"That'd be the site voted "best science blog 2008" Then. whatsupwiththat.com got 10 times more votes than realclimate.org :-)"

Yes, I noticed that - it just goes to show either (i) that if you pander to people's prejudices then you'll be wildly popular or (ii) they ran a very good voting campaign amongst the troglodytes who frequent the site. I'd be more impressed if, say Science had voted them best science blog. Ockams Razor it aint.

And "I agree things were out of hand on that thread" would be the understatement of the century. As one poster commented, the entire thing was vile. And nothing I saw on the rest of the site was any better.

"How would you feel if you were told to leave the area your family grew up in because you wanted to keep them safe from wildfire?"

I wouldn't put my family in an area where they were exposed to bushfires. Full stop. If I was going to move to the country I'd find a site in a cleared area - I wouldn't site the house amongst trees. I am actually uncomfortable in forested areas, particularly in summer. I was at a holiday town on the coast in that area a couple of weeks ago - all of the houses were built in amongst the tea-tree in the sand dunes. It was really scenic and lovely but I couldn't help thinking that a fire would go through it in seconds.

Australia has been mostly deforested over the last 200 years. That's why there are rules against clearing land.

"Someone else commented that the aborigines have used controlled burn since god knows when. Is that true?"

I've seen cool burning in Kakadu and I know it's done in the central deserts - Tony would probaly be the one to ask - but I don't know if it was done in Victoria. Funny too that the same people who are blaming "greenies" for the fires are citing Aboriginal land management practices in support of fuel reduction, when the same people are usually the ones claiming that Aboriginals didn't manage their territory and therefore had no right to not be dispossed of it and therefore had no grounds for current land rights.

Edited by Arapiles on 02/17/2009 22:51:43 MST.

"That'd be the site voted "best science blog 2008" Then. whatsupwiththat.com got 10 times more votes than realclimate.org :-)"

>Yes, I noticed that - it just goes to show either (i) that if you pander to people's prejudices then you'll be wildly popular or (ii) they ran a very good voting campaign amongst the troglodytes who frequent the site. I'd be more impressed if, say Science had voted them best science blog. Ockams Razor it aint.

I just knew you'd snip the bit where I said "not that it proves anything" :-)

The rest of your reply shows what a tangled web of motivations and emotions the political/social aspect of the carbon debate is. Thanks for your knowledge and thoughts though, I learn new things every day by asking questions.

Right, I'm off for a birthday drinkie soon, so, back to the science tomorrow. Hopefully, skots will weigh in too.

From another forum:

"Speaking of C02 levels, there was a report in the Sunday Adelaide Advertiser (sth Australia) which said the Government has launched an inquiry into its Carbon trading scheme. Apparently the liberals (opposition) are bemused and the Greens are mystified.

Oh by the way the inquiry is supposed to be secret which is probably why the report was less than a paragraph long and buried on page 27. What will come of this secret inquiry is anybodys guess."

Any further info from our Australian contributors much appreciated.

"Oh by the way the inquiry is supposed to be secret which is probably why the report was less than a paragraph long and buried on page 27. What will come of this secret inquiry is anybodys guess.""

As you will see from the following link:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/economics/EmissionsTradingScheme/index.htm

the inquiry is anything but "secret". An official request by the Federal Treasurer to one of the key parliamentary committees is hardly secretive: said committee then inviting public comment on the issue even less so. And it'd be a pretty poor secret that was known to all political parties and was published in a regional paper.

But the internet does love a good, paranoid, conspiracy theory regardless of the facts.

As I understand it the reason for the inquiry is the concern by Australian miners that an ETS would be too punitive on them.

And here's a secretive press release on the enquiry:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/economics/EmissionsTradingScheme/media/media01.pdf

Top sleuthing work there agent Arapiles.

