tip off

IPCC chief calls for ‘sane voices’ in local climate debate

The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks to Crikey on the need for sanity and fair reporting in media coverage of climate change — and explains why Australia should care.

Rajendra Pachauri

As The Australian claims sea level rise is not linked to global warming, the world’s most influential climate scientist has called on “sane and rational voices” to speak out and correct the record.

More than 250 scientists have gathered in Hobart today for a summit of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s climate science body. The Oz marked the summit’s opening with a front-page “exclusive” story which claimed there was “no link” between sea level rises and global warming.

In a telephone interview, Crikey asked the long-term chair of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri, in Tasmania for the summit, about the story.

What is particularly important is that sane and rational voices must respond to these questions and this scepticism, and I think that should get adequate currency,” said Pachauri, who in 2007 accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC. “Then people can make up their minds on their own.”

He called on the media to take responsibility for the stories they run. “Unfortunately in several parts of the world, the media gives disproportionate coverage to those who take a contrarian view, even if they represent a very very small percentage of either the scientific consensus or public opinion. They get almost equal billing, and to my mind that seems a little unfair,” he said.

Pachauri said climate change was particularly serious for Australia: ”From the looks of it, Australia is very very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, you have droughts, you have heat waves. Sea level rise could be a serious problem in some parts of the country. So Australia undoubtedly is very vulnerable, perhaps more so than several other places in the world.”

The Australian has long run a sceptical line on climate change, particularly in its opinion pages. Today’s story, written by environment editor Graham Lloyd, relied on a paper co-authored by Australian scientist Dr John Church. The paper apparently “said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea level rises in the 20th century”.

But Church, a sea level expert with the CSIRO, told a media conference today that was not an accurate description of the paper.

So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that’s actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I’m sorry, inaccurate,” said Church, a co-ordinating lead author with the IPCC.

While The Australian claimed the paper had found no increase in the rate of sea level rise, Church said the paper showed the rate of sea level rise had increased between the 18th and 19th centuries, and research showed a further acceleration of the rate during the 20th century.

Despite the persistence of scepticism, Pachauri was upbeat about global acceptance of the science of human-induced climate change. He thought some prominent sceptics were changing their minds: “I hope that will be the case once they see all the compelling scientific evidence, in this country and in other parts of the world.”

The public tended to respond slowly to difficult realities, he says, so time was needed to change attitudes “Business-as-usual has a very strong force behind it, and therefore to move away from business-as-usual takes time, takes effort, and I imagine you’ll see signs of change in the near future,” he said.

The IPCC chief was confident the world was getting the message on climate change: “I think the extent of awareness is growing very rapidly … I feel quite optimistic about the way things are going”.

Pachauri praised Australia’s carbon price, saying the IPCC had found a price on carbon was one of the most effective ways of encouraging low-carbon technology. “I think what Australia has done has to be commended and I hope other parts of the world will also see something similar being done,” he said. He also called on governments to remove subsidies on fossil fuels because they acted as a deterrent to alternative sources of energy.

The IPCC issues major reports on climate change every five or six years; the last was in 2007, and this next report (which is the fifth) is due for release in September this year. Writing the report is a laborious process involving hundreds of scientists, multiple drafts and tens of thousands of comments from experts on each draft. The final report then has to be OK-ed by every member state of the UN’s climate body. A draft of the fifth report was leaked by a climate sceptic late last year.

Thomas Stocker, co-chair of that part of the IPCC which is meeting in Hobart (it’s one of a number of working groups on the fifth report), says 255 scientists from 39 countries are at the Hobart summit considering more than 30,000 comments received on the previous draft of the report. “We want to get this right,” Stocker told a media conference today.

The 2007 IPCC report concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations” (GHG refers to greenhouse gas). The IPCC defines “very likely” as over 90% certainty.

Church says the fifth report has made significant scientific progress on the effects of climate change on sea level rise; this report would be more advanced than the previous one.

The IPCC experts speaking at the opening of the summit would not be drawn on what else the fifth report might contain, or on how precisely the scientists would be able to project the impacts of climate change. The summit runs until Saturday.

