It’s “proof” to climate change believers, “just weather” to sceptics – but to everyone it’s the arrival of summer. In winter.


View The Punch - August weather in a larger map

Weather records are often trivial matters, a question of a few tenths of some obscure measurement here and there. Last month’s heat highs streaked away from the norms like Usain Bolt taking on a field of suburban club runners.

Unless you work for Channel 10, weather people typically aren’t an excitable bunch. But the Bureau of Meteorology is calling the August heat “highly unusual” and “exceptional”, and this week issued a Special Climate Statement, its first since the heatwave that fried the southeast in February. The interactive map above shows some – just some – of the dozens of records around the country that were burnt.

The whole country got some of the record-breaking action – from the record highs in Halls Creek in northern WA, through the red centre and down to Launceston in Tasmania where, for the first time ever, there wasn’t a single night the temperature fell below freezing in August.

It wasn’t just a case of there being an occasional hot day, either. Alice Springs, not unaccustomed to a stretch of sun, had 16 days over 30C in the month, compared to its previous record of eight.

And the high temperatures, particularly in the east, weren’t just tenths of a degree here or there. Maximum temperatures in Queensland averaged more than 4C above the long-term trend for August. Brisbane temperatures got well into the thirties, repeatedly. Inland, the town of Windorah had never breached 35C in August. This year, it got at least that hot on seven different days.

Getting down to other individual locations, and of some of the figures are staggering – click around the map and you’ll find stations, like Collarenebri in NSW, where the highest temperatures were more than 5C above their previous August record.

Bureau meteorologist Blair Trewin said in an email interview that one of the many unusual things about the August figures was “the margins by which many individual locations broke records; quite a lot of places broke August records by 4-5 degrees, which happens occasionally at the most exposed coastal sites where seabreezes are a factor, but I can’t remember seeing it before inland.”

Naturally, some will read this as evidence of climate change or, more precisely, proof of global warming. The ongoing argument on whether it exists and if so, who to blame – cows’ farts, the lack of sun spots, the coal industry, China or my Holden – has become one of the most zealous, polarised, and, I think, boring arguments in the world today.

In a telling clarifier Family First Senator Steve Fielding, explaining his opposition to the Rudd Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme on The Punch recently, had to start by saying he wasn’t a climate change sceptic. In this debate, if you so much as look at one side of the argument, the opposing camp treats you like you’ve made up your mind.

What a pity it’s so important to everyone.

So what do we make of Australia’s August? Talk of record low temperatures or high temperatures is about weather, not climate. Kids learn at school that climate determines if you can grow bananas; while weather determines if you’ll be hot or cold or wet when you pick them.

It’s foolish to look at weather data – which is what this map is based on – and jump to conclusions about climate. There are sufficient facts to counter the argument that the Queensland-NSW border is the epicentre of global warming anyway: average global temperature fell to record lows last year, and the US has just come through one of its coolest summers on record.

But back to fruit. Ray Daniels, a strawberry grower based outside Brisbane, had to scramble to pack his berries two weeks ago because they had matured a month early in the heat. “There is so much produce on the market that we may have to plough some of the crop in because it may not cover our workers’ wages,” he told the Courier Mail.

Maybe he can cut his losses this year, and next year will likely be fine. But the long-term trend is that Australia is experiencing high-temperature weather anomalies more often, so there could be less time between the ruined crops. At what point does a strawberry farmer stop taking the gamble? The causes or even the reality of climate shouldn’t be the core concern. It’s how to handle the potential problems it could cause - if this kind of August became more regular - that needs some serious thought.

Just to be clear, I don’t think the August records say anything about climate change, though the figures are astonishing. I asked Trewin how the August records fit with broader data on changes in Australia’s climate. Here’s his answer, in full:

A lot of the unusual warmth was probably because of the particular weather patterns of the month - a persistent high pressure ridge over the subtropics and persistent strong westerlies south of Australia (which gave Tasmania a very wet month). However, the long-term temperature trend (warming of about 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and about 0.15 degrees per decade) puts an extra element on top of that - so that the sort of pattern that would have given you a month 1.5 degrees above average 100 years ago might give you one close to 2.5 degrees above average now.

We’ve just done a comparison with October 1988, which had very similar weather patterns to August 2009 and was, at the time, Australia’s hottest month on record. August 2009 was 0.31 degrees warmer (in terms of difference from normal) than October 1988, which almost exactly matches the overall warming trend over that 21-year period.

Over to you.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

89 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • George says:

      08:35am | 03/09/09

      All the climate change heathens need to be aware that this is REAL PROOF that global warming is happening and that we have only a YEAR OR TWO to do something before the temperatures get so high that people will start to die and places like Brisbane and sydney will be flooded. The ice caps will be gone NEXT YEAR and its a known fact that no snow will fall on the Australian alps in the next year or two. People who deny global warming should be put in re-education camps and shown the science until they understand it otherwise we will all die from it and people in Bangladesh will be flooded and die too. I cannot believe that we are not doing anything when it is so obvious to everyone that the temperature is going up and up and keeps going up and up. Polar bears will be extinct in a year or two and so will all other cold climate animals becuase they won’t ber able to cope with the massive temperature changes that are ALREADY HAPPENING!

    • RT says:

      08:42am | 03/09/09

      There are some climate denialists who will never be budged whatever climate records are set. They love to point to aberrant cooling trends in the long term warming picture. Of course, with climate change, there is not going to be a continuous smooth upward curve. The long term trend, though,  has remained net upwards and there is no end in sight to it. Even John Howard could see that by the end of his term. There are none so blind etc

    • Liz says:

      09:11am | 03/09/09

      Why all the fuss? The climate has changed as long as there’s been one.What we need to fuss about is the pollution of big business, the exploitation of the earth’s recources by the rich and getting richer,the destruction of rain forests and cultures like Tibet.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:15am | 03/09/09

      I think Paul Colgan makes a very salient point that whether or not you believe in Global Warming and its causes, you are still going to have to deal with the effects caused by the anomolous weather- water shortages, more severe bushfires, shorter growing seasons, tropical diseases etc.

