But, more importantly, what makes you think a light background in carbon-accounting makes him an expert in the field of weather data homogenisation?

    Furthermore, David Evans entirely discredits any opinion he might have to offer when he offers these ones:

    “There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have. “

  73. #73 Stu 2
    September 1, 2014

    BBD @ # 65.
    Those BoM releases derived from the ACORN – SAT series is part of what is currently being questioned by Abbot, Marohasy et al.
    I’m not sure why you have posted the other paragraph 3 times along with the ‘happy denial’ quip?

  74. #74 Craig Thomas
    September 1, 2014

    A normal person would “question” the professional work of respected, qualified scientists by doing the relevant research and having their findings published in the relevant acdemic journal.

    Marohasy, on the other hand, gets Graham “Oops, sorry, I was wrong again” Lloyd to print an article accusing those scientists – without any evidence – of fraud.

    And people like Stu2 just lap it up.

  75. #75 Craig Thomas
    September 1, 2014

    David Evans: Evans had shifted his investments out of banks more than 10 years ago in favour of gold. Today, he believes the economic, social and political crises around the world are now captive to this regulator class. His conclusion was to bet against the government and “go for gold”.

    And here is Warren Buffett:
    “It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hold, bury it again, and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head”

    Postscript: Anybody investing in Gold would have seen their investment lose 50% of its value over the past 3 years. I’m guessing David Evans is going to have to sign up for telling his tall tales to a good few more “symposiums” and “conferences” to make up his losses.

  76. #76 Craig Thomas
    September 1, 2014

    Gosh, David Evans is the gift that keeps on giving:
    “If Western governments confiscate and outlaw gold, all pretense of a market or free society is gone”

    Seriously, this is how they think: the world is full of dark conspiracies.

  77. #77 Craig Thomas
    September 1, 2014

    Evans again: “We have noticed in the last couple of years that Chinese interests have taken large positionsin many gold companies. But the positions are all in companies that have large resources of cheap gold ounces in the ground, and are nearly all not viable at the US$1,600 per ounce gold price prevalent before the recent plunge. Do they know something?”

    Wow, scary story.
    Buuut….hmm, no sources mentioned.

    Let’s just see….
    Largest Chinese resources sector investments, 2013:
    Queensland Curtis LNG, $1.9billion.
    Browse LNG, $1.6billion
    Talison Lithium, $0.7billion
    Alumina, $0.45billion
    Focus Minerals, $0.2billion <<– THEY"Z BUYIN ARRR GOLDDDD!!!!!!!!!

    Chinese investment in Aus property, 2013:
    $6billion.

    But what does an actual professional economic commentator (as opposed to a fully-paid up kook) have to say about CHinese investment:

    "BNP Paribas' head of metals and mining in Perth, Olivier Smeets, said China's ongoing interest in Australia's resources was particularly important at a time when other sources of funding were drying up.
    "China, for obvious reasons, has been a significant source of funds for the development of the resource sector in Australia and I think it will continue to do so," Mr Smeets said.
    "Even more so now, when there's been a change in sentiment in the resources sector and some of the traditional flows of funds have been reduced for the moment. Funding from China can be a way to complement that.""

    I'll just play this bit again for the benefit of those whose tinfoil hats are on a bit tight and making too much of a buzzing noise:

    "China, for obvious reasons, has been a significant source of funds”

    Now here’s the difference: if your for obvious reasons means: “They faked it, Agenda 21, UN one-world government, moon-landing hoax”, then please understand why the majority of your interlocutors just write you off as an idiot.

  78. #78 Stu 2
    September 1, 2014

    Craig Thomas.
    I merely searched to answer your original question.
    Your supplementary question is asking my opinion of your opinion of his opinion.
    In Australia, those qualifications and work experience would not exclude Dr Evans from understanding statistics and homogenisation.
    From your next couple of posts I can clearly see that you and he must have opposing philosophies and have perhaps invested differently for differing philosophical reasons?
    However, to be fair, on another topic that you have raised here, I agree with you that the societies and countries linked to Christian culture do generally tend to be more adaptable, accepting and progressive and foster societies that are at least somewhat more successful at protecting basic human rights.
    I also think Jeff Harvey may need to check his history re global leadership in environmental issues and such things as legislation for national parks, wildlife, heritage etc.
    While he is correct that no one can claim to be purer than the driven snow and all religions suffer from revisionist attitudes, he does appear to have some blinkers on in regard to global leadership in environmental issues.
    He also might check the history for other human based social issues like the education of girls, the emancipation of women, the provision of basic health care, the provision of public education etc

  79. #79 Craig Thomas
    September 1, 2014

    “In Australia, those qualifications and work experience would not exclude Dr Evans from understanding statistics and homogenisation.”