63
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Why wouldn’t it be “exclusive”?
    Who else (with a sense of reality) would touch that sort of spin?

    Is Murdoch - with his trolls spreading his word - a climate science expert, or a PR mogul, with a barrow to ply?

  • 2
    MJPC
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Business-as-usual has a very strong force behind it” or is it the case of exploitation as usual. Murdoch and his fellow-travellers (and not only in the media) from the big end of towns have only one business and that is gain as much capital for them at the expense of the rest of us, and indeed the planet.
    The trouble with this attitude is that too late will be too late for all, not just he and his ilk.
    Just one question, what scientific qualifications has Graham Lloyd, surely not a comms degree from some Uni to allow such scientific pontification.

  • 3
    Kincuri
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    This situation really highlights an issue with current reporting of climate science in Australian (and generally international) media. That someone like Graham Lloyd is given an equal voice in the climate change dialogue as someone truly credentialed like Dr Pachauri…

    An expert says one thing, a journalist (mis)interprets it another way and suddenly we feel justified simply to do nothing at all.

  • 4
    David Allen
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Dr Church should demand a correction to the story or right of reply. If that is not granted then he should lodge a complaint to the [toothless] Press Council.

  • 5
    keith marlow
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Dr Pachauri has NO Climate science qualifications - he is a generally qualified bureaucrat who has a vested interest in climate change - look up TERI.

  • 6
    2dogs
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Dr Pachauri has NO Climate science qualifications”

    255 scientists from 39 countries are at the Hobart summit considering more than 30,000 comments received on the previous draft of the report.”

    So I guess that he must have amazing powers of mental mind manipulation to have all those 255 scientists say what he wants and a magical “wand of auto-correctness” to align those 30,000 comments with his “vested interests”

    Yep Keith, don’t let facts get in the way of highjacking a thread with a good old fashioned “attack on a person” rather than the content

    (BWT do you know where I can find a “wand of auto-correctness”? I am writing some awfully long company recommendations at the moment and …. well some magic instead of logic would go a long way)

  • 7
    Microseris
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Keith Marlow implies Rajendra Pachauri has a vested interest in his advocacy of climate change. This chestnut was raised by the denier media in 2009.

    In response to the allegations, TERI asked KPMG to carry out an audit of both TERI’s financial records and Dr Pachauri’s personal financial records. The Guardian published the KPMG review in 2010. The review concludes: “No evidence was found that indicated personal financial benefits accruing to Dr Pachauri from his various advisory roles that would have led to a conflict of interest”.

    In terms of qualifications, he is the chair of the IPCC, whilst there are 800 authors of the report, each with a specific area of expertise.

    Deniers, grasping at straws as if we have a plan B.

  • 8
    floorer
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    2dogs 255 scientists all agreeing on the topic they’re there to remedy doesn’t surprise me at all. Bit like all pollies agreeing to a pay rise, whoopee…just like any other club.

  • 9
    keith marlow
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    2dogs - I wasn’t attacking the person - its a fact he has no climate qualifications. I was commenting to the first sentence of the article namely “The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks..” - he ain’t no climate scientist; he is a bureaucrat. If you can find some actual climate qualifications he has then I with withdraw the statement - good luck!

  • 10
    keith marlow
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Floorer - exactly, its a club who very existence depends on having climate change be proven to be man made - when NONE of all the 4 reports by the IPCC have correctly predicted the temperature since they have been published - all have come in with reality UNDER their lowest predictions.

  • 11
    Steve777
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Contrarians in any field of science are occasionally right but not that often. Much science now regarded as canon started out on the fringes, regarded as radical and unorthodox, e.g. evolution, plate techtonics, and quantum theory. These have now been accepted as established science by the weight of evidence over the years. In the 1980’s and perhaps into the 90’s there may have been a genuine debate about Climate Change. But now the science is in. We know it is happening, even while we don’t know the detailed impacts, they’re unlikely to be benign. The debate should be over what we should do about it. Meanwhile, the Australian, Fossil Fuel interests and large sections of the Right say we should be giving equal time to flat-earthers.

  • 12
    Rich Uncle Skeleton
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Fascinating, since politicians don’t choose their pay. An independent committee does. It’s cute to harp on about a small error in the article blurb while batting eyelids and adopting a “just saying!” demeanor, but you ignore the rebuttal to your own accusations of his alleged vested interests.

    And the IPCC temperature projections are incredibly accurate, and far more accurate than any “skeptical” projection of “global cooling” which is always, always, on the horizon but which never occurs.

    The IPCC is still a highly respected, transparent institution and the number of errors in the last report numbered….one?

    Come on Keith, you are inept. Can you get anything right?

    Why don’t you tell me what’s causing the warming since 1880 using peer reviewed research and we can go from there. Try me.

  • 13
    Richard Koser
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure anyone has a vested interest in climate change, except maybe the jellyfish (they’re doing well) and Shell (they’re trying, and failing, to drill in the Arctic).
    As for temperature increase, well take a look at http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/10/1421601/video-charts-planet-is-still-warming/
    Graham Lloyd of the Australian really needs to be spanked with a paddle for this latest effort. He’s not just a naught boy, he’s been deliberately devious.
    As for academic qualifications, Dr Pauchari has a publication track record that Christopher Monckton can only envy.

  • 14
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Sane voices”?
    Good luck with that - who owns the biggest “bull-horn”?

  • 15
    2dogs
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    2dogs - I wasn’t attacking the person”

    Of course not, you are insinuating that because he has no climate qualifications the report will be deliberately skewed to benefit his “vested interests” (why else mention it?). You are simply attempting to create a lingering suspicion rather that than commenting on the actual content of the report(s). I find it equally amusing that one “bureaucrat” has the ability to control 255 scientists and magically align 30,000 odd comments with his “vested interests” (I really need to find that wand).

    Floorer, according to your logic the best way to measure the trust-ability of a scientist would be how broke he is. So I guess the only scientist I should listen to would be Tesla (as awesome as he is).

    Is it possible that the science is evolving as our understanding deepens, like all science? That the founding principal is sound but our predictions on the exact, measurable effects will take some time to get 100% correct, like all science?

  • 16
    floorer
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    2dogs, I apologise for plucking one sentence out of your post and distorting it, “Is it possible that the science is evolving as our understanding deepens, like all science?” Agreed, as in there’s a way to go which is why I lean towards scepticism.

  • 17
    ecoGuy
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    2dogs -again, focus on what I wrote. He was described as a climate scientist in the first sentence of this report - he has no such qualifications. Are you happy to let such incorrect reporting stand? Answer my question and keep to the point.

  • 18
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Do other posters detect a religious foundation to all this anti-science hysteria, which is not just restricted to climate science?
    The crux of this insanity seems to rest on a benighted perception that “Science” is a powerful, rival belief system to some existing religions.
    The up-shot is that argument is futile.
    While most reasonable individuals would be happy with the progress of science or knowledge, (surely, for those who do believe, a confirmation of Christ’s statement: “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”), what sort of belief system could possibly promote ignorance?
    The totalitarian slave societies of old certainly had such an incentive based, of course,upon the keeping of slaves.
    And a religion to match.
    It is hard to countenance that the anti-science religionists against global warming science are in any way based on Judaeo-Christian beliefs.
    A more knowledgeable or scientific view makes then worshippers of Jupiter, or Iove,Optimo Maximo, who subverted the early Christian Church at the Council of Nicea and have been waging a losing war against knowledge and freedom ever since, for the very banal objective of profitably making and maintaining slaves of their neighbours.
    Yes, it is, as always, all about the money with some people.
    You do understand that the scientific arguments do not interest them in the slightest, only threats to their power.

  • 19
    Steve777
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Attacks on climate scientists on the grounds that they have a vested interest in warming are spurious. They are reporting on what the science says. Any credible climate scientist who had research findings that indicate that warming isn’t happening or if it is it’s caused by the sun, volcanoes or voodoo would be offered rivers of gold by fossil fuel companies and ‘free market’ foundations. But credible climate scientists who don’t believe in global warming are about as common as credible geologists who think the earth is 6,000 years old.

  • 20
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    That is the distorted prism through which the denialists view the world. Yes,the rest of the post has been “Moderated”.

  • 21
    Arty
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    The only deniers worth listening to are actuaries.

    Can we please hear from that group?

  • 22
    drmick
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    I am with Hamis.
    What qualifications or credibility have the deniers other than the ability to throw rocks & scoff. Certainly no effort to explain what is not an observed reality. And they have the hide to talk about vested interests?
    The flat earthers are using the white fella magic of the internet but still think it is just that.
    Credibility deficit just like the paper,its owner and the self interested big businesses paying big bucks to protect their backyard & destroy ours.

  • 23
    Achmed
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    He is not a climate scientist per se. No degree in science or climate change that I could find but he has a great level of experience

    He has been the Member of Board of the International Solar Energy Society (1991–1997), World Resources Institute Council (1992), while Chairman of the World Energy Council (1993–1995), President and then Chairman of the International Association for Energy Economics (1988–1990), and the President of the Asian Energy Institute (Since 1992).[12] He was a part-time advisor to the United Nations Development Programme (1994—1999) in the fields of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources.[13] In July 2001, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India

  • 24
    floorer
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    Throwing rocks eh. Here in Adelaide my eighty year old Mother spent a couple of days in hospital (she called the Ambulance they said you’re coming with us) for what looks like heat exhaustion because she’s too afraid to use her air conditioning for too long because of the expense. Wind turbines / solar panels are subsidised by all of us in SA. We also have a desalination plant put in to hibernation but through our water bills we still pay. Summer here is as it always is hot in spasms but nothing extraordinary. Right now my actuals are way more pressing than anybodies computer modelling. From my reading the extremes this year are caused by the late monsoon in northern Australia. Anybody know why it’s late?

  • 25
    floorer
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    the extremes elsewhere this year”

  • 26
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    MRJ et al - this is the entrey behind the paywall - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/sea-rise-not-linked-to-warming-says-report/story-e6frg8y6-1226553928313

  • 27
    gj meyer
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Laws of physics are not negotiable. The volume of ice above sea level is a known factor. The surface area at sea level is a known fact (Googel world). Take the volume of Ice available at sea level divide by surface above sea level nad you now have the maximum rise in sea level. Delve further into the laws of Physics and new factors must be taken into account.
    For the ice to melt it requires a rise in temperature. Identify source of heat (temperature rise). Sub tertian (earth core changes) Solar (Sun temperature variations, solar flares etc.). Human caused.
    WHAT EVER the cause the temperature must be raised to melt the ice, as the ice melts over a period mew factors come into the equation, the first that comes to mind is the rise in atmospheric water vapour (humidity).
    We now have a true green house world. As for a rise in sea level, I suspect it will recede. With no ice to compensate for temperature elevation expect maximum humidity.
    Having experienced 600 millimetres of rain in 24 hours its a sobering thought.

  • 28
    2dogs
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    He was described as a climate scientist in the first sentence of this report - he has no such qualifications. Are you happy to let such incorrect reporting stand? Answer my question and keep to the point.”

    I am not sure if I am responding to Ecoguy or Keith on this one but I am happy to reply. I would freely accept your point if you simply pointed out the fact that he was not a climate scientist. Rather the full context of your comment was:
    “Dr Pachauri has NO Climate science qualifications - he is a generally qualified bureaucrat who has a vested interest in climate change”

    As I stated you are clearly attempting to play the man, which is ironic given the context of this article. However I will happily answer your question, yes Crikey should attempt to be accurate about Dr Pachauri’s qualifications.

    Now questions for you, does this effect Dr Pachauri’s comments or the Crikey article (ie. is the good doctor making a fair call, do we need more rational voices and to call certain media to account in the climate change debate) and does it effect, in any way shape or form, the IPCC report due later in the year? I am genuinely looking forward to your “answers that keep to the point”.

  • 29
    Alexander Berkman
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    @Floorer, I am an Adelaidean as well but your logic lacks any real scientific basis. There is reams and reams and reams of information showing climate change is happening and when such radical groups as the World Bank, The IMF, Price Coopers Waterhouse, The Pentagon are all talking about at least a 2 degree warming and possibly up to 6 degree warming then shouldn’t that stir somehtign in the climate change denial camp that if these bastions of ahem.. left winfg radicalism..not are talking about it, don’t you reckon it’s actually happening?? As for the Oz, it is nothing but a tabloid broadsheet with gutter ‘journalists’ spouting spurious lies in order to maintain the power of their major shareholders & advertisers - the fossil fuel companies. Now tell me, who has the conflict of interest here, scientists who want to save our planet or big polluters who want to increase their bank balances….?

  • 30
    floorer
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    255 climate change academics from 39 countries JET into Hobart.

  • 31
    Achmed
    Posted Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    floorer - it was probably too far to walk and that Bass Strait can be a bitch to walk over on a windy day

  • 32
    sottile6
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 1:46 am | Permalink

    Don’t dignify the denier comments here with a response. They are just puerile. I can’t be bothered to even address their pettiness. The real conversation should be about how to improve our responses to the extreme warming that is coming. How are we going to approach the mass extinctions, huge increases in homelessness and a great increase in the spread of especially tropical diseases? What approaches will we take? We should be discussing this and ignoring the ravings of the petulant.

  • 33
    David Allen
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Keith Marlow said, “its a club who very existence depends on having climate change be proven to be man made” demonstrating, spectacularly, his general ignorance.

    It will, and can, never be ‘proven’ that climate change is man made. It’s a balance of probability thing.

    Even if the probability is calculated at 99.9999% true it can be claimed that ‘the tooth fairy dun it’ (probably by Keith). It is not possible to disprove this statement ergo it is not possible, ever, to prove a particular effect has a particular cause.

  • 34
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Achmed 31;
    And they all might have holes in their feet too.

  • 35
    gapot
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    If your job depended on the sea rising what would you say???

  • 36
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Floorer;
    Whilst, as a septuagenarian who does not have an air conditioner, I sympathise with your mothers dilemma but to use that experience as a reason for your scepticism to the incontrovertible science lacks rationality.
    May I suggest, as the loving and caring son you obviously are, you should consider putting PV panels on her roof to offset her electricity costs or is it your ideological driven scepticism stopping you from resolving her dilemma.
    The continual denial of the ‘inconvenient truth’ that we have built our comfortable lifestyles on a cheap and abundant energy source that our most eminent scientists are now warning us of it consequences is both facile and puerile.
    Scepticism should be focused on how we may resolve our past errors and mistakes, not directed at maintain our collective mistakes for the sake of a few money grubbing interests. We do have responsibility to our own off spring and future generations.

  • 37
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Floorer may be quite correct to call the late onset of the monsoon season into the “heat” equation.
    I spent six weeks in Katherine in 1971,during summer, waiting for the Wet so we Southerners could experience going Troppo.
    It did not rain, and up to the end of January that year the thermometer did not go below 50 degrees Celsius.
    Held up to the rising sun it shot up to 55.
    Returning to Sydney, I was wearing a jumper while the locals lay about like stranded whales in a mere 33 degrees Celsius.
    Makes me laugh to read all the temperature records in the high forties.
    Is Floorer the only one who understands the effects of the late onset of the monsoon season?
    About ten years ago there was a record temperature of 47 degrees in The Lismore region of Northern NSW in November.
    Life threatening for inexperienced people caught outdoors with no shade and no water.

  • 38
    2dogs
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Achmed 31
    To be fair if it was 12 scientists and the good doctor they would have pulled a JC and just walked across (Jesus being conscious of his carbon footprint and all)

  • 39
    Achmed
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    As the north west of Aust moves through what is called the wet season we still wait for rain. Can only hope that the monsoons start moving south or we start getting cyclones and the accompanying rain.
    Temperature on the verandah outside my office the temp was 53c.
    Last real big good fall was around 7 years ago when we got 237mm in one day….

