Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

News Ltd.

Mar 29, 2011

And now Tony Abbott misrepresents Flannery; will the media call him on it?

Further to the shameless and idiotic noisemaking of the trollumnists on which we commented yesterda

Share

Further to the shameless and idiotic noisemaking of the trollumnists on which we commented yesterday, it now seems that the unpopular Liberal leader Tony Abbott is now outright misrepresenting Flannery’s remarks in Parliament:

But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor’s massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as “the ultimate millenium bug”.

“It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament. “So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years.”

What Flannery actually said:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

“Not going to drop” is clearly not the same as “make not a scrap of difference”. Nor is “several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years” the same as “not… any time in the next 1000 years”.

We’re talking about a system in which the temperature is increasing. The best we can hope for in the shorter term is to slow that increase down, maybe if we’re lucky stop it completely. The more countries that act, the better our chances, and the quicker we’ll reduce the damage. That Flannery thinks there’s a prospect of actually reducing the levels back to the levels of today, or pre-industrial levels, is very reassuring – but the time-scale he talks about is nothing to do with when there’d first be a difference between acting and not acting.

Even if it’ll take a long time to return the system to the earlier levels (and I’m glad to hear that that’s even possible), the immediate challenge is to reduce the increase. That’s what the proposed action is supposed to achieve, and that’s what we’re debating.

So Abbott’s misrepresentation of Flannery’s remark is not only dishonest, it also indicates that he hasn’t the faintest idea what his opponents are actually talking about.

Labor and climate scientists and the Greens and anyone with an interest in rational public debate all need to be out there right now squashing this stupid meme before it takes any more hold on the gullible. Because once this one sinks in, they’ll find something even more outrageously stupid and build up the ignorance even further. It has to be tackled now, and exposed for the moronic fraud it is.

Let’s see who in the media actually call Abbott on his shameless misrepresentation of Flannery, and the ignorance about the actual proposal that his remarks reveal. Anyone?

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

150 comments

150 thoughts on “And now Tony Abbott misrepresents Flannery; will the media call him on it?

  1. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    2001-2008 is not long enough to show a trend Tones. You said it yourself.

    Gee, look at all this cooling.

    Oh shit. Well, maybe I’ll pick 1972 instead.

    Still no cooling? What a drag for you when the noise has been cleared out and the trend is both obvious and statistically significant.

    The sad thing is I don’t even think Tones9 believes his own argument. Ask yourself Tones – if you are right, why do you need to cherry-pick? It’s sad to watch you cherry-pick 2001-2008 and claim cooling despite having previously argued that you need minimum 10 years for a trend.

    Sad, hypocritical and desperate.

    I do look forward to what you’ll cherry-pick next.

  2. heavylambs

    The thread ended when you showed up,child.

    You state Feb 1973 was warmer than Feb 2011,then have the gall to claim I’m the one re-writing the “rules of statistics”??? Taking two isolated data points from a set of over 1100 and drawing a supposedly meaningful conclusion?

    You misread Fairman Jr,and claim something that the authors did not conclude.

    You misrepresent Fawcett and Jones in clear contradiction of the conclusions of their paper,and in clear demonstration that you did not realise that Jones was not officially stating BOM’s position on climatological significance.

    Then you pedantically flap on about short segments of the record that have no statistical significance and cannot support your assertions.

    Then you look for something -anything- to salvage the train wreck of your comprehension.

    Better luck next time.

  3. tones9

    This is hysterical.
    Rather than admit numerical deficiency, heavylambs tries to rewrite the rules of statistics.
    Yes 2001-2007 includes the year 2007. Always has. Always will.
    Regardless of how dumb heavylambs is.
    It will always be.
    Heavylambs crying about it doesn’t change the facts.

    I’m sorry he doesn’t know how to create a graph.
    This act requires a tiny piece of intelligence and numerical skills.
    All sadly lacking in heavylambs.

    Determining a trend value is a level of sophistication beyond imagination for heavylambs.

