If you will excuse the pun, the climate debate has started to hot up again in recent months. It is hard to put your finger on why, but then again, this is one debate that has long since divorced itself from the reality of facts, figures and science.

Both sides of the debate have been… hang on! Why must there only be two sides and why must there only be two camps? Surely there is room in the middle and across the spectrum, right? Well, in short, the answer is no. The nature of any debate that gets hijacked by ideology and faith is that it very quickly polarises into the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps and no alternative positions are allowed. It is he death knell for serious discussion. Now back to my original sentence…

Both sides of the debate have not exactly done themselves proud. The rhetoric, the personal abuse and the arrogance of some of the loudest voices has been obscene, that is when it hasn’t been laughable and error-filled.

Al Gore probably kicked things off with his once-lauded and now much-derided movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which was lumbered with so many factual errors, exaggerations and outright lies that the name of the movie has been the punchline to many a joke. The much hyped and much publicised ‘hockey stick graph’ has fared little better. Once proudly displayed by the IPCC to all and sundry, the graph and its underlying methodologies have now been reduced to being generously described as ‘bad science’ or less politely, outright fraud.
Not that the other side can hold its head up all that high. Self-styled Lord Monkton has been a running sore and embarrassing global joke for some years now and self-respecting people try to ignore his ravings. And then there are the conspiracy theorists always ready to muddy the waters of any otherwise, sensible discussion.

Former Australian senator Graeme Richardson recently complained that the ‘denialists’… Sorry, let’s digress yet again. ‘Denialists’? A term like that is rather harsh and extremely derogatory and speaks volumes about those that use it – none of it good. The fact that Queensland University even has a course to help people counteract (largely throw insults) anti-climate-change viewpoints ie denialism is a disturbing state of affairs.  So back to Graeme Richardson…

Former Australian senator Graeme Richardson recently complained that the Climate Change Critics had taken over the majority opinion because ‘no one has engaged them.  Wrong Graeme. That’s not the reason. Not even close. Politicians of all stripes love to consider the average person as some kind of gullible mug who will swallow whatever message is the loudest.  While sadly there may be some truth to that, most people retain sufficient intelligence and experience to work out what is a truth and what is a lie, especially when it is rather obvious. The world has been told for three decades now that we are all going to drown, fry, starve or die in other ways because of ‘out of control, catastrophic climate change’ and yet, nothing much has changed at all. Any Australian with a few decades of life to refer to has experienced drought, flood, heat, cold and extreme weather events. And not one of them is historically remarkable.

When Tim Flannery came along claiming that Adelaide will run out of water, Sydney will never fill its dams and we are all going to burn up from uncontrolled heat, experience and scepticism caused most people to ignore that prediction. The subsequent flooding rains and decommissioning of desalination plants due to full reservoirs pretty much put paid to such predictions. Except it didn’t. Even in the face of near 100% failure of climate predictions, the same people keep making the same claims and with the same results.

The reason the significant majority of average people reject the notion that climate is out of control and we are all going to die is the complete and total failure of any of these prophecies to be fulfilled even in small measure. While NASA and NOAA might trumpet loudly (and some would say hysterically) their claims that 2014 was the ‘hottest year ever’, they are talking about hundredths of a degree alongside error margins of tenths of a degree. People are not stupid or at least not that stupid. It is a bit like predicting a St Kilda premiership each and every year. After 20, 30,v40 years of disappointment, you quickly learn to treat such predictions as the wishful thinking they are.

The Pro-climate-change groups have orchestrated some truly appalling actions in pursuit of publicising their venture. While the Al Gore movie could be dismissed as just an embarrassment, the Climategate scandal cannot. Professional scientists colluding to ‘hide the decline’ and hiding data that did not support their central hypothesis. The Hockey Stick fiasco and the continued support for a graph that had literally been proven wrong showed up some people and groups’ motivations to be extremely suspect. But the absolute killer statement was…

‘The science is settled’

Perhaps the silliest thing said of a scientific discipline since the infamous statement by late 1800s physicists that ‘we know pretty much all there is to know about the atom’. No science is ever settled and certainly not climate science which is a relatively young discipline. At least when Rutherford discovered the subatomic structure, physics moved on. The same cannot be said for the loudest voices in Climate Change groups.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 12:38pm:


rabbitoh08 the IPCC computer climate models have proven to be a failure what they predicted back in 1990 have not come to pass in accordance with the observed data.

Their predictions were way over what has been observed, meaning they are wrong and have estimated, calculated wrong since their analysis is wrong.

The amount of CO2 going up into the atmosphere is for ever increasing yet temperatures have tapered of.

Where is the link between Anthropogenic Global Warming CO2 and temperature....?????

What about the hot spot in the tropopause weather ballons and satellites have failed to detect this hot spot that appears in the IPCC computer climate models....????

What about the non sense that the missing heat was going into the oceans, we have the ARGO system of buoys and they too have failed to find this signature footprint.

Once bankers have the $2 trillion dollar carbon derivatives up and running do you think they will reduce the amount of CO2 going up into the atmosphere to break this market...???

In time our superannuation will become entrenched as an investment in this market would you like to see it crash then....???

What about the fact that Rothchild's son is peddling the alarmist cause doesn't this ring alarm bells for you...??

Well I guess it would if you don't know who he is.....????

What about the fact that banks and bankers are pumping billions that's billions of dollars into the AGW religion...???

And if anything should ring the alarm bells for you is that the alarmists scientists are saying to the rest of the scientific community to sit down and shut up we are right everyone else is wrong......????

Science is about being sceptical until your predictions backed up by your calculations can be observed in the real world and not computer programmes.

These peddlers of doomsday have been caught out on so many occasions, here is the last one for tonight, the famous hockey stick.

Why did the IPCC publish in 1990 the hockey stick showing the medieval warm period and the mini ice age and a decade latter they replaced this with Michael Mann's hockey stick which had both these cycles omitted....????

What about climate gate........?????

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Wow!  The liar really is showing himself to be a complete fool now.

Your company TEACHES on the hydrological cycle does it?
And what is your role liar?  Making the coffee?

Seriously -  who do you think you are fooling you ignorant fool.

You are a liar.  THis has been proven. You told us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".  This is nonsense.  We all know it.

Now you pretend to know something about hydrology!!!

What a pathetic lying twat you are.

Please - tell us oh hydrological guru - how exactly does an increase in temperature not affect how water behaves in the environment?

What exactly does your company say about this?

Who is your company?

Are they all as freaking stupid as you?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Oh - and just BTW, I have a Masters degree majoring in hydrology.

You are silly twat that tells lies on the internet,

Seriously - who do you think you are fooling?

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:58am:


so you would be well versed in 1D, 2D and 3D modelling, turbulence calculations and GW/SW interaction?  assuming you even know what any of those mean without googling them.  So mr expert, tell me what modelling calculation kernel you use in your hydrological flow modelling.

from our materials...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:46am:


So you  plagiarize material for your company, even going to the extent of removing  the source from the lower right . So sad longweekend.

Seems rabbit droppings and is claimed Masters degree in Hydrology has gone missing.

no surprise.