Select to expand quoteParadox said..I thinks its interesting that you don't think the UN (of which IPCC is a part of) is a political organisation??holy guacamole said..
Oh sure everyone involved in the science of climate change is acting politically! An interesting allegation paradox.
Shall we add that to the climate conspiracy theory that climate action will lead to the end of civilisation?
The BOM, NASA, CSIRO and IPCC are not political institutions, try as you might to paint them as such.
I know you can do better than this paradox. 
I never said or implied any of that, so I will leave it at that.
I have clearly shown that NASA Climate is deliberately putting up false and unsupported statements on thier website. The fact that they have altered the reference to try to bolster the claim, but still fail to adequately support the statement shows it wasn't an error but is deliberate. I can only conclude that whoever authorised the content on that page, did so to deliberately to mislead people. I also can only conclude they took that action for political purposes as it is certainly not scientific. I'd happily consider other reasons why they would deliberately lie? Feel free to provide another reason.
The IPCC is partly funded and authorised through the UN - yes. That doesn't mean it's work is political. It does consider the political implications of its scientific assessments however this doesn't mean those assessments are political per se.
By extension of your logic, everything authorised by governments all around the world is political, including the BOM, NASA and the CSIRO.
Today's BOM weather forecast is therefore political too.
Even if it could be argued that these organisations were political, by further logical extension one could argue that France's nuclear industry is purely political and therefore it is somehow illegitimate, since it is heavily subsidised by the French taxpayer through its government. 
Your assertion is nonsense.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
The IPCC is partly funded and authorised through the UN - yes. That doesn't mean it's work is political. It does consider the political implications of its scientific assessments however this doesn't mean those assessments are political per se.
By extension of your logic, everything authorised by governments all around the world is political, including the BOM, NASA and the CSIRO.
Today's BOM weather forecast is therefore political too.
Even if it could be argued that these organisations were political, by further logical extension one could argue that France's nuclear industry is purely political, since it is heavily subsidised by the French taxpayer through its government.
Your assertion is nonsense.
Thats OK because I find your extension of my logic is not what I said. I also find your belief that any entity (including government funded ones) cannot become political or biased, is nonsense.
The only way to tell if any organisation has remained non partisan is to actually check it's statements and positioning for accurancy and balance of truth. Looking at it's response (or lack of) when it's science is questioned is also a good start. You can also look at it's employment practices and if it rejects/accepts/terminates qualified employees/contributors based on their perceived stance on an issue, you can also assume there is bias or political motivation.
I have already pointed out problems at NASA Climate in this regard so yes I would say based on that they are no longer an independant scientific organisation. Maybe they can stamp this out over time.
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change"
"The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO"
Thats from the IPCC website, front page. It is not an independent scientific body, it a political one, with a specific agenda. None of this is secret. It has a charter that only allows it to focus on human induced climate change. It's biased by it's own charter....
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
^^ Simply allegations.
paradox, are the BOM and CSIRO political organisations?
Are you asking if those organisations are biased in thier reporting and execution of factual science? Their charters should make them independant, but you would have to check thier outputs to ensure they are factual, scientifically sound and not leaning to statements that are unsupported by the facts.
I have shown that NASA Climate's statement on "Scientific Consensus" is deliberately misleading, it casts doubt on the integrity of the rest of thier work and raises the question on the independance of the organisations management.
Do you have reason to believe the BoM and CSIRO are making deliberately misleading statements or have biased outputs? If so perhaps there is an issue there and they need a review on thier scientific integrity?
No obviously I don't believe the CSIRO and BOM do un-factual work but obviously many climate change deniers do. Hence the grand conspiracy theory of a concerted plot to bring about "the end of western civilisation", to quote TonyAbbott.
Regarding NASA's statement being "deliberately misleading" that's only your assertion. Not a fact. I'm not aware of a court ruling that found your assertion to be true.
Regarding your assertion that the IPCC's charter demonstrates their politicisation and therefore some implicit bias I put that this is again, only your assertion and not the facts.
Happy to talk facts paradox, but don't try and portray your assertions as facts here. 
I'll give you a few cold hard facts:
1. Australia is on track to close coal fired power stations until there are only a few left by about 2050.
2. No one in their right mind is going to build new coal fired power plants in Australia and no bank is going near them.
3. No politician in their right mind is going to back new nuclear power plants in Australia.
So better get onboard the reality show mate.
JO NOVA ON THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR HISTORY:
For generations it was a Guinness Book of Records type thing. Now it's gone.
