Punch on: Open thread 08/12/2011

Tim says:

08:54am | 08/12/11

Memo to self: Play some more Assassin’s Creed when I get home.

Mahhrat says:

09:09am | 08/12/11

Damn straight.  Have you got the new one yet?  I’ve been waiting for a while because I’m supposed to start studying for my MCTS soon

Tim says:

10:36am | 08/12/11

Yes,
It’s pretty good, although I only just started playing it this week.
Desmond looks weird but, they changed his face.

acotrel says:

06:18am | 08/12/11

pugilistus tosserus, sounds like someone we know ?

Chris L says:

08:18am | 08/12/11

Liberate tutemae ex inferis? That’s the only Latin I know, which I learned from watching Event Horizon. Oh, and Mirabile Dictu (from the Exorcist).

iansand says:

06:10am | 08/12/11

There is no pretence about the irrelevance of what you call Climategate.  It really is irrelevant.  Have you looked at your pet selective quotes in context yet?  I assume not, since you still seem to think that stuff is important.

gobsmack says:

06:57am | 08/12/11

The fact is that most people don’t like paying taxes and certainly don’t want to pay any more than they have to.
The emergence of the movement to debunk climate science has given people the opportunity to justify their reluctance to make a relatively small financial sacrifice for the sake of future generations (ie their children and grandchildren).
This is not about scepticism but all about being a selfish tightwad.

TimB says:

07:00am | 08/12/11

What’s the context than iansand? Explain it to us poor uninformed peons.

Just FYI, the whole ‘out of context’ argument doesn’t really work unless you supply said context as a counter-argument,.

Erick says:

07:01am | 08/12/11

Right on schedule, iansand chips in with the usual head-in-the-sand denialism. That’s exactly what is destroying the credibility of climate science - an inability to admit to even the most obvious problems.

You are the reason why the public is rapidly losing faith in global warming, iansand. The more you deny, the more dishonest you look.

iansand says:

07:15am | 08/12/11

I have provided links to searchable archives of those emails on a few occasions.  I have satisfied myself that the quotes are out of context.  What worries me is that the self-styled sceptics don’t.  I suspect that they do not know what “sceptic” means.

Here is the link again. http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php Off you go.  Do your worst.

Erick may think that providing information openly is dishonest, but he lives in a special reality.

Erick says:

07:41am | 08/12/11

More distractions from iansand. The raw data by itself has to be interpreted and placed in context before it means anything. To see the results of that, go here.

Of course, the Climategate data is exactly what the scientists were hiding - even to the extent of breaking the law! The only reason it ever saw the light was that someone leaked it. This shoddy behaviour itself demonstrates the dishonesty of the climate science establishment.

You can keep on banging that “out of context” drum, Climategate deniers, but all you do is hurt your own cause - as is clearly evident in the article I linked above.

TimB says:

07:43am | 08/12/11

Exactly why do you expect us to reasearch *your* argument iansand?

If you’ve got a point to make, then make it. When you do, we’ll discuss the merits of your ‘argument’ then. In the meantime I’m sure as hell not going to go search for the evidence for you. That’s stupid.

Imagine what the reaction would be if Tony Abbott said something like this:

‘I’ve looked at the buget papers and I’ve satisfied myself that Labor is sitting on a 100 billion black hole. Oh no, I don’t have to tell you exatly what and where it is. Here’s the budget papers, you go look for yourself’‘

He’d be pilloried, and rightly so.

So iansand, over to you. Put up or shut up.

iansand says:

08:23am | 08/12/11

Erivk- You are accepting data from a secondary source.  And an obviously biased one at that.  Oddly enough, I am not surprised.

TimB - I don’t expect you to research anything for me.  I have done my own research and satisfied myself.  I am merely providing the tools for you to do the same.

Why are you both afraid of the raw information?

TimB says:

08:53am | 08/12/11

Who said we’re afraid of anything? We’re just expecting you to back up your ‘out of context’ assertion with actual evidence. Providing a link to a search function and telling us to go find it ourselves doesn’t count.

In the end, this is just another classic iansand smokescren designed to hide the fact that you don’t actually have a valid point.

