Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
You're not actually listening very hard, and your last line proves it.
1- Marahosy is the one who is making a deal about why the journal was shut down, not. The point you are ignoring is that she is drawing an implication that is utterly unjustified on the available data - in other words she's talking BS.
2- The point about the Bourke data is that Marahosy has made a big deal about it, without apparently even bothering to look at the contemporary newspaper for background. So did you. The underlying issue is that she has made a big issue without doing what could be called due diligence, aka proper investigation using easily obtained sources.
The funny thing is that Marahosy herself is a fan of using local papers as evidence of high temperatures - jennifermarohasy.com/2014/09/newspapers-as-the-guardians-of-hot-history/
I notice that you didn't use the clue I posted to do some research. That goes against the claim that many make, which is that those who believe in the consensus don't do their own research. In this case I did so some research, and it turns out that all the max. temps in Bourke at the time according to the daily reports in the local paper were from the "Federal refrigerator" - NOT from the post office's official thermometer, as you and Marahosy claim, but from a pub's fridge.
Marahosy can't write pieces saying how great local papers are as a source, and then ignore the fact that the local paper at the time and date she specifically makes a big fuss about specifically says that the relevant temps were taken from a fridge, NOT from the post office's thermometer with its Stephenson screen etc.
So Marahosy is relying not on a proper "official" source, but an outback pub's mechanisms - and then making a huge fuss about it. Having done some work in pubs in the outback, there's no way I'd trust all of their technology.
Oh, and notice that (a) there's incomplete records for the day in question and (b) it represents a deviation from normal statistical collection, both of which cast even more doubt on its quality and validity.
3- Sorry, but are you kidding about the fact that I'm "blindly claiming cherry picking" with reference to Stewart's paper? It's utterly unscientific (and not just that, but totally against logic in every area I'm aware of) to just ignore some data in the dataset that the author has selected, without giving damn good reasons in the study.
It's like rolling a six-sided dice 60 times, removing 20% of the results, and then saying that the fact that your results don't include any sixes is "proof" that the dice had no sixes.
No first-year student science student would remove 20% of the dataset they have selected from analysis without giving a reason and then expect to get a pass mark.
If the tax department or a kitesurfing contest scorer ignored 20% of your scores or tax records without giving any reason and then hit you with a bigger tax bill or a worse result based on their new calculations, would you just accept it? No reasonable person would, because no reasonable person accepts that a study can remove 20% of the relevant dataset without giving any reason for doing so, and then claim to come to any reasonable conclusion.
Putting credence in a rural newspaper article over official records is not exactly the height of scientific proccess. if that is what underpins your argument you are in a bit of trouble. If you bothered to look at the methodology they used, they dug into the national archives and found the official records. Which incidentally the BoM and whoever wrote that paper had obviously not bothered to do as it showed the Bourke reading was not only offical, recorded in a stevenson screen (a fridge, really??) and logged officially. It showed there was a similar high reading of 50.6deg at nearby Brewarrina on the same day. Thoughoughly detroying the argument by the BoM is was an outlier compared to other stations and had to be a mistake.
You seem hell bent on using heresay and dodgy articles to support your case. It is not very convincing.
jennifermarohasy.com/2020/07/hottest-day-ever-in-australia-confirmed-bourke-51-7c-3rd-january-1909/
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
So you're an expert on police tactics as well as climate science?
So you reckon a motorcycle cop, armed with a pistol, should have somehow shot through a window and taken out a guy with a bomb vest, who claimed he was trying to stop other terrorists from blowing up other bombs around the city?
You know sooooooooooooooooooo much more about these incidents than the world's police forces and anti-terrorism guys that you know that their approach is wrong, and yours is right?
How many times have you analysed terrorist incidents? How many times have you worked out the proper procedure for sieges? Or do you just know this stuff better than the cops and terrorism experts because you know everything?
So you know more about climate science than the climate scientists, more about shooting suspects than the cops, and more about terrorism than those who work in the area? Wow...................
I seem to have stuck a nerve. I just research readily available facts.... and where I offer my thoughts I preface with "I think". You guys keep asking me questions, so I figure I might as well answer.
If you are referring to Lindt, there were snipers in position with shots available (perhaps not the best) for a long time before he was taken out. They waited and people died. there were probably good reasons at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but thats what the end analysis generally came up with as far as I recall - should have taken him out quickly.
This is a bizarre tangent from a question of it the cops were afraid to enter the building in the US. Especially given at least 50 cops were on the scene very quickly. My view is they were not afraid more than normal, just my opinion knowing some cops. They were held back because no one took effective charge at the scene. My understanding is that after Colombine standard protocol is to actively engage as soon as practical. That is not my opinion, but the published opinion of experts after the event. Feel free to disagree.
