Dreadful Heat, Dire Science, Dim Hacks

dreadful heatIt’s hard to be a CAGW sceptic. Just when you think all the ducks are lining up, at a moment when no serious person could invest the slightest credence in catastrophrianism’s sky-is-falling predictions and busted prophecies, summer gets hot, as its wont, and all the usual suspects are speed dialling boy and girl reporters to dictate the last update on the planet’s imminent, heat-addled demise. And we were so close, too, when last week’s Dreadful Heat (™) revived the climate careerists, academic fabulists, grant-snaffling rent-seekers and subsidy hogs.

Think about it: the strongest recorded El Nino only causing the globe to warm by a miniscule amount (less than the margin for error); Donald Trump elected on a promise to tear up the Paris climate agreement; new revelations about the settled science of climatological back-stabbing and skulduggery; more blackouts due in no small part to renewable energy’s impact on the electricity grid and market.

Why, even Malcolm Turnbull was extolling the virtues of coal, albeit “clean coal” and its cousin, “pumped hydro”, a prime ministerial endorsement suggesting the smart money is preparing to mine yet another corner of the public purse.

Then along comes Sydney’s ‘hottest summer on record’ to dominate the nightly news.  I’m taking about NSW, but I guess it’s pretty much the same story everywhere else — apart from Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, where summer so far as been a cool disappointment for beachgoers and those who appreciate cool drinks with little umbrellas in them.

The weather soon returned to normal, but by then the doomsayers and their stenographers were off and running, yelping alarums to every sympathetic journalism-school graduate they could find. As demonstrated by today’s ABC headline, “Climate change: Scientists sad, frustrated as extreme weather becomes the new norm“, the usual suspects couldn’t have moved any faster toward the nearest microphone than if the visiting Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann was offering the hem of his garment for media slobbering.

As it happens, the press pack would have had to take a number and wait its turn, as Fairfax’s Peter Hannam was first in line — and seemingly determined not to mention anything negative about the jet-setting carbon-belcher’s dubious science, his involvement in Climategate, or the defamation action against Mark Steyn for branding a huckster and disgrace to science as exactly that. Deliciously, Hannam reported the author of so much fake news as being deeply troubled by … yes … “fake news.” You couldn’t make this stuff up, except that’s what their climate careerists and their toadies to every day of the week, twice on Sundays.

So forgive me, please, for being a little down in the mouth just at the moment, especially about the increasing tendency for alarmists (and their useful idiots in the MSM) to employ vague hyperbole in reporting weather events, thus avoiding the inconvenient truth that such record temperatures as we have been setting lately are meaningless, being smaller than the margin of error.

By emotive hyperbole I mean, for example, words like ‘scorcher’ or ‘sizzler’ to describe days that, 30 years ago, would merely have been regarded as uncomfortably hot. The latest verbal trick I have noticed this summer is the term ‘heatwave conditions’ to refer to a single day above 35 degrees. We heard it constantly last week, as in:

Residents of Australia’s East coast will suffer through scorching, “hell on earth” temperatures on Saturday as the full brunt of the lingering heatwave bites.

There are two big ‘record temperature’ stories that have dominated reporting here in NSW this summer.

We were told earlier this month that Sydney is now only one day short of equalling the record for the number of days over 35C in a single summer, that is eight days.  The record of nine days over 35C was set in 1896.  The breathless Skynews headline reads ‘Sydney summer could break 120 year record’.  Well, the record has now been surpassed.

You might well react with an unimpressed shrug and dismissive ‘so what?’  If it was that hot 120 years ago, what’s so special about now? Alas, we know that such unquestioned media barracking is also part of the ongoing narrative, which features a constant barrage of subliminal CAGW propaganda. Sadly, many unthinking punters out there will buy it — otherwise they would be up in arms about electricity bills stupendously inflated by subsidies and market distortions intended to cripple reliable energy, coal and gas, in favour of wind and solar.

Anyway, I thought it might be instructive to look at the history of Sydney summers vis a vis the number of days 35C or over since 1896.  After all, 1896 might be an outlier and 2017 the continuation of that Dreadful Heat’s (™) upward trend we keep hearing about but never seeing in the actual record, which has flat-lined for near on two decades, despite the climate establishment’s latest desperate bid to ginger up the numbers.

Here is a histogram based on BoM records:

syd 35 chartIf the number of summer days above 35C demonstrated an CAGW signal, it is not apparent from the trend line shown above.

