August 2009 was Australia’s warmest on record. Temperatures averaged over the country were 2.47C above the long-term average, nearly a degree above the previous August record set in 1998, and 25% of the country had its hottest August day on record at some stage during the month.

Monthly daytime maximum record temperatures, 1957 to 2007

Some places, such as Collarenebri and Murwillumbah in NSW and Gatton in Queensland, broke their previous August records by 5C or more. Temperatures reached as high as 37.8C at Mungindi in NSW and 38.5C at Bedourie in Queensland, both of which were all-time state records for August.

Such an exceptional month leads to many people to ask: is this climate change?

The converse question is – when we have extreme cold, does this mean that climate change isn’t happening? Extreme cold events have occurred in recent years too; earlier this year an Australian record for April of -13C was set at Charlotte Pass, and in June 2007 exceptionally cold days occurred across large parts of the Australian tropics, with daytime temperatures in single figures as far north as Mount Isa and Tennant Creek.

A single event in isolation does not tell us very much about long-term trends in the climate. Instead, we can analyse what has been happening to the frequency of record temperatures over time. A recent Bureau of Meteorology study analysed the years in which monthly record high and low temperatures occurred across Australia, using only locations which had long-term, complete observations and were outside major cities. Both daytime maximum and overnight minimum temperatures were analysed.

While there is some fluctuation from year to year, in the period from 1957 to 2007 analysed in the graph above, there is a clear trend towards more high temperature records (the red line), and fewer low temperature records (the blue line).

In the first ten years, from 1957 to 1966, low records outnumbered high records by a ratio of 1.5 to 1 for maximum temperatures, and 2.2 to 1 for minimum temperatures. Conversely, since 1997, high records have outnumbered low records by a ratio of 2.4 to 1 for maximum temperatures, and 2.1 to 1 for minimum temperatures.

Monthly overnight minimum records, 1957 to 2007

How well does this match the overall warming trend? Average temperatures in Australia have warmed by about 0.8C over the last 100 years, most of it in the last 50. Assessing how this trend affects extremes at individual places is tricky, but extreme months – those where the national average is more than 1.5C above or below normal – give us another insight into this question.

3. Extreme months recorded

As one might expect, the frequency of extreme warm months has increased greatly over the last 60 years, and that of extreme cold months has dropped equally sharply (graph above), but once the effect of the overall warming trend is removed, there is no clear trend in extremes, leaving aside a lack of extreme cold months in the 1950s, as seen in the graph below.

3. Extreme months, with effect of overall warming trend removed

This suggests that the number of extreme months is consistent with what we would expect, given the overall warming trend. In other words, while we can’t blame global warming for any individual extreme warm event it is certainly making these events more common.

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

77 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Rationalist says:

      07:02am | 08/09/09

      Is climate change happening? Perhaps.

      Is it anthropogenic? Probably not.

      Do we need to do anything about it? Probably not.

    • Allan says:

      08:30am | 08/09/09

      Living on the Monaro there is ample evidence of glaciation.
      No glaciers here at the moment.
      There is ample evidence that sea levels have risen over 60 meters over the last 18,000 years since the last ice age and that it was a relatively quick process.
      Climate is in a constant state of flux as the atmosphere and the oceans balance out the various inputs of energy that earth receives.
      Betting all your money that it is caused by a single cause i.e. greenhouse gases is a mistake.
      I would argue that the earths population increasing from 3 billion in 1970 to 6.5 billion in just 40 years may have had something to do with it as well.
      With the land clearing to feed and house all these people would surely have some effect on earths energy balance.
      We will be better off spending our money in adjusting to the changing climate rather than trying to be like King Canute and trying to stop the tides of climate.

    • paul says:

      08:32am | 08/09/09

      When Rationalist says “probably not”, presumably she/he has done the analysis of the probability that climate change is not anthropogenic (as opposed to just saying it with jaw jutted out and a crazy look in his/her eye). One would imagine Rationalist has used a statistical model and come to the conclusion that the chances are, say, less than 5% that climate change is caused by humans. Of course climate modellers from around the world have also undertaken an analysis of whether climate change is caused by humans, and their analysis says that there is a greater than 90% chance that climate change is indeed ‘probably’ caused by us. I would love to see the analysis Rationalist is basing the statement “probably not” put forward into the scientific literature for the rest of us to critique.

    • Jeff from Meroo says:

      08:42am | 08/09/09

      More importantly Rationalist, CAN we do anything about it?  Considering greenhouse gasses caused by human activity account for 2% of the total..  if everyone across the globe cut 100% of all emissions…  stopped driving cars, stopped making electricity, stopped eating and breathing all together..  we would cut 2% of the greenhouse gasses.  I’m thinking that wouldn’t matter much and considering I’ve stopped breathing, don’t really care that much either.

      But there’s no money in that so hey let me welcome you all to Carbon Trading..  aka The New Money Spinner of the 21st Century (provided you’ve got the money to get into the game that is).

    • Lucy says:

      09:07am | 08/09/09

      We simply don’t have enough data to make any clear assumptions about the causes for climate change - if that is what happening.

      The climate changes all the time - it always has - and it always will. If you have a sensible conversation with pretty much any geologist, they will tell you that what we are experiencing is nothing compared to the changes that have takeplace in the earth’s history, and anything we may attempt to combat it is unlikely to make any significant difference in the long-term.

      I heard a great report yesterday on ABC Radio news - that greenhouse gas emissions were down over winter. Why? Because the warmer temperatures meant people were not using heaters as much, therefore not burning fuel, and not creating greenhouse gases.