In 1924 Marble Bar set a world record of the most consecutive days of 100 ?F (37.8 ?C) or above, during an incredible period of 160 days starting in 1923.
It was legend - but thanks to the genius homogenized adjustments, we now find out all along it was wrong. It's another ACORN triumph, rewriting history, extinguishing the hot days of days long gone.
The experts at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) have reanalyzed the temperatures from 4000 km away and nine decades in the future and apparently it wasn't that hot.
Chris Gillham wonders how the bureau figured out the Marble Bar max was;
* one whole degree too warm on 18 Nov 1923,
* but it was 0.6?C too warm on 19 Nov 1923,
* 0.3?C too warm on 20 Nov 1923,
* 0.2?C too warm on 21 Nov 1923, and
* 0.8?C too warm on 22 Nov 1923?
He points out the sky was totally clear every day, the screen didn't get shuffled around every day, etc, so where's the logic?
The world record was extinguished because on 8 March 1924 the ACORN adjustments magically cooled the temperature from 38.2?C to 36.5?C.
What caused the thermometer to be 1.7?C too warm on that particular day?
That adjustment is twice the size of the entire century long trend.
Ponder the bad luck of scientists Saving-The-World who constantly have to battle against all the thermometers which cruelly and overestimated temperatures from Stevenson Screens in sites probably unaffected by concrete and bitumen so long ago.
Those falsely high readings lulled the world into thinking that the world has always been hot and that CO2 was an irrelevant, minor and beneficial gas.
What are the odds that so much equipment was non-randomly, dastardly conspiring to hide the True Catastrophic Effect of CO2!
But never fear, the brilliant minds of the BoM are correcting past mistakes with secret methods they cannot explain to mere mortals outside the sacred guild of weather druids.
Luckily for us, the new super sensitive small box electronic gizmos that record one second spikes of warmth from passing trucks and radiated heat from tarmac and walls is The Truth Hallalujah Brother.
In another ten years, the climate of Marble Bar circa 1924 will be so much cooler. I bet the dead will be delighted.
I can't imagine why the BoM didn't issue a press release to let the world know that Australia now doesn't hold the longest hottest record which now goes to Death Valley.
Thanks to the volunteer number-crunching dedication of Chris Gillham for doing what the million-dollar-a-day BoM hasn't found time to do - tell Australian we no longer have our long-standing heatwave world record at Marble Bar and that distinction now goes to America.
TA - you seem to be implying AGAIN that academics / scientists are fools. By not fully accepting their CHANGED DATA 90 years on you are basically calling them criminals Questioning experts is dishonest and therefore amounts to abuse.
Come on......Chris 249 has warned you about this before
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..Hysterical climate conspiracy theory
2019 was Australia's hottest and driest year on record.
Don't worry TA, "western civilisation" isn't about to end.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
TA - you seem to be implying AGAIN that academics / scientists are fools. By not fully accepting their CHANGED DATA 90 years on you are basically calling them criminals Questioning experts is dishonest and therefore amounts to abuse.
Come on......Chris 249 has warned you about this before
Wrong. I do NOT say that "questioning science is dishonest and therefore amounts to abuse". Please stop being untruthful. There is a huge difference between questioning science - which is fine - and being dishonest about what scientists have done, which is what TA has done.
Please stop being dishonest by claiming that I have said no one should question science.
It's funny how the "deniers" get all snarky about BoM "fiddling" with temperatures, but when one goes to a "denier's" website - the Gilham one mentioned in TA's post - we see that the "denier" also modified BoM temperature data. So if the BoM modifies temperature data then it's bad, but if "deniers" modify temperature data then it's good. Yep, that sounds logical.
So if we get rid of all the "modifications" or "fiddles" and just go by the raw maximum Australian temperatures themselves, what do we see? As Gilham's own page shows, we see that the temps have INCREASED and that (to quote Nova's own source, Gilham) "Maximum temperatures in particular have risen sharply since 2002"...... which is what the science has been saying. Gilham's site also includes a link to many newspaper articles from 70 and more years ago that refer to warming, which proves that those who are claiming it's a modern conspiracy are BSing.
So even the "denier's" own source has referred to a sharp increase in maximum temperatures since 2002, and yet the same people are criticising the scientists for speaking of global warming?
Probably because there's a difference between just lying and being abusive Chris.
You don't seem to grasp the difference.
TA is sometimes a liar, sometimes prone to misinformation and clearly believes in all manner of wild conspiracy theories about reputable organisations but, there's nothing criminal or abusive about that here.
Note- HG was responsing to a post I deleted before I realised he had replied.