As for climate science, my views come from the scientists. I can't know more than the ones I am learning from. If anything I say goes against the what the scientists are saying feel free to point it out.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
You might find some. Interesting information in Trewin's PhD thesis, I believe he/she got a pass mark... "Extreme Temperature Events in Australia"
Blair C. Trewin
"This leaves the Bourke observation of 3 January 1909 remaining for consideration. The catalogue Climatological Stations: New South Wales (unpublished journal: lodged in the National Meteorological Library at the Bureau of Meteorology) indicates that a Stevenson screen was installed at Bourke in August 1908. However, no other station in New South Wales or southern Queensland is known to have exceeded 47.2?C on this day.
The original manuscript record for Bourke shows temperatures of 125?F (51.7?C)
observed on both 2 and 3 January. The observation on 2 January has been corrected on the manuscript to ll2?F (44.4?C), which is consistent with the temperatures over the
region, and with the 1500 temperature of ll0?F (43.3?C). The 3 January observation was not corrected. However, 3 January was a Sunday, and no other observations were made on this day (as was the usual practice at Bourke, and many other stations, at the time). It is therefore likely that the observation is actually the tnaximum temperature for the 48 hours to 0900, 4 January, and therefore it would be affected by the same error which was conected in the case of the 2 January observation. Reports from those stations in the region which did take observations on both clays suggest that temperatures in the region on 3 January were similar to those of 2 January."
Fig. 5.7 compares the temperature at Bourke with the mean of temperatures observed at
'rhargon1indah, Walgett and Coonamble on days when the daily maximum te1nperature at Bourke exceeds 40?C during the periocll959-95. The mean difference is 0.5?C, and the largest diflerencc observed during this 37-year period is 4.1 ?C, while the difference on January 3, 1909 was 6.9?C. This difference is sufficiently large to render the observation suspect. As the screen and instrumentation are known to be standard, a possible cause of any error would be clerical or observational. Nicholls et al. (l996b) note that many Stevenson screens used at this ti1ne were in poor condition, and some had split wood on top which allowed direct sunlight to enter the screen through the cracks, although the fact that the screen was only a few months old makes this unlikely in the case of Bourke, and the the remainder of the month was not exceptionally hot compared with other stations in the region. An observational error is more likely.
Select to expand quoteremery said..remery said..
You might find some. Interesting information in Trewin's PhD thesis, I believe he/she got a pass mark... "Extreme Temperature Events in Australia"
Blair C. Trewin
"This leaves the Bourke observation of 3 January 1909 remaining for consideration. The catalogue Climatological Stations: New South Wales (unpublished journal: lodged in the National Meteorological Library at the Bureau of Meteorology) indicates that a Stevenson screen was installed at Bourke in August 1908. However, no other station in New South Wales or southern Queensland is known to have exceeded 47.2?C on this day.
The original manuscript record for Bourke shows temperatures of 125?F (51.7?C)
observed on both 2 and 3 January. The observation on 2 January has been corrected on the manuscript to ll2?F (44.4?C), which is consistent with the temperatures over the
region, and with the 1500 temperature of ll0?F (43.3?C). The 3 January observation was not corrected. However, 3 January was a Sunday, and no other observations were made on this day (as was the usual practice at Bourke, and many other stations, at the time). It is therefore likely that the observation is actually the tnaximum temperature for the 48 hours to 0900, 4 January, and therefore it would be affected by the same error which was conected in the case of the 2 January observation. Reports from those stations in the region which did take observations on both clays suggest that temperatures in the region on 3 January were similar to those of 2 January."
Fig. 5.7 compares the temperature at Bourke with the mean of temperatures observed at
'rhargon1indah, Walgett and Coonamble on days when the daily maximum te1nperature at Bourke exceeds 40?C during the periocll959-95. The mean difference is 0.5?C, and the largest diflerencc observed during this 37-year period is 4.1 ?C, while the difference on January 3, 1909 was 6.9?C. This difference is sufficiently large to render the observation suspect. As the screen and instrumentation are known to be standard, a possible cause of any error would be clerical or observational. Nicholls et al. (l996b) note that many Stevenson screens used at this ti1ne were in poor condition, and some had split wood on top which allowed direct sunlight to enter the screen through the cracks, although the fact that the screen was only a few months old makes this unlikely in the case of Bourke, and the the remainder of the month was not exceptionally hot compared with other stations in the region. An observational error is more likely.
or it was just a hot day
Select to expand quoteremery said...
An observational error is more likely.
Someone who's job it is to officially record the temperature daily would not be certain to check when they had observed an all time national record and underlined it in the record to emphasise that fact? I'm doubting that.