    I think this is the appropriate point to end this thread.

    Happy cooling.

  4. heavylambs

    Thanks for conceding my point,tones. As I said,and you denied,2001-2007 is a positive,according to the data entry parameters on the WFT interface…’from’ 2001 and ‘to’ 2007.Don’t waste time with any pedantry over entry parameters that were never specified beforehand. If I’d wanted to claim something about 2001-2008,I would have entered “2001-2008”,dumbass. So why your first link?

    And yes,the trend 2001-2007 is +0.02C,not 0.045C. I’m aghast at my error.

    The selected data periods remain utterly,UTTERLY meaningless climatically. You’re ripping yourself off with this fruitless effort. Though I guess you’ll remember to think about uncertainty margins in the future. Or not.

    Pretty funny how you failed to read Fairman,Jr et al 2011,eh? There’s some homework for you,to try and figure out why-oh,why?-Anthony Watts and Dr Roger Pielke Sr would attempt to obfuscate its conclusions,and mislead little footsoldiers like you. Why would they do that? Why do you fall for that stuff? Are you too trusting? Your stupidity certainly explains most of your problem,but you must learn to be wary.

  5. tones9

    Ladies and gentlemen, heavylambs is as big a dumbass as Rich.

    He wasn’t even brave enough to post his graph of ignorance.

    Here is the correct graph showing cooling trend of -0.04C.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2008/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2008/trend

    Here is my best guess at heavylambs twisted brain.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2007/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2007/trend

    The biggest error is that it does not include any data for the year 2007.
    Heavylambs has problems with counting.
    How 0.045C trend was derived is harder to work out.
    Perhaps the mean divided by 10?
    The 2007 end point divided by 10?
    I don’t know how retard brains work.

    And heavylambs continues to be arrogant enough to claim he’s always right.

  6. heavylambs

    No tones,run it yourself,I don’t need to see you publicly humiliate yourself any further. The only one in decline in that HADCRUTv3 series is the var-adj Southern Hemisphere mean.The rest are gloriously,MEANINGLESSLY positive…

    The long view? Fool,you are comparing two data points out of hundreds. So much to learn,and so much time to do it,obviously.

    Catsidhe,I apologise.

  7. tones9

    The long view?

    Feb 2011 was colder than Feb 1973.

  8. tones9

    no heavylambs the errors are all yours.
    For a start try unadjusted data, although it doesn’t change the trend.
    Have no idea how you get .045.
    Please post the link so I can laugh at you.

  9. Catsidhe

    *facepalm*

    Just so long as you recognise that you’re basically masturbating here. You’re not actually arguing to convince anyone: most of us agree with you and don’t need to be convinced, and the likes of tones are unconvincable.

    If you’re happy to keep filling the grand canyon one grain of sand at a time, I can’t stop you, any more than you can convince tones.

    I’m not telling you to do anything. I’m asking, and I’m not above begging at this point.

    Please: accept that tones09 would argue against the law of gravity if he thought it would make you look stupid, and you’re preaching to an empty room. Killfile him and move on.

  10. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, if we go 2001-2011 it shows warming.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, if we go 2001-2010 on GISS it shows warming.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, if we chose any year in the past 10,000 except recent peak years it would show warming.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, it’s almost like cherypicking for such short periods doesn’t work.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 it’s almost like you can use statistics over short periods to show anything you want.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, it’s almost like you need longer periods to infer whether it is statistically significant or not.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 0.03 is not statistically significant and it hasn’t cooled.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 the last nine hottest years were in the last decade.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 you should learn about statistics.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, the BoM weren’t saying that ten years was statistically significant, they were saying that the warming had continued and it just added to the trend.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 but it isn’t cooling and there is no statistically significant cooling trend.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 you are taking the work of something that shows the opposite and distorting the meaning to support your preconceived opinion.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 you are a cherry picker and a liar.