HG, the point is that some people here are abusing someone by lying, therefore they are doing both. If you say someone is bad at their job and allows themselves to be corrupted, it's definitely abusing them. To falsely make such a claim is both lying and abusive. So if someone falsely says "the scientists said there would be no ice and there was" then they are both lying and abusing the scientists.
Go back to page 1, and see how early one side (including TA) starts claiming that scientists and the BoM are being dishonest. If posters are willing to abuse people by saying they are dishonest, the posters have no right to complain if they are called out themselves. It's hypocrisy for them to abuse the BoM, for example, and then to whine if they cop flak in return.
Sure, I get frustrated with blatant, unashamed lying by people who are cowardly abusing others. We will have to disagree about whether we should just let people get away with dishonesty; personally I think that honesty is very important and therefore we have to call abusive liars out for what they are.
I guess so, but I still think it's hard to characterise a lie or misinformation as abuse.
TA and paradox do make claims and level allegations at organisations without any legal substantiation. The NASA and BOM examples are a case in point.
They claim that not only is data and assessment work incorrect but worse, that the organisations mentioned are being "deliberately misleading". That's quite a serious allegation - without any substantiation.
That would imply either political or conspiratorial motivations - both of which are complete nonsense.
Yep, those are incredibly serious allegations. If the "deniers" are correct, then a lot of crime is taking place, and therefore they are calling the staff of the BoM and others criminals. That is certainly abusive, and these are real people who are being called crims. IMHO if someone is going to call someone a criminal without substantiation then such a person cannot whine if they are going to be criticised in return.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
JO NOVA ON THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR HISTORY:
Chris Gillham wonders how the bureau figured out the Marble Bar max was;
* one whole degree too warm on 18 Nov 1923,
* but it was 0.6?C too warm on 19 Nov 1923,
* 0.3?C too warm on 20 Nov 1923,
* 0.2?C too warm on 21 Nov 1923, and
* 0.8?C too warm on 22 Nov 1923?
I have to admit this does get a bit puzzling. I understand the need to cater for changes in the way temperature is recorded. Whether its standardised equipment, the time of day it's read etc.
However when you look at what the homogenisation does to readings like this I can't help but think there is a problem. How can one site be changed differently by up to 0.8 of a degree over 5 consecutive days. Obviously thats totally bogus when looking at individual readings, and I get why people are calling it out. I would understand if the assessment and change uniformly said that site consistantly overread by 0.5 of a degree in that year compared to now because of X reason. But to change so much on a day to day basis, it's obviously not reflecting reality at that site, so how can you just change the raw data like that.
The number one rule of scientific measurement is dont mess with the raw data. Maybe a better way is to keep the individual readings as official but publish the homegenised data as a total adjustment.
I would agree an independant review needs to be taken on how this is done. Not to appease any view in particular, but because enough valid questions have been raised that the whole process needs to be looked at closely, even if the outcome is to say, yes it's all good by an independant expert.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
TA and paradox do make claims and level allegations at organisations without any legal substantiation. The NASA and BOM examples are a case in point.
They claim that not only is data and assessment work incorrect but worse, that the organisations mentioned are being "deliberately misleading". That's quite a serious allegation - without any substantiation.
Oh dear.....what on earth does "legal substantiation" have to do with a logical argument on a watersports forum? You want me to take someone to court??
Yes I have called out NASA Climate for being deliberately misleading and I have provided significant evidence and substiantiation to backup that claim.
You merely saying "no you didn't" is just empty noise. How about you provide a counter argument to my evidence? How about you address my arguments and challenge them with your own facts?
Sitting at a keyboard with your fingers in your ears going "la la la la la, no you didn't" is not a solid foundation for any viewpoint.
But, as I pointed out, this is a watersports forum so I guess I can't complain too much can I
Just your opinion that NASA were being quote "deliberately misleading". It's a very serious and unsubstantiated claim.
Now that's just empty noise.
Similarly, TA is claiming that the BOM is deliberately doctoring data to suit some agenda.
Further empty hysterical noise.
Interesting that you're raising the forum tone when these are yours and TA's baseless claims.
Sure we're just shooting the breeze, so why level serious unsubstantiated allegations against NASA?
Surely Paradox and TA are in VERY different camps. Paradox is being (IMHO) evidence-based, logical and reasonable and largely claiming that there has been some exaggeration due to professional differences of opinion, and that's not really serious abuse. Others like Ian K are also being perfectly reasonable, IMHO.
