Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#1430647 - 14/08/2017 18:48 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 1253
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Originally Posted By: Petros
Originally Posted By: Snowies


......I guess history will be the judge in this instance, the scientists vs those who prefer alternative views/theories, refute the scientific evidence for $$ gain or believe its a conspiracy.




The very point of this thread is "scientists" manipulating the said evidence. Ongoing for near decades. Tree rings.......????

Well if people can demonstrate the last X years of claimed data manipulation have detrimentally impacted and laid waste to more than 50 years of scientific advancement (going back to the very beginnings of lab experiments), go for it...otherwise.


Surely, Sierra, someone has to be concerned that the BoM is systemically removing historic high temp records due to being "suss" thereby artificially influencing the temperature record?

Top
#1430654 - 14/08/2017 19:03 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7153
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Kino
Surely, Sierra, someone has to be concerned that the BoM is systemically removing historic high temp records due to being "suss" thereby artificially influencing the temperature record?

Even if they are...it would still have to be verified through evidence with an independent review, outside the Bureau.

Sure, there are anomalies in scientific discourse out there, probably big ones too, however after hearing recently that the government requires computer [weather/climate] modellers in the 10s to figure out what the [censored] is really going on with the climate and weather...[I probably have a vague idea, but far from concrete]...I am not particularly encouraged.

It's not just the digital records I'd be concerned about...some (from what can I remember) are still in paper form. That requires people and time...

Top
#1430667 - 14/08/2017 19:54 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
The bom remind me of certain ancient Egyptians expunging all references to Akhenaten. It will likely be the case one day that there will be no paper records. Just digitalised. And tampering will be all the easier.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430701 - 14/08/2017 22:15 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7153
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
My reference to anomalies in scientific discourse was general.

Top
#1430807 - 15/08/2017 18:50 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 6587
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
....one day the penny will drop for the warmists, ....."the Emperor is wearing no clothes" - ....and that CO2 atmospheric levels are a consequence, not driver, when the climate is warming.

Far better to put your efforts into understanding the incoming radiation budget from the sun, then include the relative position of nearby planets, .....and maybe for some of you, ....the concept of CYCLES might drop, and the collective hatred of big business/mining can be diverted to more productive pursuits.

Top
#1430809 - 15/08/2017 19:03 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Ask any tree and they will tell you they don't understand what us humans have against trees having a more abundant food supply. Weird if you ask me.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1431000 - 17/08/2017 16:24 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7153
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Don't really care what labels people put on information and data. Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not.

Top
#1431002 - 17/08/2017 16:38 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
@Siera.
Care to elaborate.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1431014 - 17/08/2017 18:26 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 1253
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Don't really care what labels people put on information and data. Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not.


why? how? are they audited? why is always warm temps getting "adjusted" and never cold temps?

Top
#1431015 - 17/08/2017 18:30 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7153
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Seira
Don't really care what labels people put on information and data. Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not.


why? how? are they audited? why is always warm temps getting "adjusted" and never cold temps?

Provide evidence of this bias in "adjustment"....otherwise. And it's not me the evidence needs to be directed towards. Make it formal, send them a letter...or an email. Quite frankly I was only attempting to point others in what I thought was the right direction [in science terms]. These are not the type of questions I can readily address.


Edited by Seira (17/08/2017 18:33)

Top
#1431017 - 17/08/2017 18:36 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 1253
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Seira
Don't really care what labels people put on information and data. Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not.


why? how? are they audited? why is always warm temps getting "adjusted" and never cold temps?

Provide evidence of this bias in "adjustment"....otherwise. And it's not me the evidence needs to be directed towards. Make it formal, send them a letter...or an email. Quite frankly I was only attempting to point others in what I thought was the right direction [in science terms]. These are not the type of questions I can readily address.


They were rhetorical and they were appealing to you as a "scientist".

Top
#1431018 - 17/08/2017 18:37 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 1253
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
As for evidence, this whole thread clearly shows one. I don't buy this equipment "failure", it's baloney. Amazing that they fail only in cold.


Edited by Kino (17/08/2017 18:37)

Top
#1431021 - 17/08/2017 18:44 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 1253
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Rhetorical about science? Ok. I'll let that one go. Bye.


Stop being precious. You said "Fact is extreme weather conditions occur and can get adjusted for certain legitimate reasons, like it or not'.

The questions I pose go to that statement. So, yes they are rhetorical because clearly you're not the one doing it, are you?

Top
#1431022 - 17/08/2017 18:48 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7153
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
The whole point my involvement in this thread was to take adjustments with a grain of salt. Others can make up their own minds, whatever they want to believe, whatever biases they think might exist. One does not have to be a rocket scientist (or a scientist at all) to take this stuff with a grain of salt smile .

Enjoy.


Edited by Seira (17/08/2017 18:50)

Top
#1431029 - 17/08/2017 19:03 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 1253
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
The whole point my involvement in this thread was to take adjustments with a grain of salt. Others can make up their own minds, whatever they want to believe, whatever biases they think might exist. One does not have to be a rocket scientist (or a scientist at all) to take this stuff with a grain of salt smile .

Enjoy.


