Just watched Di Caprios doco, "Before the Flood" it was very good. If anyone is a skeptic, have a look at it. As UN ambassador for Climate Change he traveled the world for 2 years observing and spoke to everyone from the fisherman in the arctic, to The Pope. Amazing work.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/19/in-australia-faulty-bom-temperature-sensors-contribute-to-hottest-year-ever/amp/

 

http://amp.dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/scandal-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-caught-erasing-cold-temperatures/

Amazing, the power of the media. Suddenly, the Bureau of Meteorology needs to replace equipment and answer questions and set up an internal inquiry. But they’ve had weeks of warning. Lance Pidgeon and Jennifer Marohasy have been watching the automatic weather stations record very cold temperatures, and then astonished when those same readings either got entered into our national raw database as warmer, or simply disappeared. The BOM apparently has a filter set so that super cold temperatures need to be manually checked. Yet the filter is set so high, in Thredbo’s case, nearly five whole degrees warmer than temperatures already recorded.

Edited March 1, 20187 yr by Ethan Tremblay

Dr. Marohasy? That's the bloody IPA entomologist again. She's not a climate scientist's cake-hole. She's weird: look at her bio. Says she's got a PhD, but doesn't tell you what it was for (there's some very dodgy doctors around - I should know - I'm one myself). 

10 minutes ago, Jara said:

 

Oh and Wrecker, I'm not the one who is denying the views of reputable scientific organisations such as the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union or the American Geological Society, all of whom unequivocally support the view that global warming is man-made.

You are. Ergo, you are a denialist.

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.^[72][73]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[74][75][76]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.^[77][78][79]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[80][81]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.^[82]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.^[83][84]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.^[85][86]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.^[87][88]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.^[30][89]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.^[90][91]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[92][93]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.^[94][95]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.^[96][97]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.^[98][99]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[100][101]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[102][103]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.^[104][105]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.^[106][107]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.^[108][109]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.^{[110][111][112]}
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.^[113][114]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.^[115][116]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.^{[117][118][119][120]}
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[121][122]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.^[123][124]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.^[125][126]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.^[127][128]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.^[129][130]

20 minutes ago, Jara said:

Dr. Marohasy? That's the bloody IPA entomologist again. She's not a climate scientist's cake-hole. She's weird: look at her bio. Says she's got a PhD, but doesn't tell you what it was for (there's some very dodgy doctors around - I should know - I'm one myself). 

She’s holds a PhD in Biology. What are you a doctor of Jara? I have this odd rash... 

Edited March 1, 20187 yr by Ethan Tremblay

7 hours ago, Jara said:

Yeah, yeah, I know, your IPA entomologist showed that the BOM is corrupt.

 

I interviewed several BOM scientists a few years ago. Those guys spend their lives trying to provide accurate information to the community.

 

What on earth do you think is their motivation for them to fudge the figures? 

 

 

If your enemy states a fact it is still a fact. You need to get over the association with the IPA and look at the content. It is damning.

8 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

She’s holds a PhD in Biology. What are you a doctor of Jara? I have this odd rash... 

Alas, nothing as useful as medicine. I'd be happy to look at your rash, though - you guys don't seem too worried about the qualifications of the "experts" you use.  

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

If your enemy states a fact it is still a fact. You need to get over the association with the IPA and look at the content. It is damning.

But you still haven't answered my question. Why would the BOM want to fudge the figures? 

 

Like I said, I met some of them - they are very nerdy, precise, diligent individuals. Are you suggesting they're lying?

1 minute ago, Jara said:

Alas, nothing as useful as medicine.  

I’d argue a biologist is more useful than a GP.

Who cares why. The fact is the BoM limited equipment at certain locations so they couldn’t record any temperatures under minus 10.

Edited March 1, 20187 yr by Ethan Tremblay

5 hours ago, Jara said:

But you still haven't answered my question. Why would the BOM want to fudge the figures? 

 

Like I said, I met some of them - they are very nerdy, precise, diligent individuals. Are you suggesting they're lying?

The answer is pretty obvious. BOM - bureau of meteorology. If man made climate change is happening their jobs are more important and high profile. The bureau gets more funding and they ultimately get paid more.

Now have a look at the evidence instead of squealing IPA and refusing to look at the obvious.

 

40 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

The answer is pretty obvious. BOM - bureau of meteorology. If man made climate change is happening their jobs are more important and high profile. The bureau gets more funding and they ultimately get paid more.

Now have a look at the evidence instead of squealing IPA and refusing to look at the obvious.

 

Yes, the BOM are collectively meeting in a dimly lit basement room, conspiring to manipulate their data in order to increase their salaries.  Now from that conspiracy, how do you think that their jobs are going to change in order to facilitate that increase?  Wouldn't it be the the non-fossil fuel industries that would stand to gain?  Or are you saying that they are also secreted in that same basement room doing a deal with the BOM in which the BOM are guaranteed a percentage of their funding?  I love conspiracy theories.