Other people are just throwing around empty insults (like calling scientists zombies) or second-hand lies and memes, and refusing to actually discuss anything or provide reasoned evidence-based information. That's just abusing people.
Oh sure paradox is trying to be evidence based, but he did claim NASA were being "deliberately misleading". That's not just exaggerating, that's claiming some kind of deliberate agenda to mislead.
So "trying" is subjective in this case.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..TonyAbbott said..
JO NOVA ON THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR HISTORY:
Chris Gillham wonders how the bureau figured out the Marble Bar max was;
* one whole degree too warm on 18 Nov 1923,
* but it was 0.6?C too warm on 19 Nov 1923,
* 0.3?C too warm on 20 Nov 1923,
* 0.2?C too warm on 21 Nov 1923, and
* 0.8?C too warm on 22 Nov 1923?
I have to admit this does get a bit puzzling. I understand the need to cater for changes in the way temperature is recorded. Whether its standardised equipment, the time of day it's read etc.
However when you look at what the homogenisation does to readings like this I can't help but think there is a problem. How can one site be changed differently by up to 0.8 of a degree over 5 consecutive days. Obviously thats totally bogus when looking at individual readings, and I get why people are calling it out. I would understand if the assessment and change uniformly said that site consistantly overread by 0.5 of a degree in that year compared to now because of X reason. But to change so much on a day to day basis, it's obviously not reflecting reality at that site, so how can you just change the raw data like that.
The number one rule of scientific measurement is dont mess with the raw data. Maybe a better way is to keep the individual readings as official but publish the homegenised data as a total adjustment.
I would agree an independant review needs to be taken on how this is done. Not to appease any view in particular, but because enough valid questions have been raised that the whole process needs to be looked at closely, even if the outcome is to say, yes it's all good by an independant expert.
There has already been two independent reviews on the ACORN data set, one in 2011 and one in 2015.
There's an example of why the data is adjusted day-by-day on the BoM site. Basically, a particular day's weather can affect a particular site in different ways; for example if a site is moved then the new site can be affected more on clear calm nights than on windy nights.
BoM data shows that if they did keep the individual readings as official, then the overall Australian temperature is shown to be increasing by substantially more than the currently official ACORN adjusted data shows. So if the BoM stopped adjusting the data, as some "deniers" want, then they would be faced with an even greater average temperature increase than we currently have. If there was a BoM conspiracy then they could just say "the number one rule of scientific measurement is don't mess with the raw data" and leave it at that.
Funnily enough, even Jo Nova's site states that "Among the 60 original stations open in 1910, the very hot days were 0.09C warmer in 1964-2017 than 1910-1963, according to RAW.Surprisingly, the ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 datasets have caused a small increase in the average maximum temperature of 40C+ days in the early 1900s." So even a "denier" site says that the raw data from the original stations show that that there's more extreme heat now and that the BoM adjustments increase the number of very hot days in the early 1900s. If the ACORN data is the result of a conspiracy as some "deniers" claim, why does the raw data show warming and why would the "conspirators" increase the number of very hot days a century ago, when that runs counter to their "conspiracy"?
Oddly enough, some "deniers" are very happy to explain rising temperatures (like the Antarctic record at Esperanza station) as being due to isolated weather events but also claim that extremely hot temps from earlier eras must be relied upon to show evidence of long-term trends. They want to have it both ways.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Yep, those are incredibly serious allegations. If the "deniers" are correct, then a lot of crime is taking place, and therefore they are calling the staff of the BoM and others criminals. That is certainly abusive, and these are real people who are being called crims. IMHO if someone is going to call someone a criminal without substantiation then such a person cannot whine if they are going to be criticised in return.
Exactly. So you see, paradox isn't all that honest either. He just frames his points better than others but the claims are just as spurious.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
There has already been two independent reviews on the ACORN data set, one in 2011 and one in 2015.
There's an example of why the data is adjusted day-by-day on the BoM site. Basically, a particular day's weather can affect a particular site in different ways; for example if a site is moved then the new site can be affected more on clear calm nights than on windy nights.
BoM data shows that if they did keep the individual readings as official, then the overall Australian temperature is shown to be increasing by substantially more than the currently official ACORN adjusted data shows. So if the BoM stopped adjusting the data, as some "deniers" want, then they would be faced with an even greater average temperature increase than we currently have. If there was a BoM conspiracy then they could just say "the number one rule of scientific measurement is don't mess with the raw data" and leave it at that.