      Well - which do you want?

      It seems to me we should be doing more to help people cope with the changing climate, rather than the fruitless attempt to control the planet. Mother Nature is far too powerful for that. Killing industry’s and jobs will not help anyone cope with a changing climate.

    • Liz says:

      09:09am | 08/09/09

      So? Warmest on record! How far do records go back? Changes happpen all lthe time, you just need to see the big picture.Too much hype about global warming is loosing sight of the real lissues…the need for industry to control emissions, provide for its’ own power and water needs and stop cutting down rain forests.As someone famous said, if insects disappear we’ll be dead in 50 years,if people die out the earth will flourish.

    • miles says:

      09:15am | 08/09/09

      no, you are absolutely right Rationalist
      we should keep cutting down the trees and salting the earth
      polluting the atmosphere with noxious cancer and lung disease causing particles and gases, pumping our effluent and rubbish into the sea and then scraping the ocean floor clear of the plant and animal life which could break down those poisons
      killing off the rest of the multitude of different plant and animal species that miraculously still exist in the path of our endless expansion
      but i guess, at least you will be dead by the time anyone has to deal with any problems that might arise eh?
      as long as your house prices don’t fall and your electricity is cheap
      ...nice work

    • Eric says:

      09:23am | 08/09/09

      Miles, straw-man arguments are a cop-out. Rationalist did not say any of those things.

    • Joe says:

      09:31am | 08/09/09

      When will the climatologists look at the temperature records from ice cores that go back hundreds of years and notice this has all happened before? No big deal, in fact some countries could do with being a few degrees warmer and we can build technology to cope. So no big deal.

      (Is it just me or isn’t it graphing 101 to have a legend on the graph so you know what each line represents. )

    • Anthony says:

      09:33am | 08/09/09

      So what about all the places that experience one of their coldest months? I bet you don’t write an article about that!

      But if a warm month means human caused global warming, a cold month must mean…

      First of all, the Climate DOES NOT remain constant, it always changes, you will have warmer periods and cooler periods, if you think reducing C02 will change this, then more fool to you! If you can actually provide hard core evidence and science as to why C02 causes such temperature rise the IPCC predict, you will be the first to do so. Also explain why the medieval warm period was 2 degrees warmer than today’s temperatures.

      I do not want any ideological babble in response to this, science and data only please. If you cannot prove that C02 causes catastrophic warming then stop talk about it.

    • miles says:

      09:34am | 08/09/09

      probably not…

    • Socrates says:

      09:44am | 08/09/09

      There, there, Miles, you obviously need a good lie down and a cup of tea (camomile, of course).  As a self-appointed high priest of the carbon religion, you are quite right to assert absolute infallibility and demonise the doubters.

      More rational people might simply say that our planet has gone through about a million variations in temperature like the apparent slight changes at present.  Then all those rational people will simply continue to conserve resources and improve energy use efficiency, just as they are doing now.

      The real global challenge for us all is dealing with over-population so that 8-9-10 billion people can have a reasonable standard of life, rather than obsessing about the number of carbons in the atmosphere.

    • Nathan says:

      09:58am | 08/09/09

      Careful Punch. For even suggesting there is climate change, Andrew Bolt will declare holy war against you and Steve ‘flat earth’ Fielding will show you a graph.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      10:10am | 08/09/09

      Lets just say we are responsible for the earths warming for a moment, how many of us are really willing to change to a sustainable lifestyle?  I do not mean buying 2 packets of ocean friendly washing powder then continuing to voraciously and blindly consume.  Have you sold your car and are now riding a bicycle? do you only buy locally grown produce and have chickens in your garden and a vegetable patch?  Do you wear clothes until they are completely worn out before replacing and have youchanged your job so you don’t commute?  No of course not, there are a few noble people who do these things but the rest of us are selfish and want more and ever more, I want to save the planet but only after I’ve upgraded to a Mercedes.  So unless we all live like Amazonian Rain Forest tribes, shut up and see what happens.

    • Ian says:

      10:12am | 08/09/09

      Show us what happened before the 1950’s. That’s not long ago in the scheme of things..

    • iansand says:

      10:27am | 08/09/09

      Maybe.  Maybe not.  In prior warming and cooling populations (of all living things) have coped by migration.  That option is not available now.  The consequences of global warming and sea level rises will mean that large chunks of the planet will cease to be habitable.  Where will the people go, or are we fortunate that many of them will be economically powerless and can be left to die without troubling our consciences too much? 

      This time dealing with climate change will not be a question of wandering north or south, or up or down.  This time north and south and up and down are already occupied by other people.  This time climate change will be catastrophic for many people and probably our current way of life.  Maybe we can change things, maybe not, but, to my mind, the balance says we should try.

    • jack says:

      10:30am | 08/09/09

      was it oscar wilde who said, “everyone complains about the weather, but no-one does anything about it”?

    • Margaret Gray says:

      10:32am | 08/09/09

      “there is a clear trend towards more high temperature records, and fewer low temperature records”

      This says nothing about the cause, only the symptom.

      AGW is a crock.  The world hasn’t warmed since 1998.

      The IPCC can’t even model historical climate accurately.

      All we ‘proved’ here is that in August 2009 some parts of Australia were hot and some parts were cold.

      Groundbreaking stuff.