Tim says:

09:02am | 08/12/11

This is what happens when stupid people think they can understand science that is far above their intelligence level.
The reason that the public sways so much in their opinion on this issue is because they’re sheep and very susceptible to self interest arguments.

Yes there are legitimate debates to be had about the level and causes of climate change, but claims of large scale fraud are ridiculous.

It’s times like these I really think there should be an intelligence test given before allowing people to vote.

iansand says:

10:19am | 08/12/11

TimB - Have you gone to the source yet?  I have provided a very convenient tool for that.

TimB says:

10:39am | 08/12/11

Again iansand, I’m not researching *your* argument for you. If you have a specific example of something being taken out of context, by all means, share it. If you cannot and will not, I have to assume you have nothing.

Telling us your proof is ‘over there somewhere’ whilst making a handwave gesture is not an argument.

iansand says:

11:11am | 08/12/11

What do you think my “argument” is?  I have provided a source of information.  You may take advantage of it.  Other people might also.  If I have an “argument” it is that you should go to a source and not rely on third party reports of what that source says.  Only a credulous fool would disagree with a proposition so fundamental to rational inquiry.

Now - have you gone to that source yet?  Surely you are not a credulous fool?

Erick says:

11:31am | 08/12/11

@iansand - My link was not to data, but to analysis of data. The fact that you pretend not to understand this only further damages your credibility.

TimB says:

11:33am | 08/12/11

Your ‘argument’ is that the climategate emails have been taken out of context and therefore do not mean what they have been portrayed as meaning.

If that is the case, then all you have to do is provide that context. Not tell us to go and look for it ourselves. That’s stupid.

The fact that you haven’t actually shown any specific examples to show how the emails are out of context exposes your assertion for the empty bit of rhetoric it is.

Let’s try an analogy- I’m going to the bank for a loan. They want to know if I have any collateral. I tell them I own a gold mine ‘down in Victoria somewhere’ Then I provide them with a street directory so they can go and find it themselves.

You think for one second the bank is going to approve my loan on that basis? Because that’s the basis you’re expecting us to accept your ‘out of context’ line.

Cookie Monster says:

11:33am | 08/12/11

iansand - you said “There is no pretence about the irrelevance of what you call Climategate.  It really is irrelevant.” and then direct everyone to a website who quote the following:

“If your wondering why this is on an Eco site its because we are interested in fact led science research that leads to a better future for all; ClimateGate is very indicative that at the very core of climate research the high standards that we all expected for such core science research are not being upheld. See this article and its conclusion for how we think this is adversely effecting the science and in this case is such a big issue.”

I read the article and it doesn’t look good for climate change believers. We think its a big issue, the website YOU directed us to also thinks its a big issue - you’re the only one that doesn’t ...

iansand says:

11:40am | 08/12/11

Just for Timmy, here is an example of the joys he will find.  The “Climategate” extract is bolded (I hope):

cc: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, Eystein Jansen <???@geo.uib.no>
date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:37:03 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <???@u.arizona.edu>
subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fw: Section on Modes of Variability
to: “Ricardo Villalba” <???@lab.cricyt.edu.ar>

Hi Ricardo - good to hear from you. Thanks too for the interesting figure. I have some
comments on this section (6.5.4) and also for the others’ you’re helping to lead.

Regarding 6.5.4 - I hope Dick and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I can too.
I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In
looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just
after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use
that to guid what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is
relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to
have solid data - not inconclusive information. My take:

ENSO - coral records sensitive to ENSO (e.g., Urban et al. and Cobb et al - attached)
suggest ENSO has changed in response to past forcing change (Cobb et al - updated interp by
mann et al - see recent email attachment) and recent climate change (Urban et al). Ditto
for Indian Ocean - not sure if can connect to dipole - I could ask Julie Cole? NAO - lots
of papers and what’s the consensus? I’m not sure, but I think it is that we can’t say for
sure what has happend to the NAO - or AO for sure (Keith might no more - recent Ed Cook
paper might be the key? - I’m not an expert here). Same thing for PDO (not an expert, but
aren’t their recons that don’t agree - see cole et al for one- attached). In both these
cases, the recons don’t always agree. Or do they say the NAO variability has stayed pretty
constant?

