Ah, Al Gore’s excuse – it’s OK to lie as long as you’re lying to get people to do what you want them to do.

First, the claim that humanity is growing in unsustainable ways has been around as long as I’ve been alive and will remain long after I’m dead.

Second, the answer to unsustainable living is not to trap a large segment of the world’s population in unsustainable habits while retarding the progress of those closest to the goal of discovering and implementing sustainable practices.

Third, whether we are causing any measurable climate change or not, the answer isn’t to create a massive government entity who’s members spew carbon as they jet from one exotic location to another to talk about what we should do while we do exactly the opposite.

After all the meetings, all the propaganda, all the lies, all the accusations, has the IPCC or anyone gotten either India or China to commit to real contributions to “stopping climate change”, as if that were even possible?

Careful, Hank. If we are still recovering from an ice age the long term trend is up – a fact which may yet breathe life into greeniac alarmist crackpot theories.

There were, Richard? Phew! That’s a relief; though not heartening…

No I cannot point him in the right direction. He is probably already in the right direction.

He probably disbelieves that the climate models crunched out in the supercomputers actually reflect reality or can forecast into the deep future with any accuracy.

Maybe he basis his opinion on past climatic history when droughts have been broken and hopes this one will be also.

Maybe he realises that Australia is prone to drought because of its geographical location, corresponding to the Sahara in the Northern hemisphere.

Maybe he realises that even if the drought were to last for a while longer, it would be futile and a criminal waste of money to attempt to break the drought through cap n trade or carbon taxes.

Maybe he sees that such an action is exactly equivalent to the human sacrifices that more primitive cultures made to try and relieve similar situations.

How dare they…

“Let me make one point abundantly clear. Since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 not a single person in South Africa has died as a result of provable climate change. But thousands have died from poverty-related starvation, malnutrition and disease. How dare those who call themselves scientists deliberately suppress this information? How dare they ignore the suffering of all these people? How dare they steadfastly refuse to participate in multidisciplinary studies where their alarmist theories can be demonstrated to be without foundation?

“Climate alarmism is like a runaway fire. It started quietly with a genuine concern. It was like lighting a match beneath a pile of flammable material. The environmentalists and politicians took over. The fact that the basic science is demonstrably false is no longer an issue.”

Climate alarmism is a runaway fire
By Professor Will Alexander
Via Email, 21 August 2009
An Honest Climate Debate

For once we are in complete agreement. I dont.

In that long post of yours I noticed the following: Australia had an exceptionally warm August. It was put down to a pressure pattern and compared with a similar pattern in OCTOBER 1988. October 1988 was also very warm. That pressure pattern produces unusual warmth – So far so good.

Now comes the assertion which requires a leap in logic. “The difference of 0.31°C between the two months is close to the size of the warming trend over Australia in that 21-year period, and suggests that the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.”

I can examine the facts behind that assertion and here they are:
1. The annual trend from 1988 to 2008 0.103C/decade which would give an increase of 0.206C, or 0.21 and not 0.31, it doesnt give a similar warming trend
2. The October to October trend also doesnt give it.

To me then to suggest that “the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009″, is dubious. I may not be to you but thats the way I look at it.

As for the other points you have raised MikeE (19:54:56) has said it for me.

No one is wanting to lynch you. A person reading those exchanges might gather the impression that you were trying to put me down.

I am sure that farmers are grateful for the work you do for them. There was nothing personal in what I wanted to say.

Sometimes a layman is better at discerning the wood for the trees as that bloggers and laymen just might have have a better handle on sea ice extent than the majority of Arctic experts themselves article seems to indicate.

i wouldnt assume that, i m sure there are many who come here like myself, who seldom post, but read. Some of the more enlightening “discussions” are heated ( you should see the solar guys go at it hammer and tongs) Ive found this thread interesting. There is nothing wrong with having counter points o view. And backing up youre arguments with observations/facts. There should be diverse views on something as complex as climate.

Well thank you David and others for an interesting thread.

Humor Dedicated to Professor Alexander

HYDROLOGY
A student came to the golden gate,
his head was bent down low.
He weakly asked the man in white,
which way he was to go…

Saint Peter opened wide the gate.
and gently pressed the bell.
“Come inside and choose your harp,
you’ve had your share of hell!”

I don’t “expect blind faith”, that is abhorrent. I was quite prepared to explain and answer questions here about ‘climate science’ in general and my sphere of work/expertise in particular – land/ocean/atmosphere systems: all things water. I would add, most farmers I meet are grateful for my help.