  11. heavylambs

    No,tonesy,you obviously have an input error somewhere,apart from your general imbecility. OLS trend for HADCRUTv3 variance-adjusted global mean 2001-2007 is +0.045C.

    You’ve learned something,though…we do not need thermometers to tell us the earth is warming,given our other observational tools…and satellites.

  12. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Yawn. Cherry picked short term cooling based on cherry picked datasets. Weak and desperate, especially considering it goes completely against your previous argument that ten years was the minnimum you need to calculate a trend.

  13. tones9

    oh shit! heavylambs is as dumb as Rich. I’m sorry for their disability.

    I shall repeat.
    2001-2007 cooled by 0.04C.
    Please please please learn how to read graphs before you try and make them.
    At this stage of your development, it’s too big a challenge.

    So the temperature gauge is static but accelerated warming continues. That’s your best yet.
    Why don’t even need thermometers anymore.

    I can’t wait for the cooling oceans to heat the atmosphere.

  14. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    The only thing more irritating than trolls are self righteous commenters telling you what you should or shouldn’t be doing.

  15. Catsidhe

    For god’s sake STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!

    Like the saying goes, never argue with an idiot: he’ll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  16. heavylambs

    Tones,what you thought was Rich’s stupidity was actually a comprehension fail on your part,but thanks for your thoughts.

    You are cherry picking to try to support a silly claim. I seem to think we are cherry picking to demonstrate the folly of your cherry-picking. But you won’t be helped ,you prideful thing.

    Klaus Walter’s comments were probably made before the observed abatement in various ENSO indices,which you can check weekly via BOM and NOAA’s Climate Prediction Centre products. His 50%+ odds becomes your 100% certainty,so I’m wrong ? How so?

    But yes,there is always a chance of La Nina re-evolution. No-one would or can suggest otherwise…and I certainly didn’t. “‘cool’ global temps” according to what measure? It’s still well warmer than the back to back La Ninas of the early 70s. Take the long view….

  17. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    And to get back to the main point while my comment is in moderation, what evidence has Tones9 cited to prove that short timescales are statistically significant now that I’ve proven he deliberately misrepresented the Jones paper?

    None.

  18. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    I love the way Tones is happy to cite the IPCC, BoM and climate experts when he thinks they support his cause (tip – they don’t). And go on, just ignore the fact GISS show temps going up, that on a statistically significant timescale it will still add to the upward trend and the La Nina can’t artificially push down temps forever.

  19. tones9

    heavylambs you shouldn’t defend Rich’s stupidity. makes you look bad.

    2002-2011 was Rich’s cherry pick, not mine.
    With 92% of data and 0.08C cooling, it’s a safe bet it will still be a cooling trend by the end of the year.

    NOAA Enso expert Klaus Walter says the odds for a 2 year La Nina event remain well above 50% due to the “continued unabated strength in various ENSO indices.” (so you’re wrong again). Given that la Nina’s do indeed affect global temps on a 6 month lag, there isn’t much doubt about the continuation of cool global temps.

  20. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    And before you just in and say “Ha ha, BoM say ten years proves warming”, no, again, they were just showing that it was a continuation of an already occurring trend, something you can’t do with cooling whereupon it becomes noise.

  21. heavylambs

    Tones@124, according to your pet measure HADCRUTv3, 2001-2007 warmed..by 0.02C, What are you smoking? Check it,then check WFT. That’s why chumps..sorry,”sceptics”, were so relieved when they could crow about 2001-2008 as if it meant jack-shit.

    Care to address uncertainty margins,tones? Nope. The [low] diagnostic value of decadal periods? Nope. The low skill in predicting ENSO states for the end of this year? Nope. Why adding,and continuing to add, CO2 to the lower atmosphere won’t provide a persistent warming forcing to the climate system,no matter strong internal variability in the short term? Nope. Why you don’t know the difference between weather and climate? Nope.

    Why would I call “cooling a warming pause”? It isn’t demonstrably cooling according to HADCRUTv3 when acknowledging real uncertainty margins and meteorological standards.

