How can one explain such results, other than to conclude that there is spurious warming in the CRUTem3 dataset? I already see in the comments, below, that there are a few attempts to divert attention from this central issue. I would like to hear an alternative explanation for such results.
Ah those cheeky Climate scientists, who would have thunk it?
Cheers Comrades
The first nail is in the coffin of the carbon tax acolytes, with many more nails to come. The latest IPCC report has an admission that extreme events, or disasters, are not caused by human activity. It’s not available in the summary for policy makers, but it is there. Sneaky devils, aren’t they?
Nevertheless, their eco-house of cards is crumbling. Unfortunately, our current government are so far behind the rest of the world they are introducing a carbon tax when other nations are distancing themselves from such economic foolishness.
Thankfully, with Campbell Newman in Queensland, we’ve been given an entree of what’s to come. The main course will delicious, and the desert will be the new Liberal Prime Minister eradicating these useless and wasteful green programs.
The really beautiful part of the whole thing is that Gillard is well and truly wedged here, on one hand she was forced to go for the carbon tax thing By the Greens and on the other she has no plan B and no exit strategy because despite the buff and bluster that “people will see that the carbon tax won’t make the sky fall in and compensation will do blah” we are already seeing adds on the TV promoting various products sprouting the line “buy now before the carbon Tax makes this product more expensive” when you have that sort of thing happening it clearly shows that Labor have totally lost the propaganda war on this issue without the Coalition spending a cent on advertising. Once the real campaign starts things can only get worse.