While that is true in theory; the reality is that tens of billions, if not more, are being diverted to a theory. That's where the skepticism comes from. After all, aren't scientists supposed to be skeptics - always testing, theorising, trialing, posturing etc

Top
#1431037 - 17/08/2017 20:23 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
I love salt on everything he he.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1431209 - 18/08/2017 23:05 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7153
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Seira
The whole point my involvement in this thread was to take adjustments with a grain of salt. Others can make up their own minds, whatever they want to believe, whatever biases they think might exist. One does not have to be a rocket scientist (or a scientist at all) to take this stuff with a grain of salt smile .

Enjoy.


While that is true in theory; the reality is that tens of billions, if not more, are being diverted to a theory. That's where the skepticism comes from. After all, aren't scientists supposed to be skeptics - always testing, theorising, trialing, posturing etc

(1) First, which part of what I expressed is “true in theory”?

(2) Secondly, the idea that tens of billions [of dollars I presume], if not more, is “being diverted to a theory” is also a claim for which no supporting evidence has been presented in this thread. I would also wonder what theory (in particular) is being referred to…there are many. I could assume one in particular is meant, however I’d like to hear it from someone else, directly.

(3) Thirdly, if “that’s where the skepticism comes from” – it’s scepticism with a “c” in Australian English, although I admit that’s being a bit pedantic – it is based on idea for which supporting evidence has not yet been provided, as in point (2).

(4) Fourth, the idea “aren’t scientist supposed to be skeptics” assume scepticism (being sceptical) is inherent to the nature of scientific enquiring…which therefore applies to the idea one is sceptical about (the “theory” or theory). This means the supporting evidence validating the veracity of a concrete theory is an equal in counterpoise to scepticism.

(5) Science is about following a method, practice, process, procedure (or what have you) …consistently, thoroughly, and within reason – to the best of our ability. That is how breakthroughs are made or discovered, insights are found, and how our practical knowledge of the world around us improves over time. Sure, mistakes can be made even when giving our all, but that’s human nature. It’s the principle that matters.


Edited by Seira (18/08/2017 23:14)

Top
#1431211 - 18/08/2017 23:44 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Seira]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 1253
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Seira
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Seira
The whole point my involvement in this thread was to take adjustments with a grain of salt. Others can make up their own minds, whatever they want to believe, whatever biases they think might exist. One does not have to be a rocket scientist (or a scientist at all) to take this stuff with a grain of salt smile .

Enjoy.


While that is true in theory; the reality is that tens of billions, if not more, are being diverted to a theory. That's where the skepticism comes from. After all, aren't scientists supposed to be skeptics - always testing, theorising, trialing, posturing etc

(1) First, which part of what I expressed is “true in theory”?

(2) Secondly, the idea that tens of billions [of dollars I presume], if not more, is “being diverted to a theory” is also a claim for which no supporting evidence has been presented in this thread. I would also wonder what theory (in particular) is being referred to…there are many. I could assume one in particular is meant, however I’d like to hear it from someone else, directly.

(3) Thirdly, if “that’s where the skepticism comes from” – it’s scepticism with a “c” in Australian English, although I admit that’s being a bit pedantic – it is based on idea for which supporting evidence has not yet been provided, as in point (2).

(4) Fourth, the idea “aren’t scientist supposed to be skeptics” assume scepticism (being sceptical) is inherent to the nature of scientific enquiring…which therefore applies to the idea one is sceptical about (the “theory” or theory). This means the supporting evidence validating the veracity of a concrete theory is an equal in counterpoise to scepticism.

(5) Science is about following a method, practice, process, procedure (or what have you) …consistently, thoroughly, and within reason – to the best of our ability. That is how breakthroughs are made or discovered, insights are found, and how our practical knowledge of the world around us improves over time. Sure, mistakes can be made even when giving our all, but that’s human nature. It’s the principle that matters.



Firstly, you edited out what I was actually replying too. Quite disingenuous.

2. Are you seriously denying that money is being spent on AGW or whatever it's called now (given it's had a number of name changes...)? One can talk in hyperbole all they like, but the reality is world Govts via Kyoto and now Paris agreeements are spending $$$ on it.

3. Thanks for the spelling bee, want your medal now? Is it "evidence" or "opinion" that's the question. How can one say that's there's "evidence" when many of the claims have been disproven time & time again (Flannery & Gore 2 perfect examples).

4. I'm not even sure what you meant in this point.

5. "Mistakes made...it's the principal that matters". Oh really? So you therefore support Icelands moves to eradicate Down syndrome through aborting of every baby that's identified as a potential carrier? After all, it's the principle that counts isn't it! Don't worry about how we get there, just focus on the outcome. All very Orwellian. That's the whole sticking point with AGW - tweak the data til we get our principle read result.


Edited by Kino (18/08/2017 23:45)

Top
#1431369 - 21/08/2017 16:14 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7153
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Why don't people take the [censored] attitude out of this [censored] AGW stuff and actually address the science? It’s not that difficult.

Top
#1431371 - 21/08/2017 16:22 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Kino]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7153
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Kino
Firstly, you edited out what I was actually replying too. Quite disingenuous.

Direct me to exactly what you mean if you want smile.


Edited by Seira (21/08/2017 16:27)

Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >


Who's Online
6 registered (Ben Quinn (BSCH), Max744, Jesse24, ashestoashes, 2 invisible), 281 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
heathc, kgb007, Michael M
Forum Stats
29401 Members
32 Forums
23725 Topics
1468904 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image