    When will warming resume? There is no evidence that it has stopped;its effects continue even if the gauge is static,and its effects [continued land ice loss, sea-ice loss and downtrend in global annual snow cover] lead to further warming.

    Are we experiencing accelerated warming? Over a climatologically meaningful period? Yes. Over a ten year period? No.

    Where is all the warming inertia? In the deep oceans and cryosphere.

    HADCRUTv3 is just one take of one measure of one property of the near-surface atmosphere,tones. It is pretty useless trying to make system-encompassing claims for it,when we observe much of that system in so many ways.

  22. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    All 5 graphs created by Rich to show decadal trends, actually contain 9 years of data.

    They weren’t created to show decadal trends. They were created to show 2002-now.

    Rich claims 2001-2007 is 6 years instead of 7.

    And if this is corrected do you suddenly become correct? Does the noise clear? Does a statistically significant trend appear?

    No.

    It’s meaningless, stupid and above all desperate to argue that 7, 10 or 15 years mean anything, even when they show warming.

  23. tones9

    The only thing meaningless is Rich’s brain.
    Someone who can’t read simple lines on a graph, shouldn’t be creating their own graphs.
    All 5 graphs created by Rich to show decadal trends, actually contain 9 years of data.

    Rich claims 2001-2007 is 6 years instead of 7.
    Back to Grade 2 so you can learn some counting skills.

    As he is so underdeveloped, I recommend Rebecca Black’s song Friday so he can also learn the days of the week.

  24. heavylambs

    Gee,tones@118,you genuinely think you’ve made a point against RichUS there…I can tell by the tone [cough] of your writing.

    Trouble is,adding two months to your cherry-pick does not even address his point,which will be checkable at the end of this year,not before.

    His larger point,that a long term -i.e.,climatologically meaningful- trend will show warming,is still true even this far out from the end of this year. Unless the climate system demonstrates some behavior that has never been seen in the modern record,that is. Not impossible,but you’d hate the mechanisms that delivered such abrupt change.

    La Nina is on track to break down by winter according to the folks who track this stuff. Even if we get a rare re-development,why be so confident that it means anything more than the usual..it’s weather. La Nina does not cool the planet,it typically cools parts while warming others.

  25. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    So what the paper is saying is that the warming is continuing because the trend continues upwards and over a long period of time is still statistically significant.

    What you are saying is that the trend has reversed, but to back this up in the manner of the paper you would have to show that it is part of a larger statistically significant cooling trend. It isn’t. Therefore it’s noise. A check of the trend over a statistically significant period of time still shows warming.

    I enjoy watching how the brain of a moron operates.

  26. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Not the 9 in all your graphs.

    You just argued that six years is enough to infer cooling, you dope.

    I’m showing you that you can use short term data to show anything. It’s meaningless. It’s noise. Long term it all shows warming.

    What part of this don’t you understand?

  27. tones9

    It doesn’t matter how many times I have to repeat it, Rich is incapable of learning.
    Such a simple mind.
    There are 10 years in a decade.
    Not the 9 in all your graphs.
    Please keep going with Rich stats.
    I enjoy watching how the brain of a moron operates.

  28. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    heavylambs wrong yet again.
    2001-2007 did cool.

    By your own argument that isn’t statistically significant or enough to infer a trend.

  29. tones9

    heavylambs wrong yet again.
    2001-2007 did cool.

    And you call cooling a warming pause??
    Please tell when will warming resume?
    Are we experiencing accelerated warming?
    Where is all the warming inertia?

    So the IPCC’s authority is paramount when it assesses science, but is meaningless when it selects a dataset? Should we disregard all judgements of the IPCC?

  30. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    And another one.

    So by your own rules it’s still warming.

  31. Rich Uncle Skeleton
  32. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Goodness.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, it’s almost like cherypicking for such short periods doesn’t work.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 it’s almost like you can use statistics over short periods to show anything you want.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, it’s almost like you need longer periods to infer whether it is statistically significant or not.

