A peach of an article in The Australian newspaper makes a mockery of Prime Minister Rudd’s failure to address the serious amount of greenhouse gas that belching and farting camels inflict upon that nation’s climate. The stink of catastrophe is surely brewing.

Reporter, Ean Higgins, tells his readers:

Scientists have found camels to be the third-highest carbon-emitting animal per head on the planet, behind only cattle and buffalo. Culling the one million feral camels that currently roam the outback would be equivalent to taking 300,000 cars off the road in terms of the reduction to the country’s greenhouse gases.

It is one of the many quirks of international carbon accounting standards that nothing can be done to address the camel problem. Camels in Australia are the only feral herds of their kind in the world and are estimated to number more than one million, with the capability of doubling in size every nine years. Does Prime Minister Rudd give a flying one? Not on your Nelly! Like us he knows CO2 junk science is all hot air and government carbon emissions policies are merely a tax raising scam that just hit the fan.

(For all non-British readers, ‘Carry On’ films were the epitome of bawdy and farcical English humor, much of the ilk of Benny Hill. And this is the kind of farce that is going to make Rudd’s cap-and-trade government as unpopular as Climate Minister, Penny ‘camel-toe’ Wong.

We're not sure if Ms. Wong is telling us how little man-made climate change there really is, or something about her boss, Kevin Rudd's, anatomy.

Our Australian skeptic friend, Val Majkus, has sent me a link to a speech made yesterday by Australian nutjob, Penny Wong, who is the Aussie Federal Minister for Climate Change and Water.

Wong somehow kept a straight face when she told the crowd: “Climate change [is] happening more quickly than we previously thought.”

Wong was addressing the first national forum on coasts and climate change in Adelaide and promulgating all the usual doomsaying myths for her dwindling band of climate cult followers that global temperatures are fast rising and sea levels, as a consequence, will rise by a meter this century.

Then, the self-serving climate minister showed no remorse for going on to smear tens of millions of concerned citizens that form the grassroots movement of climate skeptics by implying they are under the sway of the tobacco lobby! Wong will come to rue her ludicrous statements. Projecting herself as some kind of high priestess. She is, in fact, no more than another gray-suited peddler of snake oil patter.

Here in Britain the mainstream media has remembered what it means to do objective journalism. Sadly, the Aussie press hasn’t yet woken up to Wong’s wonky word spin–but they will. The days of her ilk are numbered. So I need only proffer a couple of simple facts to debunk Wong’s ‘catastrophic’ global warming myth. But the minister won’t want her audience to hear such basic truths:

First, as widely reported, Professor Phil Jones, one of the world’s key alarmist climate scientists, admitted to the BBC last week that there has been no statistically significant rise in global temps for 15 years.

and;

Second, scientists from 50 research and operational agencies from 26 countries have proved that world sea levels have fallen for the past six years.

URBAN HEAT-ISLAND CONTENT IN THE AUSTRALIAN TEMPERATURE RECORD

Urban heat-island (UHI) contamination of temperature data is the subject of intensifying investigations around the world. Although dismissed by some as a insignificant ¹, there is mounting evidence that the UHI artifact exaggerates apparent global warming trends ^4-10.

In Australia, UHI and a number of related factors are the subject of in-depth investigations^{4, 5, 7, 9, 10}. They target specific meteorological (MET) stations in order to identify covert strategies used to manipulate the data. This brief preliminary study, on the other hand, considers the data as it stands. The aim is simply to examine the claim that UHI content has no effect on the national temperature record.

Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) records selected for analysis relate to long record temperature stations (LRTS) ³.

There are just 51 LRTS that have records considered here to be long enough. Thirty-seven  have records from 1910 to 2009 inclusive. Three start in 1911, five in 1913 and one in 1914. Two end in 2006 and three in 2008. All station numbers are listed in the Appendix.

Annual LRTS temperatures are averaged to represent mean temperature anomalies for Australia (MTAA) since 1910. They are compared with official MTAA reported in BoM’s Annual Australian Climate Statement 2009 (Fig 1) ².

The basis for comparison with BoM’s MTAA is simply the difference between the average MTAA for 1910-1959 and 1960-2010 respectively. For BoM MTAA, that difference is estimated from the heights of the decadal means shown in Fig 1.