Also, Walgett is over 200 km away and Coonamble over 250 km away, while Brewarinna is around 90 km away and recorded almost the same temperature as Bourke. I know which I'd be comparing it to first.
What is the likelihood that staff at both the Bourke and Brewarinna would make the same error on the same day? Lottery ticket time I'd say. Or maybe they put their heads together and decided to.... nah, those silly conspiracy theories. 
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
I know you're being sarcastic but if Paradox has a superior intellect he could outclass many professionals in their own field. And in fields that require far too much perspicacity for this to be possible he may just be able to observe the faults of others.
People could have superior intellects, but it's extraordinarily rare for a complete outsider to know more than people who have spent decades working in that field.
One can observe the faults of others, but one can also just have a superiority complex and a severe case of the Dunning Kruger effect.
If a person was such a superior intellect that they could outclass top professionals in fields as diverse as climate science and terrorism, then it's very likely that they would be the very top of the world in every one of their own activities. There's not many such people about....
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
You're not actually listening very hard, and your last line proves it.
1- Marahosy is the one who is making a deal about why the journal was shut down, not. The point you are ignoring is that she is drawing an implication that is utterly unjustified on the available data - in other words she's talking BS.
2- The point about the Bourke data is that Marahosy has made a big deal about it, without apparently even bothering to look at the contemporary newspaper for background. So did you. The underlying issue is that she has made a big issue without doing what could be called due diligence, aka proper investigation using easily obtained sources.
The funny thing is that Marahosy herself is a fan of using local papers as evidence of high temperatures - jennifermarohasy.com/2014/09/newspapers-as-the-guardians-of-hot-history/
I notice that you didn't use the clue I posted to do some research. That goes against the claim that many make, which is that those who believe in the consensus don't do their own research. In this case I did so some research, and it turns out that all the max. temps in Bourke at the time according to the daily reports in the local paper were from the "Federal refrigerator" - NOT from the post office's official thermometer, as you and Marahosy claim, but from a pub's fridge.
Marahosy can't write pieces saying how great local papers are as a source, and then ignore the fact that the local paper at the time and date she specifically makes a big fuss about specifically says that the relevant temps were taken from a fridge, NOT from the post office's thermometer with its Stephenson screen etc.
So Marahosy is relying not on a proper "official" source, but an outback pub's mechanisms - and then making a huge fuss about it. Having done some work in pubs in the outback, there's no way I'd trust all of their technology.
Oh, and notice that (a) there's incomplete records for the day in question and (b) it represents a deviation from normal statistical collection, both of which cast even more doubt on its quality and validity.
3- Sorry, but are you kidding about the fact that I'm "blindly claiming cherry picking" with reference to Stewart's paper? It's utterly unscientific (and not just that, but totally against logic in every area I'm aware of) to just ignore some data in the dataset that the author has selected, without giving damn good reasons in the study.
It's like rolling a six-sided dice 60 times, removing 20% of the results, and then saying that the fact that your results don't include any sixes is "proof" that the dice had no sixes.
No first-year student science student would remove 20% of the dataset they have selected from analysis without giving a reason and then expect to get a pass mark.
If the tax department or a kitesurfing contest scorer ignored 20% of your scores or tax records without giving any reason and then hit you with a bigger tax bill or a worse result based on their new calculations, would you just accept it? No reasonable person would, because no reasonable person accepts that a study can remove 20% of the relevant dataset without giving any reason for doing so, and then claim to come to any reasonable conclusion.
Putting credence in a rural newspaper article over official records is not exactly the height of scientific proccess. if that is what underpins your argument you are in a bit of trouble. If you bothered to look at the methodology they used, they dug into the national archives and found the official records. Which incidentally the BoM and whoever wrote that paper had obviously not bothered to do as it showed the Bourke reading was not only offical, recorded in a stevenson screen (a fridge, really??) and logged officially. It showed there was a similar high reading of 50.6deg at nearby Brewarrina on the same day. Thoughoughly detroying the argument by the BoM is was an outlier compared to other stations and had to be a mistake.
You seem hell bent on using heresay and dodgy articles to support your case. It is not very convincing.
jennifermarohasy.com/2020/07/hottest-day-ever-in-australia-confirmed-bourke-51-7c-3rd-january-1909/
Oh dear.....
I DID look at the methodology Marohasy used - including the fact that she says that local newspapers are a good source for climate information herself; "Old newspapers hold a lot of information, some of it very valuable. I'm not only referring to last week's The Land, but clippings that date back to editions published one hundred or more years ago."