  33. tones9

    Please keep it coming Rich, this is so much fun!
    “especially since at the end of the year the 2002-2011 period will almost certainly show warming. I wouldn’t say that is statistically significant however, but if we look at it as part of the larger trend – it will show warming.”

    Let’s see now. Two months into 2011, the trend from 2002 is MINUS 0.08 C.
    That’s nearly TRIPLE the cooling trend! Great work Rich.

    The cool start to 2011 (anomaly 0.2C) will continue as the la Nina continues.
    So by the end of this year, the cooling trend will be even greater.
    The exact opposite to Rich’s analysis/prediction/opinion/BS.
    Please give us more Rich stats.

  34. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Next Tones9 will argue that it’s cold today therefore it’s cooling.

  35. heavylambs

    “In 2008,sceptics claimed correctly cooling since 2001” What a sad and pathetic offering. Yep,they sure like saying meaningless things,those “sceptics”. They are very good at unwittingly noting that the signal of interannual weather variability exceeds the signal of GW every year. While they were busy unwittingly noticing that,the global temperature kept rising at a scale that was meaningful in terms of climate. Where were all those “sceptics” claiming warming from 2001-2006,2001-2007,or 2007 to 2010 according to HADCRUTv3? Why do these periods have no message for “sceptics”?

    Tones needs to understand what an error margin/uncertainty value is. The uncertainty value for his preferred dataset is +/- 0.1C. Claiming climatic significance for ten years of weather data is poor enough,but claiming cooling when his figure [0.03] is well inside to such an error band is unjustifiable. All you can say with real scientific caution,from HAD CRUT, is that warming of the atmosphere just above the surface has paused,according_to_that_metric_alone. Given the other three metrics show,within their uncertainties,that atmospheric warming continues,it just as feasible to say with your preferred incaution that warming continues.

    There is very little justification for asserting that the globe is cooling if only one of the four data sets “supports” your argument,and that data set is the one that samples the least area. In fact there is no reasonable justification at all. Lack of justification would never inhibit you though would it,Tones?

    There is very little justification for acting as though,since the IPCCs occasional reports use HADCRUTv3, HADCRUTv3 takes precedence in the field. In fact there is no reasonable justification at all. The IPCC is simply an information node that takes a snapshot of the state of the science up to a year before publication.

    Tones needs to understand the take-home form Fawcett & Jones. (Hint.It’s in the title)
    And in the bland observation “there is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away”. However little it takes,eh,Tones?

  36. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward.

    So what the paper is saying is that the warming is continuing because the trend continues upwards and over a long period of time is still statistically significant.

    What you are saying is that the trend has reversed, but to back this up in the manner of the paper you would have to show that it is part of a larger statistically significant cooling trend. It isn’t. Therefore it’s noise. A check of the trend over a statistically significant period of time still shows warming.

    Only a fool would cherry pick a small period and argue that it’s cooling, especially since at the end of the year the 2002-2011 period will almost certainly show warming. I wouldn’t say that is statistically significant however, but if we look at it as part of the larger trend – it will show warming.

    It’s also highly ironic that you are arguing the warming trend from 1995 isn’t enough to prove statistical significance, but the trend from 2001-2010 is on one dataset is.

    Your methods are the very definition of cherry-picking.

  37. tones9

    It’s a bit rich for Rich to talk statistics when he has demonstrated he doesn’t know how many years are in a decade, or how to read a simple graph.

    But I suppose a pathological liar has no limits to their dishonesty, nor are they aware of their inferior logic.

  38. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, if we go 2001-2011 it shows warming.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, if we go 2001-2010 on GISS it shows warming.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, if we chose any year in the past 10,000 except recent peak years it would show warming.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, it’s almost like cherypicking for such short periods doesn’t work.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 it’s almost like you can use statistics over short periods to show anything you want.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, it’s almost like you need longer periods to infer whether it is statistically significant or not.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 0.03 is not statistically significant and it hasn’t cooled.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 the last nine hottest years were in the last decade.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 you should learn about statistics.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9, the BoM weren’t saying that ten years was statistically significant, they were saying that the warming had continued and it just added to the trend.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 but it isn’t cooling and there is no statistically significant cooling trend.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 you are taking the work of something that shows the opposite and distorting the meaning to support your preconceived opinion.