    • miles says:

      10:58am | 08/09/09

      sure socrates..thanks, you got my number
      (i actually just had a coffee which probably accounts for my uncharacteristic wordiness…and i said nothing about carbons, i couldn’t care less)
      i just reckon all this argument is kind of misplaced
      there are a lot more impacts from these anthropogenic activities than just carbon in the atmosphere - impacts that are far more devastating
      (probably…as you say)
      carbon tax or no, we will continue to destroy the very things keeping us alive and healthy (and capable of supporting that 9-bill)
      and rationalist’s contribution is we ‘probably’ should do nothin

    • Gibbot says:

      10:59am | 08/09/09

      I love watching people regurgitate Andrew Bolt’s lame duck denials verbatim then proclaim themselves the sole proprietors of free thought.

    • David C says:

      11:21am | 08/09/09

      gibbot - as opposed to regurgitating the catastrophic warnings of Al Gore?

    • Dave says:

      11:22am | 08/09/09

      It would indeed be a catastrophe if man made global warming was to result in catastrophic climate change.  Imagine if Sydney’s climate changed such that it resembled say Brisbane’s or maybe Townsville’s?  That just spells disaster for the southern states as everyone knows that the curtains fade more in the Queensland sun.  Think of the haberdashers!!

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:25am | 08/09/09

      Actually methane is more of a problem than carbon dioxide. The more of the Siberian tundra that thaws out the more methane is released from vegetable matter underneath. Probably trapped in a positive feedback loop. Remember that any atmospheric pollution that is caused by man remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, so cutting back on carbon emissions will have little visible effect for decades. Me, I’ll just wait for a human die back to occur since humans are too dumb to know any better. At the moment peak oil is a greater concern than global warming.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      11:27am | 08/09/09

      I love watching Jermey’s house boys ignore the indisputable evidence and yet still manage to make a fool of themselves with their tales of apocalyptic woe.

    • David C says:

      11:33am | 08/09/09

      shane - peak oil ? you believe that?

    • pc says:

      11:43am | 08/09/09

      Allan and Lucy - I paraphrase - “Lets adjust to climate change rather than adjust climate change.” Interesting point guys, thanks for thinking about it and saying something we havent heard a million times before. I dont think that is possible, not because we dont have the science, but because it seems the greater risk. I have noticed an attitude amongst the wealthy in wealthy countries, like ours, that believes their wealth can protect them from climate change. It will not be able to protect them from the mass migrations that are likely to occur however. I dont want to sound like a boat people alarmist - if it happend I would want to let everyone in - I suspect some others would disagree - it is one example of what really are national security threats - eg. the threat to soveriegnty of our borders - that climate change is likely to produce.

    • G says:

      12:06pm | 08/09/09

      Well, it’s apparent to me through readers comments we have reached consensus that AGW is rubbish.
      We can all relax now and while we are at it lets stop funding apocalyptic loons.

    • pc says:

      12:25pm | 08/09/09

      The 10:10 campaign launched last week in London is a coalition of scientists, companies, celebrities and political and cultural groups committed to cutting carbon emissions from the grassroots up. In preparation for the copenhagen summit, the campaign would aim to make sure our politicians dont let us down. I believe the Guardian is involved and so Im sure you can read about it there. Guardian.co.uk. I expect this idea to be taken up everywhere else as well (Not the oz or punch of course.)

    • David C says:

      12:31pm | 08/09/09

      pc - if it has celebrities involved in must be going to work

    • Dingoh says:

      12:36pm | 08/09/09

      Dont forget we all have to become vegetarian too because of the methane.  Or is that just an ideological viewpoint group who have seen an opportunity to jump on a popular bandwagon.

    • pc says:

      12:44pm | 08/09/09

      David C, Like you I hold little faith in the power of celebrity to do anything other than celebrate themselves - but I feel that if I dont mention them, when they believe they should be mentioned, it might mean they speak out more. And do more damage to the cause they are advocating.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      12:52pm | 08/09/09

      “...The 10:10 campaign…is a coalition of scientists, companies, celebrities and political and cultural groups committed to cutting carbon emissions from the grassroots up…”

      Does this mean that Sting and Bono is going to sell one of their 27 castles?

      Pffft!

    • Justin Turner says:

      12:55pm | 08/09/09

      Why is climate change labelled as “catastrophic”?

      Some areas previously unusable will become usable. Some areas previously usable will become unusable. It might rain less, it might rain in different areas. Does it matter? We can desalinate water & there’s plenty of coal & gas to power it.

      Water levels may rise & previously habitable islands may become uninhabitable. So? Like the beachside residents in Australia, they’ll have to move elsewhere.

      Greenland & Siberia may become arable - that’ll help with any food shortages.

      This has all happened before. It may be happening faster, but what’s the problem? Is it that it interferes with our new comfy lives? If so, then suck it up. 4 Corners last night clearly demonstrated that any sort of attempt to reign in CO2 emissions will just be very expensive tinkering around the edges, so we might as well look at tackling the possible outcomes rather than the possible cause.

    • pc says:

      01:13pm | 08/09/09

      Margaret Gray, I share your snort of contempt for the likes of Bono and Sting. Bono for all his activism avoids paying tax and there is not greater example of citizenship than paying your tax. (Somehow I think you might disagree with me there.) And Justin I see your point, but I cant help but notice how speculative it sounds, yes Siberia may become a pleasant place to live, I still dont know how we’ll get there though. What I’m saying Justin is that you make the same point Lucy and Allan made; (Justin)“so we might as well look at tackling the possible outcomes rather than the possible cause”. - I paraphrase Lucy and Allen - “Lets adjust to climate change rather than adjust climate change.”  And again I believe it is the greater risk for the same reasons. And 4 corners didnt clearly demonstrate anything - if you dont belive ME, check it out for youself. Its abc.net.au, isnt it?

