In answer to Monbiot

George Monbiot asks:

I wonder what Tony Abbott will say about the record heatwave now ravaging his country.

Tony Abbott:

I’m now on my way to Sydney to be on standby with my local fire brigade. Important to follow fire warnings and advice today

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

290 Responses to In answer to Monbiot

  1. Token

    Seems like you are struggling to deal with a crisis of faith with your Green religion Jarrah. We understand, It must be tough when your gravel idols are proven to be based upon a string of lies.

    Why don’t you ask CL for some readings from people like St Augustine of Hippo on what to do in such dark days.

  2. Token

    James Dellingpole on how the Met took his well founded criticism seriously and adjusted their processes for the better with his feedback.

    ;sarc off; LOL, they got very defensive in the face of skepticism and had a childish sook about paranoid conspiracy theories.

    Sound like a unrepentant dishonest person around here?

  3. steve from brisbane

    Bruce, of course, who has disproved AGW from his laptop in his spare time, obviously did not bother reading the NOAA explanation for the changes to the Arizona records, which were set out in length at Jeff Master’s original post.

    Of course, being a dishonest polemicist who isn’t interested in promoting genuine understanding, Watts’ just cut and paste the parts of Masters’ post dealing with the temperature adjustment, and then spends no more than one sentence on saying “well they say the explanation is X”.

    The explanation given by NOAA at length at Masters’ post is readily comprehensible, and makes clear that it is done in the interest of improving the accuracy of long term records.

    But no, instead it’s supposed to be a conspiracy.

    A sensible person might think to themselves “Gee – why don’t they make a better effort to hide their manipulation?” and conclude that the far more likely explanation is – they haven’t tried to hide anything; it’s simply your own leaping to conspiracy that is the mistake here.

    And what’s the bet that there will be a similar answer to cohenite’s “Australian Average temperature” claim?

    Go on cohenite – have you asked them politely to explain how its worked out? Or would you rather sit on your arse and accuse them of error or fraud from a position of ignorance?

  4. .

    Bruce, of course, who has disproved AGW from his laptop in his spare time

    You’ve rebutted those arguments in your innumerate, uneducated, tiny little mind.

    Tallest dwarf wins.

  5. johanna

    sfb, Bruce is a scientist, has been for over 30 years. He did not claim to ‘disprove global warming’, and the comments he makes are based on a tad more than noodling on his laptop. He has forgotten more about science (the real kind, not dodgy models and eco-lunacy) than you will ever know. I know who he is, and you are not fit to dust his computer, you fool.

    Sorry, Bruce, if I speak for you here, but had to say this in case you were not around to refute this crap.

  6. cohenite

    Go on cohenite – have you asked them politely to explain how its worked out? Or would you rather sit on your arse and accuse them of error or fraud from a position of ignorance?

    I like sitting on my arse; someone who should know once said it was pretty; that and dealing with trolls will keep me warm when warmth’s last gasp pales.

    Seriously steve, you are a pain in the arse. BOM introduced the ACORN temperature network as the best and brightest. Yet it wheels out its latest metric which contradicts its best and brightest. How does that make sense.

    And yes the additions have been done. The average of ACORN was several degrees less tha BOM’s national average.

    Go and make your enquiries and report back.

  7. Bruce

    Rationalisation Steve is a problem for scientists. I know it well after 30 yrs in the science business. We were always at war with East Asia.

    They know what side of the bread has butter on it.

    I am amused that you admire my $600 laptop so much (which I can use to model quite large industrial plants on, but apparently in spite of evidence to the contrary, not Official Climate™). Especially when the UK Met Office’s supercomputer has just found exactly what my own model predicts. And that NASA has too. But you don’t read Dellers do you? Or what I say since I pointed out these findings to you on Thursday.

  8. I’ll debate global yawning when alarmists can show some honesty with regards to the truth. when they stop adjusting temperature records and using such records to indicate greater warming than there really is, i’ll debate the science. It’s like organising a truce with terrorists who have no sincerity, who just want time to regroup for their next attack.

    Climategate showed their dishonesty for all to see. Liars can’t be trusted. The power should simply be taken away from them.

  9. Jarrah

    “I told you the BOM national average was higher than the average based on all their ACORN temperature sites; how is that conspiratorial.”

    By suggesting that the reason they do so is conspiratorial:

    The BOM is cooking the books; fullstop.

  10. candy

    So the science is settled and the stats prove it, then when does the carbon tax kick in to reduce the warming in Australia, as Labor introduced it specifically for that reason, it’s what they said on TV.
    What year and what month does it begin to reduce temperatures in Australia and extreme events are curtailed.

  11. JC

    Hey Stepford?

    Dellingpole is saying that the BOM did a Xmas eve dump of predictions that countered their earlier alarmist tripe.

    You know why they would do that on a day people aren’t around and don’t care about news?


  12. .

    You have to do better than to smear someone with “conspiracy” Jarrah, the BOM was to be audited and they threw the data out.

    This is common knowledge.

  13. Jazza

    Steve from Brisbane
    You mock Tony Abbott, well let me tell you everyone I know.even those of fleeting acquaintance down the street etc, would rather be in the trenches with an iron man used to volunteering and saving lives and showing loyalty and faithfulness to family friends and colleagues, than a soft bodied amoral self centred husband snatcher
    The next election will confirm how widespread this opinion really is!

  14. JC


    The CSIRO is predicting it will happen at 3.47 PM July 27 2023.

  15. Bruce

    I was off reading the Wunderground post and finding some links.

    I am intrigued that Mr Burt (not Mr Masters if you read the post Steve), who it seems rather likes extreme weather even if temperatures are not actually rising, apparently considers his now dead and incomprehensibly silent colleagues of the past to be incompetent. The dead are silent witnesses, as totalitarians have worked out many times in history.

  16. candy

    How smart you are JC, thanks!

  17. JC

    This isn’t fucking science. It’s outright fucking fraud

    Let’s just remind ourselves of the key charges against the Met Office:

    1. Since 1990, when it was taken over by the arch-warmist Sir John Houghton (founder of the IPCC), it has become so wedded to the cause of promoting the AGW “consensus” with the help of its dodgy computer models that it has grown increasingly out of touch with climate reality.

    2. The dramatic warming it has been so assiduously been predicting these last few year simply hasn’t materialised. This suggests there is a major flaw with the AGW theory on which the Met Office has rather foolishly decided to stake its credibility.


    Rather than admit its failure publicly, the Met Office tried to adjust its forecasts by stealth – on Christmas Eve: a good time to bury bad news – and got found out, embarrassed and humiliated.

    4. Its desperation to “prove” the existence of man-made global warming has had an unfortunate knock-on effect on its weather forecasting, which in recent years has grown unreliable – especially in the medium and long term forecasting range – because it uses the same computer models which predict CO2 induced global warming.

    5. We pay £200 million a year for this useless quango. We deserve far better for our money.

    6. The Met Office has not managed to defend itself against a single one of these key charges, preferring instead to do what it always does when criticised: deny, distract, obfuscate. The blog it has written justifying itself is no better than an arsonist standing up in court and saying: “Well I’m not saying whether or not I burned down all those buildings your honour, but it’s bleeding outrageous of Mr Delingpole to say I didn’t wipe my shoes on the doormats before I visited those premises: and I demand he retracts that outrageous allegation immediately.”

    Amazinb… intrepid British scientists hanging around their offices on Xmas eve to do a press dump.

  18. Bruce

    Steve, when NOAA climate scientists adjust for UHI why do they cool rural stations in the past not urban stations in the present?

  19. Jazza

    Where’s my heatwave?Ain’t in West Vic by the sea!
    I live where we got a stinker last Friday week,temp was over 40 and the fan was in use ditto cool drinks all day and a warm night followed
    it lasted all of 24 hours with bushfire danger accompanying the heat but— since then we have had mild days in the 20’s,with yesterday getting to about 28 degrees, the highest Today is overcast and coolish with a slight breeze.I reckon it wouldn’t be more than 22and I’m wearing a cardie

    I almost want o beleive in the glowbell wormening fantasy for the sake of the c schoolchildren on their long holidays!
    So far we have had two hot days this summer

  20. Gab

    Where’s my heatwave?

    last Friday week,temp was over 40

    There. You’ve had your heat wave now quit complaining.

  21. steve from brisbane

    Ooh no – they’ll be no mocking of Tony Abbott around this blog, hey Jazza. Might upset the natives or something.

    candy – do you have to praise and compliment absolutely everyone on this blog? JC is a blowhard on climate change, as he is on most topics, but climate change in particular. He doesn’t really follow or care about arguments in detail – he’ll just listen to whatever “it’s no big deal” dude takes his fancy on the day, talk about scientists being beta males, and burble out some crap depending on how much shit on the liver he is feeling from moment to moment.

    I therefore just ignore him on the topic for the most part. You would be wise to as well.

    PS: notice how cohenite hasn’t answered the question – we know humans have been annually putting up Gt of CO2 annually for a 100 years or so. We know there has been a steady-ish increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over that time.

    But cohenite thinks we can blame nature for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (maybe he believes in Plimers underwater volcanoes as the source – who knows?) But the thing is – what happens to the human emitted CO2 if it’s nature that supplying the additional CO2?

    If we don’t assume that our CO2 is disappearing – the maths for the quantities going up and staying there work out pretty right (although exact carbon budgetting still has its uncertainties).

    If you want to blame nature for the CO2 you have a much bigger problem. In fact, an insurmountable one, according even to a substantial body of people who comment at skeptic blogs.

    But ideologically motivated skeptics are like that – they never concede a thing, and are prepared to repeat arguments again and again (and then when it suits them, deny that they aren’t unreasonable about the whole matter.)

  22. candy

    Gee, someone’s cranky today.

  23. Cold-Hands

    But ideologically motivated skeptics warmenistas are like that – they never concede a thing, and are prepared to repeat arguments again and again (and then when it suits them, deny that they aren’t unreasonable about the whole matter.)

    There, FTFY.

  24. Tiny Dancer

    SfB QC. Stolen any bread today? Done the washing? Feeling a little let down now that your cult is falling apart?

    Good call Candy.

  25. johanna

    Heh, heh, candy. Maybe he needs an iceblock and an afternoon nap.

  26. cohenite

    steve; look at Figure 1 from Knorr

    What confuses you, apart from inate stupidity, is the top line which are ACO2 emissions; people like you look at them and say, “whoa bro, lookee that, we CO2 belchers are farting out much more than what is increasing in the air above, eh?!”

    As I said the real relevant line is the lower thick dashed one which is the AF or the ACO2 left in the atmosphere; that is all that is available to cause increase; and it is contributing a bit.

    But look at the atmospheric increase which is the thin line; it’s way above the AF line, isn’t it.

    So, what the fuck is causing the amount of increase which is above the amount of the AF line, you complete idiot?

  27. Alfonso

    Sure Jazza……Tony’s a good man at home, no doubt.

    Pity he’s also a CAGWarming believing, big govt, welfare Statist who refuses to promise unambiguously repeal of S18C.

    Getting the problem yet, are you?

  28. Alice

    SATP mught have been getting into the beer spiders again !!

  29. JC

    You slanderous douchebag, stepford.

    I stay away from discussing the science, unlike you, because I don’t have a background in it.

    I do however discuss the economics of glimate science and essentially adopt the style Lomborg of thinking about it.

    You are unable to do either. You don’t understand the science as you have no background and you don’t understand the economics and such basic principles like trade offs.


  30. My son came out of the public pool this afternoon and complained about the cold.

    And this on the hottest day of the hottest heatwave in the hottest summer EVER. Idiots.

  31. “PS: notice how cohenite hasn’t answered the question – we know humans have been annually putting up Gt of CO2 annually for a 100 years or so. We know there has been a steady-ish increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over that time.”

    The correlation is very strong, but the correlation that matters is CO2 versus temperature. According to the empirical evidence to date, the correlation is weak, yet the models include positive feedbacks. This is nothing more than an extension of the original scare of runaway global warming, turning earth into another Venus. But for that to happen, we must have unprecedented warming, otherwise it would already have occurred.

    Steve, you could prove that humans have increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it would still not prove catastrophic global warming.

  32. “No wonder Al Gore sold out to Big Arabian Oil, all good snake oil salesmen are born with antenna which tells them when to get out of town quick.”

    Just take the big horse.

  33. wreckage

    Endorse nukes and hydro or GTFO…

  34. kae



    A melting 40C day outside, not much better inside.

    Man, with door, in queue standing behind me.

    “Oh. I see you have a door. A man with a door.”

    He, “Yes, good price, too.”

    Me, “Does that make you adorable?”

    He, “I only wish it was that easy.”


    Me too.

  35. For cohenite (and his gullible followers), who for years has been thinking Knorr’s paper means there must be big and unaccounted for natural CO2 emissions. (The reason this suits his political arguments – well that would mean that human’s aren’t even responsible for the bulk of increased CO2…)

    First argument: on another recent thread here, you put the argument that Knorr’s finding that the percent of human emitted CO2 which stays in the atmosphere has stayed pretty constant over the long term means that nature must be emitting more. Why? Because of an argument about “constants”: doubling CO2 in the atmosphere and maintaining the same proportion of it is from humans, the natural portion must have doubled too. Brilliant!

    I pointed out that this argument only “worked” because you were getting muddled about what AF means – it does not refer to the atmosphere overall and is only relevant to the matter of how much human CO2 emitted each year will not be absorbed in a natural sink.

    You denied this is what you were thinking, but it is absolutely clear from this explanation you gave of this “constants” argument in the Drum in 2011 that it is the mistake you were making:

    You also need to do some homework John and read the Knorr paper. This paper shows that the % of ACO2 in the atmosphere has stayed the same or constant despite increases in ACO2 and CO2 so ACO2 cannot be responsible for the entire increase in CO2 levels.

    This can be demonstrated quite easily, the principle is a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2?s 20% will be 40 so other or natural CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other or natural CO2 is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2 and sinks must be expanding more than the increase in ACO2.

    I have highlighted the error. Knorr is not talking about proportions of CO2 in the total atmosphere.

    You’ve tried to bullshit your way out of acknowledging this error in the “constants’ argument, and in fact have tried to come up with a way to save face, which you’ve put forward in this thread.

    Second argument: Knorr’s fig 1 shows measured CO2 increases which go up and down around the dotted line of 46% of ACO2, which is roughly the long term airborne fraction of how much ACO2 stays in the atmosphere. So when it’s above the line, you claim that must be naturally emitted CO2. It’s obvious!

    No, it isn’t.

    If you had bothered properly understanding the carbon cycle, instead of coming up with your own half arsed interpretations that suit you politically, you might have noticed passages like these in other papers on AF. First:

    AF is a function of the biological and physical processes governing land–atmosphere and ocean–atmosphere CO2 exchanges, as well as the trajectory of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The AF has a large interannual variability and has ranged from 0.0 to 0.8 since 1959 (Fig. 2A). This variability is mainly due to the responses of natural sinks, particularly land sinks (Fig. 1B), to interannual climate variability (e.g., from El Nin˜o/Southern Oscillation) and volcanic eruptions (10). Of the average 9.1 PgC y1 of total anthropogenic emissions (FFoss  FLUC) from 2000 to 2006, the AF was 0.45; almost half of the anthropogenic emissions remained in the atmosphere, and the rest were absorbed by land and ocean sinks.

    The IPCC has shown the same.

    The explanation is that AF is averaged over time – it goes up and down from year to year, sometimes by large amounts.

    Knorr’s figure 1 in the dashed thick line is not showing a measured AF for year to year – it is showing a constant 46% of total ACO2 to show how closely that matches the long term average of annual increase in CO2.

    The measured CO2 in years where it is above the 46% line can therefore just be showing years where the AF was high – it can still comprise (mostly) ACO2.

    Go on – email Knorr again and double check if I am right.

    Then come back and admit your mistakes and apologise for calling people idiots for not following your crap arguments.

  36. Token

    SoB, if I was you I’d be feeling like someone who has invested in a scheme watching it look more and more like a Ponzi ripoff as you see the big dogs cash out.

    Your High Priest has sold out the faith for $100 million petro-dollars.

    Now comes the latest news that Al has sold Current, for the magnificent sum of $500-million, $100-million of which is his alone. Not bad for a TV station with less reach and inferior programming to most billboards.

    To whom did the Lord of the Upper Atmosphere sell? Why to al Jazeera — which is to say, effectively to the ruler of Qatar, a wealthy country that has nothing else to sustain it but the sale of its huge petroleum resources.

    Qatar is about oil, oil and more oil. It is a global warmer’s hell.

    …One other, not-to-be-missed note: Mr. Gore was very quick to make sure the sale took place before the New Year — the better to spare him, who is now one of the world’s superrich, his friend Barack Obama’s tax hike on those dreadful one-percenters.

    …and the old Grey Bag Lady has closed its desk dedicated to the cult.

    Inside Climate News – The New York Times will close its environment desk in the next few weeks and assign its seven reporters and two editors to other departments. The positions of environment editor and deputy environment editor are being eliminated. No decision has been made about the fate of the Green Blog, which is edited from the environment desk.

    The Party is over.

    Good to see you are still believing. Keep the faith dude.

  37. Stupid people like you, Token, think that what Gore gets up to is relevant to the big picture. It isn’t.


  38. blogstrop

    Not only did Gore used to be the next president, people like SfB would once have said he was highly relevant.

Comments are closed.