Funnily enough, even Jo Nova's site states that "Among the 60 original stations open in 1910, the very hot days were 0.09C warmer in 1964-2017 than 1910-1963, according to RAW.Surprisingly, the ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 datasets have caused a small increase in the average maximum temperature of 40C+ days in the early 1900s." So even a "denier" site says that the raw data from the original stations show that that there's more extreme heat now and that the BoM adjustments increase the number of very hot days in the early 1900s. If the ACORN data is the result of a conspiracy as some "deniers" claim, why does the raw data show warming and why would the "conspirators" increase the number of very hot days a century ago, when that runs counter to their "conspiracy"?
Oddly enough, some "deniers" are very happy to explain rising temperatures (like the Antarctic record at Esperanza station) as being due to isolated weather events but also claim that extremely hot temps from earlier eras must be relied upon to show evidence of long-term trends. They want to have it both ways.
Fair enough, I have looked at the review report for 2015. Quite a few recommendations in there for action, especially the use of pre 1910 data that is available, but overall a passmark. It would be interesting to see how much has been implemented.
The trends are what they are, but it's important that transparency is maintained and recommendations implemented so no one has justification to call out issues.
Since that review there has been another big change in the data in the ACORN 2 homogenisation, it should be looked at independantly as well to remove any critisism.
I'm not sure what you are referencing on the adjustments, but all the info and graphs I have seen show that both ACORN sets overall cool the past, making the temp differential increase. I have no issue with that if it's correct, but I have not seen anything that does the opposite.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
There has already been two independent reviews on the ACORN data set, one in 2011 and one in 2015.
There's an example of why the data is adjusted day-by-day on the BoM site. Basically, a particular day's weather can affect a particular site in different ways; for example if a site is moved then the new site can be affected more on clear calm nights than on windy nights.
BoM data shows that if they did keep the individual readings as official, then the overall Australian temperature is shown to be increasing by substantially more than the currently official ACORN adjusted data shows. So if the BoM stopped adjusting the data, as some "deniers" want, then they would be faced with an even greater average temperature increase than we currently have. If there was a BoM conspiracy then they could just say "the number one rule of scientific measurement is don't mess with the raw data" and leave it at that.
Funnily enough, even Jo Nova's site states that "Among the 60 original stations open in 1910, the very hot days were 0.09C warmer in 1964-2017 than 1910-1963, according to RAW.Surprisingly, the ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 datasets have caused a small increase in the average maximum temperature of 40C+ days in the early 1900s." So even a "denier" site says that the raw data from the original stations show that that there's more extreme heat now and that the BoM adjustments increase the number of very hot days in the early 1900s. If the ACORN data is the result of a conspiracy as some "deniers" claim, why does the raw data show warming and why would the "conspirators" increase the number of very hot days a century ago, when that runs counter to their "conspiracy"?
Oddly enough, some "deniers" are very happy to explain rising temperatures (like the Antarctic record at Esperanza station) as being due to isolated weather events but also claim that extremely hot temps from earlier eras must be relied upon to show evidence of long-term trends. They want to have it both ways.
Fair enough, I have looked at the review report for 2015. Quite a few recommendations in there for action, especially the use of pre 1910 data that is available, but overall a passmark. It would be interesting to see how much has been implemented.
The trends are what they are, but it's important that transparency is maintained and recommendations implemented so no one has justification to call out issues.
Since that review there has been another big change in the data in the ACORN 2 homogenisation, it should be looked at independantly as well to remove any critisism.
I'm not sure what you are referencing on the adjustments, but all the info and graphs I have seen show that both ACORN sets overall cool the past, making the temp differential increase. I have no issue with that if it's correct, but I have not seen anything that does the opposite.
gee, i reckon those scientific experts with years of experience inside the bom are just so relieved they got a pass mark from some dude on seabreeze.
ffs, the gall of deniers is unbelievable.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Chris 249 said..
Yep, those are incredibly serious allegations. If the "deniers" are correct, then a lot of crime is taking place, and therefore they are calling the staff of the BoM and others criminals. That is certainly abusive, and these are real people who are being called crims. IMHO if someone is going to call someone a criminal without substantiation then such a person cannot whine if they are going to be criticised in return.
Exactly. So you see, paradox isn't all that honest either. He just frames his points better than others but the claims are just as spurious.
How honest are you Holy Guacamole, have you ever posted as Groucho or Adriano or Bono
Here's an interesting article,
www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/
^^ Interesting. Doesn't discount anthropogenic triggers like GHG's though - just outlines historical trends.
Meanwhile, perhaps we should deal with Coronavirus the same way we're dealing with climate change...