    • Carl Palmer says:

      01:23pm | 08/09/09

      Dear all do yourselves a favor and go to
      http://joannenova.com.au/category/agw-socio-political

      And read “A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action” by Richard Lindzen

      This is another well referenced paper that just doesn’t get the headlines.

      An extract of the article –

      “The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate”

      And another extract

      “From the beginning, he has questioned the claims that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions, pointing out that even with the poor resolution of ice cores back in the 1980’s it was still evident that there was a lag—as temperatures declined, carbon stayed high for thousands of years, something which didn’t sit well with the idea that carbon had a strong and constant force on the climate”.

      So the effect on climate change due to “man-made carbon dioxide” is – wait for it near ZERO. Which bit of this simple sentence don’t people understand? Oh and the notion of doing something just for the sake of doing something -well that’s caveman logic.

    • Steve says:

      01:26pm | 08/09/09

      Boy some people are passionate about this issue, every time media mentions climate change (global warming) they start shouting at each other. Prove this; disprove that; duelling websites at 10 paces. My scientist can beat your scientist. If they feel threatened then the abuse starts to fly and the only opinion that matters is the ones that agree with them. You have no right to have an opinion that I do not agree with. Don’t argue the science, criticize the critic, Repeat the mantra “Global warming is evil and caused my man.”

      History shows that Climate and the alignment of the planets are not listening to our petty arguments nor does it care for a tax on air. It will do what the sun, earth’s orbit and atmosphere command. CO2 level climbs and the weather gets cooler, we have had 3 warm periods in the last 10,000 years with low CO2 levels. Medieval, Roman and Holocene Maximum.

      Can must agree that we are the first generation in the history of man to be made to feel guilty over the warmth.

    • Irene says:

      01:34pm | 08/09/09

      Cows are vegetarians and produce a LOT of methane.  Eat meat, and remove the methane producers!!!  I recall something about the effect of killing all those cows who had Mad Cow disease in England, and they met their emissions targets for that year…..

      Climate change is happening, but beyond our control!  We are in that part of the galaxy, and hence all the different energies and gravitational pulls are affecting us in ways we cannot measure….

    • Mr Pastry says:

      02:07pm | 08/09/09

      I didn’t realise celebrities are now sorting it out - perhaps we could have a telethon to save the planet and give Johnny (I hope the stage is reinforced)  Farnham some publicity at the same time.  All the celebs can fly in on their private jets.  Bono and Sting are probably composing some juvenile words, chastising us for using electricity right now,  stand at ease everyone panic over. 
      Please Earth turn up the heat and destoy us, we are a waste of space.

    • pc says:

      02:11pm | 08/09/09

      So Steve, like your namesake Steve Fielding, you would rather put a bag over your head, than open your eyes. “History shows that Climate and the alignment of the planets are not listening to our petty arguments nor does it care for a tax on air. It will do what the sun, earth’s orbit and atmosphere command.” History does no such thing and the rest of your article has been repeated many times over in similarly mealy mouthed ways. Whats wrong with passion Steve? On either side? At least passionate people DO things other than TALK. There is the possibility for quite interesting and passionate debates/conversations/arguements and sometimes they even occur here on the punch. What interesting debates dont need is people like you who dont read the other contributions and then cut and paste the same statement every time there is a discussion about climate change. Thanks for nothing Steve.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      02:58pm | 08/09/09

      “...the reason Richard Lindzen’s paper doesn’t get the headlines is becausehe has been exposed as another Heartland institute mouthpiece…”

      Cripes, for a minute there I thought you were going to default to calling him a “Big Oil” patsy.

      So a Michael MacCracken (who?), someone who is little more than a government-funded Big Climate Shill, scrawling on an antediluvian Believers website resorts to nothing more than an ad-hom attack on Lindzen.

      Is that the best the Proselytes can do?

    • Steve says:

      03:15pm | 08/09/09

      Well pc (Politically Correct?)

      I rest my case, when threatened, abuse.
      “Thanks for nothing?” So I am not entitled to my opinion, in your opinion.
      I quite like a bit of passion, but I don’t like religious zealots who sacrifice logic for dogma.
      Steve Fielding didn’t stick a bag on his head he simply asked for answers and listened to both sides, but that is not what your church is into. He said “Prove it and I will vote for it” How dare he. What about an audience with the Pope of the church of Climatology Al (give me all your money) Gore. No sorry he was far too busy charging for lectures. And don’t dare criticize AG, he buys carbon credits for his 20 room mansion, (from the Carbon Trading Company he owns!) not bad work if you can get it.

      Let’s not forget dear Tim Flannery (1% co2 in the atmosphere would give a surface temp of 100deg C? and Elephants deforested Africa?) his infatuation with Lovelock’s work, where in Gaia Telekinesis is a driver in the weather so be nice or Mother Earth will reject us? Read a bit there. Also read Ian Plimer’s work, you may find that interesting. Or you could just cut and paste the “debunk comments” off somebody elses web site.

      Sorry PC, I am not a scientist nor am I deluded into thinking I know it all. You could be right but from what I have read from both sides of this argument and I simply do not accept yours but that is only my Opinion.

    • Pen Shunner says:

      03:33pm | 08/09/09

      Climate is changeing, crops are failing. Back to the dark ages we go, time to sacrifice a few virgins. Isn’t that what the prophets of doom suggested then?