    To repeat slowly for Tones9 you are a cherry picker and a liar.

  39. tones9

    To repeat for heavylambs, Hadcrut is the official dataset used by the IPCC for 20th century temp analysis and trends.

    In 2008, sceptics stated correctly cooling since 2001. It was -0.04C /dec.

    In response the BoM produced this paper showing 1998-2007 warmed by 0.03C/dec, and concluded: There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward.

    Now, 2001-2010 has cooled by 0.03C/dec. This is exactly the same trend which the BOM used for its conclusion.

    Therefore using the same decadal time period, same trend, and same language: “There is justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 2001-2010 is downward.”

    heavylambs should go away to learn what a decade is, and how to read a linear trend, before exhibiting embarassing ignorance.

  40. heavylambs

    The ‘BOM paper’ does not show that at all,tones, Jones claimed ten years was “about” sufficient for the trend to “emerge from”,not “eliminate”,the noise. To suggest that 0.02 or 0.03 is signally significant is just dishonest. And yet again,you chose the one metric-the one which excludes high latitudes- that you think supports your folly. The other three [UAH,RSS,NASA GISS] surely deserve your tenacious support for showing the opposite,no? Cherry picked period,cherry-picked data source,wilful ignorance of margins of error and what do you get? One stubborn idiot with a stupid,dishonest,unsupportable conclusion.

    The Fawcett & Jones paper was written precisely because of idiots like you having a lend of themselves over the 1998-2007 period…yet you seek to excise one comment and manipulate it into supporting your effort to attempt the absurd over 2001-2010.

    Stop making a fool of yourself. Now.

  41. tones9

    As ususal Rich surpasses himself for stupidity.
    I did not claim the last decade was 1998-2007.
    The last decade was not 2000-2009 which Rich graphs 3 times to demonstrate his mental disability.
    The last decade was 2001-2010.
    It shows cooling.
    We finally have consensus with everyone here except the very slow Rich.

    The BOM paper shows 10 years is sufficient to eliminate noise and determine a global warming/cooling trend.
    From it we can conclude “There is justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 2001-2010 is downward.”

  42. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    No wonder Tones9 wasn’t keen to link back to his BoM reference as it basically says the opposite of what he says it does.

    How very surprising that Tones9 would cherrypick the years 1998-2007 and claim that it was the last decade. Here I was thinking he was an upstanding citizen and not a reality-denying troglodyte.

    Anyway, let’s look at the years 2000-2010 on Wood For Trees using the GISS dataset set to a linear trend so Tones9 can’t lie about cooling. Yes, it shows warming. As he argues that this is statistically significant (and I would disagree) it destroys his argument.

    Don’t like GISS? How about HADCRUT? Or UAH?

    Playing by Tones9 rules they all show warming!

    Tones9 is a liar and a cherry picker. In other breaking news, the sky is blue.

  43. twobob

    tones9

    I truly feel for you, does that guff work elsewhere buddy?

    Are you trying to tell me that your anomaly plot is evidence of the poles losing ice?

    Boy your dumb.

  44. heavylambs

    “Heavylambs should learn to read previous posts” Ordinarily,you couldn’t afford my rate,Tones..but lucky you!

    So I trawl back to find you have lifted David Jones statement from the intro to “Still Waiting for Global Cooling”,an article he penned in April 2008 with Robert Fawcett at the National Climate Centre. The paper indeed contains the bit you like ,but it dismisses zombie arguments such as yours for the period it covers, 1998-2007, nonetheless.

