What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,540
Bullshit. Stevenson Screens were being used shortly after 1900 and that data is still being altered by the BOM because it doesn't fit the political narrative.

Take a look at the "adjustments" that have been made by the BOM - the past has been cooled and the present has been warmed up.

You find examples of Walgett's temperature being excluded from the data in 1906 because...wait for it...the data was taken on a Sunday. No, really, that's why.

It's not a coincidence. It's fraud.

Mate the scientist provided a solid case why that data can’t be trusted. Yet you prefer to scream conspiracy. Doesn’t pass the pub test, sorry.
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
I posted the IPCC's conclusions.....

No, mate, you didn't. You posted a paragraph or two from the IPCC report that stated they had low confidence in the relationship between climate change and drought, If you've done all the study on the subject you claim, you'd know firstly, that "low confidence" is not the definitive statement of "no causation" you falsely make it out to be, and secondly that the reasoning behind that "low confidence" is a lack information and data on droughts, you know, the kind of stuff actual science needs to draw a conclusion.

,..... backed by data from the EPA and NASA.

Yes, data that shows increased global rainfall. which is all fine and dandy, but you then go on to link this with your erroneous claim above, and attempt to deduce from that there is no relationship to the severity of the bushfires, because duh, more rain.

The problem there is your "logic" is flawed. And the reason is that despite having more rain, we still have drought. Now setting aside whether or not climate change has had any influence on the depth of the drought or not, we do know a few things.

Yes, Australia has been getting more rain in general, this past year aside being the driest and hottest on record.

We also know that the atmosphere contains more Co2, and what's relevant ( and so very ironic ) about that here, is that sceptics so often dismiss the importance off that with the line that it is harmless plant food.

So if we have all this extra rain, and we have all this extra plant food, we don't need a study to tell us that plants are gonna do pretty well in that environment, and they're gonna grow more than they otherwise would have done, great hey.

Except, when you follow that with a year of no rain, and higher temperatures, the plants don't like it so much and will dry up, shed leaves , die , you know, standard stuff. So we now have drier, warmer conditions, and all this extra dead plant material, which as it happens is also described as fuel load.

We also then have a multitude of statements from those in control of such things that their ability to reduce these loads through longer fire seasons means we have even greater fuel loads than would other wise be the case.

So even if we ignore any influence climate change has or does not have on drought, because wee really don't know, we still get drought, and we also get the other conditions that are influenced by climate change that do influence the severity of the fires we have seen.

All of which very clearly points to your definitive statement of.........

We've already conclusively shown on this forum that the bushfires have nothing to do with climate change.

.....................as complete bunkum.

I understand that it doesn't suit your political narrative (the narrative that has a total lack of data behind it), and I understand the cognitive dissonance that you experienced.

It's ok, buddy.

If smug was a scientific discipline, you'd have a Nobel prize mate. Pity it'd have no justification though.
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
99,404
HJ has been shown up as a dope again. That said, I admire his unwavering confidence.

I'll never understand people who deny a proven fact with such vehemence.

I mean, there's no doubt some bad shit is happening. There are questions that plenty of people on the other side of the spectrum refuse to ask, for sure, but none of those are related to whether or not a proven phenomenon is fake.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,540
EOwgxFpWAAE-5c2
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
58,498
HJ could be right. He could be wrong.
What's the problem with making things cleaner though? Are we doing our best? Hell No.
Can we improve - Yes
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
84,160
Take a look at the "adjustments" that have been made by the BOM - the past has been cooled and the present has been warmed up.

You find examples of Walgett's temperature being excluded from the data in 1906 because...wait for it...the data was taken on a Sunday. No, really, that's why.

It's not a coincidence. It's fraud.
As science (and scientists) become more and more politicised are they more or less likely to attempt to confirm their bias?

"The worst that can happen if we're wrong is that we have a cleaner planet for the children of people who can get laid."
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,540
As science (and scientists) become more and more politicised are they more or less likely to attempt to confirm their bias?

"The worst that can happen if we're wrong is that we have a cleaner planet for the children of people who can get laid."

How very incel of you.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,540
Pretty sure we wouldn't use poorly maintained Soviet tech, employ Ukrainian alcoholics and cause a problem we can't stop for shits and gigs...

True.

"Where's the Nuclear Physicist ? There's been an explosion !"

"Um, dunno comrade, he went to the bathroom ages ago.

tumblr_pnovj3AHd91toamj8o3_250.gifv
 

Latest posts

Top