Will Steffen, the CSIRO and Gary Stix: credibility zero

In short order Will Steffen  and the CSIRO assure us that, yes, the climate is changing and, yes, it is getting warmer. Steffen states

The quintessential Australian climatic pattern of intense droughts and flooding rains will still be with us in the future. But the added risks associated with climate change make it even more important that we plan and act on a careful analysis of the risks that climate variability and climate change together bring.


This emerging pattern of long-term drying across southern Australia, exacerbated by hot days and weeks and periodically interrupted by very intense rainfall and flooding, comes as no surprise to climate scientists. It is entirely consistent with what we expect from a changing climate.

Again demonstrating that no matter what happens, climate scientists like Steffen will claim that it is entirely consistent with what they are warning and is yet further evidence of the need for decisive action against climate change.

Isn’t it nice to see Steffen with the courage and certainty of his convictions that he can remain true to his view of a dangerously warming world despite all evidence to the contrary?

He is behaving like those conspiracy theorists who persist in the belief that the Apollo moon landings were faked despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Let Steffen continue with his delusions. We would do well to ignore him just like any crank. I expect that he will be repeating the same lines in 2030 (as an 83 year old) even if temperatures have fallen since 1998.

Then we have an article in Scientific American by Gary Stix (referenced in Andrew Bolt’s blog) that is magnificent in the breadth of its lunacy. This once reputable magazine should probably be renamed to Pseudoscientific American. Anyhow, Stix wants a powerful world government to stave off climate change. One that would have every power to ensure that planet-wide atmospheric CO2 concentrations are kept to 560ppm or below (yes, the end of the world is nigh if they are 561ppm).

He writes

Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow?

Well, if he thinks that we should treat as an equal cost a planet-destroying asteroid collision in 2030 and one in 2250 that shows some disregard for those people who might live between 2030 and 2250.

And then

Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

A permanent crisis mentality lasting decades??? How to prevent a malevolent dictator abusing his powers??? Can any sane person ask such questions?

I think Stix would do well to study history and understand Lord Acton’s dictate that

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

What is it with warming alarmists that they ignore history and advocate totalitarianism? So certain and arrogant in their beliefs they are prepared to ride roughshod over free citizens. Unable to persuade the populace with a massive taxpayer-funded scare campaign, they resort to  the tactics of tyranny.

Steffen, the CSIRO and Stix have been caught crying wolf too often and we sensibly should ignore them. Sic semper tyrannis.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to Will Steffen, the CSIRO and Gary Stix: credibility zero

  1. JC

    This is truly shocking that Scientific American could publish a piece like that and there’s not a squeak from those adherents of AGW against it.

    What total disgusting frauds they are.

  2. Ripper

    I note Will Steffan is one of the guest speakers at the planet under pressure 2012 conference in London.

    Does this qualify him as an “Activist”?

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    Prof Steffen last year flew all the way to Sweden to prosecute humanity in a show trial.

    His statement for the prosecution was that scientists like him should rule the world:

    ‘The prosecution will therefore maintain that humanity must work towards global stewardship around the planet’s intrinsic boundaries, a scientifically defined space within which we can continue to develop’, claimed Professor Will Steffen

    After that little effort of burning CO2 offsets my regard for Prof Steffen hit a geologic low. As you can see, the only difference between him and Mr Stix is that Prof Steffen has already elected the global government.

  4. C.L.


    Warmenists have become the Colonel Kurtz of the scientific world.

    Well, you see Willard Sceptics… In this war, things get confused out there… power, ideals, the old morality, and practical military necessity. Out there with these natives it must be a temptation to be god. Because there’s a conflict in every human heart between the rational and the irrational, between good and evil. The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a breaking point. You and I have. Walter Kurtz has reached his. And very obviously, he has gone insane.

  5. dover_beach

    I just love this stuff; keep it coming, Steffen and Stix.

  6. brc

    I’m very curious to know if these guys fall into the category of useful idiot, or devious power seekers. You never can quite tell.

    In general, when we have someone talking about the ideal of setting up an all-powerful government that would benovolently rule in the interests of all, you’d have to lean towards useful idiot. Because a devious power hungry miscreant would be smarter than to post something as silly as that.

  7. bytheway

    Will Steffen is not a climate scientist. He is a Chemistry PhD who has done no science since his first and only post-doc appointment. He was judged not good enough for a further appointment. Since then he has been a bureaucrat with international organisations with a political commitment to environmentalism. In other words he is a politician given credibility by the Australian National University, a left wing organisation. Only lazy or ideologically committed journalists could take him seriously.