    • Mr Pastry says:

      09:30am | 03/09/09

      Weather is a chaotic system and the simplistic modelling can only ever be best guess.  The inputs that exist in the real weather system are infinite and we all know about the effect of butterfly wings - do the climate models have those?.  Using 200 years of records (in Australia) to predict a system that is 4 billions years old would appear a long shot. 
      However the message to stop cr*pping on our own doorstep is a good one but does not need climate change justification.  Our problem is Over Population and Over Consumption - and this is down to individual behaviour, not government policy, just have less things (children included).  The earth may deem humans too damaging and will take action, it has done very nicely without us before.

    • Ged says:

      09:31am | 03/09/09

      Well George, if polar bears are extinct in a year or two, I’ll eat my hat.  Your comments on re-education camps are little extreme as well don’t you think? Whilst Colgan brings up some good points, the fact remains that our records only go back a hundred years or so - we must face the fact that the climate has always changed and will continue to do so.

    • Luke says:

      09:32am | 03/09/09

      I guess we are going to hear a story like this every time we have a warm month, a warm day, or a warm afternoon.  And in the next breath you will tell us you have to look at warming over a long period of time? Get a life!

    • Mondo Rock says:

      09:34am | 03/09/09

      George - some will be fooled by your clear attempt to undermine the AGW argument by presenting a ridiculous parody of it - but most of us won’t.

      You need to stop battling your own strawman version of those who believe in AGW and accept that 99% of those who do are both moderate and sane.

      Two characteristics that you appear to be missing.

    • pc says:

      09:43am | 03/09/09

      “The ongoing argument on whether it exists and if so, who to blame – cow’s farts, the lack of sun spots, the coal industry, China or my Holden – has become one of the most zealous, polarised, and, I think, boring arguments in the world today.”

      But Paul, if you cant make it interesting, who can?

      Ged I think George may be the invention of a warped mind. And yes climate continues to change, which doesnt mean it wont try to kill us. It has before and surely the sensible thing to do, if we can, is make sure we are prepared if it tries again. If you are interested in the melting of glaciers and or the poles I suggest the World Glacier Monitoring Service and Nasa.

    • eeldraw says:

      10:07am | 03/09/09

      Paul, when you stated that worldwide temperatures “fell to record lows last year” and included a link to an article about it, did you realise that it was only a record low for this century so far (i.e. the period 2001 - 2008)?

      Just saying, is all…

    • Margaret Gray says:

      10:33am | 03/09/09

      No, the most boring argument of all is the “science is settled” club banging on about how we’re all going to fry/drown in X years if WE DON’T DO SOMETHING NOW.

      Makes for great comedy though.

      Just like believing an excess of CO2 is heating the planet (LOL).

      Even a child knows that’s a crock.

    • Chris Grealy says:

      10:44am | 03/09/09

      For as long as I can remember, the Sub Tropical Ridge has moved north during Winter, giving us the famous Westerly winds in Brisbane, around Exhibition time. It didn’t happen this year.  At all. We no longer have a wet season either, instead relying on violent summer thunderstorms for all our rainfall. In fact we haven’t had a wet season since 1995, if I recall correctly.

      As far as Brisbane is concerned, this IS climate change.

    • pc says:

      10:54am | 03/09/09

      That is an excellent point Chris. As it is a point about the REALITY. It is not facts and figures, science or jargon it is merely the truth that the people of brisbane EXPERIENCE. No matter how Margaret Gray and her ilk may TALK, that TALK conflicts with the REALITY people experience. So Margaret what I’m saying is the longer the debate goes on the more people are going to realise, on their own, there is evidence for the changing of the climate. You cant beat reality Marg you can ignore it or try to hide it - but if you do in the end it will BEAT you. Just ask everybody who said there were WMD in iraq or the finance advisors who told us Bear Stearns was great. Buy Buy Buy. Thats right Marg REALITY caught up with them.

    • iansand says:

      10:56am | 03/09/09

      Climate has always changed.  Up and down.  The last cool period ended about 10,000 years ago, and seas began to rise.  We, as a species, dealt with it.  The problem is that the society that dealt with it then lived on a very different earth.  The people were nomadic hunter/gatherers or lived in small, unorganised villages.  They were able to adjust by altering their patterns of nomadism, or maybe abandoning one village and establishing another one several times over a few generations.  They could do this because population densities were sparse.  Resources were effectively limitless.  Animals adapted in the same way.  If things got too hot (or cool) they wandered north or south, or up or down.  Plants migrated in a different way.  They died off on one edge and colonised the margins on the opposite edge.  Some plants became extinct.  So did some animals.  No more woolly mammoths or dire wolves (not to mention the sabre tooth tigers).

      Because of the changes to our civilisation changed patterns of nomadism or relocating the village won’t cut it any more.  We are no longer nomads, and population densities mean that there is nowhere to relocate.  The people next door might not let us move.  Population densities mean that, unlike previous occasions, there will be real competition for limited resources.  We depend on cities and infrastructure - things that did not exist last time there was significant climate change.

      If global climate change occurs at the level some people predict, so that sea levels rise and resource production is affected it really could be The End of Civilisation As We Know It.  We are adaptable critters, and after a few wars and things we will survive, quite likely with a highly developed civilisation.  Maybe a little different to this one, but a civilisation none the less.

      This is why, although I have no certainty about anthropogenic climate change I support efforts to wean us off combustion of carbon (apart from the fact that, one day, the combustible carbon will run out).  This time the result of climate change will not be a change to patterns of nomadism.  The outcome will be far more drastic.  Simply saying that it has happened before and everything was all right simply denies the reality of how we have changed in the last 15,000 years.