BoM’s MTAA is compared also with MTAA for (a) two recognised UHI and (b) the LRTS after removing a sample of 8 stations tentatively identified as UHI. They are four major cities and four nominal airports. Depending on MET siting, some airports may register relative cooling ¹⁰. However, apparently most airports act as UHI ^{6, 8}. After removing the 8 stations, the residual LRTS subset is referred to here as rural.

Results are represented in Figs 2 to 5 and tabulated below.

Averaged MTAA ( ^OC ) are:

                                                                           
The results indicate:

1. Warming according to BoM is twice that of LRTS (#1, #2).
2. Warming according to BoM mirrors a known UHI, Melbourne (#1, #4).
3. UHI effect is greater for Sydney than Melbourne (#3, #4).
4. Warming of the LRTS record is reduced by excluding a sample of UHI (#5).

Conclusion

The claim, that UHI content has no effect on the national temperature record, is not supported by this study in which the national temperature trend is represented by long record temperature stations (LRTS). Warming since 1960 of recognised UHI, Sydney and Melbourne, is greater than national warming by a factor of 2 or more. Likewise, BoM’s statement of annual mean temperature anomalies for Australia (MTAA) overstates warming by a factor of 2. That exaggeration of the national trend increases when a small sample of UHI are removed from the LRTS set. Further increase is expected when other suspect stations are confirmed as UHI and removed from consideration. (Quantitative estimates stated here are subject to statistical confirmation.)

Implications

1. This study is another indication that BoM’s MTAA (Fig 1) lacks credibility and should not be used as a basis for reporting national temperature trends.  Its value, if any, is to indicate trends of UHI like Melbourne.
2. Only 8 UHI were excluded to obtain the rural LRTS estimate.  They are major cities or nominal airports.  Inevitably there are other suspect stations.  Based on BoM data, the following stations show UHI or other suspect trends and would be useful to target for closer inspection.

   9519, 25509, 29004, 30018, 32004, 32025, 33047, 40043, 44010, 55023, 58012, 61086, 65026, 79023, 84016

3. There are just 11 rural LRTS with records back to the 1880′s.  Fig 6 shows the MTAA for those extra-long record stations (XLRTS).  They warrant further investigation if only to estimate the extent to which their 19^th century trend represents record warming ⁷.

References

1. Anderson M 2010 Urban Heat Island Myth is Dead
2. Bureau of Meteorology Annual Australian Climate Statement 2009
3. Bureau Of Meteorology Climate Data Online
4. D’Aleo J and Anthony Watts A 2010 Surface temperature records: Policy driven deception?
5. Eschenbach W 2009 The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero
6. Goetz J 2009 World’s airports continue to run warmer than ROW (rest of world
7. Hughes W 2010 Some essential history of IPCC global warming from 20 years ago
8. Meyer W 2009 Airports Are Getting Warmer
9. Morris CJG 1994 Urban Heat Islands and Climate Change – Melbourne, Australia
10. Stewart K 2010 GISS manipulates climate data in Mackay (2nd Edition)

Appendix

Long record temperature stations (LRTS) Fig 2

9510, 9518, 9519, 9534, 9581, 10073, 10111, 10579, 10614, 2074, 13012, 25509, 26026, 29004, 30018, 30045, 32004, 32025, 33047, 36026, 37010, 38003, 39039, 39085, 40043, 40126, 44010, 44026, 46037, 46043, 55023, 58012, 61055, 61086, 64008 , 65026, 66062, 69018, 75031, 75032, 78031, 79023, 80015, 82039, 83025, 84016, 85096, 86071, 89002, 90015, 94029

Excluded stations (Fig 5)

38003, 61055, 66062, 75032, 80015, 86071, 89002, 94029

Extra-long record temperature stations (XLRTS) Fig 6

26026, 46043, 55023, 58012, 64008, 69018, 75031, 83025, 84016, 85096, 90015

Graham Dick, now retired, joined the full-time staff of the School of Optometry, University of New South Wales, Sydney in 1966 and held the position of lecturer for 26 years in the areas of optics, visual impairment and clinical optometry. He has maintained a keen interest in the AGW imbroglio since attending a persuasive lecture by Australia’s Prof Bob Carter in Sydney 3-4 years ago.