I wonder how many submissions they are getting to terms of reference question.
Here they are.
Terms of Reference

1. The Committee will inquire into the choice of emissions trading as the central policy to reduce Australia's carbon pollution, taking into account the need to:

1. reduce carbon pollution at the lowest economic cost;
2. put in place long-term incentives for investment in clean energy and low-emission technology; and
3. contribute to a global solution to climate change.

Rog

Not a great deal of sleuthing was required as a press release on it hit my desk on Monday - it's an area of professional interest.

I've been doing some sleuthing too:

Australia regional record temperatures:

"Melbourne did in fact have a hotter day before, four years before the Bureau of Meteorology started officially recording temperatures.

As the Argus newspaper reported at the time, the temperature on February 6, 1851, soared to 47.2C, helping to superheat the fires that then roared across 10 times more land than was burned last week.

Victoria’s highest recorded temperature is still the 50.7C measured in Mildura 103 years ago.

South Australia’s is also 50.7C, recorded 49 years ago.

NSW’s is the 50C of 70 years ago.

Queensland’s is the 49.5C of 37 years ago. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html?_r=1

“It’s politically necessary, scientifically necessary and legally necessary,” said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, a plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.

"It's politically motivated, scientifically unjustified and legally ridiculous" said tallbloke, chief of himself, a contributor on backpacking light.
"Co2 a pollutant? Are they on this earth or fullers?" He added.

A representative of the Union of rhizomes, foodcrops, artichokes, cacti and triffids UR-FACT said the measure to remove co2 from the atmosphere "amounted to the mass murder of all photosynthesising lifeforms".

Vegetable Supremo Carol Browner was "unavailable for comment".

Edited by tallbloke on 02/19/2009 07:03:54 MST.

No more sodas, huh?

And a good dousing of rain too. Good news for Arapiles' folks I hope. Wrong end of the growing season though I guess.


SNOW has fallen in Victoria's alpine region just days after the state was on extreme fire alert. It follows two days of rain which eased the state's bushfire emergency.

Weather bureau duty forecaster Michael Halfpenny said with temperatures reaching a low of minus two degrees at Mount Hotham this morning, slight snowfall would have been seen.

"There would have been a few flecks this morning with a few possible showers, but it was not likely to settle," he said.

Mt Hotham recorded 1.2 mm of snow with temperatures below zero degrees from about 2am to 10.30am today, Mr Halfpenny said.

Mount Hotham Skiing Company senior marketing executive Caroline Wheatley described it as a "very light dusting" of snow.

"We woke up to it, it was a beautiful scene of flecks falling down. It was quite surprising to see that," she said.

She said it was probably the first snowfall seen in the region since November last year.

It also marks a week of weather paradoxes for Victoria, which was on extreme bushfire alert earlier in the week.

In the past two days many parts of the state have recorded high levels of much needed rain.

While central Melbourne only recorded about 4mm in the past 48 hours, Mt Dandenong saw 33mm, the Otway Ranges recorded 38mm, Mt Baw Baw recorded 34mm of rain and Marysville had 38mm.

Roger, you legend.

There's 331 posts on this thread (not counting this one) and you have made 137 of them. That's 41% of the total.

According to your profile you have made 614 posts on this site. Your 137 posts to this CFW thread represent 22% of your total output.

I see this as a case of the world getting a bloody nose from the Tallbloke. You win. There's no global warming. There's no climate change. And if there is it can only be for the better. I for one look forward to everyone in the north of Britain growing wine grapes. Aussie wine, while cheap, is no bloody good.

I read all your posts as they offer insight and vision that is beyond all the other posters to this site. You back up your arguements with some of the best cut and paste work seen on the www.

Those silly climate change alarmists Henny-Penny scientists. They must be running around like chooks with their heads cut off in the face of your well reasoned and sound research.

And don't get me started on those Victorian bushfires. I particularly like how you have pointed out that the recent cool change in Vic means that climate change is a crock and a global conspiracy.

Keep up the fight, my friend.
I for one will keep reading as long as you keep posting.

Wotcha Andrew.

