Climate Change in Australia


Fixed…and wilco





Why am I getting sucked in to this nonsense.


Your first post was better


Bob Carter and Peter Ridd both lost their jobs, how many warmists have lost theirs?

Interesting court case coming up concerning Peter Ridd for unlawful dismissal.
Went against the James Cook University and its warmest views so they got him on a technicality.

Court case was due to be heard in November, he had his case prepared, lawyers witnesses transported to Northern Queensland with arranged accomodation when suddenly out of the blue there were no judges available to hear the case, trial postponed until next year.
Probably get deferred again because the Uni hasn’t had time to assemble it’s case.

Obviously the University and the Labor government didn’t want the case heard and the truth coming out where they could not control the media. This imposed a massive financial cost on Ridd and his supporters.

A perfect example of the warmists using the government and legal system to penalise their opponents which is a common practice with authorities.

Unless of course you believe it was just a coincidence.


Jesus, his climate views were not why he was fired. Far from it, as I said, anyone with solid data that shows APC isn’t happening is going to make themselves and their employers very rich. Or in this case that the reef was ok.

Ridd was sacked for speaking tosh about AIMS with fudged data to back it up making JCU look like fools. They told him to stop so he went after the ARC, any university in the world is going to sack a researcher when they call other orgs into question without the data to back it up, because it’s bad science. He is then proceeded to take his bullshit to the media, which is what you don’t do in science, you publish (not write a public selling book for FRNJ’s) and then let people review and respond. It’s how the scientific method works. FFS you really need to look that up. He just tried to make a quick buck and got found out.

But you love bad science. So no wonder you and all the other tosses latched into that prick


This is what this thread feels like summed up in a conversation


If we had started mitigating in 2000, just a 4% mitigation per year to avoid 1.5oC. That’s really ■■■■■■■ sad.


18 ■■■■■■■ % per year now.


I told you it was a ■■■■■■■ ■■■■ thread


If you go to the site, where you cut this and read about this “data” and then look up the work of Benjamin D Santer, it shows how people like you mis-use data.

Whether you are deliberately trying to deceive and support a troll like sorfed or whether you are just another ignoramus with a degree, is the question ?


That post made me very cross.
I edited over my first response.

But yeah, dunno if it’s real.
Have no explanation of what the y axis actually signifies.
Have an averaged line well above zero.
Have it go up to 0.8 on the y axis but only down to -0.1.

But hey, it sure is a graph!


Decent video that dispels every myth the skeptics in here have used to date.


Never disagreed, just said it wasn’t the worst, the PC thread is because it’s this thread without the science.


Did you pass year 7 maths?
The title of that graph is “mean change” (ie average change) of temp.
And it seems to be averaging out at about 0.23 degrees a year. So that graph is showing it’s getting hotter by a quarter of a degree every year on average.


I didn’t pass year 7 maths.
But that was my read, too.

I’m not even bothered by that.
I’m bothered by, 'Hey, here’s a graph! Someone’s printed ‘no increase in temperature on it! That’s good enough for me! Because I have an open mind!’

Cheeses and crackers…

Edit: seriously, once you post that, you either apologise for being a momentarily friggin’ idiot, or you don’t post on the topic no more.


Had a brief look at which is listed as the source.
“ Since 1986 remes has been operating as reliable developer and distributor of customized test systems for the automotive industry .”

Either they just keep the climate science division under wraps.
Or someone just used a generic data series to test some software test/graphing system. And then some lazy RWNJ nuffie blogger grabbed it without looking, much less thinking. And the other lazy RWNJ nuffies stole it.


I’m pretty sure you could start a blog called “climate science and scatmunching”, and post a graph which draws out a big ole ■■■■ and balls, list the data source as “I’m a big poopoo”, and as long as it showed temperature staying stable, these trolls would steal it and post it.


I’m looking forward to, ‘oh, that graph I posted was full of ■■■■?’
That’s completely changed my position.
Or partially changed my position.
Or infinitesimally changed my position.

Betcha half a dollar, though?


This thread is another example of the decline of trust in science which is really concerning.