  8. Blogstrop

    Karoly, Steffen, England. Birds of a feather?

  9. Rafe

    At the risk of preaching to the converted, everyone needs to know how the climate agenda is politically driven from the IPCC. As described in excruciating detail by Donna Laframboise.

    Chapter 1 is “A closer look at the world’s leading climate body”. It is essential to realise that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political body, created by that most political organization, the United Nations to do the work of two of their subsidiary bodies, one concerned with weather and the other with the environment.

    Every country in the world sends delegates to its occasional meetings: these are political representatives, not scientists. It is a little over 20 years old, strictly speaking not a teenager any more, but you could say it suffers from arrested development because it is driven by a particular political agenda, which has nothing to do with science and it is not restrained by democratic accountability.

    The scientists who are not themseles ideological birds of prey are stooges of the politicians and if they don’t do the right thing they are dropped off the roster.

    A lot of the PR infrastructure was put in place a few decades ago by the international resistance to uranium mining and nuclear power.

  10. George

    What the hell would Steffen know?

    He’s only been out here for a decade or so.

    Not carbonising his skin as i did as a kid, at the beach the 60’s in Sydney when a summer without a heatwave or two was a rarity.

  11. George

    As for Stix, he and his pals are advocating:

    “qualified majority-voting in international decision-making”

    No points for guessing who the qualified majority is in the minds of him and his totalitarian mates.

  12. mondo

    Have a look at the comments below Will Steffen’s opinion piece in The Australian this morning. Over 100 comments, and it would seem that only one of those is slightly supportive of our respected Climate Commissioner! Good one Will!

  13. Johno

    The Oz has let’s us down with its reporting on the Great Global Warming Scam. It’s chief environment writer, Graham Lloyd (?) is a warmerist and writes a lot of tosh. I’m all for having a range of views, but as a journalist, he needs to be a little more critical of the crap put out by hr government’s green lobby.

  14. Your problem, Samuel, is that you don’t read.

    It is a myth, promoted by scientist Andrew Bolt and his ilk that the recent floods have meant that climate scientists have had to change their tune about droughts and floods under climate change in Australia.

    Read now the examples that recently appeared at this post by the CSIRO’s Barry Pittock:

    In 1989, at a presentation to the Prime Minister’s Science Council, Dr Graeme Pearman of CSIRO summarised a scenario of climate change for Australia in 2030. He said there would be:

    Higher summer rainfall over northern Australia and extending further south.
    possibly drier winters in southern Australia
    more intense rainfall.

    CSIRO’s Climate Impact Group, in a report to the Northern Territory Government in 1992-93 wrote: “The above results suggest that wet season runoff may increase substantially by 2030 … the results strongly suggest that flood frequencies may increase significantly. If so, this would have a major impact on the urban environment … built infrastructure, agriculture and hydrological planning, including the management of tailings dams and other sources of water pollution.”

    Other reports to state governments contained similar conclusions. For example, CSIRO warned the NSW government in 1997-98 of “extreme daily rainfall intensity and frequency increases in many regions, particularly in summer and autumn”.

    Andrew Bolt falsely alleged after the 2011 floods that a Queensland Office of Climate Change report from 2009 had only mentioned drought. It didn’t. Here is what it actually said, quoting a 2007 paper published in the middle of the drought:

    Climate change is also likely to affect extreme rainfall in south-east Queensland (Abbs et al. 2007). Projections indicate an increase in two-hour, 24-hour and 72-hour extreme rainfall events for large areas of south-east Queensland, especially in the McPherson and Great Dividing ranges, west of Brisbane and the Gold Coast. For example, Abbs et al. (2007) found that under the A2 emissions scenario, extreme rainfall intensity averaged over the Gold Coast sub-region is projected to increase by 48 per cent for a two-hour event, 16 per cent for a 24-hour event and 14 per cent for a 72-hour event by 2070. Therefore despite a projected decrease in rainfall across most of Queensland, the projected increase in rainfall intensity could result in more flooding events.

    Is that clear enough for you?

    Here’s the take home line from the abstract of another paper from 2008 – still in the drought – looking at comparing models with observations:

    Australia shows a shift towards warming of
    temperature extremes, particularly a significant increase in the number of warm nights and heat waves with much longer dry spells interspersed with periods of increased extreme precipitation, irrespective of the scenario used.

    Have you read that one before? If you were paying attention, you should have – as I posted it here a year ago.