    So…..you are now backing off from claiming Evans has “formal expertise in this field”? Good-oh.

  80. #80 Stu 2
    September 1, 2014

    No Craig I’m not.
    His qualifications and career experience do indeed mean that there is some ‘formal expertise’ in the area of statistical analysis and homogenisation of large data sets.
    I did not however claim that he is an unquestionable expert who we should all bow and scrape to, or that I agreed or disagreed with some of his public commentary.
    The original question was simply about his qualifications and his work experience.
    Do you think what I copy/pasted is incorrect or overstated somehow?
    Here:
    Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. ” Ends

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2014

    …“I rest my case” re your tendency to descend into some type of psychobabble argument,…

    …says the guy who tries to tell me he knows what my internal motivations for “arguing” are, and when I point out that he can’t know that he accuses me of “psychobabble”.

    You’re projecting like a lighthouse.

    …your comments @#51 & # 55 is just your speculation about the nature of the Abbot, Marohasy et al research

    No, dear, it’s what I infer from examining their research output so at least my inferences are grounded in a modicum of evidence. In contrast, you confidently assert claims about the nature of their research when you clearly don’t understand what they have worked on, and based on your responses you hadn’t even done a basic literature search – let alone read an abstract or an introduction.

    Projecting again?

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2014

    …because they have come across the information in the course of their research…

    Do you have any evidence of this? Or like the other claims you (or Marohasy) confidently made, will they turn out to be unsubstantiated?

    Do you realise that she has her own historical section on this blog which includes coverage of articles from years before she started that line of research in 2011? And that in those articles she misleads her audience about various AGW-related matters?

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2014

    In Australia, those qualifications and work experience would not exclude Dr Evans from understanding statistics and homogenisation.

    You previously suggested that he HAD that understanding DUE to his “formal expertise”. When I pointed out that his formal expertise is in electrical engineering which does not support your argument, you shifted the goalposts to his work history (which is decidedly not what other people mean by “formal expertise”). Now you’ve shifted again from “his experience shows he understands that stuff” to “his experience and qualifications do not preclude understanding that stuff”. Now you’re reversing the burden of proof.

    You do realise that you’re furiously backpedalling from a confidently made claim, right? Because everyone else does…

    Oh, wait, I see in your very latest comment that now you’re back-pedalling from your back-pedalling and claiming that his experience and degrees mean that he MUST have homogenisation expertise.

    You don’t even seem to know what you claim, let alone why.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2014

    Stu 2, you confidently assert that Marohasy is JAQs – just asking questions – which you reckon is entirely appropriate for an alleged issue of this nature and hence doesn’t need a peer reviewed paper. Remember this comment of yours:

    Claiming that Dr Marohasy has questionable motives connected to the fossil fuel industry is no less ‘crankish’ or ‘conspiracist’ than claiming that BoM is engaged in fraud.

    And this one?

    This particular question being asked of BoM is not an accusation that there is a ‘conspiracy to fake data’

    But she’s not just asking questions, and this has been obvious for some time. Perhaps you should actually read her article entitled “Who’s going to be sacked for making up global warming at Rutherglen?”.

    You either aren’t even competent to make basic claims about the nature of her claims (let alone anything scientific), or you’re a liar. This article has been there since the 27th August, and in it she claims:

    The senior management have tried to cover-up serious tampering…

    She then describes the results of homogenisation on a specific station and then continues directly:

    There is absolutely no justification for doing this.

    This cooling of past temperatures is a new trick* that the mainstream climate science community has endorsed over recent years to ensure next year is always hotter than last year – at least for Australia.

