Tuesday, 28 January 2014

What ever happened to climate change in Australia?

What ever happened to climate change in Australia?

This is the heading for an article by David Leigh published by on-line opinion.

David tweets as @ecobard and his tweets reveal things about him. e.g.


Climate Champion is a site run by the Greens with the purpose of creating action against the Abbott government's roll back of Green policies. That could help explain his strange article published by On Line Opinion. It is a strange article and has even stranger responses to comments by David Leigh.
In his second paragraph he writes that prior to the election:
the airwaves were full of discussion about the biggest threat to humanity of all time.
 What could he mean by that? A google search finds the top two pre-election hits for "biggest threat to humanity of all time" are:

However,  on a countdown on another hit headed the 5 biggest threats to humanity we find (link):

Ta- Da!

Probably the most pressing threat to our planet, and the life in it, is climate change.

This is surely where David was heading. The greatly misused and confused term "climate change." 

Generally it is used by the alarmists to refer to anthropogenic global warming although its roots go back to the UNFCCC at the earth summit in 1992: (link)

"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
So, when David uses the term climate change he is surely referring to anthropogenic climate change. Unfortunately the UNFCCC did not define "comparable time periods." We do know that there has been no warming for more than 17 years although atmospheric C02 keeps rising.

David writes that, by closing down the flawed climate commission, PM Abbott has stopped the talk of climate change, (meaning man-made global warming?)
First he attempted to silence the reporting body by removing its funding, as though stopping talk would make it all go away. Now, even the Labor opposition remains quite on the subject. Only the Greens appear to understand that it won't abate
Then he makes what, to this poor reader, is a confused statement.
Despite having just had the hottest year on record and every monthly Australian record being broken and with the US having an unprecedented cold snap with temperatures below –34c the subject has conveniently gone quiet.  
Neither  the Australian nor the US details are true. BOM shows 2013 as being the hottest Australian year; but every other major land and satellite temperature indice contradicts this:

As can be seen in the diagram below (link) the North American cold snap could hardly be called unprecedented. Why do the alarmists keep on using "unprecedented," "Hottest year ever" and other such superlatives.

BUT WAIT! ..... Wasn't the topic climate change in Australia

( Can you separate global warming into countries?)

And why would someone arguing the warmist side of the debate introduce (un)precendented UScold snap. 
Meanwhile, climate change appears to be happening faster than the wishes of the hopeless, the sad wheel treading sycophants, who see only the profits of the mighty as a motive for making political policy.
What a sad statement.  The planet hasn't warmed for more than 17 years. How fast would the mythical hopeless sycophants want it to warm?

Next David refers to the

Renewable Energy Finance Corporation.
He is confusing two associated bodies; the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
The world has recorded its fourth hottest year on record 
Not according to NASA and NOAA.  (link)
The temperature anomaly (above 14.0 deg C) for 2013 is 0.486 making 2013 the 8th warmest year. Statistically with errors of +/- 0.1 deg C ranking the warmest years is meaningless, but it seems to be something many scientists and the media do. 
When some of the commenters referred David to some of the facts on current weather he retorted
Well, I guess it had to happen, the deniers are out there in full swing and with such intelligent comments, very constructive, Your master will be pleased with your performance.
Your master will be pleased with your performance? 

What sort of a world is David living in? What strange, warped mind would think that independent people were being controlled by some mythical master.

Please explain, David, or apologise!

Jesse Peter's out.

It seems that my previous post hit a raw nerve with Jesse Peter. From his facebook  page, perhaps he might enjoy that.....This pic labelled torture station is on his facebook page.

He makes some extraordinary statements:
Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.
You can see this for yourself by comparing the trend from mid-1997 to the trend from 1999 : the latter is more than twice as large: 0.07 instead of 0.03 degrees per decade.
Sks Trend Calculator
 an astute observer might note that australia is hitting record high temperatures

The BoM much trumpeted claim that 2013 was our hottest year is less than robust because some global climate groups disagree (link)

 I posted this graph with data from two peer-reviewed papers:


He replied:
your graphs are bull****. they come from bull*** sources that do not do peer reviewed work that is published in actual scientific journals like Science.

you jokers have a lot of hide. the actual scientists are busy doing the hard work of counting tree rings and drilling ice cores, and you insult them by saying their entire life's work is some communist conspiracy,
What? The ice-cores that show temperature rises before CO2?
Then he resorted to the much rebuffed BigOil argument and shamelessly linked it to the tobacco industry using the shameful term denialist:
THERE. IS. NO. DEBATE. except that manufactured by the denialist industry, funded by big oil money, in the same way that doubt was 'manufactured' by the tobacco industry to delay action against their own insanely profitable ventures.
As usual, the ad hominem argument shows itself to be a singularly pathetic tool to sort out reality — like sifting sand with a hammer, or chopping wood with a fork, it’s the true choice of the confused.


When I asked
Can you point to ONE thing wrong in the original post?
He couldn't! He then resorted to more inanities and swear words.