    Going back to 1993 again, from the abstract of a paper:

    In the doubled CO2 simulation, the model simulates an increase in the frequency of high-rainfall events and a decrease in the frequency of low-rainfall events. This result applies over most of Australia, is statistically more significant than simulated changes in total rainfall, and is supported by theoretical considerations. We show that this result implies decreased return periods for heavy rainfall events. The further implication is that flooding could increase, although we discuss here the many difficulties associated with assessing in quantitative terms the significance of the modelling results for the real world.

    I see that Pittock was a co-author on that one. Maybe it helps explain why he might be peeved that people who do not read believe Andrew Bolt over what was published and predicted 20 freaking years ago.

    Here’s the take home message:

    climate change science in Australia did predict, before the drought of the 2000’s and before the floods of 2011-12, that climate change in Australia would intensify both droughts and floods, due to increased heat and dry periods being broken by more intense periods of rainfall.

    As the drought of the 2000’s was truly exceptional – one study (which again I have noted here before) concluded:

    In the context of the rainfall estimates introduced here, there is a 97.1% probability that the decadal rainfall anomaly recorded during the 1998–2008 ‘Big Dry’ is the worst experienced since the first European settlement of Australia.

    it’s pretty ludicrous to be decrying anyone from BOM for making statements about serious drought being a serious ongoing problem under climate change.

    Because, you know what – the rainfall over the last decade or two – both the prolonged drought and the record breaking floods are both consistent with what was being predicted.

  15. Samuel J

    Oh please Steve. Just because a few articles were planted in case forecasts were wrong doesn’t make the forecasts right. Ockham’s Razor would suggest that the simplest explanation is that CO2 emissions do not have the effect on climate as previously expected.

    However the main point of this post was about how we are told to ignore previous forecasts and just accept the ‘truth’. You also haven’t addressed Stix’s comments – do you support his contention that power should be centralised in a UN agency to overrule popular sentiment against reducing CO2 emissions?

  16. Cory Olsen

    @ Samuel,

    Science is always a work in progress, so I’m not surprised that forecasts will change over time. The surprising part is politically motivated scientists attempting to use models, either models that are not up to the task or the environmental scientists using them lacking the skills to recognise the limits of said models, and then attempting to obfuscate that their models don’t match real world observations.

    I think the bigger issue is irregardless of whether CO2 emissions or methane are having an impact on the climate, that this doesn’t neccessarily have any policy implications. Science is only ever a deductive process once scientists start attempting to change the world rather than understand it then they cease being scientists and have become something rather more dangerous.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it. -Marx, Theses On Feuerbach: Thesis 11 (1845)

  17. Westie

    Watch the GW Alarmist go ballistic as their little stooge Stix spilt the beans all over their Climate BS.
    These frauds are budding Nazis and desire nothing more than the tyrannical one world government dream aka Soviet style Communism.

  18. johno


    Any so called ‘scientific’ theory that says – no matter what happens, it’s all proof that people are warming the globe – is pure BS.

    If we had a new ice age, and the government paid them to say so, I’m sure the CSIRO would claim it was proof of man made global warming.

  19. Cory Olsen

    Indeed. Hence global warming morphed into “climate change”.

  20. Biota

    Fairly obvious that CAGW crosses disciplines and has origins in human nature. There seem to be parallels here with the inquisiton and the reformation. The principle there was that on one hand a group of humans excercised their so called god-given authority to command people to believe or else. Then along comes Martin Luther to say that the individual is free to believe as they choose.

    This is powerful because its roots are deep and it is not going to go away anytime soon.

  21. Oh please Steve. Just because a few articles were planted in case forecasts were wrong doesn’t make the forecasts right.

    What a complete and utter joke.

    There is no reason to take you or this blog as being seriously interested in what the science said or what it is currently finding. It’s fingers in ears and chant “I don’t care it’s not true. I don’t care it’s not true.”

    However the main point of this post was about how we are told to ignore previous forecasts and just accept the ‘truth’.

    That is simply not true, because the forecasts were not inconsistent with what has happened – a seriously major drought and some seriously major rainfalls and floods.*

    Don’t bother coming back with Flannery – he’s been verballed on his “rain won’t fill the dams comments”, but you’re no doubt uninterested in the full context of that as well.

    Go back to consulting Scientists Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton – that’s the depth of understanding you’re interested in – populist dishonest pap.

    * you will also note that scientists are cautious about saying that either alone is “proof” of climate change: attribution studies for individual events are still complicated and difficult. But the point you and Bolt are claiming is that the switch from big drought to big flood was inconsistent with climate change forecasts. You’re wrong and too stupid to accept it.

  22. Cory Olsen


    This doesn’t negate the fact that cure is worse than the disease.

  23. Matt

    SfB – When every drought, flood, fire etc. etc. is claimed as proof of climate change it is only reasonable for laymen to be sceptical about such claims.