Tropical Atlantic - Black et al 1999 (attached to prev email) also says 12year mode (no
consensus if diapole is the correct name for what Chang first described - see ref in Black
attached) has been constant for 800 years.

Annual modes - does paleo have anything definitive to say yet? I’m a coauthor on a soon to
be submitted AO recon paper, but I’m not sure reviewers will go for it - nor does it match
D’Arrigo’s recent AO recon paper (can’t find).

So, the trick is for you to lead us (Dick, Keith, me - maybe Julie - ENSO expert) to
produce 0.5 pages of HIGHLY focused and relevant stuff. Can you take another crack at your
outline and then tell us what you need? Thanks!

Regarding 6.5.9 - can you help Dan, Ramesh and others to make quick headway on this one -
it’s totally missing. Thanks!

Regarding 6.3.2.1 - Keith will need help, no doubt - particularly with a good S. Hemisphere
perspective (he can override me on this, but since I’m contacting you…) thanks! What do
we have for the southern hem? Southern S. America, New Zealand, Tasmania, ice core?

Regarding 6.3.2.2 - what’s your opinion of where this section stands?

Thanks - hope you are enjoying summer - although Tucson never gets that cold!

Best, Peck

If you read the whole paragraph it is clear that the problem is reducing a set of complex data down to half a page, and the bolded bit is a method for achieving that.  But, read in isolation and with a suspicious mind, it is much more sinister.

They are lying to you, Erick and TimmyB.  Aren’t you embarrassed to be relying on what they tell you?

TimB says:

12:22pm | 08/12/11

I fail to see the difference iansand.

The bolded bit shows that they want to decide what message it is they want to sell, and then only include the parts that support that message.

The rest of the email is the nitty-gritty. Deciding specifically on what they deem to be ‘irrelevant’, and what isn’t.

They’re deciding on the outcome they want to push first, and then cherrypicking the results to suit that outcome . That isn’t science.

If you don’t see why this is a problem, then I cannot help you.

iansand says:

12:36pm | 08/12/11

Erick - And I am suggesting that you go to the data and make up your own mind. 

Cookie Monster - That page is a searchable database of the Climategate emails.  Use it.  Or find another one on a different site.  I don’t care.  The data will be the same.

TimmyB - I am not trying to prove anything.  I am providing a resource which is available to you.  I am suggesting what you may find, but I am inviting you to satisfy yourself.  For some reason you are afraid of it.  I hope you understand that this does no good for your credibility.

TimB says:

12:49pm | 08/12/11

If you’re not trying to prove anything iansand, then please kindly refrain from claiming the Climategate emails are irrelevant.

Your opinion is of no consequence to me if you’re not willing to back it up properly. And no, expecting me to do the work for you does not count.

iansand says:

12:56pm | 08/12/11

Wilful blindness is not a very powerful debating technique, TimmyB.  No wonder you are only fourth speaker.

Erick says:

12:57pm | 08/12/11

@iansand - I’ve seen both the raw data and the analysis. That’s how I know you’re full of it.

As I’ve said before, your denials only serve to destroy your own credibility. The opinion survey results I’ve linked demonstrate this.

Perhaps you should stop digging yourself into this hole of denial, and try a more honest approach?

Tim says:

12:58pm | 08/12/11

TimB,
that’s what you get from those emails?
Really?

No ones trying to trick you, they are working out the best way to write their reports and which information to include to provide the clearest, most precise accounts of the outcomes of their research.
The same thing happens in every research faculty in the world.

They also often have to write their reports in forms that the semi-lay person can read. This will always include leaving out some of the technical information that is unecessary and often too complex for non-scientists to understand.

People are simply looking for a conspiracy to back up their own pre-conceived thoughts.
It isn’t there.

iansand says:

01:02pm | 08/12/11

TimmyB - They were trying to decide what to fit into a half page of information.  I appreciate that it would be a challenge for you to fill half a page with everything you know, but most people have a different problem.