    • Justin Turner says:

      04:28pm | 08/09/09

      pc says:

      “And Justin I see your point, but I cant help but notice how speculative it sounds, yes Siberia may become a pleasant place to live, I still dont know how we’ll get there though.”

      Speculative? As opposed to climate change models? It’s all speculative. Will anything happen? What’s the cause? Can anything be done to change it? If so, what can be done?

      And why would we want to go to Siberia? Australia’s not going to disappear any time soon. If some smaller islands go under, then they might be interested. Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic can fly them there (offsetting with carbon credits of course).

      pc says:

      “And 4 corners didnt clearly demonstrate anything”

      MARTIN FERGUSON: If we don’t make a breakthrough on carbon capture and storage, then our whole economy is exposed because 82 per cent of our electricity it comes from coal-fired power stations.

      MARTIN FERGUSON: Then Australia has got an interesting challenge come 2020 or 30 or 40, because we want to achieve lower emissions, but none of us yet have the technology in place to guarantee Australia the same standard of living based on a reliable energy system, that’s the challenge that we all confront.

      Then go & read every quote about how far off a production a coal fired power plant with full sequestration is. There simply cannot be any change of note in the time frame that the doomsayers is critical.

      Seeing as you couldn’t work out the full address first time around, it is http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2678936.htm

    • Anthony says:

      05:38pm | 08/09/09

      Also, why is it that the global warming prophets keep failing in their future predictions? (Eg, Tim Flannery’s prediction of Sydney, Adelaide and Perth running out of water by now, Al Gore’s ‘Artic free summer in 5 years’, which was said 4 years ago, sure, he has another year, but the arctic has grown back since, and also every single IPCC model that didn’t predict the last 8 years of cooling. I might add Robyn Williams predicted sea level rise of 100 metres by 2100, good luck on that one!).

      Will someone ever hold these people accountable in the spotlight?

    • Carl Palmer says:

      05:41pm | 08/09/09

      Gibbot 01:56pm | 08/09/09 – I notice that MacCraken is the Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs, could he have a conflict of interest?? He is working for a department funded by the government whose job it is to promote the view that man made carbon is the cause of climate change.
      Furthermore, we still have scientists – Professors, PHD’s, “experts in the field etc who do not agree so therefore there is no consensus even though we have politicians telling us that there is!!! He is one example and there are more.

      Thanks for the URL.

    • sue says:

      06:26pm | 08/09/09

      Don’t worry too much Steve, pc has been very tame today with his comments.

      Normally by now, he would have resorted to calling you a rightard.

      That’s his favourite insult of choice when he doesn’t agree with you, no matter what the topic, and even though he says it means something else he really is calling you a ‘right wing retard.’

      His partner Don Clarke hasn’t stuck his head up either today. The two of them quite often work in tandem to attack anyone who would dare question the proven evidence.

      Obviously today, the weight of numbers is against them, and banging their heads against that brick wall must be hurting.

    • iansand says:

      06:29pm | 08/09/09

      Carl Palmer@5:41 When the government was denialist the climate scientists working for the government were gagged from public comment.  I still don’t know about anthropogenic climate change, but I have a fairly strong reaction to anyone who suppresses information.  I tend to wonder why.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      07:13pm | 08/09/09

      OK, so it seems a (currently) popular argument for the climate evangelists is, “Maybe CO2 isn’t the cause, but it’s worth a try anyway because we have to do something.”

      This is a ground-breaking new logic with which we can now tackle any and all challenges!

      For instance, previously incurable cancers will now be treated by rubbing chalk along the patients’ nose. Hey, maybe it won’t work but we have to try something! Doctors please note that this form of treatment will not be additional nor optional. Henceforth, ALL doctors must employ this treatment and any who resist will be struck off.

      Oh, and by the way. Only Government-supplied, special chalk may be used, purchased via the soon-to-be-created ‘medicinal chalk’ market. Only $5000 per centimetre! Medicinal chalk will be traded as a commodity, though tightly controlled by governments around the world. Ex-government ministers will be employed as advisors to companies trading chalk, on substantial salaries, and only companies who buy chalk trading licences will be able to buy and sell it. Current estimates suggest that the diversion of funding and resources into chalk will increase food prices around the world by up to 50%, but that’s OK - we have to do SOMETHING, don’t we?

    • Steve says:

      08:04pm | 08/09/09

      Hi Sue, Maybe It might be the time for the shift change at Mark Arbib’s media watch office. these blokes are not paid enough for overtime

    • pc says:

      08:54pm | 08/09/09

      Sorry for the tardiness Steve, but I dont take you very seriously. And Steve Penbo says you have a learning difficulty so I want to take it easy on you. Thus the bullet points.
      1. You made no contribution. This is a statement of fact and not personal abuse. If I wanted to personally abuse you I would say that like your hero Steve Fielding (Funny that isnt it. Actually come to think of it, its sad.), Oh yeah if I wanted to personally abuse you I would say “Like Steve Fielding you are a public joke foisted on us by a small percentage of the victorian population. Our own court jester if you will.”
      2 You just made the same pointless contribution. Pilmer was pretty conclusively debunked by Don last week,here on the punch. Memories arent that short Steve. Please, please get some new material. You just keep cutting and pasting the same statements when others, closer to your position eg Lucy, Allan and Justin are actually making arguments. Like Steve Fielding you are your own worse advocate.