Nevertheless, it appears that the explanations/answers are not accepted if it disagrees with the wannabe scientist’s ‘point of view’. I can’t help these people, and there appears to be preponderance here. And yes, most say I’ve got it wrong and some want to tell me how to do my job.

Best wishes

I appreciate your thoughts. I think power and control drive the ‘human condition’ Roger (with or without “AGW alarm”). I would like to be optimistic, but it’s getting ugly.

When sober science puts balanced opinion before the world for consideration then I support the world considering. Tossing a burning brand into a quiet mob camped down for the night can have only one result. Stampede. That is what has been done, and I’ll ride with those who seek to turn the mob and quiet them down

I couldn’t agree more Roger, perhaps we only need one more amigo Roy?

Problem … the mob here would only want to lynch me. So, yes – I won’t be back.

Your quip about ‘scams’ is let go for the keeper, sorry.
I will continue to do what I do best … dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s in my work. As I’ve said, it’s up to others to determine what to do about the conclusions. Sad really, I think now, more than ever, it is incumbent on genuine scientists to step in and help explain the work they do, the conclusions they make and how they can help.

I’ll leave with one question for you to ponder: How can the scientists best co-ordinate and disseminate the findings of their research, assuming what we have is not good enough?

Regards and good bye

“Corollary: I have lost count the number of times people (accountants, carpenters, doctors, truckies, engineers, teachers, mechanics, etc, etc) tell me or my colleagues how to do our jobs. Beware I should tell my plumber or mechanical engineer that they don’t know what they’re talking about.”

I take exception to this paragraph… i may not tell an accountant or a plumber or a mechanic how to do their job… But ill keep a very sharp eye on what exactly they are doing, and billing me for. It would be an extremely naive person who would blindly trust strangers. Ive certainly caught mechanics trying to pull swifties on me. And have put then straight about it in quick order.

Most people may not have the time or resources to do science themselves. But many people have diverse interests that arnt necessarily related to their occupation. Im a farmer, but for a hobby i design and fabricate expanders/compressors. I like physics, it interests me greatly. And i wouldnt tell you how to do your jobs, but if you’re saying you’re expecting blind faith from the likes of myself, you will be sorely disappointed.

I trust you do not mean your last comment here, David. Whilst I am on the other side of a barbed wire fence to you on AGW, I gain considerably from digesting your commentary, and find many meeting points of opinion. Perhaps the greatest divide is your belief that science (or one part of science) is acting responsibly by sounding a general alarm in the interests of mankind. I believe money and power-seeking drive AGW alarm, and that the supporting science is highly paid dressing.

AGW bears the bloodline of historical scams.

When sober science puts balanced opinion before the world for consideration then I support the world considering. Tossing a burning brand into a quiet mob camped down for the night can have only one result. Stampede. That is what has been done, and I’ll ride with those who seek to turn the mob and quiet them down… but I would miss having you and Richard to follow.

How would you have it? Suppression, censorship – I understand this has happened recently in NZ and Canada, as well as the US a few years back.

Anyway, it is still too early to be so definitive. I am waiting on more satellite data.

When you asserted;
“I just noticed the blighter is comparing October anomalies with August? Ridiculous. First thing you have got to do is compare like with like to try any meaningful analysis”
I knew you hadn’t a clue about multivariate analysis, even though you “know a bit of maths and science and can reason things out for (yourself)”

But when you say;
People can weigh the arguments and have informed debate and judgement even if (one) cannot “do” science. There is plenty of information thanks to the internet
It just demonstrates to me you are blowing smoke.

In fact, you are quite content to continue to distort and misrepresent. You only see what you want to see, Richard.

Take your blinkers off and read that link again.
Wait, let me help:

“But not all experts agree. Murray-Darling Basin Authority chief, Rob Freeman, told a water summit in Melbourne last week he believed the extreme climate patterns that have dried out south-east Australia would not prove to be permanent.

Some commentators say this is the new future. I think that is an extreme position and probably a position that’s not helpful to take,” he said, expressing confidence that wetter times would return.”

He does have to back this up though, Richard. Maybe you should point Freeman in the right direction.
My last.

Funny how in the past it was thought that Australia was prone to drought “because of its geography” . That no longer holds good apparently.

Earlier they had The “Federation drought” 1895-1902, The 1914-15 drought,
The World War II droughts 1937-45, The 1965-68 drought, Short but sharp – The 1982-83 drought, The long El Niño – 1991 through 1995. Not to mention when Australia’s interior dried out 50,000 years ago leading to the loss of more than 85 percent of it’s megafauna. For none of them was CO2 mentioned.

But these are modern times.

Correct, but they do.
Bye