Marohasy also goes on to say, in reference to the hot temp in Bourke in 1909 "After all if it was published in the press, and in the official book at the Bourke post office it must be true."
This is incredibly ironic - the source YOU are putting forward for your claims says that old newspapers are valuable sources, and then when I use an old newspaper you claim I'm using "dodgy articles". It's just weird - if using old articles is BS then your source Marohasy must also be full of BS when she uses them and says that they give good information. You're not just attacking me - you're attacking your own source.
Please also try to understand the English language. A contemporary record is NOT hearsay.
Please also try to understand normal research techniques. A contemporary article is not "dodgy" merely because people who were not there and have no evidence to contravert the article dislike its content. The contemporary source states day after day in this period that the Bourke records were from ANOTHER SOURCE than the official one. Why would they have written that if it was not true? It is in fact just good reporting for the local paper to have pointed out that the temps did not come from the official thermometer.
Not a single thing you have written does the slightest to cast into doubt the contemporary records, published repeatedly in the same town at the same time, that the temps in question were NOT taken from the standard thermometer, but from a fridge thermometer.
I'm amused by the fact that you seem to believe that the guy writing the local newspaper put down "(Recorded by the Federal refrigerator)" alongside the local temp records day after day in the relevant period just because.....well, there's no reason really. Must be a conspiracy......
I got into this because of your claim that people don't do enough research and that Marohasy is "hard to refute". I've previously done. significant amount of research into her and found that several of her claims are very easy to refute and that they appear to be evidence of bias and junk science.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
So you're an expert on police tactics as well as climate science?
So you reckon a motorcycle cop, armed with a pistol, should have somehow shot through a window and taken out a guy with a bomb vest, who claimed he was trying to stop other terrorists from blowing up other bombs around the city?
You know sooooooooooooooooooo much more about these incidents than the world's police forces and anti-terrorism guys that you know that their approach is wrong, and yours is right?
How many times have you analysed terrorist incidents? How many times have you worked out the proper procedure for sieges? Or do you just know this stuff better than the cops and terrorism experts because you know everything?
So you know more about climate science than the climate scientists, more about shooting suspects than the cops, and more about terrorism than those who work in the area? Wow...................
I seem to have stuck a nerve. I just research readily available facts.... and where I offer my thoughts I preface with "I think". You guys keep asking me questions, so I figure I might as well answer.
If you are referring to Lindt, there were snipers in position with shots available (perhaps not the best) for a long time before he was taken out. They waited and people died. there were probably good reasons at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but thats what the end analysis generally came up with as far as I recall - should have taken him out quickly.
This is a bizarre tangent from a question of it the cops were afraid to enter the building in the US. Especially given at least 50 cops were on the scene very quickly. My view is they were not afraid more than normal, just my opinion knowing some cops. They were held back because no one took effective charge at the scene. My understanding is that after Colombine standard protocol is to actively engage as soon as practical. That is not my opinion, but the published opinion of experts after the event. Feel free to disagree.
As for climate science, my views come from the scientists. I can't know more than the ones I am learning from. If anything I say goes against the what the scientists are saying feel free to point it out.
The snipers weren't in a position to shoot because they weren't sure if they had the right target, couldn't see whether anyone else was in the line of fire and couldn't reliably get through the glass, but you seem to reckon they should have gone anyway.
The closest to "straight away" was when the motorcycle cop arrived, and it seems that the idea that he "should have taken him out straight away" as you say he should have done is such a weird one that it wasn't even considered at the inquest.
Trewin concludes the 400+ page 2001 PhD "Extreme Temperature Events in Australia" with...
"The central conclusion of this thesis is that the frequency of extreme high temperatures, both maxima and minima, in Australia has increased over the period between 1957 and 1996, and that the frequency of extreme low temperatures has decreased. These results hold across most seasons, and in most regions, and are valid for all of the thresholds tested, both fixed and relative (percentile-based)."
Trewin, still banging on about warming.
Grose MR et al. (2023)
Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth
Systems Science
73(1), 30-43. doi:10.1071/ES22018
5. Conclusions
Mean warming is often used for gauging and benchmarking
climate changes, so quantifying past and likely future warm-
ing is useful. The estimate of ~1.1?C global warming
between 1850-1900 and 2011-2020 is a highly cited statis-
tic, and to estimate the equivalent Australian land area we
must use various lines of imperfect evidence. Here we find
that Australia likely warmed slightly between 1850 and
1910, and likely warmed by ~1.6?C between 1850-1920
and 2011-2020. This amount is similar to the global land
average and ~1.4 times the global average including oceans.
Uncertainty around this 1.6?C estimate is unlikely to subs-
tantially exceed ?0.3?C.
