Wrecker45

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.

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

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...

Clayton Oliver exposed a bum on Sunday. Said bum should be fined proportionately for his salad dodging.

Lewis is the best kick I have ever seen. Golfers and table tennis players normally hook or slice depending on the shot they play. Watch Lewis hold the ball when he kicks at goal he tilts it to get the curve he wants with a drop punt. Then he kicks on the the right plane for it to work. I've never seen any player do that before.

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.

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

Was just trying to be friendly Jara. The link you posted was clearly flawed and I would have cc'd you in my response to the journal. Please don't pretend you are too scared to PM me your email address for your own personal safety when you have advertised the name of your published book on this site.

Hodge is the greatest captain of the modern era. He was suspended by the club by nessecity. Loves a beer but that is politically incorrect these days. i don't condone drink driving but Hodge is a massive drinker and has captained the best team in the last decade. Players line up to stick by him because they respect him and they've all had a few beers with him.

What era does Hodge play in?

Yeah. There doesn't get much more mfc royalty in our premiership drought than Farmer, Neitz and Grinter. They enjoyed a beer too for all those fretting about Spencer and co.

Jara - You don't seem to get it, the article says the actual figures don't predict those sea level rises. They have "refined" them to get the unprecedented rises. PM me your email address and I will write to the journal, cc you and ask for the raw figures compared to the "refined" ones. I'll also request the workings with an explanation.

No "refined" means they got the (accurate) satellite imagery and adjusted it. just read paragraph 3. The sattelite instruments used to measure height or altitude picked up no such rise. This is a text book example of why people are so sceptical. Why are the sattelite measurements adjusted?

Jara - Honestly this is exactly why there are so many sceptics. Look at the 2nd paragraph. The study used "Refined sattelite estimates". Tell me why you think they need to use refined sattelite figures? As I understand the sattelite measurements are as as accurate as they can get without refinement.

I've had a read of the link and tried to take it on board. I agree with a key argument that the Climategate emails don't prove or disprove climate change one bit. If Carbon Dioxide is driving the climate, regardless what those chain of emails say, it will continue to do so regardless. I don't have time to check the terms of reference of each of the six official investigations quoted in the article but I do know what I read in the Climategate emails. Even if I give the benefit of the doubt on the use of the word "trick" and the "hide the decline". Which investigations and those close to the Universitited involved seem to argue vehemently that they were just common terms and there was no malice there. There are still email after emil showing the Universities were colluding and they were preventing any alternative view from their own been publishes in "peer reviewed" journals. This was damning at the time because the argument back then was that climate sceptisim was just witch science because it couldn't be peer reviewed. We know from reading Climategate that no matter how scientifically perfect a sceptic piece on climate change was it had no chance of being peer reviewed at that time. The argument has moved on since then but clearly demonstrates how the science was being stymied at the time.

Hurn got Viney. Viney got him back. Is it the first case of Viney made me cry reciprocation?

It's funny how Lewis keeps playing for teams that get up in close losses.

The sad thing is all the lefties will refuse to watch it because it goes against their confirmation bias.

We'll probably end up with early first round picks in both drafts. Not only are Taylor and co good at drafting they're good at dealing as well.

The same thing happened to me except i don't have a maid or tinea.

Re the first point you are saying you want to stay on the side of caution which a text book example of precautionary principle and it is a flawed principle. on the second point it is pretty clear the figures are being fudged and have been fudged. If that falsifies climate change consider it falsified. What I was saying is I don't think climate change can be falsified. There is ample evidence of scientists colluding and fudging figures yet that doesn't sway opinion of believers. Certainly the climate failing to do as predicted by the models hasn't falsified it. No matter what happens people go on believing.

In my humble opinion that is a flawed argument on a number of levels. Firstly it is a form of Precautionary Principal which is flawed because it can be used to justify anything and therefore justifies nothing. Secondly you can't be wrong. I've asked you a number of times how global warming theory can be falsified and you have yet to come back with an answer. That says to me it is more clairvoyant prediction than scientific theory.

Just to be clear I was not saying the reef was fine based on my personal experience. I was asked if I had been there recently and I had. The part I was in near Cairns was beautiful. The Clive James article is packed full of facts and historical comparisons. Diatribe it is not. Your above passage above on Rex Tillerson is a better example of an attack on the player not the ball.

How is climate change falsifiable? You obviously still believe in it despite all the dud predictions.

Nup. The differnce is the first case is falsifiable and the second is not. Any expert who deals in diagnosis or predictions that are not falsifiable are frauds.