The BoM original 14 November media release "2005: Australia’s warmest year on record?" was explicit in that calendar 2005 is the subject.

See my critique using NASA GISS data in Coolwire 15 and on Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog 29 November.

This BoM drum beat lead to the 17 December article in The Australian, "Nation bakes in its hottest year", that I critiqued here on 18 Dec. as, "Dodgy BoM map.." etc. The BoM map in question was headlined, Above normal temperatures January 1-November 30, 2005.

So presumably the map could not have been produced until the afternoon of 30 November.

It is fascinating that on 2 December the BoM put out another media release headlined, "NT – Hottest 12-month period", informing us of Northern Territory warmth, "Near Average November Temperatures for the Territory but Warmest 12-Month Period Persists". Oddly enough, there were no other media releases for other States, for example Queensland, featuring "Highest on record" areas on the map in The Australian. Note that it only takes two weeks for their 14 November hype, "2005: Australia’s warmest year on record?", to collapse in a heap under the influence of, shock horror, "Near Average November Temperatures for the Territory".

When the BoM says on 2 December, "..Warmest 12-Month Period Persists", they shift the start of the measuring period from 1 January 2005 back to 1 December 2004. This is "moving the goal posts."

Is there no shame dampening what the BoM will do under the imperative to put out warming propaganda ?

This farrago of contradictions might be amusing if it were not costing taxpayers and diverting effort from more beneficial output such as timely storm warnings.

We await the end of year round of BoM media releases.

The following letter appeared in the New Zealand magazine “North and South” from a Christchurch geologist Dr Gerrit van den Lingen

A scientist wonders

In your September issue Pete Hodgson wrote about “The Kyoto Question”: “The scientific argument is over and the world, with the Kyoto Protocol as a starting point, is beginning to act”.

One wonders where Hodgson got his scientific advice. The scientific argument is far from over.

I am a geologist and paleoclimatologist belonging to an international discussion group where about 250 well-qualified scientists discuss the science behind Kyoto in great depth. Most of these scientists are highly critical of the politicisation of the climate change discussion, as highlighted by the actions of the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Continue reading A Scientist Wonders →

Interesting commentary on 6 Dec 2005 from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s journalist Rex Murphy who says, “Perhaps Kyoto is Japanese for hypocrisy.”:

REX MURPHY (Commentator): It’s been a strange week. I’ve been wondering why the global warming conference in Montreal is getting relatively little attention. Probably because of the cold weather. It’s odd for another reason. Ten thousand people have come to Montreal, ten thousand. For a conference on reducing energy consumption. Now, ten thousand is a large number, elephantine, in fact. I don’t suppose many delegates walked. As conferences go, this one is a real Leviathan. Just think of the Montreal summit’s ecological footprint.

Continue reading Montreal Bonanza →