      Sue, thanks for mentioning my good behaviour, it isnt easy for me, and its exasperating for everyone to have to have the same argument over and over again.

      Justin, thanks for the 4 corners directions - I am more than happy for people to check it out for themselves and make their own mind up. I doubt anyone is going to trust a name on a website. And Justin I dont think we will be able to maintain our standard of living but I think our standard of living would be even worse if we didnt do anything about climate change. So does the U.N, IMF, G20 and the OECD. You are yet to give me an alternative. You are only concerned with the symptons and not the cause. Check it out for yourself.

      Back to Steve, so Steve how about reading our posts - thats right read both our respective posts and tell me who the zealot is. (I dont think you know what it means)

    • iansand says:

      07:25am | 09/09/09

      Steve of Cornubia - The physics of how greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, cause warming has been understood for over a century.  As has the fact that burning carbon creates carbon dioxide.  And the carbon we are currently burning has been sequestrated for over 60,000,000 years.  Those facts are incontrovertible.

    • David C says:

      10:13am | 09/09/09

      ian sand and the the doubling of C02 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in temps of about 1.2 degrees celsius, also a fact and one that wont get a lot of argument. We have had about 0.7 ish so far so I guess 0.5 to go
      The projections of computer models and the disputed feedbacks are what the argument is all about.

    • Front Row says:

      10:48am | 09/09/09

      In the early 1970s many people who had taken on a life in science started realising that the economy had left them behind.
      The only way to make a buck was to create fear - witness the whole Coming Ice Age thing.  Then we had various diseases, Y2K bugs, etc etc.
      It happens to be the same way big pharamaceutical companies need to generate a Big Scare every three to four years before they go out and sell you the cure.
      Goes way back to the days the tent revivalists were banging on about the End in the Mid West US. It’s become a slightly upmarket version of Jim Jones: Accept this world is evil, come away with me and live on the edge of the jungle and be saved. Think about the tone of some of the contributions to this thread and tell me I’m completely wrong about this.
      That’s what we have become.  Only it’s not about your soul, brother, but funding, academic tenures and legacy.  It’s all pumped along by a cheering knot of environmental trainspotters who would be arguing about who played bass on the first Clash album if they didn’t have The Warming.
      It’s not just science, either.  Doesn’t matter where you look - Medicine, Defence, Computer Security, Police, Social Workers - everyone has to run the Big Scare to keep the attention of the media and politicians and so justify spending billions of tax dollars “fighting” the problem.
      It’s actually a pretty tricky PR thing to run this kind of thing without overdoing it to the point where people say something like “well, if there is anything in this, we’re all buggered anyway”.
      The Fearists know this.  That’s why they still refuse to play the completely cactus card.
      But who really knows?  The climate fear people could just be right, after all.  The world might just need a break from we humans for a few thousand years.  If that’s the case there’s nothing we can do.
      Let’s get over it.  We’re either stuffed and burn, or we’re not and we can all head back the the pool.
      Meantime, drinks?

    • Carl Palmer says:

      11:45am | 09/09/09

      To iansand 06:29pm | 08/09/09
      Agreed- open debate is a must and it applies to both sides. Unfortunately the pro climate change movement is gaining enormous momentum and there isn’t consensus on the issue. Crazy stuff - it will come as an enormous cost for questionable benefit.
      Forums like these are great because you experience first hand what people think and it is great to see that there is a healthy level debate.
      Thanks for the opportunity to make a small contribution to this topic.

      To Front Row 10:48am | 09/09/09
      Thank you for the offer, could I please have a Yarra Valley Shiraz.

    • Bob Higgins says:

      12:21pm | 09/09/09

      Frontrow@ 10:48 - well put but “environmental trainspotters” suggests that if you do not agree with them they will put an anorak on and storm off to tell mummy.  Unfortunately, they are more like religious zealots waving sharp swords at anyone that questions their founding books/comics. 
      I’ll have a beer thanks, wine plays havoc with my nasal passage.

    • David Isaacs says:

      12:43pm | 09/09/09

      Frontrow:  It was Paul Simenon.

    • pc says:

      01:07pm | 09/09/09

      Frontrow -” But who really knows?  The climate fear people could just be right, after all.  The world might just need a break from we humans for a few thousand years.  If that’s the case there’s nothing we can do.
      Let’s get over it.  We’re either stuffed and burn, or we’re not and we can all head back the the pool.
      Meantime, drinks?”

      This is the same pathetic trash you have repeated throughout the climate change debates. You have nothing more to offer, no argument, no science just bafflegab. I am offering you free advice you should take it - the publc has moved on, so should you. Re: Lucy, Allan and Justin have and they are more effective. Try to figure out why.

    • iansand says:

      01:42pm | 09/09/09

      Carl Palmer@11:45 “There isn’t consensus” is unscientific gobbledegook.  There will never be certainty at the level required by conventional science for the simple reason that we do not have a spare earth to act as a control.  (The nearest thing we have is Venus, but that planet already has a runaway greenhouse effect so bad that the place eats space probes before they get to the surface.)  So any competent scientist, trained to apply levels of certainty expected by conventional science, will express doubt.  Unfortunately charlatans seize on these proper expressions of doubt and claim that there is no consensus.  These people are either very dumb or intellectually dishonest.  I suspect the latter but do not discount the former.

    • Front Row says:

      02:12pm | 09/09/09

      pc - 

      There was I thinking Australians still had a bit of stoicism and courage about our fate.