    The asterisk in that quote apparently is intended to refer to the comment she makes at the end with two asterisks:

    ** There are a lot of tricks that climate science managers have implemented over the years to fix the temperature record; that is fix it so it shows global warming. “Trick” was the word Phil Jones, a leading United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientist, used to explain to his peers that, when constructing very long global temperature series using proxy data based on tree ring measurements that can extend back thousands of years, it was best to substitute thermometer data for this proxy data from about 1960 because the proxy data started to show cooling from about then. Indeed from about 1960 until 2002 the thermometer data mostly did show warming. But now even this instrumental record is starting to show cooling. Enter the relatively new trick of homogenization.

    Marohasy makes you a liar. This is not “merely asking questions”, it is a clear accusation of faking data and then concealing the fakery, without bothering to write a peer-reviewed paper to test whether the claims she makes about the homogenisation results are valid (let alone the claims she makes about it being deliberately faked!)

    And note in that last quote that Marohasy is clearly a liar. No-one, but no-one, said thermometer data should be substituted for proxy data because it started to show cooling. They said proxy data from that period should not be used because it was known to be unreliable during that period.

    Perhaps you yourself are a blatant liar, or perhaps you’re merely a useful idiot on behalf of this PR campaign. Either way your claims routinely turn out to be either false – quite often obviously so – or completely unsubstantiated.

  85. #85 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2014

    FWIW there’s an article at The Conversation about the BoM temperature record questions. This is written by two people who lead at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science which does research into homogenisation methods for temperature records, unlike Marohasy and Abbot.

    Note that as pointed out in my previous comment, Marohasy DOES accuses the BoM of “making up global warming”. These guys point out that “Our data on extreme temperature trends show that the warming trend across the whole of Australia looks bigger when you don’t homogenise the data than when you do.” This is precisely why I asked much earlier that if Marohasy were entirely right in her accusations, what impact would the resulting corrections have? (And if one answers that question, then what is Marohasy so up in arms about?)

  86. #86 Stu 2
    September 1, 2014

    Lotharsson,
    That’s hilarious!
    :-)
    So far from you to me:
    you’re impressively naive, or gullible,
    You appear to be making unwarranted presumptions from a position of ignorance, as is your wont.
    you are well out of your depth, and still don’t seem to understand how far out you are.
    You’re resorting to a lame gambit employed by those who can’t defend their position.

    This next one from you is an absolute cracker Lotharsson:

    You do realise that you’re furiously backpedalling from a confidently made claim, right? Because everyone else does…

    Oh, wait, I see in your very latest comment that now you’re back-pedalling from your back-pedalling and claiming that his experience and degrees mean that he MUST have homogenisation expertise.

    You don’t even seem to know what you claim, let alone why.
    :-)

    Very good Lotharsson. That one was extraordinarily amusing.

    & then lastly:
    Perhaps you yourself are a blatant liar, or perhaps you’re merely a useful idiot on behalf of this PR campaign. Either way your claims routinely turn out to be either false – quite often obviously so – or completely unsubstantiated.
    :-)
    If you were trying to browbeat me into not wishing to engage with you anymore – you have succeeded.
    ROFL
    :-)

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2014

    Stu 2, I’m not trying to browbeat you into anything. This is a public forum, and hence anything you say here is fair game for public comment – for the benefit of other readers, even if you refuse to think yourself.

    Furthermore, I have no problem if you don’t wish to engage with me (especially since you don’t engage with most of the points I make in the first place), but regardless of that I will engage with the claims you make if and when I think there’s value in it.

    Meanwhile, I note that instead of engaging with the fact that you’ve been caught out misrepresenting what Marohasy is claiming, you choose to make me the subject of a comment instead.

    ROFLworthy indeed.

  88. #88 Jeff Harvey
    September 1, 2014

    Stu2,

    Lotharsson pretty well sums you up with his criticisms. I have no idea what or who on Earth you are referring to with ‘global leadership on environmental issues’. If you mean we in the overconsumptive, ecologically deficit, global expansionist west, then you are clearly full of it. If you knew one iota about ecological footprint analyeses, and how this relates to policy, and the current global environmental predicament, you might be singing a very different tune. You conflate technology with religion and that in turn with progress and civilization, and appear oblivious to the fact that we export our ecological damage to the developing world, whose resources we need to maintain the massive ecological deficits at home. This is also linked with policies aimed at keeping the poor in their place, and the general pattern of looting as referred to by economists like Patrick Bond, Tom Athanasiou and Samir Amin in their work.

