On Feb 14, 4:40*pm, "boozn" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Feb 12, 2:41 pm, john fernbach wrote:





I don't know whether Australian biologist TimFlanneryis correct in
the article below, which appeared recently in the Guardian.

I think the Hadley Centre at the Met Office in the UK has only
recently issued a warning against AGW partisans (like me!) trying to
attribute point events (such as the Victorian fires) to long-term
climate
trends.

According to the Hadley Centre spokespeople, this kind of disaster-
mongering on the part of AGW True Believers and AGW Denial on the part
of the skeptics are equally destructive.

So perhapsFlanneryis grasping at straws here. But this is his take
on the Victorian fires, for what it's worth: Fran, doesFlannery's
account of past Victorian weather accord with your sense of climate
trends in SE Australia?
================================================== =====
Australian bushfires: when two degrees is the difference between life
and death

snip interesting Flannery article

I'd endorse the piece you cite. While we should surely be cautious in
attributing any specific heatwave to AGW, it's hard indeed to imagine
that any serious heatwave is not an instantiation of the general
pattern, and a pointer to the kinds of challenge that humans will face
in the coming century.
************************************************** **********

So what do you say about the below average temperatures now extant in SE
Australia then komrade??


I'm no comrade of yours.

Surely they're indicative of global cooling,

By definition, they can't be, since there's no theory about the
etiology of global cooling nort an accompanying phenomenon to which
the theory, if it existed might point.

Fran