      In summary:  If your “science” is right, pc, then there’s simply no point in listening to you any more. It’s all over. You can move on to theology while there’s time.

      We’re either stuffed or we’re not, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do to alter it, either way, son.

      Your mum and dad might have told you we can all change the world, pc, if we all try really, really hard.  If they told you that, they lied.  To you, pc.  It’s not nice, I know, but here’s the truth: The world isn’t yours to change.

      Now, where’s the bafflegab in that?

      By the way, the post you flamed was the first contribution I’ve ever made to this topic, anywhere (you: “this is the same trash you have repeated throughout the debate”).

      That tells me much about your regard for facts over your relish for impotent fury and it’s curiously tempting to extend that thesis…. it’s instructive you seem so quick to create a persona for me, a creation you can then abuse for having “no science”. Is this your standard operating procedure pc, or is it something you “all” do?

      I don’t have a side in this about the science, other than this:  I know exactly how the real world works.

      So then, why the bile?  Could it be that you think I might be one of your parents?

    • pc says:

      03:21pm | 09/09/09

      Frontrow, I know that the truth alone will not beat the shirkers and the liars. That requires action. Try the 10:10 Campaign at the Guardian.co.uk or even the federal governments site on climate change. I want everyone to be involved because I dont think the politicians can do it on their own. I also know that most people agree. Fine dont talk to me anymore - you never said anything anyway.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      03:55pm | 09/09/09

      iansand 01:42pm

      a couple of observation

      -  Our politicians clearly state that there is scientific consensus, you even have Helen Liddell Britain’s High Commissioner to Australia saying that
      -  These eminent scientists do not “express doubt” they reject it outright and scientifically substantiate their position. Simply put, the impact of “man-made carbon dioxide” on climate is either zero or near zero. Crystal?

      When you read something like that from a scientist(s) who has a PHD or a scientists who has achieved distinction in their field, whose work is thoroughly referenced and peer reviewed then you owe that person the respect he / she deserves. No I don’t have any special skills in this area and no there wasn’t any “expressed doubt” in the document I read – it was very clear.

      And back to the original posting “…after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate”

      I would have thought that they would have come up with something by now. Oh well we will just have to go with the flow on a wing and a prayer. Personally, I really don’t care either way, I don’t want someone dishing me up nonsense.

      That’s it, I’m going back to my Shiraz.

    • Front Row says:

      11:13am | 10/09/09

      Carl,
      Really well said.
      I’ve tried really hard to get this sorted out in my own way. I’m not a scientist, but I’ve spent years working with and around political, finance and media shonks.
      All I can do is try to put what I can understand up against what I know.
      After years of trying to make some sense of this, I’m at the point where the whole climate “solution” thing looks like a sham. Maybe not the problem, but certainly the proposed solution.
      When I consider some of the teams of Gore’s “trained communicators” out there, the term useful idiots keeps coming back to me. They remind me of a gathering of over-excited Amway reps. Or pc, even.
      I don’t argue with the majority “science” that has been getting a run because I’m not licensed to.
      I understand there is plenty of well-researched argument about the details on a million different levels and angles. I can see it’s sensible to keep an open mind about how we use the planet’s finite resources.
      Whether that’s because carbon is going to cook us all, or that smog looks bad, or that we’ll run out of things sooner or later and my i-pod won’t recharge, doesn’t make any difference to me.
      That said, I cannot get beyond my suspicions about the incredibly convenient coincidences in the “market-based” course of carbon mitigation being pressed upon the world’s most successful economies.
      The PR/spin side of all this is just too suss. I have witnessed first hand some of the filthy political plays made in the name (or not) of the environmental lobby groups. Many of the worst are publicly funded by people I’d suggest have no idea what they’re paying for.
      The dominant view seems to declare this:  We, the scientific elite, being infinitely smarter and more deserving of our place on the planet than you poorly educated sods, can tell you that we’ve had a meeting and a vote.  As it turns out the vast majority of our number have decided that we’re all going to be dead, dead, dead unless you all hand over heaps of money.  Now.  We don’t know if this is going to help, but we’ll be the ones to decide if it does, and you’ll be the ones to keep paying. Some of you, if you are really nice to us and have not questioned our authority, might get some of it back. This is a war without end.  And it’s all your fault because you didn’t listen to us earlier. You should all be ashamed. Now, be off with you.

      It’s kind of like the world environmental lobby’s War on Drugs.  Back then the US law enforcement and prisons industry convinced the Republican US Federal Govt to pump squillions into the “war” that just seems to have become worse despite the funding. Then, of course, came the War on Terror. All needed a sustained media fear campaign. Back then we were talking about a conservative government funding conservative crusades.
      Now, it’s the War on Carbon - left-wing Governments funding left-wing crusades.

      It’s a fear-driven approach that didn’t stop drugs, didn’t stop the wars and I don’t expect it will stop the climate changing - no matter how guilty some might feel.

      What it will do is massively re-distribute economic and strategic power towards the elite now in charge of two of the most unstable regions on the planet.  And we’ll all find something else to feel bad about.

      Anyway, Carl, have some of my Grange.

      If the “science” is right, I probably won’t be needing it much longer…

    • Shane says:

      09:14pm | 11/09/09

      Six months of the year its bloody freezing the other six months its hot as hell. Welcome to Sydneys West.