    All this appears to be over Stu2’s head. I have had it up to here with this kind of wilful ignorance. Stu2’s arguments are being continually hammered here and yet he comes back thinking he is making a point. Like Swedish buffoon Olaus, he thinks that shills like Nova and Maharosey have somethinbg useful to say, whilst both mysteriously (or NOT) have no relevant expertise or publications in the scientific literature.

    We have asked Olaus numerous times when he will go ‘instinct’, a term he could not separate from ‘extinct’. I am asking Stu2 the same. It takes remarkable hubris to suggest that Christianity – or indeed any religion in my view – has played a major role in human technological progress. But then to try and link this with environmental issues goes beyond the pale. To reiterate, our civilization is destroying, not protecting, much of the natural world. Few developed countries can sustainably support themselves on resources contained within its own borders. Therefore they have to reach into other countries to obtain vital capital. The US and UK go into deficit early in the year; all other major populaous countries in Europe also foster huge ecological deficits. Putting this into foreign policy agendas explains many of the world’s recent wars, as well as the huge gap in wealth between the have’s and have not’s.

  89. #89 Jeff Harvey
    September 1, 2014

    Stu2 also talks about ‘research’ by Maharosey. I’d ask him in whct reputable peer-reviewed journal I can find it.

    He’ll reply on her (shitty) blog. There you go. This is the level of discourse we are dealing with here. Blog science. That’s where the Stu2s and Olaus’s of this world glean their worldviews. And only from proven denier sites to bolster views that are already pre-determined.

    Is it any wonder that these quacks are invisible at major conferences?

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2014

    Jeff, to be fair to Marohasy, she does have two peer-reviewed papers on neural networks for seasonal rainfall prediction based on work since 2011. One of these is in Atmospheric Research and the other in Advances in Atmospheric Science. FWIW, those journals show up on this list as #32 in 2013 (her article was published 2014, 2013 is the latest ranking) and #44 in 2011 when her first paper was published (both 2nd quartile).

    On the other hand, that’s not exactly an impressive climate science publication record! Quite a few Ph.D. students can equal that record by the time they graduate with papers more about climate than weather – and often achieve it in about the same elapsed time as well.

    The big problem is that Stu 2 (and presumably others) are trying to conflate that publication record into some kind of expertise in temperature record construction, presumably to try and give her un-peer reviewed critiques of some BoM records more weight – at least with those who are insufficiently informed to know just how telling it is that she hasn’t published them in a reasonable journal.

    Interestingly, she says on her blog that she has written “a paper” about temperature records, but it was presented to “current affairs forum” The Sydney Institute (run by Gerard Henderson) rather than published in a peer reviewed journal or given to a professional climate science conference. Since she is a scientist every peer-reviewed paper is an additional feather in her career cap, and conference papers help too. And as a career climate science confusionist, she well knows that every peer-reviewed paper gives organisations like the IPA, The Australian and so on more mud to fling (even if, like they pretty much all do, they get thoroughly rebutted via post-publication peer review) so she’s presumably motivated to get as many peer-reviewed articles with any kind of contrarian bent to them as possible.

    Not publishing this paper in a decent journal – and she’s had the better part of three years since she gave it to the Sydney Institute to do so – and not even falling back to a decent scientific conference is a solid giveaway. She presumably thinks – or knows from trying – that this “paper” will not get through peer review – but then it doesn’t have to in order to help sow doubt and confusion amongst the uninformed, does it?

  91. #91 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Stu2

    Your parsing of Lotharsson’s comments is so bad I am going to have to repeat one of his points.

    BoM shows that the warming trend for Australia is GREATER when using unadjusted data than when using homogenised data.

    Look here.

    So WTF is Marohasy claiming that BoM faked the warming trend? She is so clueless and so desperate to spread misinformation that she either does not know or does not care that her conspiracy theory is doubly stupid and laughable.

    It’s time you disappeared again.