JC says:

01:14pm | 08/12/11

I would have thought posting an entire email instead of one quote from the email that benefits you is the honest thing to do. How is Iansand denying anything?

iansand says:

01:14pm | 08/12/11

Erick - At 8-41 am you identified the “raw data” as http://wattsupwiththat.com/ .  It is tolerably clear that you would not know a “raw data” if you tripped over it.  Watts is lying.  Go to the actual emails and discover that.

TimB says:

01:30pm | 08/12/11

Alright you guys don’t seem to have a problem with cherrypicking data when it comes to reporting the science. Fine. Let’s try an easier one.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/climate-change-science-being-stifled-by-nsw-labor-bureaucrats/story-e6freuzi-1226211748047

Full blown supression. By the government no less. Tim, iansand, please try and explain this one.

Bonus points if you can avoid any ad homs against News Ltd . (Tim I suspect you’ll be fine, iansand may struggle though)

Cookie Monster says:

01:36pm | 08/12/11

iansand says:01:36pm | 08/12/11 “Cookie Monster - That page is a searchable database of the Climategate emails.  Use it.  Or find another one on a different site.  I don’t care.  The data will be the same.”

Hold your horses now - I’m merely pointing out that you don’t think that this is serious when many do including the website you directed us to - I’ve haven’t said anything about the data being produced so don’t push that issue onto me. You’re having a go at other people for cherry-picking so don’t start down that road yourself. What’s your strategy - when in doubt deflect ?

Erick says:

01:38pm | 08/12/11

@iansand - Either you are deluded or you are lying.

At 8:41 I said “The raw data by itself has to be interpreted and placed in context before it means anything. To see the results of that, go here.”

I clearly meant that the results of the interpretation and placing in context of the raw data were to be found at that link. It’s very plain English.

If you’re reduced to pretending you can’t understand that, you’re in dire straits indeed.

iansand says:

02:00pm | 08/12/11

Cookie Monster - I am providing a tool whereby you can decide for yourself whether or not “this”  is “serious”.  I did not even bother looking at the rest of the site that provides the search facility.

What I am saying is that, if you are a true sceptic, be sceptical of everything including things that appear to support your pre-conceptions.  If you do that I think you will probably form conclusions different to the promoters of the Climategate canard.  Or you may not.  Whatever the outcome you will be better informed.

iansand says:

02:01pm | 08/12/11

Cookie Monster - I am providing a tool whereby you can decide for yourself whether or not “this”  is “serious”.  I did not even bother looking at the rest of the site that provides the search facility.

What I am saying is that, if you are a true sceptic, be sceptical of everything including things that appear to support your pre-conceptions.  If you do that I think you will probably form conclusions different to the promoters of the Climategate canard.  Or you may not.  Whatever the outcome you will be better informed.

iansand says:

02:11pm | 08/12/11

TimmyB - Did you find that by searching the Climategate database?  “Look over there” is a trick you learned as fourth speaker, I suppose.

Erick - Then identify your sources of “raw data”.

TimB says:

02:36pm | 08/12/11

iansand, the point of that link was to show that the issues with how the science is being handled extend beyond just ‘Climategate’. We can continue to argue all day about the climategate emails, but clearly we’re not going to change each others minds. So I thought you might like to try and explain something a bit more clearcut.

Apparently not. Can’t say I’m surprised.

Tim says:

02:51pm | 08/12/11

TimB,
I don’t disagree that when politics gets involved in science then dodgy stuff can happen. Which is why we should let scientists present their work without media or political sensationalism. Unfortunately that’s hard to do.

Supression of peer reviewed work, as in your report, shouldn’t happen. Although In saying that, I do take the Telegraph report with a grain of salt knowing how they like to sensationalise things. Much sexier than the truth.

Some people want to throw the baby out with the bath water on this issue over very minor things.
The vast majority of research is all pointing in one direction.
The “Climategate” emails show nothing more than usual corresspondence between colleagues.

Sometimes I think that people believe that scientists are meant to be different than normal people. They’re not. They will disagree on certain facets of research and some certainly have their own barrows to push.
These things don’t mean there’s a massive conspiracy to fool the public into believing something that isn’t true.

