Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Originally Posted by doug3030

Im keen to find out just what in my posts gave you that idea. Can you find an example of something I have posted

It will take quite some time to trawl back through 260+ posts to find yours, and I don't have that time right now. Perhaps later this evening.

I did not quote Molan out of context - I quoted part of it and provided the link to him saying his words. It was about a minute long IIRC. I just watched it again - 1:25 long, and none of the parts (2) shown are cherry picked or quoted out of context. The moderator asked "What is the evidence that you are relying on?" and Molan replied "I'm not relying on evidence, I am saying etc etc" so I have not quoted him out of context at all.

Originally Posted by Lappa

I never stated that you only quoted the ABC - I just observed that you quote them frequently.
As the the ABC reporting from various sources, it would seem that they choose whom they report. That could be construed as pushing an agenda in my opinion.

And I didn't say that you said I only quote one source - I am just clarifying that I look at a number of sites.

Who do you think we should be reading then, if you think that the ABC could be construed as having an agenda? What are the sources to be trusted?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I did not quote Molan out of context - I quoted part of it and provided the link to him saying his words. It was about a minute long IIRC. I just watched it again - 1:25 long, and none of the parts (2) shown are cherry picked or quoted out of context. The moderator asked "What is the evidence that you are relying on?" and Molan replied "I'm not relying on evidence, I am saying etc etc" so I have not quoted him out of context at all.

Well the footage in the clip you posted was already edited to only show the parts that fit the agenda before we look any further. Even then Molan was never permitted to finish a single statement without interjection by the stacked audience. From the sentence fragments from that interchange between Hamish and Molan can you conclusively answer "evidence of what" is Molan not relying?

The whole 1.25 minutes of it is "cherry picked" and totally without any definite context.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

. Furthermore, I have quoted a number of other sources such as The Guardian, NASA, et al. I don't take news and info from one source only. .

That quote would suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by doug3030

That's what they said when the science of the day all pointed to the Earth being flat and people were persecuted for arguing that it was round at the time.

Ever since this rock has had a climate that climate has been changing. As it changes life evolves. The day of the dinosaur is gone and for the time being it's our turn. Nothing we can do can change that inevitably the planet will not naturally support human life after some as yet undetermined time. At best we can delay the inevitable.

The science of the day never pointed to the earth being flat. It was scientists who showed that it wasn't.

Sure, the earth's climate has always changed, but it has never changed as quickly. There is so much science showing that we are creating the mechanisms that cause this accelerated change, it's out there freely available and has been for so long that it's now time for those who deny anthropogenic climate chagne to prove their assertions, rather than saying "I don't trust scientists/educators/academics/the media.

Originally Posted by Lappa

That quote would suggest otherwise.

I don't understand what you mean. What quote?

Post #275.
Would you prefer “stated” to “quoted”?

Originally Posted by Lappa

Post #275.
Would you prefer “stated” to “quoted”?

Stated or quoted doesn't matter. Not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but I still don't know what you mean. "Otherwise" to what?

Originally Posted by AlexS

The science of the day never pointed to the earth being flat. It was scientists who showed that it wasn't.

Well until Pythagorus, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes had their say around 500 - 350 BC all the previous scientists of the day seem to have accepted that the Earth was flat, even if the cats had not pushed everything off the edges.

Originally Posted by AlexS

Sure, the earth's climate has always changed, but it has never changed as quickly. There is so much science showing that we are creating the mechanisms that cause this accelerated change, it's out there freely available and has been for so long that it's now time for those who deny anthropogenic climate chagne to prove their assertions, rather than saying "I don't trust scientists/educators/academics/the media.

Did I say anything to indicate otherwise? Mind you there are differing opinions on how fast the climate changed in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event 65.5 million years ago or even the Permian-Triassic extinction event 250 million years ago. Many scientists believe that the Cretaceous-Tertiary event may have taken place by very rapid cooling over days or weeks rather than years but that goes hand in hand with the idea of it all being caused by a very extreme and rapid catastrophic event.