      The upside of trying to do something about emissions is cleaner air and avoiding the collapse of civilisations, maybe not tomorrow, or ever, but it is a real possibility.  The downside is a few more bucks on my groceries.  Even Steve and Barnaby should be able to work that out.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      11:10am | 03/09/09

      “...the longer the debate goes on the more people are going to realise, on their own, there is evidence for the changing of the climate…”

      That’s not what’s in dispute.

      The climate always changes.  Always has.  For billions of years.

      That’s the “reality”.  Move on.

      The fact you have NO evidence or explanation for a proselytic conversion to global warming theory or, more laughably, that it’s all the ‘fault’ of evil men reveals the yawning chasm in your argument.

    • David says:

      11:21am | 03/09/09

      Yes Margarate, the climate has always changed over time… duuuhh!!! It’s the speed at which the climate is changing and its correlation to CO2 emissions that is the concern here, not the climate change itself.

    • Realist says:

      11:26am | 03/09/09

      I agree with Marg, it has always changed!  Species die out when weather patterns change, we are in a solar maximum and when that dissipates it will be cold again, not because we cut emissions but because it is the natural cycle of the planet!!

      Millions of years ago there was 10 times the CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature was exactly the same as todays.  Get real about CO2 emissions!

    • David says:

      11:27am | 03/09/09

      It’s not the climate change by itself that is the issue here, as the sceptics would have people believe. Yes, of course the climate has always change over billions of years. The main concern here however, is the exponential rate and speed at which the climate is changing and its indisputable correlation to our release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    • pc says:

      11:32am | 03/09/09

      So Marg the debate isnt about whether the earth is warming. It is. Now its about why. Whether it is man made or natural it IS going to KILL US if it continues. We MUST do something about it.  The “chasm” in the debate to which you refer is the lack of a political debate. The argument you should be making, which IS political, is that you dont want to pay for saving the earth. So? Everyone knows there are people like you. Why dont you just come out and make an argument about it. That would be interesting. I’ll give you a hand. Im going to invent a plumber called Joe. Joes argument would go something like this. “I dont want to pay to save the world because I dont earn enough.” Then I could say. “So Joe, How much do you earn?” He would reply “None of your business” - no seriously he would say “I earn $35,000” (remember “invented” Joe the plumber) “I would say well Joe, that isnt very much you probably wont have to pay as much as say Rupert Murdoch, he earns more than you and I know theres a burden I would like to share it fairly. Now Marg, I know your going to start on about carbon credits and taxes in order to avoid the reality and confuse the real issue - You just dont want to pay to save the earth.

    • Sherlock says:

      11:45am | 03/09/09

      To all these people talking about this being proof of global warming, I’m sorry but I heard exactly the same in 1998. This is it they said, we’re going to fry they said. Then for the past 11 years the second anyone mentions 1998 the global warming alarmists jump down their throat and say you can’t use that as it was an anomaly due to the El Nino effect. Next year, when people point out that the planet apparently cooling,  they’ll be saying the same about 2009.

      I missed these people now claiming climate change proof is now here saying that it was all over last August when it was bitterly cold or even just April this year when the lowest temperatures ever set in a number of areas around Australia and it was snowing in Falls Creek.

      I’m with a number of other commentators, the climate is always changing and we have no idea what’s causing it.

    • David C says:

      11:58am | 03/09/09

      The globe is warming, yes there is no question. CO2 is causing it , yep probably right. We are all going to die and our children wil die and their children will die and polar bears will die blah blah blah. no wrong
      Th earth has warmed about 0.7 ish of a degree in the past 150 years or so and will pobably warm about the same by the end of 2100. (realsitically it will be about 0.4ish) So lets all calm down and relax. I still managed to do a lot of skiing in August and I don’t think there were any major disasters in that month either?
      Lets focus on real problems like global poverty, clean drinking water, sanitation, pollution - you know the real stuff and oher issues that are happening now that we have a much better chance of doing anything meaningful about.

    • David says:

      12:01pm | 03/09/09

      Yes Sherlock, you could be right. It’s hard to tell off one month’s data whether there is a large shift going on. However, the rest of the data paints a different picture.

      And yes, the climate has always change over billions of years. No one is denying this.

      The main concern however, is the exponential rate and speed at which the climate is changing and its indisputable correlation to our release of CO2 into the atmosphere. What climate change used to happen over 50 000 years is going to happen over the next 100 years at current rates. The correlation between human released CO2 into the atmosphere and climate change is either the greatest coincidence in the history of life on Earth, or it can be fixed by lowering CO2 emissions. You pick.

    • Hopium says:

      12:17pm | 03/09/09

      It’s not just climate change that worries me.
      Pumping out pollution is no good for your health.
      Acid rain is pretty bad too.

    • Nadz says:

      12:20pm | 03/09/09

      I totally agree with George on his point. its sad to see from all the comments that how limited most people’s knowledge on global warming.  the fact is that its too much to bare for many and its safer to say we don’t have enough data or evidence to prove of global warming. just take a second and look at all the changes that happened in the past few years. the reason is that the world population is increasing and that directly affect the pollution and high co2 and methane gas that’s emitted to the atmosphere. for the past billion or so years the earth could sustain that because it had enough natural resources to do so, but now it has pass that point. so unless we all come out of this denial part and do something about this we want see a far future.

    • pc says:

      12:23pm | 03/09/09

      Sherlock, Im not surprised you chose the name of a detective. Youre forensic skills are as poor if not poorer than my fave Inspector Closseau. Youre like the little wimpy guys that play D and D as big, tough, warriors. Becuase in reality you are a wannabe. REAL problems like clean drinking water, global poverty, sanitation, pollution are all connected to climate change. So I hope we have seen the last of you GADGET.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      12:53pm | 03/09/09

      “...So Marg the debate isnt about whether the earth is warming. It is…”

      Wrong.

      It hasn’t warmed in TEN YEARS. 

      And to avoid accusations of cherry-picking ENSO then it hasn’t warmed since 2001.

      “...Whether it is man made or natural it IS going to KILL US if it continues…”

      Absolute rubbish.

      You must be related to Jim Jones.