Perhaps all of those scientists that ET cites above are meeting in another dimly lit basement room, along with executives from the fossil fuel industry, doing a deal in which they gain increased funding for helping to keep the fossil fuel industry afloat by publishing the occasional paper that talks down man made influences on climate change.

30 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Yes, the BOM are collectively meeting in a dimly lit basement room, conspiring to manipulate their data in order to increase their salaries.  Now from that conspiracy, how do you think that their jobs are going to change in order to facilitate that increase?  Wouldn't it be the the non-fossil fuel industries that would stand to gain?  Or are you saying that they are also secreted in that same basement room doing a deal with the BOM in which the BOM are guaranteed a percentage of their funding?  I love conspiracy theories.

Perhaps all of those scientists that ET cites above are meeting in another dimly lit basement room, along with executives from the fossil fuel industry, doing a deal in which they gain increased funding for helping to keep the fossil fuel industry afloat by publishing the occasional paper that talks down man made influences on climate change.

it doesn't have to be an overt, conscious, conspiratorial thing. ht. self preservation is a wonderful motivator

look on the flip side, imagine if one were a climate cynic in the bom. do you think their career prospects were rosy or threatened?

just my devil's advocate 2c 

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

it doesn't have to be an overt, conscious, conspiratorial thing. ht. self preservation is a wonderful motivator

look on the flip side, imagine if one were a climate cynic in the bom. do you think their career prospects were rosy or threatened?

just my devil's advocate 2c 

I'm not denying that possibility DC, but I do find it interesting that most conspiracies are directed at institutions such as the BOM and NASA, while it is the fossil fuel industry that stands to lose far more (much like the tobacco industry in the past).

2 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I'm not denying that possibility DC, but I do find it interesting that most conspiracies are directed at institutions such as the BOM and NASA, while it is the fossil fuel industry that stands to lose far more (much like the tobacco industry in the past).

maybe, but some of the bom's apparent handling of climate change practices would seem to justify closer scrutiny or dare i say a little skepticism.

no harm in applying a little skepticism to BOTH sides of the divide, eh?

22 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Is this a light hearted post or are you serious? GLOBAL warming. It may have been cool in Perth but nationally it was blah blah. Implying Perth a state is irrelevant and then moving to a national average as if it is important when it is equally irrelevant is funny.

How is the beats going in the UK? I only bring it up because you think the local weather patterns are significant.

 

Wrecker ever heard of context? I was replying to Ethan’s statements that it has been very cool in Perth of late, lowest average temperatures in decades. I provided BoM data showing that in 2017 Perth’s average maximum temperature was still above the long term average. So it may seem cool by recent experience but it is actually still warmer than average. Thus the frog analogy.

Sorry if my wording was unclear. 

Here is an explanation of the beast, polar vortex, stratospheric warming. It’s happened before, so we can’t say it is evidence of global warming or global “not warming” as far as I can see.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSbmPfBJlaUzoAjDVAvolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNDZ0aWFxBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwM2BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1520006495/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.itv.com%2fnews%2ftyne-tees%2f2018-02-27%2fwhat-is-causing-the-beast-from-the-east-and-what-is-storm-emma-weather-questions-answered%2f/RK=2/RS=j8exN.beJoY.cq67u6YTBA1dPuU-

4 hours ago, hardtack said:

I'm not denying that possibility DC, but I do find it interesting that most conspiracies are directed at institutions such as the BOM and NASA, while it is the fossil fuel industry that stands to lose far more (much like the tobacco industry in the past).

I simply can't understand how any logical person could argue that. The companies with the heaviest investment in fossil fuels dominate the energy sector and have diversified enough to benefit from other energy sources. 

26 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

 

Wrecker ever heard of context? I was replying to Ethan’s statements that it has been very cool in Perth of late, lowest average temperatures in decades. I provided BoM data showing that in 2017 Perth’s average maximum temperature was still above the long term average. So it may seem cool by recent experience but it is actually still warmer than average. Thus the frog analogy.

Sorry if my wording was unclear. 

Here is an explanation of the beast, polar vortex, stratospheric warming. It’s happened before, so we can’t say it is evidence of global warming or global “not warming” as far as I can see.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSbmPfBJlaUzoAjDVAvolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNDZ0aWFxBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwM2BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1520006495/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.itv.com%2fnews%2ftyne-tees%2f2018-02-27%2fwhat-is-causing-the-beast-from-the-east-and-what-is-storm-emma-weather-questions-answered%2f/RK=2/RS=j8exN.beJoY.cq67u6YTBA1dPuU-

EH - Thanks for contributing to the its happened before argument. Can you point to any man made warming or cooling that hasn't? 

23 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I simply can't understand how any logical person could argue that. The companies with the heaviest investment in fossil fuels dominate the energy sector and have diversified enough to benefit from other energy sources. 

Yet you seem to think that organisations such as the BOM will somehow benefit?  There will always be weather and they will always be required to provide analysis regardless of the patterns... that is why they exist and nothing will change.  Denialists just seem to go into meltdown because impartial organisations such as the BOM and NASA have something to say that doesn’t suit their agenda.

And if, as you say, those companies have a diversified enough portfolio so as to benefit from other energy sources, why do they feel the need to bankroll supposedly high profile scientists, to support the denialist stance?

45 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I simply can't understand how any logical person could argue that. The companies with the heaviest investment in fossil fuels dominate the energy sector and have diversified enough to benefit from other energy sources. 

So Exxon Mobil would not want to do anything to protect the billions they have invested in their oil rigs on land and at sea, petroleum refineries? How much have they invested in solar or wind? And even if they have invested in renewables, you don’t think their Board of Directors would insist that all divisions pay their way? 

You obviously haven’t worked for a large business organisation and had to manage and account for your annual income/expenditure budget. To justify your annual bonus. 

Edited March 2, 20187 yr by Earl Hood

3 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

So Exxon Mobil would not want to do anything to protect the billions they have invested in their oil rigs on land and at sea, petroleum refineries? How much have they invested in solar or wind? And even if they have invested in renewables, you don’t think their Board of Directors would insist that all divisions pay their way? 

You obviously haven’t worked for a large business organisation and had to manage and account for your annual income/expenditure budget. To justify your annual bonus. 

Of course Exxon want to protect the billions they have in oil but they will move in a second to any other energy technology that is more profitable. How much have Exxon invested in solar or wind? Your question and your virtue signalling. Why should the worlds leading energy company invest in doubtful technology? The more the Government subsidies it the more they will invest but it would be just a ponsey scheme. Thank goodness for Trump calling the industry for what it is.

Exxon has diversified their investment in energy and profits from renewables. The more profitable renewables become the more Exxon will invest in them. Unless you are a socialist it is pretty easy to understand.

i have and do work in business and can assure you i understand. I'm guessing you don't and are a teacher, nurse, ambo or other union related field that relies on group wage rise.

Edited March 2, 20187 yr by Wrecker45

3 hours ago, hardtack said:

Yet you seem to think that organisations such as the BOM will somehow benefit?  There will always be weather and they will always be required to provide analysis regardless of the patterns... that is why they exist and nothing will change.  Denialists just seem to go into meltdown because impartial organisations such as the BOM and NASA have something to say that doesn’t suit their agenda.

And if, as you say, those companies have a diversified enough portfolio so as to benefit from other energy sources, why do they feel the need to bankroll supposedly high profile scientists, to support the denialist stance?

To see how organisations such as the BOM benefit maybe read the thread. It's explained in detail a few posts up for you.

The BOM is not impartial. They won't even adhere to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. They are a scourge on science.

NASA - National Aerontautics and Space Administration. Explain to me where climate fits within what NASA investigates?

9 hours ago, hardtack said:

Yes, the BOM are collectively meeting in a dimly lit basement room, conspiring to manipulate their data in order to increase their salaries.  Now from that conspiracy, how do you think that their jobs are going to change in order to facilitate that increase?  Wouldn't it be the the non-fossil fuel industries that would stand to gain?  Or are you saying that they are also secreted in that same basement room doing a deal with the BOM in which the BOM are guaranteed a percentage of their funding?  I love conspiracy theories.

Perhaps all of those scientists that ET cites above are meeting in another dimly lit basement room, along with executives from the fossil fuel industry, doing a deal in which they gain increased funding for helping to keep the fossil fuel industry afloat by publishing the occasional paper that talks down man made influences on climate change.

The BOM are not meeting in a dimly lit basements just like Exxon and any other capitalist fairie you imagine isn't.

And the American Chemical Society? One of the biggest scientific organizations in the world. 150,00 members. Nobel Prize winners, internationally respected researchers, peer-reviewed journals galore. Quite unequivocally state their opinion that global warming is man-made.

 

They're in on the conspiracy too, are they?

 

 

On 1 March 2018 at 11:13 PM, Ethan Tremblay said:

. 

Ethan - re that list of scientists you quoted - I think even the staunchest believers in global warming accept that it's only a theory, and there will always be those who disagree. 

 

But from my reading of it, the vast majority of professionals working in the field are convinced that global warming is anthropogenic (for example, see the organisations I mentioned above). 

 

They may be wrong - but surely we should take steps to reduce our impact on the planet, just in case they're not?

Edited March 3, 20187 yr by Jara