The future Australian mean annual temperature to 2100
depends very strongly on the emissions pathway the world
follows. Future Australian warming is projected to likely
remain higher than the global average but perhaps lower
than the global land average, with variations across the region
(lowest in Tasmania, highest inland). Owing to an uneven
spread of climate sensitivity, the CMIP6 global climate models
can be used for the 'global warming levels' framework with
equal weighting, but not for time horizons and emissions
pathways, where weighting or other modelling must be used.
Australia has experienced statistically significant and
substantial warming to date, and further warming is pro-
jected proportional to the global emissions pathway. This
www.publish.csiro.au/es Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science mean warming is associated with substantial changes to
climate extremes and impacts.
What you wont read on FOX
ultracrepidarian
a presumptuous critic; one who gives opinions and advice on subjects they know nothing about.
Trewin, "The original manuscript record for Bourke shows temperatures of 125?F (51.7?C) observed on both 2 and 3 January. The observation on 2 January has been corrected on the manuscript to ll2?F (44.4?C), which is consistent with the temperatures over the
region, and with the 1500 temperature of ll0?F (43.3?C). The 3 January observation was not corrected. However, 3 January was a Sunday, and no other observations were made on this day (as was the usual practice at Bourke, and many other stations, at the time). It is therefore likely that the observation is actually the tnaximum temperature for the 48 hours to 0900, 4 January, and therefore it would be affected by the same error which was conected in the case of the 2 January observation. Reports from those stations in the region which did take observations on both clays suggest that temperatures in the region on 3 January were similar to those of 2 January."
Mike Yeadon is arguably the biggest whistleblower in the world.
He explains perfectly how they are able to censor the truth from the masses.
Listen from 5 to 15 minutes.
Also, he mentions he lives in a small town in England, and he is yet to be recognized whilst walking in the town.
How CBDCs Will Affect You With Michael Yeadon, PH.D. (rumble.com)
What you won't read on FOX
Shakespeare
Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more.
It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Debunking conspiracy theories is like playing Whack-a-mole.
There are certainly some like that. Many these days it is more like simply peeling the "conspiracy" label off them that the media and some politician glued on and staring at the facts underneath.
The problem is that now inconvenient truths get the label and when they turn out true, on mass, the real conspiracy nutjobs gain legitimacy for every whacko idea presented ever. Who can blame them.
The active suppression of factual information by governmetns and media by censoring it and calling it a conspiracy theory is causing an epidemic of distrust in all authority. And rightly so. We are in problematic times.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Also, Walgett is over 200 km away and Coonamble over 250 km away, while Brewarinna is around 90 km away and recorded almost the same temperature as Bourke. I know which I'd be comparing it to first.
What is the likelihood that staff at both the Bourke and Brewarinna would make the same error on the same day? Lottery ticket time I'd say. Or maybe they put their heads together and decided to.... nah, those silly conspiracy theories.
Its not "lottery ticket time" because the Brewarinna recording (4th) was not made on the same day as the corrected Bourke recordings (2nd/3rd).
Select to expand quoteParadox said..remery said..
Debunking conspiracy theories is like playing Whack-a-mole.
There are certainly some like that. Many these days it is more like simply peeling the "conspiracy" label off them that the media and some politician glued on and staring at the facts underneath.
The problem is that now inconvenient truths get the label and when they turn out true, on mass, the real conspiracy nutjobs gain legitimacy for every whacko idea presented ever. Who can blame them.
The active suppression of factual information by governmetns and media by censoring it and calling it a conspiracy theory is causing an epidemic of distrust in all authority. And rightly so. We are in problematic times.
Funny how people who claim that they "distrust authority" listen to people like Marohasy, who is with the IPA which is about one-third funded by the richest person in Australia, Gina Rinehart, and follow the same line as Fox News, which is funded by Murdoch.
There's no "distrust in authority" in believing the stuff peddled by the paid hucksters of the tycoons - that's just swallowing the line the rich authorities want you to swallow. It's interesting that you appear to believe that you seek the truth but haven't even done the basics when it things to checking up on the claims Marohasy and her team make.
It's funny - somehow you have managed to go quiet on the fact that Marohasy PUBLICLY says that people should "put credence in a rural newspaper article over official records", which is the same thing you criticised me about. So apparently when someone who is effectively funded by a coal tycoon says looking at old local papers is good then it's fine by you, but when someone like me does the same thing you reckon it's wrong. So the difference between right and wrong, apparently, is whether one is paid by a right wing organisation paid by a coal miner, or not.
Just accepting what people who are paid by Rinehardt and Murdoch is not "distrusting authority", it's accepting what the rich want you to accept. Rinehardt's income depends on people believing people like Marohasy, who works with a foundation Rinehardt funds, so it's bizarre that people cannot see the bias that is involved.