GISS, based at Columbia University in New York City, has adjusted over a century’s worth of temperature records from the vast Queensland State (the Sunshine State) to reverse a cooling trend in one ground weather station and increase a warming trend in another to skew the overall data set.

Independent analysis by Aussie blogger Ken Stewart exposes a deplorable smoking gun of cynical manipulation of raw temperature data.

The process of adjusting raw data to create a “homogenised” final global temperature chart is standard practice by climatologists whose work is relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and world governments. This homogenisation process of temperature data has fallen into disrepute since the Climategate scandal where scientists were proven to have unlawfully used a “trick” to fake climate data and then destroyed their calculations rendering it impossible for independent auditors to examine and justify the methodologies used.

Ken Stewart has his own take on these latest findings from Down Under: “Wow- when they adjust, they don’t muck around!”

GISS combines GHCN data from all urban stations applying the same inexplicable two degree temperature increase as shown below to reveal the shocking disparity between ‘raw’ data and the ‘cooked’ GISS data:

Ken proves that the GISS homogenised older data to make the climate appear cooler a hundred years ago and then ramped up modern data to artificially make recent years appear warmer. Thus climate scientists have artificially created a steep trend line to falsely give an impression of a 2 degrees rise in Australian temperatures over a 100 year period. Ken found that if climatologists had stuck to the raw data the trendline would have been as low as 0.2 degrees per 100 years – thus the overall temperature rise has been magnified by a factor of ten for no apparent reason other than to cause alarm.

Ken explains how he undertook his research,

I decided to have a look at the temperature records of the weather stations closest to where I live, near Mackay in North Queensland. The Bureau of Meteorology lists 3 current stations: Mackay MO, Mackay Aero, and Te Kowai Exp Station, plus the closed station Mackay Post Office. GISS has a list of nearby stations… Te Kowai is an experimental farm for developing new varieties of sugar cane, run by scientists and technicians since 1889. It has a temperature record of over 100 years with only a couple of gaps. So in fact it’s an ideal rural station for referencing a nearby urban station, as it should have a similar climate.

Ken found that the “Mackay Sugar Mill Station” was far hotter in the 1920′s and 30′s but GISS “disappeared” this data. However, if we add the warming period back in we find that the warming trend almost disappears to become less then 0.2 degrees per 100 years!

Ken concludes, “How can GISS justify their manipulation of the data, which they claim not to do?”

Upon closer examination of GISS methodology it appears that accidentally on purpose they used a “trick” whereby they turned “Mackay Sugar Mill Station” into a small town rather than a rural station even though it’s been nothing much more than cane fields for the last 130 years. There are different procedures applied to homogenising data between urban and rural weather stations.

I have examined Ken’s findings and can concur with him that there exists inexplicable anomalies that, without exception, appear concocted (homogenized) to create a warming trend when no evidence in changes in the local environmental conditions warrants any such manipulation. Moreover, GISS does not publish any explanations of why they chose to make cooler those temperatures in the first 40 years of their sample and then ramp up the temperatures for recent years. Absent any explanation from them, we may draw our own conclusions that the GISS lowered the older temperature records and raised the temperatures of recent years to create a fictitiously steeper homogenised warming slope to fit a pre-conceived warmist agenda.

Ken says this is fraud, “And it’s happening in my own backyard! I’m furious!”

This finding, when compared to those from other independent observers shows further attempts by government and government-funded agencies to fraudulent create a man made warming signal in Australia from natural events and data.

Ken’s findings tie in really well with the anomaly exposed by WUWT where Willis Eschenbach found similar dodgy data for Darwin, in the Northern Territory ( a vast Aussie state of 1,349,129 square kilometres (520,902 sq mi):

Here is Eschenbach’s comment on the data about Darwin:

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

The similarities in degree and extent of fakery found separately by Eschenbach and Stewart proves a consistent fraudulent objective: make older temperatures appear artificially cooler and exagerrate recent temperature data.

Climategate.com has built up a close affinity with Australian skeptics who have worked tirelessly to expose the climate scam still being brainlessly plugged by Aussie Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Further similar contributions submitted to us for publication are most welcome. We intend to continue to expose such fraud relying on the technical and analytical skills of gifted amateur bloggers to fully expose the greatest scam in the history of science. Our aim is to bring forth criminal and civil proceedings against all those involved.

