Comments on: Media briefs: Fairfax’s compacts … Oz on climate … Rudd’s chin-ups …

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:59:54 +0000

That’s right Jim, perpetuate the inaccuracy and obfuscation by yelling out from the peanut gallery. Anybody who ‘quotes’ statements claiming that global warming has ‘stopped’, ‘plateaued’ or ‘paused’ in the past decade or so is simply wrong. They don’t know what they are talking about because they haven’t bothered to do the maths. The temperature data is publicly available and can be accessed and analysed by anyone with half an education. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to be able to read, Jim, so give it a try sometime.

By: Electric Lardyland

Electric Lardyland — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:42:31 +0000

Jim, thanks for the excellent example of just how paranoid you climate change deniers actually are.

By: Jim Moore

Jim Moore — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:50:04 +0000

You should have stopped after writing “I am no climatic scientist”. World exclusive, Crikey breaks open the great fraud of decades of climate scientists’ collusion and conspiracy. How much of the Crikey readership are you pandering to with this tripe?

By: Electric Lardyland

Electric Lardyland — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:03:14 +0000

Yes H(C)M, I also have a bit of a problem with climate change deniers and their laughable mathematics. Since late 2012, they’ve been claiming a 16 year pause in global warming, so now that it’s 2013 the seem to be claiming a 17 year pause; even though most people would realise that the 2013 data may not be in yet. But the thing that I find most hilarious with their 16 year pause claims is this. Their shonky analysis starts in the super El Nino year of 1998 and their data set ends in 2012. Now, it’s a long time since I’ve done high school maths, but I’m pretty convinced that 2012 minus 1998 is 14; not 16.
And it’s on the basis of analysis like that, that these alleged skeptics, think that they can trash the reputation of genuine scientists and science.

By: klewso

klewso — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 06:29:33 +0000

Charlie, that was made a lot easier with the invention of the digital watch.

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:11:28 +0000

Are these climate change writers deliberately sloppy, inaccurate and just plain wrong? It’s infuriating that even non-scientists (or are we all completely uneducated dills?) will not have a go at simple primary school mathematics and learn something all by themselves. NASA’s GISS temperature readings are completely public and are the basis for every person, scientist or not, finding out exactly how much temperature change is taking place. Anyone can do the maths - it’s so simple. The temperature changes are thus:
1880 - 2012, 132 years, temperature change over the period is +0.75°C. Average change per year = +0.00568°C
1998 - 2012, 14 years, temperature change is +0.06°C. Average change per year = +0.00428°C
So over the past 14 years, global temperature change has slowed from +568 to +428. See, it’s that simple. It has just slowed down. It has not “stopped”, “plateaued” or entered a “17 year pause” (ie. “temporary stop”). This is just broadcasters making stuff up and being quoted at random as if they know something. It’s a wonder they can tell the time.

By: Bart Tony

Bart Tony — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 04:25:46 +0000

Once again Graham Llyod at Limited News misrepresents the climate science. The British Met Office published a report stating that their projections for the next 5 years for atmospheric warming is 20% less than the previous forecast. Note that the MET office is still predicting a warming trend that is only at a 20% lower level but somehow Lloyd turns this into no warming. Llyod conveniently misses certain facts such as NASA stating that 2010 was the hottest year for land and ocean temperatures followd by 2005 and 2002.
The Brit Met office has 1998 as their hottest year for the lower atmosphere. A major crticism of the British Met Office has been that their global sensors cover only 85% of the worlds land and ocean areas and they miss out on the Artic region where significant warming is taking place. The Americans through NASA and NOAA have about 100% coverage so their analysis is better. The Japanese Met Office agrees with the Americans.
Llyod is notorious for giving only part of the picture and he does so to deliberately misinform.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 04:10:49 +0000

I thank Andrew Macintosh for his quick and readily understandable analysis of the latest from the Australian’s Graham Lloyd. I assumed it was rubbish, but it is good to have this confirmed and understand why.

By: paddy

paddy — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:34:42 +0000

After years of seeing Kevin doing lame “camera stunts”, I was far too savvy to click on his latest effort.
Alas, I was “ambushed” by that abominable Fairfax “Know no boundaries” promo and am now contemplating plucking out my eyeballs to ease the pain.

By: klewso

klewso — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:10:25 +0000

… and what a pity no one has the “resources” at their disposal of the Tele-tubbies, to ridicule “them at work”, playing with themselves and their PCPs?

By: klewso

klewso — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:07:27 +0000

Presumably Graham Lloyd and his editor are “climate scientists” - having chosen to boost/publicise, to greater public consumption prominence, those parts which they have?