      There is NO RELATIONSHIP between increasing temperatures and carbon dioxide ‘“emissions”.

      At least argue the science properly.

      “...You just dont want to pay to save the earth…”

      Such arrogance.

      What makes you think “the world” needs saving?

    • Paul Colgan

      Paul Colgan says:

      12:59pm | 03/09/09

      @eeldraw: yes

      @George: Hey can we clear something up - does your first post need irony or satire tags?

      From my reading most people responding seem to accept the climate is changing - if that’s true, the problem is then how you deal with it. Australia can cap emissions, but if the effects of a warming climate - like crops getting lost - start getting felt more frequently and severely the question is then how you deal with it.

    • David says:

      01:04pm | 03/09/09

      Poor George , he obviously is not taking his antipsychotics or he should be on them ! That also goes for any lunatic who gives global warming any credulity .
      Google ‘’ Mr Pipik global warming ‘’ and have a laugh !!!!!!!

    • David says:

      01:04pm | 03/09/09

      An ETS, with no exemptions. 60%/1990 levels. Any less is a crime.

    • David says:

      01:06pm | 03/09/09

      Margarate, there is a scientific correlation, not an absolute proven relationship. There is no absolute proof of gravity.

    • Nola says:

      01:37pm | 03/09/09

      Office consensus: It was still bloody freezing.

      And raining. Every. Single. Day. Gotta love Hobart. Oh well, at least the grass is green.

    • Bill says:

      01:54pm | 03/09/09

      Man’s CO2 contribution is 0.112% of greenhouse gases and a much smaller fraction of the total atmosphere. So that’s like one centimetre out of one kilometer. Is this driving the world climate? Well I guess there’s an extremely remote possibility, like a one in a 100,000th chance or perhaps by approximately a 100,000th. Certainly not worth gambling the country’s economy on. For the ‘safe rather than sorry’ advocates, have you considered the adverse consequences of an increasing carbon tax burden on your children’s lives? A 5% emissions cut sounds modest but have you thought through a 50% or 100% cut? There’s a new book on amazon called ‘Green Hell’ that might give some pointers. If we are enshrining junk science into legislation will it be easy to undo the damage later when our economy is crippled? Don’t plants need CO2 to grow? What’s the point of burying CO2, when it is like a plant fertilizer? Ice cores show us that CO2 levels historically rise after, not before, warming periods, I repeat, CO2 levels rise as a result of warming, not the other way around. $5 billion is being spent annually (whilst ignoring the ice core data) to prove this nonsense anthropogenic global warming hoax and the best they can come up with, is computer models that not only fail to predict the future, but they cannot calculate the known past. In a sane world this would disprove the hypothesis. Dr Kiminori Itoh a UN climate contributor called this the ‘Worst scientific scandal in history’, that would make a good headline but I don’t recall seeing it anywhere apart from the net. By all means reduce consumption and stop encouraging population growth but don’t send billions out of the country on a ETS wild goose chase.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      01:55pm | 03/09/09

      “...There is no absolute proof of gravity…”

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      So how high do you float off the ground?

      Next.

    • David C says:

      02:01pm | 03/09/09

      pc the problems I mentioned are problems of poverty, (even pollution as families are forced to burn fuels indoors that substantially contribute to lung diseases in children.) 10% of the the money proposed to reduce global C02 emmissions could significantly reduce the problems of sanitation and clean drinking water and allowing the third world to progress and use cheap fuel sources would alleviate the problems of indoor pollution.
      These are real problems that are happening now, they are not potential problems dreamed up by a computer model.

    • pc says:

      02:05pm | 03/09/09

      The definition of rightardation - Those unable to acknowledge reality because of greed. Example of rightardation “why is it getting hot?” “I dont know why but its not the temperature.” or “How can we save the world? There are no alternatives.” -  “Well, we could legislate a tax on carbon emissions.” - ” No but what are the alternatives?”

    • Gibbot says:

      02:06pm | 03/09/09

      Margaret - I suggest you extend your reading on the subject beyond Andew Bolt and Tim Blair. Here are a couple of good places to start:

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

      Statements like “There is NO RELATIONSHIP between increasing temperatures and carbon dioxide ‘“emissions”.” are the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears & yelling ‘NANANANA!’ Considering the vast majority of the scientific community disagrees, you might want to back that up with some sort of evidence.

      On to how we deal with it.. I’d think a good place to start is look at changing some aspects of farming behaviour, phase out water intensive crops like cotton & rice that put undue strain on a dwindling resource, and pay more attention to the likes of Peter Andrews who has had some remarkable success regenerating depleted farmland.

      http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/rightasrain/default.htm

    • pc says:

      02:12pm | 03/09/09

      Just so everybody knows BILL is a liar. He is just the most recent invention of one of Margarets pals. Ban Ki Moon the Secretary General of the UN said yesterday and I quote. “Unless we take action to stem this trend (global warming), we may be virtually ice-free by 2037, even by 2030.” No one, certainly not the Ruddbott is going to gamble the economy on this. YOU ARE A LIAR BILL. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE. CHECK THE UN OR UNESCO websites for yourself. Dont believe the rightards.

    • pc says:

      02:18pm | 03/09/09

      Hi I know you want to censor rightards so give me another crack at that last post,

      Bill is a liar. Ban Ki Moon the secretary general of the United Nations said yesterday and I quote. “Unless we take urgent action to stem this trend, we may be virtually ice free by 2037 even by 2030.” Bill is the latest incarnation of margaret and wants to re hash everything that has already been said in order to confuse and scare you. It will not work. Most Australians have decided they will rise to the challenge of global warming. The shirkers and liars have nothing more to contribute.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      02:20pm | 03/09/09

      “...Considering the vast majority of the scientific community disagrees…”

      Here’s what your “vast majority” want to do….

      from The Times, Setember 02 2009

      The Royal Society, a fellowship of 1400 of the world’s most eminent scientists, published a report yesterday on the feasibility and possible dangers of technologies for cooling down the Earth, known as geoengineering.