Sources: Ken’s Kingdom and Watts Up With That

Melbourne University alarmist David Karoly once claimed a rise in the Murray Darling Basin’s temperatures was “likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human acitivity” and:

This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd grabbed the scare and exploited it:

BRENDAN Nelson was yesterday accused of being “blissfully immune” to the effects of climate change after he said the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin was not linked to global warming…

In parliament yesterday, Kevin Rudd attacked Dr Nelson, accusing him of ignoring scientific facts.

“You need to get with the science on this,” the Prime Minister said. “Look at the technical report put together by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.”

But the latest evidence that Rudd and Karoly were wrong. In fact, there’s no evidence in the Murray Darling drought of man-made warming, says a new study in Geophysical Research Letters:

Continue reading at Andrew Bolt

What’s wrong with that?  It’s good intentions that count, not results. Just do the right thing, will you?

The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that the Emissions Trading Scheme proposed for Australia and now before the Australian Parliament was far more than “A Great Big New Tax.”

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense,” Mr Viv Forbes, said that PM Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme combined a Big New Tax with a War-Time Rationing scheme and an Income redistributing compensation scheme, all to be run by a regulatory army probably bigger than our real army.

He continued:

“Let’s try to understand this Ruddy ETS.

“To simplify things, let’s look at just the electricity industry.

“If Rudd’s ETS ever rules Australia, companies producing electricity from carbon fuels must beg, buy or borrow a permit to burn coal, gas or diesel.

“They can beg a free permit from some mate in Canberra; they can buy a permit from some lucky sod who managed to get more permits than he needs; they can borrow a permit by entering into some tricky derivative trade with a speculator in Chicago; or they can pay carbon credit penance to a shifty land owner in some foreign land who promises solemnly not to clear his trees.

“No matter which option is chosen, power costs will go up and companies must pass the extra cost (plus GST) onto their customers or go broke.

“There will be no effect on climate.

“Now look at consumers.

“The ETS must push up the cost of all goods and services using carbon fuel. It will boost the cost of electricity, food, transport and travel. When this happens, consumers will suddenly understand the ETS Tax and politicians who voted for it will feel their anger.

“But there is a plan: “Let’s compensate all those likely to vote for us”.

“If these subsidies work properly, the lucky consumers will be in the same position as they were before ETS, except for the extra bureaucracy. For these consumers, there is no signal to reduce their consumption of carbon fuels. The ETS will do nothing except create a tangle of red tape which consumes and redistributes wealth.

“But for the un-subsidised consumers, the ETS is an extra tax on everything.

“And for the power companies, the ETS will produce nothing except a heap of angry customers, and lots of red tape.

Mr Forbes claimed that Tony Abbott was wrong about the ETS.

“It is not just a Great Big Tax.

“It’s a Great Big Tax PLUS a mountain of Red Tape.

“And it will have absolutely no effect on world climate.”

Yet again, we feel it is our duty to help our fellow sceptics in Australia again by running this new Open Letter by Mr. Malcolm Roberts. The climate debate is really heating up Down Under. Some Aussie commentators are predicting that Prime Minister Rudd may have to call a “double dissolution” election over his blocked climate bill.

We are very well aware that Australia is likely to be the first country in the world to have an election fought on the climate issue (even though both major parties now have policies to reduce carbon emissions by 5% by 2020, they are fighting each other, and will not compromise). Keen climate observers may recall that the Leader of the Aussie Opposition was ousted just before Copenhagen because he was going to support the Government’s cap-and-trade legislation.

In our respective democratic nations, voters are feeling growing dissatisfaction that they are not being given a voice in government on anti-eco-fascist legislative policies. Australia has set a new trend that other nations may follow by instituting a Climate Sceptics Party to contest the next parliamentary elections. The party explicitly represents climate scepticism.

The party has been formed to conduct a strictly self-funding grassroot, internet-viral type campaign in an attempt at winning one or more seats.

We support Malcolm’s fine efforts and we also seek to endorse the aims of the newly-formed Australian Climate Sceptic Party. Here is a copy of Malcolm’s letter in full:

To all federal Members of Parliament:

The Weekend Australian newspaper (Sa.19.12.09) published a major article headlined “Scientists ‘crying wolf’ over coral”. Quotes:

“Professor Rudd said scientists who predicted corals would be mostly extinct by mid-century had a credibility problem because the Great Barrier Reef was in ‘bloody brilliant shape.” “Ten years ago, I was told that the coral was going to die from sediment, and we have proved that is complete rubbish”.

