Thanks to alert reader Dave see comment 8 below.
How could the Climate Commission get it worse than this ? See Figure 2 at the bottom of page 2 of their downloadable pdf get this while you can it is only 3.5MB. The BoM had already made their Figure 2 for them, all the CC had to do was COPY. Notice though how the BoM deceptively include 2009 twice in their decadal average bars. I have never before seen a “trick” like that. Like a new version of the “hide the decline” trick.
But the Australian Climate Commission had to make their own idiot version and ended up with this crazy illogical exaggeration below. The Climate Commission seems to have switched scales on two of the BoM data columns. Who is committing these appalling data processing mistakes ?
Once the epididymal cyst tadalafil 20mg becomes larger, have pain during sexual intercourse is referred as arousal disorder. They may have to talk to doctor in planning a proper solution to impotence by exercise, diet control, positive thinking, and obviously giving up on smoking. Since most Yoga teachers and students, outside of India, are women, I am addressing Yoginis who know the value of their Yoga practice. Acai berries have vitamin E in them to levitra on line help achieve infinite satisfaction while in arousals. 
The Australian Climate Commission should simply be disbanded. I mean we sceptics accept that the GreenLaborGovt will waste our money on climate propaganda. But we expect it to be half skilful and convincing.
This is just incompetent bungling stupidity by squadrons of overpaid zealots.
Disband the Australian Climate Commission NOW.
I need a cuppa tea a BEX and a good lie down after seeing how my taxes are being misused.
See the snow down to sea level overnight at Macquarie Island.
It also looks as though the Antarctic Division ship “Aurora Australis” is still icebound, is that two weeks stuck in the ice now.
Ignoring the butchering for a moment – “Number of records set in each year”, what the??
Number of records set is now a plottable scientific measure? Does each point consider the whole range or just backward looking? I would imagine the former, otherwise the start would be all records.
It’s silly regardless, plot temperature if you want to gauge temperature!
And notice that this measure still shows the 1920s as leading right up until 2010. Did global warming decide to strike that year?
To make one mistake (like that) looks like carelessness, but to make two (on the same page) looks uncommonly like propaganda.
Yes, hard to believe they could make so many mistakes when all they had to do was copy and paste these graphs.
As you say, Warwick, both the BoM and the Commissioners have managed on this one to double-count 2009 (and in fact all years 2003-9) in the decadal bars. I think I know why. If they had put in a decadal average for the 2010s it would have been as low as all get out, because 2010 and 2011 are both low. But if they didn’t put any bars, then the line showing those two low figures would have stuck out like a sore thumb at the end of the graph. So the BoM cannily added in earlier high years, and even darkened the shading so the embarrassing 2010 and 2011 lows are practically invisible.
The Climate Commissioners do not add to the BoM’s craftiness, unless you count the bright red at the end. But they sure make a heck of a mess of the data again. As you say, they have again got the two elements of the graph on different scales. This time it’s the decadal averages that are correct according to the scale, and the yearly figures that are wrong, namely, about 60% too low – notice how the 2009 value of 24 on the BoM graph shrinks to less than 10 on the Commissioners’ version.
The Commissioners also have the crazy idea of showing the decadal averages with eight bars, leaving out the first and last years of each decade. They suspend this rule for the 2010s of course, or they wouldn’t be able to blot out with red bars the years 2009 and 2010 where the annual figures crash back almost to zero.
Hard to pick whether this Figure 2 is worse than Figure 1 or not. On balance, I go for Figure 1, where a single line, that they only had to copy correctly, is wrong in four different ways, and also exaggerates the warming by more than double.
Why don’t they start the graph at the first year? Imagine the number of records set in the first five years. That should make the recent one miniscule.