  92. #92 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    That link didn’t work as expected. Let’s try again:

    Unhomogenised

    Compared with

    Homogenised.

  93. #93 Stu 2
    September 1, 2014

    sigh :-(
    Thanks for answering one of Jeff’s questions Lotharsson.
    Here are some of the answers to the other one.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_park
    ” the United States established the first such one, Yellowstone National Park, in 1872. ”
    And Australia had the second:
    http://lynnwalsh.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/australias-first-national-park-and-the-worlds-second/
    And the first nation to enact environmental legislation?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_United_States
    ” The first statutory environmental law was the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, “

  94. #94 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Stu2

    Your systematic evasion of every substantive issue here is a nauseating display of intellectual dishonesty.

  95. #95 Rednose
    September 1, 2014

    Interesting post at Judith Curries on
    How long is the pause?

    She quotes from McKitrick 2014, a peer reviewed publication apparently.
    Application of the method shows there is now a trend less period of 19 years at the end of the HadCRUT 4 surface temperature series and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere.

    Circle the wagons
    Deny the pause. Deny the pause.

  96. #96 cRR Kampen
    September 1, 2014

    #39 Craig Thomas: “Stark has suggested that Christianity grew because it treated women better than pagan religions.”
    Differential analysis will show how islam is this century’s fastest growing religion: women have learnt the right way by now?
    Not trusting Stark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Stark ).

    “… and pluralistic governance and Islam’s inability to do the same.” – Bullshit. Reality is christian quasi-pluralism was a result of utter war weariness and inspiration, pulled by the Dutch, from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_%28Ottoman_Empire%29 .
    Did you ever wonder how come Greece retained its orthodox christianity notwithstanding centuries of islam rule? Millet system. Your call.
    Then you come up with one Charles Murray. Ow, bugger, bugger. “Charles Alan Murray (born 1943) is an American paleoconservative and paleolibertarian leaning political scientist, author, columnist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, DC.[3] He is best known for his controversial book The Bell Curve, co-authored with Richard Herrnstein in 1994, which argues that class and race are linked with intelligence.[3]“

  97. #97 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Rednose

    I have been over this with you too often for you to pretend that you don’t know what you are doing. That means you are being intentionally, provocatively dishonest, so I am well within my rights to tell you to take a running fuck at a rolling doughnut.

    First, McKitrick is an extremely controversial source and consequently one has very low confidence in him. Second, he appears to be wrong if he really did claim “trendless”. I suspect “not sigificant” may have been what was actually written. Third, “trendless” is simply a false claim. Fourth, the slowdown in the rate of surface warming is attributable to transients: low solar activity, increased stratospheric aerosol loading and increased ocean heat uptake. OHC continues to rise apace. Fifth, the troposphere is not the climate system only a small part of it.

    So off you go, after that doughnut.

  98. #98 Jeff Harvey
    September 1, 2014

    L,

    The two journals have very low impact factors: 1.123 and 0.744. But its amazing how deniers blow anything they publish out of all proportion. They routinely deride papers in Nature, PNAS and Science they don’t agree with, and make papers in bottom-feeding journals that they like appear to be the authoritative sources.

    I checked the esteemed J. Marohasy for her career record in science. Since 1996, it totals”11 publications, cited 80 times, with 4 this year. Her h-index is 5.

    Called a ‘maggotologist’ by the Swedish meatball, my totals since 1993 are 139 publications, 3706 citations, 297 so far this year and an h-index of 34. Yet note the difference in deference in the way Stu refers to Marohasy and me. ‘

    One final note: I expect Olaus to call Marohasy a ‘maggaotologist’ too, as her background is in entomology…

  99. #99 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Oh FFS, JC even kicks of the latest stupidity with a quote from that clown Rupert Darwall. She really and truly is a lost cause.

  100. #100 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Rednoise the Clown writes:

    She quotes from McKitrick 2014, a peer reviewed publication apparently.

    It looks like Scientific Research Publishing (publisher of the Open Journal of Statistics in which McKitrick (2014) is published is extremely dodgy. There’s lots of stuff out there about it – here is just one sample.

    Once again, the denier muppets are being scammed and not one of them is enough of a fucking sceptic to bother checking. Including JC.

Current ye@r *