I haven't checked all the stuff that Marohasy peddles, but the stuff I have checked doesn't show "active suppression of factual information" by the BoM; it shows that Marohasy, who works with an outfit funded by a coal baroness, will not just nit-pick and spin but will also ignore the very same records that she says people should put credence on, when those records don't suit her paymaster's case. She is tool of the authoritarians, not the working scientists.
Those of us who actually do research rather than swallowing what those who get their bucks from coal tycoons and Reinhardt could be a bit puzzled why the person who allegedly recorded that record temperature treated the "record" so lightly that they ignored the usual procedures. As the paper record shows, it was usual to record wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures. As an Australian Meteorological Observers Handbook of the time said "From a scientific point of view the wet bulb reading is important in that it is perhaps the best index of the condition of the atmosphere as regards its heat content, as it takes account of the heat stored in the form of latent heat of water vapour.*
Observers, therefore, are specially requested to read carefully the following instructions regarding the care of the wet bulb, and to take every precaution to secure accurate observations. Readings above 80? F. should be regarded with suspicion while correct readings of 90? F. or over are practically impossible."
So it was known at the time that wet bulb readings were "the best index" of atmospherical heat, yet those who get cash from coal tycoons and big business ignore the fact that this "record" they go on about misses this vital measure.
From a scientific point of view, any data point that misses "the best index" of what you are measuring is dodgy, so it's completely reasonable to ignore it.
The other funny thing is that Marohasy whines when the BoM allegedly doesn't follow its own procedures, but then gets very excited about a record that doesn't follow normal procedures. Come on, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to sling crap at the BoM for allegedly ignoring the rules, you can't then make a big deal about a temperature that was "taken" by someone who ignored the meteorological observers' rules.
* Yes, I checked up the old handbook about how meteorological data should be recorded in Australia. That's what "doing your own research" really looks like.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..remery said...
An observational error is more likely.
Someone who's job it is to officially record the temperature daily would not be certain to check when they had observed an all time national record and underlined it in the record to emphasise that fact? I'm doubting that.
But the person whose job it was to record the temperature on that day didn't follow the procedure - we know that because they didn't put down the wet bulb and dry bulb temperature like they should have done and normally did. So we know, as a fact, that they didn't do their job normally that day. Surely if they "had observed an all time national record" they would have done the usual thing, and what the Meteorological Observers Handbook said, and also recorded "the best index of the conditions"? Surely if they "observed an all time national record" they would have made damn sure that they recorded it correctly.
You also don't seem to have noted that the high temp at Bourke wasn't the same day as the high temp at Bre, as Remery has pointed out.
No one's saying it wasn't hot. All I'm saying is that there's no conspiracy or anything untoward in the fact that the BoM ignores a claim that (1) wasn't recorded as temperatures normally were at that place; (2) wasn't recorded as temperatures should have been recorded; (3) didn't use "the best index"; and (4) may not have been taken on the official thermometer. Under normal standards in science (and other areas) it's perfectly reasonable to discard data like that, just as we discard lots of other dodgy data like GPS speedsailing records that don't follow the accepted standards.
If someone claimed a world GPS speedsailing record but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules (and was said to be on a GPS that didn't follow Speedsailing rules) then their record wouldn't be accepted. If someone claimed other sporting records but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules, then their record wouldn't be accepted. So when there's a temperature record that shows incomplete data that breaks the usual rules then it's perfectly reasonable for the BoM and climate scientists to not accept it.
Select to expand quoteBut the person whose job it was to record the temperature on that day didn't follow the procedure - we know that because they didn't put down the wet bulb and dry bulb temperature like they should have done and normally did---
--- The publican was feeling a little exhausted in the heat of the day so he let his son do the temperature recording, the boy had no idea what wet bulb and dry bulb means so he left that bit, and because the thermometer was above his head height the mercury wasn't level with the numbers.
Anyway you did a good job son have an ice-cream.
Information, data, statistics, analysis, reporting, peer-review are all foreign concepts for conspiracy theorists.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Harrow said..remery said...
An observational error is more likely.
Someone who's job it is to officially record the temperature daily would not be certain to check when they had observed an all time national record and underlined it in the record to emphasise that fact? I'm doubting that.
But the person whose job it was to record the temperature on that day didn't follow the procedure - we know that because they didn't put down the wet bulb and dry bulb temperature like they should have done and normally did. So we know, as a fact, that they didn't do their job normally that day. Surely if they "had observed an all time national record" they would have done the usual thing, and what the Meteorological Observers Handbook said, and also recorded "the best index of the conditions"? Surely if they "observed an all time national record" they would have made damn sure that they recorded it correctly.
You also don't seem to have noted that the high temp at Bourke wasn't the same day as the high temp at Bre, as Remery has pointed out.
No one's saying it wasn't hot. All I'm saying is that there's no conspiracy or anything untoward in the fact that the BoM ignores a claim that (1) wasn't recorded as temperatures normally were at that place; (2) wasn't recorded as temperatures should have been recorded; (3) didn't use "the best index"; and (4) may not have been taken on the official thermometer. Under normal standards in science (and other areas) it's perfectly reasonable to discard data like that, just as we discard lots of other dodgy data like GPS speedsailing records that don't follow the accepted standards.
If someone claimed a world GPS speedsailing record but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules (and was said to be on a GPS that didn't follow Speedsailing rules) then their record wouldn't be accepted. If someone claimed other sporting records but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules, then their record wouldn't be accepted. So when there's a temperature record that shows incomplete data that breaks the usual rules then it's perfectly reasonable for the BoM and climate scientists to not accept it.
It's pretty clear in the hand-written records that different people were recording and correcting the data. Mistakes happen.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said...
But the person whose job it was to record the temperature on that day didn't follow the procedure - we know that because they didn't put down the wet bulb and dry bulb temperature like they should have done and normally did. So we know, as a fact, that they didn't do their job normally that day. Surely if they "had observed an all time national record" they would have done the usual thing, and what the Meteorological Observers Handbook said, and also recorded "the best index of the conditions"? Surely if they "observed an all time national record" they would have made damn sure that they recorded it correctly.
You also don't seem to have noted that the high temp at Bourke wasn't the same day as the high temp at Bre, as Remery has pointed out.
No one's saying it wasn't hot. All I'm saying is that there's no conspiracy or anything untoward in the fact that the BoM ignores a claim that (1) wasn't recorded as temperatures normally were at that place; (2) wasn't recorded as temperatures should have been recorded; (3) didn't use "the best index"; and (4) may not have been taken on the official thermometer. Under normal standards in science (and other areas) it's perfectly reasonable to discard data like that, just as we discard lots of other dodgy data like GPS speedsailing records that don't follow the accepted standards.
If someone claimed a world GPS speedsailing record but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules (and was said to be on a GPS that didn't follow Speedsailing rules) then their record wouldn't be accepted. If someone claimed other sporting records but showed incomplete data that broke the usual rules, then their record wouldn't be accepted. So when there's a temperature record that shows incomplete data that breaks the usual rules then it's perfectly reasonable for the BoM and climate scientists to not accept it.
If GPS speed sailing data was in doubt, one would probably look to an approved device, homogenise the data around the record, or homogenise the data from multiple devices. Kind of like the Bureau of Meteorology did with the Bourke outliers.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..But the person whose job it was to record the temperature on that day didn't follow the procedure - we know that because they didn't put down the wet bulb and dry bulb temperature like they should have done and normally did---
--- The publican was feeling a little exhausted in the heat of the day so he let his son do the temperature recording, the boy had no idea what wet bulb and dry bulb means so he left that bit, and because the thermometer was above his head height the mercury wasn't level with the numbers.
Anyway you did a good job son have an ice-cream.
Yes, and the dry/wet bulb temperatures don't have anything like the deviation that Mahorosy, Johanna, Kelly and other conspiracy theorists are all worked up about.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Funny how people who claim that they "distrust authority" listen to people like Marohasy, who is with the IPA which is about one-third funded by the richest person in Australia, Gina Rinehart, and follow the same line as Fox News, which is funded by Murdoch.
There's no "distrust in authority" in believing the stuff peddled by the paid hucksters of the tycoons - that's just swallowing the line the rich authorities want you to swallow. It's interesting that you appear to believe that you seek the truth but haven't even done the basics when it things to checking up on the claims Marohasy and her team make.
It's funny - somehow you have managed to go quiet on the fact that Marohasy PUBLICLY says that people should "put credence in a rural newspaper article over official records", which is the same thing you criticised me about. So apparently when someone who is effectively funded by a coal tycoon says looking at old local papers is good then it's fine by you, but when someone like me does the same thing you reckon it's wrong. So the difference between right and wrong, apparently, is whether one is paid by a right wing organisation paid by a coal miner, or not.
Just accepting what people who are paid by Rinehardt and Murdoch is not "distrusting authority", it's accepting what the rich want you to accept. Rinehardt's income depends on people believing people like Marohasy, who works with a foundation Rinehardt funds, so it's bizarre that people cannot see the bias that is involved.