"There's 331 posts on this thread (not counting this one) and you have made 137 of them. That's 41% of the total.
According to your profile you have made 614 posts on this site. Your 137 posts to this CFW thread represent 22% of your total output."

If only all human caused global warming believers paid as much attention to statistics as you do, we'd be able to come to agreement on the non-story 'climate change' is without me having to bang on about it so much.

"I read all your posts as they offer insight and vision that is beyond all the other posters to this site. You back up your arguements with some of the best cut and paste work seen on the www."

There is quite a bit of my own thought in the content of my posts, as well as quotes from elsewhere to show I'm not alone in my thinking.

"You win. There's no global warming. There's no climate change. And if there is it can only be for the better."

The climate always has changed, is changing, and always will change. And change is good, it keeps the oceanic circulation patterns and atmospheric patterns shifting, which takes fish to new feeding grounds, and ends droughts.
And thank goodness there has been global warming for the last 300 years on the average, I'd hate to have been born this far north in a world stuck in the little ice age of the C17th century. Pity the trend is reversing so soon really. I think by looking at the data the cooling will continue long beyond the present five years.

"I for one look forward to everyone in the north of Britain growing wine grapes. Aussie wine, while cheap, is no bloody good."

The quickest way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one and buy a vinyard in England. I like Aussie chardonnay as it happens, much better than any of the underpowered grape juice brewed here. You lot are no good at brewing beer though! :-)

"Those silly climate change alarmists Henny-Penny scientists. They must be running around like chooks with their heads cut off in the face of your well reasoned and sound research."

More like Ostrich than chooks. Though they do good 'chicken little' impressions with their scare stories. ;-)

The global temperature data again:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/wti/trend/plot/wti/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:2004/trend

30 year trend: Just under half a degree celcius up.
10 year trend: Slightly down.
5 year trend: Dropping rapidly.

Even alarmist scientist Swanson is saying the downtrend could continue for 30 years due to 'natural variation' Of course he won't discuss how much of the warming of the last thirty years might be due to natural variation too...

"And don't get me started on those Victorian bushfires. I particularly like how you have pointed out that the recent cool change in Vic means that climate change is a crock and a global conspiracy."

Ahhh, global conspiracy, you just gave yourself away Andrew. Rubbishing the messenger by maligning him as a conspiracy theorist. Tut tut. I think the Aussie government meteorology website (not known as a hotbed of scepticism) will confirm that rainfall over the whole continent is pretty much on the long term average for the last year. In fact, the average rainfall for Australia shows hardly any overall trend for the whole hundred years of 'global warming'.

"Keep up the fight, my friend.
I for one will keep reading as long as you keep posting."

Keep up the sarcasm Andrew.
Even though it's pretty much content free in terms of the substance of the climate debate, it's more fun to reply to than the cartoons the IPCC and the Climate Catastrophe Cowboys keep drawing.

Edited by tallbloke on 03/17/2009 04:01:40 MDT.

Hi Roger T,

>You lot are no good at brewing beer though! :-

If you are talking about Fosters beer we do not drink it in Australia, it is our export beer and the stuff you drink in the mother land is our revenge from us decedents convicts. (Foster international is not owned by an Australian company, and as I understand Fosters beer that is drunk overseas is not brewed in Australia)

>the average rainfall for Australia shows hardly any overall trend for the whole hundred years of 'global warming'.

Australia is a big place, England would nearly fit into some of our cattle stations, to say that we are having above average rainfall shows a complete lack of understanding of the Australian climate. Most of Australia is arid and semi arid climate, the east coast is currently experiencing good rain fall as are the northern areas that get monsoonal rain. Where I live in Canberra we are on permanent water restrictions, our dams are very low at 46% and falling fast, our average rainfall is is well below average and has been for many years, what rain we do get can be classed as mud as it is full of dirt that is collected from the deserts in the west. My much loved native garden is nearly dead and my lawn is nearly totally dead.

I do not accept in any way that as I live in Australia that I am experiencing above average rainfall.

And I will repeat on this thread for a third time that the climate scientists at my work believe that Global warming is real.

Tony

Hi Tony,
Several questions arise from your post, but first I want to address something you say at the very end of it.

"And I will repeat on this thread for a third time that the climate scientists at my work believe that Global warming is real."

And I will repeat for the third time on this thread that I have never said it isn't, it's just that the AGW camp haven't proved man's activities have anything much to do with it in my reading of the data.

Also, I didn't say that the rainfall in Australia was above average. I believe rainfall for the last 12 months is 90% of the longterm average.

I'm sorry to hear about the lawn. Did the aboriginal people try to keep lawns for the last few thousand years?

The reservoirs are low. What is this proof of? Less rainfall in the local area, or higher population and consumption? A bit of both probably. My point in mentioning the average for the whole continent is that we sceptics are always being told by the AGW camp that we can't select local data because that's 'just weather'. By the same token, you can't cite local drought conditions and claim it as evidence for global warming, man made or otherwise.

So what's left? The climate catastrophe theorists will play on your local difficulties with stories that 'climate change' leads to more extreme weather events etc. They have no proper evidence for this. Local droughts, mudslides, typhoons etc have always happened, and always will. The most destructive typhoon happened 70 years ago. They happen when temperature and pressure differentials are high, but those conditions can occur at any time, not because the planets is 1C warmer than it was in 1900. The world index of typhoon and hurricane energy is at a 30 year low.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/global-hurricane-activity-has-decreased-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/

I'm sure you're right about fosters though.
So, do the Aussies brew any nice real ale? :-)

"INTRODUCTION of the Federal Government’s emissions trading scheme has been delayed until mid-2011, 12 months later than originally planned.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made the announcement in Canberra today, saying the Government had also decided to increase the upper limit of its carbon reduction target range to 25 per cent of 2000 emission levels by 2020.

The Government had planned to introduce the scheme in July 2010 despite opposition from business, green groups and the Coalition.

Legislation setting up the scheme was due to be introduced to Parliament next month.

The announcement follows a decision by the Australian Greens to compromise and lower their demand for a 40 per cut in carbon emissions to 25 per cent."

Th backpedalling has begun....

Yes, and by the next election it will be promises again.

Tony

Maybe by then it'll be even more obvious that the sky isn't falling, the ice isn't all melting (global sea ice extent is above the 30 year average), and that the level of atmospheric co2 doesn't have much to do with the earth's temperature changes.

New Zealand seems to have cooled it's cap and trade approach to warming too.

Political inertia, or an awakening to reality?

Edited by tallbloke on 05/05/2009 00:41:28 MDT.

Aboriginals and bush burning.
My wife works with an Aboriginal community in Western Australia, so I asked about that.
In that region they still regularly burn off some grassed areas. The various tribes (mobs) in the area do. The purpose is the same as it always was and it is multifaceted. Without the burnings certain plants do not produce seeds or do but less prolifically , those seeds are obviously needed for new growth but also are food for the animals.
Also by burning grass and certain bushes it gives fertiliser to other plants (ashes) and gives more space/sunlight to food producing trees.
BTW, there are no "tribes" but intermingling groups of people, and there are hundreds of them. Where my wife is, most members (about 30) speak two or three languages, English being their third or fourth.

The funny part is that there are no water restrictions at all there, there is plenty of water underground.
A couple of shots I got today.
Franco
And we do have some of the best wines in the world here ( I used to be in Hotel catering in Italy and England ) and some very good beer (ale,Pilsner,lager,stout) none of them have anything to do with Foster but a lot to do with water purity ( Tasmania) as well as having migrants (and their knowledge) from all over the place. We even export truffles now, as good as it was back home.

Hi Franco. Interesting comment on the water. I know W.A. hasn't been as badly hit by drought, but do you think the bush burning contributes to better water supply too? Maybe the lower amount of brush transpires less and lets more water sink into the aquifers?