pmccarthy

the fraud is by the alarmists who selectively report scientific data. I am not alleging fraud by research organisations.

The hottest time in Europe was the mid Holocene, see graph below. There are any number of papers supporting this. For Australia, we don’t know but I can point to studies speculating about the drying up of the inland.

Extreme weather such as hurricanes? Either no trend, or a downward trend in recent decades. Lots of published papers. See graph below.

There are plenty of studies showing rainfall has not decreased or increased globally or in Australia ( of course we have had a recent severe drought) nor have extreme weather events such  as the following which identifies past extremes in Sydney and Melbourne. Where I live the extreme event was on January 1 1889.

Historical extreme rainfall events in southeastern Australia

Author links open overlay panelLindenAshcroftabDavid J.KarolyacAndrew J.Dowdyb

a

School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, 3010

b

Bureau of Meteorology, Docklands, Australia, 3008c

Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub, CSIRO, Aspendale, Australia, 3195

[ATTACH]50606._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]50607._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Keepers of weather records in the USA and Australia have adjusted historical records, reducing past maximums in particular. In Australia  it is people within BOM. They are not in a conspiracy, they believe the adjustments are necessary. But adjusted data is not primary data, someone else can come along next year with a different idea about the adjustment factors.

• Concentrations of all the major long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase, with carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rising above 400 ppm since 2016 and the CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) of all gases reaching 500 ppm for the first time in at least 800,000 years.  - Accepted

• Emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase and are the main contributor to the observed growth in atmospheric CO2.  - Accepted

• The world’s oceans, especially in the southern hemisphere, are taking up more than 90 per cent of the extra energy stored by the planet as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.  - There are many scientists who not accept that rising temperatures are due to greenhouse gases. The climate record shows that global temperature is not correlated with CO2 levels, either in past Millenia or in the last century or two.

• Global sea level has risen by over 20 cm since 1880, and the rate has been accelerating in recent decades. - the sea level always rises or falls, never stays the same. It was metres higher  and tens of meters lower in the past few thousand years. 

• Globally averaged air temperature has warmed by over 1 °C since records began in 1850, and each of the last four decades has been warmer than the previous one - not accepted. There was very little coverage of much of the globe in temperature records before quite recent times. It was warm in the 1930s. There was little warming for about 15 years from 1990. Globally averaged, in any case, means nothing. Climate is a descriptor of regions, not the world as a whole. How can you average different areas, on land or sea, over a whole year? It is meaningless. How many very cold days in Norway are used to offset hot days in Alice Springs? The warmists have “adjusted” past mercury thermometer readings, which I believe are the true and reliable records. I believe the newspaper reports from the past, about droughts, floods and temperature. I do not believe in computer models or adjusted data.

My wife will not eat grapes because they are high in sugar. But she enjoys a glass of wine. I say illogical.

I have posted lots of links and videos in the past that I think are persuasive of my viewpoint. I guess I am just too lazy to research every aspect for this forum. But let me take one example.

I clicked on the link provided by Octave and started reading. I didn't go far before reading:

Human-induced warming has been evident in Australian temperatures since 1950. 

That link (since 1950) takes me to a technical paper by Karoly and Braganza. Karoly is a meteorologist, Braganza is a mathematician and is now the Manager of Climate Monitoring at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The paper was written in 2003 and published in 2005, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. I read the paper. The key conclusion is the final one:

In summary, we find ...very small chance that the observed changes can be explained by natural externally forced climate variations, as simulated by these models.

Its a b....y   model again! These blokes created a computer model 17 years ago and concluded that their simulation suggested human induced global warming. And alarmists are quoting it as evidence in relation to fires that a burning today.

I am confident that I could go through the whole article from The Conversation and find a raft of similar nonsense. This is not evidence. Evidence is records of rainfall, temperature and bushfires. These are easily accessed and anyone can read them.

 And who said CSIRO and BOM are fraudsters who are trying to bring down the economic system or are just trying to scam research funds?

Warming should make food cheaper, the CO2 makes plants grow and warmer weather means longer growing season. We shall see!

Perhaps you could address the issues in this article especially the quotes directly from CSIRO and Bom.  So do you consider CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science Bom as alarmists?  

 

Have either of those bodies published evidence that the recent fires are different? I haven’t seen it.