Cookie Monster says:

03:24pm | 08/12/11

iansand says:03:00pm | 08/12/11 “What I am saying is that, if you are a true sceptic, be sceptical of everything including things that appear to support your pre-conceptions.”

You are a case in point iansand - I have not given an opinion on the data but you still deflect with calling me a true sceptic and talk about my pre-conceptions when you have no evidence from anything I’ve posted. I’m merely pulling you up on your assumption that it is not a serious issue. How would you conclude whether I support or denign climate-change from my posts? - go back and re-read them but this time use your comprehension skills if you have any. It seems to be the theme of the day for you - misleading assumptions and deflection.

iansand says:

03:57pm | 08/12/11

I find it odd that the new gummint has not released those papers.  They are not warmist. There may be an explanation for it, but I find it odd.  I suspect, but do not know, that something else is going on.

That and the News Ltd angle.

acotrel says:

05:28pm | 08/12/11

@Tim
‘large scale fraud’
I’ve been a scientist for 50 years.  I know of one instance where a scientist acted fraudulently.  He worked in QA in a drug company, and manipulated results to make his boss happy.  That proves it can happen - but I agree with you, on a large scalke - that is simply absurd !  Anyone who’s ever been involved in scientific R&D is aware of the level of dedication and self-discipline amongst scientists generally.  The jobs are so poorly paid, you’d have to be a dedicated dickhead to do it !
Erich, please show me one rich scientist apart from Bill Gates, and the rest of the computer geeks.

acotrel says:

05:37pm | 08/12/11

#Erich
‘At 8:41 I said “The raw data by itself has to be interpreted and placed in context before it means anything. To see the results of that, go here.” ‘
Have you ever heard of paradigm shift ? It is relevant t o the ‘context’.  When you make statements like that, you demonstrate that you have never been there !  That you’ve never discussed the difference between quantum, and Newtonian physics.  To expect you to know the basics of physical chemistry would be too much !
Anyway the ‘large scale fraud’ accusation shows you are an idiot.

iansand says:

06:25pm | 08/12/11

Cookie Monster - I am providing a tool whereby you can test your preconceptions, whatever they may be.

If you are a true sceptic, congratulations.  I like to think that I am also one.  When Climategate 1 was released I was concerned, so I went to the source - the emails.  After I had spent a few hours reading them in context I was reassured because they were innocuous.  I must confess that I was less assiduous the second time around but spent an hour or so checking.  I could find none, out of a random sampling, that concerned me.

It is why I find TimB and Erick so strange. They refuse to make any investigation when offered a simple method of inquiry.  That is the act of narrow minded zealots, not intelligent and curious individuals.

Erick says:

07:04am | 08/12/11

@acotrel - “What do you want to do - form your opinions by selecting what suits your political objective ? For that’s what you are suggesting that educated and trained scientists have done.”

That’s good enough for them, but not good enough for me.

If “educated and trained scientists” are going to commit blatant fraud, and be excused for it, then who can we trust? Only the bloggers, who display their data, methods and conclusions openly, and are willing to admit their errors and debate their results.

acotrel says:

07:28am | 08/12/11

@Erich
‘commit blatant fraud’ ? ? Evidence ? There was an investigation which found nothing untoward.  What is this - conviction by insinuation ?

Erick says:

07:36am | 08/12/11

@acotrel - “Evidence ?”

Here you go. http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

You’re free to ignore it, of course, but as I’ve pointed out previously, this only reduces the climate lobby’s credibility. The results can be seen in the article I linked earlier.

Mark G says:

08:09am | 08/12/11

So Erick rather than scientist committing ‘Blatant Fraud’ you would like them to be perfectly honest and tell you what you want to hear? ie That climate change is a complete myth? I’m sure that would be completely honest. Since when has the determination of truth been considered to be the point where everyone (including non-scientists) are happy with the findings?

Erick says:

11:15am | 08/12/11

@Nark G - No, I’d prefer scientists to be honest and to make all their data and methods available to the public.

Climate change is obviously real, and has been going on for millions of years. The existence of anthropogenic climate change is highly likely.

What is contentious are the precise causes and effects of climate change. The science in this area is still highly speculative. As we’ve seen with Climategate, it’s also sometimes fraudulent.

I want to see good, honest science. And I’m not seeing enough of it in this area.

Cookie Monster says:

12:38pm | 08/12/11

Oh please acrotel - “The suggestion reflects on their professional ethics, and it is pretty offensive.” To think that scientists are all lily-white and don’t have to be transparent is beyond reason. Other professions are held up to scrutiny - why should scientists be any different. Oh yeah, you think they’re the holy grail because you are one - biased much ?

Look at this link http://www.ecowho.com/articles/42/Climategate,_what_is_going_on?.html
If scientists are going to produce work that affects the public then yes they should be held up to scrutiny.

“You are joking - right ?  How many members of the public know how to handle scientific data ?” No Erick’s not joking - example, economic data is released to the public everyday and the general population doesn’t know what to do with it - why should scientific data be any different.

“What do you want to do - form your opinions by selecting what suits your political objective ?” - I’ve seen you this many times with economic data and your not an economist - pot-kettle-black

acotrel says:

05:47pm | 08/12/11

@Cookie monster
Scientists have found from their measurements that there is a planet near a star outside our solar system which might support life.  Do you expect to be handed the data on that - what would you do with it?  But the results of the research could have dramatic effects on mankind - more important than climate change. So what is your responsibility as an armchair scientist ? GET REAL ! Why have a dog and bark yourself ?

acotrel says:

06:43am | 08/12/11

@Tim
‘Finally paid off my HECS today, See you in hell government debt!’

So ‘user pays’ is not a good thing ?  Just think of the benefit your effort will give to society when some moron rides on your back, and picks your brains.

Tim says:

07:52am | 08/12/11

Acotrel,
no it’s a very good thing and I’m happy that the government was able to help me gain a university education.
The same it does for everyone else who wants one and is capable.

I’ve now been using that education and paying heaps of tax for the last few years to pay it back and I’m simply glad that its finally paid off. I don’t really like having large debts.

I will continue to work and pay tax for probably the next 30-40 years so there’s no doubt that both myself and the government have got a great deal.

Ben C says:

09:53am | 08/12/11

Good work Tim, I’ve got a few years before mine is anywhere near paid off.

Might be time to look for a new job…

acotrel says:

07:56am | 08/12/11

Derrr !

jay-ded says:

10:59am | 08/12/11

Pugnax?

acotrel says:

11:53am | 08/12/11

Is he a Rhodes Scholar too ? Figures !

Elphaba says:

09:04am | 08/12/11

Yep.  According to my sources though, my seats tonight are undercover.  I just hope it’s not raining between work and Central Station, or I think my friend and I will be shelling out for a taxi…

Listening to Wasting Light right now - can’t wait!

fairsfair says:

09:06am | 08/12/11

It is horrendous here today Dash. So much so I have already employed the 12th Man Gabba pitch report… stinking f* hot, stinking f* humid, with a chance of stinking f* rain.

I’d swap you in a heartbeat!

gobsmack says:

09:11am | 08/12/11

Another glorious day in sunny Melbourne.

John Smythe says:

09:29am | 08/12/11

hungover doesn’t quite describe it….I’ve had my little ukon no chikara, but I just feel sooo tired. I have to get through this day…..I want to crawl back into bed….I don’t think it’s raining outside.

Dash says:

09:32am | 08/12/11

@Elph - not so lucky for me. I’m out in the elements. And no plastic poncho so I’ll get wet. But it will be fun.

@Fairs - Happy to swap so long as I don’t have to drive your Ford!

@gobsmack - Sunny in Melbourne? Must be global warming. And it may be sunny there, but it’s still full of bloody Victorians!

Elphaba says:

09:45am | 08/12/11

@fairs, any idea what the long range forecast is for Christmas up there?

@Dash, yeah, I stood once at a concert down on the ground at the SFS and hated it.  Couldn’t see a bloody thing - I buy a seat every time now.  Makes me a bit of a nanna, but I don’t care…

fairsfair says:

09:48am | 08/12/11

...nobody else drives the party on wheels.

JS - did you drink at home or go somewhere? Tut tut - on a school night!

Dash says:

10:06am | 08/12/11

@Elph - yeah ya big girly nanna! As if the poncho wasn’t bad enough, you’ll be buying those big sensible nanna undies next! Hardly rock’n'roll girl.

@Fairs - lol - a very small party I guess.

fairsfair says:

10:12am | 08/12/11

Elph - I have not yet seen any projections for actual christmas day - but you can probably expect temps of minimum 25 at 5:00am (if you want to go walking you have to get up and do it then) up to a max of 33 - with a 75-100% chance of rain each day. Its going to be hot. And humid.

That said, most places are airconed and as long as you pack plenty of shorts and only expect to be wearing thongs and strappy shoes - you will be fine. Hang around a pool or make your brother take you up to Lake Eacham. 

My top fashion tips this season is a tailored short with fitted cotton singlet and a mid calf lenth summer dress. Maxi dresses are so last year (and far to f* hot).

John Smythe says:

10:51am | 08/12/11

Some korean BBQ place in Roppongi…..had a ball but reminded myself just how boring I am….talking about work too much ;-/

acotrel says:

11:55am | 08/12/11

Really beautiful in Benalla today.

Elphaba says:

03:24pm | 08/12/11

@Dash, I did try replying to you earlier, but the Punch was being stoopid.

I might sit in the seats and wear a poncho but you will never talk me out of my g-bangers!

A single man on the other hand, definitely has a good shot at talking me out of them… lol

Semi Concerned Citizen says:

09:19am | 08/12/11

Points for trying Nossy. I would award you the punch encouragement award. You the one for the little bloke that trys but never quite gets there

Ben C says:

10:00am | 08/12/11

Back in primary school, whenever I entered an English/Maths/Science competition and I didn’t do particularly well, I was given a “Participation” award. Unless he scores a win today, I think that’s all nossy’s going to get

nossy says:

11:41am | 08/12/11

Thanks fellas - I am a fierce competitor - runing 2nd is losing.

LJ Dots says:

06:25pm | 08/12/11

Curse you and your good luck Redeker Plan! Hope you enjoy the show.

TChong says:

10:21am | 08/12/11

FF
All you need is to post the family photo to complete your “year that was”
Your dad- a “turn “may be due to heat stress, also a possibility is a Trans Ischaemic Attack -TIA , just like a mini stroke, that resolves, but may be a warning of a potential future CVA. Hope not.
BTW, I must have missed an earlier post, so whats a po po ?

fairsfair says:

10:40am | 08/12/11

Thanks TC - he had a massive stroke in 2003, so we thought worst case scenario. The original was deemed to be due to a blood disorder (which I also have), but it is unde rcontrol and the chance of a second stroke is low, but we thought the worst. My Grandma used to have TIAs all the time - they are scary to watch.

Oh po po is the Police. I have applied to join the Police

nossy says:

12:01pm | 08/12/11

@fairsfair   well lets hope 2012 will be a cracker year for you FF. Now I am not a doctor but I was advised years ago to take 1 asprin a day for stroke prevention and have done so ever since plus keeping fit and eating right. When its all boiled down FF our health is our wealth. Look at Kerry Packer - dead at 66 with $8 BILLION in the bank!Anyway hope 2012 will be a great year for you and everyone indeed!

ausspud says:

12:21pm | 08/12/11

Geez fairs how many ladders did you walk under,at least things are starting to look up.
It also sounds like you’ve got a very expensive sister,it might be time to bring out the bubble wrap for when she visits

TChong says:

02:49pm | 08/12/11

The “officers”? wow Ff !
And all this time i thunk you were the least 180 of the conservative gals ! though i did sus something of the Discipinarian about you
Next time I’m in FNQ protesting to"Save The Daintree , i will know you by the amazonian way you weild the baton and taser.
‘Please dont do a Lt Pike with the mace.
( You’ll recognise me by the waistcoat, flairs ,desert boots, tie dye T- shirt, cravat , amber John Lennon specs +Che cap.
No doubt you will be a good cop.  Good luck withit.
BTW- my less than wholesome view of some aspects of police , and their utilisation in maintaing the status quo aint made to diss you, or what you hope to do.
Cheers.

fairsfair says:

10:41am | 08/12/11

You won’t be loving it when she makes you cry. Which she will

Tim says:

10:43am | 08/12/11

I’ve been meaning to go to the physio this week.
Where are you going and how hot is she?

TimB says:

10:59am | 08/12/11

I dunno Fairs. Maybe he likes that sort of thing

gobsmack says:

11:44am | 08/12/11

She’s the one they use to ease people into the routine.  Next week the big bloke with the hairy shoulders takes over.

Shenanigans says:

01:27pm | 08/12/11

What are you taking about fairs, I’m a man I don’t cry :p and the water leakage today was totally not tears of pain, my eyes were just trying to have a bath…...

On a scale of.1-10, 10 being extremely hot, she’s a 20.

You got me TimB I love pain *cough*

Nah she’s my physiology for the next 6 months apparently

Shenanigans says:

02:12pm | 08/12/11

Physio* stupid brain!

TimB says:

11:04am | 08/12/11

Just FYI Mark, this is something that has previously been done in the past. Seems to have fizzled out though. Lucy used to run a ‘Reader’s Blog” in the open thread every Friday.

Plus Fairs and Erick both got their own articles (with attached Punch bios!).

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Lame-swan-strays-into-taipan-territory/

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/erick-i-am-just-one-voice/

Still a great idea to try and bring it back though.

Joel B1 says:

11:38am | 08/12/11

Cough, I think you’ll find that my expose’ of being a house-husband was the first.

Perhaps the subsequent articles didn’t live up to that hard-hitting, soul-searching analysis of what it is to be a male in a female dominated occupation. Where the men hate you and the women fear you.

TimB says:

12:45pm | 08/12/11

Yeah, but did you get a bio Joel ?

Like I said, I’m pretty sure it was run as a regular component of the Friday open thread, but it petered out after a while.

gobsmack says:

02:27pm | 08/12/11

Took 6 hours to make the annoucement.
Meanwhile people continued guessing (on the assumption, having become accustomed to Daniel’s offerings, that it was some completely obscure word that existed only in dictionaries divided into volumes).
Who is this Youdybeauty?

John Smythe says:

11:15am | 08/12/11

Grats Youdy!
Like the hair Lucy, nice look.

nossy says:

11:32am | 08/12/11

@Lucy Kippist   yeah congrats Youdy - guess I will have to be content this time with a close 2nd place!

ausspud says:

12:36pm | 08/12/11

I must be in some sort of parallel universe,I dont see Youdy’s answer or even nossy’s.
I think its some sort of conspiracy.

Tim says:

12:51pm | 08/12/11

Ne neither ausspud.
I’ve searched this thread and still can’t find them.

Redraw, Redraw, Redraw.

TimB says:

12:28pm | 08/12/11

I assume Ant refers to full cream vs skim milk (or possibly soy).

In which case, I wholeheartedly share his sentiment (if not neccesarily the terminology )

Skim milk is watery swill. And soy is pure liquid evil. My doctor forced that stuff onto me for a few weeks back when I was a wee lad. Only copious amounts of chocolate Nesquick made it tolerable.

Joel B1 says:

02:23pm | 08/12/11

All milk comes from girls.

think about it…  ; )

TimB says:

03:03pm | 08/12/11

You tread a dark path Joel.

I’m not sure I want to follow you .

acotrel says:

06:02pm | 08/12/11

’ “I demand more boy milk in The Punch fridge. There is too much girl milk “

Great if you are a baby ?
I seem to remember Charlie Drake derinking the wrong milk in one of his comedies.

ausspud says:

12:40pm | 08/12/11

Premature celebration there nossy

Tim says:

12:07pm | 08/12/11

Just came back from the dentist where they told me I need a root
,it is going to cost $600.

Full service dentistry?

Although I think you’ll find cheaper in Kings Cross.

ausspud says:

12:43pm | 08/12/11

@Tim
Read again & this time nice and slow,You’ll find that you missed a word.

iansand says:

06:30pm | 08/12/11

Greater minds than mine (and probably yours) have already detected this danger http://www.dhmo.org/