      The ideas include artificial trees that draw CO2 from the air and mimicking volcanoes by spraying sulphate particles a few miles above the Earth to deflect the sun’s rays. The most far-fetched would would be to launch trillions of small mirrors into space to act as a sun shield.

      A far cheaper solution would be a fleet of 1500 ships that would suck up sea water and spray it out of tall funnels to create sun-reflecting clouds. However, the report said that these clouds could disrupt rainfall patterns and result in mass starvation in countries dependent on the monsoon.

      The panel of 12 scientists who produced the report concluded that all these approaches were theoretically possible and, despite the potential side-effects, should be explored with a view to holding trials.

      This kind of comedy just writes itself.

      Show me the relationship Gibbot…your simplistic ‘links’ demonstrate nothing (citing Tim Lambert FFS!!).

      Least of all anything remotely scientific.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      02:23pm | 03/09/09

      “...The definition of rightardation…”

      Grow up child.

      Adults are talking here.

    • simon says:

      02:31pm | 03/09/09

      Yawn…. Yet another “we are doomed” opportunity for the “we must change” brigade.
      May I suggest that much like our ancestors did in the past, mankind will adapt.
      If not then we all die, which will make you Greenies very happy, because;
      A) No more humans to pillage the enviroment and,
      B) You can say you are prooven right
      But they were wrong about Global Cooling scant 20 years ago, so who knows.
      Either way, the thought that we can influence nature at such a scale is pure hogwash, and shows a hubris of infantile nature.

    • pc says:

      02:30pm | 03/09/09

      Margaret you are not talking - you have nothing to say. You merely continue to cut and paste the same drivel…No one takes you seriously and anyone who actually reads all the posts on this thread KNOWs you are a disengenous liar. We also know youre an untalented one at that. I hope Steve or Barnaby or whoever it is that pays your salary doesnt give todays. You are very far from earning it.

    • Mondo Rock says:

      02:30pm | 03/09/09

      There is NO RELATIONSHIP between increasing temperatures and carbon dioxide ‘“emissions”.

      Margaret, do you think that if you write your argument in CAPS it will be more persuasive?

      How do you account for the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion theorising that there is a correlation?  Do you simply stamp your feet, put your fingers in your ears, and insist that there isn’t?  On what basis could you possibly justify your complete dismissal of the opinion of the world’s leading climate scientists?

      Other than pig-headedness, of course.

      By the way - you’ve made a total goose of yourself over David’s comment about gravity.  It is universally accepted that gravity remains a theory for which there is a great deal of evidence, but no absolute proof.  Evolution sits in the same category.

      Those who dismiss AGW theory solely on the basis that there remians no conclusive proof of it are, by implication, arguing that gravity and evolution should also be dismissed.

    • iansand says:

      02:36pm | 03/09/09

      Margaret Gray@2:20 Those scientists want to investigate stuff.  I can understand why you find the concept of investigating things challenging.  It is the opposite of your usual approach.

    • David C says:

      02:39pm | 03/09/09

      pc just so we are clear here you think that the world will be ice free in 21-28 years? Or is that the oceans or the Arctic? I mean the ice cover on Greenland alone is 3km think in places?

    • Gibbot says:

      02:41pm | 03/09/09

      Margaret - a favoured technique of climate delusionists and creationists alike is to demand absolute proofs as opposed to what science deals with, namely trends & probabilities. Your failure to grasp this indicates the unlikelihood of you comprehending whatever is presented to you. Another is to argue points that have been covered numerous times in the hope of frustrating their opponent into giving up, such as you are doing now.

      I have provided you with links. It is not my job to educate you. I don’t do remedial comprehension.

    • pc says:

      02:51pm | 03/09/09

      David C - I didnt say it the secretary general of the UN did. You know that. Bye.

    • simon says:

      02:53pm | 03/09/09

      ’ I mean the ice cover on Greenland alone is 3km think in places? ‘
      Maybe it will look like Greenland again. That would be cool. Think of all that rich fertile land… Maybe Siberia will thaw out.

      And with man abandoning the hot equatorial zones the verdant jungles will again take hold. what with so much C02 in the atmosphere it would be impossible for it not to.

    • Bill says:

      02:54pm | 03/09/09

      I can understand pc’s emotion in this matter as I was on the same side up until 6 months ago. I trusted the UN. Let’s see if the following extract encourages pc to dig a little deeper:
      The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

      “The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

      That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely.

      Read the whole article at:

      http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/ClimateChangeNumbersHoax.html

    • Sherlock says:

      02:58pm | 03/09/09

      PC you’re a typical alarmist as you prefer to attack the messenger than address the actual message. It the first tactic of somebody who can’t put together a coherent argument.

    • pc says:

      03:02pm | 03/09/09

      Bill keep it up, rightard - go for gold. You confuse emotion with the truth. You like most liars are cursed to never recognise the truth. Your feeble attempt to confuse and frighten Australians has not worked. It will not work. It is too late. You can fabricate and invent as much as you like. If this is the best you have then I can take comfort. Bye. Check it out for yourself.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      03:02pm | 03/09/09

      A Few Things You Didn’t Know About Rudd’s CPRS

      If you are suspected of emitting too much “carbon”:

      * Your right to silence is abolished (clause 311-3).
      * Your right not to incriminate yourself is abolished (clause 300-1).
      * The onus of proof is reversed. You need to prove you’re innocent, instead of the government proving you are guilty (clause 336-3).

      Source: IPA Review August 2009

      So, is it 2009… or 1984?

    • iansand says:

      03:09pm | 03/09/09

      “Scientists Confine Comments to Their Areas of Expertise” - Shock horror.  Bizarre attacks like the one Bill cites at 2:45 are pretty convincing evidence of the flimsiness of the “science” that sceptics use.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      03:11pm | 03/09/09

      “...Those who dismiss AGW theory solely on the basis that there remians no conclusive proof of it are, by implication, arguing that gravity and evolution should also be dismissed…”

      It’s a theory.  It’s up to you to demonstrate it.  You can’t.