      I get all my balanced view on the matter from the good folk at 2GB

    • Carl Palmer says:

      04:59pm | 12/09/09

      Front Row, I wish folks would just do some homework and challenge their political representative.  It’s not that hard, it just requires a little interest and an open mind. There are many postings on Steve fielding’s website which are refreshing to read. It is great to see that some people do think about these sorts of issues and are genuinely trying to work thru this rather complex maze.  Hang in there not all is lost, like the “war on terror”, people will eventually see what’s going on.
      I’m currently reading a very interesting book which I have no doubt you will thoroughly enjoy and appreciate, it’s called “The Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein. What you have said is pretty much consistent with the contents of this book. 
      BTW, thanks for the Grange it was first class, it was a great year for reds.

    • Front Row says:

      07:28pm | 13/09/09

      Keep the glass, Carl,
      Thanks for the tip on Naomi K’s book.  Haven’t read it yet, but I will.
      Some of her earlier work was very good in the way that it popularised and split the old political left/right ideas that so many of us have been semi-inculcated with by the sports-comp model of the Australian media.
      For our media (which necessarily reflects us, for the moment) it’s an extension, or reflection, of Australia as the world’s biggest two-pub town - McDonalds/Hungry Jacks… Ford/Holden… Woolies/Coles… Labor/Liberal… Left/Right… Climate changers/deniers…
      On N. Klein, you have to love the way the media still tries to find a pigeon hole for her.  For the editors, you can’t just go and change the game willy-nilly.  She’s Left now, apparently.
      Wonder if while Left/Right thing isn’t really just a big oval - head a certain distance one way and you wind up right around the other side from where you started.

    • Steve "Looking Glass" says:

      12:53pm | 16/09/09

      Here we go again with the climate change, the planet is warming, is it really, we always get the lefties jumping on board when we have a hot day, remember Victoria 2-3 years ago in the summer, basically had no summer, was the ice gae coming no, because thats not what they want to hear.

      There has been so much money invested, in saying the globe is heating up, to now say they got in wrong, they cant do, so each day we have a warm day, its global warming, a unseasonal cool day goes without notice.

      Last November in parts of Canada they had blizzards, this was in Autumn publicity it got none, because thats not gloabl warming, we are seeing the greatest myth pushed forward, Y2K sucked everyone in, Global Warming well its doing the same to those who believe anything.

      For those it maybe not Glbal warming, its the Sun getting closer to the earth, so build those spaceships, nd leave the planet, because thats about how factually globally warming is

    • Bart says:

      09:25pm | 16/09/09

      Al Gorey and others like him are hopin and prayin we all get sucked in. Because if or when we do he and others like him will become instant zillionaires. And the Ruddy man will be seen as a good boy by the want to be one world government UN. I’m sure the Ruddy man frequently rings his UN mates and makes sure they keep his seat nice and warm. Toilet seat that is.

    • B Wiltshire says:

      09:54pm | 16/09/09

      Hot weather good, 2GB good, Sky God Man is angry when cold weather. Uhgg

    • nic says:

      08:25am | 19/09/09

      According to graph 3, “Extreme Months Recorded”, there was a distinct change in the 1970s. We can conclude that flares and safari suits must be the cause of these extreme weather patterns.

    • Rob Cawthorne says:

      01:08am | 20/09/09

      Wow, how polarised is this debate,
      comments like ‘Y2K sucked everyone’ are obviously not from a programmer how worked on Y2K Issues. What i think occured was a greatly executed, successful example of worldwide action that prevented a economic crisis.
      I dont understand how some of you can discuss the costs of taking action on climate change when you are not invovled in carbon reduction projects or carbon trading iteslf. I am in the industry and am certain it is not expensive like is often made out. Rememeber how much money and what vested interests sit on the side against mechnisms like emissions trading.

      Under the wieght of all the information i have available I can only bring myself to the conclusion that AGW is real and that we must do something about it immediatly i do remain sceptical over the best way to achieve this.

      As for this article, linking any individual weather event to our climate can never be proven. August may have been a weather anomonally and have nothing to do with AGW, on the other hand the trend suggest it may well be. We should try to refrain from sensationalising weather events like his and focus on trends.

    • Jason says:

      07:06pm | 22/09/09

      These graphs are extremely misleading as they only go back 60 years.  How about publishing ice-core data which shows higher temps in the past, and also show that CO2 increases AFTER temperature, and triggers a fall.  It’s simple science, just not “climate change” science.  Science is a lot bigger than the “climate institute” (who stand to make money out of this just like Al Gore)

    • Jason says:

      10:33pm | 22/09/09

      Rob - I was working for a large (big 5) IT company during y2k, was involved in a large number of Y2K tests and analysis and to be brutally honest it was a complete load.  Very few environments had any Y2K issues, the majority were resolved with minimal effort (mostly just rolling upgrades which happen all the time anyway as part of the SDLC).

      I also note that you “work in the industry” with regards climate change, and as such you are not an objective observer.  All evidence present thus far is very carefully scope limited, as are the pro-AGW arguments.  Open the scope up and we will have a proper debate.

    • 21 year old says:

      11:13pm | 06/11/09

      To me, climate change is propaganda at its best. I can’t believe the government want to dictate to me how I live my life. Even now, I struggle to find a decent light bulb, other than those nasty fluroscent ‘energy savers’.
      Even if Australia adopted an ETS, the results will be negligible! Do people honestly think what we do will make a difference? If there was a country to have ETS, it would have to be China or India.
      It’s just absolutely ridiculous and I can’t believe the number of people who jumped on the environmental bandwagon due to scare tactics.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

@MelanieTait I was thinking the same thing!

Malcolm Farr

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

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

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter