I buy two ply or three ply on special.

I think Ian overestimates the value of the Tele, not to mention its softness and absorbency. I line my chicken house with throw-away Teles from cafes and still add value to its content.

Some examples of the above:
(for links go to http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/lies-of-climate-commission-part-11.html)

Distortion: Figure 2-only shows the high end of projections, why not show the full range of model outputs?

Cherry Picking: Box 2 Heat records continue to be set! The highest temperature in 2009 was 46.8 in Menindee in western NSW (site of future forests). The commission fail to state that the state's highest temperature remains 49.7 degrees in Menindee on January 10, 1939. Menindee also holds the 4th highest temperature, 48.6 degrees on 11 January 1939. The top 5 all occur prior 1973. Box 2 also describes the dreaded Nov 2009 heatwave that saw the monthly maximum temperature in Bathurst 7.8 degrees above the average. Odd that the climate commission did not mention the January 1960 heatwave (see HERE for previous discussions). This saw the average monthly temperature in Hillston for January 1960 8.1 degrees above the long term average!

Misrepresentation: Figure 6 is purported to be a bushfire in the Morton National Park. The photo is sourced from Flickr. A quick check shows the photo was taken on March 29, 2009. Note the climate commission have conveniently trimmed the photo to exclude the unburnt area across the road. It seems this photo is of a controlled burn! This was undertaken in the area by NPWS in March 2009. Why does the Climate commission show a man made fire? Bushfires did occur in Morton National Park in January of 2009, why not show a picture from that actual bushfire?

Historical extremes: Box 4 - Single storm event causes major disruption in Sydney. The Climate commission decides on 8 March 2012. Seems more severe damage done many times over by single storms in the past. Here are a few historical reports from an era when atmospheric CO2 was lower. Swamped with numerous reported storm events we just looked at a few reports in the Sydney Morning Herald between January and March 1936:
TERRIFIC STORMS. Lightning Strikes Camp. TWO MEN KILLED. Fireball Creates Havoc at Liverpool. HOUSEROOFS CARRIED AWAY.11 January 1936
STORM. WIDESPREAD AREA. Rain and Wind Havoc AFTER HOTTEST DAY. 17 January 1936
HEAT WAVE Sweeps the State. COOL CHANGE LIKELY TO-DAY.29 January 1936
THUNDERSTORM. BREAKS OVER SYDNEY. HAIL AND DRENCHING RAIN. 10 February 1936
SYDNEY STORM 11 February 1936
RAINSTORMS OVER SYDNEY. Heavy Damage. 9 March 1936
FLOODS In South Areas. BOATS IN STREETS. Blockages on Rail and Road. 16 March 1936

More cherry picking Box 5 Hunter region storms 2007. The commission reports that the 2007 storms in the Hunter Region caused 10 deaths and 6000 evacuations. Rainfall over Maitland in June that year 392.3mm (BOM Station 61388). Seems much worse has affected the Hunter when CO2 levels were lower... June 1950 554.2 mm (BOM Station 61034-about 2 km from 61388). This provided headlines such as these:
Flood Losses Estimated At Millions 28 June 1950
9,000 NOW HOMELESS IN FLOODS GREAT AREAS SUBMERGED Losses Of Stock "Enormous" 26 June 1950
"Colossal" Damage To N.S.W. Roads By Floods, Experts Say 23 June 1950
HEAVY COAL LOSS THREATENED; CESSNOCK CUT OFF 22 June 1950
MORE FLOOD REFUGEES Maitland Still Tense 21 June 1950
400 MORE FLOOD REFUGEES Warning At Maitland 20 June 1950
RACE IN FLOODS WITH DYING BABY 19 June 1950

The Climate Commission once again caught playing politics with the truth.

Ian
You are right.
This has no longer become a debate. It is an entrenched spin exercise from both sides.
Christine Milne's comments yesterday made my heart sink. No wonder we are not making headway on convincing the general public about the efficacy of the CO2 argument.
My earlier post about Steffen's apparent contradiction about extreme weather events, implying they are caused by man made CO2 is also confusing.
I think the only chance for a genuine community wide consensus on these matters will only occur, ironically enough, when the Liberal Party is returned to power. If it rescinds the Carbon Tax it will reinvigorate the underlying science debate again. I have heard that discussions are already underway about the merits of a public judicial enquiry or a Royal Commission where genuine cross examination of both sides and their proponents can take place.
This would put people on the record under threat of perjury and sort the wheat from the chaff. The current process is getting us nowhere.

Philip, back to the menzies house circle jerk for you. I understand you have form regarding personal abuse - trying to shout down a student in a public forum when he was trying to discuss climate change.

Troll indignation...

Ian, indeed John Nicol has been the most gentlemanly of those charged with stirring the FUD pot on global warming, sea rise and ocean acidification -- though those latter two they try to hide from discussing, since almost anyone can measure them.

The Heartland boys up here, sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, etc., have been busy funding other fake 'institutes', even Down Under, for which I'm apologetic to all Aussies for us not being able to keep our criminal element within our borders.

The fellow who exposed the secrets of Heartland's meddling "hands across the seas" trickery is Peter Glieck...
www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html

Sort of a mini Pentagon Papers gambit, for which the Fox News & other fibber folks became very indignant, again playing their victimization cards at every turn. The truth does hurt, when your scamming is exposed.

Well said David. Like you I am not a scientist, but I read a lot of science journals and your conclusions tend to support what I am consistently reading. Only politicians and their believers with their 'bent' perspective, seem to protest.

Regretably Professor Flannery's comments a few years back that Eastern Australian dams would run out of water later this decade came at a time when we experienced a double La Nina event, which subsequently flooded the country and filled the dams. Easy to grab that comment and deride his claims generally.

Point is as I understand it, increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere increase the amount of energy in the system. That doesnt just mean a average temperature rise world wide, but an increase in atmospherica activity ie bigger storms, cyclones, deluges, droughts etc. Increased temperature world wide mainly affects the higher latitudes where there can be a significant increase. This explains the loss of ice caps and glaciation. Closer to the equator the temperature averages would increase much less. But the serious weather events are what have always been predicted as a consequence of global warming. Is it co-incidental that we have been receiving record rain on the east coast.

If extremes are the order of the future, then what Flannery has said remains valid. The next El Nino could well be seriously exacerbated by the increase of CO2 (said to be a third higher than at start of 1900s) and methane, and his prediction that the dams could empty by 2015 could very likely still happen making us increasingly reliant on expensive desalination plants.

What also doesnt seem to be be reported about sea level rises is that not only loss of glaciation off Greenland and the Antarctic continent wold raise the water level, but with increasing water temperature, it is a known fact that warmer water occupies more space than colder water. therefore the warmer on average that the oceans become the greater the volume of water there is. There is also another fallacy here regarding some locations actually having a drop in water level. Most of that would be caused by a rebounding effect, started mainly after the last iceage and particularly noted in Canada and some parts of Europe. Antarctica will follow the same process as it loses water, because the Crust and Mantle act like plastic when heavy weights are on it. It sinks wehen heavy weights are on it and rebouds when its take off, and the rebounding effect can take thousands of years.

Exacerbating our CO2 problem is the fact that warmer seas can cause a die off of the micro organisms in the polar oceans that are a principle component in recycling oxygen from CO2. Too much heat and we lose a major oxygen creator. Further the main rain forests are increasingly being harvested for fuel. In Brazil, which is demanding more and more energy, the Chinese are doing extensive mining and the most readily available fuel is the trees. We already know of the problems in the other major forested area Indonesia and the Papua New Guinea Island. So not only are we pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere but we are reducing our means of reoxygenating the atmosphere.

I would suggest that our problems are much bigger than just the inconvenient increase in destructive weather systems.

John Nicol: "my main interest is in some basic discussions on the science and some consideration of the measured data as presented by the major sources such as UAH, NOAH, GISS and CRU as well as foolowing the discussions on the correlations between solar activity and cloud formations etc."

After examining the science to the best of my ability, I came to the conclusion that I'm not qualified to judge it. Under the circumstances, my healthiest option is to pay attention to the opinions of the majority of those who are qualified in the field.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; in a field so fiendishly complex, "basic discussions on the science" risk leading us dangerously astray. How healthy would it be for me to pretend that I understand a field as complex as climate science? The pretence would be arrogant, at best, and probably psychotic.

Of opinions presented as sceptical, I've seen vanishingly few that are more than statements of belief. My belief is that the vast majority of those best qualified warn of substantial risks, for which humanity is probably responsible. To say more would not be healthful.

Nicol is back! Indeed Heartland funding is still in force Down Under. But John, where was that bond or trust you were going to put some $ in for your descendents, just in the off case you turn out wrong to shill for our combustion boys up here?

And where was that bet -- you know, the one Monckton refused because he knew better that to bet against emissions problems. Are you of the same mind now too?

To bad Glieck exposed all the slush funding we've been spilling onto phony "institutes" down there, eh?

This is my favourite comment so far. (It's not a competition.) "Alleged hysteria"... Global warming is so dubious that even the view that it's pure hysteria is merely "alleged"? What can that even mean? Oh, I see, you are "simple person".

"I have not witnessed any evidance of said authorities adopting policies [to prohibit building in areas prone to inundation]. Something which I find rather contradictory."

Because if it was real the government would of course be taking a serious interest in it? This is either charmingly naive or just mushy thinking, I don't know. One would presume that the government (like governments all around the world) a) can't be bothered and b) hope that this sea level rise never eventuates. How is this contradictory?

"I also know for a FACT, the Indian ocean has not risen one centimeter during my lifetime."

This is a FACT, but all the evidence that does say that the world is warming due to human activity and sea levels have risen because of it is all hooey? How do you know? How can you trust that little factoid but not the advancing glacier of evidence you don't like?

The CAPITALS make the MESSAGE so much more FACTUAL.

Wise thinking, David. The combustion industry everywhere has had everything to lose if Cap & Trade on CO2 were implemented, or nuclear were supported more and substituted, as was intended to occur by 2000 up here: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

But betting against serious effects of emissions is what's called a Pascal Wager -- great, low-chance outcome (no worries mate) but high downside risk (worldwide floods, crop loss, ocean food loss, disease spread...). A bet like this is equivalent to cashing in retirement funds, re-mortgaging home, etc., and taking all that $ to Vegas and playing craps or roulette until the $ is doubled. Betting like that is also called a Fool's Wager.

Fortunately, for the Fools playing 'skeptics', they know they'll be rescued by the rest of us when times get real bad. Sort of like the bank bailouts, right? A small group of selfish folk pretend nothing's wrong, and when it becomes clearly wrong feign pitifulness and want help.

So just as Monckton refused a bet on climate he knew he'd lose, but keeps on pulling in $ from Fox, Murdoch, etc., the few folks we see pandering for Heartland shills or whatever, won't man up.

These give some idea of how successful we've all been in creating a truly expensive & nearing disaster for a few billion folks...
www.economist.com/node/21541028
http://tinyurl.com/bueq2ev
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

The facts that first warnings arose over 100 years ago, from industrial-science folks like Arrhenius, or were understood and aimed to be solved by 2000, per JFK's advice, just confirms the old farm saying: "There's no substitute for human stupidity".

We might add: "and those willing to say anything for a little $" -- it was surprising, for example, to see that an adjunct prof. Down Under was willing to commit his offspring to the Fool's Climate Wager for less that $1700/month from an Aussie Heartland shill.