  • 40
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    No they wouldn’t 2dogs. He has water penetrating holes in his feet now. He would sink like a bloody rock mate, accoding to the laws of physics.

  • 41
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Sorry.. That should read ‘according to his daddies’ laws of physics’

  • 42
    2dogs
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Damnnit Mike, it is not fair that you are some 4 posts and 3 hours ahead of my thinking.

    Again ironic how claims of “It is a financial burden”, “Temperature records are not accurate, my personal experience is” and (my personal favorite) “because they did not swim there they clearly do not believe in the science and are therefore frauds” are the very things that “sane and rational voices” need to talk over (now where is my copy of “The Australian).

  • 43
    David Allen
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Hamis Hill said, “… up to the end of January that year the thermometer did not go below 50 degrees Celsius.”

    Which, in typical denier fashion doesn’t quite reflect reality. Weather records are available on line from the Met office, Weatherzone etc. Katherine Council official records began in 1873. (BOM weather station 014902)

    Highest January Max for Katherine is 41.1 deg C, 06 Jan
    1960. Highest ever is 45.6, 14 Nov 1962.

    The highest temperature ever recorded in Australia was 50.7 C (123.3 F) Oodnadatta, South Australia on the 2nd January, 1960.

    Facts, Hamis, aren’t that hard to find. It was you banging on about religious fervour too, wasn’t it?

  • 44
    PhillipW
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    No temperature increase for 16 years but continued increase in carbon dioxide emissions suggests the null hypothesis should be preferred.

  • 45
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Now Now David, read Achmed’s post.
    Now, I have a witness to those private temperature readings, so what is your point beyond pea-brained indignation?
    Those religious fanatics are renowned for treating their opponents as “Gaia” worshippers, indicating religion versus religion.
    So Achmed’s verandah temperature exceeds your “Official” one, David. So his observations and mine are not “facts” then?
    Yes the thermometer was not calibrated, homes not being expected to match the accuracies of clinical laboratories, in general there, David.
    Again, do not exclude Floorers’ fact of late onset of the monsoon from the “heat” debate.
    As for taking the bait, David, I’ll leave you to find your own way off the hook.
    Now that religious fervour that denigrates the lived experience of the individual compared the quasi-divine infallibilty of the bureaucracy, et tu Davidus Fervourus?
    Where did you go to school by the way?
    Have you been baptised, how do we know that you factually even exist, so that we might give weight to your opinions?
    Perhaps the explanation. David,is that your reality is different to my reality. Go on “deny” that it is so.

  • 46
    David Allen
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Ah well, I should know better I suppose. What a load of tosh!

  • 47
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    If that is your reality David.

  • 48
    Achmed
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    High temperatures have always been a feature of the north west. I take readings outside my office and regularly find they are well above the official temp for the area. The official reading are taken closer to the coast whereas i work further inland.
    One thing that has been noted as unusual is the water temperature off Perth/southern areas of the Indian Ocean 4c above the norm.
    If you had noted the Cyclone Narelle and how far south that moved, cyclones follow the hot water. The number of cyclones heading further south than I can recall has been happening over the last 7 years. (I’m 60 yr old and N/W resident for most of that time) Less and less are making landfall in what have always been recognised cyclone prone areas.
    I don’t know if this is the result of natural climate change or man-made climate change…even the scientists can’t agree…but its a hell of risk to take by doing nothing. If those who don’t believe in man-made climate change have their way and we do nothing in 50? 100? years it could be to late.
    It would be like ringing the insurance company to insure your house against fire after it has burned down.

  • 49
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Yes indeed, but being declared a denialist for merely confirming the observations of late onset monsoon temperature conditions does not exactly match the calls for sanity in the debate.
    Religious mania is a reasonably generous explanation for such behaviour and is curable (but only after those so afflicted repent).
    The pre-cautionary principle as outlined by Achmed should apply.

  • 50
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    2dogs;
    Sorry mate, as wipe my mirth from my face.I got to win an occasional one, but you seem to be well in front.
    Many of my attempts are sent back for refunds

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...