Its editorial stated: “The Queensland tourist attraction is proving its resilience”.

During 2008 winter’s record low temperatures, ABC News reported coral bleaching due to cold. The reef was adapting to natural weather variations as it’s done for millions of years.

UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri is reportedly under investigation in Britain for ‘very serious financial irregularities’. Separately, he has reportedly used bogus claims of alarm to secure millions of dollars for TERI, of which he is a director. He has many huge conflicts of interests now publicly exposed. The scientist who made the statement of unfounded alarm at the centre of the UN IPCC’s Himalayan scandal works for TERI.

Our free-spending Prime Minister gave Pachauri’s TERI one million dollars. Senator Wong gave almost $50,000 in a grant entitled ‘Influencing International Climate Change’.

Nature controls global climate through galactic, solar, planetary, oceanic, atmospheric drivers and their interactions. Grants to TERI only influence climate spin.

Before spending millions of taxpayer dollars on bogus global warming claims during the financial crisis, why did our free-spending Prime Minister and Senator Wong not do their due diligence?

Malcolm Roberts
BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

We thank Malcolm for keeping us updated, as other contributors from Australia have been doing. We note that there is not a single scientist sitting in the Australian Parliament. May we suggest that in the public interest, more is done to encourage scientists to come forward and get into politics?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Melbourne, Australia—3 February 2010—Following yesterday’s disappointing announcement by the Australian Opposition of their climate policy, I have today offered to run as a potential candidate of The Climate Sceptics Party for the state of Victoria for the Senate of the Parliament of Australia at the next general election due on or before 16 April 2011.

When boiled down to its overall effects, the Opposition’s climate policy is essentially no different from that currently proposed by the Rudd Government. Australians concerned about the billions of dollars of carbon taxes that both major parties wish to inflict upon them—whether direct or indirect—deserve a genuine choice in the upcoming federal election, not just “more of the same.”

The Climate Sceptics Party is committed to protecting ordinary Australians from rash, alarmist, unwanted policies, relying on scientific objectivity and caution rather than ideological fanaticism, and striving to provide a final “safety switch” on a federal Parliament that is increasingly out of touch with the average Australian.

That is also my goal.

If selected by the Party as a candidate, and if elected by the people of Victoria as a Senator, I will work tirelessly to bring rationality and common sense back to the Australian Senate.

John P. Costella

Now, however, we have a major new analysis by two Australian scientists showing that the temperature data published by the IPCC and other organisations has been manipulated to give the appearance of a warming trend – but not one that has actually occurred. In essence this analysis severely, probably fatally, damages the basis on which the IPCC and its supporters rely for their call for government intervention to reduce emissions. Needless to say, this has major international implications in regard to the policies to be adopted by countries on emissions reductions.

This analysis, undertaken by William Kininmonth (former Deputy Head of the Bureau of Meteorology and head of that body’s Climate Centre) – and physicist Dr Tom Quirk, shows that temperatures published for both Australia and the world by the IPCC, whose main source has been the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, derive from an averaging over ten years intervals. As shown below in graphed form, this method of presentation gives the appearance of a steady upward trend. However, the presentation of temperatures based on annual averages by Messrs Kininmonth and Quirk give no such appearance and highlight the irregularities. This analysis has been drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition and it has been suggested that it confirms the need for a major independent inquiry before any government action is taken to reduce emissions of CO2. One might add that it suggests the need for the two major parties to revise their existing global warming policies.

They conclude with:

The foregoing suggests that the temperature data as analysed and presented by the IPCC and associated international research organisations do not provide a sound basis for the alarmist conclusions that have been reached and presented to governments. There is also a question about the validity of adjustments to Australia’s temperatures by our Bureau of Meteorology in compiling the so-called “high quality” data set. The temperature analyses, along with other similar alarmist claims, certainly justify a major independent inquiry before any government action is taken to reduce emissions of CO2. Such an inquiry would provide an opportunity for Rudd to change his extremist policy pending the inquiry’s outcome.

Click through to read the entire article and view their detailed charts.