For example, summers with more than four days above 35C are common – 24 in this 120 year period and spread throughout the timeline.  But only four have come in the last 25-odd years, the very period, we are told, of ‘ten of the hottest years on record’.

The other big story has been the record heatwave at Moree.  As I write, Moree has recorded 47 days in a row above 35C, as the SMH put it “easily breaking the record of 17 consecutive days set in 1981/82.”

Even to a confirmed sceptic, such as myself, that sounds dire, seeming as if it is some of that ‘unprecedented warming’ has finally arrived, and arrived for good. Always ready to consider evidence that might prove me wrong, I decided to take a look at the historical record for Moree and what I found was very interesting.  If you look at the BoM’s online long-term temperature record for Moree it only goes back as far as 1996.  Not much help there, so I looked at ACORN.

ACORN is the Bureau’s official subset of 122 stations that forms the basis of our national temperature record – the data that gets shunted off to NOAA so that we can claim our rightful place in this catastrophically warming world.  Moree is part of ACORN and its summary of stations shows Moree as having data back to 1910. However, when you open the datalink for Moree, it only goes back to 1957. With my limited resources I have not been able to find the data-set for Moree going back to 1910, if it exists. I wonder why not?

Anyway, I went through that data looking for long stretches over 35C.  As it happens, 1957 provides the best example but unfortunately there is no data for December 1956.  So let’s just look at January/Feb 1957. In that period, there were a total of 41 days exceeding 35C broken into stretches of 8 days, 16 days, 6 days and 11 days, these separated by three short periods of two or three days below 35C. Since the first ‘heatwave’ period started on the 1st of January, it’s entirely possible that the initial eight-day stretch may have been even longer, courtesy of December.

In practical terms, there is virtually no difference between what happened then what is happening this year. Interestingly, the January average for 1957 was 40.25, whereas for 2017 it was only 38.3.  That may not seem meaningful but when ‘climatologists’ measure global temperature records in hundredths of a degree, well two can play at that game.

I must make a confession here.  I took a small amount of licence in that I included any temperature over 34.7C (4 instances) as over 35C.  Given that Moree is part of ACORN, it has undoubtedly been manipulated (sorry, homogenized) and if they can do it, why can’t I?

Why this preoccupation with days over 35C in places as disparate as Sydney and Moree?  The reason is not hard to fathom:  35C is now the magic number the IPCC is using as a benchmark for ‘extreme weather’. The self-appointed Climate Council, under the stewardship of Tim “Empty Dams & Hot Rocks” Flannery, has issued a report, based on IPCC product, called  Cranking up the Intensity: Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events.

Among its predictions are that the number of extremely hot days — classified as maximum temperatures of more than 35C — will climb in all capital cities.  News.com.au’s Kim Stephens’ commenced her coverage of this report thus:

IMAGINE a city where 265 days a year, the temperature rises above 35C.

The residents of Darwin in 2090 will not have to imagine it, because for them, it may well be their reality.

As Australians endure the summer of the seemingly never-ending heatwave, a new report from the Climate Council essentially has one message.

Get used to it.

Other prognostications in the Climate Council report are that:

 …in Sydney, the number of hot days (>35°C) per year are projected to increase from 3 to 4 per year by 2030 (relative to 1981-2010 climate), increasing to 11 per year by 2090, under a high emissions scenario (CSIRO and BoM 2015) from 11.

For Brisbane, the numbers are said to be going from 12 per year to 18 by 2030, and 55 per year by 2090. You get the picture.

Those ‘record’ years, such as 1896, 1957 and 2017, are climate outliers, not representative of the climate in general other than as manifestations of the fact that climate can throw up anomalous years for reasons that we only vaguely understand.  They are not proof of ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ whether natural or man-made.  Nor are they part of a trend, although no one is rushing to tell you that.

70 thoughts on “Dreadful Heat, Dire Science, Dim Hacks

  • en passant says:

    It looks like this homogenisation and fabulism has made you hot under the collar. (Cue the MacD and Jody any moment now. I bet neither of them can avoid making a comment on your article. Bets anyone?)

    One statistical point you raise interested me about the total number of ‘hot’ days separated by a couple of cooler ones. I was recently reading a sporting record in which a player won 58/60 matches, but did not hold the ‘World Record’ for wins as his longest winning stretch was 27, while another player had achieved a winning streak of 33, yet had a total record of 61/73. Clearly he persevered for too long.

    So, why don’t we ‘hide the decline’ by removing Bradman’s last innings as that makes the record just that much better …
    Oh, I know, because we are using real, raw data and are not pseudo-scientists fudging the records to prove the result we were granted to produce.

    Having travelled the world, my coldest day was -31C in Russia and my warmist (sic) was 56C. That would easily be a world record, but it was a temperature taken 1m above the sandy ground and in the sun (as there was no shade). This was the true temperature at that point as it had to be taken there so we could determine the expansion of a metal tape measure.

    If mankind (trigger warning) can survive and thrive in such an 87C range why are the fabulists worrying about 2C? That is a change of <0.7% on the Kelvin scale.
    If life is so fragile, then GUYS, it deserves to become extinct.”

  • Peter OBrien says:

    Dear Readers, I noticed a mistake in my text. The article says there were 24 instances where number of summer days over 35C exceeded 4. That should have been 3. My apologies. My point stands though.

    • padraic says:

      I was also puzzled by the reference to 1896 by the catastrofarians. What was the cause of high temperatures at that time? Coal-burning power stations, motor car exhausts, jet aircraft full of green activists criss-crossing the globe, aerosol sprays?? It would be interesting to know. The histogram above in the article says it all. I have found that in Australia that in summer it gets hot and in winter it gets cold and nothing appears to have changed. My first conscious experience of a “heat-wave” was in 1946-1947 at the end of the big drought in Australia. Since then I have experienced occasional cool summers and warm winters – so what’s the big deal? The poor darlings brought up in air-conditioned comfort are obviously feeling uncomfortable and who better to blame than those ecological vandals of parents and grandparents. The other aspect is that commercial media depends on the advertising dollar and products associated with sunshine are more likely to sell than those next to stories of rape and pillage and other horrors. No wonder commercial TV news has about 4 boring segments about the weather.

      • PT says:

        Ohhh, “Padraic” (clearly named after that evil Brit Imperialist) and O’Brian (clearly a decedent of that evil “Christian Imperislist” Brian Boru! Oh dear. We can’t possibly listen to what either of you have to say. Of course if someone who identified as aboriginal moaned about mining under Corenation Hill (which had a mine 30 years before) or some “Islamic objection” (which no non-Muslim could understand) your views would be secular “holy writ”!

  • PT says:

    Presumably they’re aren’t enough over 100F. I remember there was 6 years with no days over that “magical” number in Perth in the late ’90’s. Out of “character” for summer here, but totally ignored. More recently a few days of 40+ and “evidence” of warming. I don’t even know where to start!

  • exuberan says:

    The Australian weather has always been variable, even more so lately it seems. Yet here we are basing our future energy needs on so called Renewable Energy which itself is subject to this very same volatile variabilty.

    It is enough to make an Onion cry

    I am reminded of the Cook Arthur on the Good Ship Venus, Jay AllWeather could use an Arthur

    ‘Arthur the Cook, boy what a Farter.
    When the wind wouldnt blow and the ship wouldnt go
    They used to get Arthur the Farter to start her’

    • Jody says:

      My relatives in the Riverina, NSW, still speak about playing cricket on the Murrumbidgee River bed during the 1930s. I also read a sad anecdote written by a local historian – in a book sitting on my aunt’s bookcase – about a heatwave (temperatures in the mid 40s)in Griffith in the early 1920s. A family had a 6 week old child and was living in a hut just outside Griffith. The heatwave killed the child and before the father could build a coffin to bury the infant in the Bagtown cemetery the weather had turned so cold it required the fuel stove to warm them. The next child born after this tragedy became my late father’s best friend.

      I have to say the searing temperatures of late here in the Hunter have been frightening, and many of our shrubs have died from that and a complete lack of rain for months. When we lived on the farm I well remember this kind of weather in the early 1980s. Back then we had intensive livestock to keep alive – and that wasn’t easy.

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    North America and Europe have been experiencing a particularly harsh winter and extreme cold, causing great economic disruption as well as many fatalities. Strange, is it not, that those “inconvenient” facts we’re almost completely ignored by our MSM. It wouldn’t have been very supportive of the narrative to report such disturbing events, would it? Why, some pesky people might even conclude that the “extreme weather events” of the cold variety in the northern hemisphere might serve to balance, in a statistical sense, the “horrendous heatwaves” we encountered here. Such “regressive” thinking must be vigorously discouraged.

    • ian.macdougall says:


      An increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere means increased heat absorption, which shows up as increased atmospheric energy. Thus it is quite possible for this to result in increased atmospheric circulation, dragging more cold air than normal up from Antarctica, and resulting in snowfalls on the mountains in Tasmania. Have a look at any recent weather map, such as http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/4day_col.shtml

      (But please don’t tell this to KK, as I am afraid he might cackle himself into apoplexy.)

      • en passant says:

        I win again as I predicted that neither Jody nor The MacDougall could resist giving us their wisdom. My hypothesis is proved by prediction and observable results.

        The downside is that the MacD did not refute any point that Peter made but (naturally/always) hijacked the discussion thread back into his mantra: “An increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere means increased heat absorption, which shows up as increased atmospheric energy.” – which is the reason for the freezing winter in Europe.

        Is someone paying him to do this as it is obsessive behaviour?

        One could ask “What time is it MacD?” and the reply would be “The answer is an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere means increased heat absorption, which shows up as increased atmospheric energy.”

        “What do you think of the likelihood of interplanetary travel, MacD?” “The answer is an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere means increased heat absorption, which shows up as increased atmospheric energy.”

        So, when I request some enlightenment by asking:
        1. “What is the ideal global average temperature?” the MacD avoids the trap and answers: “The answer is an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere means increased heat absorption, which shows up as increased atmospheric energy.” and

        2. “What is the ideal concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that you seek?” the MacD avoids the trap and answers: “The answer is an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere means increased heat absorption, which shows up as increased atmospheric energy.”

        One size and one answer fits all questions, just as one would expect in a cult.

  • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

    Enjoyed your article Peter. But don’t we, us sceptics, need to get our story straight? The satellite record since 1979, which I think we can rely on, shows a trend line warming to the present of about 0.4 degrees.The longer land/ocean record going back to 1850 (at its longest), which is less reliable and may have been fiddled a bit, shows a rise approaching 1 degree over this whole period – or it did, I think, when I last looked. It has warmed therefore. The question, of course, is why. And then there is the important question of what we should do about it even if CO2 is the culprit. Clearly what we shouldn’t be doing is putting in place measures which are expensive, unreliable and ineffective. My point is whether the water should be muddied by questioning whether it has got warmer.

    • ianl says:

      Yes, the question of attribution (ie. how much, if any, of the perceived 0.8C increase over 150 years is due to human activity) is much discussed in the literature. The IPCC currently says “about 50%”, but it changes its’ mind often. There are now literally hundreds of papers claiming various attribution levels from 10% to 90% but no killer app, as it were. Even so, this is persuasive of lukewarmer status only.

      It never seems to occur to the MSM that a phrase such as “hottest/coldest or whatever in 120 years” simply invites the question: “So what was the atmospheric CO2 level then ?”. The Vostok ice core data is interesting here but the meeja seems unable to grasp this.

    • Peter OBrien says:

      Peter, I was not questioning the fact that it has got warmer (slightly), which I accept. I was merely pointing out that these recent ‘extreme’ temperatures are not evidence of CO2 induced warming (as claimed b alarmists) but are just natural events that have occurred in the past. For CO2 induced warming to be detectable as such, it must be unprecedented. Alarmists claim these recent events are unprecedented, when clearly they are not

  • Steve Spencer says:

    “By emotive hyperbole I mean, for example, words like ‘scorcher’ or ‘sizzler’ to describe days that, 30 years ago, would merely have been regarded as uncomfortably hot.”

    Actually, back when I was a lad, fifty years ago (and before then), these temperatures would have been described as ‘summer’.

  • Rob Brighton says:

    When weather is conflated with climate change you know you are listening to someone on the make.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Bill Martin

    I agree the cold in the north would tend to balance the heat in the south but there is an argument the heating in the south is causing the cold in the north.


    • ianl says:

      This may amuse you, Keith:

      Mackintosh, A.N, Anderson, B.M, Lorrey, A.M, Renwick, J.A., Prisco Frei, & Dean, S.M., Regional cooling caused recent New Zealand glacier advances in a period of global warming. Nature Communications, February 2017

      nature-communications-feb-2017 (PDF)

      NZ glaciers, South Island, are gaining ice mass during the “hottest evaah period since records began”. The MSM/activist hyperbole is utterly boundless and completely shameless. Hypocrisy is so deeply embedded that I’m of the view that the swamp cannot be drained.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    I take it Mackintosh et al are not among the 97% of scientists endorsing global warming.


    The swamp is more likely to freeze if these rogues are right.

    • padraic says:

      Talking about freezing swamps reminds me of a situation that would strike terror into the hearts of the catastrofarians. Some years back my wife visited some friends in north Canada where the husband was involved in putting in an oil pipeline (gasp, choke) across difficult terrain, including swamps. They had to wait until winter when they could take the vehicles out to the spots where they could drill down and install piers to support the pipe.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    This site is becoming a source of great mirth.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    I just love the term catastrofarians.

    Here we could adapt it to MacCatastrofarians.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Not bad.
      But as a term, it gets Trumped (pun intended) by ‘denialostriches’: from the Ostrich School of Climatology.
      But let me make one point clearly, and I think we can all agree on it. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) could not possibly be happening, because if it was, it would be bad for established business: particularly the coal business.
      End of story.
      Postscript: that is also why renewables are the pits, and have flies all over them.

      • en passant says:

        I am with you on this: please support my call for Nuclear Power in Oz and a phasing out of coal. Please reply and give your unequivocal support to the zero CO2 technology.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    As opposed to catastrafarans who have their heads in the clouds?

    • padraic says:

      I have to say that this is my first and last foray into the climate debate. I hope I was not too cynical but I have been trying to make sense of it all since Rio in 1992 but am still none the wiser. It seems that all sides are firing models at each other at 50 paces with no obvious outcome. Some time back it was predicted (dates given, it appears) that the dams would not fill again so we built salt to freshwater converter plants which are mothballed. Other predictions with dates also failed. It is getting to a point where there is emerging a secular version of the religious group’s predictions of the end of the world or less serious catastrophes where people stock up on food etc or mass suicide in anticipation. In these cases the predicted day always passes without incidence. I would be prepared to believe anything, including climate change caused by man, provided there is enough rational evidence for the average person to comprehend. The trouble with models predicting the future in this situation is that you get confounding factors such as poor model design, volcanoes all going off at once or sunspot activity, meteor strikes and such like. So, over and out with climate change for me.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    And not one mention in the link anywhere of proof linking warming to man made co2 emissions … again just more blowhard bs assertion.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    And of course no mention of the pause.

  • mgkile@bigpond.com says:

    John Reid’s recent peer-reviewed paper concludes there is NO significant trend in global average temperature.

    “The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.”

    John Reid
    First Published December 28, 2016 research-article

    The HadCRUT4 time series of 166 annual values of global average temperature was analysed both deterministically and stochastically and the results compared. The deterministic model comprised the sum of a linear trend and a multi-decadal oscillation fitted by ordinary least squares regression. The stochastic model was an ARMA(1,2) model with a drift term included. The deterministic model showed a linear trend of 0.5℃ per century while the stochastic model showed no significant drift. In both cases, the residuals were tested for self-correlation using standard statistical tests. The residuals from the deterministic model were significantly self-correlated whereas those from the stochastic model were not. We conclude that the stochastic model was a much better fit to the data and that the apparent linear trend of the deterministic model was spurious and a consequence of performing a regression in which time was the explanatory variable.

  • ian.macdougall says:


    It is probably true that while icecaps remain at the poles and on the Himalayas there will be “NO significant trend in global average temperature.”
    BUT apparently nobody told King Neptune.
    Since UofC records began in 1994, sea level has been on a continual rise. WITHOUT any ‘pause’. (KK please note.)

    HOWEVER, if the priority is to get all the coal through the furnaces, up the smokestacks and converted into $$$$ asap, then nothing much else matters.
    Certainly not rationality.

    Links follow to avoid this being parked in the ‘awaiting moderation’ bin.

    • en passant says:

      Did you forget to give your unequivocal support for the nuclear option so we can leave the coal in the ground?

      Why do you continually rabbit on forward, ever forward, yet you remain in the same place, never answering any valid question, but ALWAYS repeating your mantra. What is it about your psychological makeup that makes you seek to portray yourself as a fool?

      The foundations of my new home, 1.5 m above high tide have been laid.

  • Keith Kennelly says:


    There you go again.

