Hotter and hotter …

It’s worse than we thought. Gee, it’s getting hot.

All the models show it and according to the consensus we all know it.

The thermometer, however, has been uncooperative. To counter this Australian thermometer readings have been homogenised, that is adjusted.

The Bureau of Meteorology have published the improved temperatures as the ACORN data set. The result – an increase in temperature of 0.9 °C over a century. QED.

Two issues cloud the matter somewhat. One is the urban heat island (UHI) effect. Increase the bitumen and the buildings around weather stations and you expect a warming bias in the record. The second issue is the adjustment process. One would expect that, for urban weather stations, either the modern records would be corrected downwards or older records to be corrected upwards, in order to compensate for the UHI. The mechanism the BoM uses for temperature adjustment has not been published. But trust us, we are from the government and are here to help. As was said of another government “the future is certain, only the past is subject to change”.

The past has left a record. In 1933 what was then called CSIR published 74 years of weather records. Twenty years later The Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics published an Official Year Book of Australia which included the mean temperature readings from 1911 to 1940 at 44 locations.

One Chris Gillham has been working very hard to compare the historical records with the ACORN set. And guess what … the older records have been adjusted downwards. Almost half of the vaunted warming has been due entirely to changes in the record. My guess is that the rest is due to the UHI.

My source is Jo Nova where you can find far more detail.

Nothing to do with Putin …

Death catches up with all of us eventually.

One way to speed things along seems to be to criticise Vladimir Putin.

Anna Politkovskaya

Alexander Litvinenko

Sergei Magnitsky

Stanislav Markelov

Natalya Estimirova

Alexei Dovetchenko

Boris Nemtsov

Good to know that Vlad is taking a personal interest in the investigation. I’m sure the hitmen are very relieved …

Allegory in Fahrenheit …

A very odd thing happened in Science. Turns out a famous weatherman has been forecasting highs in the 60s then 70s for New York City all winter long. But the temperature never rose above the single digits, teens, twenties, and thirties.

One day a writer at the New York Post wrote an article telling people not to trust the weatherman, who, it turned out, had issued a prediction for the following day for a “High of 80!”

Climatologists stationed at NASA on the Upper West Side were incensed that a non-scientist would interfere with Science. So the climatologists spoke with the weatherman, who said he was basing his predictions on a sophisticated computer model. Continue reading …

Slips the net …

PETER Slipper has had his three convictions for dishonesty quashed in the ACT Supreme Court.

The former speaker of the House of Representatives visited wineries on 14 occasions in 2010 and left taxpayers to foot the $954 limousine bill.

The first trip involved stops at seven wineries, the second outing involved five and on the third trip he inspected two wineries.

Justice Burns said “it is not possible to give definitive meaning to the term” parliamentary business.

Mr Slipper will retain his parliamentary pension and gold card travel entitlements.

“The ambiguous definition of parliamentary business means that one cannot conclude that the purchase or consumption of alcohol, or meal, by a parliamentarian is inconsistent with a journey being taken for the purpose of conducting parliamentary business.”

Justice Burns said the prosecution had failed to rule out Mr Slipper had travelled to the wineries for “purposes of informing himself about those businesses as part of his function as a parliamentarian”.

He also said it could not be ruled out that Mr Slipper met third parties for the purpose of parliament.

As a former speaker Mr Slipper will keep his generous pension and gold card travel entitlements.

Both the government and the Opposition yesterday said MPs were aware of the high standard the public expects from them in claiming travel expenses.

Whereas so far as the law is concerned there is no standard at all.

Karma …

The story so far …

In 2002 Rajendra Kumar Pachauri was appointed chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is supposedly an authoritative agency giving scientific advice to governments regarding what was once called anthropogenic global warming.

Please take note of the word scientific.

Great honour was done to the IPCC by the award of a collective Nobel Prize, as it happens a peace prize. Please note the absence of the word science.

A momentary aside, three years ago Michael Mann, the hockey stick guy, launched a defamation suit against Mark Steyn because of a “knowingly false comparison” between climate science and sexual molestation. Steyn and others  had to defend themselves against the hitherto unknown crime of “personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient“.

The link between global warming and sex crimes was evident in other places quite early in the piece. You may recall this story from a year ago …

Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099

So far as I know the study was not conducted in the IPCC offices. However earlier this month a woman research analyst lodged a complaint alleging …

Pachauri committed offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 506 of IPC, which deal with outraging the modesty of a woman, sexual harassment, stalking, and criminal intimidation, respectively.

The matter hit the press in the Economic Times (of India) on February the 18th. The Economic Times was hit by the full force of the outraged Pachauriderm and withdrew the article post haste. It was the old “I was hacked” defence …

The said email has indicated misuse of my computer resources and communication devices, without my permission or consent. From your email, I have come to know the factum that my computer resources including my email ids, mobile phone and WhatsApp messages have been hacked and that unknown cyber criminals have gone ahead and have unauthorisedly accessed my computer resources and communication devices and further committed various criminal activities.

He had, of course, filed complaints regarding the hacking with the commissioner of police, the controller of certifying authorities and the adjudicating officer under the Information Technology Act.

That prompted this very unsportsmanlike cartoon …

josh-patchy-resignsAnd as the cartoon notes, his resignation.

The resignation letter has been described as “a two page love letter to himself” but most significantly it contains the very telling snippet that I quoted yesterday …

For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.

Please take note of the word religion.

 

Freedom’s just another word …

From the address to the National Press Club by Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, 18th February 2015. I’ve indicated by my much beloved ellipses where I have chosen to leave words out.

Recent tragic events in Paris and Copenhagen are a reminder that “free speech” is not a slogan; it is a principle to be defended even if expressions cross the line of social acceptability …

I know the objective of this law is not to take subjects off the table. That’s part of the problem. The intention of the law doesn’t match its wording.

I understand why some communities feel the maintenance of this law is essential to their sense of security in our society, but for many of us so is the freedom of speech to defend ourselves.

Race, culture and religion regularly overlap …

No group should be able to use law as a shield from criticism. That’s why 18C is neither fair, nor just, and should be repealed.

Australians continuously raise their concerns with me about the current wording of 18C. Most want reform.

It is utterly inconsistent with human rights that some legal privileges are afforded to some, and not others.

Many ask why their identity group doesn’t enjoy the same legal privilege.

It’s that question that demonstrates the absurdity of the law. Subjective tests such as “offend”, “insult” or “humiliate” are not justifiable restrictions on free speech: whatever the subject.

If the same standard were applied to all identity groups we’d be a straightjacket society unable to discuss controversial topics.

From listening to communities, the law doesn’t reflect the mischief advocates even want to address:

  •  Anti-Semitic slogans targeting school children on buses.
  • Anti-Islamic abuse toward women wearing Niqabs.
  • Threats of violence against Asian-Australians on public transport.
  • Homophobic and transphobic bullying.
  • Deliberately degrading Aboriginal Australians.

No one disputes the human consequences of invasive and abusive public harassment …

If the law is re-orientated toward addressing public harassment it would enjoy far more public confidence across the community than it does today …

But we must seek reform because free speech goes to the heart of everyone’s individual autonomy and dignity.

You can read the whole speech <HERE>. You may be surprised.