    There have been so many predictions of what will occur as a result of CO2 emissions that the AGW theory is almost impervious to disproof. Low rainfall – caused by AGW, high rainfall – caused by AGW, heat wave – caused by AGW, earthquakes – yep, casused by AGW!

    The methodology appears to be: If the data doesn’t fit one set of claims for the consequences of AGW, hunt around in the published literature and find another set of claims. Howabout the AGW proponents put forward what it would take to prove the AGW theory wrong. That’s how science is supposed to work.

  24. Samuel J


    Any prediction which cannot be falsified is not a prediction. Since all evidence is said to be consistent with the forecasts, I cannot accept this as science.

    Second, you haven’t addressed the issue of Stix’s comments. Is he being verballed?

    I’m afraid you’re peddling a religion. Fair enough – but don’t try to mix it up with science.

  25. James in Melbourne

    SfB, get over it. Your side dominated this issue for a long time, with nothing but modelling, your spokesman got to project and extrapolate and predict to their hearts’ content, for years and years. They totally owned the airwaves and the column inches.

    But then those pesky observations failed to come through.

    Your attempt to argue that – for the first time in the history of science – when the observations don’t match the theory, it’s the observations that must be discarded – is doomed. Your side had the intellectual field of battle to itself for a very long time, but that’s over.

    The positive feedback from CO2 accentuating the natural warming only exists in the models. But your models aren’t worth the pixels they are printed on. The movie that so inspired you is revealed to be a cartoon, as scientifically credible as Sponge Bob is to marine biology.

  26. eb

    SfB – “because the forecasts were not inconsistent with what has happened – a seriously major drought and some seriously major rainfalls and floods.”

    That is serious BS. Proof please that these events were anything more than normal, otherwise its clear that whatever happens, its gonna be claimed as proof of “climate change”.

  27. blogstrop

    Who’s been feeding the perenially puzzled Steve so many lines of text?

  28. The only person who has said something worth actually debatable was Cory – which goes to response to climate change, rather than whether it exists and is caused by increasing greenhouse gases.

    Matt: it’s not a matter of “hunting around for published work at all”. Instead, it’s that people don’t know that they have been conned by the misrepresentation and cherry picking by the likes of Bolt and climate change deniers as to what the science had actually been saying since the early 1990’s.

    eb: I have already pointed to one paper saying that it looked almost certain that the 2000’s was the worse drought since European settlement.

    Go google it yourself.

    I also noted that nonetheless, climate, being a long term thing, makes it hard to attribute individual events to climate change. Attribution studies are being done, but are complicated and hard.

  29. eb

    SfB – “I also noted that nonetheless, climate, being a long term thing, makes it hard to attribute individual events to climate change”.

    So you agree that ya got nuthin’!

  30. Gab

    lol Steve at 1.17am has pointed out that climate “scientists” have told us there will be droughts and flooding rains. Who knew?

  31. Biota

    SfB, lets be clear- by ‘climate change’ you mean change as a result of anthropogenic actions. Surely you would agree that climate has always changed over long time-spans.

  32. Tom

    Who’d have guessed? The data doctors are hard at work … again. At some stage, you’d hope, when so many billions of dollars of government money are involved, this will become a law enforcement matter.

  33. Cory Olsen

    Climate changes, both at a macro and micro level, due to both nature and man. Just because the science says this doesn’t mean we should abandon light bulbs, reduce our living standards to the stone age (note to greenies cave fires cause CO2 emissions also) nor should we believe unfounded (but obviously not unfunded) claims of CG induced global catastrophe.

  34. sean

    The ‘weather changes’ line is a bit like saying

    ‘All bachelors are unmarried’

    mere tautology, with no interesting scientific content.

  35. James in Melbourne


    “What ‘the science’ has been saying” = “What those particular scientists that I have chosen to believe have been saying.”

    Everyone cherry-picks in this debate, Steve, not just Bolt and the climate change “deniers” (give up on this, will you? It’s a clumsy smear that by now only smears its user). The mountain of stuff you have to wilfully ignore to argue as you do is colossal.

  36. James, you’re free to believe the handful of scientists who think HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, and I’m free to call you an idiot displaying no good judgement at all if that’s what you do.

    You’re an idiot with no good judgement at all if you deny – in the face of the papers and government advice that I have shown since the early 1990’s – that the predictions have been for changes to the hydrological cycle in Australia – meaning increased droughts for parts, but likely broken by more intense floods.

    What did we see since 2000? A record breaking drought followed some record breaking rain and floods.

    Consistent with the predictions: yes.

    Prove climate change? No – climate change is inherently about longer terms trends than this period.

    That’s the nature of climate change – it is able to be disproved, but only by long term trends and evidence.

    There is no reversal of temperature over the last decade. The long term shows other pauses in the upwards trend.

    There is no way that any sensible person can argue that climate change has been disproved – especially by the drought being broken by record floods.

  37. I don’t give a stuff about “deniers” when you get the likes of Samuel saying “oh, they just planted those studies so that they could deny they predicted something else.”


  38. Gab

    You’re right in what you say, SFB, deniers should be gassed. That’ll silence ’em for good!

  39. I’ve always gone for desert gulags as my preferred option, Gab.

  40. James in Melbourne

    You know that “deniers” is specifically employed to equate people who deny that the Jewish holocaust ever happened – in the face of detailed historical evidence – with people who quite reasonably doubt the projections distilled from models on which your side of the AGW debate relies.

    Denying proven historical fact, on the one hand, versus questioning a highly doubtful hypothesis on the other.

    It is a contemptible, filthy piece of Orwellian language, and should make anyone view the arguments of its users with extreme scepticism.

  41. Gab

    Desert? With all the rains these climate scientists are predicting there’ll be no deserts in future.

  42. Gab

    James, SFB knows all that and doesn’t care. He believes climate ‘deniers’ are ‘fair game’.

  43. Oh boo hoo, James.

    Holocaust deniers make stupid claims in the face of clear evidence.

    Climate change deniers do the same.

    You be one and not the other.

    Boo hoo.

  44. Climate change deniers have claimed that scientists are dishonest money hungry grubs who will manipulate evidence to make a living.

    That’s just a routine, matter of course, part of the defamation of climate scientists.

    Then they cry about “oh, don’t use ‘deniers’, that’s too nasty”.

    Suck it up, you ignorant defaming dunderheads.

  45. James in Melbourne

    It is a brilliant way to win an argument, though: simply assert beforehand that all evidence, however seemingly contradictory and mutually exclusive – eg. droughts and flooding rains – actually proves your hypothesis.

    The portentous jargon about the hydrological cycle is optional, because it’s not really needed.

    AGW causes each extreme, and everything in the middle.

    QED. Thank you linesmen, thank you ballboys.

  46. Gab

    simply assert beforehand that all evidence modelling,

    Just a slight adjustment. Hope you don’t mind.

  47. James in Melbourne

    My bad, Gab. The modelling is the evidence.

    Beautiful in its simplicity.

  48. And Samuel has the hide to say that it is a “religious belief” that climate change is real.

    He, James and most others here are showing the exact opposite: they would rather invent stories (oh – they just planted those studies so they could say they predicted both; they just pulled “an increase in hydrological cycle” out of their arse) rather than accept that science was done in good faith and made predictions which are consistent with recent weather events. The reason you do it: an ideological commitment to the idea that it can’t be true, and scientists have been conning us, and you have ‘seen through’ it.

  49. James in Melbourne

    claimed that scientists are dishonest money hungry grubs who will manipulate evidence to make a living.

    It is not that simple, Steve.

    The Team, who rose to such fame when the AGW hypothesis held the floor, during which time their every utterance was worshipfully accepted, grew to like their status. A lot. When the dam-wall of media support broke, and all of the work being done that rebutted the Team’s hypothesis – from a number of different angles – began to seep insistently into the public consciousness, they did not like it. “What are you doing listening to that Svensmark bod – I am the guru on this! How dare you quote McIntyre at me, you little person, I am your intellectual superior!”

    It’s something far more corrosive than money – your guys simply have way, way too much status invested in this, from the time when theirs was the only voice allowed to be heard.

    They can’t go back. They can’t change course. All the way into that bunker, they have to stick with the story, as the whole crock of shite tumbles around them.

    I think you’ll find that will drive people to far-greater extremes than mere money will.

  50. Token

    These are the professionals that SoB believes we should forgo our free-will and natural skeptism, and believe…

    The BOM say their temperature records are high quality. An independent audit team has just produced a report showing that as many as 85 -95% of all Australian sites in the pre-Celsius era (before 1972) did not comply with the BOM’s own stipulations. The audit shows 20-30% of all the measurements back then were rounded or possibly truncated. Even modern electronic equipment was at times, so faulty and unmonitored that one station rounded all the readings for nearly 10 years! These sloppy errors may have created an artificial warming trend. The BOM are issuing pronouncements of trends to two decimal places like this one in the BOM’s Annual Climate Summary 2011 of “0.52 °C above average” yet relying on patchy data that did not meet its own compliance standards around half the time. It’s doubtful they can justify one decimal place, let alone two?

    With the fanatacism that SoB argues on this matter, some might believe his livelihood depends on the bounty that the Greenslimers hussle from the public purse.

  51. .

    Thanks Token, sent onto the usual suspects.

  52. Token, so men with time on their hands are still doing mathturbation to try to show that it’s the temperature record that’s the problem.

    Give it up: Anthony Watts’ project on urban heat island came up a dud. The much praised by Watts (til it didn’t support him) BEST project found against him too.

    Now someone in Australia says our records might (and that’s all he can say – might) have a bias of .1 degree to it. Or maybe .4 degree. We must have a thorough audit!

    Let’s say there was a bias of .2 degree for Australia. How much difference do you think this might make for global average temperatures? Very, very little would be my guess.

    As I say, give it up. Amateurs tinkering and speculating with what might have gone wrong with temperature records has come to naught – or naught important – but still you persist.

    Anything other than admit AGW and climate change are real.

    That’s your faith – it can’t be real.

  53. eb

    Hit the nail on the head James. Far too many people have invested far too much in this CAGW scam to ever take a backward step.

  54. Winston SMITH

    Give it up steve. The games over.
    All you’re doing is making yourself look gullible and that your ego won’t let you admit to it.

    Oh. And nobody likes you…

  55. Gullible – what a joke. Deniers are gullible and stupid.

  56. Token

    No need to go full on ah hom SoB. You are so fragile and get very emotional when your faith is challenged.

    People who refuse to kowtow to the idol set up by the Green-sliming carpet baggers are just being prudentally skeptical.

    It is fanatics like you that fit your description.

  57. brc

    That’s the nature of climate change – it is able to be disproved, but only by long term trends and evidence.

    Aha! The elusive test to falsify the hypothesis.

    Do tell – what are the conditions in which the CAGW hypothesis is falsified? What conditions and what timeframe? I’ve been asking this for a long time and nobody has ever answered, usually because they don’t even understand the question.

    Oh, and BTW I love the slur at ‘amateurs’. As if anyone not employed by a university has any right to come up with ideas. Very droll. How dare you challenge our carefully crafted consensus, little man! Stand by to be judged by your superiors!

    In non-politicised fields like Astronomy, amateurs are a large source of discovery. There’s no reason why this can’t be the case in weather records.

  58. .

    Give it up: Anthony Watts’ project on urban heat island came up a dud

    Absolute bullshit. Stop trying to tax us back to the stone age, you unproductive househusband.

  59. Mother Hubbard's Dog

    This once reputable magazine should probably be renamed to Pseudoscientific American

    Or even Pseudoscientific unAmerican. It is “Scientific American” in the same sense that “Pravda” was the truth in the former USSR.

  60. Mother Hubbard's Dog

    you unproductive househusband.

    A bit unkind, Dot. He’s probably providing sexual services that would cost a small fortune on the open market.

  61. Mother Hubbard's Dog

    so men with time on their hands are still doing mathturbation

    While SoB continues testiculating* wildly.

    *Handwaving while talking bollocks.

  62. sean

    debating SFB, like being flogged with a wet lettuce…

  63. James in Melbourne

    debating SFB, like being flogged with a wet lettuce…

    What can you do – when Steve has decided that any and all outcomes of Australian climatic conditions have been proven to be caused by AGW – from rain to drought, parched dam beds to a chockers Wivenhoe, from snow-blizzards burying Perisher Village to 52 degrees roasting the crap out of Marble Bar. They all have the same cause – Liberal voters in SUVs.

  64. blogstrop

    Steve (along with Homer and a few others) has just one brief, and that’s to disrupt threads and add as much dross and sludge as possible. That’s what these apparently time-rich trolls do. They hate the fact that there are conservative blogs and that they are being influential. From experience, the true troll cannot be put off or won over by argument. They just keep adding more junk to the page.Their adherence to their task is remarkable, but not admirable.

  65. On your Marx

    Watts was debunked here by the NOAA.

    The BEST paper said:
    “An analysis team led by Anthony Watts has shown that 70% of the USHCN temperature stations are ranked in NOAA classification 4 or 5, indicating a temperature uncertainties greater than 2C or 5C, respectively….. From this analysis we conclude that the difference in temperature rate of rise between poor stations and OK stations is –0.014 ± 0.028 C per century. The absence of a statistically significant difference between the two sets suggests that networks of stations can reliably discern temperature trends even when individual stations have large absolute uncertainties.”

    The most comprehensive academic demolition is here.

  66. jtfsoon

    don’t get me wrong. i believe in the climate science consensus.

    However it gets me worried that you can suddenly become an expert on these issues while taking a break from stacking tampons

  67. JC

    However it gets me worried that you can suddenly become an expert on these issues while taking a break from stacking tampons

    But he hasn’t. The duty foreman told the lazy fucker to go stack the large packs, but he’s instead here debunking Watts.

    Homes, you’re going to get fired doing this shit and we won’t be able to help. You know that right?

  68. JC

    I never knew Homer was such an expert on glimate science. Man, he’s versatile. It’s why he did so well at Macquarie.

    glimate science, able to recite 30 year old budget papers like a Muslim kid with the Koran, the names of asian warlords and their mistresses, an expert historian on the UK between the wars. Amazing first rate mind.

  69. jtfsoon

    aLL you have to doo Is REad; JC

  70. JC

    Oh yes, read. Read and read.

    I dunno why he’s back here other than to satisfy his trolling needs. He was banned for posting passive aggressive stupid shit last time and he’s back to the same old tricks again.

    And all this from the tampoon stacker.

    At least he runs his incoherent swill through an app now.

  71. cohenite

    I’ve come late to this discussion but this needs to be stamped on:

    climate change science in Australia did predict, before the drought of the 2000?s and before the floods of 2011-12, that climate change in Australia would intensify both droughts and floods, due to increased heat and dry periods being broken by more intense periods of rainfall.

    This is the AGW’s defence for failing Australia in respect of both the Wivenhoe catastrophe and the Black Saturday bushfires, the former in ‘extreme flood’ and the latter ‘extreme drought’.

    This is the new mantra, less of floods but more extreme and more droughts and worse, hotter and longer. The AGW brains-trust have been combing through their dumb fucking papers until they found the right predictions and viola, AGW is vindicated again. And, on queue, stupid steve and other pigeon brained nitwits can be relied on to spread the message.

    But the QLD floods were no worse in climatic indicators than the 1974 floods and the Black Saturday no worse and not indicative of a longer drought than the Black Friday fires in 1939.

    The most obvious explanation is offered by Stewart Franks with cyclical ENSO patterns married with a slighly warming sun from 1850.

    But of course there is no money in Stewart’s view, or prestige, or whatever weird and strange motive AGW alarmists get off on.

  72. blogstrop

    The trolls must be being assisted … anyone smell a rat?

  73. This is the new mantra, less of floods but more extreme and more droughts and worse, hotter and longer. The AGW brains-trust have been combing through their dumb fucking papers until they found the right predictions and viola, AGW is vindicated again.

    Yes, that would explain why we find this in Working Group II of the IPCC:

    To summarize the rainfall results, drier conditions are anticipated for most of Australia over the 21st century. However, consistent with conclusions in WGI, an increase in heavy rainfall also is projected, even in regions with small decreases in mean rainfall. This is a result of a shift in the frequency distribution of daily rainfall toward fewer light and moderate events and more heavy events. This could lead to more droughts and more floods.

    What year was that published, cohenite?

  74. JC


    Our climate is one of the most variable in the world as a result of the two types of Ninas. Anyone that wants to predict through that is an idiot.

    Moreover how can this be believed when Chris Landsea resigned in protest over the brazen attempt by that New Zealand fuck knuckle trying to peddle the idea that Atlantic hurricane activity was increasing. Landsea resigned as he saw no evidence of that in his work, yet that kiwi dickhead was the one pushing it when he had no expertise in that area.

    How can you be certain that the reason the IPCC pushed that line for Australia was because no one was brave enough to do a Landsea on the senior people in that group?

    Answer the question and don’t dismiss it with your usual blather, Stepford or you will be seriously taken to task.

  75. dover_beach

    To summarize the rainfall results, drier conditions are anticipated for most of Australia over the 21st century.

    Good, we’ll hold them to this, the trend should be clear by the end of this decade. Then we can attend to the following rough justice.

  76. Oh no, we don’t have a player.

    The answer to my question to cohenite (about when did the WG2 Australian assessment note the modelling indicated drier conditions for much of Australia broken by more floods): 2001

    Yes, the blatant dishonesty of cohenite is on full display here – pretending that the last year or so of floods has caused an upset to AGW predictions.

    Blatant lies and/or ignorance.

    P.S. – JC, quite irrelevant bloviating.

  77. JC

    You’re such a dishonest douchebag Stepford.

  78. Gab

    There are four reports at your link, SFB, to which do you refer? And section number or page number would be helpful.


  79. James in Melbourne

    Er, the AGW-caused mega-conflagrations that Australia was supposed to have to prepare for, in increasing frequency, and which Black Saturday was supposed to be a foretaste – according to various AGW tribal elders, most notably Herr Brown – were, it appears, largely deliberately lit, by a sad, pathetic little man with a personality disorder.

    Not to worry, I expect Bob the Public-Purse Bandit to rise in the Senate tomorrow and apologise for his way-out scaremongering.

  80. Gab

    Steve? Still waiting for the requested information at your link.


  81. boy on a bike

    Read this string of emails. It involves CSIRO, the WWF, the CRU, $142,000 and I think it is the starting point for all the rubbish about changes in rainfall patterns.

    The short version:

    Mike Hulme wrote a fairly sober paper on rainfall changes around 1999. It showed that “many areas will have precipitation changes (particularly) which are small compared to natural variability, and therefore it does not matter.”

    The WWF wanted some pretty (and scary) brochures for the upcoming IPCC gig, and commissioned the CRU to produce rainfall change maps for a range of countries. They paid the CRU $US142,000 for this service.

    Barrie Pittock, a CSIRO Post-Retirement Fellow, was not happy with the sober and conservative results that Mike Hulme was producing, so he got him to change his statistical technique.

    Voila! Suddenly, the WWF had maps that would have a “policy impact” as they termed it.

    Barrie, rather than being a dispassionate scientist, has “a son who is now a leading staff member of WWF in Australia”.

    My take on this is that once CSIRO had signed up to these less than sober predictions, there was no going back. All their research since then had to reach the same “scariness threshold” as this paper – otherwise, questions would be asked.

    The WWF has played CSIRO like a fish.

  82. James in Melbourne

    Boy on a bike, I am concerned at your tone. Those who work on “the science” – those who labour pure of motive to bring down from Mt Sinai the commandments to alter our lives and start tithing – do so from only the most altruistic of motives. They, if not you or I, think only of Steve’s grandchildren’s grandchildren.

  83. Rafe

    Lafremboise described the boy on a bike scenario over and over again in the IPCC. Lets hope that more people turn into whistle-blowers when they retire from the CSIRO and similar organizations.

  84. cohenite

    Yes, the blatant dishonesty of cohenite is on full display here

    Piss off; my dishonesty is a pimple compared to the Everest of deceit, obfuscation and lies emnating from the corpse of AGW.

    What I said was the predicted incidence of worse and extended drought combined with more extreme floods HAS not happened. The recent floods are not fucking exceptional; what is it about that which you do not understand?

    As for predicted drought by CSIRO report ‘Drought Exceptional Circumstances’ which supersedes all prior miraculously prescient reports and papers by the odds and sods at CSIRO and the BOM, this paper examines the veracity and statistical legitimacy of those predictions; they fail: the paper notes:

    This paper evaluates the reliability of modeling in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR) where global circulation (or climate) simulations
    were used to forecast future extremes of temperatures, rainfall and soil moisture.
    The DECR provided the Australian government with an assessment of the likely future change in the extent and frequency of drought resulting from anthropogenic
    global warming. Three specific and different statistical techniques show that the simulation of the occurrence of extreme high temperatures last century was adequate, but the simulation of the occurrence of extreme low rainfall was
    unacceptably poor. In particular, the simulations indicate that the measure of hydrological drought increased significantly last century, while the
    observations indicate a significant decrease.

    That is the computer models, as usual, show one thing while the observations show another.

    The attempt by the AGW advocates to belatedly claim they had predicted the recent floods is a desperate lie.

  85. Gab


    Link to the relevant WG2 2001 report

    Steve – I’m still waiting for your answer. Which of the four reports at your link? Which section, please?

    If you don’t answer I have no choice but to take it as you quote-doctoring, again.

  86. Mother Hubbard's Dog

    They, if not you or I, think only of Steve’s grandchildren’s grandchildren.

    So does Steve. His biological cock is ticking.

  87. I see that Gab appears not to have learned the trick of cut and pasting a quote into Google and seeing if it leads to the source.

    It does in this case.

  88. Gab

    Steve said

    (about when did the WG2 Australian assessment note the modelling indicated drier conditions for much of Australia broken by more floods): 2001

    WG 2

    To summarize the rainfall results,…This could lead to more droughts and more floods.

    Brilliant. All their bloviating and that’s their conclusion. LOL.
    Dorothea MacKellar called, said she wants them to stop stealing her lines.

  89. Scott

    Steve from Brisbane is pretty mixed up. Hard to argue with faith.

  90. dover_beach

    To summarize the rainfall results,…This could lead to more droughts and more floods.

    To summarize the tea leaves,…Your life could lead to more good times or more bad times.

Comments are closed.