      What part of this do you struggle with?

    • Margaret Gray says:

      03:18pm | 03/09/09

      “...I have provided you with links…”

      You linked to Tim Lambert.

      That was a joke right?

      Why not link to realclimate or better yet, wikipedia.

      “...a favoured technique of climate delusionists and creationists alike is to demand absolute proofs as opposed to what science deals with, namely trends & probabilities…”

      So explain how the “science is settled” or the existence of an “overwhelming consensus”?

      Oops.

    • Mondo Rock says:

      03:31pm | 03/09/09

      It’s a theory.  It’s up to you to demonstrate it.  You can’t.  What part of this do you struggle with?

      Yeah, um, you don’t really ‘get’ science do you Margaret? 

      Theories, by definition, cannot be proved.  That is why they are called ‘theories’ and not ‘laws’.  It doesn’t mean they’re wrong, it just means that they have not yet been proved.

      This is the very basic point that you are rather spectacularly missing. 

      But by all means, please continue to do so - it is quite entertaining to watch.

    • Gibbot says:

      03:48pm | 03/09/09

      *sigh* OK Margaret. I can see a sensible discussion with you is like attempting to sculpt gravy. In attempting to do so I’m discovering some masochistic tendencies of my own I wasn’t expecting.

      A. You mock Tim Lambert, but give no explanation as to why. His blog contains a multitude of links to real science, as opposed to conjecture. He presents a cogent argument. You have not addressed a single point raised by any commentor.

      B. I don’t recall making the statement ‘the science is settled’. It is not up to me to explain statements I didn’t make. As far as consensus goes, there is one among climate scientists. They disagree on specifics, as scientists do, but all agree the planet is warming and that there is a great probability that humans are causing it.

    • Tim says:

      04:19pm | 03/09/09

      Margaret does your Computer use electricity? Has anyone ever proved that an electron exists or seen one? No.
      Electricity must by an unproven myth then.

    • Toddzilla says:

      04:21pm | 03/09/09

      There is some spectacularly stupid comments being made on this site - most of them by David and his AGW prophets. David, there is effectively no correlation between CO2 emmissions and the climate. if there were the computer models would be spot on, rather than spectacularly incorrect.

      Next, Mondo Moron, you state that theories cannot be proved, yet you expect people to assume they are right and act on them. Jesus Wept!

      Polar bears are around in greater numbers than any time in the last century, contrary to popular misconceptions. The Antarctic Ice Shelf is at historic highs (hell, a massive chunk even broke off a few months ago under the sheer weight of the ice - though the science-denier warmists claimed this was proof of global warming).

      And for those worried about the Arctic ice, think of what life in Europe was like in the last pre-industrial warming period in the 1400-1500s. Greenland’s staple crop was barley at that time, something that only grows in temperate zones, so we can only assume it was considerably warmer than than it is now and nothing bad came of it.

      Also, the amount of CO2 emitted by humans equates to less than 3% of all CO2 emissions (which itself constitutes less than 1% of the gases in the atmosphere). Perhaps we should rename it Volcano-induced warming as that is the main provider of plant food (CO2) in the atmosphere.

      The warmenists like to be lead. They need something to believe. Forty years ago these same people were attracted to Communism. In the 70s they were all over the global cooling scare, now they have moved on to global warming. Their arguements are laughable. It basically amounts to I can’t prove it, but you can’t prove me wrong.  Yet, at the same time, they would laugh at people who believe in God using precisely the same arguement.

      Think people, perhaps the sky isn’t really falling as the Chicken Little warmenists would have you believe.

    • Bruce says:

      04:22pm | 03/09/09

      The warm weather in August is not much of a surprise to me. We have had warm weather in August and September many times in the past. The earth has been warmer and cooler over millions of years and been hit by many catastrophies and survived, and as I understand it, the warmer our planet gets, the closer we are to an ice age. I do not doubt that the climate maybe changing, but I am doubtful as to how much is influenced by the “mighty human race”. Sure, I think we could clean up our act in regards to polution and our general grubbiness in the way we treat our environment. I can not help but feel that politics is getting in the road of the real issues and solutions, in which case many people side with their political “team of choice” and then follow what ever policy information is thrown at them. I can see from the responses, that many people get quite irrational when the subject coincides with their political beliefs. I believe we should never stop questioning anything our politicians tell us. You can bet your life there is more in it for the politicians than there is for the environment and for that matter, us. One thing I have learnt is never believe to much what politicians tells you. My suggestion everyone should read as much as they can on the subject and make up your own mind. Remember this a fluid arguement and therefore no fixed point for a definative answer to the climate change debate.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      04:25pm | 03/09/09

      “...Theories, by definition, cannot be proved.  That is why they are called ‘theories’ and not ‘laws’.  It doesn’t mean they’re wrong, it just means that they have not yet been proved…”

      OK, here’s the theory:  More scientists agree AGW is a crock than disagree.

      Even the IPCC report concedes this.

      Now it’s your turn.

    • Geoff Brown says:

      04:26pm | 03/09/09

      Punch says ““cow’s (sic) farts” - Is that only one cow, Mr Punch?
      It has been proven that cow’s are carbon neutral:

    • simon says:

      04:29pm | 03/09/09

      Geeze…. the fact is everyone can point to credible science and scientists to prove a point for or against AGW.

      But can anyone point to credible science that shows Rudd’s ETS will do anything to effect the Climate in Australia?

    • Kym Durance says:

      04:31pm | 03/09/09

      Good thing Andrew Bolt is on leave Paul or he would be naming and shaming you for the map!