Edit...which article are you referring to Octave?

I like that kind of science, where something is observed and they admit they don’t know what is causing it. Seems like a good area for further study.

There is lots of evidence of past conditions and it is easily accessed. I have seen no evidence from the alarmists that supports what they are asserting, they simply ask us to trust them. If there is evidence that the recent fires are different in any way from past fires than I call on someone to produce it.

I have read a lot of factual material about past fires. There seems to be no evidence that climate change has made the recent ones larger or more severe. The facts stand alone for me, regardless of who is reporting them.

According to Wikipedia, the area of Lake Eyre is 9,500 sq km. So with 2m of annual evaporation it would need 19,000,000 megalitres of flow per year to maintain level. That is just over 52,000 Ml per day needing to come down the channel. At a slope of 1:10,000 as recommended for design of irrigation channels, a 3m wide by 0.5m deep channel delivers 20 Ml per day. I don't know how to scale that up, but it is a factor of 2600 so the channel would have to be roughly 8km wide and 1 km deep!

I may have made a mistake here, so would welcome a check on this. Another way to think of this is the Murray river flows about 10,000 Ml per day so it would take five Murray rivers to keep Lake Eyre full. But if we only wanted to keep one fifth of Lake Eyre full then we would only need one Murray River.

It is great to learn that Australia is leading the world in per capita renewables.

[ATTACH]50604._xfImport[/ATTACH]

The flow would have to exceed evaporation. It isn't obvious that this is possible for Lake Eyre.

Our son has a driveway like that in Tecoma, Melbourne. 

I have a copy of a speech by Lang Hancock proposing to build the channel with atomic bombs.

Look for Gentleman’s steam bicycle on YouTube to see the alternative to an ebike

We once built a house to an architect's design that had a 27 degree bend in the middle of the floor plan. The architect marked it as 30 degrees and the builder spent a day trying to peg it out. When he challenged the architect, he said “ what’s three degrees anyway?”.

There is very little media willing to examine those people. They are out in the public domain pushing ill- founded nonsense. I don’t think the Murdoch or any press would bother with me.

Dozens of battles have killed tens and hundreds of thousands each time. Several of the Chinese ones have killed 500,000 plus each time. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties

Well done! Wish I had picked it, we have one on the bench.

• To think the world is doing "all it reasonably CAN" is pure BS.. There's NEW possibilities Not despair and end of profit (except for Coal powered  generators eventually)  NEW ones are NOT economic. Old ones are unreliable. .Rockefellers got out of oil ages ago and even the Saudi's are selling out of it.. It's NOT the end of the world at all. Tourism employs about the same as mining does in Australia and mining will be increasingly mechanised and use robots. and off site control. Any extra oil we get should only be used here. 
   
        Foreign companies are the majority and renowned for paying no tax and doing a great deal of environmental damage they will never rectify. REAL costs of using carbon are NOT paid  Yes we are a joke and derided around the world and deserve to be. Per Capita we are second in the world as polluters of Carbon. Pulling your weight and. being fair counts. We all live on the same planet.  and Australia is known for it's standard of living  but HOW it's achieved is also of interest to the rest of the world IF it's done by unpopular and damaging means we will suffer. There's no avoiding it. Nev
   
  

  The Mining Equipment, Technology and Services (METS) sector in Australia is thriving, dynamic and world-leading. Generating over $90 billion annually in revenue, employing around 400,000 people and exporting to more than 200 countries globally.
   
  See http://www.austmine.com.au/
   
  

I read two days ago that the indigenous leaders are seeking a two-year funded training programme to train indigenous people how to do indigenous burning. Sorry, can't now find the reference.

And my point is that the strident calls for immediate 'de-carbonisation' are pointless posturing. The world is doing what it can, but we are dependent on fossil fuels for 85% of our energy. What would Greta have us do? Fossil fuels all produce carbon dioxide when burned. Why do you pick on coal in particular? I don’t think Greta or the other alarmists single it out. They want all fossil fuels stopped.

if we are going to destroy civilisation, and that is what would happen, we need a much stronger reason than any that can be derived from dodgy computer models and dishonest pseudo science. 

Humans have killed millions of other humans. Volcanoes, not so  many.

But....our economy depends on energy for all sorts of activities.