I have serious doubts that many self styled Christians would actually pass their God’s Rapture Test.
4 Likes
Have not read much in here. But does anyone really believe climate change is not real?
If u don’t think its real u have nfi.
The only question is are we contributing to the speed in which it is occurring. I have seen good arguments on both sides for this. Which leaves me unsure.
There are so many half arsed measures been taken by governments. To make it look like they are doing something. But in reality they are just spending huge amounts of money on useless crap. Some of which urguably actually makes emmissions worse.
1 Like
Climate has definitely changed in my lifetime. No question.
% anthropogenic? % due to carbon? % due to other pollutants? There is some good data and there is some absolute rubbish being peddled. Can it be “reversed” - ridiculous. Surprised at how many people actually believe it can be.
For Governments, it’s clearly more around optics. It’s amazing how little will sway a ‘crowd’. Generally, there’s a huge crowd with 2% really knowing anything.
Still, we should do what we can to live clean.
Do I believe the water is rising and anthropogenic climate change has been characterised and quantified. F no.
2 Likes
Once more into the void. The only game, outside of rich farks getting richer and maintaining power, is mitigation. Horse bolted long ago. Just farking read. Will something like phasing coal out ‘reverse’ anything? Probably not, other than the flow of dollars into fat corrupt carnts island tax havens. Will it give your descendants, even your immediate sprog a better fighting chance? Definitely. So what’s stopping us? Ideology? Team barracking? Pfft. Eat less meat. Try to go organic. Grow your own. Ride a bike. Use less plastic. Go solar. Plant trees and flowers for the insects who keep us all alive. Stop shittihng where you sleep. Vote for whoever has the best mitigation plan. Whatever you can afford and practically apply. Or just be a Murdoch fellatingg dumb selfish carnt.
1 Like
I read the first few paragraphs of that link and found enough wilful ignorance that I could spend all day tearing it apart line-by-line … but what’s the point? I’ve done it before, and you don’t even bother reading what I’m writing, much less respond, and then you’re back a week or two later with another link to another scientifically illiterate screed.
For whatever reason, you’ve made up your mind. You came on here claiming to want to seek truth, but you’ve never bothered looking anywhere other than fringe denialist websites. You claim you’re interested in looking at all sides to the issue, but you obsessively post contrarian denialist bulldust and never even bother to learn the basic facts about what you’re denying.
The climate wars are an international disgrace. For a half-century, the public has suffered a bombardment of disputed facts about “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) as well as so much undignified smearing of the work and reputations of skeptics by alarmists, and vice versa, that it’s hard for anyone concerned about our beautiful planet to know what to think.
So I decided to look into the situation for myself.
I started by examining a temperature graph of a drill-core taken through deep sediments that make up the seafloor. And what did I see? Right before my eyes, were continuous, and sometimes extreme, climate fluctuations, from hot to cold and back again, non-stop, for two million years. Two million years! That was a shock. And it got me asking a lot of questions.
Honestly, how does anyone take this remotely seriously? This bozo writing for a rabid right-wing Trumpist website NEVER had any thoughts on climate change before this and was shocked, shocked at what he discovered? Or that he just happened to have a handy core sediment lying around to analyse, and the skills and background to be able to do so meaningfully?
Every argument in there has been addressed repeatedly, in here by me and others, and outside blitz in very easily-accessible form by people much more knowledgable and better qualified. Repetition of failed arguments does not equal ‘scientific debate’. This is either written by a moron, or written for morons. Either way, it does you no credit that you posted it here.
Anyway, stuff this. You pollute your brain however you like. I’ve got a brunch date with a hot lawyer, and I’ve got better things to do than to rip apart your latest pet conspiracy theorist. If this is how you want to waste your life, go for it.
7 Likes
Here for the updates on brunch.
5 Likes
The Epoch Times is Falun Gong, isn’t it? Might explain why the Chinese government hates them.
1 Like
I want to know about the brunch with the hot lawyer.
1 Like
8 Likes
FFS: this is the problem with us “deniers”. Fudged data and fudged reporting.
Nope, but you do stuff like swallowing Murdoch ‘news’ whole without question, then post links to their pay page. Why don’t you address Humble Minion’s last post to you? It’s the courteous thing to do for a fellow Bombers supporter who’s helping you with your research.
7 Likes
they never do
1 Like
So you’ll listen to Chris Kenny, a noted moron, but not actual earth and climate scientists?
that article is ■■■■■■■ terrible. We have answered here, in length, why Stevenson screens are whats used now, as Glaisher stands were incredibly inaccurate and inconsistent. Kenny is actually writing an article asking for more consistency from the BOM, when the reason the BOM use Stevenson Screens for consistency, and is basically written an article about how he “called out a scientist” for not being consistent. Man is a ■■■■■■■■.
Im done with you, you’re an idiot
2 Likes
Thank fk for that, … you’re just wasting your breath (pixels).
You can’t educate a Briquette.
1 Like
It’s vexing.
I posted a link to a forty year study of the damn things standing side by side.
And yet here we are again.
1 Like
i have the sneaking suspicion that he, or sorfed and the ilk are not really interested in anything that doesn’t fit in with their bias. Instantly confirming their lack of critical thinking abilities, and why science really isn’t for them. To put it mildly.
I like how the data is fudged. It’s on their own website what is done, why it’s done, how it’s done, how it’s been peer reviewed with multiple sources to ensure it’s ok to do and pre and post data changes can be found.
But no it’s some kind of conspiracy.
The Cyclone Tracy of ideological battles: Does the Weather Bureau tweak data or is our government paranoid?
THE government says the Weather Bureau tweaks data to exaggerate global warming. The Bureau says that’s rubbish. Who’s right in this ideological storm?
news.com.auSEPTEMBER 27, 20159:20AM
All we want is an accurate forecast — and sunny weather. Source:The Daily Telegraph
DARK clouds loomed over the Bureau of Meteorology at the height of Tony Abbott’s short-lived reign as Prime Minister.
Abbott wanted the Bureau investigated. He wanted to make sure it wasn’t tweaking data to exaggerate global warming.
The Bureau said it was doing nothing of the sort. Reading through the lines of its denials in measured, bureaucratic tones, you could sense it was seething with rage at having to answer such questions at all.
But is the Weather Bureau misleading us? Or was the government yelling at clouds like Homer Simpson’s senile father? Here’s a breakdown of this Cyclone Tracy of ideological storms, which is still well and truly raging.
Artist’s impression of Tony Abbott’s dealings with the Bureau of Meteorology. Source:news.com.au
1. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology is a well-respected meteorological organisation. Most of its staff are scientists who compile impartial weather and climate data by the bucketload. You can read almost all of it on the Bureau website, which is one of Australia’s 30 most clicked websites.
2. The data is actually really fun to play with. For example, did you know that Melbourne’s hottest ever day was 46.4 and its coldest ever night -2.8C? Well you would if you clicked here.
3. But some people doubt the Bureau’s impartiality. These people deny the science of climate change and reject any links between the changing climate and human activity. Mostly they are from the conservative side of politics and/or the business community.
4. These people believe the Bureau is changing its data to reflect a warming trend. This is the key point in all of this.
5. So is the Bureau altering its data? You bet it is, and for sound scientific reasons. As the Bureau explains to news.com.au:
“Temperature records are influenced by a range of factors such as changes to site surrounds, measurement methods and the relocation of stations. Such changes introduce biases into the climate record that need to be adjusted for prior to analysis.
Adjusting for these biases, a process known as homogenisation, is carried out by meteorological authorities around the world as best practice to ensure that climate data is consistent through time.”
6. So in other words, for one reason or another, weather data has to be cleaned up from time to time. It’s kind of like the way you need to raise the seat on your kid’s bike as they get taller. The Bureau calls this homogenisation.
And they call this a moody picture. Picture: Pete James Photography Source:Supplied
7. If you want a concrete example rather than an analogy, here goes. Often a weather station will have been established in an area that was bush or parkland. Over the years, maybe that area became built up. Urban areas are warmer for lots of reasons. And that means the weather station must be relocated, or old records homogenised, or both. Nothing sinister there. Just sound science.
In fact, most weather stations have moved to COOLER areas (i.e. areas away from the urban heat island effect). So if scientists are trying to make the data reflect warmer temperatures, THEY’RE EVEN DUMBER THAN THE SCEPTICS THINK.
Ahem, sorry for the outbreak of capitals.
8. But some people, including Tony Abbott, see a big problem with any tinkering with raw data. Too bad if that tinkering makes past and future data reliable and meaningful. Some people smell a rat. They think it’s being done to suit some sort of agenda.
9. Tony Abbott, who was never much of a climate change science believer, had his scepticism of data homogenisation sparked by a series of pieces in The Australian newspaper.
10. First, environment editor Graham Lloyd wrote some articles about the homogenisation process which were quite critical in tone. Then Maurice Newman, chair of the PM’s Business Advisory Council, wrote an editorial in The Oz which said:
“Doctoring data or throwing inquirers off the track to deliver an outcome is unscientific and unacceptable at any time.”
And:
“[The Bureau] must first dispel suspicions of a warming bias. The memory of Climategate and its casual approach to celsius conversion, lingers. It should explain why homogenisation consistently turns cooling trends to warming.”
11. Mr Newman, who opposes wind energy and believes the earth is cooling, banged on and on about changes in the Bureau’s weather records which distorted the climate in favour of a warming trend. He ended with this line:
“Nothing short of a thorough government-funded review and audit, conducted by independent professionals, will do.”
That’s not actually Tony Abbott kneeling on a stormy beach, but feel free to pretend it is. Picture: Phil Hillyard Source:News Corp Australia
12. Tony Abbott LOVED the sound of that. According to documents published by the ABC yesterday, his people considered a formal investigation into whether the Bureau was meddling with data to exaggerating global warming records.
13. The thing is, the Bureau’s homogenisation methodology had already been found to be 100 per cent ridgey-didge and okerly-dokerly by an independent review panel after a 2011 independent peer review of the Bureau’s data and analysis methods.
14. Then this year, the Bureau’s data analysis was again independently reviewed. This wasn’t the audit Tony Abbott wanted but just a standard cross-check. The report of the Technical Advisory Forum is here. In summary, it found everything to be both hunky and dory.
15. Not everyone accepted the conclusions. Jennifer Marohasy is a biologist, speaker and climate change science sceptic. Her website is here. It includes a post entitled “Bureau Just Makes Stuff Up”.
News.com.au asked Ms Marohasy why the Bureau would deliberately distort data. She said:
“They actually believe that all data should show global warming so they find excuse after excuse to fiddle. They’re not thinking rationally.”
Ms Marohasy then alleged that some key staff members at the Bureau were implicated in the infamous “Climategate” emails of 2009, and that these people were infecting the culture of the Bureau with their warmist alarmism to protect their own professional reputations.
16. As a refresher, the so-called Climategate affair involved a series of illegally obtained emails which purported to show manipulation of data by (mostly) British climate scientists. Multiple subsequent independent investigations cleared the researchers of such manipulation or any form of wrongdoing.
Minor scientific disagreements (of the style that are super healthy for good science) which were revealed in the stolen emails were blown out of proportion. Yet the narrative of a 2009 mass exposure of fudged climate data persists.
17. And now, a similar smell is surrounding our own Bureau of Meteorology as they try to homogenise their data in the name of good science.
One thing we can surely all agree on is that clouds are cool. Pic: Gregory Thompson Source:Supplied
WAIT A SEC. I’VE FORGOTTEN. WHY IS DATA HOMOGENISATION GOOD AGAIN?
18. Read this. It was published in the International Journal of Climatology in 2012 by Blair Trewin of Australia’s National Climate Centre.
“If a temperature data set is to be used for monitoring climate change it is important that it be homogeneous; that is, changes in the temperature as shown in the dataset reflect changes in the climate, and not changes in the external (non-climatic) conditions under which the observations are made.
Potential non-climatic influences on temperature observations include changes in local ground conditions around an observation site, changes in instruments and changes in observation procedures.
In addition, many station ‘series’ are taken from more than one location, despite often appearing under a single geographical name. Very few century-scale temperature station series are totally free of such influences, and thus careful homogenization is required in order to produce a homogeneous data set.”
19. Bottom line. Data gathering is not, in itself, perfect science. Homogenisation tries to account for that. That’s very different from doctoring data to suit someone’s agenda.
20. Still not convinced? There are absolute reams of info about how and why Australia’s climate data is homogenised here at the Bureau’s site. Most of it is really simple English.
Here’s the bom link too;
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/
Feel free too to find the review Abbott did when PM as well regarding this issue.
We’ve been there, done that.
And I suppose the thermometers in your home have been tampered with by greenies with an agenda too.
1 Like