      As for me I hope to live long enough to see the end of days - it might be fun - I have sun block - I have a hat -

    • Geoff Brown says:

      04:31pm | 03/09/09

      Mondo says@02:30pm

      How do you account for the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion theorising that there is a correlation? 
      Well, there are a number advancing the unproven hypothesis but there many more saying that the unproven hypothesis is wrong - see petitionproject.org

    • Margaret Gray says:

      04:46pm | 03/09/09

      “...*sigh* OK Margaret. I can see a sensible discussion with you is like attempting to sculpt gravy…”

      Such ironic undergraduate indignation.

      Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton, Richard Lindzen amongst dozens of others have neatly vivisected all of Tim Lamberts ‘arguments’.

      He has as much climate credibility as Al Gore, Clive Hamilton or Punky Brewster.

      Next you’ll be shrieking Big Oil shill.

      “...all agree the planet is warming and that there is a great probability that humans are causing it…”

      By doing what?

      Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes at all time scales.

      Poof!  There goes your ‘theory’.

      Do some reading and at least get your facts straight.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      04:48pm | 03/09/09

      “...Margaret does your Computer use electricity? Has anyone ever proved that an electron exists or seen one? No…”

      Nah. Too tempting.  State education no less.

      Next.

    • Mondo Rock says:

      04:59pm | 03/09/09

      Well, there are a number advancing the unproven hypothesis, but there many more saying that the unproven hypothesis is wrong

      Thank you Geoff - you have at least addressed the salient issue here (as opposed to Margaret and her hysterical reliance on baseless assertion).

      You’ve linked to a website provding a list of sceptical ‘scientists’.  This is, of course, utterly inconclusive in relation to the question of where real scientific consensus sits on this issue - as I’m sure you’re well aware - but at the very least it is relevant.

      As for the issue of where the consensus currently sits - well I can only go from what I see and hear reported.  As I understand it worldwide scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports AGW - it certainly seems to be the offficial position of most national scientific organisations (including ours) - but I’m not arrogant enough to argue that this is fact.  I have done almost no research into this specific issue and therefore am relying on what I see and hear.

    • Geoff Brown says:

      05:03pm | 03/09/09

      Margaret@4.25 says
      AGW is a crock - that is a theory.
      AGW is only an unproven hypothesis.

    • Mondo Rock says:

      05:35pm | 03/09/09

      Oh dear Geoff.  Your outbreak of reason was a bit short lived, wasn’t it? 

      So AGW is not a “theory” eh - it’s an “unproven hypothesis”.

      A good point, except for the fact that a theory, by definition, is an unproven hypothesis.  A definition of the word ‘theory’ from dictionary.com: “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural”.

      Note the “proposed explanation” and “still conjectural” bits.  Sounds almost like “hypothesis” and “unproven”, don’t they?

      What a funny little game you’re playing.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      05:36pm | 03/09/09

      It is easy to see how the Global Warming movement has become evangelical, give people a bogeyman and saviour and you have a nice base to build a power structure.  The large amount of research funding has benefitted from the hysteria and don’t you dare say anything other than what the GW bible says or else.  Perhaps we should all pray, apparently there is a god who can fix all this up.

    • pc says:

      06:56pm | 03/09/09

      It is easy to see hot the anti Global warming movement has become evangelcal, give people a bogeyman and saviour and you have nice base to build a power structure. The large amount of resarch funding has beniffitted from the hysteria and dont you dare say anything other than what the antigw bible says or else. Perhaps we should all pray, apparently there is a god who can fix all this up.

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      07:13pm | 03/09/09

      @Sam Chowder - That is the most telling fact with the warmenistas, it has virtually become a religion that will brook no dissent.

      Although i take some solace that people began to question this quasi-faith when the ‘hockey stick’ model was shown to be the fraud it was and the purveyors of the computer models, (not hard science), won’t run them in reverse with the same data predictions, could it be that their own doomsday predictions won’t correlate with with past events, i would say yes.

    • Steve says:

      07:15pm | 03/09/09

      The Problem with this debate is that both sides are so polarised there is no middle ground. The biggest problem the AGW zealots have is a bit of atmospheric science they ignore. We accept the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

      Start at 0 ppmv. Expose the atmosphere to sunlight and record the heat absorbed.

      Add 20 ppmv co2 and the absorbed temp raises 1.5 deg C (caused by refraction of the IR spectrum- the greenhouse effect)
      Double co2 to 40 ppmv and the absorbed temp rise DROPS to 0.8 deg C (wait on that can’t be right)
      Double co2 again to 80 ppmv and the absorbed temp rise DROPS to 0.4 deg C (NO I hear you scream)
      Double co2 again to 160 ppmv and the absorbed temp rise DROPS to 0.15 deg C
      Double co2 again to 320 ppmv and the absorbed temp rise stays at 0.15 deg C

      At 140 to 160ppm you have reached refractive saturation and the temp actually stops rising. If the temp rise and co2 concentration were linear you could use high concentration of co2 as a captive insulator in Solar Hot water collectors and Boil water just with sunlight. That does not happen because the refractive effect on the infra red spectrum saturates and stabilizes over 140ppm.

      The result of all this waffle is that it does not matter if the co2 level is 200 or 800 ppm the solar retention is the same so the co2 level can not be a driver for the climate of the planet.

      So if co2 doesn’t drive temp then why does co2 rise when temp rises?

      70% of the planet is covered with water which absorbs co2, as the temp of the water rises the co2 is released back into the atmosphere. So temp drives the co2 level not the other way round.

    • S.L says:

      07:26pm | 03/09/09

      I was watching the news tonight on ch 9 when the cheerful weathergirl told me it will be a low temp of 2 degrees on Sunday 6th september. Warmest winter on record? Is that to be followed by the coldest spring? I better start changing my lightglobes now just incase!

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      07:30pm | 03/09/09

      As is the norm when (some) people fear they are losing a debate, the Climate Evangelists are trying desperately to misrepresent their opponents’ position, and by so doing, move them into a position they can more easily attack.

      Most ‘sceptics’ I have spoken to DO NOT in fact deny that climate change is happening. What they DO have a problem with is accepting that ‘man-made’ CO2 is causing this, and/or that reducing CO2 emissions will do anything to mitigate the climate change.