Originally Posted by Lappa

I never stated that you only quoted the ABC - I just observed that you quote them frequently.

I had a look through all the links that I have posted in this thread, and there have been 26 in total (and I'm assuming that by quoting you mean the links, because I may quote part of what is in the link, but almost never quote without a link).

Of the 26 links there are
Guardian
6
ABC
8
Wiki
3
NASA
3
Google search
3
BOM
1
The Conversation
1
BBC
1

Which puts the ABC links at 31%. I don't see that as being disproportionate, and only 2 more than the Guardian.

Originally Posted by doug3030

Im keen to find out just what in my posts gave you that idea. Can you find an example of something I have posted, and quote it IN CONTEXT to make your case. Don't just take part of a post and quote it out of context like you did with Senator Molan.

Now I should have said "some" of your posts sure seem to indicate that you don't accept that we are rapidly escalating CC. I got that distinct impression from these two posts:

Originally Posted by doug3030

Putting my own personal opinions aside to look at this from a purely logical point of view, there are really two ways to look at this:

1. Newscorp is telling the truth, or
2. Newscorp is running an misinformation campaign.

If Newscorp IS running a misinformation campaign then why? What is the motivation and who stands to profit from it? Why would they be running a misinformation campaign if they or someone associated with them has nothing to gain by it?

This post reads as though Newscorp couldn't possibly be running a misinformation campaign. You have to ask why Murdoch would run a misinformation campaign? Really? Surely it's bleeding obvious - feed the paranoia and people will read that news which is all pay-walled. As well as that he desperately doesn't want a Labor Govt because he believes (possibly correctly) that they will make changes to media ownership laws that will restrict him.

Originally Posted by doug3030

That's what they said when the science of the day all pointed to the Earth being flat and people were persecuted for arguing that it was round at the time.

Ever since this rock has had a climate that climate has been changing. As it changes life evolves. The day of the dinosaur is gone and for the time being it's our turn. Nothing we can do can change that inevitably the planet will not naturally support human life after some as yet undetermined time. At best we can delay the inevitable.

This to me was the strongest indicator of all - it's the classic denier's argument - CC has always been happening, and always will (which are both true, btw) but it does not say anything about whether or not we have contributed to it.

So Doug, you can settle your position once and for all, rather than saying you haven't said this or that. Do you accept the CC science that we have rapidly escalated the situation, or not?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Now I should have said "some" of your posts sure seem to indicate that you don't accept that we are rapidly escalating CC. I got that distinct impression from these two posts:
This post reads as though Newscorp couldn't possibly be running a misinformation campaign. You have to ask why Murdoch would run a misinformation campaign? Really? Surely it's bleeding obvious - feed the paranoia and people will read that news which is all pay-walled. As well as that he desperately doesn't want a Labor Govt because he believes (possibly correctly) that they will make changes to media ownership laws that will restrict him.

So I didn't actually SAY it, you just extrapolated what you wanted from it?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

This to me was the strongest indicator of all - it's the classic denier's argument - CC has always been happening, and always will (which are both true, btw) but it does not say anything about whether or not we have contributed to it.

So I made a true statement - by your admission, but because I did not actually say whether we have contributed to it or not (which was not critical to the point I was making) you automatically jumped to a conclusion that suits your agenda.

Why don't you just accuse me of stealing your childhood too?

You are just being cranky and argumentative Doug - maybe just for the sake of it, I don't know, but I'm going to disengage from that. I never said that you did SAY anything, but that there was an indication - it's up to you whether or not you clarify your position on whether you accept the science or not.

As for your "stealing childhood" comment: that is completely unnecessary, unhelpful, and somewhat melodramatic.

If you need to have a last word then go for it - I'm not a last word person, and I am now disengaged from pointless pedantic argument for the sake of it.