I haven't checked all the stuff that Marohasy peddles, but the stuff I have checked doesn't show "active suppression of factual information" by the BoM; it shows that Marohasy, who works with an outfit funded by a coal baroness, will not just nit-pick and spin but will also ignore the very same records that she says people should put credence on, when those records don't suit her paymaster's case. She is tool of the authoritarians, not the working scientists.
There are a lot of conspiracy theories in that post
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..Chris 249 said..
Funny how people who claim that they "distrust authority" listen to people like Marohasy, who is with the IPA which is about one-third funded by the richest person in Australia, Gina Rinehart, and follow the same line as Fox News, which is funded by Murdoch.
There's no "distrust in authority" in believing the stuff peddled by the paid hucksters of the tycoons - that's just swallowing the line the rich authorities want you to swallow. It's interesting that you appear to believe that you seek the truth but haven't even done the basics when it things to checking up on the claims Marohasy and her team make.
It's funny - somehow you have managed to go quiet on the fact that Marohasy PUBLICLY says that people should "put credence in a rural newspaper article over official records", which is the same thing you criticised me about. So apparently when someone who is effectively funded by a coal tycoon says looking at old local papers is good then it's fine by you, but when someone like me does the same thing you reckon it's wrong. So the difference between right and wrong, apparently, is whether one is paid by a right wing organisation paid by a coal miner, or not.
Just accepting what people who are paid by Rinehart and Murdoch is not "distrusting authority", it's accepting what the rich want you to accept. Rinehardt's income depends on people believing people like Marohasy, who works with a foundation Rinehardt funds, so it's bizarre that people cannot see the bias that is involved.
I haven't checked all the stuff that Marohasy peddles, but the stuff I have checked doesn't show "active suppression of factual information" by the BoM; it shows that Marohasy, who works with an outfit funded by a coal baroness, will not just nit-pick and spin but will also ignore the very same records that she says people should put credence on, when those records don't suit her paymaster's case. She is tool of the authoritarians, not the working scientists.
There are a lot of conspiracy theories in that post
The truth (not a subject you're familiar with, so I'll cut you some slack) is that there is no conspiracy theory at all in my post.
Perhaps you could consider learning English. If you did, you'd see that a "conspiracy theory" is (to use the Oxford definition) "a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event." To use the Miriam Webster definition, a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."
So what you completely failed to understand is that nothing I wrote was anything about anything "covert" (to save you looking it up, that means something secret or hidden) or "secret". It's a publicly knowledged fact that Marohasy is "a Senior Fellow with responsibilities for Climate Change in the Research Program at the IPA" - that's a quote from the IPA's own site. And the also IPA publicly states that Reinhart, a major supporter of the organisation is an Honorary Life Member - check out the IPA's own site again. it is a simple publicly known truth that Marohasy works with an outfit that is funded by a coal magnate, and that the coal magnate's business is affected by climate change policy.
To make it plain for the slowest (or most paranoid or least honest) amongst us, by definition a "conspiracy theory" means you're claiming there is a secret. I'm not doing that, I'm referring to a connection that is publicly acknowledged by those involved.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
homogenise the data around the record, .... Kind of like the Bureau of Meteorology did with the Bourke outliers.
.......but not what they do with the 1 second peaks that started this line of discussion ?
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
The truth (not a subject you're familiar with, so I'll cut you some slack) is that there is no conspiracy theory at all in my post.
Perhaps you could consider learning English. If you did, you'd see that a "conspiracy theory" is (to use the Oxford definition) "a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event." To use the Miriam Webster definition, a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."
So what you completely failed to understand is that nothing I wrote was anything about anything "covert" (to save you looking it up, that means something secret or hidden) or "secret". It's a publicly knowledged fact that Marohasy is "a Senior Fellow with responsibilities for Climate Change in the Research Program at the IPA" - that's a quote from the IPA's own site. And the also IPA publicly states that Reinhart, a major supporter of the organisation is an Honorary Life Member - check out the IPA's own site again. it is a simple publicly known truth that Marohasy works with an outfit that is funded by a coal magnate, and that the coal magnate's business is affected by climate change policy.
To make it plain for the slowest (or most paranoid or least honest) amongst us, by definition a "conspiracy theory" means you're claiming there is a secret. I'm not doing that, I'm referring to a connection that is publicly acknowledged by those involved.
Your view seems to be that certain high wealth individuals are covertly influencing an organisation to distort the truth or hide real facts by only promoting a one sided view or even false information to progress thier cause.
Is that not a conspiracy theory? and incendentally the exact one you are suggesting Marahasey is promoting by questioning the processes and data produced by an organisation as opposed to questioning its objectives or motives?
Alternatively, maybe questioning the data and processes used is called the scientific method.....