      The evangelists however, tend to subscribe to anti-establishment politics, (hence you will find most of them vote Green or Labour, and many of them are hard to distinguish from unemployed hippies (perhaps because they ARE unemployed hippies). This anti-establishment tendency neatly and inevitably leads them to believe that man (i.e. big business and other greedy types) is responsible for climate change.

      Thus, in their minds, climate change has become a proxy for the evils of business, globalisation and greed.

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      07:47pm | 03/09/09

      @pc (6.56), if you are going to paraphrase Sam Chowder try using spellcheck before you hit post. Typical leftista sheepletard, not an original thought, nor anything to contribute.

    • Gibbot says:

      08:30pm | 03/09/09

      “Typical leftista sheepletard, not an original thought, nor anything to contribute.”

      Leftista sheepletard.. OK this is off topic, but one of my pet peeves is the use of terms like leftard, rightard and sheeple. They are an outward manifestation of an inability to acknowledge any point of view that differs from that of the writer, hence a default surrender of argument, ie; ‘I can’t counter your point so I’ll call you a name and relegate you to an area of my brain that is devoid of discernment. Your words are meaningless to me. I am not listening.
      I cringe every time I read it from either side of any discussion.

      Wapanese Chris has just provided the most succinct composite indication of this affliction I have ever read. I’m impressed. It takes courage to wear a disability as a badge of honour.

    • Mike says:

      08:34pm | 03/09/09

      oh well.. Look the world is screwed what ever way we look at it. Nobody will ever do anything except talk. welcome to the coming apocolypse and please enjoy your stay

    • Shelley says:

      10:18pm | 03/09/09

      Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain’s worst polluters

      By Daily Mail Reporter
      Last updated at 3:28 PM on 27th August 2009

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209430/Weather-supercomputer-used-predict-climate-change-Britains-worst-polluters.html

      # AND it hasn’t managed to get even one prediction right. It’s has about the same success rate as the others used to tell us we’re all gunna fry/drown/die of thirst/shrink polie bears/kill the Opera House if we don’t pay enough money.

      If the true believers out there think humans can stop the climate being whatever it darn well pleases by offering sacrifices, I vote we chuck it a couple of virgins.

      We’ve got about as much chance of success with setting the earth’s temperature to what we want as the super computer has of getting the weather right.

    • Shelley says:

      11:16pm | 03/09/09

      Despite predicting Britain would bask in a “barbecue summer”, the Met Office admitted the sweltering weather had already peaked and yesterday was the last of it …

      The “barbecue summer” prediction was made in April by the Met Office and hundreds of thousands of people subsequently decided to stay in Britain for their summer holidays … But after what can only be described as a soggy summer, many have been left cursing the meteorologists, who have been forced to defend their science and their bonuses.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6054782/Pack-away-the-barbecue—-the-end-of-summer-is-here-Met-Office-admits.html

      # Aaaahhhhh. Bonuses. That explains everything. Now I understand why they have so much faith in the predictions for the next 1000 years made by their computers despite their computers not being able to pick a rainy Sunday this year.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      07:42am | 04/09/09

      @shelley - love your work, Carbon Trading Point virgins thrown to the super computer model god.  The high priests in the bureau of meteorology threatening we will be thrown into the furnace if we do not become devout.  Wonder who our modern times Galileo will be.

    • John Michelmore says:

      08:16am | 04/09/09

      The hype about ice caps melting and cooked humans NEXT YEAR is really becoming tiresome. The climate is changing, it always has. If anyone believes that a tax on carbon is going to control the climate they are dreaming. Man has an impact on the worlds climate in a multitude of ways in addition to the massive impact natural events have. Selecting carbon as a pollutant and then taxing it will create a new financial burden that will achieve nothing. Mans impact includes the following, landuse change, aerosol and dust emmissions etc etc.  Nobody is promising that carbon taxes will change the climate because its improbable and probably impossible. Oh!! and don’t get me started on precautionary principles and trying to control something that is uncontrollable.

    • John Michelmore says:

      08:20am | 04/09/09

      Shelley,
              Well said. I’m sorry I wrote my piece before reading yours.
              So I see now, we can sacrifice virgins in place of the humans that are likely to be cooked by climate change NEXT YEAR. That sounds a lot easier than a carbon tax; and we can stop doing it as soon as the climate cools off a bit.

    • Mr Pastry says:

      09:16am | 04/09/09

      They said there would be employment opportunities in carbon trading,  I’m off to my local TAFE to check out the “Virgin Herding” and “How to put on a Sacrifice” courses.

    • Archibald says:

      10:08am | 04/09/09

      Mr. Pastry is correct. All unemployed virgins please attend your local employment centre urgently.

    • iansand says:

      11:08am | 04/09/09

      The problem is that the news cycle is 24 hours, but changes in climate take a little longer.  The media need colour and movement to keep themselves off the dole queues so are prepared to give oxygen to the stoopitest statement.  Journalists are also out of their intellectual depth with anything more complex than a three way choice of beer, shiraz or chardonnay so do not have the mental equipment to discriminate between fantasy and fact, nor do they have the skills to expose fantasy.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

RT @gregprichard: The Victorian Sports Minister has just sent the New Zealand Prime Minister a commiserative email. #stateoforigin

Anthony Sharwood

@VanillathunderV fair comeback. But seriously, if that was a try then I'll book my skiing in Queensland this year

Anthony Sharwood

@BrettS69 the loveliest thing about post-origin is the sledges from gloating qlders #ratherbeagoodloserthanapoorwinner

Anthony Sharwood

That is the video referee howler to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers #stateoforigin

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Lying on a cold table in an unfamiliar place and undergoing a core biopsy was probably one of the most…

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

Red alert, ladies. Making jokes about your ability at work is not funny particularly at board level.…

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Punishing the baddies is only fun in the movies. In real life it’s messy, expensive, and fraught…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter