I thought I was being friendly too (I did say it would be fascinating) . Of course I didn't really think you were going to come round and wreck me  -that was meant to be a joke. I've never used the PM facility. Happy to do so; I was just asking how one does it.

 

Not sure what you mean by saying something was wrong with the link to the SMH article  - I just tried it and it worked fine.

 

BOM caught "adjusting" Goulburn up during the week. July 2nd 2017.

15 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

BOM caught "adjusting" Goulburn up during the week. July 2nd 2017.

This woman works for the IPA. Who funds them?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-24/hamilton-the-shadowy-world-of-ipa-finances/3849006

4 hours ago, Jara said:

This woman works for the IPA. Who funds them?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-24/hamilton-the-shadowy-world-of-ipa-finances/3849006

What on earth has that go to do with the BOM misrepresenting data? They have been caught out.

If the IPA are exposing that send me a link so I can donate to them.

On 25/06/2017 at 1:16 PM, Jara said:

Hey Wrecker - 

I'll have a look at it, but I get put off by the headline. "Global warming is a religion"? Hard to argue against the logic of that - there isn't any.

There's lots of reputable info on-line about Climategate - this one looks interesting.

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WU8p-xTeqFI

 

The sad thing is all the climate-deniers will refuse to read it because it goes against their confirmation bias.

Why are you put off by Global Warming being called a religion?

Rajendra Pachauri who was the head (chairman) of the IPCC from 2002 to 2015 wrote in his resignation letter that it was a religion for him.

If the head of the peak "scientific" body that predicts and measures climate change says it is a religion and his dharma it is a pretty good indication it is. There is no higher climate science authority. Llisten to the science...

 

 

On 9 July 2017 at 2:54 PM, Wrecker45 said:

What on earth has that go to do with the BOM misrepresenting data? They have been caught out.

If the IPA are exposing that send me a link so I can donate to them.

Sorry for slow reply. Family troubles. Will answer this one first - have to be quick - very busy.

 

Not disputing what the woman says.  She's right, of course - the BOM are in on the conspiracy. I met some of those guys - yep, conspirators to a man. They're all fudging the figures. And she should know - she's got a degree in... er entomology is it? Her blog says she's got a PhD in something, but she doesn't say what (bit strange, that  - most of the people I know who've got doctorates can't shut up about em). Never mind - she's the IPA's expert on climate change and I'm with her - and you - all the way.

 

I only mentioned the IPA connection because, while you and I are men of the world and know about these things, the younger reader may not realise that the people who employ her are a group of right-wing libertarians who receive their funding from big business, including tobacco companies and a woman in Perth who inherited billions of dollars and yet grumbles because Australian workers won't work for African wages.

16 minutes ago, Jara said:

Sorry for slow reply. Family troubles. Will answer this one first - have to be quick - very busy.

 

Not disputing what the woman says.  She's right, of course - the BOM are in on the conspiracy. I met some of those guys - yep, conspirators to a man. They're all fudging the figures. And she should know - she's got a degree in... er entomology is it? Her blog says she's got a PhD in something, but she doesn't say what (bit strange, that  - most of the people I know who've got doctorates can't shut up about em). Never mind - she's the IPA's expert on climate change and I'm with her - and you - all the way.

 

I only mentioned the IPA connection because, while you and I are men of the world and know about these things, the younger reader may not realise that the people who employ her are a group of right-wing libertarians who receive their funding from big business, including tobacco companies and a woman in Perth who inherited billions of dollars and yet grumbles because Australian workers won't work for African wages.

So are you conceding, like the BOM has itself, that they changed the actual measured figure to a false one to make it warmer?

Sure. If, as you say, they admit they've falsified it, why would I doubt them? They are the BOM, after all. I believe them every morning when they give me the forecast. Don't you? 

On 11/07/2017 at 7:01 PM, Jara said:

Sure. If, as you say, they admit they've falsified it, why would I doubt them? They are the BOM, after all. I believe them every morning when they give me the forecast. Don't you? 

They haven't admitted to falsifying, just a rounding error apparently because they don't have the parameters set to accept temperatures that low.

They get caught out time and time again. It doesn't matter if it is he IPA or Bob Brown catching them out, when the figures are wrong they are wrong. No amount of trying to discredit the person who catches them is worth noting. It is a form of victim blaming.

I don't know if you are taking the [censored], serious, or out of your depth. I suspect taking the [censored]. Are you seriously trying to bring weather forecasts into this? For the record I am not confident in the forecasting of the BOM.

 

"I don't know if you are taking the [censored], serious, or out of your depth."

 

All of the above.

 

You said that the BOM has admitted to falsifying figures. All I said was that, if indeed they have done admitted to falsifying the figures, and you can show me where they admit it, sure,  I'd believe it.

 

Could I ask you a quick question in return? Are there any Australian climate scientists (and I mean actual climate scientists, qualified, professional experts, not like your IPA entomologist or geologists like Bob Carter, or even retired weathermen) who disagree with the view that the climate is heating up and that our actions are causing it? I was thinking about this the other day when I was listening to Andrew Blot. He's always crapping on about it to his fellow genius Steve Price and their audience of retired newsagents, but I've never heard him in debate with somebody who knows what they're talking about.  

14 hours ago, Jara said:

"I don't know if you are taking the [censored], serious, or out of your depth."

 

All of the above.

 

You said that the BOM has admitted to falsifying figures. All I said was that, if indeed they have done admitted to falsifying the figures, and you can show me where they admit it, sure,  I'd believe it.

 

Could I ask you a quick question in return? Are there any Australian climate scientists (and I mean actual climate scientists, qualified, professional experts, not like your IPA entomologist or geologists like Bob Carter, or even retired weathermen) who disagree with the view that the climate is heating up and that our actions are causing it? I was thinking about this the other day when I was listening to Andrew Blot. He's always crapping on about it to his fellow genius Steve Price and their audience of retired newsagents, but I've never heard him in debate with somebody who knows what they're talking about.  

What now, Jara, are you trying to tell me Andrew Bolt and Steve Price are bull*hitters? Why I never....

16 hours ago, Jara said:

 

 

Could I ask you a quick question in return? Are there any Australian climate scientists (and I mean actual climate scientists, qualified, professional experts, not like your IPA entomologist or geologists like Bob Carter, or even retired weathermen) who disagree with the view that the climate is heating up and that our actions are causing it? I was thinking about this the other day when I was listening to Andrew Blot. He's always crapping on about it to his fellow genius Steve Price and their audience of retired newsagents, but I've never heard him in debate with somebody who knows what they're talking about.  

Climate science is a pseudo science. I won't bother looking for an example because anyone stupid enough to do a course on it, isn't worthy of being called a scientist.

Why can't geologists have an opinion? They have more expertise than most on past climate.

If you are looking for specific examples from actual professionals just tell me in which field? I can tell you where the statistics are wrong. I can tell you why a large body of engineers disagree with the theory. I can show you why the clouds are important but not included in the models. I can show you examples of all the major weather monitors "adjusting" the data to suit a warming bias.

If you need me to explain further why climate science is a pseudo science let me know. 

 

 

1 hour ago, dieter said:

What now, Jara, are you trying to tell me Andrew Bolt and Steve Price are bull*hitters? Why I never....

Dieter another boring argument. 

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Dieter another boring argument. 

It's hardly an argument, Wrecker, unless you want to start another one. Andrew and Steve, as we all know, speak nothing but the truth. In fact, I reckon you guys are probably their scriptwriters.

"in fact, I reckon you guys are probably their scriptwriters."

 

Nah, they're not good enough.

Wrecker - I'm puzzled by your claim that Climate Science is a pseudo science. What on earth (or in your mind, not necessarily the same thing) qualifies you to make such a claim?

 

If you feel competent and knowledgeable to make such judgements, perhaps you could demonstrate this by showing me where Mathew England, a world-famous Australian climate scientist who has just won the international Tinker-Muse prize, has got it wrong in the following article:

England, M. H., J. B. Kajtar, N. Maher, 2015: Robust warming projections despite the recent hiatus, Nature Climate Change, 5, 394-396, doi:10.1038/nclimate2575. ∗NCC link∗Reprint including S.I.

Are you saying Professor England is a pseudo-scientist? He's not some outer-suburban nutter: he's a leader in his field, with a lifetime of research, peer-review and prizes behind him. 

 

 

On 15/07/2017 at 4:36 PM, Jara said:

Wrecker - I'm puzzled by your claim that Climate Science is a pseudo science. What on earth (or in your mind, not necessarily the same thing) qualifies you to make such a claim?

 

If you feel competent and knowledgeable to make such judgements, perhaps you could demonstrate this by showing me where Mathew England, a world-famous Australian climate scientist who has just won the international Tinker-Muse prize, has got it wrong in the following article:

England, M. H., J. B. Kajtar, N. Maher, 2015: Robust warming projections despite the recent hiatus, Nature Climate Change, 5, 394-396, doi:10.1038/nclimate2575. ∗NCC link∗Reprint including S.I.

Are you saying Professor England is a pseudo-scientist? He's not some outer-suburban nutter: he's a leader in his field, with a lifetime of research, peer-review and prizes behind him. 

 

 

Jara - I can't get past the subscription section on the first link.

On the second link I love your enthusiasm but it is rubbish. Why does he choose 14 years as his critearion for a hiatus? A hiatus is a hiatus no matter the length.

I also laugh that he is a qualified oceanoligist and takes into consideration the heat could be hiding in the deap ocean.

Firstly that is the only place on our earth where temperature, heat or energy is not currently measured. 

Secondly I'll give you a science experiment you can conduct in your own home. Fill your bath with water (pretend it is the ocean) get a source of heat, maybe borrow Dieters hydroponic lights (pretend it is the sun) exhale in front of it (you don't even need to pretend that is carbon dioxide) and see if the heat can somehow magically get to the bottom of the bath. 

I'll give you a tip there is no law in physics that gives it any chance. And if there is some new magic law of physics that can hide heat in the deap ocean we don't need to worry about global warming because the oceans will just magically hide it until we have the technology to measure the heat down there.

Would you like me to spend more time reading that piece I'm sure it is littered with errors given it took a 2 minute scan to pick up those obvious ones. It makes you wonder who hands out awards these days. I've been very vocal on saying Daniher should be Australian of the year yet we give it to activists or undeserved people every year. Dud selection panel dud awards. Just like dud data gives dud results. Rubbish in, rubbish out.

On 15/07/2017 at 0:37 PM, Jara said:

"in fact, I reckon you guys are probably their scriptwriters."

 

Nah, they're not good enough.

That could explode Dieter's tinfoil hat. Is that a backhanded complement to Bolt?

Thanks Wrecker - I'm impressed that you would go to such trouble to refute the article - would you be willing to go to the extra trouble of passing your criticism on to the journal itself? (Or to Professor England, if I can get his email address?)

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

That could explode Dieter's tinfoil hat. Is that a backhanded complement to Bolt?

Or a forehand criticism of you...

I'll give you a science experiment you can conduct in your own home. Fill your bath with water (pretend it is the ocean) get a source of heat, maybe borrow Dieters hydroponic lights (pretend it is the sun) exhale in front of it (you don't even need to pretend that is carbon dioxide) and see if the heat can somehow magically get to the bottom of the bath.

 

Surely that depends upon the strength of the source of heat? 

6 hours ago, Jara said:

I'll give you a science experiment you can conduct in your own home. Fill your bath with water (pretend it is the ocean) get a source of heat, maybe borrow Dieters hydroponic lights (pretend it is the sun) exhale in front of it (you don't even need to pretend that is carbon dioxide) and see if the heat can somehow magically get to the bottom of the bath.

 

Surely that depends upon the strength of the source of heat? 

You can't be serious? The heat at the bottom of the ocean somehow dodges the floats at the the top of the ocean that accurately measure the temperature. And then hide right at the bottom where it can't be measured but still helps to explain global warming, when every other avenue if [censored].

8 hours ago, Jara said:

Thanks Wrecker - I'm impressed that you would go to such trouble to refute the article - would you be willing to go to the extra trouble of passing your criticism on to the journal itself? (Or to Professor England, if I can get his email address?)

It took me two minutes, I could destroy the whole article because honestly it is well written but poorly backed up with any science. 

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

You can't be serious? The heat at the bottom of the ocean somehow dodges the floats at the the top of the ocean that accurately measure the temperature. And then hide right at the bottom where it can't be measured but still helps to explain global warming, when every other avenue if [censored].

You confuse me (not hard to do when it comes to science, I must admit) - but let me get this experiment straight. (Let's just talk about the bath for now, not the ocean) You said to basically get a heat source and transmit it into the bath - you're saying it isn't detectable at the bottom of the bath, right? I'm asking - why not? Maybe hydroponic lights aren't strong enough, as you suggest, but surely a stronger light would be (say the lights of the MCG)?