    The first link uses terms like’estimates’ , ‘subtracted seasonal variations’ ( one assumes estimates), ‘new models’
    Ie wild homonegised data guesses. References to NOAA and NASA, old climate alarmists.

    The second link talks about ‘NOAA researchers (after) corrected for bias, found oceans had warmed 0.22 F degrees per decade’

    That 1.6 decades data (corrected) and includes’modelled estomates from1970 – 1999.

    Again sourced from NOAA.

    The third link is a newspaper report from the Doyanof climate impartiality the NBC. And it ‘explains’ the originsl and discredited NOAA report.

    Really Ian laughable … again. You’ve got to understand some of us actually read the links you post and all are from noted alarmists and either discredited or full of models or homogenising data.

    You just show you are not objectively reading the links.

    And it’s always the same.

    In future I’ll not bother reading your links … past experience show they are of dubious nature and intentionally misleading.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Not NBC, BBC

  • ian.macdougall says:


    If the future of this planet depended on my ability to convince the denizens of this antiscientific site that the 198 scientific organisations worldwide were probably right and their ‘sceptic’ selves were probably wrong, I would long ago have become a beachcomber. The (probably politically innocent) scientists who joined Hadley and NOAA must have had no idea about the leech-infested swamp they were entering into.
    The moment you question the presumptions and rights of Big Coal you have got a fight on your hands. Their profitability has to trump everything else, including the futures of the descendants of today’s climate ‘sceptics’.
    The proof of this is one this very site, in its archive of articles not only supporting fossil carbon, but more significantly, denouncing renewables.
    Now if I was a ‘conservative’ convinced that climatology was a total sham, I would probably none the less be in favour of renewables, if only because they would help the fossil carbon reserves last longer, and enable them to be put to better uses than energy generation. But there is a plethora of articles on this site denouncing renewables, as if they were the creatures of the Antichrist, and straight out of the Book of Revelation.
    This makes no sense at all unless primacy is given to converting all that fossil carbon into $$$$ as soon as possible. No sense at all.
    (To keep this post out of the ‘awaiting moderation’ bin, links will follow.)
    Ergo, for these people, short-term profitablity trumps everything else.

    AGW just has to be wrong, because if it was right, it would be very bad for established business, and particularly for the coal business.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Nice way of avoiding the repudiation of the links you listed.

    Make a generalised ad hom attack.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Nice way of avoiding the repudiation [!!!!] of the links you listed.

      In your post of February 19, 2017 at 4:44 pm, you ‘repudiated’ all that in the following terms:
      “References to NOAA and NASA, old climate alarmists.” Etc, and the rest in that vein.
      Sorry to have to be the one who tells you this, Keith, but that is not ‘repudiation’, however defined, and it is certainly not refutation. It is mere dismissal: refusal to consider the evidence; exactly what an ostrich might do by sticking its head back under the sand.
      ‘Climategate’ was a total beat-up, and a British Parliamentary inquiry found in favour of the agencies involved. So that worn out old nag will have to be put out to grass. Unless of course, you wish to ‘repudiate’ the Mother of Parliaments.

      We do not have a sister planet to run controlled experiments on. The best we can do is set up the most sophisticated computer models we can of planet Earth and run those. But they are actually quite good, and as you would know variants can be used to make quite good weather predictions, as used by TV weather presenters and others.
      I think also that you have a unique and personally customised definition of ‘ad hominem’: a real one-off. Might pay you to look it up.

      • en passant says:

        You say (with a sneer) “Nice way of avoiding the repudiation of the links you listed.”, yet you have not accepted my easy money for you $1,000 bet, nor have you supported the low CO2 nuclear option

        You are just a hydro and blowhard windbag troll.

        Cue Jody …

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Refer John Reid’s paper published 22 Dec 2016.

    That repudiated NOAAs claims of no side.

    If modelling was so good how come they didn’t predict the pause?
    And where the f are those intense and more frequent cyclones?

    • ian.macdougall says:

      What ‘pause’?
      But I think you have missed the main issue here. Those behind the Climategate ‘revelations’ should have been properly recognised for the heroes they allegedly were. They should have been given medals and awards galore; Nobels all round, even. Instead, it has all been allowed to sink without a trace. On their unrecognised behalf, I ask: why?
      Meanwhile, practically everywhere in the world, the alpine glaciers are steadily melting.
      What you are asking for is a gigantic leap of faith: that we can convert all the world’s coal into CO2, run it up smokestacks into the atmosphere, and expect it not to trap heat, which scientists from Fourier on have been showing it is quite good at. And successive Australian governments have been dragged reluctantly to festivities like the Paris Climate Summit, there to water down as best they can whatever agreement is drafted, with ever-dwindling political support for their coal exports.
      Can’t they see that climatology is all just a great grant-driven SWINDLE and CON?
      What is wrong with them?
      Perhaps the cheapest way out is for all climatologists to be offered (free) some nice bundles of coal shares, funded by fossil carbon sales.
      Yeah. That’s it!
      After all, every man has his price.
      But that still leaves the problem of how to stop those damned renewables. They are spreading like a plague everywhere one looks.
      Perhaps the best answer is to draft yet another denunciation of them for publication in this journal, to add to the 16 or so already in the archive.
      That’s it!
      If at first you don’t succeed, try the same thing again; and again; and again…

  • en passant says:

    If you want electricity, without coal, will you support nuclear, or are you all just hydro and wind?

    I am taking bets that there will be no unequivocal answer yes or no

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Ahem Maccatastrafarian, a significant Glacier in NZ is growing.

    Damn you en p the odds would be too short!

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Reply posted: ‘awaiting moderation’.
      And a merry Christmas. Whichever comes sooner.

      • Roger Franklin says:

        Ian, as I’ve told you several times: fix your bloody computer. You’re the only poster whose contributions get swallowed by the spam filter. The only one! The fact that you’re a warmist ratbag has nothing to do with it. Indeed, I’d prefer to see as many of your climate epistles on the site as possible. Like the pardoners of old, they are a reminder that your Church of Climate Change is in grave need of a sceptic Luther to quit the fold and nail his theses to door of Settled Science. The first would say, “I was a dill, but now reason and the malodorous pong of my former colleagues have driven me unto the light.”

        • ian.macdougall says:


          Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but the mainstream ‘settled science’ has gone 180 degrees the other way. That is why the Coalition politicians got dragged kicking and screaming to the Paris Summit. And time is neither on their side, nor on that of your Ostrich School of Climatology.
          To put the position of the said Ostrich School as simply as possible: the CO2 and other gaseous industrial products we are pouring into the atmosphere cannot possibly be changing the global climate, because if they were, it would be bad for established business.

          And as my computer works quite well in the comment boxes of three other sites I regularly drop into (urls on request) I would respectfully suggest that it is your spam filter that needs the makeover, not my computer.

          Link follows.

  • en passant says:

    Do you support zero CO2 Nuclear, or are you just a hot air balloon of H2S (pun intended).

    You never provide an answer, yet rabbit on to a destination you cannot name.

    Concrete floor 1.5m above high tide being laid this week. Frighten me if you can, or would you like to buy my place – going cheap at low tide …

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    The world I see Ian is a world rejecting the propaganda of the catastrafarian.

    Even federal labor are stepping away from their policy of 50% renewables. In Western Australia they’ve ditched it openly.

    Why? They won’t get elected spruiking such madness … people are looking at the cost of the catastrafarian madness.

    Donald Trump was elected promising to close down the funding for catastrafarianism.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      “Donald Trump was elected promising to close down the funding for catastrafarianism.”

      Well actually no. He wanted to close down climatology. He is like the captain of a ship who does not want to know its condition: like whether or not it has been holed below the waterline. And the dreadful ‘renewables’ are coming ready or not. If you want to save on your power bills, get into solar: solar hot water and solar PV. It should pay for itself in savings on grid power inside about 10 years for the average Australian house.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    “Donald Trump was elected promising to close down the funding for catastrafarianism.”

    Well actually no. He wanted to close down climatology. He is like the captain of a ship who does not want to know its condition: like whether or not it has been holed below the waterline. And the dreadful ‘renewables’ are coming ready or not. If you want to save on your power bills, get into solar: solar hot water and solar PV. It should pay for itself in savings on grid power inside about 10 years for the average Australian house.


  • en passant says:

    “Donald Trump was elected promising to close down the funding for catastrafarianism.”

    Don’t worry, Our Foreign to Oz Minister, Julie will step in and make up the shortfall with Oz taxpayer guaranteed borrowed Chinese money (just as she di with the abortionist, baby parts selling ‘Planned Parenthood’.

    NOTHING can be allowed to stand in the way of her tax-free, post-Oz UN job on the world stage.

    MacD, do you support nuclear power to replace coal?

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Ian the only practical tool The Donald has to close down the Catastrafarian climate ‘research’ and propaganda is to deny funding to the catastrafarians.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Donald Duck could instead boost funding to the Ostrich School in its various manifestations. If the research is so weak that it needs to be embedded in scare quotes, then I am sure that one or two of the 3% (= 100 – 97) of climatologists who DO NOT SUPPORT the AGW consensus would happily accept a helping of Trump’s coal money to put it out of its misery. And I am sure those individuals could take enough time off from drooling over their research grants (presumably handed to AGW supporters and opponents alike) to do so.


  • Keith Kennelly says:


    I live on a yacht, have wind power and solar and I know from personal experience when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow I have to rely on my stored battery power which, even with three deep cycle batteries, runs out pretty quickly.

    Even with the limited drain of my few hourly amps, I still have to run my Diesel engine to replenish my batteries after a couple of days.

    My hot water comes from the water cooled heat exchange when I run my diesel motor.

    And you think renewables are an answer!


    • ian.macdougall says:


      “And you think renewables are an answer!”
      Then why not install a nuclear reactor on your yacht? (You should be able to find one going cheap in some US Navy scrapyard.)
      I would suggest a location sternwards, because that would lift the bow out of the water and enhance the vessel’s potential as an icebreaker, should you incline to escape the summer heat by doing a bit of sailing in high latitudes. Plus, it would give you something warm to sit on when dodging around amongst the orcas, rogue trawlers, narwhals, Russian submarines and sperm whales.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    I reckon you might be in for a few cold showers … in winter

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Nuclear is too dear and I wouldn’t be able to visit NZ.

    According to you there will be no ice and the warmer climes will be further north and south.
    Why would I need warmth?

    Enjoy your cold showers.

  • Keith Kennelly says:


    Here is are facts you can’t explain.

    I planned to complete a passage through the North West Passage.

    It is now impossible because, like the 1960s, the NW Passage is now unable to be navigated without icebreaker assistance, all year round.

    Three years ago there was an 8 week window when it was clear of pack ice.

    In 1908 and 1909 Ronald Amusden navigated the NW passage both ways in summer in an open boat.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Here is are (sic) facts you can’t explain.

      Wrong. They are explainable, given that AGW increases the internal energy of the atmosphere. AGW is revealed in sea level rise, details at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ .
      And I am sure that you can rise to the challenge of converting your vessel into an icebreaker.

  • en passant says:

    Damn it, I win again.

    The MacD cannot name its ideal destination for CO2 or global temperature, but it is redoubling its trolling efforts to get there, wherever … For the MacD it is the mantra that counts as this bot has no self-awareness, no ability to apologise when wrong, no ability to correct any view previously expressed (it is just papered over by the different next view), no evidence of humanity.

    I suspect we have been conned and that the MacD is one of those automatic trolling machines, you know, like a Dalek. Omm, omm, ommward.

    The MacD won’t put its money where its mouth is (do any machines have mouths?) concerning its cast-iron prediction of sea-level rises (which will flood my new home) [Keith you are welcome to sail into the living room in a few months from now]. Like a machine the MacD has turned down the easy $1,000 bet, but then that is a fraction of the amount it receives from Soros organisations, Big Renewables & Rent-Seekers Inc. Omm, omm, ommward.

    The MacD does not support the minimal emissions of nuclear power, but the question is: does it support renewable whale oil & blubber candles? Has it shares in harpoon companies? Possibly. Omm, omm, ommward

    The MacD machine is wasting our time as it will answer none of these (or anyone else’s) valid questions, but will omm, omm, ommward calling people despicable terms and never apologising when proven wrong. Omm, omm, ommward, it is the trolling bot way.

    The problem is, that if the machine is not challenged with reality, then its views remain the apparent refutation for posterity of quality articles published here. The MacD machine ‘wins’ by default by destroying rational and intelligent debate that the majority on this site engage in.

    What a grey world of hopeless totalitarian destruction the MacD dwells in. About that comparison with the Daleks …

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    So why was Amusden able to traverse the NWPassage in 1908, you know, given global warming hadn’t yet been started according to your mates?

    And why was it closed until the 1960s?

    Hahahaha. Those are commonly known facts Ian.

    Yet you claim them to be wrong.

    Is it so that you are now claiming the ‘internal energy etc is a naturally occurring event.


Leave a Reply