BoM moves the Goal Posts

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.

NZ dumps carbon tax

Is this the second sensible counter Kyoto step by a “First World” government that has signed on to the mess ? After Tony Blair harmed Kyoto a few weeks ago that is.
Read in NZ Herald of 21 December

Dumping of carbon tax delights business, angers Greens

The Government’s decision to ditch the proposed carbon tax has been backed by the business community, but slammed by the Greens who called it a “capitulation” to vested interests.

Climate Change Minister David Parker announced today that the tax, designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and due to come into effect in April 2007, would not go ahead.

Officials are being asked to look at other options.

It had been claimed that the tax would harm businesses and cost households between $4 and $10 a week.

Business leaders said today’s decision was sensible.

See also Oct 2005 Coolwire 13, “A campaign is developing to get NZ out of the Kyoto accord.”

End of year alteration shenanigans at CRU

I have just added a line on Coolwire 16 to weird goings on at the CRU Climate Monitor website re deletions of 2005 gridded data images from March 2005 on.
IMHO it looks as if they wanted to see if 2005 could be a candidate for Hottest year ever. I know others have noticed this CRU habit long before this Blog.
No shame at all.
Caught out with their own date stamps. Check it out for yourself, please let me know when March 2005 on are replaced.

Dodgy BoM map supports “Nation bakes in its hottest year” media article

See Coolwire 16 for discussion of the above article and this BoM map published on page 7 of The Weekend Australian 17-18 Dec 2005.

Note how 90% of the orange area of highest warming is from regions of Australia largely devoid of people and I would suggest devoid of meaningful long term temperature data too.

What disgraceful BoM propaganda, taxpayer funded.

How did Jones et al 1986 and Jones 1994 select Atlanta ?

This is the first “city” study I put online in 2000. There is nothing isolated about Jones using a city with such obvious UHI contamination as Atlanta, they used hundreds of cities.


In the face of this methodology, the AMS journal in 1986 published not ONE comment and I am not aware anybody tried to comment. I look forward to hearing some justifications from IPCC supporters for the use of Atlanta and similar data to contribute to an accurate measure of global temperature trends.

A Scientist Wonders

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

Montreal Bonanza

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

Crichton testifies on scientific verification


Michael Crichton, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 28 September 2005

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the important subject of politicization of research. In that regard, what I would like to emphasize to the committee today is the importance of independent verification to science.

Dr. Crichton’s full speech is at the above link or NZ Climate Truth 79

On the 5th October Dr. Crichton made the following brief comment on the ClimateAudit web site.

My testimony was intended to be an argument for transparency.

More broadly, I wanted to suggest that the US government needs stricter standards for many kinds of information it uses to set policy. The Vioxx story is one non-climate example.

In response to the Vioxx controversy, last month a dozen major medical journals published a joint editorial in which they called for a publicly-accessible database for trial results similar to the NIH, and they said they would not publish results of trials that had not been registered on the database.

It will be interesting to see if other fields of science follow this straightforward example.

After all, who opposes transparency?

(I won’t be commenting further. Thanks to all those who have taken the trouble to read my testimony carefully, and to spell my name correctly. )

WA Govt. wastes 75 GL of rainwater in 2005

Perth uses approximately 300GL of water PA.

The Govt. is constructing a ~$400Mill seawater desalination plant to produce 45GL PA.

In 2005 May to October (the runoff season) Perth dam catchments which total 3500 squ. kms had circa 958mm of rain. This equates to about 3353GL water falling free into catchments of which approx. 115GL flowed into dams, meaning that catchment efficiency (yield) was 3.4%.

My graphic at the Perth Water Users web site shows that up until the mid 1990’s catchment efficiency was 5.5 to 6%. Let’s just assume for a minute that our Governments had been sensible and maintained catchment management work, keeping yields this year at say 5.7%. An increase of 2.3% (5.7-3.4) in this years yield would have put an extra 75+ GL (2.3% of 3353 GL) into our dams, which is 160% of the projected production from the Kwinana Desalination Plant (KDP), where costs have already blown out to over $387Million.