    Again,a signal “emerging” after ten years is not a signal confirmed.The WMO prefers to wait thirty years,given the known influences of longer pseudo-oscillations like the PDO.
    Whatever,tones,given that you have not actually established a cooling trend [0.02C,uncertainty,etc],it’s moot. Given also recent ten year trends-however meaningful- in sea level [up], land ice mass balance [down],to suggest that the earth is cooling is pretty feeble. There is simply not yet evidence,no matter your fervid wishes.

    Feeble also is your handling of that recent paper on Kilimanjaro [Fairman et al 2011] which pointedly states:

    “This study addresses only the impact of deforestation on one dry season month” That leaves eleven months,wet and dry unmodelled…

    “..land use change has little effect on cloudiness and rainfall at elevations in excess of 4000m,and is not expected to impact glaciers in the summit zone of Kilimanjaro in the dry season.The effect in other seasons requires further investigation” They make NO connection between glacial state changes on Kilimanjaro and landuse changes which may -may- influence precipitation at altitudes below 4000m.

    IOW,you,like Watts and implicitly Roger “comments off” Pielke Sr who facetiously promoted this study as something it was not,have completely misrepresented its findings. How very surprising.

  45. Angra

    Eponymous – Professor Bollokovich is well regarded in the Russian academic community.

    References –

    “Breastfeeding practices in Modern Russia” – Professor Norah Teetov

    and –

    “Successful Russian birth control methods” – Dr Kutchyourkokov.

  46. Eponymous

    I did see that Angra. I just don’t know what to say. The whole AGW debate is tending post-modern these days and I don’t know what’s true and who’s joking any more.

  47. Angra

    Eponymous – did you miss this?

    World-renowned climate scientist Professor Emeritus Iva Bollokovich of the Russian Academy for Meteorological Science has confirmed today that conditions are ripe for glaciers to reform in the area to the immediate north of Moscow and predicts that they will rapidly advance in the coming winter to wreak devastation on the city and it’s surrounding areas.

    He states that this is a direct consequence of AGC (Anthropogenic Global Cooling).

    Source : Pravda-Nyet

  48. Eponymous

    It’s excellent that this thread is still going. Well done everyone for your persistence.

    So there’s a cooling trend for the last 10 years. Orsm. What about the last 15? Any comments there? Do you consider a longer run trend more or less significant Tones?

  49. tones9

    Rich still can’t read a graph.
    Rich refuses to look at a cooling trend.
    Rich refuses to look at a citation he asked for.
    Twobob is proved wrong on sea ice.
    Heavylambs should read previous posts.
    Heavylambs should learn what a decade is.
    Heavylambs should learn how to read a trend.
    Heavylambs should read BOM paper on decadal trend.
    Heavylambs should look at the entire datset to find earth warming at 0.4C per century. Scary.

  50. heavylambs

    Shock,horror…Tones9,the Antarctic SEA ice extent is anomalously low!!! 610,000 km2 down on average… clearly you must entertain the possibility that Antarctic sea ice extent is suddenly collapsing!!!!.Meanwhile Twobob was citing evidence that Antarctic LAND ice,along with Greenland LAND ice, is losing mass.

    The actual trend in Antarctic SEA ice winter extent is rather insignificant,compared with the rapid plunge in Arctic SEA ice winter,spring,summer and autumn extents…and there are some pretty good explanations for why conditions for sea-ice formation off Antarctica are enhanced in a warming environment,but I won’t waste them on you,Tonesy.

    I realise of course the way you managed to see ‘global cooling in the IPCC dataset’,by using HADCRU from 2001 to the first two months of 2011 inclusive.You ended up with a massive cooling trend of 0.02C or so over your cherry period.This is not only too short a period according to WMO considerations,but the number is not outside the margins of uncertainty to claim cooling anyway. Add the twelve months of 2000 and suddenly we’re warming by 0.5C! Wonders never cease… what would happen if you looked at the entire data set? Like rational folks.

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/29/and-now-tony-abbott-misrepresents-flannery-will-the-media-call-him-on-it/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.